I love this interpretation! And I will send up a prayer today for your son and the Youth Jubilee inRome.
The next pope - a ‘mild and very serious’ Petrus Romanus? The Holy Scriptures themselves provide us with the right key to dealing with all prophecy. On the one hand, St Paul warns us to take prophecy seriously, but to test everything and only keep what is good (1 Thess 5:20f). On the other hand, it is none other than Jesus Christ who speaks to his disciples after prophesying some of the events surrounding his passion, resurrection, ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit (John 13-14): ‘And I am telling you now, before it happens, so that when it does happen, you may believe!’ (Jn 14:29). Apparently, Jesus does not predict the future to satisfy the disciples' curiosity or to give them a “competitive advantage” over the ignorant, but so that they - mindful of his prophetic words - will believe. Believing, in particular, that the actually unbelievable thing that has been fulfilled is really what Jesus spoke about, but also believing in Him in general, so that they can continue on their own Christian path strengthened by it. The fulfilment of prophecy is therefore essential for its evaluation. It speaks for its truthfulness. As long as it is not fulfilled, it should be scrutinised and can certainly lead to a personal conviction of its authenticity or the opposite. However, final certainty in this respect - also in relation to ‘the world’ - only arises as soon as the prediction has manifested itself in reality. Once it has come true, however, prophecy strengthens believing Christians in their faith in Christ, his love and his plan of salvation and - as St Paul says elsewhere (1 Co 14:3) - has the threefold task of building up, encouraging and comforting. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that fulfilled prophecies can have painful content and are to be understood as ‘signs of the times’ (Luke 12:56). It is therefore perfectly legitimate to consider the current papal election against the background of two well-known papal prophecies and to place these in the light of the ‘Jesuan interpretation’ of prophecy with regard to the current conclave. These are the famous visions of Blessed Anna Katharina Emmerick (1774-1824) and the so-called ‘Malachy prophecies’. The latter are not usually attributed to St Malachy (ca. 1095-1148), but mostly to St Philip Neri (1515-1595). This is primarily because his ability to correctly predict the outcome of the conclave during his lifetime was confirmed by many contemporaries, and also because the year of his death coincides with the year of the first publication of the ‘Malachy prophecies’, 1595. The Prophetia S. Malachiae Archiepiscopi, de Summis Pontificibus (‘Prophecy of St Malachy the Archbishop’) was published in 1595. Archbishop Malachias, On the Popes‘) was first printed in the first volume of the work Lignum vitae, Ornamentum et Decus Ecclesiae1 (’Wood of Life, Ornament and Decoration of the Church") by the Belgian Benedictine monk Arnold Wion (1554-1610) on pages 307-311 - no manuscript originals are known to date. The ‘Malachy Prophecy’ lists popes in 113 paragraphs by mentioning a symbolic name or description, such as Bonus Comes (‘good companion’) or Nauta de Ponte nigro (‘sailor of the Black Bridge’). The entries 1-74 (Coelestine II to Urban VII), i.e. for the period from 1143 to 1590 and until shortly before the publication of Lignum vitae (1595), are each accompanied by the real pope's name and an explanation of the symbolic name. For numbers 75-77 - i.e. Gregory XIV (1590-91) to Clement VIII (1592-1605) - only the pope's name is given, but no explanation. Finally, entries 78-113, i.e. from Leo XI (1605) onwards, follow the prophecy only in the description of the symbols. Although the symbolic designations are often ambiguous or do not readily fit the selected popes ex post, it cannot be denied that several entries can be read very well as a description (of the time) of the corresponding pontifices. (1878-1903) from the Pecci family, which bears a curved comet in its coat of arms, with Lumen in coelo (‘Light in the sky’), Benedict XV (1914-1922), Pope during the First World War and the Russian Revolution with Religio depopulata (‘Depopulated religion’) or John XXIII, before his election Patriarch of Venice, was characterised as Pastor et nauta (‘Shepherd and Sailor’). Benedict XVI is known as number 111 under the title Gloria olivae (‘Glory of the Olive Branch’). Regardless of how appropriate one would like to find this designation, the description for the next pope - clearly marked by a paragraph, as in the case of the other popes - follows: In persecutione extrema H. R. E. sedebit. Depending on how one resolves the abbreviation, this means: ‘The Holy Roman Church (Sancta Romana Ecclesia) will sit (i.e. be) in extreme / in its last persecution.’ Or: ‘He will sit <on the throne> in the utmost / last persecution of the Holy Roman Church (Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae)’. Whichever way you read the entry, it stands for the pontificate of the recently deceased Pope Francis. Finally, the last entry is: Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, et Iudex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis. ("Peter the Roman, who feeds his sheep in many tribulations. After these are over, the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the Terrible Judge will judge his people. End.") In some editions and translations, the last name, Petrus Romanus, is erroneously added to the penultimate, the Francis entry: In the last/ultimate persecution of the Holy Roman Church, Peter the Roman will sit <on the throne>, who will judge his sheep...2 In this reading, on the one hand Francis himself was once treated as Petrus Romanus, and on the other hand the opinion was also expressed that it had now been definitively proven that the ‘Malachy prophecies’ were obviously untrue and had to be rejected out of hand. This interpretation is, of course, completely unfounded.3 There are clearly two separate entries in the first print of 1595, and therefore also two popes, no. 112 (Francis) and 113 (Peter Romanus). And the prophecies have by no means discredited themselves: A glance at the sad record numbers of persecuted Christians worldwide suggests that No. 112 fits the years 2013 to 2025 particularly well in terms of content. However, the wording also leaves enough room for further (personal) interpretation of the extent to which the Holy Roman Church has been persecuted in other ways under Pope Francis... At least according to the ‘prophecies of Malachy’, the choice in the current conclave will therefore fall on Peter Romanus. We will see to what extent the new pontiff can be harmonised with the last symbol entry. After all, four of the cardinals rumoured to be papabili - Peter Turkson, Péter Erdö, Pietro Parolin, Pierbattista Pizzaballa - and a further three participants in the conclave - Peter Ebere Okpaleke, Jean-Pierre Kutwa, Christophe Pierre - have Peter in their names. But if the prophecy is true, its veracity will certainly have been proven before the announced destruction of Rome.
(...) We can also learn something about this Petrus Romanus from the visions of Blessed Anna Katharina Emmerick. Her visions, moulded into literary form by Clemens Brentano, have already proved to be historically accurate on several occasions. It may suffice here to refer to the archaeological excavations of the ‘House of Mother Mary’ (Meryemana evi in Turkish) near ancient Ephesus, which could be found on the basis of her visions, and the identification of the engagement ring of the Mother of God in Perugia. Anna Katharina is known to have seen two popes and their respective true and a dark, false, anti-Christian church several times and that the first, the Holy Roman Church, is coming under increasing pressure from the ‘after-church without salvation, [...] whose secret it is to have no secret ’. ‘This night from 11 o'clock to 3 o'clock in the morning I had a marvellous picture of two churches and two popes’ [...]5 ’Now I was also shown the comparison between that pope and this one and between that temple and this one. [...] I was told and shown how weak in number and support that one was and how strong in will, in that he had overthrown so many [...] gods and gathered devotions into one devotion, whereas this pope was strong in number and weak in will, in that he had allowed the only true God and the only true devotion to be dissolved into so many gods and false devotions by allowing the false temple’." It is remarkable that although the ‘pope couple’ is presented at the same time, the pope of the false church appears as the current one, ‘this pope’, while the pope (‘that one’) of the persecuted true church is already mentioned in past tenses. It is also exciting that the pope of the dark church - in contrast to the church that forms under him - is not described as genuinely evil himself, but rather as fickle and weak-willed: his actions lead to the re-emergence of idolatry. At this point, it is difficult to dismiss the striking similarities to ecclesiastical developments from 2013 onwards. More important for our subject, however, is what follows in Emmerick's visions: The visionary is told that before the dark church can tear down the church's sanctum sanctorum, Our Lady will appear on the dome of St Peter's Basilica and bring salvation in the greatest need: "I saw the Blessed Virgin climb back up to the church and spread out her mantle. When I did so, I no longer saw the present pope. I saw a following one.7 I saw him mild and very serious. He knew how to close the priests to himself and push the wicked away. I saw everything become new and a church built up to heaven." In another passage, which refers to the same situation, it says: "Now I saw a new pope coming with a procession. He was younger and much stricter than the previous one. [...] It was as if he was to consecrate the church, but I heard a voice saying that there was no need for a new consecration, that the Blessed Sacrament had been left standing. [...] Before the pope began the feast, he had already prepared his people, who, without any objection, ejected and carried away a number of noble and lesser clergymen from among those assembled. And I saw that they left the assembly with grimness and grumbling. And he took other people into his service, both spiritual and secular. " If we take this information from the visions of St Anne Catherine together, we get the - currently well-known - picture of two churches, the true Holy Roman Church and an anti-Christian counter-church, whereby the latter is about to gain the upper hand. However, the good church will not be completely ousted due to heavenly intervention. On the contrary, a more serious, stricter, milder and consistently good pope now succeeds to the throne of Peter. A certain possibility is left open - depending on the interpretation - that the repeatedly described good ‘new pope’ could not be the direct successor of the ‘pope couple’, but only a successor of some kind. However, if we consider the ‘prophecies of Malachy’ - not to mention other prophecies with similar content - it becomes clear: Both Benedict XVI and Francis can be identified without any doubt in both prophecies considered here. In one case through the order of the list of popes, in the other case through the unique naming of the two popes and the characterisation of the two churches. The element that connects both prophecies in terms of content, but at the same time diametrically separates the two popes, is the persecution of the Sancta Romana Ecclesia. If a good successor pope is also promised in both cases - once immediately and once possibly more generally - then it seems extremely implausible from a logical point of view to assume that this pope should not be the Petrus Romanus mentioned in ‘Malachias’. The coming weeks and months will teach us far more than previous papal elections whether the ‘prophecies of Malachy’ and the visions of Blessed Anna Katharina Emmerick prove to be purely coincidental, complementary fantasies, or whether they have been confirmed by reality - in whatever way - and given to us by God in order to believe and be able to believe: ‘But when these things begin to take place, then look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near!’ (Luke 21:28).
How true and relevant are both prophecies? For Anna Katharina Emmerich, there are allegedly numerous quotes and sentences written on her behalf by the authors of the books, more specifically one author. As for Malachi's prophecy, a document was found in the 16th century in the Vatican archives, but it is also suspected of forgery and fabrication because it is not mentioned anywhere before that. I believe that at least this document from the Vatican archives can be dated with the help of modern technology and the exact age can be determined. Of course, the Vatican is not interested in paying any attention to such things because it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church and this must serve as a cornerstone for any head and other shepherds of the Church.
I cannot judge their truthfulness. I wouldn't put too much stock in any prophecy, just found the article interesting. As it is said, a prophecy can ultimately only be judged after it has come true or false.
I think the prophecies of Blessed Anna Katharina Emmerich are indeed relevant and true. They were written down by one author, poet Clemens Brentano, who called himself "Pilgrim". The prophecies of Blessed Sister Anna Katharina have essentially proven themselves to be true. For example, based on Bl. Emmerich's visions, the last home of the Blessed Virgin Mary was located in Ephesus and excavated. There is a picture of Pope Benedict XVI kneeling there in prayer. Also, Bl. Emmerich had visions of the Novus Ordo-Mass, already in the 1800s, if I recall correctly. She stated the new Mass was "short, and in the end the Holy Gospel of St. John is no longer read" (quoting off the cuff). Interestingly, each Traditional Latin Mass ends with a reading of the beginning of the Gospel of St. John. In the Novus Ordo, this has been omitted. Sr. Emmerich also had a vision of two popes, one holy and isolated, a prisoner in the Vatican, the other one the leader of a false "After-Church". This can be interpreted as a prophecy about the dubious double-reign of Pope Benedict XVI (prisoner in the Vatican) and Pope or anti-Pope Francis. The St. Malachi-prophecy of the Popes was definitely published in 1595 in the book "Lignum Vitae" by historian Pater Arnold Wion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes However, new research shows credible sources of the St. Malachi-prophecy being in circulation long before 1595. Already in the 1300s, painter Duccio di Buoninsegna depicted St. Malachi with the list of the pope-prophecies in his hand. I find the article reprinted here by Steve79 extremely interesting. It was written by Petrus d'Isep and published on katholisches.info: https://katholisches.info/2025/04/29/der-naechste-papst-ein-milder-und-sehr-ernster-petrus-romanus/ This otherwise well-founded article seems unaware of new research by historians Prof. Antonini (Italian) and Prof. Hermann Joseph Hiery (German). This research is discussed on pages 58ff. in a book by Dr. Ludwig Neidhard and in an article by vaticanist Marco Tosatti/Pater Joachim Heimerl: https://www.ludwig-neidhart.de/Downloads/Prophetenvorlesung.pdf https://www.marcotosatti.com/2024/0...ung-des-malachias-korrigiert-joachim-heimerl/ Profs. Antonini/Hiery discovered credible sources providing evidence that the St. Malachi-prophecy was depicted/quoted long before St. Philip Neri lived. To consider the St. Malachi-prophecy a forgery by St. Philip Neri is therefore scientifically highly questionable. Here is a link to the original but shortened article by Prof. Hiery. The full research was published in the August/September 2021 issue of Vatican Magazine. Prof. Hiery refers to research by fellow historian Prof. Antonini. https://www.die-tagespost.de/kirche...agung-und-wenn-sie-doch-echt-waere-art-219252 The interpretation of the St. Malachi-prophecy, if taken seriously, is another matter altogether. According to the traditional interpretation, Pope Benedict XVI was 'Gloria olivae'. Pope or anti-Pope Francis was he who "sits in the tribulation of the Holy Roman Church". Thus, we would now be facing the papacy of 'Petrus Romanus'. However, Prof. Hiery arrives at a different interpretation, based on a different treatment of historical anti-Popes. According to Prof. Hiery, Pope or anti-Pope Francis was 'De medietate lunae' (possibly dark, satanic), and we would now be facing 'De labore solis' (referring to a brightening). De labore solis could also be seen as a reference to the sun-miracle at Fatima in 1917 and the prophecy of Akita from 1973, according to which "fire will fall from the sky". By this, I mean that we could be facing a chastisement by God involving a kind of sun- or fire-event, perhaps instigated by war with Russia (instrument of God's chastisement, according to the Fatima-prophecy). Further, we have credible prophecy about Three Days of Darkness (Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, for example). Last but not least, we have credible prophecy by Pope Leo XIII about a 100-year period where Satan is given much more power. Because of his locution overhearing Our Lord in conversation with Satan, Pope Leo XIII composed the St. Michael the Archangel-prayer and ordered it to be said after each Low Mass. If we consider one remedy that Our Lady has provided (the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart), which has not yet been validly performed in my opinion, interesting times are ahead: The request by Our Lady to consecrate Russia was given at Fatima, and more explicitly to Sr. Lucia dos Santos at Pontevedra, in 1929: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia_to_the_Immaculate_Heart_of_Mary Thus, one could consider that Satan's 100-year period may end in 2029. Perhaps we are close to "fire will fall from the sky" or Three Days of Darkness, and this could mean the beginning of a new era (Triumph of the Immaculate Heart). In any case, both interpretations of the St. Malachi-prophecy are highly interesting, if one was to take it seriously at all. This is, of course, debatable. However, the prophecies of Bl. Anna Katharina Emmerich are entirely credible, in my opinion. They have proven themselves to be true.
I certainly can't accept that St. Philip Neri would be involved in a forgery of a document. So, if that's behind any theory that is intended to refute the prophecies of St. Malachi, that would completely undermine it, for me.
Yes, I agree with you. There is no evidence that St. Philip Neri had anything to do with forgery. Instead, we have evidence now that St. Philip Neri (who lived in the 1500s) had no involvement in the St. Malachi-prophecy of the Popes. This prophecy dates back much further. There are sources of it already from the 1300s. It may well be genuine, and from St. Malachi himself (i.e.., from the 1100s.).
https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-4-2024-friday-march-1-demos-ii/ The “Demos II” text, published February 29, 2024 The Daily Compass is publishing an exclusive document in six languages, intended to circulate among cardinals in view of the forthcoming conclave and among the faithful as food for thought on the priorities of the Church. The text was written principally by a cardinal after he collated the suggestions of other cardinals and bishops. They have chosen to remain anonymous for the reasons explained in the letter. The Vatican Tomorrow In March 2022, an anonymous text appeared — signed “Demos” and titled “The Vatican Today” [Note: later attributed to the late Cardinal George Pell] — that raised a number of serious questions and criticisms regarding the pontificate of Pope Francis. Conditions in the Church since that text appeared have not materially changed, much less improved. Thus, the thoughts offered here are intended to build on those original reflections in light of the needs of the Vatican tomorrow. The concluding years of a pontificate, any pontificate, are a time to assess the condition of the Church in the present, and the needs of the Church and her faithful going forward. It is clear that the strength of Pope Francis’ pontificate is the added emphasis he has given to compassion toward the weak, outreach to the poor and marginalized, concern for the dignity of creation and the environmental issues that flow from it, and efforts to accompany the suffering and alienated in their burdens. Its shortcomings are equally obvious: an autocratic, at times seemingly vindictive, style of governance; a carelessness in matters of law; an intolerance for even respectful disagreement; and – most seriously – a pattern of ambiguity in matters of faith and morals causing confusion among the faithful. Confusion breeds division and conflict. It undermines confidence in the Word of God. It weakens evangelical witness. And the result today is a Church more fractured than at any time in her recent history. The task of the next pontificate must therefore be one of recovery and reestablishment of truths that have been slowly obscured or lost among many Christians. These include but are not limited to such basics as the following: (a) no one is saved except through, and only through, Jesus Christ, as he himself made clear; (b) God is merciful but also just, and is intimately concerned with every human life, He forgives but He also holds us accountable, He is both Savior and Judge; (c) man is God’s creature, not a self-invention, a creature not merely of emotion and appetites but also of intellect, free will, and an eternal destiny; (d) unchanging objective truths about the world and human nature exist and are knowable through Divine Revelation and the exercise of reason; (e) God’s Word, recorded in Scripture, is reliable and has permanent force; (f) sin is real and its effects are lethal; and (g) his Church has both the authority and the duty to “make disciples of all nations.” The failure to joyfully embrace that work of missionary, salvific love has consequences. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:16, “woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.” Some practical observations flow from the task and list above. First: Real authority is damaged by authoritarian means in its exercise. The Pope is a Successor of Peter and the guarantor of Church unity. But he is not an autocrat. He cannot change Church doctrine, and he must not invent or alter the Church’s discipline arbitrarily. He governs the Church collegially with his brother bishops in local dioceses. And he does so always in faithful continuity with the Word of God and Church teaching. “New paradigms” and “unexplored new paths” that deviate from either are not of God. A new Pope must restore the hermeneutic of continuity in Catholic life and reassert Vatican II’s understanding of the papacy’s proper role. Second: Just as the Church is not an autocracy, neither is she a democracy. The Church belongs to Jesus Christ. She is his Church. She is Christ’s Mystical Body, made up of many members. We have no authority to refashion her teachings to fit more comfortably with the world. Moreover, the Catholic sensus fidelium is not a matter of opinion surveys nor even the view of a baptized majority. It derives only from those who genuinely believe and actively practice, or at least sincerely seek to practice, the faith and teachings of the Church. Third: Ambiguity is neither evangelical nor welcoming. Rather, it breeds doubt and feeds schismatic impulses. The Church is a community not just of Word and sacrament, but also of creed. What we believe helps to define and sustain us. Thus, doctrinal issues are not burdens imposed by unfeeling “doctors of the law.” Nor are they cerebral sideshows to the Christian life. On the contrary, they’re vital to living a Christian life authentically, because they deal with applications of the truth, and the truth demands clarity, not ambivalent nuance. From the start, the current pontificate has resisted the evangelical force and intellectual clarity of its immediate predecessors. The dismantling and repurposing of Rome’s John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family and the marginalizing of texts like Veritatis Splendor suggest an elevation of “compassion” and emotion at the expense of reason, justice, and truth. For a creedal community, this is both unhealthy and profoundly dangerous. Fourth: The Catholic Church, in addition to Word, sacrament, and creed, is also a community of law. Canon law orders Church life, harmonizes its institutions and procedures, and guarantees the rights of believers. Among the marks of the current pontificate are its excessive reliance on the motu proprio as a tool for governance and a general carelessness and distaste for canonical detail. Again, as with ambiguity of doctrine, disregard for canon law and proper canonical procedure undermines confidence in the purity of the Church’s mission. Fifth: The Church, as John XXIII so beautifully described her, is mater et magistra, the “mother and teacher” of humanity, not its dutiful follower; the defender of man as the subject of history, not its object. She is the bride of Christ; her nature is personal, supernatural, and intimate, not merely institutional. She can never be reduced to a system of flexible ethics or sociological analysis and remodeling to fit the instincts and appetites (and sexual confusions) of an age. One of the key flaws in the current pontificate is its retreat from a convincing “theology of the body” and its lack of a compelling Christian anthropology . . . precisely at a time when attacks on human nature and identity, from transgenderism to transhumanism, are mounting. Sixth: Global travel served a pastor like Pope John Paul II so well because of his unique personal gifts and the nature of the times. But the times and circumstances have changed. The Church in Italy and throughout Europe – the historic home of the faith – is in crisis. The Vatican itself urgently needs a renewal of its morale, a cleansing of its institutions, procedures, and personnel, and a thorough reform of its finances to prepare for a more challenging future. These are not small things. They demand the presence, direct attention, and personal engagement of any new Pope. Seventh and finally: The College of Cardinals exists to provide senior counsel to the Pope and to elect his successor upon his death. That service requires men of clean character, strong theological formation, mature leadership experience, and personal holiness. It also requires a Pope willing to seek advice and then to listen. It’s unclear to what degree this applies in the Pope Francis pontificate. The current pontificate has placed an emphasis on diversifying the college, but it has failed to bring cardinals together in regular consistories designed to foster genuine collegiality and trust among brothers. As a result, many of the voting electors in the next conclave will not really know each other, and thus may be more vulnerable to manipulation. In the future, if the college is to serve its purposes, the cardinals who inhabit it need more than a red zucchetto and a ring. Today’s College of Cardinals should be proactive about getting to know each other to better understand their particular views regarding the Church, their local church situations, and their personalities – which impact their consideration of the next pope. Readers will quite reasonably ask why this text is anonymous. The answer should be evident from the tenor of today’s Roman environment: Candor is not welcome, and its consequences can be unpleasant. And yet these thoughts could continue for many more paragraphs, noting especially the current pontificate’s heavy dependence on the Society of Jesus, the recent problematic work by the DDF’s Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, and the emergence of a small oligarchy of confidants with excessive influence within the Vatican – all despite synodality’s decentralizing claims, among other things. Exactly because of these matters, the cautionary reflections noted here may be useful in the months ahead. It is hoped that this contribution will help guide much needed conversations about what the Vatican should look like in the next pontificate. —Demos II
If on May 13th (The Fatima date) we see white smoke... Is it because the new Pope is a modernist and a divider, who brings in,,, "Bishop against Bishop and Cardinal against Cardinal"? A quote from Akita. A split. Cardinal Ratzinger ..the messages of Akita and Fátima are "essentially the same". Or perhaps it will be a Pope, who by the intercession of Our Lady AND her children, who ushers in the triumph after persecution? Perhaps it is not yet set in stone. Perhaps YOUR prayer and fasting (or lack doing so) will effect it.
The period leading up to the Conclave reminds me of the lead up to the American Civil War when words started to turn into bullets and attitudes on both sides hardened. For instance Cardinal Muller warning that there could be Schism in the Church if the multiple heresies were all owed to continue and Cardinal Parolin warning there could be no going back from Papa Frankies horrendous goings on and the False Synodal Church he was trying so hard to establish. In other words both sides are drawing lines in the sand and the two positions of Modernist Heresy and the One True Church are kind of eye ball to eyeball in a big show down. But a two thirds super majority is needed and it seems difficult to see how two mutually exclusive positions could be reconciled. What might be expected to happen is that both sides split the difference and come up with some moderate who embodies a little of each position. But this reminds me again of the American Civil War. At the end of the day either you are for slavery or against it. It was very difficult to find a mid way position that would please everyone. The very last thing Abraham Lincoln wanted was a Civil War but the fact that the two positions were so exclusive to each other drew them on to the spilling of blood. Its the same with the Church . No one actually wants a Schism, but as with slavery so with heresy. Either you are for it or against it. It is very difficult to imagine a mid way or 'moderate', position of candidate. In the USA they might in theory have allowed slavery to continue in the South but stopped it in the North. But in actual practice this would never have worked. So in the Church in theory you could allow heresy to continue in places like Germany and the Vatican but hold firm against it in other places. But in practice it just would not work. So it seems like this Conclave is going to be a very,very long and a very,very hot one. Another Fort Sumter. A Good Hill to Die on.His Truth is Marching on.
I like everything about your above post, very well put. I do want to say one thing which I was never aware of, perhaps you are. Lincoln, and I believe him to have been a good man, he valued the dignity of every life however, the Emancipation proclamation was inspired by a "spirit table," as was the Declaration of Sentiments. A small dark corner of America's history. Sorry for the side tangit.
Well errr . I suppose God can right straight in very crooked lines...this reminds me of King Saul and the Witch of Endor.
Alvaro of Uniquely Mary has a deep devotion to the Holy Souls and his videos have excellent teaching. He is asking for people to have Masses said for the Holy Souls with the intention that they in return pray for the election of 'the best pope possible'. He had a previous prayer campaign of the same kind for the election of DJT. I've pledged some Masses for the current intention. Can't hurt! He's also asked his viewers to fast on bread and water during the conclave itself.
