Let me say thanks to Rick for his contribution on the potential motive behind WHY someone nmight have messed with Malachy's prophecies at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/march2013/ricks317.htm . There's another problem I have with the reliability of Malachy. G-d said that every matter should be established by two or more witnesses. Would G-d give us that instruction, and not send a second witness Himself? So where's the second witness to Malachy?
I talked in my lesson on "The Value of Learning Hebrew" (click here to view), sometimes G-d sends only one witness with one word when a prophecy is conditional, such as sending Jonah / Yonah to Ninevah that the city would be destroyed if they did not repent. But when He sends two independent testimonies, it is a sure sign that what is prophecied in the future will certainly come to pass. Usually a single witness is connected with judgement / condemnation, not some sort of positive foresight. That is an easy thing to miss if you read Jeremiah 18:7-8 and Gen 41:32 in English, but I demonstrate in the video on "The Value of Learning Hebrew" how what Joseph said is rooted in a Hebrew thought process that is an inherit part of Hebrew grammar as well, and was the ultimate reason Joseph said what he said to Pharoah.
Without a second witness, I would say Malachy is completely unreliable. Even if you want to make an argument that he is an intentional single witness for some reason that has no Biblical basis (since all Biblical records of a single witness involve a negative message), and that such a thing is possible, it opens up several problems. Anytime there's no second witness, the message is conditional, not considered certain, and therefore not reliable, yet Malachy gave no conditions to his prophecy. And most of the time conditional prophecies are, "____ will happen unless ye repent."
But also, you're still arguing that the Catholic Church has some sort of favored status to be given a prophecy about it's future while all other denominations who lack any such prophecy have no similar prophecy. Why was there no similar prophecy about the future of the Lutheran Church? Does G-d favor Rome? Is that the conclusion we come to?
And keep in mind that contrary to how Malachy's prophecies are REVISED by many Protestants, Malachy never said "PETRUS ROMANUS" was bad. He described him as the white knight that would preserve the Catholic Church in the truth of the Gospel. So are we really to conclude that ONLY the Catholic Church gets such a wonder prophecy from G-d? If we argue that Pope Francis IS indeed the long awaited PETRUS ROMANUS, are we not arguing in favor of all of us converting to Catholicism? Think about it folks.
So let me recap the against arguments....
The Case Against
- Malachy's pre-1590 prophecies are WAY MORE ACCURATE than his post-1590 prophecies. Rick gave the motive for why at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/march2013/ricks317.htm ; to manipulate the Cardinals into selecting Girolamo Simoncelli as pope in 1590 by revising his previous prophecies to be more accurate.
- There's no second witness
- Why would only the Catholic Church get the favor of G-d to have it prophecied they would endure and be faithful to Him until judgement day?
- His LAST prophecy for the last pope was wrong, in that we don't have a "PETRUS" and he is not from "ROME". We have a FRANCIS from Argentina, and his closest connection to Italy is to be from a region that HATES ROME and considers itself to have been oppressed by Rome (click here for my previous discussion fo that point).