Peter the Roman?
#12
I think the prophecies are bogus. No original manuscript was ever found in the Vatican in fact. And none of St. Malachy's contemporaries mentioned any such "prophecies". And no, they are quite inaccurate and even bizarre at times. The learned scholar Pope Benedict XIV for example is described as "farm animal". Dr. Prudlo is among the scholars that have written of them recently:
"The Prophecy of the Popes was “discovered” in the Vatican Archives in the 1590s, unsurprisingly during a period of multiple consecutive conclaves. It is extraordinary that the Archives, which had been under the diligent care of text-hungry Humanists for nearly 150 years, had somehow missed this singularly important document. After its publication the original text disappeared, a fact as remarkable for its carelessness as for its convenience. The issues above are enough to discount the story even before considering the internal evidence.

That the prophecies are attributed to St. Malachy are an example of Pseudonymity. The author adopted the name of a real saint — but one who was not too well known — to publicize his texts more widely. The “Prophecies of Joe the Curial Bureaucrat” did not have quite the same ring to it. Pseudonymity was a common tactic in the pre-modern world, but was quickly falling out of favor. One needs only recall the Gnostic gospels as an example (“A gospel by Thomas the Apostle?  I’d better read that!”) Further, this was an age that was hungry for prognostications, the most famous of which were those of Nostradamus. Astrology and divination of all sorts fascinated even some of the greatest minds of the period. In that sense the “prophecies” are perfectly suited to their time.

When one begins to consider the contents though, the problems multiply. A person who picks up the “prophecies” will be astounded at how spot-on accurate they are until one arrives at 1590.  After that they turn into short, vague utterances that a local horoscope page would be embarrassed to print: “Undulating man,” “Religious Man,” “from a good religion.” These are a selection of the absurd post 1590s entries, which many have correctly called unworthy of the name “prophecy.” To take one egregious example, the phrase “Farm Animal” was supposed to apply to the brilliant light of learning, Benedict XIV. I am surprised the author did not include “Tall Dark Stranger” in his list."


http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/be-n...t-malachy/


C.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Peter the Roman? - by Gabriel Serafin - 11-14-2013, 05:42 AM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by PolishTrad - 11-14-2013, 06:30 AM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Tim - 11-14-2013, 07:23 AM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by PolishTrad - 11-14-2013, 07:28 AM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Maldon - 11-14-2013, 09:08 AM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Gabriel Serafin - 11-16-2013, 06:33 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by PolishTrad - 11-16-2013, 07:18 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by triumphguy - 11-16-2013, 07:48 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Chestertonian - 11-16-2013, 07:57 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Tim - 11-16-2013, 08:01 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Clare Brigid - 11-16-2013, 08:08 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Cetil - 11-16-2013, 09:38 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Gabriel Serafin - 11-16-2013, 09:48 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Armor of Light - 11-16-2013, 09:53 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Gabriel Serafin - 11-16-2013, 11:34 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by PolishTrad - 11-17-2013, 06:29 AM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Tim - 11-17-2013, 09:27 AM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Gabriel Serafin - 11-17-2013, 04:30 PM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Cetil - 11-19-2013, 07:57 AM
Re: Peter the Roman? - by Tim - 11-19-2013, 10:01 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)