I heard that this prophecy of St. Francis is false from Father Pacwa on EWTN. He said that he had researched it and gone to the Franciscans and they all said it was false.
It may be true, it may not. It was so long ago. But I would not take Emmett as a good source in either case.
That was the essence of the homily today from a visiting priest. He boiled it down to our own personal choice to act/react as the world does, or as Jesus would have us do. He said that God provides us many opportunities to choose Jesus or to choose sin. He said several times to pray for those who trespass against us rather than getting angry and taking matters in our own hands. It’s God providing us with opportunities to pray for others. Prayer does change things. At the very least, it changes US.
I have lots of respect for Fr. Pacwa but keep in mind this was published in 1882, when there was no Pope Francis conflict yet. It was a time when there was no political bias or interest for the author to publish such a controversial quotation. I did not hear that there is a controversy about this quote more than 3 years ago. It is just now that we are having it because the Pope is getting heat and criticisms from his recent actions that people are getting reminded of this quote...
HH, it is up to Pope Francis to prove that this quote is right or wrong. If Pope Francis continues the wrongful path he is taking then people would keep on being reminded of this controversial quotation, that it maybe true after all. But if Pope Francis returns to being a good Shepherd, then this quotation is history and forgotten. Of course, I would love Pope Francis to prove that this quotation is false for the good of the Church.
From what I read, the 1882 book took it from an earlier source that was aiming it at a different pope. So it was from a time with political bias and interest for the original author to publish it: Here is a quote: The reference to the uncanonically elected “destroyer pope” mentioned in this text was actually aimed against Pope Boniface VIII in order to attack his attempts to supress the Franciscan Spirituals, and the origins of this bogus prophecy can be traced back to the writings of one of their founding figures, Peter Olivi. After the death of St. Francis in 1226, the Franciscan Order was heavily divided over the course of their future direction, especially in relation to their embracement of poverty in reaction to the worldly aspirations of some of their fellow ecclesiastics. The extent to which the vows of poverty should be applied within the Order left the Franciscans divided along the lines of strict and lax observation of the Rule. After several popes gave their backing to the lax party within the Franciscan Order, those who adhered to the strict rule of observance became radicalised against the papacy, and looked towards the apocalyptic writings of Joachim de Fiore for inspiration concerning his ideas on how a pope was destined to fulfil the role of the False Prophet of the Apocalypse. Towards the end of his career at the close of the 13th century, Olivi had composed a commentary on the Book of Revelation that was heavily reliant on the millenarian eschatology of Abbot Joachim, whose work had been condemned by the Church during the Councils of Arles in 1260 and 1264. In order to continue to propose their heretical beliefs, the Franciscan Spirituals argued that the abdication of Pope Celestine V in 1294 was invalid, and in their attempts to reject papal authority, they argued that Boniface VIII was “uncanonically elected,” depicting the pope as the False Prophet of Revelation 13. It is here that we find the origins of the papal antichrist theory, which was used to devastating effect by the Protestant Reformers in the 16thcentury.
This is what I referred to, that at a different time in the history of the Church, the same/very similar situation existed . In order to continue to propose their heretical beliefs, the Franciscan Spirituals argued that the abdication of Pope Celestine V in 1294 was invalid, and in their attempts to reject papal authority, they argued that Boniface VIII was “uncanonically elected,” depicting the pope as the False Prophet of Revelation 13. It is here that we find the origins of the papal antichrist theory, which was used to devastating effect by the Protestant Reformers in the 16thcentury.[/QUOTE] Thank you Heidi, for wading through to find the source.
It's odd to recall but at the time when there were several anti Popes at the one time some Saints backed one Pope and some Saints another. I find this very comforting in a way, that even the saints got mixed up.
It is comforting. No one has all the answers at the same time. But if we stay in a state of grace and pray the rosary, Our Lady will take care of us.
We must rest like little babies in Our Mother's arms. Maybe even sleep, but perhaps with one eye open. In case we miss something.
Hi Heidi, can you please give me the name of that earlier source from which the 1882 book took its controversial quote from?
Ahh here it is.... so the quotation is found in 'Words of Brother Conrad' (Verba fratris Conradi) https://greatmonarch-angelicpontiffprophecies.blogspot.com/p/st-francis-of-assisi.html "St. Francis is so well known as the founder of the Franciscan order, and as so many biographies of him are available I will simply begin with the question – did St. Francis predict a heretical anti-pope would plague the Church in a future age beset with demonic tribulation? Circulating on the Internet is a prophecy attributed to him that is controversial in the fact that it foretells a 'destroyer' anti-pope will be sent during particularly turbulent times when the demons will be given a greater power on earth, obviously as a chastisement, for as the saying goes, we get the leaders we need or deserve. According to information in an article by Solanus Benfatti entitled “On the paternity of a medieval report of Francis of Assisi foretelling a non-canonically elected pope”, the earliest source of the St. Francis prophecy is attributed to the sayings of Blessed Br. Conrad of Offida, who joined the Franciscans in 1251 at fourteen years old and died in 1306. Apparently, he in turn learned these prophecies from St. Francis' companions, in particular, Br. Leo who died in 1271. So, apparently, these prophecies first circulated by word of mouth from Br. Leo and the other friars close to St. Francis and heard by Bl. Conrad who in turn repeated them. These prophecies circulated orally until eventually the 'Words of Brother Conrad' (Verba fratris Conradi) were written down circa 1318 to 1328, about one hundred years after the death of St. Francis. The 'Verba fratris Conradi' was circulated for the next two centuries under various copies, translations, and borrowings, etc. which unfortunately suffered from several editorial 'adjustments' on the part of the translators, scribes, etc. Hence, as Benfatti observes, one of the forms of the prophecy to be popularised was by the Irish friar Luke Wadding (1588-1657) in his collection of the works of St. Francis published in 1623. Regarding the prophecy of the schism and 'heretic pope' Wadding used two different non-primary sources by authors that were rather cavalier in their approach to the texts, Mark of Lisbon and Bartholomew of Pisa, who were influenced by the Great Western Schism. Wadding himself also was cavalier in his treatment of the text. However, it is his version in which the more modern translations of the prophecy have been circulated. So, it has been questioned if we may believe this prophecy due to how the original texts circulated and were edited in later centuries. However, considering that the sayings were allegedly heard by Bl. Conrad from those who knew St. Francis, and was written down only 12 to 22 years after his death, and only c. 100 years after the death of St. Francis himself, there may be some credibility to them as this still is a relatively 'short time' of transcription history. Of interest, despite the rise of anti-popes and confusion right after the appearance of this prophecy, the fact this prophecy remains so popular is an indication that people do not feel it has truly come to pass yet. We note the prophecy mentions the great heretical pope will come when the demons will be granted an unusual increase in power – if anything this shows that this prophecy really has nothing to do with the Great Western Schism, but indeed points to 'Satan's Century' as foreseen by Pope Leo XIII in his vision of October 13, 1884 when the devil and his minions would be granted greater power to do their worst to the world and the Church. Also, mystics closer to our modern times have predicted the rise of anti-popes that will cause serious damage to the Church. Therefore, in consideration of this, I am including the St. Francis prophecy here in the timeline. From the informative article by Benfatti I will first present the prophecy sources he asserts are as closest to the original 'Words of Brother Conrad' before they were reworked by Br. Wadding and his two sources, then, I will include the prophecy as we have recently come to know it." Kindly continue reading at: https://greatmonarch-angelicpontiffprophecies.blogspot.com/p/st-francis-of-assisi.html
So who is Blessed Conrad of Offida https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04260a.htm "When Brother Leo, the companion and confessor of St. Francis, was dying, he sent for Conrad and made him the depositary of his writings."
Yes. It was comforting while being convicting. He used examples from his own experience in traffic He is retired, lives up by the National Shrine and performs military funerals. He can’t be late due to traffic. I would think he is trying to get out of DC to Arlington National Cemetery.
I have had a great antipathy towards Francis since the day of his election. The first thing I read about him were comments made by a Catholic woman who lived in Buenos Aires who had had some dealings with him. She said that she could barely believe that such a choice had been made and recounted various stories about him and quotes by him. Included in these comments was one relating to his antipathy towards the TLM. She also accused him of exhibiting false humility. When, after the election, he stated that one of the characteristics that fitted him for the papacy was humility, I could scarcely believe that anyone would be so vain as to actually claim this virtue and so prove fairly conclusively that he did not actually possess it. My opinion of him became even lower as time progressed. Then (quite recently) came a bit of a 'Road to Damascus moment' which was not directly related to Francis. I became aware that I had a beam in my own eye which involved anger, a lack of peace, impatience, absolute certainty in my own opinions (on most subjects), readiness to take offence etc. etc. So, what attitude to adopt towards Francis in my new search for peace and generosity of spirit? Well, (like me and you) I recognised that he is a product of his early cultural, political and religious training and environment. He lived in a continent in which despotic governments, along with gross financial corruption were common and this had given rise to the 'Liberation Theology' in the Church espoused particularly by the Jesuits. He appears to have embraced this 'theology' enthusiastically and maybe (in the light of his experience) this could be understood if not condoned. He has recorded his mother's insistence that other religions were also 'good' and this feeling of sympathy for, and equality of, other denominations and religions would have been 'confirmed' by the training he received from Jesuit modernists throughout his religious education and in his seminary training and he may have developed a distaste for the traditional Catholicism associated with past traditional hierarchies who happily tolerated bad right-wing governments/dictatorships in exchange for tax concessions and some share in national power and influence. I must admit that the rest of his problematic behaviour is a 'work in progress' (and I have a particular struggle with Pachamama) but I am desperately trying to understand him in order to 'cut him some slack'. However, I do sincerely believe, having looked at the proven and admitted facts in the matter, that his election was probably invalid and that Benedict is still Pope but that Francis' role as putative pope may have occurred for some long-term good reason known only to God.
