June 10, 2020 (Steven O’Reilly) – Dr. Mazza again appeared on Dr. Marshall’s youtube program to discuss his Benedict is Pope thesis. It is unfortunate that Dr. Mazza did not address any of the main points made in my three-part rebuttal of his thesis (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). However, having watching Dr. Mazza again, I wanted to expand on one of my arguments made in Part 1 of my rebutal.
As always, I recommend the reader listen to the other side’s arguments, in this case Dr. Mazza’s. His most recent exposition of his thesis may be found in Dr. Taylor Marshall’s most recent Youtube program (see here). In Part 1 of my rebuttal, for the purpose of addressing Dr. Mazza’s thesis, I agreed arguendo to accept his premise the Petrine primacy could be separated from the See of Rome. I did so because it can be readily proved Benedict did not intend such a separation.
Let us proceed now directly to the point. Neither Dr. Mazza nor any BiP proponent have ever addressed Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio (Normas Nonnullas). This document made a number of changes to the rules governing papal conclaves promulgated by John Paul II in Universi Dominici Gregis. These changes were made after Benedict announced his Declaratio (February 10, 2013), and thus go directly to the question of Pope Benedict’s intent for and understanding of the papal office.
The punchline from Benedict’s renunciation declaration (Declaratio):
….For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff (Summum Pontificem) will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is…. (Declaratio, Pope Benedict XVI, February 10, 2013)
Note, I have taken the liberty of inserting as a parenthetical the Latin for “Supreme Pontiff” above, i.e., “Summum Pontificem.” I have previously addressed Dr. Mazza’s effort to dance around this term in Part 1, and will not bother commenting in great detail on his continued efforts to do so on Dr. Marshall’s program other than to say the following. Benedict’s use of the term “Supreme Pontiff” in the Declaratio, as it is in fact mentioned in relation to a conclave to be called, has specific reference to the use of “Supreme Pontiff” as understood in existing papal conclave legislation, e.g., Universi Dominici Gregis (see UDG 87). It is absurd to suggest it has any other meaning in the Declaratio, or any meaning that excludes the sense as found in UDG.
“Summum Pontificem” is the title used for the office for which the College of Cardinals assemble to elect a successor to St. Peter (cf UDG 87). It is, by name, the office regarding which the one elected is asked the following question in Latin: “Acceptasne electionem de te canonice factam in Summum Pontificem?” (Normas Nonnullas [NN] re Universi Dominici Gregis 87). In English this may be rendered “Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?” Any discussion that avoids the fact the Declaratio’s use of “Summum Pontificem” has direct, unequivocal, and specific ecclesiastical and theological reference to the papal office and papal elections (see UDG and NN) is an unfortunate exercise in muddying the waters.
Let us recall the timeline with regard to Benedict’s last official documents.
- On February 10, 2013, Benedict XVI announces he will renounce the papacy effective February 28, 2013 at 8pm, See of Rome time (cf Declaratio). Pope Benedict XVI explicitly states in his Declaratio that he has resigned in such a way that the See of Peter is “vacant,” thus no more Bishop of Rome sitting upon it, and that a conclave is to be convoked to elect a “new Supreme Pontiff.”
- Subsequently, on February 22, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI made modifications to the conclave rules set down by John Paul II. Benedict does so by promulgating an Apostolic Letter, issued motu proprio, entitled Normas Nonnullas. This document amends/modifies some of the provisions for papal conclaves issued by John Paul II in Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG). These changes were made in view of the upcoming conclave following Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy.
Among the conclave modifications made by Pope Benedict XVI in Normas Nonnullas was a change to UDG 87. Of particular note, having changed UDG 87, Benedict made no change at all to UDG 88. These two paragraphs — the updated UDG 87 and untouched UDG 88 — read together as follows (emphasis added):
87. “When the election has canonically taken place, the junior Cardinal Deacon summons into the hall of election the Secretary of the College of Cardinals, the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations and two Masters of Ceremonies. Then the Cardinal Dean, or the Cardinal who is first in order and seniority, in the name of the whole College of electors, asks the consent of the one elected in the following words: Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff? And, as soon as he has received the consent, he asks him: By what name do you wish to be called? Then the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, acting as notary and having as witnesses the two Masters of Ceremonies, draws up a document certifying acceptance by the new Pope and the name taken by him.” [NB: as amended by Benedict XVI in Normas Nonnullas, February 22, 2013]
88 . After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops. He thus acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church.
If the person elected is not already a Bishop, he shall immediately be ordained Bishop. [NB: as promulgated by John Paul II in UDG, and left untouched by Benedict XVI in Normas Nonnullas]
Reading these two paragraphs together we readily see what Benedict intended and how he viewed the papal office. Specifically, we see what it portends for Dr. Mazza’s and the general BiP thesis regarding Benedict’s renunciation, as well as his view of the relation of the Petrine primacy to the See of Rome following the Declaratio.
Remember, Benedict promulgated his changes to UDG in Normas Nonnullas after the Declaratio and in anticipation of the coming conclave indicated in the Declaratio to elect a “new Supreme Pontiff.” Benedict had the opportunity to change or leave in place whatever conclave rules he wished. Therefore, both the changed portions (e.g., UDG 87, Normas Nonnullas) and unchanged portions of UDG (e.g., UDG 88) represent Benedict’s official thoughts and teaching on the election of his successor, the “new Supreme Pontiff,” and the papal office in so far as UDG and Normas Nonnullas touch upon them.
Benedict’s motu proprio in conjunction with UDG make clear the one accepting his election as “Supreme Pontiff,” if already a bishop, “is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops” and thus “acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church.” Thus, Benedict’s successor is both the Bishop of Rome and the Supreme Pontiff; having full and supreme power over the universal Church.
These declarations are devastating to Dr. Mazza’s thesis, as well as to the general BiP thesis. Benedict issued Normas Nonnullas after the Declaratio and in anticipation of the approaching conclave in March 2013; thus Benedict’s intent and understanding is abundantly clear. First, Benedict intended a conclave and election of a “new Supreme Pontiff,” i.e., the election of his successor, because he knew he would no longer be the Supreme Pontiff as of 8pm (See of Rome time), February 28, 2013. Second, Benedict understood the coming new Supreme Pontiff, having accepted his election, is immediately the Bishop of Rome, and thus has full and supreme power over the universal Church. Thus, contrary to Dr. Mazza’s assertion, Benedict did not intend to separate the Petrine primacy from the See of Rome — even if we assume arguendo this is possible.
Furthermore, it is clear from the Latin of the text that the “Supreme Pontiff” and “Bishop of the Church of Rome” in the above documents are the same man — the one and the same man; thereby excluding any sort of sharing of office or diarchy as BiP theories imagine to be Benedict’s intent. Such imaginings might be found in the blogs and podcasts of some, but they had no place in Benedict’s documents or thought. Had Benedict intended any one of these BiP options he certainly had the opportunity to change UDG via Normas Nonnullas. However, no such changes were made. Dr. Mazza’s theory, and BiP, cannot be reconciled with them.
Perhaps someone will ask Dr. Mazza and the BiP theorists, the following. If their theories are true:
why would Benedict — in anticipation of the coming conclave of March 2013 to elect the “new Supreme Pontiff” foreseen in the Declaratio — make no substantial modifications to UDG via Normas Nonnullas that are consistent with their theories?
why does Benedict, although modifying UDG 87, leave UDG 88 alone and fully in force; thus demonstrating he understood the “new Supreme Pontiff” upon accepting his election “is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops” and thus “acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church?” Please explain how this is reconcilable with the view Benedict intended to separate the Petrine primacy from the See of Rome, or had intended any sort of papal diarchy — or a shared papacy?
Final Thoughts
Roma Locuta Est is a wee, humble blog that goes unnoticed by much of the world around it. That may certainly explain why approximately two weeks into his theory Dr. Mazza has not addressed the specific rebuttals herein. Br. Bugnolo did the kindness of providing a response (see here), though I disagree with his BiP arguments — and certainly disagree with his final personal observations regarding me:
“At this point I think everyone has the right to either ignore him as intellectually dishonest or ask him his personal reasons for embracing with such lack of personal integrity Bergoglio as his pope?“
I leave it to the reader to judge my intellectual honesty and personal integrity. However, for the Catholic coming only recently to the pages of Roma Locuta Est, and who is otherwise unfamiliar with my position on Benedict and Francis, I will address Br. Bugnolo’s question regarding my ’embrace’ — in his view — of ‘Bergoglio as my pope.’ As to Br. Bugnolo’s comment regarding my personal view of Pope Francis…I have stated my view many times by now, I believe. My view is generally as follows.
I believe we should accept Pope Francis as pope because by all outward appearance of law, procedure, etc., he is duly elected by the rules governing such a thing. We should accept him as pope unless and until (1) given a reason based on sufficient evidence that he is not pope, and (2) this is confirmed by those with sufficient authority to proclaim it so.
The “Benedict is [still] Pope” (BiP) theories fail to meet this criteria. Those who claim “Benedict is still pope” because he was forced to abdicate have not provided any evidence that demonstrates he resigned against his will. If evidence is provided that proves this, I am open to hearing it. With regard to the other BiP theories, I have provided over a dozen articles by now (see Summa Contra BiP) outlining my detailed arguments as to why these theories fail. My recent three-part series of articles rebutting Dr. Mazza’s theories are just the latest (see here, here, and here).
Now, while I am absolutely convinced BiP is certainly erroneous and dangerous, I have voiced my difficulties with many other things related to Pope Francis. For example, I have written detailed arguments opposing various interpretations of Amoris Laetitia. See the Summa Contra Stephen Walford, and various articles against blogs like Where Peter Is (e.g., here). I also voiced my support for the Open Letter which accused Pope Francis of the delict of heresy (see here). I was the one who highlighted difficulties with regard to Francis having provided a preface to Stephen Walford’s book, and suggested it might be additional evidence for the heresy charges against Francis (see Pope Francis, the Open Letter and the Pesky Preface). I’ve commented on Francis’ recent Scalfari interview and the question of heresy it raises (see Why blame Scalfari?).
That is but a sampling of what I’ve written on issues related to heresies. I have also written a number of articles investigating questions that might touch upon the validity of Francis’ election, e.g., writing on his Jesuit vows (see Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?), articles on McCarrick’s “influential Italian gentleman” and the possible UDG violation there (e.g., here), and other UDG violations (see here), and much more. On top of all the above, I’ve also called for some sort of imperfect council several times to address all these questions, and the evidence for them, as well as to collect more evidence (e.g., here).
Thus, I don’t believe it can be fairly said I “embrace” Pope Francis. As I’ve noted before, confusion certainly abounds. However, it is not for us — as the laity — to determine or declare what are the definitive answers to these questions. By all outward form and procedure, Francis is pope. If he is not pope, that determination must come from an (unlikely) imperfect council (e.g., here, here, and here), or what is more probable, a future pope. I certainly don’t exclude that possibility. In the meantime, know your faith, keep it, and ‘always pray and never give up’ (cf Luke 18: 1) – especially in dark times, and do not worry – because it is the Lord who has promised the Church “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Victory is assured.
That is my view, and the reasons for it.
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of the recently published Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA)
Roma Locuta Est 
Canon 332 §2: Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet.
Translation: If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his *office*.
Declaratio: declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae
Translation: I declare that I renounce the *ministry* of Bishop of Rome.
Grave substantial error. 0.00% error is authorized in a Papal renunciation.
LikeLike
Aqua, thanks for the comment. Here’s the canon in question:
Canon 332.2: “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”
Note…Canon 332.2 does not say the word “munus” must be used. In fact, the canon explicitly states two things are “required”: (1) that it be offered freely, and (2) that it be “properly manifested.” Again, the use of “munus” is NOT required. Please see the text of the canon.
I don’t know of any evidence that proves that BXVI did not resign “freely.” Regarding point 2….”ministry of bishop of Rome” is arguably clear enough, given “munus” is not required to be used…but that aside, BXVI said he resigns in such a way the “See of Peter is vacant” (that clearly means he is vacating the chair), and that a conclave is now necessary to elect a NEW SUPREME PONTIFF — again, a new one is necessary because the prior one (BXVI) will no longer be SUPREME Pontiff. This all demonstrate sufficiently what BXVI is doing, couples with UDG and Normas Nonnullas.
There is no “substantial error.”
Thanks again for your comments, Aqua.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
It specifically does say munus. I quoted it directly.
——> muneri ministerio <——
He must renounce munus to validly resign. He did not renounce munus. He did not resign.
LikeLike
Aqua, thanks for comment. My point was not whether the word “munis” appears in canon 332.2; but that the canon expressly lists two things which are “required”. Reread the canon. Those two things said to be required (“it is required that”) are (1) the resignation is made free and (2) the resignation is “properly manifested”.
No where is “munus” said to be a required term in the act of resignation. The canon simply does not say that. When accepting the papacy, the man elected does not use the word “munus”… how is it required he use the word when he resigns the papacy?
Thanks again for the comment and reading the article.
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
muneri ≠ ministerio
LikeLike
Aqua…again…the canon does not dictate the term “munus” must be used; or that synonyms can’t be.
Thanks.
Steve
LikeLike
Steven,
One word. Brilliant!
Thanks for a great blog.
LikeLike
Mary, thank you for the encouragement….and thanks for reading!
God bless!
Steve
LikeLike
The Governor of Washington was asked about the violence, destruction and sedition in the heart of Seattle which has resulted, so far, in the creation of a new anarchist “nation” – comprised of a seven block area, named the Seattle Autonomous Zone (SAZ), ruled by a rapper warlord named Raz Simone. A police precinct was overrun, all police expelled, law and order is according to the will of its warlord Raz.
So, the Governor planning on doing anything to regain control over the largest city in his State?
Question and response:
Q: “Governor, I’d like to ask you about what’s going on in Seattle. There’s this thing called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. What’s your thought on that — the fact that the protesters have taken that over, and not allowing people to come and go freely? …“
A: “Well, that’s news to me. So I’ll have to reserve any comment about it. I have not heard anything about that from any credible source. [Laughs] Not that you’re not credible, it’s just that I — before I espouse an opinion, I should know of which I speak. [Laughs]“
This blog reminds me of that.
LikeLike
Aqua, thanks for the feedback. Well, I can’t say I believe your perspective is grounded.
My blog…as outlined in my article above…has clearly and unequivocally commented on a number of problems with Francis, and raised issues about validity that should be explored.
Taking your example, it seems we both agree the ‘protesters have taken over’ and the police are gone. But where I’d like to see real police or national guard on hand to address the issue, BiP wants to call in the Boy Scouts, i..e, the BiP theory is no solution at all.
But back to your comment. It seems you are looking for me to simply roll over and accept BiP because it is a *seeming* solution. Sorry. I need a good theory, and real evidence that can withstand scrutiny. Just being honest here…I would love to say BiP “works” and has good evidence….but I don’t see it that way. We simply can’t make up a “safe place” like BiP and hide there and ignore its manifest problems.
Thanks for the comment.
Steve
LikeLike
You “agree the protesters have taken over”, but Gov Inslee does not agree. He does not see “protester” (sic) violence, cancellation of law and the imposition of warlord law in Seattle. He sees “no credible evidence at all, (chuckle)“.
I do. If he doesn’t, I simply don’t know what else to say to that. Reality is misaligned between groups who see the same thing in opposite ways.
Your “BiP theory” is my fact. I can read. I showed above how Cannon 331, 332 clearly define the Papacy and its authority in terms of Office; resignation from the Papacy and it’s authority required to be from the Office.
You see those same facts and call them not credible and an interesting but futile theory – “the Canon does not dictate that Munus must be used”. And I simply don’t know what else to say to that. Reality is misaligned between two groups of Catholics who see the same thing in opposite ways. The Canon demands that Munus be used. The Papacy *is* the Munus, the Office. Retain the Munus, retain the Papacy. Renounce the Munus, renounce the Papacy.
The definition of the days we live in is anarchy: political, spiritual, religious anarchy.
I remain grounded by holding firm to Sacred Tradition, including the Canon Law from which it comes. Words mean something. What is Divine is perfect. Munus means Munus and it doesn’t mean anything else. One visible reigning Pope means one visible reigning Pope. No “close enoughs” in God’s Kingdom.
LikeLike
Aqua,
Thanks for the additional comments.
Canon 332.2 states (emphasis added):
“If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, ***it is required for validity that*** (1) the resignation is made freely and (2) properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”
I added the “(1)” and “(2)” to make clear these are the requirements — explicitly laid down by the canon (“it is required for validity that”).
Not sure what else to say. The canon explicitly states what is “required.” The use of the word “munus” is absent from that list of requirement, ergo…it is not “required for validity”.
We know what Benedict intended in he said he was resigning the ministry of the Bishop of Rome in ‘such a way’ that the ‘See of Peter is vacant’ and that the election of a “new Supreme Pontiff” is required. That is a sufficiently clear statement of what BXVI intended…he is renouncing the papacy. There is no other reasonable theory as to what else he intended, especially in light of Normas Nonnullas — which I point out in my article.
Thanks for reading the blog.
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
1) Resignation of what: the Office. He did not resign it. Anyone can read and see he did not resign the Office (Munus).
2) Properly manifested. Manifest definition = “ display or show by one’s acts or appearance; demonstrate.” That, as you well know, he did not do. He remains – Pope, Holiness, white, ring, residence, signature etc, etc, etc.
He failed on both counts – 1 and 2.
LikeLike
Aqua,
thanks for the comments.
1) While I believe “ministry of the bishop of Rome” is enough in my opinion…saying he resigned it in “such a way” the “see of Peter is vacant” and a conclave to elect a NEW Supreme Pontiff is necessary makes abundantly clear “the what.” If not…tell me…what else can those words reasonable signify??? I am interested in your answer.
2) He manifested it by his words, and by leaving the office. The dress and style are accidentals. I’ve said before, it is certainly regrettable he didn’t off to a remote monastery as might have happened hundreds of years ago. If messed up in that regard.
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
This debate about the words Munus and Ministerium (“what difference, at this point, does it make!”) reminds me of what is essential to become a Christian. Among other pre-requisites, you must be baptized in the Trinitarian formula which must be said perfect, according to Catholic rubrics.
I baptize you in the name of Jesus to go forth and do good works in Jesus Name Amen. No.
I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the all-knowing and wise spirit. No.
I baptize you in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost (without water). No.
These improperly baptized persons may strongly believe they are Christian and may do very good works in life. Others may refer to their prior “baptism” and assume they have received the Mark of a Christian, It doesn’t matter what they or anyone else thinks – not Catholic. The Sacrament requires firm belief and assent and it requires the baptismal formula, perfect down to the punctuation mark.
What did Pope Benedict XVI resign? What did he retain? He is not a stupid man. He used one word and not another. He acts one way now, and not another (manifestation). To say Ministerium is equivalent to Munus; to say remaining in the Vatican as Pope is equivalent to returning to Bavaria as Priest does not align with the perfection of our Faith which is of God and not men.
LikeLike
Aqua, thanks for the comments.
Canon 332.2 does not require munus. Ministry can mean “office” in the latin, and regardless…it is clear from the rest of the resignation he resigned the papacy. If not…what else can he be reasonable said to have renounced?
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
Dear Mr. O’Reilly. Reasoning can’t liberate the psychotic from his delusion and facts can not convince an ideologue to abandon his willful ideas.
Those faithful adepts of Bullets Barnhardt simply are unable to read and comprehend two plain and simple declarative sentences and no amount of repetition of those two statements will persuade them.
Now, answer the question – Are you intellectually dishonest or do you lack personal integrity? Its one or the other – ANSWER
O, and have you stopped beating your wife?
The anger your commentary draws down upon you is a sure sign the Bullets Barnhardt Brigade have emptied their 12 pound cannons and are reduced to their rebellious yells.
But, after awhile, The You Suck claims are refused echos from the faithful valleys.
LikeLike
Vermont, thanks for the comments.
While it is true one can’t reason with a psychotic…I personally don’t believe the folks in question pushing BiP are “psychotic.”
As I have said…we’re living in confusing times under Francis — and folks are searching for a way to explain this. This search has led to some good theories, and then there are bad (and dangerous) ones…like BiP.
All I can do is explain why I believe this is so — and ignore the personal insults.
Thanks.
Steve
LikeLike
Dear Mr. O’Reilly Reasoning can’t liberate the psychotic from his delusion and facts can not convince an ideologue to abandon his willful ideas.
I think they are ideologues, not psychotics. I didn’t make that clear. Sorry
LikeLike
Vermont…thanks for the clarification!
I just wanted to be clear on the “psychotic” point. My preference is always to leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions as to the relative merits of the opposing evidence and arguments.
As always, thanks for your comments, VC.
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
The amendment in paragraph 87 [Normas Nonullas] is mere pedantry and is an additional testimony that B16 resigned from St. Peter’s Office freely and this act did not spoil his good mood.
However, how many Catholics are there who would study canon law to see if B16 resigned properly and whether Jorge Bergoglio was correctly elected Pope.
What counts is the vivid image: two bishops in white in the Vatican who are in close relations with each other. The visible head of the Roman Church was broken into two pieces. B16 caused radical damage to the image of the papacy: one body [the Church] can have only one visible head [the pope].
B16 was the last Roman pope, as predicted in the Malachi’s prophecy. This holy Irishman did not deduce this: he visited ‘Ad Limina’ in 1139AD when the Divine Head of the Church spoke to him. The words written by Malachi in the strictest sense fit the formula: ‘Roma locuta, causa finita.’ Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed – through this prophecy – the end of a militant Church and the beginning of God’s kingdom on earth. The fall of the Roman papacy does not mean that the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church. The Congregation of God [Ecclessia Dei] is a continuum from Patriarch Adam to the last judgment and then as the eternal Kingdom of Heaven.
Does the canon law say anything about this transition, I suppose it says nothing. Nor did the Jews know that the Mosaic religion was a preparation for the Church of Christ. Similarly, Catholics generally do not know that the Church of Christ is a preparation for God’s Kingdom on earth.
P.S.
Aqua is like the fish that a merciful angler wants to throw back into the water, but the fish stubbornly does not want to spit out the hook.
LikeLike
Myron….thanks for the comments. I certainly agree that Normas Nonnullas clearly indicates BXVI intended to fully resign, and fully intended his successor to be the Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff. I think it is inescapable. Why else pen these amendments — read together with Universi Dominici Gregis — that was his frame of mine. Again…it is inescapable. Perhaps that is why no leading BiP advocates have addressed it.
As for your theory on the papacy having potentially disappeared…I don’t believe so–unless one hypothesize this is the end of ends. But as far as Malachi…I tend toward strong skepticism regarding the origin of the prophecies — so, personally, I would not rest any argument upon them.
Thanks for the comments!
Steve
LikeLike
Dear Myron. Prolly the best book on Catholic prophecy is Trial, Tribulation & Triumph Before, During and After Antichrist bu Desmond A Birch.
On page 236, the author notes he did not include the “prophecies” of either Nostradamus or St. Malachy, writing specifically about Malachy, In the opinion of this author, there is sufficient evidence of major “interpolation” of the prophecies.
LikeLike