Is This As Rediculous As I Think It Is?

[Annie12]

So, I came across the prophesy of St. Malachy who supposedly predicted the last 10 popes of time. So, I was looking at some of the websites and they claim the the last pope will likely be the antichrist! I was also looking at the message of La Sallete and our lady says that Rome will become the seat of the antichrist!
This seems completely ridiculous to me since the Pope is supposed to be the vicar of Christ. I don't think God would let his people be without a head of the Church. This just all seems really ridiculous but what do you think?

[cmotherofpirl]

St Malachy's prophecy is not considered credible.

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1332724441' post='2408402']
St Malachy's prophecy is not considered credible.
[/quote]

It's not his anyway, right? I haven't heard of is since High School but from what I remember they think that the origionals were lost and the ones today are forged, right?

[Annie12]

There is a bunch of stuff all over the internet about how his predictions so far are correct.

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1332725158' post='2408424']
There is a bunch of stuff all over the internet about how his predictions so far are correct.
[/quote]

If it's on the internet assume it's not true until you can prove otherwise. It's safer that way, otherwise you end up getting very misled. I had a nightmare trying to help a friend who had been misled by some priest who goes on about Fatima, I can't remember exactly but he's not in good standing in the Church and my poor friend was very misled by his messages.

[Annie12]

And even the thought of the pope being the antichrist seems heretical! I don't see a reason why God would allow that.

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1332726331' post='2408459']
And even the thought of the pope being the antichrist seems heretical! I don't see a reason why God would allow that.
[/quote]

There have been some pretty awful popes though to be honest.

I've looked at this out of curiosity because I've never heard of it before and from what I can tell the Saint Malachy thing doesn't say that the pope will be the antichrist. Maybe I'm missing something but it sounds to me like some kind of anti-Catholic invention.

[J-Roq]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1332724213' post='2408396']
So, I came across the prophesy of St. Malachy who supposedly predicted the last 10 popes of time. So, I was looking at some of the websites and they claim the the last pope will likely be the antichrist! I was also looking at the message of La Sallete and our lady says that Rome will become the seat of the antichrist!
This seems completely ridiculous to me since the Pope is supposed to be the vicar of Christ. I don't think God would let his people be without a head of the Church. This just all seems really ridiculous but what do you think?
[/quote]
Our Lady of La Salette's quote on Rome being the seat of the antichrist has received debate, although I personally would rather assume the worst and be prepared than assume the best and get caught off guard (maybe that's just me). However, Rome does not necessarily mean the Holy See, nor does "the seat of" mean that the Pope himself would BE the antichrist. It could mean that the antichrist is working out of Rome the city itself rather than the Vatican (and those familiar with the Club of Rome sometimes tout this theory). It could also mean that the Vatican (and the Pope) are somehow lead to being puppets/tools/a seat for the antichrist, which does not mean that one should lose faith in the Pope but pray for him ever more. She also says that she will be with the Pope till the end and that the Holy Father has much to suffer, not calling him the antichrist.

All in all, I think that a lot of prophecies are pushing the idea that the Church is overrun with evil at some point, but that doesn't mean that the Church itself is evil. Based on early doctrine, the Church can never default from her Faith, nor can she be without a valid Pope who is seen as the pope for any extreme length of time. Because of this infallible doctrine in tandem with these prophecies, it's likely that the Church will come to be [i]oppressed[/i] by evil, and that it may even profess evil due to this oppression, but it will not [i]become[/i] evil. People should actively work to keep the true Faith despite this potential situation. Mary has strongly urged us to pray for the Pope, and we all need to do that.

I of course speak from my own personal musings (which have been at great length) on this topic, and I'm curious as to whether others have viewed this differently.

And no, it's not as ridiculous as you think it is. Mary has given us some extreme warnings in the past century, and we should all be very wary right now.

Edited March 26, 2012 by J-Roq

[Clareni]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1332726331' post='2408459']
And even the thought of the pope being the antichrist seems heretical! I don't see a reason why God would allow that.
[/quote]

This charge was thrown around a great deal in the late medieval period but usually in the form that the pope was "an anti-christ" as opposed to being "the anti-christ." Given the truly awful nature of some of popes, and then the ere of multiple popes, it is easier to understand the over heated rhetoric. If you believed that someone actually bought the office, was that person a legitimate pope if the influence of the holy spirit had been bypassed by cash? This was a concern and the suspicion that it had occurred (never proved) was behind the bitter attacks on some of the popes from within the church

It is true that someone today accusing the pope of heresy is placing themselves outside the church by the recklessness of that charge. However, this was not the belief in the 15th century. St John of Capistrano, in the course of suppressing the Fraticelli in Italy, wrote that the proof of the legitimacy and holiness of the Catholic church was that a heretic pope was always followed by an orthodox pope. One of those "heretics," John XXII was indeed pressured to recant (on his deathbed) a belief that he vigorously defended in his papacy. John, the great opponent of all branches of the Franciscan family and the persecutor of the Spiritual Franciscans, denied the possibility of a beatific vision by the saints during their lifetime. That was a heresy and we all know what a serious charge that was then. His victims included four Franciscans who were burned at the stake because their tunics were too short, i.e., they were members of the Spiritual or Primitive Observant faction of the order.

Rather than relying on internet prophecy pages, I suggest the work of E. Randolph Daniels (U Kentucky prof. emiritus) on Joachim of Fiore and his famous prophecies of the corruption of the papacy, the end time, and the eventual redemption of the church. These works were far more influential than St Malachy's prophecy. David Burr's fairly recent history of the Spiritual Franciscans is also very good to get the historical context of this conflict as well as the critical edition they co-edited of the work of Angelo Clareno, my online namesake.

[i]Angelo Clareno: A Chronicle or History of the Seven Tribulations of the Order of Brothers Minor[/i]

[i]The Spiritual Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century after St. Francis[/i]

[sixpence]

so Malachy is Malarkey?

[Luigi]

If I read it on the Internet, I believe it!

[Annie12]

Also there have been reports that the vatican has claimed to be nonsense that cardinal Romeo had a vision that the pope would die this year and that he would become the next pope! Also, some people say that Pope Benedict is really good friend with Cardinal Romeo and is routing for him to be his successor. There is an article about it if you do a google search. This is also weird because of the claim by St. Malachy that there will only be 266 popes. I'm probably thinking about this way too much but it's just plain weird to think about!

[Annie12]

Okay! So I found a good reliable source for this question if anyone is interested:[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm[/url] I went to the bottom of the page where it talks about the pope antichrist theory. It's just really hard to figure out these things especially since my family gets really upset at me when I ask them. I am not second guessing the church. I am second guessing the theories!

[tinytherese]

From the Catechism

[b][url="javascript:openWindow("]67[/url][/b] Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

[tinytherese]

And to build further on my last post...

"God may, and sometimes does, grant revelations to private individuals. Those who receive them, and are perfectly certain that they come from God, are bound to believe them. But the Church never imposes on Catholics the obligation of believing anyone's private revelations, even those of the great saints. The Church gives her approval to them only when she is satisfied after rigorous examination of their spiritual utility and of the evidence on which they depend." source [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7724"]http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7724[/url]

Edited March 27, 2012 by tinytherese