Posted on 10/26/2009 10:03:41 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid
Most everyone has heard of the controversial Prophecies of Saint Malachy, which, it is said, were given by the 12th century Irish bishop. The prophecies are a series of brief and enigmatic statements in Latin pertaining to each of the future popes after Malachy's day, concluding with the final entry:
"In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and thedreadful Judge will judge the people. The End."
It's not my intention here to enter into the debate over whether these prophecies are authentic or not — there are arguments for and against their authenticity — but rather, I mention this issue in conjunction with the recent announcement that Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana (who is clearly not a Roman by birth) has been called to Rome to join the Vatican Curia. I am sure that this move will fuel discussion and speculation among those who will see in Cardinal Turkson's appointment something which may be connected with the Prophecies of Saint Malachy. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at patrickmadrid.blogspot.com ...
save
I surmise that the individual that fulfills ‘Peter the Roman’ will not be named Peter much in the same way that the previous individuals that fulfilled their supposed roles did not have direct naming associated with them. Just a guess ...
Cardinal Turkson is a young man to be elected pope. I believe that he’s currently 61. Making predictions about the next conclave is a tricky business. However, most would likely agree that after the pontificate of John Paul II, many cardinals probably thought that in electing the already-elderly Cardinal Ratzinger that they would get a nice “transitional pope,” a breather after more than two decades of Pope John Paul II.
But as Pope Benedict’s reign rounds toward the five-year mark, and as the activity level of this pontiff seems only to increase, should Pope Benedict live several more years and continue to reign actively, the cardinals may feel more than ever the need for a truly transitional papacy.
They won’t elect anyone under the age of 70 or 75, if they can help it. I wouldn’t be surprised if they elected someone no longer even eligible to vote in the conclave (that is, over the age of 80).
Of course, Cardinal Turkson may well still be around for the conclave after the next one. And perhaps, having had a breather from active popes with long reigns, the cardinals will be ready to elect him.
But not this next time.
My thoughts exactly - better of looking for someone who is a Roman by birth or extraction. They may change their name to Peter.
Mel
LOL...the likelihood of Cdl Peter ascending the throne of Peter is in direct inverse proportion to the number of times he winds up on 'Papabile" lists. The more he's mentioned the less likely that event becomes.
But in every other way this is in accordance with age-old prophecy :0)
Not very likely unless everything else that has to happen first comes to pass. Don't Papal nominees change their names, in any event?
I agree with you in general about what are likely to be the sensibilities of the college of electors in the next conclave, whenever that may be. But keep in mind that I am not making any predictions here. I take notice of this new appointment insofar as it is likely to become a source of speculation and prediction among those who *do* engage in this tricky business.
A person elected pope selects a new name - it is never their old name.
Do we really need to join them?
This is odd for a couple of reasons, aside from the fact that he is obviously not a Roman. First, there is more than one Peter among the Cardinal Electors, and there are five or six among all the Cardinals. Why does the writer think it is this particular Peter? Second, the Holy Father always assumes a new name. They rarely choose their own names, so it is unlikely this person would be Pope Peter even if he was named Pope.
Taking a new name upon being elected pope is a longstanding and venerable practice, but it’s by no means either mandatory or absolute. The first several popes, for example, kept their own names.
I’m a little shocked that you’re giving this silliness the exposure you are.
* The “Peter the Roman” passage is not native to the “Prophecies of Malachy,” but was a much later addition.
* Nothing in the Prophecies of Malachy, even if we were to treat Peter the Roman as if it were part of the original, suggests that Peter the Roman would come immediately after the Glory of the Olives.
* In fairness, you broach this: There would be nothing unique about there being a Roman pontiff being named “Peter,” if it refers to his given name. Much more likely, it would have to do with him being a native son of Rome with some other great similarity to St. Peter the apostle.
You misunderstand the nature of my blog post. I am not “joining” anyone. I’m pointing out that this new development will likely become a topic of speculation.
(PS: I’m sure you know each of those three points; I don’t mean to “school” someone I have learned so much from. I only mean to recall them into the conversation.)
>> First, there is more than one Peter among the Cardinal Electors, and there are five or six among all the Cardinals. <<
I’m guessing it will be Peter Cardinal Erdo of Buda-Pest, Peter the Romani. HHOK! Hey, it’s no sillier than the notion that Cardinal Martini would be “the Glory of the Olives.”
You owe the oracle five Hail Marys for committing Cardinal Sin.
Not to worry. I understand how you meant them. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
But don’t martinis and olives go together? I sure think so!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.