Saint Malachy, Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world, the last five Popes

WorkofGod.org ^ | n/a | WorkofGod

[Salvation]

Saint Malachy 
Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world.

Note: The Church does not lean on private revelation for doctrinal matters, but it does not oppose to the faithful obtaining benefit from them so long as they don't go against our faith.  

This analysis focuses on the last five Popes in the context of the prophecies of Saint Malachy.

+ + +  

Saint Malachy was born in Amagh Ireland in 1094, he lived a religious life as a monk, then he was ordained priest and finally Bishop. He was canonized in 1199 by Pope Clement III. His biography was compiled by Saint Bernard, a contemporaneous saint.

He made a pilgrimage to Rome and during the end of the year 1139 and the beginning of 1140 had a series of visions about 112 Popes from Celestine III, elected Pontiff in 1130 until the last Pope who is described in his list as Peter Romanus.

After the last Roman Pontiff, Saint Malachy predicts the end of the world.

The Benedictine historian Arnold Wion was the first person to mention these prophecies in his book Lignum Vitae, published in 1559.

These prophecies are short, but they have demonstrated to be very accurate, even though in the time of their publication they caused much controversy as some claimed that they were falsified.

The book of prophecies of Saint Malachy was published originally in 1969 by Colin Smythe Ltd. in England, with the title "Prophecies of St. Malachy and St. Columbkille."

Tan Books published the book in the United States in 1973 with the title "Prophecies of Saint Malachy" its author is Peter Bander.

The foreword reads like this:

In publishing THE PROPHECIES OF SAINT MALACHY, Colin Smythe Limited have produced an instructive and entertaining book.

There is great deal of instant information in Peter Bander's nutshell biographical accounts of the popes who occupied the Roman See since the year 1143 to our present time - and indeed of the antipopes as well. The remarkable way in which the visions St Malachy is alleged to have had, are shown to apply to the succesive individual popes is most amusing. Is it not the case to repeat: "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"? (If it is not true, it is well rhymed)

Whatever one may think of the genuineness of the prophecies attributed to Saint Malachy, here is a fascinating study which provides the curious reader with much profit and pleasure.

Archbishop H.E. Cardinale
Apostolic Nuncio to Belgium and Luxemburg, until recently Apostolic Delegate to Great Britain.

It is curious to think that whenever there is a Conclave, the Cardinals read these prophecies of the saint, and even though they are not ecclesiastic authority they give an idea of what has happen and of what is to occur.

Prophecies of Saint Malachy

This study is an analysis based on private revelation and observations of what is taking place now. It is not to be taken as an official position of the Church. It is good to remind us of the words of the Lord: "stay awake."

The last five popes are mentioned with the following titles: 
Flos Florum
De medietate Lunae
De Labore Solis
Gloria Olivae
Petrus Romanus

---

Flos Florum - Flower of flowers

Pope Paul VI 
Pontiff from 1963 to 1978. 

Giovanni Battista Montini. In his coat of arms there are three "fleurs de lis"

With great success he concluded Vatican Council II, he made rigorous reforms to the Roman Curia, he traveled the five continents and was called peregrine pope .  In 1965 he was well received and accepted at his address to the UN. Author of the encyclicals opulorum progressio (1967), Humanae vitae July 24, 1968. He died in August 6, 1978, feast of the Transfiguration.

De medietate Lunae - Of the half moon

Papa Juan Pablo I ' Abino Luciani
Pontiff for 33 days.

He was born on 17 of October 1912 in Forno di Canale, called now Canale de Agordo, he was baptized the same day by his midwife, for fear of his death, he was later baptized by a priest.

After a life dedicated to the Church as a priest, he was elected Pope during the second day of the Conclave in August 26, 1978. He died of cardiac attack in September 28 1978, thirty three days after the beginning of his papacy.

"De la media luna" Of the half moon is a very accurate description regarding his beginning and also his short pontificate. Even his name Abino Luciani means white light, it has been mentioned that the most important events of his life took place in dates of half moon.

De Labore Solis - From the toil of the sun - or - Of the eclipse of the sun.

Pope  John Paul II 
Pontiff from 1978 to 2005

This description fits John Paul II perfectly, since he emerged as a especial light for the Catholic Church, promoting the faith from all angles. The works of John Paul II were truly the work of God, the labor of the sun.

The second meaning of "De labore solis" is a solar eclipse, in which the sun seems to struggle in order to give its light. Perhaps the fact that John Paul II, was a very Marian Pope who had a special devotion to the Virgin Mary, the woman clothed with the sun that appears in the Apocalypse, suggests that the sun (Our Lord) has been temporarily eclipsed by the moon (Our Lady). 

John Paul II was a great humanist and peacemaker, a traveler Pope, proclaimer of the gospel in more than 130 countries throughout the world, author of many apostolic letters, encyclicals and books. Canonizer of more saints in his pontificate than any other Pope in all history. During his last years as Pope he concluded his pontificate proclaiming the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary and the Eucharist.

Year 1997. God the Son
Year 1998. God the Holy Spirit
Year 1999. God the Father
Year 2000 
24 December 1999 - 6 January 2001Great Jubilee. 

Year 2002-2003. Year of the Holy Rosary, institution of the Luminous mysteries.16 October 2002 - 31 October 2003
Year 2005. The Holy Eucharist. 17 October 2004 - 29 October 2005

Gloria Olivae - The Glory of the olive

Benedict XVI 
Joseph Ratzinger
Starts Pontificate in April 2005

He chose his name in honor of Saint Benedict, author of the very strict rule of the Benedictines.

His motto is "Co-worker of the Truth."

He has been known even before becoming Pope as a conservative man, ready to defend the Catholic principles that represent the truth of the teachings of Christ.

Our new Pontiff is covered under the sign of the olive according to the prophecies of St. Malachy

The branches of the olive were symbols of peace and victory for Noah after the flood. Throughout history, we know that olive branches have made crowns for kings and athletes as symbols of power and glory. The olive tree thrives in silent areas, such as the garden of olives where Jesus suffered his agony before being arrested by the soldiers.

Olive oil has anointed kings, saints, popes and in a especial way all Christians.

The leaves and the oil of the olive tree have medicinal properties, derived from the oleic acid which is an anti cancer component. The good kitchen cannot exist without olive oil. The best paints have olive oil base, to give them luster and to increase their durability.

The olive is a symbol of peace, abundance, glory and purification.

The Church has been through a period of light, and now is the the time to celebrate and pick up the fruits of the previous pontificate of John Paul. It is quite possible that they will bring many conversions and an increase in the faith especially from the young people.

With the purifying properties of the olive, our new Pontiff comes to challenge error.  He presents himself exposing the truth of our faith with a special courage, he is prepared to heal the cancer of heresy, the infection of apostasy and to promote the health of our Catholic faith.

According to the prophecies of Saint Malachy, Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope before the last one, named "Gloria Olivae" which means the glory of the olive, it is to be a time of glory and rejoicing for the true Church.   

Due to the straightforwardness of our new Pontiff, great opposition is expected, but the Spirit of God is with him and we are in good hands.

Petrus Romanus - Peter Roman

The apostle Peter was the first Pope of the Church, elected directly by our Lord Jesus Christ:

You are Peter, the rock. On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loose in Heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Peter, the same as Christ, drank of the same chalice of suffering when he died as a martyr.

The body of Christ, the Church represents our Lord Jesus Christ.

The last two pontiffs will have to face the fury of the enemy who will make a violent persecution to Christianity. Faithful as Peter, the last Pontiff will take care of his flock in the midst of the attacks of the enemy. 

2 Thessalonians 3-4 speaks of the apostasy of the last times before the second coming of Christ, when evil will be defying everything that is sacred. The man of iniquity, or the anti-Christ will take his seat in the temple of God. 

This does not necessarily means the embodiment of the devil but if could mean the evil that is being accepted broadly when human beings who are temples of the spirit of God are being desecrated by their own wickedness. 

Just as the Lord lived, taught us, gave us spiritual food and saved us by his death on the cross, the Church being the mystical body of Christ has a similar task. Therefore the church is to be persecuted, insulted and finally crucified, in preparation for the coming of the Lord.

But just as the Lord rose after his death, the Church will also be resurrected for the Glory of God.

No one knows the day nor the hour, but the Lord tells us to be ready.

The prophecies of Saint Malachy end like this:

In the persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations after which the seven hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.

[Rutles4Ever]

No, the early church, including Augustine never viewed the bishops of Rome as being the supreme rulers of the Church

"Rome has spoken. The matter is decided." (Augustine)

It is the later Roman reading back into them that error, that distorts and misrepresents the early church fathers

More of the same empty mantra. Saying it over and over doesn't make it any closer to the Truth.

But if the keys were given to the entire Church, how are they not found in Rome? The contradictions in logic are breathtaking.

Note that in context, Augustine, as I have noted, says that Peter symbolized the church, and does NOT say that the bishops of Rome do.

But they do, and the evidence is exhaustive to that effect. If Rome had no primacy then, how do they have primacy today? And if Rome had no primacy then, where was the outcry against the excommunications decreed by Pope Victor? Why did Corinth appeal to Clement at Rome instead of John the Apostle at Ephesus? Why were counsels convened at the behest of the Bishop of Rome and no other? Why, if Rome did not have primacy, did the Eastern churches fall away? They can't fall away from a primacy that didn't exist.

So? That is one of the most misquoted citations from Augustine. Augustine does not say that the pope has ruled so the matter is closed at all, as most Roman Catholics misrepresent. The councils had ruled, and the bishop of Rome finally agreed after having first been a supporter of Pelagius.

This is pure fantasy. First, the words are clear. "Rome has spoken. The matter is decided." Second, since the matter hinged on Rome, it seems you've made my point. If there were some other ruling to be made on the authority of some other Church, it would have been made. Rome had no problem rebuking the Quartodeciman heresy and pushing Ignatius to the brink of schism until he relented and sided with (who?) Rome.

But here's another quote from Augustine for you to chew on:

""There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]). "

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

The full passage is about ten times longer than what you quote. And it makes plain that James presides in Jerusalem, while Peter presides universally...

Wrong!

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

The FACT is that you have made a claim about the early Church that has been shown to be in error.

Wrong again. In reality Rome has been proven conclusively to have practiced scriptorture by asserting and interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 contrary to the early church fathers, thus violating it's own rule set at Trent, and does so in an attempt to make the papacy appear to be legitimate when it is not.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Do you understand what take place at an ecumenical council?

Please try not to be so arrogantly condescnding.

Your posts indicated that you didn't know what an ecumenical council is or how one operates.

Coming from one who ignorantly confused Montanism with Modalism, you have no gorund to stand on.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Once again we have a Roman Catholic trying to impune a source often cited by Roman Catholics when they think Origen is in their camp.

Why is it you wish to assign infallibility to Origen, but not the pope?

Nice attempt at a hyperbolic red herring, but that is all it is.

Origen contributed greatly to Catholic theologic development. That doesn't make everything he said correct. Your source quote landed Origen in quite a bit of hot water because it's theologically flawed.

The quote from Origen was in agreement with the other fathers cited, as well as the overwhelming consensus of the church fathers in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, in that every genuine believer is a "rock" and the "keys to the kingdom" were not given exclusively to Peter the man, and especially not to any bishops of Rome as any supreme rulers of the Church, but that the "keys" were given to EVERY genuine believer.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Origen contributed greatly to Catholic theologic development.

Imagine that, a heretic contributing to Roman Catholic theology.

Everyone sees the backpedaling done now by a Roman Catholic, yet again.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

No, the early church, including Augustine never viewed the bishops of Rome as being the supreme rulers of the Church.

"Rome has spoken. The matter is decided." (Augustine)

Actually, that is one of the most misused and misquoted things Roman Catholics dishonestly assert of Augustine.

In reality and truth that is not what Auustine said at all.

Here is what Augustine actually said, which is dishonestly misquoted above, and then twisted to appear to be a pro-papal statement, when in fact it is misquoted and misrepresenting the truth.

What were the actual words of Augustine, and what was the occasion and context? The actual words come in a sermon of St. Augustine.

"In this matter [the decisions of] two councils have been sent to the Apostolic See. Rescripts have come thence as well. The cause is finished; would that the error may terminate likewise."

Pelagius had been condemned by two African Councils, that of Carthage in 416, and that of Milevum in the same year. An Eastern synod had supported Pelagius, and the African bishops wanted a decision from the whole Western Church, so they sent their decisions to the bishop of Rome for his support. He, not unnaturally perhaps, took this as a request for an authoritative decision and wrote back endorsing their judgment. Augustine on receipt of his letter, uttered the words quoted above. That was not his view of the matter. The question was "finished" on the joint authority of Africa and Rome. Their decision had been corroborated by Innocent. His meaning was made clear on later occasion when Zosimus favoured Pelagius, and the Emperor Honorius and Augustine brought pressure to bear on him, so that the Pelagians declared that they were condemned by court favor.

Augustine writes on this occasion:

"This being the case, you of course feel that the Episcopal Councils(referring to the two African councils which condemned Pelagius) AND the Apostolic See, and the whole Church of Rome and the Roman Empire itself, which by God's gracious favor has become Christian, has been most righteously moved against the authors of this wicked error, until they repent and escape from the snare of the devil."

The decision of the bishop of Rome is only one element in the combined condemnation of Pelagius and his heresy, and NOT the twisted Roman version that tries to make it appear that the matter was ended solely by the support of Innocent.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

But if the keys were given to the entire Church, how are they not found in Rome? The contradictions in logic are breathtaking.

Rome claims that the "keys to the kingsom" lay an exclusive, supreme rulership of the Church in Rome, which is completely contrary to the teaching consensus of the church fathers on the matter of Matthew 16:18-19.

Note that in context, Augustine, as I have noted, says that Peter symbolized the church, and does NOT say that the bishops of Rome do.

But they do

Only in the illusion set up by Roman Catholicism. The Greeks have never believed that, nor any other Christians.

and the evidence is exhaustive to that effect.

Wrong again, ask the Greeks.

If Rome had no primacy then, how do they have primacy today?

Rome doesn't have any primacy now, just as it never has.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

How much clearer is "Rome has spoken. The matter is decided"? (Augustine)

See #387 that exposes the dishonest misrepresentation of Augustine's actual quote by Roman Catholicism.

[Rutles4Ever]

Why won't you address my other points? I don't need to keep parsing Augustine with you, when other evidence unequivocally corroborates his position on Rome. You won't reference these quotes, nor address them, because they place you in a corner you can't get out of.

You won't address Clement/Corinthians. You won't address Ignatius' dust-up with Pope Victor. You won't address any other smoking-gun quotes from the Church Fathers which contradict your position, because your position is literally hanging from a thread of denial. Here, try this on for size:

Cyprian of Carthage 252 A.D.

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

He, not unnaturally perhaps, took this as a request for an authoritative decision and wrote back endorsing their judgment.

Why "not unnaturally"? Are you saying that Rome had an assumption of authority?

The question was "finished" on the joint authority of Africa and Rome. Their decision had been corroborated by Innocent.

Why did they need his corroboration? And why were they paying homage to a bishop who brazenly gave himself an honorary title in the vein of Simon bar-Jonah becoming Peter? Why didn't they excommunicate Innocent for taking power that he wasn't entitled to? These are not rhetorical questions. What are the answers Missey_Lucy_Goosey?

The decision of the bishop of Rome is only one element in the combined condemnation of Pelagius and his heresy, and NOT the twisted Roman version that tries to make it appear that the matter was ended solely by the support of Innocent.

Once again, I have to wonder if you actually read these posts or comprehend them? Are you so blinded by your hatred of Catholicism that you can't grasp the numerous points at which it has been stated that the the Pope is first among equals? You reacted with horror when I pointed out that you don't know the first thing about ecumenical councils, then feverishly try to claim that the Bishop of Rome sits in tyranny over all other bishops - when it's PETER, himself, who calls an ecumenical counsel at which he doesn't even PRESIDE!

[Rutles4Ever]

Only in the illusion set up by Roman Catholicism. The Greeks have never believed that, nor any other Christians.

What about all the Eastern Churches that recognize the primacy of Rome? Or does that sully your point, yet again?

and the evidence is exhaustive to that effect.

Wrong again, ask the Greeks.

Again, Clement/Corinth, et al. The Greek Orthodox Church is small potatoes compared to the enrollment of Roman Catholicism. Since "exhaustive" doesn't imply "totality", I don't understand your response.

Rome doesn't have any primacy now, just as it never has.

Then why are you so threatened?

[Rutles4Ever]

See #387 that exposes the dishonest misrepresentation of Augustine's actual quote by Roman Catholicism.

Dishonest? I'm just helping the blind to see.

[Rutles4Ever]

Imagine that, a heretic contributing to Roman Catholic theology.

Everyone sees the backpedaling done now by a Roman Catholic, yet again.

Where's the backpedaling? I never stated that Origen was never a good son of the Church. I merely pointed out that your supposed evidence against the interpretation of Matthew was the very thing that caused problems with regard to Origen. Again, I ask you, why are you so desperate to assign infallibility to Origen while removing it from the Pope? Will you answer the question? It's not rhetorical.

[MarkBsnr]

Umm, whose reality?

I give you the words of the 3rd Pope about the practices of early Christianity. You disagree with them. That’s your prerogative, certainly, but where is the proof?

The earliest Christians believed of the Eucharist as we do now according to early Church writings. The Council of Trent was enacted for the most part to formally refute the heresies of the Protestants.

You do present an energetic and imaginative series of posts, I will grant you that. Many of us here try to limit ourselves to actual printed material and link answers to questions and so on. I must congratulate you on going beyond that paradigm that so many of us sadly attempt to confine ourselves to.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

I don't need to keep parsing Augustine with you, when other evidence unequivocally corroborates his position on Rome.

Wrong. Augustine is explicit in stating, as do the overwhelming consensus of the church fathers that the "keys to the kingdom" were given to all genuine believers, and none of Rome's twisting or reading the later assertion of Rome to the contrary back into the fathers where Rome's assertion does not exist, can change the fact I just stated and have demonstrated.

You won't address Clement/Corinthians.

No need to, Clement never made any claim to any exclusive holding of the "keys" or any papal supremacy through Peter. Rome makes inferences where they do not exist as it usually does.

You won't address Ignatius' dust-up with Pope Victor.

No need to. Firstly, the quotes you cite have been in dispute as not authentic for a long time, and are considered by most historians to be additions, and embelishments. Imagine that, Rome adding things fraudulently. Not that it would be the first time. The Greeks didn't trust any document coming from Rome because of Rome's propensity to produce forgeries and fraudulent documents, as it continued to do through the medieval period. Actually, the entire series of letters pruported to be by Ignatius have been in dispute for a long time.

You won't address any other smoking-gun quotes

That's because there are no "smoking gun quotes". Now, what you do have are quotes taken out of context and Rome's later assertion of papal primacy read back into them where they do not exist.

Here, try this on for size:

Cyprian of Carthage 252 A.D.

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

You see RCs infer that because the fathers often speak in lofty language when referring to the apostle Peter implies a personal primacy, when in reality it does not.

Another false inference RCs make from Cyprian above, which is but one of two versions of the treatise the quote is taken from, is that Cyprian when using the word, "primacy", means that the bishops of Rome hold a supreme rulership over the entire church, when in reality Cyprian does not mean that at all.

As I said, there are two versions of that treatise, "The Unity of the Church". In the first, which you cited, Cyprian speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true Church with that chair. He states that there is only one Church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter.

In the second, the references to a Petrine primacy are softened to give greater emphasis to the theme of unity and co–equality of bishops. Most Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars now agree that Cyprian is the author of both versions. He wrote the second in order to offset a pro–Roman interpretation which was being attached to his words which he never intended. The episcopate is to him the principle of unity within the Church and representative of it.

The ‘chair of Peter’ is a figurative expression which applies to every bishop in his own see, not just the bishops of Rome. The bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor but he does not have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church for Cyprian expressly states that all the apostles received the same authority and status as Peter and the Church is built upon all the bishops and not just Peter alone, as is explicitely stated by Cyprian thusly:

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her---(Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

That Cyprian’s comments refer exclusively to the bishops of Rome and that they therefore possess special authority as the successors of Peter is an inference that does not exist, one which Rome reads back into Cyprian.

Roman Catholic historian, Robert Eno, repudiates that inference as a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s view. As he points out Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed a higher authority than he or the other African bishops. They were all equals:

Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter’s cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: ‘God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord’s authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood’ (Ep. 43.5).

The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.

Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused. The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘...a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘...No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’ Yet Peter was given the power first: ‘Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’ The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).

Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3).

It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops---Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60.

Eno is not solitary among even Roman Catholic historians on this point either, but is among the overwhelming majority, yet that does not deter RC apologists from misrepresenting Cyprian in a dishonest manner.

This point is further concurred by another RC historian, Michael Winter:

Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter---Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48

Winter, a RC historian insists that it is a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s true teaching to assert that he is a father who supports the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, saying that both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars are now agreed on this.

Lets hear from a few more RC historians who soundly repudiate the misrepresentations of Cyprian presented here.

Concerning Cyprian and his comments on the ‘Chair of Peter’, Karlfried Froehlich states:

Cyprian understood the biblical Peter as representative of the unified episcopate, not of the bishop of Rome...He understood him as symbolizing the unity of all bishops, the privileged officers of penance...For (Cyprian), the one Peter, the first to receive the penitential keys which all other bishops also exercise, was the biblical type of the one episcopate, which in turn guaranteed the unity of the church. The one Peter equaled the one body of bishops---Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p. 36, 13, n. 28 p. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).

John Meyendorff of Fordham University, a Jesuit university, explains the meaning of Cyprian’s use of the phrase ‘chair of Peter’ and sums up the Cyprian's ecclesiology which was normative for the East as a whole:

The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’ Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’—i.e., the bishops of the early Church—refers immediately to the image of Peter....Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual---John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98

Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage...For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops---John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152

What emerges from honest RC historians concerning Cyprian's statements of the "keys", "chair of Peter" and "primacy" is the direct opposite presented by yourself.

Cyprian, most certainly did not invest any exclusive primacy in the bishops of Rome at all, and this is agreed on by well known RC historians.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Only in the illusion set up by Roman Catholicism. The Greeks have never believed that, nor any other Christians.

What about all the Eastern Churches that recognize the primacy of Rome?

The Easter churches only instill a primacy of honor as Rome was the seat of "Old Rome", but never any Roman papal supremacy at all. Ask any Eastern Orthodox today if the pope of Rome is the supreme ruler of the church and the answer will be a resounding NO!

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

The decision of the bishop of Rome is only one element in the combined condemnation of Pelagius and his heresy, and NOT the twisted Roman version that tries to make it appear that the matter was ended solely by the support of Innocent.

Once again, I have to wonder if you actually read these posts or comprehend them?

I conprehend them very well, in context of actual history as opposed to the Roman version that tries to impose a template from later assertions on them where they do not exist.

Are you so blinded by your hatred of Catholicism that you can't grasp the numerous points at which it has been stated that the the Pope is first among equals?

I am simply giving you the light of truth as opposed to the darkness which dishonest RC apologists have filled you with. And I know that is the case, since you don't know the difference between Montanism and Modalism, and dishonestly continued to mispresent Origen as a "heretic", when in fact Origen repented of the anthropomorphic heresy he fell into, and was restored to full communion, vital points you conveniently omitted in a feeble attempt to impune a source that repudiates the RC position, one that Origen was not alone in but was in agreement with a consensus of the fathers on. I am sorry you cannot see the truth but choose to remain in darkness of lies and misrepresentations.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Rome doesn't have any primacy now, just as it never has.

Then why are you so threatened?

No one is threatened at all. I am performing my duty to defend the faith and to preach the truth to those in darkness.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

The earliest Christians believed of the Eucharist as we do now according to early Church writings.

Wrong, the early church did not believe nor state that the Eucharist was the actual, literal, flesh and blood of Christ. Quite the contrary.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

See #387 that exposes the dishonest misrepresentation of Augustine's actual quote by Roman Catholicism.

Dishonest?

Yes, dishonest. RCs are notorius for misrepresenting Augustine as has been demonstrated by citing his entire comment and additional comments by Augustine that show clearly what he meant, which is not what Rome fabricated at all, quite the opposite..

I'm just helping the blind to see.

You would be better served to take the blinders off so you can see the light I have presented you which exposes Rome's lies, fabrications and deliberate misrepresentations of the truth.