Posted on 09/14/2009 2:54:34 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
The prophecies of the Irish saint Malachy, the 12th century bishop of Armagh who predicted all the popes, have thrilled and dismayed readers for centuries. He has stated there will be only one more pope after the current one, and during his reign comes the end of the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Do you really believe that anyone who lives a good life, whether or not they have accepted Jesus into their lives, goes to heaven?
Heaven is a ‘big’ place. No one is condemned for not knowing Jesus on earth — they will have an opportunity after their body dies to learn and love the Lord. Perfection in diversity.
“It means the end of the Catholic Church on earth prophesied by someone recognized as a saint. Suppose then that prediction is considered infallible”
Sorry, but you suppose wrong. In the Catholic Church only the Pope can proclaim something claimed to be infallible, and only under a certain circumstance known as speaking “ex-cathedra;” meaning “from the chair.” Speaking ex-cathedra is a formal undertaking, and does not apply to everything a Pope may say. The term is easily researched. You might do so rather than suppose about such things.
(I don’t believe in ex-cathedra infallibility, BTW.)
“I thought there was supposed to be a black pope in there.”
Actually there have been three. The first was St. Victor.
Oh, Dave. That is so wrong.
Matthew 16:28, 24:34
Moreover, those who just confess the name of Jesus on the lips and live evil selfish lives are going to heaven. Funnier are those that belive a fellow like Fidel Castro has plans to confess on his last breath and be saved? Please.
I assumed the writings of saints were considered part of the faith. Guess there's a loophole.
Just because a saint said something, doesn't make it infallible.
And the "St. Malachy" prophecies are probably a forgery written centuries after St. Malachy.
Fallibility? I’ve studied Catholic contemplative teachings but never got into their whole theology and such. I have enough to study with my own religion.
Thanks, but that's not completely true either. Ex cathedra Papal decrees are infallible, but so are solemn definitions of general councils (e.g., the canons of the Council of Trent). Also, the Pope and the bishops together can teach infallibly even when not gathered in a council.
The Catholic Church does not attribute infallibility to saints. Only Popes and the bishops in union with him are infallible, and only when teaching the content of the Faith which must be believed by everyone, always, and everywhere.
Most saints have not been theologians and were not involved in a teaching office—i.e., they have not been a pope or a bishop. St. Thomas Aquinas, generally considered the greatest theologian of all time, held a number of views that the Church later rejected. Most famously, he did not affirm the Immaculate Conception, which was widely held but not solemnly defined at the time.
Moreover, the prophecies of St. Malachy cannot be infallible because they have nothing to do with the content of the Faith.
Can we stay at the end and see the beginning again?
“At one time, I made foolish statements here on Free Republic that I was the Messiah.”
I presume Obama straightened you out!
That is the root of your problem.
I spent some time in meditation on this this evening. I recalled the name of the 'last' pope from the article:
In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End."
Last weekend (and the week before I think), EWTN aired a movie called 'Karol, the Pope the Man' which starred an actor named Pieter who played Pope John Paul II. In my experience, these are the kind of 'gotchas' in prophecy that I find funny in an innocent sort of way. 'The timing of the release of this article is highly suspect!' :)
I have EWTN playing picture-in-picture on my computer monitor to witness the consummation of the age.
I would also apologize to anyone that took offense to my comments upthread yesterday. I lead a monastic life and a few worldly affairs had my attention. Some of my comments were inappropriate. I do not wish to change anyone's belief in God.
Saints are not infallible.
And the “prophecies” only appeared a couple hundred years after the bishop died.
The weird part is that a lot of them fit the popes AFTER they were discovered. Logically, of course, it means it’s only a self fulfilling prophecy.
Malachy’s prophecies are given some attention, but Peter Romani is not one of Malachy’s prophecies. It is written in a different hand, perhaps centuries later. Even if the addendum is also prophetic, there is nothing to suggest that what it describes happens immediately after Malachy’s prophecies.
If one IS to read Malachy’s prophecies as apocalyptic, it certainly seems anti-climatic to discover that “the glory of the olives,” a phrase used by St. Paul to refer to the ultimate consolation and reconciliation of the Jews, refers only to the fact that a pope bears a tie to a nickname for a religious order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.