I know Malachy is controversial, and I am not necessarily saying he was right, but I am examining what he said for the sake of those that do put stock in his statements.

Malachy is often recognized as a prophet by many Catholic criticisers because of one thing they love about him; he said the last pope would be PETRUS ROMANUS, the false prophet.  There's one problem with that.....Malachy never said that.  Here's what he said about PETRUS ROMANUS.

Latin	English
Petrus Romanus, qui paſcet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus tranſactis ciuitas ſepticollis diruetur, & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit populum ſuum.	Peter the Roman will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; Afterwards, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the feared judge will judge his people.

So not only did he NOT say that PETRUS ROMANUS was the false prophet, but he describes him as a man that will protect the church from the evil influence of darkness.  This is not a description of an evil man.  You would not describe the false prophet as someone who will "nourish the sheep".  The false prophet will "fleece the sheep", not nourish them.

At http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2861676/posts is an interesting article about why Malachy's statements about Petrus Romanus have been mistranslated by some.  I agree with his translation, but am not sure if I agree with his interpretation.  He write this about the last few popes....

Latin	English	Interpretation
De medietate lunæ.	From half of the moon	John Paul I, 1978.  His month long reign ended started and ended when the moon was half full
De labore ſolis.	Laborer of the Sun (light) {Language probably chosen to draw contrast with previous statement}	John Paul II, 1978-2005.  Reversed Salvation by Works doctrine in 1999 in joint statement with Lutheran Church.
Gloria oliuæ.	Glory of the Olive	Benedict XVI, 2005-2013.  His name is associated with olives.
In Psecutione extrema S.R.E. ſedebit.	In extreme persecution, the Catholic Church will sit (remain).	some people believe this is a break or gap period.
Petrus Romanus, qui paſcet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus tranſactis ciuitas ſepticollis diruetur, & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit populum ſuum.	Peter the Roman will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; Afterwards, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the feared judge will judge his people	Peter, the last pope, will reign during the end times and "nourish the flock" - or try to prevent the Church from being devoured by the Beast.

Some people believe that the 4th line is part of the 5th line.  Others see it describing a period INBETWEEN Pope 112 (Gloria oliuæ or Benedict XVI) and Petrus Romanus.  We will find out soon who is right.  If no pope is elected for a while, and the Church continues for a while without a leader, then the "gap" interpretation is correct.  Or, some who believe in the gap interpretation believe that numerous popes may be elected, but we simply aren't given any details.  Either way, many people believe line 4 is describing a GAP PERIOD between Pope Benedict (Gloria oliuæ) and Petrus Romanus.

I can see where the gap interpretation COULD be correct.  But I am more inclined to see lines 4 and 5 as belonging together, because a similar theme exists with both.  I think Malachy was telling us that Petrus Romanus will "nourish the flock" in such a way as to create steadiness (sit) for the Church in times of great persecution. And if there is no gap, then line 4 strengthens what I said about the fact that Malachy saw Petrus Romanus as a good guy, not the evil destroyer of the Church. Malachy saw him as someone who will resist the false prophet, not be the false prophet.  Irregardless of how you see the false prophet as someone is is or is not the pope, that is not how Malachy saw it.  Malachy is not a Catholic who "admitted" that the last pope would be the false prophet.

We cannot use Malachy's words to rule out the possibility that the false prophet will attack the Catholic Church, and Petrus Romanus will be someone who will teach against him, and lead the Catholic Church to an even better purification than 1999.  He might help purify the Church, and that will cause many protestants trouble when they begin to read about how the Catholic Church will quit teaching or quit doing things they used to disagree with.  They will wonder if it is some sort of trick from the false prophet, because they are so certain that the sitting pope after Benedict is suppose to be Mr Lead us to evil.  Many people will not understand what is happening in the Catholic Church, because their minds have been so pre-programmed to thinking the next pope will dig a path straight to hell that they will reject any notion that something else could be going on in the Roman Church.

I don't know if the next pope will make things better or worse.  I am simply saying that we cannot rule out the possibility that the next pope will not make things better.  But we need to keep an open mind and judge him and the Church based on their actions, not on our expectations of how they will behave that was founded on false ideas to begin with.

One Catholic who did prophecy an evil future pope was Pope Pius X in 1909.  http://www.tldm.org/News20/PropheciesForNextPopeBySt.MalachyAndOthers.htm quotes him as saying,

"What I see is terrifying. Will it be myself? Will it be my successor? What is certain is that the pope will quit Rome, and in leaving the Vatican, he will have to walk over the dead bodies of his priests."

Pope Pius X and Malachy cannot both be right unless the gap theory in interpretting Malachy is correct.  Because Malachy sees the last pope as a good guy, and sees him lasting until judgement day.  Pope Pius X saw an evil future for some murderous pope.  If they are both right, it could only happen during the gap period.  They could both be wrong.  I am not planning my future on anything either of them said.  Pius's uncertainty that it could be him makes me seriously doubt his authenticity.  But I throw this out for the sake of consideration.  It may be possible that G-d forewarned the Church of what would happen through men they considered credible, however little credibility people outside Rome would give them.  But only time will tell if that is the case or not.

Shalom, Joe