Saint Malachy, Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world, the last five Popes

WorkofGod.org ^ | n/a | WorkofGod

[Salvation]

Saint Malachy 
Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world.

Note: The Church does not lean on private revelation for doctrinal matters, but it does not oppose to the faithful obtaining benefit from them so long as they don't go against our faith.  

This analysis focuses on the last five Popes in the context of the prophecies of Saint Malachy.

+ + +  

Saint Malachy was born in Amagh Ireland in 1094, he lived a religious life as a monk, then he was ordained priest and finally Bishop. He was canonized in 1199 by Pope Clement III. His biography was compiled by Saint Bernard, a contemporaneous saint.

He made a pilgrimage to Rome and during the end of the year 1139 and the beginning of 1140 had a series of visions about 112 Popes from Celestine III, elected Pontiff in 1130 until the last Pope who is described in his list as Peter Romanus.

After the last Roman Pontiff, Saint Malachy predicts the end of the world.

The Benedictine historian Arnold Wion was the first person to mention these prophecies in his book Lignum Vitae, published in 1559.

These prophecies are short, but they have demonstrated to be very accurate, even though in the time of their publication they caused much controversy as some claimed that they were falsified.

The book of prophecies of Saint Malachy was published originally in 1969 by Colin Smythe Ltd. in England, with the title "Prophecies of St. Malachy and St. Columbkille."

Tan Books published the book in the United States in 1973 with the title "Prophecies of Saint Malachy" its author is Peter Bander.

The foreword reads like this:

In publishing THE PROPHECIES OF SAINT MALACHY, Colin Smythe Limited have produced an instructive and entertaining book.

There is great deal of instant information in Peter Bander's nutshell biographical accounts of the popes who occupied the Roman See since the year 1143 to our present time - and indeed of the antipopes as well. The remarkable way in which the visions St Malachy is alleged to have had, are shown to apply to the succesive individual popes is most amusing. Is it not the case to repeat: "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"? (If it is not true, it is well rhymed)

Whatever one may think of the genuineness of the prophecies attributed to Saint Malachy, here is a fascinating study which provides the curious reader with much profit and pleasure.

Archbishop H.E. Cardinale
Apostolic Nuncio to Belgium and Luxemburg, until recently Apostolic Delegate to Great Britain.

It is curious to think that whenever there is a Conclave, the Cardinals read these prophecies of the saint, and even though they are not ecclesiastic authority they give an idea of what has happen and of what is to occur.

Prophecies of Saint Malachy

This study is an analysis based on private revelation and observations of what is taking place now. It is not to be taken as an official position of the Church. It is good to remind us of the words of the Lord: "stay awake."

The last five popes are mentioned with the following titles: 
Flos Florum
De medietate Lunae
De Labore Solis
Gloria Olivae
Petrus Romanus

---

Flos Florum - Flower of flowers

Pope Paul VI 
Pontiff from 1963 to 1978. 

Giovanni Battista Montini. In his coat of arms there are three "fleurs de lis"

With great success he concluded Vatican Council II, he made rigorous reforms to the Roman Curia, he traveled the five continents and was called peregrine pope .  In 1965 he was well received and accepted at his address to the UN. Author of the encyclicals opulorum progressio (1967), Humanae vitae July 24, 1968. He died in August 6, 1978, feast of the Transfiguration.

De medietate Lunae - Of the half moon

Papa Juan Pablo I ' Abino Luciani
Pontiff for 33 days.

He was born on 17 of October 1912 in Forno di Canale, called now Canale de Agordo, he was baptized the same day by his midwife, for fear of his death, he was later baptized by a priest.

After a life dedicated to the Church as a priest, he was elected Pope during the second day of the Conclave in August 26, 1978. He died of cardiac attack in September 28 1978, thirty three days after the beginning of his papacy.

"De la media luna" Of the half moon is a very accurate description regarding his beginning and also his short pontificate. Even his name Abino Luciani means white light, it has been mentioned that the most important events of his life took place in dates of half moon.

De Labore Solis - From the toil of the sun - or - Of the eclipse of the sun.

Pope  John Paul II 
Pontiff from 1978 to 2005

This description fits John Paul II perfectly, since he emerged as a especial light for the Catholic Church, promoting the faith from all angles. The works of John Paul II were truly the work of God, the labor of the sun.

The second meaning of "De labore solis" is a solar eclipse, in which the sun seems to struggle in order to give its light. Perhaps the fact that John Paul II, was a very Marian Pope who had a special devotion to the Virgin Mary, the woman clothed with the sun that appears in the Apocalypse, suggests that the sun (Our Lord) has been temporarily eclipsed by the moon (Our Lady). 

John Paul II was a great humanist and peacemaker, a traveler Pope, proclaimer of the gospel in more than 130 countries throughout the world, author of many apostolic letters, encyclicals and books. Canonizer of more saints in his pontificate than any other Pope in all history. During his last years as Pope he concluded his pontificate proclaiming the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary and the Eucharist.

Year 1997. God the Son
Year 1998. God the Holy Spirit
Year 1999. God the Father
Year 2000 
24 December 1999 - 6 January 2001Great Jubilee. 

Year 2002-2003. Year of the Holy Rosary, institution of the Luminous mysteries.16 October 2002 - 31 October 2003
Year 2005. The Holy Eucharist. 17 October 2004 - 29 October 2005

Gloria Olivae - The Glory of the olive

Benedict XVI 
Joseph Ratzinger
Starts Pontificate in April 2005

He chose his name in honor of Saint Benedict, author of the very strict rule of the Benedictines.

His motto is "Co-worker of the Truth."

He has been known even before becoming Pope as a conservative man, ready to defend the Catholic principles that represent the truth of the teachings of Christ.

Our new Pontiff is covered under the sign of the olive according to the prophecies of St. Malachy

The branches of the olive were symbols of peace and victory for Noah after the flood. Throughout history, we know that olive branches have made crowns for kings and athletes as symbols of power and glory. The olive tree thrives in silent areas, such as the garden of olives where Jesus suffered his agony before being arrested by the soldiers.

Olive oil has anointed kings, saints, popes and in a especial way all Christians.

The leaves and the oil of the olive tree have medicinal properties, derived from the oleic acid which is an anti cancer component. The good kitchen cannot exist without olive oil. The best paints have olive oil base, to give them luster and to increase their durability.

The olive is a symbol of peace, abundance, glory and purification.

The Church has been through a period of light, and now is the the time to celebrate and pick up the fruits of the previous pontificate of John Paul. It is quite possible that they will bring many conversions and an increase in the faith especially from the young people.

With the purifying properties of the olive, our new Pontiff comes to challenge error.  He presents himself exposing the truth of our faith with a special courage, he is prepared to heal the cancer of heresy, the infection of apostasy and to promote the health of our Catholic faith.

According to the prophecies of Saint Malachy, Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope before the last one, named "Gloria Olivae" which means the glory of the olive, it is to be a time of glory and rejoicing for the true Church.   

Due to the straightforwardness of our new Pontiff, great opposition is expected, but the Spirit of God is with him and we are in good hands.

Petrus Romanus - Peter Roman

The apostle Peter was the first Pope of the Church, elected directly by our Lord Jesus Christ:

You are Peter, the rock. On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loose in Heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Peter, the same as Christ, drank of the same chalice of suffering when he died as a martyr.

The body of Christ, the Church represents our Lord Jesus Christ.

The last two pontiffs will have to face the fury of the enemy who will make a violent persecution to Christianity. Faithful as Peter, the last Pontiff will take care of his flock in the midst of the attacks of the enemy. 

2 Thessalonians 3-4 speaks of the apostasy of the last times before the second coming of Christ, when evil will be defying everything that is sacred. The man of iniquity, or the anti-Christ will take his seat in the temple of God. 

This does not necessarily means the embodiment of the devil but if could mean the evil that is being accepted broadly when human beings who are temples of the spirit of God are being desecrated by their own wickedness. 

Just as the Lord lived, taught us, gave us spiritual food and saved us by his death on the cross, the Church being the mystical body of Christ has a similar task. Therefore the church is to be persecuted, insulted and finally crucified, in preparation for the coming of the Lord.

But just as the Lord rose after his death, the Church will also be resurrected for the Glory of God.

No one knows the day nor the hour, but the Lord tells us to be ready.

The prophecies of Saint Malachy end like this:

In the persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations after which the seven hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.

[MarkBsnr]

We believe in the same fashion that we believe in God, in His Word and in His Church.

[Uncle Chip]

The bible. Remember that?

Not according to Paul who writes:

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [I Corinthian 11:26]

According to Paul, even after consecration, it is still bread and that is what you are eating -- despite what the Aristotelians in the church contend.

[dangus]

>> Not according to Paul <<

So do you now believe in consubstantiation, or is this another time-waster? I’m going off on my own here, but:

Was Paul referring to bread as a substance, or as an accident of substance? Bread is formed from baking dough; bread isn’t bread if it isn’t baked. Hence, I would propose that what we mean by bread refers to an accident. Taking this to an extreme, I suppose you could propose that all of energy-matter is of a single substance, since all of energy and matter can be transmuted without being transubstantiated. But even at that apparently ridiculous extreme of the definition, the transubstantiation upholds its definition: even if all of matter is but of one substance, then the Eucharist still is transubstantiated, because what was simply matter is now Spiritual.

[Rutles4Ever]

As I have already noted, Rome is in violation of that very principle as it pertains to the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, by interpreting and teaching in a dogmatic fashion that passage established a Roman papal supremacy through Peter, which is an interpretation and teaching that is most definately contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers,

Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church.

Absolutely! You've answered your own challenge. The successor of Peter represents THE WHOLE CHURCH. Thank you for posting that. Augustine ALSO says the following:

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

When opposing the modalist bishop Zephyrinus of Rome who first tried to twist Matthew 16:18-19 to mean he was the supreme ruler of the church, Tertullian's interpretation of that passage is in conformity with the other church fathers in opposition to Zephyrinus' twisting of the passage, saying:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?

This is patently devious. You've cleverly quoted Tertullian without first disclosing that this came AFTER he became a member of the Montanist heresy. He was not speaking as a "Father" of the Church, but a heretic when he challenged Zephyrinus. His views, by that point, were anathema, along with him.

You fall into (or set) the same trap by quoting Origen:

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

It was this very exegesis that set Origen on the road to Anathema City.

Origen, Tertullian and Augustine are explicitly clear that the "keys" are NOT exclusively given to Peter the man, nor to the popes of Rome but to each and every true believer in Christ.

Two heretics and one quote removed from context does not a contradiction make. Augustine speaks in no uncertain terms that primacy resides in Rome. Since Peter represents the entire Church, his quote does nothing to contradict his primacy.

John Chrysostom speaks of James, not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:

Do you understand what take place at an ecumenical council? If you did, you would understand that the local bishop presides. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, it was the local bishop, James. What you leave out is that what James decreed fell first from the lips of Peter.

The Pope is first among equals, but a brother bishop just the same. The local bishop presides over and formalizes the decrees of the Council when it is ecumenical. If an ecumenical council were held in Los Angeles, Roger Mahoney would preside, not the Pope.

Chrysostom states, for example, that John also held the authority of the keys and, like Peter, he held a universal teaching authority over the Churches throughout the world:

Bishops share infallibility when they are united with Peter. Have you ever read the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians? The Corinthians were in the midst of great turmoil (nothing new with them), and things got so bad, they sent word to Rome that they could not resolve their disputes. So what happened? Clement stepped in and set them straight. Why is that such a big deal? Because the Apostle John was still alive and living (a heckua lot closer) in Ephesus. Why did they appeal to Rome and not a LIVING APOSTLE?

Furthermore, the penalty for persistently contradicting Rome has always been excommunication. Pope Victor began a great purge at the end of the second century. No one - not one Church - not one bishop - opposed his decrees of excommunication. Why's that I wonder? Where were all the alternative Churches that should have sprung up in defiance if Pope Victor wasn't vested with total authority to bind and loose as he saw fit? The answer is, there weren't any. Again, you cherry pick a quote here, a quote there, and you do none of the essential research to determine the context, and whether or not other events clearly contradict your assertions. It's easy to cut and paste from Loraine Boettner screeds and quote two Church Fathers whose views eventually became so heretical, they aren't even canonized.

One gaping flaw in the point you are trying to make, is that if you are quoting Tertullian as a "Church Father", you are stating that Rome had no authority to reject the Montanist claim that the Trinity is composed of only one person. Without the authority of Peter vested in the Bishop of Rome, there would be no doctrine of the Trinity, just a bunch of competing views, all claiming to be correct (Hmmm - what does that sound like, some 20,000 sects later?)

I appreciate this opportunity to set right your erroneous assertions.

[dangus]

>> “Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.” <<

This statement explicitly states that Peter represents the Church? How have you not proven the Catholic position? Surely you ask, but doesn’t the same passage also say, “Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them?” Absolutely! The Church has always maintained apostolic authority is held not only by the Pope (the successor of St. Peter) but by all bishops (the successors of the apostles)! But that same passage also states, “[A]ll those who wish to go apart into a party, and to cut themselves off from the whole, do not belong to the sacred reality signified by the four lines. But if they don’t belong to Peter’s vision, neither do they do so to the keys which were given to Peter.” So, yes, other apostles retain the keys, so long as they are faithful to Peter’s vision.

>> When opposing the modalist bishop Zephyrinus of Rome <<

Likewise, your quote from Tertullian seems to go on at some length to the exact opposite conclusion you reach, so much so that many other Protestants regard Tertullian, “Father of the Latinists,” because even while they deride the Catholic Church as “Latinist,” they see that Tertullian as boldly promoting the papacy. Tertullian’s question may certainly be asked of you: “what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) *personally* upon Peter?”

>> Likewise, Origen concurs with Tertullian, Augustine, Eusebius and the other church fathers I will be citing in Peter being a symbolic representative of the entire church whereas the Rock the Church is built upon is the faith Peter expressed in Christ, and the “keys” are bestowed to each and every Christian through the preaching of the Gospel <<

You create a bizarre false dichotomy: that the suggesting that Peter represents the entire church is somehow in opposition to the suggestion to the primacy of the Church. To “represent” means to “make present within oneself.” Hence, a declaration that Peter represents the Church is precisely a declaration Peter speaks for the entire Church.

Again, Origen specifically states that both understandings of the meaning of “the rock” are simultaneously true: “For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail.”

Honestly, you picked the exact quotes to refute your argument as the best of them.

[Uncle Chip]

Was Paul referring to bread as a substance, or as an accident of substance? Bread is formed from baking dough; bread isn’t bread if it isn’t baked. Hence, I would propose that what we mean by bread refers to an accident.

It is the same "bread" that is referred to as "bread" or "loaves" of bread throughout the entire NT. It had the substance and accidents of "bread" and nothing but "bread" before and after consecration.

[Rutles4Ever]

So when Jesus held up the bread - which still looked like bread - and said, “This is my body” - what does that mean to you?

[Uncle Chip]

So when Jesus held up the bread - which still looked like bread - and said, “This is my body” - what does that mean to you?

You mean 'what did Jesus mean by those words'?

The most that you can say from them is that that bread and only that bread that He was holding up was His body -- not some other loaf in some other place or at some other time. Afterall Paul recounts this event and the precise words from the Last Supper, but then concludes with these words:

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [I Corinthian 11:26]

If you are proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes, then you are eating "this bread" -- blessed, consecrated "bread" -- but "bread" nonetheless, accidents, substance and all.

[dangus]

Do you go too far in distancing the Church from Origen and Tertullian? (that’s a question, not an assertion) While it’s important to note that his writings in his Montanist phase didn’t gain concurrence from orthodox Christians, and his “we’re all Peters” could suggest YOPIOS, the fact is that he did see Peter as to whom it was Jesus spoke and granted the gifts, and did recognize that all the Peters couldn’t contradict each other.

Whether it’s heresy disguised in orthodoxy, or orthodoxy, I think the most telling thing is that they attested that Peter represented the Church. Did Origen even KNOW he was dissenting from Orthodoxy?

You make an excellent point in showing that, however, the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved precisely through the papacy.

[dangus]

>> It is the same “bread” that is referred to as “bread” or “loaves” of bread throughout the entire NT. It had the substance and accidents of “bread” and nothing but “bread” before and after consecration. <<

Naw, now you’re making stuff up. There’s no mention of substance or accidents; and there are plenty of references to the bread being other than mere grain. (”I am the bread of life...”, “This is my body...”, “Is not the bread we eat...”, etc.)

[Uncle Chip]

Naw, now you’re making stuff up. There’s no mention of substance or accidents; and there are plenty of references to the bread being other than mere grain.

Nope. The same Greek word that Paul uses for "bread" here is used for "bread" everywhere else in the NT. It is also the word used for those "loaves" of bread with which He fed the 5000. It was the same bread in all places.

I'm not making it up -- the Aristotelians in your church were the ones making it all up, creating a transubstantiation doctrine that had all the accidents of orthodoxy but lacking the substance thereof.

[dangus]

Oh, you just mean that the same term is used. That’s true. But it doesn’t change the fact that in several places, the NT DOES refer to the bread as being something other than mere bread.

[Uncle Chip]

in several places, the NT DOES refer to the bread as being something other than mere bread.

Other than figuratively in phrases like "I am the bread of life", where is the Greek word "artos" [meaning "bread" or "loaf" of bread] ever translated to mean anything other than "bread" or "loaf, loaves" of bread??? Nowhere else does it mean anything other than "bread" or "loaves" of bread.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

>> Rome asserts that it IS human meat. <<

Are you joking? That statement is so shockingly removed from anything resembling the truth, I can only suppose you are joking.

Very well, then the Eucharist is not the actual, real flesh and blood of Christ.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

When bread changes into the Eucharist, the substance changes, but the accidents do not.

But how do you know that the substance has changed if the accidents always remain the same?

They don't know and the early church viewed the Eucharist as symbolic, not the actual, literal flesh and blood of Christ.

In the medieval Roman church, the Eucharist literally gave life, and the threat of taking away the Eucharist to individual as well as entire nations was a means Rome used to keep them in submission to Rome.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Absolutely! You've answered your own challenge. The successor of Peter represents THE WHOLE CHURCH.

No, the early church, including Augustine never viewed the bishops of Rome as being the supreme rulers of the Church, as Augustine and the others I've cited explicitly state. It is the later Roman reading back into them that error, that distorts and misrepresents the early church fathers.

In the view of those I cited Peter symbolically represented the church, and as they all clearly, emphatically state, what was given to Peter was given to the entire Church, every single member. They emphatically teach that the "keys" were given to each and every genuine believer and not to Peter exclusively and most certainly NOT to the bishops of Rome. Why do you totally disregard their clear statements? Is it because Rome has you so convinced of it's fraudulent claims that you refuse to see what is there is black and white?

Thank you for posting that. Augustine ALSO says the following: "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).

Note that in context, Augustine, as I have noted, says that Peter symbolized the church, and does NOT say that the bishops of Rome do. Rome reads that into it where it does not exist, practicing a self serving eisegesis to try to support it's false claims.

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

So? That is one of the most misquoted citations from Augustine. Augustine does not say that the pope has ruled so the matter is closed at all, as most Roman Catholics misrepresent. The councils had ruled, and the bishop of Rome finally agreed after having first been a supporter of Pelagius.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

When opposing the modalist bishop Zephyrinus of Rome who first tried to twist Matthew 16:18-19 to mean he was the supreme ruler of the church, Tertullian's interpretation of that passage is in conformity with the other church fathers in opposition to Zephyrinus' twisting of the passage, saying:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?

This is patently devious. You've cleverly quoted Tertullian without first disclosing that this came AFTER he became a member of the Montanist heresy. He was not speaking as a "Father" of the Church, but a heretic when he challenged Zephyrinus. His views, by that point, were anathema, along with him.

Tertullian wrote that BEFORE turning to Montanism, and is often cited by Roman Catholics when they think Tertullian supports their position, yet when Tertullian is not useful for misrepresenting, and is in opposition to Rome's false claims, then try to impune him as a source, which is most devious and intellectually dishonest. Most, even Roman Catholics cite Tertullian as a "church father".

[MarkBsnr]

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-”Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

It was this very exegesis that set Origen on the road to Anathema City.

Once again we have a Roman Catholic trying to impune a source often cited by Roman Catholics when they think Origen is in their camp. Convenient and also two faced and hypocritical. But the Roman Catholic fails to inform the readers that Origen is recognized as a respected "Church Fathers", and repented of his once held view of anthropomorphism.

The Roman Catholic also fails to recognize that Origen's view was exactly the same as the rest of the Church Fathers, so OPrigen was not simply making a statement that was unconventional or novel, but was in conformity with the teaching of Church Fathers, when Rome is not. Origen, Tertullian and Augustine are explicitly clear that the "keys" are NOT exclusively given to Peter the man, nor to the popes of Rome but to each and every true believer in Christ.

Two heretics and one quote removed from context does not a contradiction make.

Firstly, not a single quote is removed from context. The context is clear, and is made abundatly clear from the other citations from Augustine.

Once again, Tertullian's comments were made BEFORE his Montanist era, and is cited often by Roman Catholics, just as Origen, who also repented of Anthropormorphism and both are included as church fathers.

Please try to refrain from distorting the facts.

Augustine speaks in no uncertain terms that primacy resides in Rome.

No he doesn't and the few citations given prove it conclusively. There are many, many more I can cite that reinforce the fact that Augustine did NOT hold to any papal supremacy extended to the bishops of Rome as it is presented by Roman Catholicism.

Since Peter represents the entire Church, his quote does nothing to contradict his primacy.

The Church Fathers are all in agreement, that Peter was symbolic of the Church and that every single beliver is a "rock" and are given the "keys to the kingdom", in contradiction to the false claims of Rome.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

>> Likewise, Origen concurs with Tertullian, Augustine, Eusebius and the other church fathers I will be citing in Peter being a symbolic representative of the entire church whereas the Rock the Church is built upon is the faith Peter expressed in Christ, and the “keys” are bestowed to each and every Christian through the preaching of the Gospel <<

You create a bizarre false dichotomy: that the suggesting that Peter represents the entire church is somehow in opposition to the suggestion to the primacy of the Church.

Peter symbolized the Church in their view, not that Peter was the "Rock" that the church would be built on, or that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter exclusively, but that Christ is the Rock, and Peter's confession, as well as every genuine believer being a "rock" that the Church is built on, and that the "keys to the kingdom" were not given to Peter exclusively but to every genuine believer, and most certainly NOT given to the bishops of Rome exclusively as Rome falsely claims.