The "prophecies are in dispute because virtually no reputable scholar believes that they have an real connection to that blessed patron of Armagh, Malachy O’Morghair (O’More). St. Malachy was obviously a good Catholic as his claim to fame is Romanizing an incredibly diverse Irish church and obtaining the palliums for Armagh and Cashel. It was on this visit to Rome that he met St. Bernard or Clairvaux, who later became his biographer. He was blessed to die at Clairvaux on the eve of All Souls that he might benefit from the graces from the Masses and prayers of that day. The “prophecies” are purported to have been written after a mystical vision, a vision which he apparently neglected to mention to St. Bernard (though he was apparently able to recount many less significant events of his childhood and early religious life) that he had on the first visit to Rome in 1129. He then supposedly offered the list to the troubled Pope Innocent to allay his fear of coming trials, whereupon the manuscript was promptly lost for the next four hundred years in the Vatican libraries and only “discovered” by “accident” in 1590. Now, anyone who has taken freshman logic, or who simply has been a teenager knows that silence is not proof of absence, but it would certainly seem strange that the blessed servant Malachy would fail to mention to his “soul-friend” Bernard that he’d been given a vision of the whole future of the Church, or that if he did Bernard would fale to mention it in his delightful: “Life of Malachy the Irishman.” St. Malachy ought to be remembered today, for he is a true example of a shining priest, a brilliant patriot, and an able statesmen; but he oughtn’t be defamed by attributing to him spurious documents that can only serve to heighten the paranoia of apocalypse-minded weirdoes or enemies of the Church.
The prophecy of St. Malachy simply gives us a listing of all the Popes from the year 1143 when Celestine II was elected, up the the last Pope, Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman), after whom would come the Judgment. Each Pope was given a mystical description or title. For instance, Leo XIII (1878-1903) was known as* Lumen in Caelo* (Light of the Heavens); Pius X, Igni Ardent (Ardent fire); Pius XII(1939-58) was called Pastor Angelicus(The Angelic Shepherd); John Paul II was known as *De Labore Solis *(From the eclipse of the Sun). John Paul II is said to have been born during an eclipse. After the present Pope, the next one will be called Gloria Olivae(Glory of the Olives).
What is disputed by some is whether Gloria Olivae will be followed immediately by Petrus Romanus himself, or that there would be many intervening Popes before Petrus finally takes the chair.
Gerry
True and it’s not a bad record to have only one false Pope out of so many.
No one disputes the fact that God alone knows the real identity of the last Pope. This is a purely academic discussion concerning a prophecy and one may freely believe or disbelieve it.
That is correct. St. Malachy is said to be a good friend of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and that according to one account, St. Malachy died in St. Bernard’s arms. The fact that St. Bernard does not seem to mention anything about this prophecy is one reason why some doubt its authenticity, or at the very least, Malachy’s authorship.
Actually the founder and first king of Rome was Romulus Quirinus, and the last Western Roman Emperor was Romulus Augustulus, who was deposed by the German chieftain Odoacer in 476 A.D.
There is likewise no indication within the prophecy if, after* Gloria Olivae*, the succeeding Pope would be Peter of Rome himself, or that there would be a number of intervening Popes in between.
Of course the eclipse in question was over Antarctica, far from Malachy’s Ireland and Wojtyla’s Poland - maybe the author was making the prophecy from out in space. :ehh:
Somone trying to run a flim flam has no influence on the authenticity of the original prophecy - we had a cardinal who once rented a sheep and floated on a barge past the windows where a number of his fellow cardinals were dining and could see him - it was supposed to reflect him as the “good shepherd” - they paid him no mind, he wa still a cardinal and a fool is a fool.
One of the important things about a true prophecy is that it shows consistency - and although it may be wishful thinking on the part of some to see an endless line of continuing sucessors this would make the prophecy inconsistent thus I think most people have accepted that his prophecy ends with the list as it is.There is likewise no indication within the prophecy if, after* Gloria Olivae*, the succeeding Pope would be Peter of Rome himself, or that there would be a number of intervening Popes in between.
Gerry
Or perhaps some mystical realm where physical locations have no meaning.