Does the Vatican actually believe in the 'Prophecy of the Popes'? (and other fun questions!)

Alright, title wording is a bit odd, but let’s see if I can clarify a bit.

With Emperor Palpa-- sorry, Pope Benedict retiring this month, much discussion has turned to Saint Malachy’s so-called ‘Prophecy of the Popes.’ Now, being Catholic in only the most liberal interpretation of the title (and really, I’m not Catholic at all, despite that pesky baptism), I’ve never in my life heard of this, but it’s interesting in the way that all crack pot end of times theories can be.Searching around the web for more information on this whole thing brings up a lot of really legitimate and serious sounding websites like RAPTUREWATCH and other fun things. Despite those fantastic resources, I’m here in the hope that you can offer a little clarification for this fallen sheep.

Let me see if I’ve got this straight: the next Pope is either going to be (depending on which school of thought you fall into) the Antichrist or the prophet of the Antichrist. And under this Pope, Rome will fall.

So, question the first: when the prophecy says that Rome will fall, do most folks interpret this to mean the Church or are there people who really think the entirety of Rome- Vatican and all- will be a-burnin’? Metaphor or literal, I suppose is my question here.

Secondly, in the world of Catholicism, how hair brained is this whole prophecy thing? Again, as an agnostic, I’m not saying this is real at all, but among die hard Catholics, is this a thing? For instance, is this something that the Vatican actually supports? Has the Vatican ever said anything about it?

“Please keep in mind that the Church never has accepted this purported prophecy as true. It undoubtedly is a forgery. Supposedly the prophecy was made around 1139 by St. Malachy, but the prophecy was unknown until 1595 and seems to have been concocted to influence a papal election of that era. In other words, give no weight to it and derive no anxiety from it.”

http://www.catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/habemus-papam-still

Your own link says:

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
The Church regards the prophesy as a forgery.[2] The ambiguous symbolism of the Popes and fanatical interpretation thereof are regarded as divination and postdiction, respectively.[3] Since there is no moral certitude of the prophesy’s authenticity, according to Normae Congregationis,[4] and since the prophesy is like the prophesies of Nostradamus, which is a sign of forgery,[5] the Prophecy of the Popes is not regarded as authentic by the Church.[6]
[/QUOTE]

I have a strong feeling that because of this prophesy, the current Pope waited until after the Mayan calendar rebooted before making his retirement announcement. Had he done so beforehand, we could have had a lot of anxious folks out there.

In the minds of a few radio hosts, the Anti-Christ is already serving his 2nd term in office.

There are some conservative Christians who like to believe that the office of the Papacy is the Antichrist. If one Pope doesn’t do something antichristy the next one will until all of them combined have done everything the Antichrist is supposed to do. Then we’ll have an apocalypse.

The Roman Catholic Church, unsurprisingly, does not endorse the view that its leader is the Antichrist.

The Roman Catholic Church does not believe in or teach the Rapture, a belief which isn’t very old. It is almost exclusively a fundamentalist Protestant belief. RCC beliefs are amillennial, and say there is no specific date for the end of the world, and that it will not be preceded by “Tribulation,” “Leaving behind,” or anything like that. It’s not generally an apocalyptic religion, and conveniently, today’s Cracked notes that the belief that medieval people in 1000/999 were afraid of the end was mostly bullshit.

“The city of seven hills will be destroyed” is pretty unambiguous. :eek:

You might be surprised how much woo the Catholic Church does not believe in, they really are at the liberal end of Christian religions along side some COE/Anglican people.

OK they have views that are a bit on the nose but overall their beliefs besides the whole God thing are not that bad compared to fundamentals and literalists. They believe in evolution etc etc

Perhaps the funniest thing about egoistic idiocy of this sort is that the Antichrist is supposed to be fundamentally different. Plain as day in contrast to night. Isn’t it remarkable how people can view themselves as Christian, let alone expecting some reward for being who they are, and what they take for disrespect to religion?

PS

Is there anywhere you can apply for being the Antichrist? Jesus’ miracle powers leave few obstacles but the Antichrist could probably use some help, and we all know one has to come before the other.

How’s that for a question to Cecil, by the way. Can one formally apply nowadays for being a figure of prophecy?

:slight_smile:

Eh, it’s only a fairly minor suburb. Now, if Parma were destroyed, or Lakewood, that might have more impact.

Hmmm…Jack Chick certainly thinks he is. I wonder if having a Popeswap will enspire ol’ Jack to new efforts. I hope so. He needs to start bringing the funny again.

If they don’t believe in the prophecy, why were they deliberately taking names from it? Or was that untrue?

That’s actually my source of confusion, too.

They were not taking names from it.

That was untrue. I’ve read the prophecy -years ago - and from recollection there are no names in it, apart from a reference to the last pope in the list being called “Petrus Romanus” (Peter the Roman) which probably isn’t intended to be understood as a reference to his actual or regnal name.

Seems I had it wrong. It’s not that they are taking the exact names, but that there seems to be a game in trying to make things about themselves fit the prophesy, at least according to Casino Online Brazil 2023 | Jogos De Casino Online

Is the prophecy that they’ll elect a guy named Peter, or someone will take the name Peter? (Cuz doing the latter would take some serious balls)

The prophecies are all extremely (and conveniently) vague. From memory, the relevant couplet simply refers to the last guy in the list as “Petrus Romanus”. It doesn’t say either that his given name will be Peter, or that he will take the regnal name Peter; calling him Petrus Romanus may simply be a reference to the fact that he will be pope (i.e. successor of Peter, and bishop of Rome).

As for popes “trying to make things about themselves fit the prophecy”, I think it’s more that fans of the prophecies try to make them fit the popes. John Paul I, for example, hardly arranged to be born in Belluno, or to reign for just a month, in order to (more or less, at a stretch) fit the “half moon” prophecy supposedly about him.

All of the other Popes on the list required some Notradamus-like massaging to make them fit the prophesy, so I expect that this will be the case again. Peter is probably a metaphor for Pope Dick. Maybe Ron Jeremy will be the next Pope.