a quick look at the 900y old prophecies of the popes show the next one is the last one in the list. BUT the current pope Benedict 16 has the LAST NUMBER ASSIGNED! (111 Glory of the olive)
The longest paragraph for the pope after pope N111 does not have a number assigned by St Malachy.
Does it mean Benedict is Petrus Romanus? May be not.
Why then no number given by Malachy for the roman bishop that appears to be 267th successor of St Peter? Does it mean Petrus Romanus will not be canonically elected as a pope of the whole church, but only as a bishop of Rome?
For those who need background info, pls review Prophecy of the Popes - Wikipedia as well as the numerous internet and youtube comments.
“In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop].
Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations:
and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed,
and the terrible judge will judge his people.
The End.”
Benedict 16 has every chance to be the pope of the officially released (part of) the 3rd secret of Fatima. JPII was never killed, neither were scores of bishops, priests and laymen, on a mountain, by soldiers, as the vision says. And because Petrus Romanus reigns already amidst destruction, and is not killed by it, remains the pope that will fulfill the (official) Fatima 3, is exactly Benedict. There is no other left.
Petrus Romanus literally translate to “the rock of Rome.” Given that you are shifting the predictions for the current Pope from his predessor, this indicates we can shift one letter in the descriptor for the Final Pope.
So ‘rock of Rome’ becomes “Rock and Roll,” showing that the end times had been predicted and are occurring now, ever since the rise of that Godless, Communist music. (This ties in very closely with the “destruction” of the traditional Catholic Mass with Vatican II. Coincidence or the workings of prophesy?)
It’s not terribly difficult to predict things accurately when they’ve already happened. There’s no evidence at all that the prophecy was written any earlier than the 16th century.
So a list first published in 1595, which oddly enough seems surprisingly specific and accurate for the popes before 1590 yet gets a lot less specific and the “hits” a lot more tenuous for the popes after? I smell a rat.
If the last pope is to be named Peter . . . well, no pope since St. Peter has taken that name, and probably none ever will. What’s more, we might never see another pope who is “Romanus,” that is, a native of the Diocese of Rome.
And Time Lords only get 13 regenerations. But if the franchise needs The Doctor to regenerate a 14th time, a retcon will be invented. Pope stuff works the same way.
Fine, stipulate that. But it still seems that #254, 263, 264, 265, and 266 seem quite remarkable. John Paul I, of the half moon, begun his reign and died on the quarter moon. Quite a few well after the 16th century do seem to be apt.
Because when you want to see highly educated Phd scholars write meticulously researched and unfailingly historically accurate articles on theology, what better place to go than the comments section of a Youtube video.
Of course, the first part of the prophecy might be fulfilled if they ever elect a pope whose baptismal name or family name, as opposed to his regnal name, is Peter or Petri or some cognate.
All bishops are part of the apostolic succession, not just the Bishop of Rome. There are about 5,000 bishops, so there are the required 12, plus some extras.
