Posted on 02/25/2005 9:17:07 PM PST by Ryan Bailey
Have a browse through the list and enjoy trying to pick the next Pope.
Bump to read later.
To be honest, I'm not so sure I buy these prophecies in the first place. That fluers de lis thing being as proof of "flower of flowers"? It just seems if you're trying to relate flowers to somebody it's actually pretty easy to do. (He liked flowers, he was buried with flowers, they named a flower after him, whatever.) Likewise with many of these others - i.e. "labor of the sun", "angelic shepherd", etc. I mean WWII and the rise of the Cold War went on during Pius XII's reign and the best he could come up with was "angelic shepherd"? I'm not buying it.
To be honest, I'm not so sure I buy these prophecies in the first place. That fluers de lis thing being as proof of "flower of flowers"? It just seems if you're trying to relate flowers to somebody it's actually pretty easy to do. (He liked flowers, he was buried with flowers, they named a flower after him, whatever.) Likewise with many of these others - i.e. "labor of the sun", "angelic shepherd", etc. I mean WWII and the rise of the Cold War went on during Pius XII's reign and the best he could come up with was "angelic shepherd"? I'm not buying it.
To be honest, I'm not so sure I buy these prophecies in the first place. That fluers de lis thing being as proof of "flower of flowers"? It just seems if you're trying to relate flowers to somebody it's actually pretty easy to do. (He liked flowers, he was buried with flowers, they named a flower after him, whatever.) Likewise with many of these others - i.e. "labor of the sun", "angelic shepherd", etc. I mean WWII and the rise of the Cold War went on during Pius XII's reign and the best he could come up with was "angelic shepherd"? I'm not buying it.
Sorry for the triple post. My finger had a twitch.
Also nobody has mentioned that these prophecies were somehow "found" 400 years or so after St. Malachy died. And that furthermore, the the list only makes sense if we count the anti-popes.
You are a supporter of the New World Order?
One should not assume that the remaining popes listed are all that there will be. By this I mean that there may be another "pope" who is an anti-pope.......either invalidly elected, or who becomes invalid by openly preaching heresy.
That is one possibility.
Another possibility which I am aware of is that JPII is the last pope.......the last ROMAN pope. By this I am implying two (possibly related?) possibilities:
a) the pope and the govenment of the Church flee Rome, as prophecied, due to a "revolution" (invasion, etc.).
b) he is the last legitimate pope, though not the last "pope" elected or recorded in history.
There are prophecies and visions which refer to both scenarios.......although the former is the most certain - and most probable given the political and military climate.
BUT, in regard to option "b", this does not necessarily preclude an antipope (or more then one) from arising. Nor does this preclude the prophecied Antipope of History from arising.
The article above is a very good analysis of Malachi's prophecies....with the exception of what is said in reagrd to Peter the Roman. Of particular note - in regard to JPII - is the concept of the Sun in relation to his life.
JPII is from the East. We also know from prophecy that salvation (the Era of Peace)is to come from the East - and also that is where Christ will one day return to earth.
But - regarding JPII - if he "rose" like the Sun in the East (Poland - eastern Europe), he will surely "set" in the West. Some anonymous sources have indicated that early in his pontificate there were some "feelers" sent out for possible relocation of Vatican archival records in the Western Hemisphere......and for possible relocation of the Papal office in a state of emergency. Canada was one probable location.
Do not ask for a "link" or proof, as there is none. To the best of my knowedge there has been no such permanent arrangement made. But there was an exploration of options, back in the 80s. An "arrangement" may or may not have been made.
But even if all of that is false, it does stand to reason that if the Pope and some Cardinals were to flee Rome in some emergency, they would likely go West. Some prophecies say to Germany - others overseas. Perhaps to Germany first and then overseas? It is not too late in JPIIs life for this to happen.
If any of this comes to pass, then his "sun" will literally set in the west........."he will die a cruel death in exile".
"....in the end, I will receive his sacrifice".....Our Lady
Now Alcimus has been struck dumb - Deo Gratias!!!
As for the last Pope, Peter the Roman, he is to be a true pope appointed by Sts. Peter and Paul the source cited in your post has it ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!
In as much as that is another distinct possibility, you are correct. Even though I am not totally "sold" on that one, I cannot discount it as a possibility.
I will say that I forgot to include it......as I just plain forgot about it! All theories need to be considered - whether they are popular or not. That is the essense of intellectual inquiry.
Sounds like Tim LaHaye's (spit!) theory. In his abominably bad Left Behind books, he makes the Tribulational pope named Peter, and aligned with Anti-christ.
His basis for this is half Malachi Martin and half Dave Hunt's bastardization of Revelation 17. LaHaye's acolytes will have a field day with this one.
Bander's work on this used to be posted on the EWTN site. There is no number to correspond with the Petrus Romanus statement in the prophecy. The last number listed is that of the Glory of the Olive and Bander wrote that it is possible that that Pope is the last and the Petrus Romanus is referring to this last entry of St. Malachy. It isn't written anywhere in Bander's work which included the actual prophecy that the last Pope will be Satan.
""....in the end, I will receive his sacrifice".....Our Lady"
America is the "Land of Our Lady".
We are pleased to note the outstanding discussion which this posting has generated among these scholarly personages.
It is a pleasure also to see that this subject matter has led to questions from certain inquiring minds about a great many things. We remain more than happy to field questions on these importanat issues.
To those who are offended by the nature of these prophecies I must re-iterate that I did not compose them, nor did I write the commentaries which run through this particular translation. I have an edition in latin among my library but spared the cross-transcribing by copying this commentary piece from the metaphysicist Ellie Crystal. In the interest of full disclosure I must state that I am not now, nor have I ever been an acquaintance or friend of this person, nor do I agree universally with her statements ( in truth the post is the only work of hers that I have ever read ). I do find her page on this subject, to the which you may follow the link, to be insightful and intelligent.
To those who are offended by the nature of current affairs in the world, I must say that I am no more responsible for these, unfortunate as they may be, than I am for the works of Ms. Crystal or St. Malachy ( not to be confused with mularkey or Malachai about whom we could have another discussion ). I would encourage you all to pray to the Saviour of this earth, Jesus Christ, for the remediation of such woes as you might find abroad, and you may rest assured that I will continue to dedicate myself to the same cause.
The post cold war era offers mankind an opportunity for development of true rights and equities among all men. President George H.W. Bush referred to this new power alignment, essentially the volatility of the post-modernity of geopolitical stratification, as the new world order. If any of you find this phraseology offensive I must only state that I believe, and you might disagree, all fear is based upon ignorrance. In this new organization of global governance I am resolved to seeking basic rights for the enslaved and blighted classes of the world, that they might share in some of the richness of God's Grace which I have been so benefitted by, in general the benefitting of mankind. I beg all of you in the bowels of Christ to join in this crusade, if not by the taking up of arms as myself, then by petitioning the Lord with prayer and execution of Christian Charity in all things. If any of you stand opposed to my sentiments on the need for human rights and equities in the new world order I will respectfully disagree with you, and wholeheartedly oppose you until my dying breath.
I am more than happy to cover the nationality of St. Linus, 1st Bishop of Rome. Linus, one of my own ancestors, was posted as a missioner and bishop by St. paul. This is confirmed within the New Testament. The Linus I am referring to was not Tuscan but British. A more complete recounting of his familial linkage to Rome may be found in the excerpt which follows:
( This is a quote from The Rev. Guy P. Hawtin )
"It is often claimed that history is written by the victors. This is not true -- at least, it has not been true for the last 150 years or so. Histories are usually written by historians, and this is, most decidedly, a mixed blessing. The problem is that, more often than not, historians have an axe to grind: a particular weltanschauung or social theory to propound. This, naturally, tends to distort the picture they present to the world. History, far from being a dispassionate appraisal of past events, is frequently heavily tinged with partisanship, polemic and propaganda.
This, lamentably, is especially true in the sphere of Church history. Nor should it be surprising. The competing claims of various denominations to be the sole repositories of the Christian Truth inevitably foster bitter partisanship. Rarely has partisanship more gravely distorted the historical truth than in history of the Church of England. Students of Anglican history today are sandbagged not only by Roman, Orthodox and Protestant propagandists and apologists, but also by fellow Anglicans of different liturgical and theological persuasions.
As a consequence, at this point in the 20th Century, there seems to be a general acceptance of the notion that the English Church, as we know it, came into being as the result of St. Augustine's mission to Kent in the year AD 597. Indeed, The Most Rev. Robert Runcie, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, made obeisance to the theory during his visit to the Vatican not so long ago.
Actually, Augustine did not establish the English Church. Far from it, in fact. When he arrived in Kent -- an obscure Saxon kingdom in South England -- it was virtually the only part of the British Isles that remained almost entirely heathen. I say almost entirely because there was a Christian presence in Kent: priests and monks from Gaul (now France) who ministered to Queen Bertha, a Christian princess from Gaul, who was consort of the Kentish king. The West and North of the British Isles were, to all intents and purposes, wholly Christian. And there was an extensive network of Christian missions throughout the rest of Britain.
Far from converting Britain to Christianity, Augustine found that the task had largely been accomplished by a Church one rarely hears about these days. It was the indigenous British Church -- commonly called the Celtic Church; the Church that we, today, call the Church of England.
Claims that Augustine was Primate of Britain are, thus, quite empty. Britain already had its own Primate -- the Archbishop of Carleon, the successor to St. David, the patron saint of Wales, who had died some 20 years before Augustine's arrival. The British Isles also boasted 120 bishops and thousands of priests, not to mention many thousands of monks and nuns.
It is difficult to know what Augustine would have made of the claims made on his behalf by modern historians. Certainly, he tried to assert Pope Gregory the Great's authority, but his efforts were not in any great degree successful.
This might well be because the Romans had not yet declared the pope "Christ's Vicar on Earth." Indeed, it is not until more that 100 years later we encounter a pope who felt secure enough assert (albeit somewhat tentatively) that he was "St. Peter's Vicar upon Earth." That pope was Gregory II and the assertion is to be found in the oath that St. Boniface took upon being consecrated bishop in 722 AD. Demands for fealty based on this claim were rejected by the English, in word and deed, from that time onward until the Reformation.
The best argument that a pope could put forward for his claim to authority over the British Church was that he had traditionally occupied a position of primus inter pares (first among equals) among Christian Bishops. Such a claim -- which would certainly be challenged in the world of Eastern Orthodoxy -- would give him no more authority than a right to the courtesy of presiding at ecumenical gatherings.
The manner in which Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to England illustrates this: Gregory, for example, didn't assert the right to consecrate Augustine a British bishop. Rather he asked one the bishops of Gaul -- whose see was closest to Britain -- to consecrate Augustine as a personal favor.
The Gallic bishop appears to have been reluctant to do so. He must surely have had contacts with the British Church. This means he must have been well aware that he had no authority to perform such a consecration. In any event, he kept Augustine kicking his heels for a very long time before finally -- and apparently with considerable reluctance -- acceding to Gregory's importuning.
Moreover, it wasn't until Augustine managed to establish himself at the Kentish Court that Gregory actually sent him the pallium, designating him "Rome's man" and, by implication, Kent (not England; for Kent was, at that time, a sovereign state) "Rome's territory." Gregory, however, must have been fully aware that his claims in this regard were decidedly shakey.
The English Church's relationship to Rome is -- and has always been -- the same of that of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Indeed, Rome has, de facto, acknowledged this for best part of 800 years. Since its earliest recorded history, the English Church has asserted that it was founded by St. Joseph of Arimathea, Our Lord's uncle, "immediately after the passion of Christ" -- ("statim post passionem Christi").
This had never been disputed until it was challenged for political purposes by France and Spain in 1409. The antiquity English Church, however, was unequivocably affirmed by five Papal Councils -- the Council of Pisa (1409), the Council of Constance (1417), the Council of Sens (1418), the Council of Sienna (1424), and the Council of Basle (1434).
The five councils ruled that the English Church is the oldest Church in the gentile world -- despite the fact it would have been politically advantageous for the pope to have obliged two such powerful and influential nations as France and Spain Thus, it seems fair to assume that the documentary evidence in favor of the English claim must have been overwhelming.
Sadly, much of that evidence is now lost to us, destroyed during Henry VIII's dissolution of the religious houses, as well as during the English Civil War in the 17th Century when ancient documents were used to make cartridges. Even so, a strong body of evidence remains: Ancient Welsh annals, writings of the Early Church Fathers, early British historians, archaeological discoveries and oral history. All lend credence to legends that the British Church was established by St. Jospeh sometime between AD 36 and AD 39, shortly after the Resurrection
The earliest surviving historical records of the British Church were compiled long after the events that they describe took place. Gildas wrote in the 6th Century, as did Maelgwyn of Llandaff, also known as Melchinus, uncle of St. David.
It is, however, quite clear from the works of these early scholars that they were writing genuine history and that they relied heavily upon very much older documentary sources. Some scholars, for example, believe Maelgwyn was merely quoting an earlier Maelgwyn, known as Maelgwyn of Avalon (or Glastonbury), who lived and worked in the First Century.
To a considerable extent it is possible to reconstruct much of the early history of the English Church what is known as "oral history." This is the historical record painstakingly sifted from the myths and legends that, in the early years at least, were passed on by word of mouth by illiterate people. It is well-established that societies in which reading and writing are unknown are, none-the-less, able to transmit history with remarkable accuracy though many generations. As a consequence, oral history has proved a valuable academic tool -- most notably in the realm of social history.
Treated with appropriate caution, it can provide scholars with an accurate picture of historical events for which no first hand documentary records exist.
Oral history offers strong support for the assertion that the British Church was established by St. Joseph of Arimathea -- who begged Christ's body from Pontius Pilate -- shortly before the Romans invaded Britain. The legends of St Joseph's presence in Britain are exceedingly ancient in origin. "
At this point it is worth asking: Why would St. Joseph have come to Britain? A number of the early fathers of the Church record that St. Joseph suffered persecution, along with other leading Christians, and was compelled to flee the Holy Land. Legend -- or oral history -- says that he fled to Britain, because he was a metals trader who had frequently visited the British Isles and knew them well. Fleeing to Britain made sense. At the time of his supposed arrival -- about AD 37 -- Britain was not part of the Roman Empire. The Roman armies did not invade until AD 45. And the Celtic population was not subdued until AD 52, when their military leader Caradoc (or Caratacus, as Tacitus calls him), Crown Prince of the Silurian Clan, was betrayed and captured.
Welsh scholars contend that the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Britain is explained by the fact that the indigenious druidic religion worshipped a trinitarian god, one person of which was known as "Yesu." Moreover, the druidic teachings echoed those of The Bible -- among them that man's responsibility to God superceded his duty to the civil authority. Claims that druidism was Christianity awaiting the coming of Christ might be somewhat fanciful. But it's interesting to note that the Romans were generally tolerant of foreign religious cults and that during the period of the empire only two religious cults were officially suppressed: druidism and Christianity.
How much of this can be scientifically attested? Not a great deal. However, the remains of a small wattle and daub church has been excavated at Glastonbury, where St. Joseph is said to have settled. It is claimed archaeological evidence dates it to a time shortly before the Roman invasion of AD 42. Christian symbols, moreover, have been also discovered on artifacts recovered from a Roman fort at Carleon, in Wales, thought to have been destroyed towards the end of the First Century.
What can be documented is that numerous early Fathers of the Church have left writings confirming the early arrival of Christianity to Britain. They include: Clement, 3rd Bishop of Rome, in AD 96; Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, AD 180; Tertullian of Carthage, AD 192; Origen of Antioch, AD 240; Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, AD 300; and Eusebius of Caesarea, AD 320.
Heretics seem to be regarded as more trustworthy that the orthodox these days, so here's what the heretic Sabellius -- excommunicated by Pope Callixtus in A.D. 220 -- had to say on the subject: "The first nation that proclaimed [Christianity] as its religion, and called itself Christian, after the name of Christ, was Britain.
Morgan and his fellow scholars cite Welsh annals that state that Caradoc and his father, Bran (venerated in Wales as St. Bran the Blessed) were converted in Rome, following their capture by the Romans in A.D. 52. They also assert that Gladys married Rufus Pudens -- a member of the Roman Senate and a senior commander in the Army that conquered England -- and converted him to Christianity.
We know a great deal about Caradoc's daughter Gladys from contemporary Roman sources. She was something of a celebrity -- an exotic, noble beauty from a mysterious island kingdom. Documentary records show that following her marriage, her name was Latinized to Claudia Pudentia. She became a leading figure in Rome's fashionable society. The poet Martial wrote odes extolling her beauty.
A "Rufus" is mentioned in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 16, verse 13: "Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine . . ." And Morgan argues that this "Rufus" was actually Rufus Pudens. (Some scholars have suggested that Rufus was St. Paul's half brother. Paul also greets another of his kinsmen, Herodian, in verse 11 of the same chapter.
Morgan contends St. Paul lived, or was closely associated, with Rufus Pudens and members of the British royal family during his period of house arrest prior to his martyrdom. In support of this, he cites the fact that Paul includes them in his greeting to Timothy in what was probably his final letter to his young protege (II Timothy, 4:21): "Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the bretheren.
It is somewhat ironical, perhaps, but, if Morgan et al. are right, Caradoc's son, Linus was the Linus who became the first Bishop of Rome. Could the first pope really have been an Episcopalian?
Circumstantial evidence for a close relationship between St. Paul's and the Pudens family is found in events following his execution. He is said to have been originally buried in the family's private cemetery on the Via Ostiensis. Rufus' and Claudia's children, all of whom were martyred, were interred alongside him.
Added to this is the strange history of Caradoc's house: During their captivity in Rome, Caradoc and his relatives lived in the residence that his family had owned in Rome for almost a century. It had been acquired as an embassy shortly after the defeat of Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain. This residence, located on the Mons Sacer, was known as the Palatium Britannicum. Later, its name was changed to the Titulus, then to Hospitum Apostolorum. Today it is the Church of St. Pudentiana -- the church dedicated to a martyred daughter of Claudia and Rufus Pudens. Can this be pure coincidence?
What of St. Eurgain, Caradoc's other daughter? Legends -- oral history, if you will -- tells us that she is the mother of Morning and Evening Prayer. She is said to have eventually returned to Britain, where she established many churches and monasteries, primarily in Wales. Each of them operated to a staggered timetable so that the Offices were continually sung throughout the 24 hours of every day, in order that "earth's praise of God should never cease." (Compare traditional Welsh choral music with Greek and Slavonic choral liturgies. The similarity is striking.)
Returning to less speculative realms, two British Bishops are recorded as attending the Council of Arles in A.D. 314 and it is believed that the British Church was also represented at Nicea in A.D. 325, though documentary proof is lacking. It is also significant, perhaps, that, in the 4th Century, a British-born Emperor, Constantine, recognized Christianity as an official religion and paved the way for its establishment as the religion of the Roman Empire. (Constantine's mother, St. Helena, is believed to have been British. A devout Christian, she is remembered for discovering the True Cross.)
In the 5th Century, the British Church was a major center of intellectual and theological debate. Indeed, a British monk named Pelagius gave his name to a major heresy. Pelagianism is the notion that man can save himself through his own efforts. And this, of course, brings us to within spitting distance -- a century or so -- of St. Augustine's arrival in a supposedly wholly pagan island.
Scholars have a clear idea of the manner in which the British Church operated. The Confessions of St. Patrick, for example, indicate services were conducted in the venacular. In old age, Patrick grumbled that his native Latin had been ruined by years of speaking the barbarous Irish tongue. His Confessions -- perhaps better described as his autobiography -- show he wasn't exaggerating. His Latin is, indeed, execrable.
The practice of saying the liturgy at least partially in the venacular seems to have been continued into the Middle Ages when the Epistle and Gospel were often read in the venacular during parochial Masses. Cranmer, by the way, reinstituted this ancient practice as a temporary measure before the Prayer Book of 1549 was authorized.
With the decline of the Roman Empire of the East, the Church retreated in the face of Anglo-Saxon invasions, consolidating in the South West, West, and North West of England and in Ireland. From there it maintained contacts not so much with Rome -- which had been sacked, pillaged and largely destroyed in a series of barbarian invasions -- but rather with the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople.
Archaeological excavations indicate that during this period, the British conducted a flourishing trade with those parts of the world. British Primates -- such as St. David, Dewi Sant -- were traditionally consecrated not by the Pope, but by the Patriarchs of Jerusalem.
From its strongholds in the West, the British Church moved out to convert not only the Anglo-Saxon invaders, but the population of the continent of Europe as well. It was the Celtic Church -- not Rome -- that evangelized Europe from the Alps to Scandanavian Border. When, for instance, St. Boniface -- the Saxon monk known as the Apostle of Germany -- arrived there in the 7th Century, he found a large and flourishing Celtic Church whose sway extended from Burgundy, through Germany, Switzerland and Austria to the Italian border.
Boniface, I might add, earned his title "apostle" not so much by converting the heathen as by cutting political deals on the Pope's behalf with the secular authorities to suppress the Celtic Church -- which had actually done the converting. It is tempting to argue that the Celtic Church left a lasting impression on the peoples that it converted to Christ. Can it be, for example, entirely coincidental that the Reformation sprang up and took root in the regions converted to Christianity by the Celtic Church? There are definite parallels between doctrines ennuciated by English theologians of the 7th and 8th Centuries and doctrines expounded by the more moderate English reformers of the 16th Century.
This would seem to offer a rich field for scholarly research and it would be interesting to learn if any recent doctoral dissertations have been produced on the topic.
We know a good deal about the manner in which the British Church operated. It was a loosely structured organization, centered around a number of great abbeys. These abbeys sent out the missionaries and parochial clergy. The most powerful ecclesiastics in the British Church were not bishops, but abbots and, on occasion, abbesses, such as the redoutable Hilda, who hosted the Synod of Whitby at her abbey in AD 664.
Rarely was an abbot also a bishop. Columba, the Apostle of Scotland, for example, was an abbot, but never a bishop. Aidan, the Apostle of Britain (Lindisfarne, AD 635) was for long a bishop, but not an abbot. Bishops lived in abbeys under the authority of the abbot. Like Aidan, they were often sent out as missionaries.
British religious houses differed greatly from their Roman and Greek counterparts. It was by no means unsual for abbeys to be populated by both male and female religious. There is also persuasive evidence that married couples also formed an integral part of some religious communities. St. Hilda's great abbey of Whitby, for instance, had two huge dormitories -- one for monks and another for nuns -- while married couples appear to have been accomodated in individual houses or huts. "
The antiquity of the English Church and the nationality of St. Linus are in actuality unanimously acknowledged among scholars. Only darkened halls of medieval learning debase the true history of the Anglican Communion.
As for the Vatican, it has acknowledged the seniority of Mother England as the first Christian Nation and the Church of England as the oldest in the world.
The supremacy of the English church & race over Continental Catholicism was of course consummated in 1588 once and for all. It hasn't been challenged since.
It is an uncontested fact that the oldest worship site in the world is Glastonbury. Worship services had been carried on there and all about the "scepter'd isle" in the succession of St. Paul ( for whom the London Cathedral is named ) and St. Joseph of Arimathea ( who founded the wattle church there and planted his staff which still grows " The Holy Thorn ") . All this ecclesiastical history was occurring while the Romans were still feeding Christians to the lions.
St. Malachy is not related to Malachi Matrin. St. Malachy is a 12th century (?) mystic; Malachi Martin was a 20th century exorcist.
>> I have an edition in latin among my library but spared the cross-transcribing by copying this commentary piece from the metaphysicist Ellie Crystal... Linus, one of my own ancestors, was posted as a missioner and bishop by St. paul. This is confirmed within the New Testament. The Linus I am referring to was not Tuscan but British. <<
And I'm Koo-Koo for Cocoa Puffs!
>> The West and North of the British Isles were, to all intents and purposes, wholly Christian. <<
Yes, Scotland and Ireland were already Christian. Everyone knows this. We all know about St. Patrick for starters, and that there are echoes even in Arthurian legend of a much older Christian church. That doesn't suffice as any evidence that St. Linus was British.
But the bigger question:
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PREPOSTEROUS ATTEMPT TO TURN THE WRITINGS OF ST. MALACHY COMPLETELY ON THEIR HEAD??!
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.