RaidersNewsNetwork
Exclusive
PETRUS ROMANUS (Pt 2)
The False Prophet And
The Antichrist Are Here
Posted: January 17, 2012
11:00 am Eastern
 The
Good News and the Bad News
After
studying the history of the prophecy of the popes and the
surrounding scholarly literature, we have some good news and
some bad news. What’s that? You want the bad news first?
Sure, no problem, let’s get this unpleasantness out of the
way.
The
bad news is that part of the prophecy may be a forgery which
was fabricated around 1590. We say forgery meaning that over
half of the prophecies, the first seventy or so predictions,
are vaticinia
ex eventu (prophecy from the event). It seems someone irrevocably
altered the original medieval document and the original is
either hidden away or lost to history. The first known
publication of the “Malachy Prophecy of the Popes” was
in Arnold de Wion’s massive eighteen-hundred-page volume
entitled Lignum Vitae (Tree
of Life), which was published in 1595. That text will be
presented and examined below. Even though we have good
reason to believe a much older document is still visible, we
must accept that the earliest instance of the prophecy
surfaced nearly four hundred years after
its alleged origin in 1139. Despite the legend which pleads
it was locked away in a musty Vatican vault those four
hundred years, the skeptics still have valid points. Even
so, it very well could be the work of Saint Malachy coarsely
corrupted by a forger. Of course, this would fall neatly in
line with the Roman Catholic practice demonstrated by the Donation
of Constantine and Pseudo–Isidorian
Decretals. Alternatively, some have suggested it
was partially the work of Nostradamus cleverly disguised to
protect his identity. While the identity of the actual
prophet remains unclear, the author was a prophet whether he
knew or not.
The exciting news is that the prophecy of
the popes, although tainted, is still a genuine prophecy.
Despite the superficial insincerity detectable in the first
section of “prophecies,” the post publication
predictions show astonishing fulfillments. We have no
critical analysis to explain away the sometimes
jaw-dropping, post-1595 fulfillments. Indeed, we are
currently at 111 out of 112 and believers argue they seem to
have increased in precision over time. However, we shall
deal with bad news first. As we shall demonstrate, the
Vatican’s penchant for propaganda is undisputed in the
record of history. In Rome’s tradition of the altering
ancient documents for political expediency, the prophecy of
the popes was probably used as propaganda for Cardinal
Girolamo Simoncelli papal ambitions. Nevertheless, it was a
ploy which did not work as Simoncelli lost to Gregory XIV,
Innocent IX, and Clement VIII. While textual evidence for
this conspiracy is provided, we suggest the reader remain
objective and patient in lieu of the more astounding
findings.
Historically, the prophecy has enjoyed mixed
acceptance. Four hundred years ago, with so many more popes
to go, it was a mere novelty. However, as time runs short,
the forecast understandably becomes more urgent and the
criticism more caustic. Accordingly, beginning in the
nineteenth century, the Jesuits, save one, have been
outspokenly critical. As a result, the most recent edition
of the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that the prophecy is a
late sixteenth century forgery, while the older 1911 edition
allows, “it is not conclusive if we adopt Cucherat’s
theory that they were hidden in the Archives during those
four hundred years.”[i]
He refers to the nineteenth-century author, Abbé Cucherat,
who is one of the few who argued for the authenticity of the
prophecy in his book, Revue du monde catholique,
published in 1871. We will examine it and other
positive assessments in the next chapter. Even so, most
scholars point out that Malachy’s biographer and dear
friend, St. Bernard, makes no mention of the papal prophecy
in Life of St. Malachy of Armagh.[ii]
This argument from silence is ubiquitous in the literature.
Modern academic sources are also not very
charitable. The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church bluntly states,
“The so-called Prophecies of Malachy, which are contained
in a document apparently composed in 1590, have no
connection with St. Malachy except their erroneous
attribution to him.”[iii]
Jesuit scholarship presents a united front. M.J.
O’Brien’s An Historical and Critical Account of the So-Called Prophecy of St.
Malachy Regarding the Succession of Popes is a thorough
attempt at debunking. Herbert Thurston, another Jesuit, was
a prolific late nineteenth-century critic. He argues that
“not one scrap of evidence has ever been adduced to show
that St. Malachy’s prophecy about the Popes had been
quoted, or even heard of, before it was published by Wion in
1595.”[iv]
This is not necessarily the case as we will discuss a
possible reference to the prophecy published by Nicholas
Sanders in 1571. Even so, most scholars bifurcate the list
of 112 Latin phrases at number 76, due to the circumstances
surrounding its publication. In so doing, two layers of
context are established in the prophecy. This approach is
adapted from biblical scholarship.
Exegesis in biblical studies is always an
attempt to derive the original author’s intention for his
original reader and that is the methodology undertaken here.
For instance, when scholars study the New Testament Gospels,
they take into account layers of context. There is the
context in which Jesus is interacting in the original
historical setting and then there is a layer of context in
which the author of the gospel is presenting his account to
a later audience. Careful study reveals that each evangelist
author, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, frames the events of
Jesus’ life in unique ways for their own theological and
evangelistic purposes. The underlying context of Jesus can
be assimilated by studying first-century Judaism in Israel.
We study the Pharisees to understand Jesus’ criticism of
their traditions. In the same way, the upper level, the
author’s context, can be discerned by how he presents
Jesus. Still, the order in which a certain account is
presented in a Gospel is often unique. This requires the
careful student to “think vertically” for potential
significance.
You might ask, “Is the author making a
statement by where he places this parable?” The context of
the evangelist author speaks to why and how he selected,
arranged, and adapted the historical material about Jesus.
Additionally, the scholar must “think horizontally”
meaning to read each pericope with awareness of the
parallels in other Gospels.[v]
While each of the four accounts preserves actual historical
data, they are not always chronologically identical because
of the secondary layer of context pertaining to the unique
purpose of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. This methodology
unveils new insights into the prophecy of the popes as well.
At first glance, there appear to be at least
two levels of historical context, that of the original
author and then that of the publisher. We will examine the
possibility of even deeper contextual layers in the next
chapter but for now we might accept the Malachy legend or
perhaps a pseudepigrapher as the lower contextual level. To
determine the upper level, the context of the
publisher/commentator, we discover that is has been
suggested that a papal emissary, Nicholas Sanders
(1530–1581), may have brought an original Celtic version
of the prophecy to Rome during the reign of Pope Pius V
(1566–72).[vi]
While he may have obliquely referred to the prophecy in a
book published in 1571, it has also been suggested that the
first specific mention of the prophecy was in a handwritten
account by Don Alphonsus Ciacconus, a Spanish Dominican
scholar in Rome, in the year 1590.[vii]
At the time, Ciacconus was a recognized expert on ancient
Greco-Roman paleography and ancient manuscripts, as well as
the history of the papacy. Apparently the publisher, Dom
Wion, had received the text from someone and turned to
Ciacconus for his opinion. Ciacconus ostensibly
authenticated the manuscript. We cannot know exactly when it
was altered but the textual and circumstantial evidence
points to the original manuscript being tampered with by
1589–1590, in time to promote a particular papabile. In
the meantime (1590–1595), it circulated surreptitiously
amongst the Cardinals creating quite a stir. Wion published
it with the previous popes named and interpretations of the
fulfillments added in 1595.
Thus, we have discerned two layers of
context:
·
Lower
level of historical context: An original document
possibly by St. Malachy or a pseudepigrapher circa 1139
–1571.
·
Upper
level of historical context: Alterations imposed and
interpretations added circa 1571–1595.
In examining the scans of the original 1595
Latin text, even with no comprehension of Latin, one can
note that that explanations of the mottos with papal names
cease at time of publication. Wion claimed that Ciacconus
was responsible for the interpretations but this has been
called into serious question by O’Brien, who suggests it
was someone else who simply copied from Onuphrius Panvinius’
short history of the Popes, Epitome Romanorum Pontijicum
usque ad Paulum IV,
printed in Venice in 1557. He bases this on the case that
the interpretations presented by Wion match Panvinius’
work but disagree with Ciacconus’ own book about the
popes, Viltae et res Gesltae Romanorum Ponlificum el
Cardinalium,
printed in 1601. While Ciacconius’ work
resembles Panvinius’, it disagrees in important areas that
Ciacconius made explicit. O’Brien ponders this issue:
“Now, if Ciacconius was the interpreter of the prophecies,
as Wion asserts, Ciacconius must be pitching into himself,
for we find reproduced in Wion’s book the errors of which
he complains. Who then is the interpreter? Is it Panvinius?
Or may not the prophecy as well as the explanation have come
from the same hand? May not Wion have been merely duped
(which could have been easily done considering his
character); and may he not in good faith have given the
prophecy as that of the great St. Malachy?”[viii]
Whoever the interpreter was, the last
comment in Lignum Vitae referred to Urban VII who died in 1590 and the last
papal name listed was Clement VIII who took office in 1592
just prior to the prophecy’s 1595 publication. In reading
the Latin text, underneath “Crux
Romulea…Clemens VIII,” the last page simply lists
the remaining mottos in three columns ending with the famous
apocalyptic codex centered on Petrus
Romanus and the destruction of Mystery Babylon
headquartered on Vatican Hill in the seven-hilled city.
Here is the original 1595 Latin text from Lignum Vitae:
The second paragraph above reads: “Three Epistles of
St. Bernard addressed to St. Malachy are still extant (viz.,
313, 316, and 317). Malachy himself is reported to have been
the author of some little tractates, none of which I have
seen up to the present time, except a certain prophecy of
his concerning the Sovereign Pontiffs. This, as it is short,
and so far as we
know,
has never before been printed, is inserted here, seeing that
many people have asked for it.”
 [ix]
The bottom two lines by Wion read, “What
has been added to the popes is not the work of Malachy, but
of Father Alphonsus Giacon, of the Order of Preachers, the
interpreter of this prophecy.” This may seem confusing in
light of the above discussion about Ciacconius. Gaicon is
also Chacon or Ciacconius because he was from Spain, his
original name, Alphonso Chacon, was Italianized to preserve
the soft Spanish sound of “ch” in his name into
Ciacconius or alternately as Wion has it “Giacon.” But
this last line reveals that the original prophecy was a mere
string of obscure Latin phrases, and that Giacon, Ciacconius,
added each pope’s name and explained how the prophecy
applied to him. The comments end with to Urban VII who died
in 1590 and the last papal name listed is Clement VIII.
Since the evidence points to the prophecy appearing in
1589–90, we observe the next prophecy after Urban was “ex
antiquitate Urbis” which translates to “from the old
city” and no interpretation is offered. This is the
critical point where scholars detect an attempt to influence
the conclave when Gregory XIIII was opposed by one Girolamo
Simoncelli.
As
a representative example of scholarly detective work, Louis
Moreri, a native of Provence born in 1643 and doctor of
theology, is chosen. He was the author of the acclaimed Dictionnaire
Historique. As his life’s work, the dictionary
contains such a wide variety of information it is considered
to be an early forerunner of the modern encyclopedia. In the
1759 edition, we read:
“They
attribute to him [Malachy] a prophecy concerning the popes
from Celestine II. To the end of the world, but the
learned know that this prophecy was forged, during the
conclave of 1590, by the partisans of Cardinal Simoncelli,
who was designated by these words: ‘De anlzguilale Urbis,’
because he was of Orvieto; in Latin, ‘Urbs vetus.’”[x]
The argument “from the old city” would
arguably predict Girolamo Simoncelli who was at that time
the Cardinal of Orvieto which also means “old city.” This is the dominant
opinion of Malachy scholars. The scholars are right; it does
seem a little too perfect. It seems that the conspirators
hoped to rig the papal conclave by encouraging the voters to
fall in step with the much venerated Saint Malachy. The
clever ruse failed when Simoncelli lost to Gregory XIV,
albeit Gregory only lived a year to be followed by Innocent
IX who similarly only lived a brief term dying in 1591.
Because popes had a short life expectancy in those days,
Simoncelli was a viable candidate in the conclaves in
September and October–December 1590, and those in 1591 and
1592. Altogether, he missed out on seven opportunities
including the earlier conclaves of April and May 1555, 1559,
and 1565–66. Even so, Simoncelli died February 24, 1605
never winning the pontificate. While the trail of the
conspiracy seems evident, the coherence of the frustrated
papbile’s “old city” Cardinalate is
not the most compelling reason we hold that it was tampered
with.
To demonstrate why we can confidently
discern that at least some of the pre-1590 mottos were
written after the fact I will use an analogy from
counter-cult apologetics, specifically in regard to
Mormonism. Joseph Smith claimed that he miraculously
translated the book of Mormon directly from gold plates
which were written by a divine hand. Thus, it was a
one-generation translation from plates to Smith’s
manuscript. Accordingly, one would then expect the book of
Mormon to be sacred scripture of the most direct and pure
translation. The insurmountable obstacle for the veracity of
the book of Mormon is demonstrated by the fact that when the
book of Mormon references passages from the Hebrew Bible, it
follows the translated text of the King James Bible a little
too perfectly. For instance, where the King James italicized words, the Book of Mormon follows suit. Obviously, this
proves that Smith copied his references from a King James
Bible and not more ancient source material like the
mythological golden plates. We have a similar line of
evidence with the prophecy of the popes.
Because
we are examining the upper level of context from the time of
publisher, specifically the interpretations offered prior to
1590, we can discern that they were manipulated in line with
what was available at the time. Books were hard to come by.
The prophecy follows the descriptions and details found in a
work on the history of the popes by Onuphrius Panvinius: Epitome
Romanorum Pontijicum usque ad Paulum IV,
printed in Venice in 1557. The prophecy transparently
follows this reference work. O’Brien argued, “Any person
who opens this work and compares the account of the popes in
it from Celestine II to Paul IV, with the corresponding part
of the ‘Prophecy of St. Malachy’ will come to the
conclusion that the writer of the latter, if not Panvinius
himself, must have been someone who followed Panvinius’
account rather too closely.”[xi]
This is more than just an assertion; his evidence is
detailed and specific:
In
Panvinius’s Epitome, the popes’ armorial
bearings are given, but not in every case. When the arms
are given, we usually find that they figure in the
prophecy, when not given, the prophecy is a play upon or a
description of the pope’s name, country, family, or
title, when cardinal. Moreover, we find in Panvinius the
very same antipopes as given in the prophecy. Even when
the pope’s family-name, armorial bearings or cardinalic
title is wrongly given by Panvinius, we find the forger of
the prophecy to perfectly chime in with him.[xii]
In
other words, it matches too perfectly because, even in the
few places where Panvinius’ papal history makes mistakes,
the interpretations of the prophecy follow those errors.
This only makes sense if someone was using Panvinius’ book
or if it were Panvinius himself. If we allow that they were
following Rome’s penchant for altering an authentic
ancient document to meet their purposes, then we have two
layers of context. The prophecy itself (the lower, an older
level of historical context) seems to have been manipulated
to match the interpretation (the upper, the late
sixteenth-century level). O’Brien’s parting shot is a
zinger:
According
to Wion, Malachy’s prophecy was a mere string of
meaningless Latin phrases. How did the supposed
interpreter know with what pope to commence? How was he
persuaded to take up the antipopes?[xiii]
While O’Brien’s incredulity is clear,
the answer to the first question is trivial. As the legend
goes, Malachy was summoned to Rome in 1139 by Pope Innocent
II (r. 1130–43). Thus, the prophecy commenced with the
Pope following Innocent II who was Celestine II (r.
1143–44). The second quandary concerning antipopes is much
more problematic. For instance, in the Malachy prophecy,
predictions 6: Octavius (“Victor IV”) (1159–1164); 7:
Pascal III (1165–1168); 8: Callistus III (1168–1177) are
antipopes. Antipopes are alternative popes elected in
opposition to a standing pope during various schisms and
controversies. The problem is that those antipopes listed
opposed Alexander III (1159–81) but in reality there was
another antipope Innocent III
(1178–1180) who is not included in prophecy.[xiv]
What makes this revealing is this is exactly the same way Panvinius
recorded it. Panvinius neglected antipope Innocent III as
well.
This state of affairs points to the fact
that someone redacted the pre-1590 prophecies to conform to
Panvinius’ book. In light of their goal, it makes perfect
sense. Panvinius’ work was the authoritative source at the
time and likely the only one most people had access to. By
manipulating all of the pre-1590 mottos to have obvious
fulfillments that any semi-studious Cardinal could verify,
they launched an ingenious conspiracy to promote papabile
Simoncelli as the candidate of divine destiny. Because the
lower level of historical context, the original text, was
just a series of nebulous Latin phrases, how could someone
like the alleged interpreter Ciacconus or the publisher,
Wion (who discovered the list over four hundred years after
their composition), know to include these and only these
specific antipopes? It is just not plausible. If the
antipopes are not included, the whole list gets thrown out
of sync. Of course, the original text left no such
instructions. Even so, it
is in sync…but not with actual history; rather, with
Panvinius’ book!
In summary, there is ample evidence pointing
to a sixteenth-century pseudepigrapher who referenced
Panvinius’ book for all of the prophecies up until Paul IV
in 1559 (when Panvinius’ book ends). The five popes
between him and Urban VII (Pius IV, Pius V, Gregory XIII,
and Sixtus V) would in recent memory and easy for anyone to
describe. It is our belief that whoever perpetrated the ruse
for the 1590 conclave used an actual prophetic document and
modified all of the entries prior to coincide with the
principle text on Pontifical history of that time. He then
altered the next prophecy on the list “of the old city”
to promote Girolamo Simoncelli who was the Cardinal of
Orvieto (Latin urbs
vetus = “old city”) at the 1590 conclave. While this
evidence supports the conspiracy to promote Simoncelli, what
it does not explain is what has happened over the last four
hundred years since Wion’s publication.
In
the next entry we shall look at: Acrostics,
Anagrams, and a Real-Life Conspiracy Code?
[iii]
F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev.
(Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1029.
[iv]
Herbert Thurston, “Prophecies of the Future Popes,” The
Month: A Catholic Magazine vol. XCIII
(Jan.–June 1899), 565.
[v]
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the
Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 135.
[vi]
René Thibaut, La
Mystérieuse Prophétie des Papes (Paris: J. Vrin,
1951), 23.
[viii]
M. J. O’Brien, An
Historical and Critical Account, 27.
[x]
M.J. O’Brien, An
Historical and Critical Account,
97–98.
|
