Who Will Be the Next Pope? Peter the Roman of Saint Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes?

 

An eight-hundred-year-old prophecy attributed to Saint Malachy, a Catholic Prelate of Ireland, is believed by many — and never officially discredited by the Roman Catholic Church — to have rightly predicted who will be the next pope for every papal succession from Pope Celestine II in 1143 to Benedict XVI, who has just abdicated the papal throne. The Prophecy of St. Malachy predicts only one pope after Benedict, and names him Petrus Romanus, “Peter the Roman.”

Unlike the Celestines and Piuses, the Johns and Pauls and the John-Paul’s, yes even the Benedicts — who had to line up and take a number when they chose their papal names — there has only been one Pope Peter through all of Christian history. To those outside the Roman Catholic Church it is sometimes seen as odd that Catholics regard Saint Peter, the apostle, as the first Bishop to sit at the Holy See of Rome. The Bible does not record Peter’s having travelled to Rome, though it describes Paul as traveling there and establishing the church in Rome. Yet, the Roman Catholic lineage of popes, never names Paul as a leader of the church at Rome. There is, however nothing in the Bible to say that Paul was the first apostle to Rome or to say that Peter was not considered the leader there. Many outside the Catholic Church think Luke might have mentioned Peter’s presence in Rome when describing Paul’s years of ministry there, but the fact that he didn’t mention it doesn’t prove a thing. You cannot make much of an argument out of silence. Roman Catholic tradition says the first pope was Peter because Jesus gave Peter his name (the Greek name Petros, which means “rock”), and then Jesus pronounced “Upon this rock, I shall build my church.”

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is founded upon that rock, and no pope since Peter has presumed so high as to take that name, which was betowed by Christ, a second time. It has become an understood policy of the Church that no pope should do that.

 

Saint Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes

Therefore, the Prophecy of Malachy, made a curious choice in identifying the last pope as “Peter the Roman.” The prophecy was written after, at least, a thousand years of popes had already gone by, so the writer (prophet?) certainly knew that Catholics do not name themselves “Peter” when they become popes. If he was playing the odds in a game of “Who Will Be the Next Pope,” he couldn’t have picked a less likely name to finish his list — the very name that is avoided in order to specially honor the first pope, Christened with that name by Christ himself. It would be a pretty arrogant man who would defy that tradition of respect and make himself out to be Peter’s equal.

After the description of Peter the Roman’s reign, the next word on the list is “Finis” — “The End.” It would seem that a full-circle ending, rather than venturing the most probably guess for a name, would be the best explanation for the appearance of this particular name right at “the end” of the papal list. “Peter,” the prophetic list of popes claims, will be the first and the last of popes. The prophetic writer seems to be going out of his way with by even giving a name, given that he does not name any of the other popes from the time the prophecy was first published until this last figure on the list. Saint Malachy’s prophecy, from the time when it was publicly unveiled in the 1500’s, only gives each pope from the time of the unveiling onward a descriptive tag. No names until the last one and then the least-probable name.

This is the primary objection raised to the authenticity and accuracy of the prophecy. It specifically names every pope prior to the time of its unveiling, but gives only veiled descriptions of each pope after. It is, of course, perfectly accurate in naming all the popes that preceded the prophecy’s unveiling. The prophecy was first published by a Benedictine monk named Arnold in 1595. Arnold included the prophecy in a book he wrote on Benedictine history and claimed it was authored by St. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh, in 1139. Malachy, summoned to Rome, saw a vision there listing the name of every pope that would come into being from his time forward, and this vision was supposedly sealed up by the Vatican until revealed by Arnold.

Naturally, the specific names given in perfect accuracy up to the time of Arnold’s revelation of the prophecy to the world, followed by secretly veiled references for each pope listed thereafter, is a chink in the prophecy’s armor. It might incline one to think that Arnold, himself, had written the Prophecy of the Popes, attributing it to the venerable saint to give it credibility and to put its august authorship far enough back in history to make the prophecy appear to have already been right in many things — hindsight always being twenty-twenty. If Arnold, himself, were the author of the prophecy, the unavailability of hindsight for the names that lay still down the road would explain why the author switched to riddled references for everyone in the future. Make the references vague enough, and they become hard to prove wrong.

None of Saint Malachy’s contemporaries mention the prophecy, even though they had much good to say about him, and there is no published record or mention of the prophecy’s existence prior to its publication in 1595. That is supposedly because Malachy gave the prophecy to the Vatican at the time he received the revelation to seal it away. Nevertheless, proving the prophecy wrong has been difficult, and the Church, itself, has been ambivalent about. The Roman Catholic Church has commented many times on the prophecy and has never denied that it lay hidden in the Vatican archives nor officially claimed that it is a forgery. So, while the RCC doesn’t support the authenticity of the prophecy, it doesn’t deny it either.

Some advocates of the prophecies today claim that someone — perhaps Arnold — merely inserted the names of the actual popes into the original prophecy, as a way of showing who the were. You see, the lines for each pope prior to Arnold’s publication of the prophecies also start with the veiled references and then give the specific names in a column beside the references. The specific names stop at the date of publication with the exception of the last pope. So, the arugment goes that the original author did not specifically name any of the popes, except the last one, but that his sixteenth-century publisher added the names of those who had already gone by in order to make the accuracy of the old bishop’s revelation clear.

For example, the first reference in the Prophecy of the Popes reads Ex castro Tiberis in Latin, and is immediately followed by “Celestine II.” The reference means “from a castle of the Tiber,” and Celestine was born in the City of Castello (Castle) on the Tiber River. So, the match is perfect. Of course, it would be easy to make a perfect reference for each pope prior to the date of the prophecy’s first publication. The real test, then, is how has Saint Malachy’s prophecy done in predicting who will be the next pope for each reference after the time in which it was first made public? While there are no names to attach them to, one can easily follow the order of succession in order to know who each next pope would have been in history.

Surprisingly, the answer is “not too bad.” Some of the attempts to match the references to subsequent popes seem stretched, but many are an apt fit. Here are some examples for you to be judge:

Counting down the list from the last pope that was known and clearly named prior to the date of publication to what would be the right slot for Pope John Paul II, the reference is “From the labor of the sun.” This seems meaningless at first, but it actually makes for a pretty cool fitting riddle: Pope John Paul the II was born on the day of a solar eclipse, and he was entombed on the day of a solar eclipse, so he literally labored upon this earth from one solar eclipse to another. It is also fair to say his life can seen as a pope who more than most others “labored under the sun” (a biblical expression for plight of a man) both because he travelled the world more than any pope in history ever has but also because bore a great deal of pain due to the injury from his attempted assassination and then his advanced age. I think all who saw this particular pope throughout his papacy would say he worked his job as hard as he possibly could and commendably until he exhausted his last breath. Moreover, John Paul II heralded from the city of Krakow, Poland, where Copernicus famously labored for years to prove his theory — originally deemed heretical by the very Church that John Paul II ruled — that the sun was the center of the planetary orbits, not the earth. So, on simple phrase makes for a rather neat riddle that can describe John Paul II in several ways.

Then, look at the reference right above his name to his predecessor, the other John Paul I, which says only, de mediatate lunae, “from the midst of the moon.” Again a vague reference and yet aptly fitting the most obvious and breathtaking aspect of this pope’s reign. He reigned only one month (a word derived from “moon” because it is the approximated length of time from one moon to the next). Moreover, he took office while the moon was in its middle (half) phase, and he died when it was in mid-phase. What more can be said of the pope who had not time enough to do anything, other than last from one month in the middle of a moon cycle to the next? That’s really all he accomplished as pope. What stands out about John Paul I in everyone’s mind — because it was such a worldwide shock at the time — was that he lasted only one month. So, veiled, yes; but appropriate.

Both prophecies fit the measure of the man well, relating clearly to each pope’s beginning and end — in one case the beginning and end of his life, in the other the beginning and end of his papacy. And Pope John Paul I’s given name was Albino Luciani, which translates “White Light” … like the moon.

Let’s go one more up the list of those popes we all know about most directly: For Pope Paul VI, the veiled reference is flos florum, “flower of flowers.” That one is a little bit more of stretch to me. The only connection I’ve found for Pope Paul is to his coat of arms, which has three fleurs de lis — three irises — on the shield. Nevertheless, the whole purpose of a coat of arms is to identify the person and to connect him to what he feels is most significant in his life. So, if Pope Paul VI clearly saw the strongest of connections between himself as being three fluers de lis, who are any of us to say that flowers are not his most appropriate symbolic representation. He would have known best.

The same kind of match exists for Benedict XVI, the resigning pope, but is a little more strained. Pope Benedict XVI was never a Benedictine monk, yet he chose to name himself after the founder of that order, and the crest of the Benedictine order has two olive branches with the word pax, “peace” between them. The reference in Saint Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes for Benedict XVI is gloria olivae, “glory of the olive.” Clearly Benedict XVI associated himself strongly with Saint Benedict. Saint Benedict’s crest is the olive, so Benedict XVI must have felt being associated with the order of the olive was something glorious enough and appropriate enough to name himself after that order’s founder. One of the twenty congregations of Benedictines calls itself, “the Olivetans,” so Benedict’s other followers also related themselves strongly to the olive over of all the other parts of the Benedictine Coat of Arms. I also note that this connection of the penultimate pope to the “order of the olive,” so to speak, would have been particularly noteworthy to the prophecies original publisher, if he was the actual prophet. Arnold de Wyon was a Benedictine.

The olive branch symbolizes peace, and Benedict XVI involved himself directly in a lot of peacemaking. Many warned when he first took the office that he was the former Grand Inquisitor of the Roman Catholic Church, so he might be a man to be feared; but he showed himself as nothing but humble and peaceful in his dealings with others as pope … just like his predecessor. I think it’s fair to say that many people would probably find the surprising thing about his papacy was that he turned out to be much more of a peacemaker than they thought he would be. Having warned the world of rampant religious violence, he even held out an olive branch to all muslims, humbling himself and apologizing when Muslims around the world took offense to a historic reference he made that associated all such violence with them. So, maybe what does shine of this man’s glory is the peacefulness and peace-making nature he extended toward everyone. I don’t know a lot about him, but I would not be surprised, having observed only as much as the average person, that he would most like to be remembered as a man of peace or a peacemaker. That may be why he associated himself so closely with the founder the Order of Saint Benedict.

Perhaps, in assessing the credibility of St. Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes, whether written by St. Malachy or not, it can suffice to say his list describing each pope has been debated for almost half a millennium since its publication, and it is still of high interest to many people today. That doesn’t mean the predictions are true, but it does mean that large numbers of people have found their connections to each pope that has come along clear enough for these predictions to continue to command attention. The connections, apparently, do not seem all that forced in the minds of  many people.

If you think, Well, such vague references could fit anyone, consider whether “Dog and adder,” the reference associated with Pope Leo XII would fit if it had been in the position on the list that matches up with Pope John Paul II. No one would ever think of John Paul II that way; whereas, Leo XII was widely hated and would be thought of by most people today and in his own day under such derisive terms as a “dog” or a “snake.” He persecuted Jews. He is the reason English school boys up until the last few decades had to study in Latin, so many a school kid would have hated him. More to the point, the world blew up in rage around him because of his reign. Wikipedia contains such quotes as the following to summarize Leo XII’s reign:

 

“The results of his method of governing his states soon showed themselves in insurrections, conspiracies, assassinations and rebellion, especially in Umbria, the Marches and Romagna; the violent repression of which, by a system of espionage, secret denunciation, and wholesale application of the gibbet and the galleys, left behind it to those who were to come afterwards a very terrible, rankling and long-enduring debt of party hatreds, of political and social demoralisation, and— worst of all— a contempt for and enmity to the law.”

 

That certainly sounds like someone who would rightly be called a dog or a snake. Was it ironic luck that one of the few ugly references for any pope on the list matches up with Leo II? Certainly to be the “dog pope” or the “serpent pope” cannot be a good thing. If the matches between the list and reality are a matter of accident where close connections are favored by vague references, one would expect some of the negative vague references would land by chance on good popes. There do not seem to be any obvious mismatches of that kind, such as referring to John Paul II as “the snake.” That may be a striking example of how dead-on the matches are. While some references seem stretched to be sure; many are spot on; and not a single one is a clear mismatch.

This winter, we finally come to the telling point for this prophecy that has entertained great minds for hundreds of years. We come to the only named pope on the list whose life happens after the date of the list’s publication. If the next pope is not Peter the Roman, and the world as we have known it does not end, this prophecy will have finally run its course and will be proven wrong, at last. The Catholic Church certainly doesn’t want to see the prophecy proven right because what it has to say about this pope’s reign is a terror to the Vatican. Therefore, there is much incentive to avoid anyone who would bear the name Pope Peter II, for listen to what the Prophecy of Malachy says about Peter the Roman’s reign:

 

Who Will Be the Next Pope According to Saint Malachy?

It is almost as if the short references given for each pope reflect a rush to get to the end. Not only is the final pope named, while all the others after the date of publication are not, but the final one is the only pope on the list who gets two small paragraphs written about him. St. Malachy’s prophecy says,

In pÅ¿ecutione extrema S.R.E. Å¿edebit. 

Petrus Romanus, qui paſcet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus tranſactis ciuitas ſepticollis diruetur, & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit populum ſuum. Finis.

which tranlastes…

In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit.

Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.

The city of seven hills is Rome. There are seven prominent hills in the old city. An ancient roman coins shows Roma, the goddess of the city, resting on seven hills. Even the Book of Revelation in the Bible refers to a great city called “Babylon the Great” that will be destroyed at the end of time, and indicates that the city rests on seven hills. So, this prophecy envisions the complete line of popes going from Peter I to Peter II as the full lifeline of Rome from the time of Christ to the time of Rome’s destruction. And this last pope, it says, will preside over a period of great tribulation for his his people just before the destruction of Rome.

Critics of the Church have said that its final pope will be Satanic based on what they read in the Book of Revelation, but the Book of Revelation does not specifically say the AntiChrist of the end times is a pope, and nothing in this prophecy says this pope is Satanic. It’s one reasonable interpretation of the Book of Revelation, but it’s not the only one. Its one reasonable interpretation of this prophecy, too, as it COULD explain why the pope’s people live through a time of great tribulation (a word also used in the Book of Revelation to describe the end time); but the word “nourish” indicates he is good to his people, helping them through that time; and the Book of Revelation indicates that it is the true Saints of God during those last days will be “finished,” as in killed off, as martyrs of their faith. Others in the book are judged by Christ after that period of tribulation, and they face their own woes. The sheep in the pope in the Malachy prophecy may be suffering for their true beliefs, and their pope could be seen as nourishing them because he is good. Hard times happen to good people, too. So, this prophecy does not say who is the good and who is the bad.

No sooner have we got the Mayan Calendar with its conjectured end in 2012 behind us, and now we are living through the fly-by of a near-earth asteroid, than the penultimate pope resigns, and another doomsday prophecy comes to the time of its testing. Will it be fulfilled or, like the Mayan calendar, go by the wayside? Those who read this blog know that my own prediction for the Mayan calendar was a safe one — the world would not end. Safe because, if it did, you’d never be around to know I was wrong anyway!

I think it would be safe also to venture that the RC College of Cardinals probably does not want to foment end-time hysteria and Satanic conspiracies about their next pope. It is also safe to say that most of them are well aware of this prophecy. The church has been talking about it for hundreds of years, neither denying its authenticity nor vouching for it. One team of authors has written all about it in very popular book that presents the Satanic view of Peter the Roman ([amazon_link id=”0984825614″ target=”_blank” ]Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here[/amazon_link]). They even predicted that Benedict would resign this year, in spite of the fact that popes only resign about once in every four-hundred years. So, it’s pretty safe to say the College of Cardinals is fully aware of this prophecy, and there is every reason for them to resist appointing anyone that would either have as his given name or take as his chosen name the name “Peter” during its next papal conclave. This, of all conclaves, is not the one to elect someone with that name, having resisted the name Peter for almost 2,000 years. (And, as if all that doesn’t amp the pressure up on the cardinals, on the day Pope Benedict resigned, lightning struck the dome of Saint PETER’S Basilica. Sometimes a cardinal just can’t catch a break from the pressure.)

But I’m not going to play it so safe by predicting they won’t do that because they have many other forces causing them to want to do exactly that thing:

I find it intriguing that two of the leading contenders as successor for Benedict XVI are named “Peter.” It will be an especially interesting time ahead if they pick they pick the one of those two who is was born in the town of Romano. Whether he took the name Peter II or not, he would certainly be rightly known as Peter of Romano, the contemporary equivalent of the Latin Romanus, just because of his given name and birthplace. And I’m sure he greatly wants the job. The most favored choice among the two cardinals named Peter, however, is Peter Turkson of Ghana. Many were hoping he would be selected when Joseph Ratzinger was chosen to be pope and took the name Benedict XVI. They were hoping Cardinal Peter Turkson would be the first black pope, and there is good reason to think he will be chosen, in spite of how his name will give credence to the idea of a Satanic end-times Pope Peter II.

There is a third leading contender named Peter as well, a cardinal from Brazil, but I’m going to focus on the other two as being most interesting in light of this prophecy.

First, let’s consider one reason Pope Benedict XVI might have resigned. Of course, his health is the main reason, and I think his health and his long-expressed wish, even before he was elected pope, to retire mean we do not need any conspiracies to explain the peculiarity of his resignation.  That doesn’t mean, however, there are not other significant factors pressing upon Benedict that influenced his decision. Human choices often have many pros and cons one weighs carefully before making a decision like this, and it often takes more than one factor to tip the balance. The one contributing factor that I think might have the most influence in getting anyone to resign before he dies is the hope of having influence over the choice of his successor. There is nothing dark or conspiratorial about that. If one knows his health is rapidly declining, and he has lost the strength to do the job so that it is a great burden to him, AND he has a particular person in mind he would most like to see get the position, that would be good incentive to say, “I’d like to step aside so that my chosen can take the mantel from me and I can help make sure that happens and can enjoy seeing him do it.”

I see reasons to think Pope Benedict XVI would like to see Cardinal Peter Turkson get the job. Let us start with the pope’s own coat of arms, which is  unusual.

Pope Benedict XVI’s Coat of Arms and the Coat of Arms of Peter Turkson

On few things are images more symbolic or as personally representative than on a coat of arms. The symbols are carefully chosen and simplified to say, “This is who I am. This is my personal and professional logo.” Among the roughly one-hundred coats of arms designed for popes, Benedict XVI’s is the only one to feature a human being. The left side of his shield bears the head of a black man wearing a crown. Many have asked questions about why this unusual charge, as such images on a shield are called, is there. Parts of Benedict XVI’s coat of arms are typical to papal coats of arms. At the crest is the papal crown. On all other coats of arms, the papal tiara is used, but Benedict XVI chose the mitre of the Bishop of Rome. Behind the shield one always finds the “Keys of Heaven,” spoken of in the Book of Revelation and understood by Catholics as given from Christ to Peter as the symbol of papal authority. It is the shield in the coat of arms that represents the individual most of all.

The Black man with the crown is the “Moor of Freising” from the coat of arms of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising where Joseph Ratzinger was archbishop sometime prior to becoming pope. The bear on the right represents the patron saint of Munich and Freising. So, these may only be there to connect Benedict XVI to his former career path and homeland. The pope’s own written comments on the subject indicate he doesn’t know where the image came from originally, but apparently he liked it. In his 1998 book Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, he wrote, “For me, [the African king] is an expression of the universality of the Church.”

If that universality is so central to him as a person that he wanted it on his coat of arms, he may want to see that universality expressed more concretely in the Church via the election of a black pope. He may want to “see that through,” so to speak. Since the “Moor’s head” has been on his own coat of arms during two different ministerial posts, he has undoubtedly seen it a lot and thought about what it means to him a lot. In fact, it was so important to him that, on his coat of arms as cardinal, he had it placed twice.

 

 

There is a strangely interesting tie between this prophecy of the pope in the last days of tribulation for the church and this image of a black king with bright red lips and a quatrain from Nostradamus. (I’m not big on Nostradamus, but some may find this interesting.)

 

Through adverse Mars [Roman god of war] will the monarchy be tried
Of the great fisherman [Jesus Christ] in ruinous trouble [times of tribulation]:
The young red black one will seize the hierarchy,
The traitors will act on a day of drizzle.

 

Peter Turkson is considered very young as papal candidates go, and “the monarchy of the great fisherman” would be the kingdom of Christ, seen by Catholics as the Roman Catholic Church. To completely seize the hierarchy of that kingdom, one must become pope, for it is the pope who holds the keys of heaven, also called the “keys of the kingdom” or “key of David.” These will be dark days, according the Nostradamus prophecy, if it applies here — dark  like drizzling days of rain. Sounds like the times described for Peter the Roman in St. Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes. Of course, with Nostradamus’s quantrains, there is no clear way to tie them to any one time. Whereas, the Prophecy of Saint Malachy’s list of popes clearly connects each pope in chronological order from the names of popes whose exact dates of reign are well known.

Now, consider the coat of arms of Cardinal Peter Turkson, which I’ve placed at the beginning of this article. It prominently features the alpha-omega symbol used in the Book of Revelation to signify the first and the last. Christ uses the term at the same point in the Revelation of Jesus Christ where he speaks of the Key of David, stating that he, Christ, is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Does Peter Turkson see himself as the last Peter, making “Peter” the name of the first and the last popes? Of course, he may only have the symbol there to represent Christ. The castle to the right, however, certainly indicates he has his eyes on the kingdom. It stands in the background as if still on Peter’s horizon. As a coat of arms goes, Peter Turkson’s is also quite intricate, perhaps indicative of a man of many ambitions.

Typically, when cardinals are asked if they will be the next pope, they blush disingenuously (perhaps) as if that could never happen or pretend they have no thoughts of attaining that most exalted of Catholic positions, lest they seem conceited and lose the position by looking too eager to have it. That, at least, is how it has appeared to me when I’ve seen them interviewed. Very uncharacteristic of cardinals, Peter Turkson, when asked the same question, speaks almost as if it is a feit accompli:

 

It would signal a lot of [personal] change. I have been an archbishop, which involved a certain amount of leadership, and now having to do this on a world level, the dimensions expand almost infinitely. (The Week)

 

He doesn’t say, “If I had to do that on a world level, the dimensions WOULD expand almost infinitely.” And there is none of the usual, “Oh, that is not likely” or “I’m not giving any thought to that. Described as one of Africa’s most energetic church leaders, it sounds like he’s ready to hit the ground running.

There are a couple of things a passing pope does to influence who will be successor after his death. One is to stack the college of cardinals with the kind of people whom the pope believes are most likely to choose a leader for the church that will follow the path the pope has set. The other is to advance those cardinals he’d most like to see get the position of pope into the top slots. Pope Benedict XVI has made certain that Cardinal Peter Turkson is in a top slot in Rome. He appointed him President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. This is one of the church’s most international bodies, established during the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict also appointed him as a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith near and dear to Benedict’s heart. Once known as the Universal (Catholic) Inquisition, this is the body that Benedict, himself, led immediately prior to becoming pope. This office was originally run by popes, as the highest guardian of truth in the RCC.

Consider, too, that in a world where Islamic Fundamentalism is the chief source of terror, this pope might have felt the Church and the world need a pope from Africa where Islam is particularly strong and a pope of color to downplay the immediate assumption in Muslims of many nations that the pope is just speaking from a largely white European interest.

As a side note while talking about Cardinal Turkson, those who think of the last pope as being the Antichrist and as a person who will establish a “one-world economy” will find Peter Turkson particulary interesting. His major work since the economic crash in 2008 has been to reform the international monetary system through the establishment of a global banking authority. (I have to have an economic tie-in since this is a blog about economics, and there it is.)

 

Who is the Dark Horse in the Race to be Peter the Roman?

The dark horse in the race for the role of Peter II is not the Black man. Bookies are making Peter Turkson the odds-on favorite of all the candidates. The dark horse is the whitest man — Cardinal Tarcisio Pietro Evasio Bertone. He is considered one of the other most likely candidates because Benedict promoted him in 2006 to be the Cardinal Secretary of State, another position close to the pope and about as international as it gets. He is the Peter (Pietro) who hales from Romano Canavese in Turin, Italy, home of the famous shroud. In 2007 Benedict appointed Cardinal Bertone Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church (Chamberlain). As such, his primary duty is administration of the entire Roman Catholic Church during the vacancy of the Holy See — kind of like vice president.

Cardinal Bertone, however, has placed himself in controversy because of his stance on the prophecies of Fatima. He has written a book titled [amazon_link id=”B00378L4T8″ target=”_blank” ]The Last Secret of Fatima[/amazon_link]. The controversy doesn’t distance him from Benedict, though, for the pope wrote the introduction to Bertone’s book and a good share of the content. The book includes some of Benedict’s commentary on the Third (Last) Secret of Fatima as well, written when he headed the ancient office of the Inquisition.

Catholic Attorney Christopher Ferrara wrote a book titled [amazon_link id=”B002HQGFJ0″ target=”_blank” ]The Secret Still Hidden[/amazon_link] in which he accuses Bertone of engaging in systematic deception in corroboration with Pope Benedict XVI to cover the truth about the Third Secret of Fatima, which Pope John Paul II believed predicted his assassination.  Ferrara, along with many others, believes that the Third Secret of Fatima was a one-page document containing the words of Lucia Santos and predicting an imminent apocalypse during a time of apostasy in the Roman Catholic Church that would be associated with the final pope. (With this story, everywhere you look, the story gets richer with intrigue that that keeps pointing to that final pope in an age of tribulation.)

Cardinal Bertone has also been the main target of the Vatican leaks scandal, which he has said comes from “a malicious will to produce division” among those closest to Pope Benedict XVI. (Sounds a little like a build-up could be happening of those “traitors who will act on a day of drizzle” in Nostradamus’s quatrain? Perhaps a constant drizzle of leaks?)

Now that so many controversies are surrounding the Roman Catholic Church at the same time that Benedict is resigning, it may be that the cardinals will decide they need to put the church’s hopes for a black pope off one more time and install Secretary of State Bertone, as a man who knows his way around church politics and public controversy. It could be the need for a diplomat will outweigh the desire for a first black pope and that Cardinal Tarcisio Pietro Evasio Bertone will become the pope who guides his flock through the public persecutions associated with many scandals.

 

The Last Secret of Fatima

According to the official Roman Catholic line, there were three secrets prophesied at Fatima, two of which were released in 1941, but one of which was long held close by the pope. The first two were about hell and World Wars I and II. (The vision of Mary came to Lucia Santos and her cousins in 1917, before the end of WWI.) Lucia sealed the third vision in an envelope labled not to be opened until 1960, when she said it would be better understood. It was, however, kept secret until released by Pope John Paul II in 2000. By that time suspicion about the secrecy had grown to where many did not believe that John Paul II released the entire secret because what he released didn’t seem to be a great apocalypse worth keeping from the world. The Vatican continues to assert that what was released was the full-meal deal. To me, it does speak of apocalypse. Those who think otherwise, are, I think, reading it too literally.

The First Secret was just an image of hell.

The Second Secret revealed to the girls in 1917 was that another war like World War I would break out during the reign of Pope Pius XI, which is when World War II broke out. As with so many of these prophecies, the problem here is that the Secret that was envisioned in 1917 was not revealed by Lucia until 1941, long after Word War II had already begun. So, anybody could be accurate with that claim.

However, part of the Second Secret was about Russia becoming anti-Christian and persecuting Christians and destroying nations. The anti-Christian side of Russia began with Communism’s take over in 1917, the same year the prophecies were received by the girls. So, again, a no-brainer to predict. The destruction of nations, however, did not really develop steam until after WWII. And what had not been seen at all at that time was the final words of the Second Secret, which said that Russia would turn around and become open to Christianity again in a time of peace after this destruction of nations, which, of course, happened under Gorbachev’s period of Glasnost much later. The Holy Father, it also said, will have much to suffer during that time. Indeed, John Paul II did, for that is the period in which he was shot in addition to all the political controversy and challenges he created for Russia in trying to bring about the end of the Soviet Union’s annihilation and assumption of nations, particularly in his homeland of Poland.

The text of the Third Secret, according to the Vatican, was finally published on 26 June 2000:

J.M.J.

The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Iria-Fátima, on 13 May 1917.

I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.

After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.

 

The problem with interpreting this as being about the assassination attempt on John Paul II is that he did not die, and he was not shot by soldiers. None other than Pope Benedict XVI wrote a commentary (while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger) to go with the release:

 

A careful reading of the text of the so-called third ‘secret’ of Fatima … will probably prove disappointing or surprising after all the speculation it has stirred. No great mystery is revealed; nor is the future unveiled.

 

Since he wrote this before he was pope and since it is not specifically about doctrine, his view of the prophecy would not be regarded as infallible even by Catholics. It is one man’s studied opinion, which continued,

 

The purpose of the vision is not to show a film of an irrevocably fixed future. Its meaning is exactly the opposite: it is meant to mobilize the forces of change in the right direction. Therefore we must totally discount fatalistic explanations of the “secret”, such as, for example, the claim that the would-be assassin of 13 May 1981 was merely an instrument of the divine plan guided by Providence and could not therefore have acted freely, or other similar ideas in circulation. Rather, the vision speaks of dangers and how we might be saved from them.

 

Be that as it may, those who do not take prophesy so literally, see it as a vision, symbolizing a time of great tribulation for the Roman Catholic Church, during which the pope will climb a great figurative mountain (symbolizing obstacles or troubles). He passing the bodies of his martyred flock in a great city that has been destroyed. Hmm. Maybe those who thought it didn’t sound apocalyptic failed to ask, “What ruined city?” A mountain? Maybe one of seven mountains? Religious people dying left and right in a ruined city? Sounds a lot like that quatrain about traitors acting against the Kingdom of the Great Fisherman during a time of great tribulation … in this case their acts create a constant drizzle of blood. The pope praying over the departing souls of his flock sounds a lot like  …

 

Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people.

 

The end.

 

[amazon_enhanced asin=”1586177044″ /][amazon_enhanced asin=”B00BHKHLAY” /][amazon_enhanced asin=”0385531893″ /][amazon_enhanced asin=”0984825614″ /][amazon_enhanced asin=”1482568926″ /][amazon_enhanced asin=”1482618869″ /]