Prophecy of the Popes

Well, I have no background on this. Perhaps Klaus does?

What I do know from priests who I know is that the Church accepts that the pope, Peter II, will be the final pope, thus heralding the Final Judgement.

Ah the prophecy of Saint Malachy .

I need to go to work right now , but can contribute much on this later . Just a snippet for now .

Many modern day Anti-Popes have taken the name Peter II , The most notable being the Palmarian Manuel Corral , Now deceased , who was the successor to Anti-Pope GregoryXVI* . This group do have valid but illicit apostolic succession in the line of archbishop ngo dinh thuc .

Manuel Corral although did insist he was not Peter Romanus .

No actual Pope has ever taken the name Peter and would be unlikely to do so . The prophesy may refer to either .

1. The Popes Baptismal name .
2. The Pope being the successor to Peter "tu est petrus"


* Anti-Pope Gergory XVII refers Clemente Domínguez y Gómez , not to be confused with the Siri Thesis .

My general opinion of any prophesy is that they are made vague enough so that they can be interpreted loosely.

Example:


260 -- 104 -- Religion destroyed -- Benedict XV (1914–1922):
Giacomo Della Chiesa Reigned during, but had no influence to stop, the First World War. This unprecedented period of violence was mainly fought between the Christian powers of europe, destroyed empires which had lasted centuries and began the worldwide spread of atheistic Communism.

^^^ See. Religion destroyed ends up being the spread of atheistic communism...

I find it very interesting never the less... so lets see, current pope is... 84? 85?

Average death is 78 (in between 1700 and 2005)

Oldest pope ever is Leo XIII who bit it at 93, 2nd oldest is Clement at 87.

So I give him 5 years tops before we figure out what'll happen.

Also, the wiki article talks of Lisbon: which has this nickname: A Cidade das Sete Colinas (The City of Seven Hills) and Rainha do Mar (Queen of the Sea)

Noting that Lisbon sits on the Atlantic Coast and is the capital city of Portugal. It holds more than a quarter of the countries population... it would be quite devastating if it say... collapsed into the ocean or had a crazy tsunami/hurricane like disaster destroy it... or earthquake...

It could be completely unrelated to the Vatican.

Klaus, keep prodding her.

I've been doing it the past what, two years?

She's technically sorta Catholic already. Don't worry I'm prodding her reconversion as well.

I would disagree. Some claim that Jesus merely chose only men in his time just because it was the time of the age. Well, God could have easily chosen any time in history: including today.

Also, Jesus was not unfamiliar to priestesses. He could have chosen women to be his apostles: Mary was the perfect candidate. She would have been the only one to say, "Take this and eat it. This is my body," and be technically right. But Jesus conferred unto men that responsibility.

Does this degrade the role of women in the Church? Not one bit. Of all the saints, it is Mary who we revere most. Four women are Doctors of the Church, with countless other females as very important in the Church's history.

I would say it is both Scriptural and Traditional to have men as priests. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that definitely sounds theological.

Two very well put and valid opinions , Thanks Max and Conred.

I am undecided myself , The traditionalist in me would be abhorred by it , But the liberal feels the need to study the Canons and see if there actually is any reason women could not be ordained .

If I was to speak from the gut , I would say I would be against it . But that perhaps suggests that I still have a long way to go on my spiritual journey .

I remember reading of a case online of a woman who was ordained to the priesthood ( there are many ) . She was ordained by a bishop who held valid Episcopal orders but had broken from Rome . She received a polite but firm letter from her parish priest that she was no longer able to receive Holy Communion . Denying communion and excommunication only usually occurs when someone receives Holy Orders without the approval of the local Bishop ( in the case of a priest ) or the Pope ( in the case of a bishop ) . So I wonder whether by that act alone the church recognised that although the ordination was illegal in a canonical sense , She did in fact validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders and became a priest ?


So would we consider her ordination Valid but Illicit , Or simply invalid ?

I have referenced the definition of Valid but Illicit from Wikipedia below , I am sorry I can't remember the source of the story

Valid but illicit and valid but illegal, are descriptions applied in Roman Catholicism to an unauthorized celebration of a sacrament that nevertheless has effect. While validity is presumed whenever an act is placed "by a qualified person and includes those things which essentially constitute the act itself as well as the formalities and requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act",[1][2] Roman Catholic canon law also lays down rules for lawful placing of the act. Unless these rules concern something greater than merely ecclesiastical law, they do not apply to those who have not been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it.