save
I surmise that the individual that fulfills ‘Peter the Roman’ will not be named Peter much in the same way that the previous individuals that fulfilled their supposed roles did not have direct naming associated with them. Just a guess ...
Cardinal Turkson is a young man to be elected pope. I believe that he’s currently 61. Making predictions about the next conclave is a tricky business. However, most would likely agree that after the pontificate of John Paul II, many cardinals probably thought that in electing the already-elderly Cardinal Ratzinger that they would get a nice “transitional pope,” a breather after more than two decades of Pope John Paul II.
But as Pope Benedict’s reign rounds toward the five-year mark, and as the activity level of this pontiff seems only to increase, should Pope Benedict live several more years and continue to reign actively, the cardinals may feel more than ever the need for a truly transitional papacy.
They won’t elect anyone under the age of 70 or 75, if they can help it. I wouldn’t be surprised if they elected someone no longer even eligible to vote in the conclave (that is, over the age of 80).
Of course, Cardinal Turkson may well still be around for the conclave after the next one. And perhaps, having had a breather from active popes with long reigns, the cardinals will be ready to elect him.
But not this next time.
LOL...the likelihood of Cdl Peter ascending the throne of Peter is in direct inverse proportion to the number of times he winds up on 'Papabile" lists. The more he's mentioned the less likely that event becomes.
This is odd for a couple of reasons, aside from the fact that he is obviously not a Roman. First, there is more than one Peter among the Cardinal Electors, and there are five or six among all the Cardinals. Why does the writer think it is this particular Peter? Second, the Holy Father always assumes a new name. They rarely choose their own names, so it is unlikely this person would be Pope Peter even if he was named Pope.
I’m a little shocked that you’re giving this silliness the exposure you are.
* The “Peter the Roman” passage is not native to the “Prophecies of Malachy,” but was a much later addition.
* Nothing in the Prophecies of Malachy, even if we were to treat Peter the Roman as if it were part of the original, suggests that Peter the Roman would come immediately after the Glory of the Olives.
* In fairness, you broach this: There would be nothing unique about there being a Roman pontiff being named “Peter,” if it refers to his given name. Much more likely, it would have to do with him being a native son of Rome with some other great similarity to St. Peter the apostle.
(PS: I’m sure you know each of those three points; I don’t mean to “school” someone I have learned so much from. I only mean to recall them into the conversation.)
**Will Cardinal Peter Turkson Someday Become “Peter the Roman”?**
And the last Pope that will send the REAL Catholic Church underground like it is right now in China?
The three cardinals who are over 80 are:
_Monsignor Andrea Cordero Lanza Di Montezemolo, archpriest of the Basilica of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls, in Rome.
_Monsignor Peter Poreku Dery, archbishop emeritus of Tamale, Ghana.
_Rev. Albert Vanhoye, the former Jesuit rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
Source:
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/15new.htm
Seems like the last Pope will be Peter Kodwo Appiah Card. TURKSON:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/hierarchy/cardinals_bio.asp?ref=219
Enjoy!
Jesus Christ has raised me from the dead!
I am in the process of attempting to respond to the first 1000 results in a google search for ‘Peter the Roman’, the final pontiff in the St. Malachy prophecies. Total results are over 3 million. Yet, the prophecy given in 1139 A.D. was in virtual obscurity for over 400 years until the invention of the printing press. In the computer age there has been a resurgence in the interest of the list of names.
As Jesus Christ spoke of not rejoicing over our ability to pray that our joy may be full, but that our names are written in heaven, and the fact that Jesus Christ has raised me from the dead to the office of ‘Peter the Roman’, I hold that the list of names in the St. Malachy prophecies are akin to, if not exactly, those very names written in heaven.
Even Nostradamus spoke of ‘Peter the Roman’ in Century VII, #24.
The use of ‘the strong one’ in the quatrain refers to Daniel 7:7.
Jesus Christ’s resurrecting me is in His fulfillment of an agreement of contract law (Matthew 3:15) into which both He and I entered prior to my baptising Him.
This entry came up in the 1-100 page of results.
I am pleased to meet you.
Please feel free to respond.
The reality of the future is not totally revealed to us, it is written, “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard of the wonders God has in store for us.”
As Christ had sent me to bear him witness, I now bear witness that HEAVEN IS GREAT!!!
The world will be saved through the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Brown Scapular and Rosary as prophesied.
I normally use my surname, Edward Palamar, but I remain:
the resurrected John,
Prophet of the Most High,
whom Jesus Christ called the “Elias who was to come.”,
St. John the Baptist,
enjoying the rapture in the call of duty as Peter the Roman
__________
The regular problem I find in explaining what is plain to me (private revelation) is that some others regard what I say as a claim, as if they are holding something of mine (as a cloak check) that I need to present proof in order to regain that something of mine. For anyone to be this way indicates they indeed do have or think they have something of mine, else they wouldn’t try to barter as such. Christ himself said, “An evil and wicked generation demands a sign.” In that regard, I could just as well keep my mouth shut. But I do rejoice.
I trust Jesus as God to know the better of His plans, especially when it comes to putting spirit in and out of men. Is not our breath the breath of God? I think so. Christ also said, “If you are prepared to receive it, he (John [the Baptist]) was the Elijah who was to come.” I, personally, don’t think I was prepared to recieve it, but am capable now of understanding that.
God once took a man to heaven bodily, the prophet Elijah. As God appeared to Moses in the burning bush because to see God’s glory directly would have caused Moses to die, something happened to Elijah to prevent him from suffering a similar fate for many years even though it is recorded that he went to heaven in a whirlwind. Any time beyond 120 years would have been the normal end for Elijah. It was part of God’s plan to bring Elijah back in spirit, not in the flesh.
The spirit of Elijah was put back into corruptable flesh and God had created a living soul. Christ died to save souls. The Father in heaven via the angel gave the name “John” to that particular living soul. In essence, “John” was not given a seperate breath but that of Elijah. But when Christ raises that soul of “John”, “John” is given a new course of both body and spirit, making “John” a living soul again.
In essence, I have been given a free ride. But such is the existence of any creature of God. “God blesses and curses whom He pleases.” All living souls owe their existences to God, the Giver of Life. It is God who makes their souls alive. It is God’s prerogative to name and apportion spirit as He sees proper.