Peter the Roman

Perugino: Christ Delivering the Keys to Saint Peter. Christ Delivering the Keys to Saint Peter, fresco by Perugino, 1481–82; in the Sistine Chapel, Vatican City.

Introduction to the Topic

The tribulations that the followers of Jesus Christ will have to suffer constitute the underlying theme of the Spirit's exhortation to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna (Ap 2: 8–11). Tribulations and sufferings that will reach their culmination in intensity, frequency, and universality once the Last Times arrive, or the moment of their approach. According to the words of Jesus Christ, with which he adopted an oracle of the prophet Daniel, there will be a great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be (Mt1 24:21).

Tribulations are a constant in the life of the Christian. Apart from the numerous and repeated warnings that Jesus Christ makes in this regard (Jn 15: 18, 20; 16:2; etc.), there is a very expressive one belonging to the Apostle St. Paul: Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Tim 3:12). Note, however, that the tribulations that will take place in the Last Times will be of utmost gravity and special peculiarities. The Pontificate of the Pope to whom the Prophecy of St. Malachy assigns the legend of Petrus Romanus, the last in the series, will occur concurrently with the tremendous events that, according to Revelation, will happen in the Last Times and that will end the History of the World and of the Church militant (regarding the well-known Prophecy of St. Malachy, sufficient information can be found in our book El Invierno Eclesial, Shoreless Lake Press, 2011, pp. 227–263).

It is well known that the Prophecy of St. Malachy—should one wish to admit its authenticity—besides being merely private in nature, has never been officially recognized nor rejected by the Church. This means that anyone is free to believe or not believe in its content, both positions being equally correct and open to all kinds of possible speculation. Its truth or falsehood will be determined by historical and theological considerations and investigations, and principally by the fulfillment or failure of what was announced; as happens with any prophecy that does not possess the character of official Revelation. Keep in mind that there exist in Catholicism private prophecies and revelations—such as those attributed to the Virgin of Fatima—which, although lacking the character of official Revelation, have been well received and blessed by the Church; thus, they enjoy special consideration although they do not require the assent of faith from the faithful.

In the specific case we are considering, everything depends on the degree of accuracy one wishes to recognize in each of the mottos corresponding to the 112 Popes contemplated in the Prophecy, from the one attributed to Celestine II (1143–1144) to the one assigned to the very last of them, which, according to the Prophecy, will mark the end of times.

The criteria for applying the mottos to the various Pontificates vary. Sometimes they refer to the Pontificate itself or the environment of the Pope in question, as in the case of Benedict XV (1914–1922), to whom the legend Religio Depopulata corresponds (the First World War took place during the years 1914–1918, whose number of victims throughout Europe was considerable enough to seem to justify the allusion to a depopulated Christendom), while other times they point to the person of the Pope to whom they are assigned, as occurs with Pius XII (1939–1958) and his motto Pastor Angelicus (an appellation applied with all propriety to Pope Pius XII, despite the campaign raised against him for years by the Judeo-Masonic world).

In general, the emblems assigned to each Pope or Pontificate are cryptic in nature and of a variable level of difficulty regarding their interpretation. Although some of them seem to show a clear relationship with the corresponding Pope, there are others in which the task of finding an appropriate meaning is more difficult, and sometimes even seems impossible. This last detail has led many to deny the validity of the Prophecy completely.

It is possible, however, that such detractors have proceeded hastily or lightly. Or that they have not taken into account that prophetic language is always esoteric and rarely understood clearly before its fulfillment. Be that as it may, it is evident that the problem cannot be examined objectively if one does not previously adopt a serene attitude free of prejudice and willing not to jump to hasty conclusions.

The election of the currently reigning Pontiff Pope Francis (to whom, according to the Prophecy, the nickname or device of Petrus Romanus would theoretically correspond), after the resignation of his predecessor Benedict XVI (De Gloria Olivæ), has complicated matters for the supporters of St. Malachy's prediction. It is well known that it announces a mysterious Petrus Romanus as the last of the Popes, and his immediate predecessor—apparently Benedict XVI—as the penultimate one. However, this has not happened, as everything seems to indicate that the name Francis has nothing to do with Petrus Romanus, clearly indicated by St. Malachy as the Pontiff who will close History, coinciding with the second coming of Jesus Christ. Nor are there, at least for the moment, evident signs that the Church and the World are headed for the Parousia. From which it can be deduced, according to many, that since the prediction has failed, its falsehood has been demonstrated.

However, as we have already suggested above, haste in judgment in the realm of prophecies, regarding their interpretation or fulfillment, is the worst attitude one can adopt and a sure source of mistakes. We have already said that we find ourselves here immersed in an esoteric and unknown terrain that requires careful treading and adopting the greatest possible number of precautions, in order to avoid hasty judgments that, almost certainly, would lead to error.

Furthermore, and to complicate matters even more, the world of prophecies is slippery ground that has led some to think of the possibility that it might be, at least with respect to some of them, something akin to a joke that God might have wanted to play on men. Not in the sense that God wanted to deceive or mock them—something unthinkable and absolutely impossible—but that, moved by His wise and mysterious designs, perhaps He decided to disconcert some while announcing to them the truth of what was going to happen: “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that ‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be2 forgiven.’” (Mk 4: 11–12; cf Mt 13:15; Acts 28:27; Ro 11:10; Ap 16:15). The theme of the reason for parables was already treated in some of our books. It should be noted that this kind of admonition, proper to Revelation, ought to suffice to urge extreme prudence on exegetes and commentators.

There is also an old theory asserting that the mottos De Gloria Olivæ and Petrus Romanus do not necessarily imply an immediate connection between them. Therefore, the possibility exists that between the two there might be an intermediate period of an unknown number of years. The theory is far from being considered proven, although neither are there sufficient arguments against it to reject it. Thus, the problem remains unresolved and without apparent solution.

With the question posed thus, and in order to clarify it, only one of these three hypotheses can be admitted as possible:

1. Either the Prophecy of St. Malachy lacks sufficient foundation and can therefore be rejected as absolutely false.

2. Or the theory according to which there is no immediate connection between the last two mottos could be taken into consideration, which would mean waiting for a period of unknown duration, spanning from Benedict XVI, to whom the Prophecy assigns De Gloria Olivæ, until the appearance of the Pope corresponding to Petrus Romanus.

3. And thirdly, it also seems reasonable to accept as probable the fact that the motto Petrus Romanus has been misinterpreted. Therefore, the possibility that it does indeed correspond to the current Pope Francis cannot be dismissed outright, even acknowledging the existence of problems inherent in its interpretation.

   
   

It is unnecessary to insist on the enormous difficulties (not to mention impossibility) that an attempt to demonstrate any of the three hypotheses would entail, given that we are in a field where only conjectures and approximate judgments are possible. Hence, the most probable conclusion to be drawn from our Study is that none of the three hypotheses possesses sufficient arguments to claim the status of indisputable, and hence the freedom for each individual to show preference for any of them. In any case, it is advisable to offer two warnings before proceeding further.

First of all, it must be clearly established that, for our part, although we are inclined to maintain the authenticity of the Prophecy of St. Malachy as a whole, we in no way declare ourselves in its favor by means of a definitive judgment.

On the other hand, and always keeping in mind what has been said, we will investigate here the foundations supporting the theory that defends the assignment of the emblem Petrus Romanus to Pope Francis. It is well understood that this is not about demonstrating that it is the most reasonable hypothesis, but about making evident the fact that there are sufficient indications not to reject it lightly. And although I decidedly lean in its favor, the definitive judgment on its truth or falsehood will remain, as always, in the hands of time. Which is, ultimately, what securely settles the authenticity or falsity, as well as the meaning, of all private prophecies and revelations.

The Name Petrus Romanus

Since the name of Pope Francis, currently reigning, has nothing to do with that of Peter the Roman, who in turn would be the last of the series according to the Prophecy of St. Malachy…, any relationship between the two is dismissed, according to some. Therefore, the famous prediction would be completely devalued.

However, even setting aside for the moment the theory according to which an indeterminate lapse of time must be admitted between the last two mottos (in which an unknown number of successive Popes would have to be accounted for), dismissing outright the attribution of the emblem Peter the Roman to Pope Francis implies hasty judgment, as well as a neglect of the elementary norms that have always been taken into account regarding the interpretation of the Prophecy of Malachy.

The first of these refers to the fact that the motto does not always relate to the personal name of the Pope to whom it is attributed, but often relates to his surroundings or the events that unfolded during his time and which, in some way, define his Pontificate. We have already pointed out some examples of this among the many existing throughout the History of the Papacy.

But History, which besides being the Teacher of life and therefore a source of fruitful and true lessons—almost never taken advantage of by men—often seems to display irony towards those who pretend to understand it. As occurs, for example, in this case, where the motto of Peter the Roman, contrary to what might appear, does indeed bear a full and strange relationship to the person of Francis, which is what we will attempt to show. Also noting that, logically, and since it is merely an opinion, no one should expect apodictic arguments. It is simply a matter here of showing that the theories that see no relationship between the mysterious motto and the current Pope lack convincing arguments.

That being said, we will begin our inquiry with some speculations about the name Petrus.

Which, as everyone knows, has always been attributed by the Church and the body of the faithful to each and every one of the Pontiffs who have existed throughout History. Through the centuries, pilgrimages to Rome were always made, uninterruptedly, under the motto of videre Petrum (to see Peter).

The expression Tu es Petrus (You are Peter) has traditionally been used in the Church, in the form of hymns or antiphons, to honor the reigning Pontiff in recognition of his status as universal Supreme Pastor and legitimate successor of the apostle St. Peter, who was the first of all the Popes and the foundation or cornerstone (continued then by his successors) of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Sung as a liturgical hymn or motet, almost all the great artists of religious music, such as Palestrina, Perosi, Eslava, or Tomás Luis de Victoria among others, have dedicated compositions to it.

By way of example, and confining ourselves exclusively to modern times, the hymn Tu es Petrus composed by Palestrina was sung at the Consistory for the creation of new Cardinals on November 20, 2010; while the one composed by Eslava was sung at the Mass for the Beginning of the Pontificate of Pope Francis on March 19, 2013. It is used as an invocation in the graduals and alleluias after the Epistle or in the Communion antiphon, within the formularies of the Masses of St. Peter or St. Paul.

The name Petrus, as included in the invocation Tu es Petrus, therefore possesses a generic character and is applicable to all the Popes of History and, of course, to Francis. Although in this case, the prophetic motto seems to do so expressly and intentionally, perhaps for the reasons we will now explain. In reality, something similar occurred in the Roman Empire, with the attribution of the name Caesar to all emperors who succeeded Caesar Augustus (27 B.C.–14 A.D.).

Of course, posed this way, an obviously interesting question inevitably arises:

If that is so, why has the name Peter been attributed to Francis and not to some of the other Pontiffs who, having reigned before him throughout History, avoided using it out of respect for the Prince of the Apostles? Something Pope Francis has also done. And yet, since the Prophecy applies it to him, everything leads one to think that the attribution possesses a symbolic character intended to allude to some specific quality of the current Pontiff. Therein lies the problem we face and seek to unravel. And it is probable that the answer, if it exists and can be found (which, despite the difficulties, seems feasible), will introduce us fully into the mystery of the meaning of the motto Tu es Petrus applied to Pope Francis.

One possible answer, which is nonetheless highly surprising, consists of two apparently contradictory parts.

Firstly, the Prophecy tries to make evident a quality that Pope Francis apparently attempts to sidestep, although not clearly expressed. In this sense, the oracle seems to go against the intentions of the Pontiff.

Secondly, this time seconding the Pope's wishes, the prophetic text uses the adjective Romanus (it would be indifferent for the case to consider it as an adjective or a noun) placed in apposition to the name Peter, with the apparent aim of drawing attention to something otherwise patent, but whose deeper intention could go unnoticed: Francis intends to insist on his condition of Romanness, precisely to obviate what the attribution of the correct meaning of Petrus would imply for him.

Or put another way: Regarding the first point, the Prophecy seems to try to reveal something that is intended to be concealed, or at least displaced and for which a secondary position has been assigned to help it go unnoticed. As for the second, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the motto tries to uncover the maneuver (now in the opposite direction) by which a reality is desired to pass into the foreground: perhaps with the aim of making something that one wants to forget or at least downplay go unnoticed? Evidently, if the hypothesis we have just presented were true, the prophetic motto would then have, regarding the first aspect, a sense of agere contra (acting contrary); regarding the second, it would attempt to uncover the will to highlight a quality, otherwise true, but whose objective is none other than to displace another.

The actions and words of Pope Francis lead one to believe that the Pontiff, continuing the line of thought of his conciliar and post-conciliar predecessors, is rather inclined towards a form of Church governance that would be collegial, conciliar or, as he himself says, synodal, which he seems to prefer over the monarchical or traditional form.

By way of summary, since this is not the place for a historical study of the problem, it is worth noting that conciliarist tendencies, or defenders of the hierarchical superiority of the Ecumenical Council over the Pope, are already ancient in the Church. They arose with particular acrimony during the Great Western Schism (1378–1417), as a possible way to resolve it.

In any case, the Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter and the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff was already clearly expounded at the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 (DS 861), at the Council of Florence in 1439 (D 694), and in the Professio Fidei Tridentina (DS 1868). Although it was definitively settled and defined in the four chapters (with their corresponding condemnatory canons) of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Æternus, in Session IV of the First Vatican Council (DS 3053–3075).

Despite this, conciliarist ideas re-emerged at the Second Vatican Council among progressive theologians, prompting the intervention of Pope Paul VI, who ordered the insertion of a Nota Explicativa Previa (Preliminary Explanatory Note) to the Constitution Lumen Gentium, in order to clarify the traditional doctrine of the Church. Currently, more than half a century after the closure of the Second Vatican Council, everything seems to indicate that the conciliarist current, like a phoenix always rising again, has reappeared in the Church.

This is the reason for Francis's apparent effort to be designated as Bishop of Rome rather than as Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, and hence perhaps the curious qualification by which the Prophecy attributes to him the name Romanus. In a somewhat contrary sense, his strange insistence on placing his status as Supreme Pontiff of the Church in the background explains why Malachy's oracle, with apparent reticence, qualifies him as Petrus, a name that until now had not been designated to any Pope, despite all of them having equally been successors of St. Peter.

It can be said, therefore, although it may seem nonsensical, that everything proceeds as if the motto intended to use irony purposefully. Perhaps in an attempt to make clear, given the attempt to sidestep the essential Petrine function, the fact that the Prophecy insists on recalling it and establishing it firmly. With a bit of imagination, we could surely think of the oracle insisting on saying: Well, despite everything, and whatever may be said, Tu es Petrus!…! And hence the name of the Prince of the Apostles assigned in the motto to Pope Francis.

That Pope Francis intends not to place too much emphasis on his status as Supreme and Sole Pontiff of the Catholic Church is quite evident to anyone who thinks without prejudice. He has systematically refused to use the Ring of the Fisherman, an exclusive symbol of the Popes and highly expressive of their condition as Pontiffs of the Church and successors of St. Peter. He has also rejected the use of almost all papal vestments and the possibility of living in the pontifical apartments of the Vatican, in addition to eliminating all properly papal liturgy and suppressing in his person all appearance of pomp and exercise of power; not forgetting the expressive gesture of not wanting to use the pontifical throne and his insistent preference for calling himself Bishop of Rome. His appearances alongside the retired Pope, both placed on seats as if of equal rank, the publication of an Encyclical about which it is insisted is the work of both, etc., are gestures that, although proving nothing categorically, are nevertheless sufficiently expressive and suggestive in favor of a possible and intended collegiality.

Propaganda and the work of the media have disseminated everywhere that this series of gestures—and similar ones—are due to nothing other than the Pope's humility and his desire to insist on and proclaim the need for this virtue in a Pastor of the Church.

The problem arises, however, when one notes that humility, being an extraordinarily delicate virtue, easily lends itself to falsifications and qualifications that often do not correspond to reality. Thus, it is not always easy to dispel the doubts of those who insist that it is an authentic virtue. Which is usually modest and reserved by definition and an enemy of mass proclamations and acclamations. The very ones that begin by being suspicious often end up showing themselves to have lacked foundation: Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets!, said Jesus Christ (Lc 6:26). The issue of sudden sainthoods, or widespread and unquestioned fame, has never worked well in the Church. No one knows what the future holds for the halos of heroic lives like those of Martin Luther King or Gandhi; or those of theologians like Karl Rahner or Teilhard de Chardin. History shows that authentic holiness was always highly questioned, besides true servants of God often being objects of persecution and grave contradictions; and for some of them, centuries had to pass for their heroic virtues to be recognized. In the specific case we are dealing with, the general unanimity of the media in recognizing and proclaiming the gestures of humility of Pope Francis will likely have the effect, at best, of inducing prudence in accepting them.

Previously, we alluded to Pope Francis's words affirming that authority in the Church should be exercised in a synodal manner, with greater participation of Bishops and Episcopal Conferences in the Supreme Government that the Petrine ministry entails, thus giving expression to a concern that extends from John XXIII to the present moment, passing through Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. In reality, everything seems related to the revolutionary concept of the ecumenical problem, as elaborated in its new formulation by the Second Vatican Council, which the conciliar Church has not hesitated to adopt. According to this, many think of the role played until now by the Pope as the main obstacle to the union of all Christians.

Proof of the new way the Petrine function is intended to be exercised, which seems to have been accepted by Pope Francis, is the appointment of a group of Cardinals whose mission is to advise and assist the Pope in the government of the Church. With this, it becomes difficult not to see here another attempt to move towards a form of collegial exercise of the Papacy, or perhaps synodal, if one prefers to use Pope Francis's words. But since advisors and assistants have always been available to Popes, one might ask about the true motivations that have prompted organizing them into a group and granting them a collegial character.

Some are convinced that this is, once again, the use of a procedure peculiar to Modernism, already set in motion at the Second Vatican Council, namely: ambivalent words and gestures, capable of being interpreted in a double sense, and government decisions of the same nature. All of which, by the very fact of resting on evident ambiguities, is almost impossible to refute.

It would be absurd to accuse the conciliar or post-conciliar Popes of intending to nullify the Constitution Pastor Æternus of the First Vatican Council, whose dogmatic character is beyond all discussion and is the touchstone against which any conciliarist attempt shatters. But it is evident that progressive Theology attempts to circumvent the obstacle, even though the task presents itself as arduous and practically impossible. And there is no lack of testimonies supporting the efforts of the innovators. Pope John Paul II, for example, speaking about ecumenism, referred to the need to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation (John Paul II, Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, 1995, n. 95). But undoubtedly the problem belongs to the kind that is easier to state than to solve. For example, how is it possible to maintain what is essential and yet open oneself to a new situation? Too much ingenuity would be needed here not to fall into another attempt to square the circle.

This explains Pope Francis's apparent effort not to allude to his condition as Supreme Head of the Church and his strange insistence on appearing before the Catholic world as Bishop of Rome. His appearance on the balcony, newly elected Pope, to ask the crowd to bless him as Bishop of Rome, is quite symbolic, to which must be added his subsequent speeches and actions in the same vein. All this has aroused the enthusiasm and applause of the leaders and supporters of progressive modernist Theology, who triumphantly proclaim the end of the centralist Church and the appearance of another more in conformity with the pure Gospel—the Church of the poor and the Church of the People—without fetters or structures of any kind, and which, according to them, at least during the first centuries, never knew the figure of the Pope as universal Pastor.

History knows various Movements, which we could group under the name of Spirituals, that have appeared within the Church over the centuries. Their main characteristic is that they have never shown themselves to be supporters of hierarchical structures, as is currently the case with the Neocatechumenal, Charismatic Movements, etc., in which the role of the hierarchical and ministerial priesthood and the sacrificial value of the Mass have been practically nullified. It is not appropriate here to undertake a critique of these doctrines which, moreover, enjoy enormous prestige, power, and influence in the Catholic world today. Despite gravely undermining the Constitution of the Church as founded by Jesus Christ, they have managed to attract millions of proselytes and—what is more astonishing—gained the confidence of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

Pope Francis prefers to appear before the faithful of the universal Church as Bishop of Rome, and indeed he is. But the functions of Bishop of Rome and Pope or Pastor of the universal Church are indelibly united, to the point that, by the very nature of things, either one implies the other. Hence, the Bishop of Rome who is currently Francis is also necessarily, however much someone might try to ignore it, the Pope and Pastor of all Christians, successor of the Prince of the Apostles and firm Rock upon which the Church was built. This is precisely what Malachy's prophetic oracle—perhaps acting against the futile attempts of so many obstacles from those who would wish to forget it—seems determined to highlight, hence the name Petrus assigned to him, echoing words that no one can remove: Tu es Petrus…

For centuries, it has been asserted that no Pope wanted to take the name Peter out of respect for St. Peter. And for this reason, it seems to have been reserved—though in reality, no one knows the supreme and true reason—for the very last of them. In the absence of other truly determining motives, this belief could be accepted. However, given the esoteric character that always accompanies prophetic data, a different explanation, however strange it may seem, cannot be discarded, and that is why we have tried to provide one. Which specifically consists in the fact that never before had it been necessary to remind and insist before everyone, including the incumbent himself, that the Pope of the time is always the successor of the First of the series and the obliged subject to whom the appeal Tu es Petrus is directed. And hence the assignment of the name Peter to Pope Francis. An appellation necessarily linked to the office, and which does not depend at all on the acceptance or preference of the respective incumbent.

Of course, our theory may be true or false. Although no one can brand it as arbitrary or capricious, once the reasons—though not claiming to be apodictic—with which we have tried to support it have been presented. And certainly, Pope Francis's preference for a shared governance of the Church: collegial, conciliar, perhaps synodal...? cannot be doubted. In his book On Heaven and Earth, written in collaboration with Rabbi Skorka when he was still Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he shows sympathy for conciliarism and is decidedly against the Church possessing any power (J.M. Bergoglio–A. Skorka, Sobre el Cielo y la Tierra, A. Mondadori, Buenos Aires, 2013).

There is still an important problem to consider. Its framing leads us to the fact that the Pontiff to whom the motto Petrus Romanus corresponds according to the Prophecy of St. Malachy, since he appears as the last in the total series of Popes that will have existed in the Church—if the oracle is admitted as true—, his Pontificate must coincide with the grave tribulations that will mark the end of History and immediately precede the Parousia. According to which, and although the moment of the end of Times and the second coming of the Lord is known only to God the Father according to the words of Jesus Christ himself (Mt 24:36), the Pontificate of Pope Francis would have to be considered as corresponding to the Last Days.

However, could we say that the events happening in the world today confirm this...? In any case, and in order to try to answer such a difficult question, it is advisable to keep the prophetic text in its complete literal form in view, which is as follows:

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. (Sanctæ Romanæ

Ecclesiæ) sedebit Petrus Romanus,

qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus,

quibus transactis, civitas septicollis diruetur.

Et Judex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.

Undoubtedly, the text appears as mysterious as it is interesting, and entirely capable of arousing anyone's curiosity. Translated from Latin, it means the following:

During the final persecution that the Holy Roman Church will suffer, Peter the Roman will reign,

who will pasture his sheep amid many tribulations,

after which, the City of Seven Hills [Rome] will be destroyed.

And the terrible Judge will judge his people. The End.

Logically, everything depends on the value one wishes to attribute to St. Malachy's prediction. But should any (or total) seriousness be granted to the text, there seem to be important issues within it that lend themselves to reflection. Some of these, in turn, raise a new avalanche of questions, the majority of which, most likely, would have to remain without satisfactory answers. Although we will try to address them in some way and formulate some hypotheses, given the importance of the problem and the gravity of the current situation the Church is going through.

A first curiosity that would draw attention, were it not usually overlooked, relates to the fact that the oracle refers exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church as the only one it knows. Considering its origin dates to the 12th century (usually fixed around 1140), the Eastern Schism or Great Schism—the first of the most important ones—had already definitively occurred earlier (year 1054). Then one must also consider the terrible catastrophe of the Reformation, with the appearance of innumerable Protestant sects that also separated from the true Church. However, faced with all this, St. Malachy's text does not consider the Catholic Church as merely one in which the Church of Christ subsists, as the Second Vatican Council effectively does (Second Vatican Council, Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 8).

It is known that post-conciliar doctrines have set aside the traditional concept of the Church as One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman, in order to legitimize the new doctrines that include schismatic and separated sects and Movements as true Churches and, therefore, as valid instruments of salvation (clearly departing on this point from a secular and traditional Magisterium). That St. Malachy's prediction exclusively knows the Catholic Church as the unique and true Church (it doesn't even pose the problem of other Churches) is demonstrated by its clear allusion to the Romanness of the Church and its explicit reference to the City of Seven Hills. It is true, however, that since Antiquity—starting with the Book of Revelation—local Communities were called Churches; although the concept was limited exclusively, as we have said, to the scope of Christian Communities scattered here and there, without ever being attributed the meaning of Church in a comprehensive sense.

Another important question open to speculation, as inferred from the final text of the Prophecy of St. Malachy, concerns the role played in the events of the Last Days by the holder of the motto that closes the series. It says there that this mysterious Peter the Roman will pasture the sheep—pascet oves—amid many tribulations during the final persecution. The text in multis tribulationibus, although sufficiently clear, does not exclude a certain ambiguity capable of considering diverse interpretative nuances: Is it about difficult and dangerous obstacles that the last Pope will have to strive to overcome through grave sufferings and harsh hardships? Or, on the contrary, will he himself have contributed to provoking such trials which, moreover, the elect will be forced to suffer? The reality is that it is not possible to dismiss, nor admit, any hypothesis lightly, from the moment that prophecies about the last things speak of false prophets who will deceive many and even antichrists who will pretend to occupy the place of God.

It must be acknowledged, regarding Peter the Roman's responsibility in the grave events preceding the Parousia, that nothing certain can be deduced in this regard—good or bad—from the content of the text. The only certainty is that he will be the one performing the function of Vicar of Christ in those terrible moments. The decision to attribute to him, wholly or partly, the responsibility for the events would imply the will to identify him with one of the false Prophets who, according to all prophecies, will act in the Last Times deploying an arsenal of fallacies with which they will deceive many. It would, however, be a grave assertion for which there is no basis in the text to say it is more than a gratuitous attribution. Thus, it would be an accusation lacking sufficient foundation. Although it would not be reasonable either to dismiss—within the realm of hypothesis in which we find ourselves—the theory of some according to whom there are quite a few indications suggesting the contrary.

Much more important is the question of the tremendous events that will take place during the Pontificate of Peter the Roman, since they are the ones that will signal the end of History and the second coming of the Supreme Judge. This would mean, if the attribution of the motto to Pope Francis is true, that the current Church is headed for the grave persecutions, hardships, and sufferings that, according to what is prophesied, will test the faith of the few Christians (Lc 18:8) who have remained faithful until then. All of which will occur at a moment currently impossible to know (Mt 24:36), but probably already near the one we Christians currently live in (1 Cor 7: 29–31).

Now then, can it be said that the events currently affecting the life of the Church, as well as that of Humanity, possess sufficient magnitude to be considered those that must occur in the Last Times, or at least those that will mark their beginning?

And the most reasonable answer is, of course, that we do not know. However, the tribulations and assaults the Church is currently suffering, which have led it to the greatest crisis in its History, are of such extraordinary gravity that it would have been impossible to imagine them approximately sixty years ago. One can discuss all one wants about whether such events are the ones specifically designated to happen in the Last Times…, although it is difficult to think, if this is not the case, how they could be surpassed by those that would have to come later.

It can be said, therefore, that this is indeed a hypothesis to which full adherence cannot be given, but which nevertheless remains another circumstance pointing towards the identification of Pope Francis with Peter the Roman.

The gravity of such events increases if one considers, not only that they usually go unnoticed, but that they are also qualified as the triumph of a line of progress that has notably improved the life of the Church—the ecclesial Springtime. This happens while the Bride of Christ struggles to navigate a lethal environment of paganism, unbelief, generalized corruption, general apostasy, institutionalized lying in all orders..., and even constant mockery of God. Never could Satan have hoped that the spread of the modernist heresy would provide him such a triumph, which moreover has all the appearances of being about to finish off the Catholic Church.

We have already said, and we maintain, that we are moving within the realm of hypotheses. From which it follows that nothing here is claimed to be definitively demonstrated. We only try to show that both the Prophecy of St. Malachy and the attribution of the nickname Peter the Roman (corresponding to the last Pope) to Pope Francis cannot be dismissed lightly.

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that here we are speaking exclusively of the Prophecy of St. Malachy—which we have also considered as a private prophecy, albeit of a serious nature—without intending to compare or contrast it with any of those that make up the cloud of prophecies, revelations, apparitions, and visions that, like flies in summertime, swarm within the Church at this moment. Regarding which Christians would do well to remember that such things always tend to happen in times of great crisis like the present, and that none of them, with the exception of Fatima and Lourdes justly blessed by the Church, offer any guarantee of credibility.

Likewise, we say, within this context of possibilities on which we are speculating, that one can discuss all one wants about whether the events currently affecting the Church and the world resemble or not those that Humanity will suffer in the Last Times, or in their vicinity. But, unless one wants to deny all evidence, there are two facts in this regard that are there, for anyone who wants to see:

a) That the current situation of the world is a powder keg about to explode, where anything can happen.

b) That the persecution the Church is suffering at the present moment is the greatest it has endured in History, far surpassing those suffered during the era of the Roman Empire. The Christians massacred daily both in Africa and Asia are innumerable. As for the so-called world of Western civilization (in which we can consider Europe and the two Americas), the offensive unleashed against it by all anti-Christian ideologies (rationalism, immanentism, existentialism, historicism, Marxism, and above all by modernism as encompassing all of them according to St. Pius X), with the sole aim of finishing off all Christian values once and for all, has acquired a ferocity bordering on the diabolical. With another aggravating factor, however, but one that takes on extraordinary importance, which is that the high point of the persecution against Christians is this time situated within the Church itself, as it is those who call themselves Christians who are most intensely persecuting the few who still remain faithful to the Doctrine of the Faith and who are contemptuously called traditionalists (as if the term traditionalist were not inherent to that of Christian).

Regarding this last point, and always within the hypothetical terrain we are discussing—must it be repeated again?—it remains to add that it is difficult to dismiss the decisive role Pope Francis seems to be playing in placing obstacles and difficulties for traditionalist Christians and, in general, for everything that sounds like Tradition within the Church.

And yet, a fundamental, indisputable fact remains, now beyond any hypothesis, which is that a Church not faithful to Tradition cannot be the true Church.

One of the main achievements obtained in what appears to be the Final Battle against the Church, and which nobody ever talks about, concerns the abolition of the divine precept of the indissolubility of marriage. After twenty centuries of defending the contrary, the Church seems willing, not only to shield divorce by alleging reasons that would border on the ridiculous were they not a mockery of divine Law, but also to overturn the entire traditional doctrine on the family and the dangerous and bold admission to the Eucharist—God is not mocked, said St. Paul—of those who lack the proper dispositions, ignoring all the prescriptions of divine Law.

However, when the demands of conforming to the World and the desire not to appear outdated are more important than keeping God's Law—What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate—(Mt 19:6; Mc 10:9), and are moreover proclaimed as a triumph of progress, without considering the foreseeable consequences of the destruction of the Family and even the Faith of the multitude of the faithful... when things have reached this point, it is difficult to deny that we are near the End of the road.

More transcendent, within this range of events, is the replacement of the Traditional Mass by the one promulgated by Pope Paul VI and known as the Novus Ordo. A fact that becomes especially grave when considering the determination of most of the Hierarchy to abolish the Traditional Mass, despite its current legal validity for the universal Church being beyond doubt (the Laws protecting its current validity and facilities for its celebration, without need for permits or authorizations from any Hierarchies, are being absolutely ignored).

In reality, the legitimacy and validity of the Novus Ordo, which the Church considers the proper or Ordinary Rite of the Mass, unlike the one used in the Traditional Mass which is called the Extraordinary Rite, cannot be disputed. Despite this, it is necessary to keep in mind—albeit briefly—two warnings that cannot be ignored:

Firstly, the Traditional Mass is the one that adequately expresses the idea of the propitiatory Sacrifice, of the immolation of Jesus Christ the Victim, of the possibility for the Christian to share through it in the Death of his Lord, of the clear differentiation of the ministerial priesthood from the common priesthood of the faithful, etc., etc. The Church has been celebrating it practically for twenty centuries.

Secondly, it should be noted that all these characteristics have practically disappeared from the Novus Ordo Mass. Which comes to be a transcript, almost a copy of the Protestant Mass drafted by the Anglican Archbishop Cranmer (first Anglican Archbishop, who along with Cromwell and Queen Elizabeth I, consummated the schismatic project of King Henry VIII and the entire abolition of Catholicism in England), as corroborated by the fact that the same formularies are celebrated today in Anglican and Catholic worship. Furthermore, Catholics usually ignore that the Commission drafting the Novus Ordo was composed of ten experts, seven of whom were Protestants. Only the remaining three were Catholics, if one can even speak thus considering that one of them—precisely the President of the Commission—belonged to Freemasonry.

Another indicator of the grave crisis the Church is undergoing is the absolute loss of confidence of the majority of the faithful in the Magisterium, coupled with the total discrediting of the Hierarchy. Since the Second Vatican Council, the apparent discrepancies between the current and what we could call the perennial Magisterium of the Church have been accentuating despite the efforts of the Conciliar Popes to maintain the contrary. Particularly noteworthy in this respect is the theory of the hermeneutic of continuity, elaborated by Benedict XVI, but which never managed to take root in the body of Catholic Theology nor among the common faithful, given the contradictions it constantly showed in all doctrinal bodies, including the works of Benedict XVI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, which were never corrected once he became Pope. And since this is not the place to carry out a historical study of the problem, suffice it to say now to summarize that the post-conciliar years have witnessed the division of Catholics into a multitude of factions that could mainly be grouped into two: that of the traditionalists and that of the progressives, with indications that the differences will deepen ever more and with the danger, more alarming as time passes, that everything will end in a schism that tears apart the Church or what remains of Her.

The discrediting of the Hierarchy has reached heights particularly manifested on the occasion of World Youth Day, celebrated in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 2013. The ridiculous spectacle of the Brazilian samba, danced at the closing Mass by Bishops vested in sacred vestments and in front of the Pope, led by a homosexual choreographer expert in spectacles, even pornographic ones, only put the final cherry on top of a Hierarchy increasingly refractory to the principles of authority and obedience and less willing to maintain the Doctrine and Morality that the Church has preached and defended for centuries.

The so-called Assisi Meetings contributed not insignificantly to the ever-increasing confusion reigning among Catholics. To which must be added the fundamental change in the concept of the Catholic, Holy, and True Church, the unique and exclusive instrument of salvation—as maintained for centuries—to that of openness to all Churches in which anyone can be saved, as is now proclaimed. Undoubtedly, this latter factor has proven to contain the greatest potential for disintegration, with delayed and devastating effects that have impacted an increasingly confused population showing signs of not knowing where to go; or that has opted to renounce everything and go nowhere, as anyone attentive to reality can ascertain.

Then there is the matter of the General Apostasy. Which offers an external aspect and an internal one.

Regarding the external, an endless list could be compiled of thousands of priests and religious, all in frank flight. Secularized, having abandoned celibacy and, in most cases, also the Faith. And the same regarding religious brothers and nuns: deserted and closed convents and cloisters, rebellion against the Hierarchy, and completely empty novitiates. Regarding Seminaries and Faculties of Theology, there is nothing to say except that, in the little that still remains of them, everything is taught except Catholic Theology. As for the Morality lived by the Catholic World as a whole, it is better not to allude to the horrifying and negative statistics on Mass attendance, practice of Sacraments, sexual and marital Morality, etc., etc.

If we refer to the internal aspect, the panorama offered to view is even worse. A large part of the Catholic Orb, including the majority of the Hierarchy, has ceased to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, in the virginity of Mary, in the validity of the sacraments, in the immutability of Dogmas (which have now been reduced to mere products of human understanding and subject to the banality of historical circumstances). It is a world that also does not believe in the truth of the Saints, in the infallibility of the Church, in the reality of sin, in the existence of the City of Eternal Weeping..., nor does it maintain Hope in a Homeland and in a better World towards which man previously trusted he was journeying to reach. It is not strange that the feeling of Perfect Joy is hardly known anymore, only capable of being produced by a True Love which, of course, no one knows anymore nor desires.

And here we conclude the digressions concerning the motto that, according to St. Malachy, will correspond to the Pontiff who will close the History of the Church and the World. With the obligatory final conclusion that only God knows with certainty if Pope Francis is really Peter the Roman. For our part, we have not dared to assert that he is, and rather have limited ourselves to attempting to demonstrate that the hypothesis that both are the same person should not be dismissed lightly, since it enjoys as many reasons for credibility as those defending the contrary.

In any case, the symptoms we have outlined regarding the crisis suffered by the Church and the World are true and founded in reality. To which should be added the serious warning that what is described here is but the tip of the iceberg: But all this is the beginning of the birth pains (Mt 24:8). Without forgetting either the harsh reality that not everything can be said, since necessary discretion imposes it in moments like these when persecution looms: By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established, as the Book of Proverbs already said (Pro 24:3).

Such signs will be those prophetically announced for the end of Times... or perhaps they will not be. But it is undeniable that, in the latter case, they are at least the beginning of the events that must occur, as clearly emerges from the extreme gravity of the facts. Which is sufficient for us to imagine, albeit in some way, what is going to befall the Church and the World: For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short3 (Mt 24: 21–22). And the words are from Jesus Christ himself.

Of course, both the Church that dreams of a Universal Church unifying all religions, alongside a World that also sighs for a Global Authority to govern all the inhabitants of the Earth—and one must bear in mind that it is the same dream in both cases, encouraged by the same false wisdom and directed by the same Powers—are both doomed to the most resounding of failures and to a punishment that surpasses any human imagination.

In any case, whether we are already facing the Last Times or that moment has not yet arrived, Evil continues its inexorable advance while preparing the appearance of the Son of Perdition. Meanwhile, the progressives and the traditionalists continue arguing about the orthodoxy of this or that Doctrine, whether it conforms to or is alien to Tradition, or whether a certain hermeneutic of continuity might rather be one of rupture. To which must be added that many theologians, and even members of the Hierarchy, dedicate themselves to questioning most of the Dogmas (taking advantage of the situation of knowing they are protected by total impunity), so it is not strange that confusion spreads among the faithful nor that the number of those who waver and abandon continues to increase. With which Modernism has achieved one of its most desired objectives, as it is not so much interested in the outright denial of dogmas as in sowing doubt about them.

Thus it was that suddenly, without anyone apparently having noticed, one day the Church awoke to find Herself transformed into modernist, just as St. Jerome once said of Her referring to Arianism. A change that has affected millions of Catholics who, however, have not realized the event.

Which, as expected, the modernists deny, unless one wishes to admit that, while a certain change has occurred, its effect has been none other than substantially improving the Church and returning it to a state closer to its origins. The highest Hierarchies of the Church also energetically proclaim that, both regarding the teachings of the Magisterium and concerning the discipline and life of the Church, there has been nothing other than a development in continuity and an upward line of improvement in the ecclesial situation, always safeguarding the essentiality of the Institution and maintaining the immutability that, already in the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins demanded for Her in the face of any possible change.

Theories for and theories against, accusations and discussions in one sense and another, contradictory opinions according to diverse ideologies and different tendencies... a whole mishmash where the Church, which was once a Source of unity and holiness, has become a field of Agramante [a chaotic battlefield] in which each of the diverse groups believes it has the exclusive claim to the Truth, lacking a common factor and a firm hand capable of gathering the sheep into one flock with one shepherd.

The Modernist Church continues to speak brazenly of an Ecclesial Springtime and the return to the purity of the origins, once all the structures that, throughout the centuries and always according to it, have been stifling and extinguishing the Spirit have been dismantled and nullified. To which it also adds the need to adapt to the modern World, to adapt to modern philosophies, and to place dogmas at the level of human rationality in order to make them accessible to modern man. In this latter sense, it has not even hesitated to change Christian Morality, as promulgated and proceeding from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself, out of a strange sense of adaptation to modern thought. A sense of adaptation that has also not hesitated to use eminently Christian concepts—like mercy—to attempt to circumvent divine Law.

The sad truth, however, is that the facts are there, hard as the grave (Ca 8:6), undeniable by anyone. And the reality of what can now be seen, as the poet Rodrigo Caro said, is nothing other than fields of solitude, a mournful hill that were once famous Italica and now, with immense sorrow, are the sole object of Fabio's contemplation. And indeed, the Church will always be the same, since it cannot perish, but undoubtedly it is different from the one that existed until the Second Vatican Council. No matter how much the new generations cannot imagine it because they never got to see it.

But how is it possible that someone can claim that the Church of the Great Apostasy is more authentic than the one that fought against heresies for twenty centuries? Has the power of seduction and human surrender reached such a point that an attempt is made to impose on the body of the faithful that they should think white what is visibly black, or admit that it is black what they are contemplating as white?

That some are forced to live on nostalgia and feel overwhelmed amidst sobs and tears...? And how could it be otherwise...? Those who weep certainly know that the Church is there, since She is indefectible and the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against her (Mt 16:18). Which, being so true, cannot be an obstacle for it sometimes being difficult to recognize and find Her. As if, like the Spouse in The Song of Songs, She too had disappeared, albeit momentarily, from the sight of those who are part of Her and are her Body (Ca 3: 1–3):

Upon my bed, in dreams, by night,

I sought him whom my soul loves;

I sought him, but found him not.

I arose and went about the city,

in the streets and in the squares;

I sought him whom my soul loves.

I sought him, but found him not.

The watchmen found me

as they went about in the city:

“Have you seen him whom my soul loves?”4

And so, just as the bride sought the Bridegroom by night, so does the loving child of the Church. By night, certainly, because everything seems to indicate that darkness has fallen upon the world and no one can work (Jn 9:4). And it is an anxious search among dreams because everything in it resembles a nightmare, half reality and half gloomy fantasy, from which one wishes to awaken at all costs.

Events occur in the History of Salvation that generally go unnoticed. Partly due to the very greatness of the events and partly also due to the very limitations of human nature, which gives no more once it has reached a certain point. However, everything is foreseen in God's Plan, permitted and prepared by Him for the good of the elect. Only the spiritual man is capable of understanding, at least to a certain extent, the mind of God (1 Cor 2:16), until arriving, led by the same Spirit, at the complete truth and the true meaning of everything that surrounds him (Jn 16:13).

Refusing to recognize the responsibilities of an office, or trying to reject them, far from being proof of humility or greatness of spirit, rather provides reasons to think the opposite. Although Pope Francis seems not to want to recognize himself as Peter, St. Malachy's motto shows itself determined—curiosities and mysteries of History—to saddle him with the name, making him, whether he likes it or not, the only Pope in History to have borne the name of the Prince of the Apostles.

On the contrary, Pope Francis insists that he is the Bishop of Rome. Which, as everyone knows, is absolutely true. Although his determination to highlight this condition of Romanus is strange nonetheless, as if wishing to emphasize this second name, in order to place that of the Prince of the Apostles in the background. And it is then that the motto strangely intervenes again, such that someone might perhaps ask: But why? And for what purpose? Perhaps to draw attention to that emphasis, apparently intentional, and denounce the existence of some hidden intention? Difficult to know. It is certain, however, that it is precisely this device that makes the name Petrus appear, for the first and last time in the list of Popes that have marked the long history of the Church. Bishop of Rome? Certainly yes, although also successor of Peter and Pope of the whole Church: Petrus Romanus, the last of those who will govern the Church, according to St. Malachy's list, once the end of Times has arrived.

Neither prophetic language nor that of Revelation are entirely alien to irony, as can easily be verified by turning to the Wisdom Books of the Old Testament. When men insist on writing History with their own crooked lines, in order to adapt it to their desires, God takes pleasure in using such lines to write it in the cor-rect way, just as it has been delineated by His designs: Do not be deceived: God is not mocked (Ga 6:7). Irony of goodwill—as in our case—is an instrument of communication, proper to rational beings, ordinarily motivated by two sentiments: one pedagogical, whose main intention is to teach, and another mocking, with a punitive character that is also curative.

But the comparison of some gestures of Pope Francis with others also peculiar to St. Peter does not end here. The similarity of the former's ways of proceeding with some very outstanding and known ones of the latter—which reveal a parallelism of characters on diverse and varied points—surpasses the imaginable. A circumstance that may give grounds for thinking that it has been exploited by the prophetic text of St. Malachy in order to emphasize, like it or not, the Petrine condition of Pope Francis. Having said this, we can now relate that, according to a well-established tradition, once Nero's persecution was unleashed, St. Peter allowed himself to be convinced of the need to conceal his presence and hide the exercise of the faculties of his office as Head of the Church. For which reason he tried to leave the capital of the Empire, thereby giving rise to the endearing episode—legend or reality?—of Quo vadis, Domine?

However, according to the Legend, the response St. Peter obtained in the admonitory words I am going to Rome, to die a second time, was sufficient to make it quite clear that a Shepherd of Jesus Christ's Flock cannot deprive the sheep entrusted to him of the consolation of his personal presence as such Shepherd, much less withhold from them the care he is obliged to provide by reason of his office. It is undeniable that the first duty of a Shepherd towards his sheep is to be ready to lead them and to walk before them, without depriving the Flock of the confidence and security that only from him can it obtain, through his presence and loving care.

And it seems as if Pope Francis's intention in trying to blur the role of the Papacy as Monarchical and Supreme Power in the Church is none other than to reinforce the idea of collegiality in Ecclesial Government. If so, the problem nevertheless remains intact insofar as it affects the divine constitution of the Church and the situation of the faithful, besides it not being appropriate to treat it here.

Something happens with great men that is as obvious as it is easy to forget: that being great does not stop them from being men. Hence, they generally offer the appearance of being a conglomerate of virtues and defects, in which one or the other predominates according to the stature of the character and the historical moment in which his life unfolds. In this sense, one must recognize that St. Peter is one of the most singular humans to have passed into History: he has to his credit a sufficient baggage of generous and heroic acts, alongside others that denote cowardice and even lamentable betrayals. Fortunately, what truly matters here is the respective dosage of good or bad actions and, above all, the precise moment of life when they are performed, which is what qualifies the great man as brilliant or villainous according to the before or after in which his works are carried out. Regarding those who contemplate them and try to imitate them, the key consists in knowing how to copy their virtues and ignore their defects, which happens when there is nobility of soul in followers and admirers; or conversely, in making their defects the norm of one's own life, if pettiness predominates in them.

In this sense, an event that occurred in apostolic times, known as the Antioch incident and which had St. Peter and St. Paul as its main actors, is highly instructive. The Apostle of the Gentiles himself recounts it in his Letter to the Galatians: But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came5 from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.6 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”7 (Ga 2: 11–14).

From which it follows that St. Peter had no qualms about fraternizing with one group or another according to the conveniences of the moment, feigning preferences for the Judaizers instead of clearly proclaiming the absolute priority of faith in Jesus Christ. Thereby, at least in a certain way, he failed in the fidelity due to the Christians coming from paganism.

The case of Pope Francis, while remaining in the same line, goes much further, however, since it is no longer a matter of a mere appearance of preferences, but of a sincere and open sympathy towards Jews and Muslims whom he gladly calls brothers. Although such sentiment is accompanied, by inexplicable paradox, by a strange repulsion towards Catholics who insist on being faithful to the Tradition of the Church.

Conclusion

For many centuries, the incessant assaults of the Enemy against the Church ended up shattering against the Rock upon which it is built. Heresies were easily eradicated, and as for schisms, they always ended up being clearly delimited, qualified, and contained in such a way that everyone knew where they stood.

At least this was the case until the mid-20th century, coinciding approximately with the death of Pius XII.

But John XXIII, as soon as he was named Pope, ordered the windows of the Vatican to be opened. Thereby, besides leaving his Predecessors (until then of happy memory) in a not too brilliant situation, he obtained a result similar to what is told about the story of Pandora's box. Whether it was fresh air, or perhaps something else that entered through the windows, no one could say with exactitude. Although a few years later it was precisely another Pope—Paul VI, from whom one must assume he had reasons to know what he was talking about—who said that what penetrated through them was none other than the smoke of Satan. Which is not strange if one considers that, after all, this is what usually happens when ventilation systems are operated amidst an atmosphere and environment overloaded with miasmas; or when windows are opened without first ascertaining the kind of winds blowing outside, which could even be hurricane-force.

Unfortunately, the atmosphere breathed in Europe towards the mid-20th century was too saturated with decomposing substances.

In the current moments—the second decade of the 21st century—the Church is being attacked with greater ferocity than ever. With the novelty that now it is happening from within the very Rock upon which it was erected. The immovable Stone, base and foundation that should secure it forever against any attempt at destruction, is suffering at this moment extremely grave assaults by Someone or Something that yearns to tear down the entire Edifice supported on it. And the operation has all the signs of achieving the success it intends.

Regarding which, if anyone is willing to establish a parallel between the attacks suffered by the Papacy throughout a whole History of twenty centuries, and the gravity of those currently being directed against the Bastion of Peter, either they are unaware of the History of past events, or they suffer ignorance regarding the History of the current ones.

The Enemy has managed to penetrate the Fortress—this too is a phrase from Paul VI—and is now focusing the force of its attacks against the very Base and Foundation that sustain it. Which is the same as saying, against the Papacy. Meanwhile, everything seems to indicate that none of the post-conciliar Popes has shown signs of offering resistance. Unless one wishes to take into account, as some optimists pretend to do, some timid attempts by Benedict XVI which, compared, however, with the whole of his actions as Pope, are reduced to the same thing that remains of a sugar cube when dissolved in a glass of water.

And here we will not speak—these things are too well known—of the elimination of papal emblems and insignia, the suppression of the tiara and the sedia gestatoria, the disappearance of the Ring of the Fisherman, the replacement of the Throne of St. Peter with a chair, etc., etc.

But the curious thing about the case is that such a radical suppression of symbols has been accompanied, by contrast and as if by paradox, by an abuse of symbolism when referring to doctrinal truths that progressive Theology does not want to admit.

To the point that this is often what all Theology is reduced to: Dogmas, to give the most important example, are reduced for Modernism to mere symbols of the religious sentiments that man experiences in each historical moment. With which such extraordinary things have been reached as the fact that the Eucharist, to cite another impressive case, has been replaced in post-conciliar Doctrine and Pastoral practice by the purely symbolic (if anyone doubts it, see what the Sacrament has become in the ordinary practice of the faithful, both priests and laity).

Traveling to the island of Lampedusa, for example, and celebrating Mass with a chalice expressly made for the occasion from wood salvaged from boat wreckage, can be a sign of poverty and solidarity with the unfortunate. But undoubtedly it is more convincing and attractive—oh, the beauty of naturalness!—to arrive at Lampedusa and use the same chalice with which Mass is celebrated every day. And all this without further preambles, declarations, adornments, or other additions. For, as everyone knows, true Poverty never proclaims itself, once it is demonstrated that, in reality, any human act pretending to be founded on the supernatural, but not accompanied at the same time by sincere naturalness, rather than a properly human act, becomes a purely circus act.

Post-conciliar Theology rejects signs when it suits it. Although it then uses them profusely and precisely in the most fundamental things, thus giving rise to appearance prevailing over being, as immanentist philosophy demands. If the Eucharistic Celebration, to continue with the most important example, is a mere symbol of solidarity among men, but is not the Sacrifice and Death of the Lord nor contains the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in reality it is mere symbolism that also means nothing.

Of course, the attacks against the Rock are all destined to shatter in vain, thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” (Lc 22: 31–32).

However, it should be borne in mind that this guarantee is not perpetual. For its duration is only assured until the Final Moments begin, when only love and fidelity to Jesus Christ will remain in those who will be the elect:

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place…” (Mt 24:15).

Or the other words, also pronounced by Jesus Christ, and which are perhaps the most terrible contained in the New Testament:

“Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

The perennial battle against the Church will reach its culmination in the Final Assault against the Rock. Which it is evident has already begun, as anyone with eyes to see can ascertain.

But the definitive Assault on the Rock with the consequent Apostasy of the Universal Church would never have taken place, nor enjoyed the slightest chance of success, without consent from On High. However, God will in those moments give license and power to the Enemy to make war on the saints and to conquer them (Ap 13:7).

And it happens that all the symptoms pointing towards the end of the Battle are favorable to the Enemy, with the terrible result that seems foreseeable. Which means, for whoever has understanding, that the current moments the Church is going through, despite the strange inaction and absurd indifference of its faithful, would be more than sufficient to disturb anyone.

Will the figure of Pope Francis coincide with that of the Peter the Roman announced by St. Malachy?

And everything seems to indicate yes.

Or perhaps not, in which case sad Humanity will be left with confidence in a new and true Dawn, presided over by her who is Mother of the whole Church, the Virgin Mary, the Woman who will finally appear clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars (Ap 12:1). The same who will be for the faithful their only and true Hope, while the time of sorrows lasts and until the light of the new day dawns:

And when at last the Moon appeared

There was no longer darkness nor any shadow.

And with this, we conclude our study on Peter the Roman. Not without first warning, especially for the forgetful:

• That we already warned from the beginning that the Prophecy of St. Malachy, although universally considered serious, is a purely private prophecy, with all that this entails regarding the obligation of credibility. The Church has never approved it nor rejected it. Therefore, no one who does not accept it can be branded as incredulous, nor can anyone who grants it credibility be considered credulous.

• That we had equally insisted that here we were moving in the realm of hypotheses and mere speculations. At no point have we said that Pope Francis is the Pope who corresponds to the motto of Peter the Roman, limiting ourselves only to affirming that it was a reasonable hypothesis and by no means dismissible.

• Therefore, according to what has been said and as occurs with all hypotheses, this one too remains open to all kinds of criticisms and objections. Any prepared reader may feel authorized to opine and attempt to open new fields for investigation.

  
  

That being said, it only remains for us to add that the Barque of Peter will continue its uncertain navigation through stormy seas, guided by the hand of its last helmsman, Peter the Roman. Until the day comes, when all hopes are almost about to fail, that Simon son of John will appear again, the true Captain to whom the Ship had first been entrusted and who, in reality, had never abandoned it. It will be then when all will see clearly that he, and only he, had always been the true Cornerstone, placed by Jesus Christ as Base and Foundation of his Church, destined to last forever and until the end of Times, without the Gates of Hell ever achieving their purpose of tearing it down. While Peter the Roman and the City of Seven Hills will have disappeared, in order to yield the place to him who had loved his Master more than the other disciples (Jn 21:15) and who now prepared to hand over the keys of the Church anew. Received long ago as Vicar and which now, at this moment, once the Ship arrived at the definitive Port of blessed Eternity, he could return forever to its True Owner and Lord, Head and Founder of his Church, Jesus Christ, Immortal King forever and ever.