Petrus Romanus vs Peter of Rome

In re Donna's post at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/march2013/donnad321-1.htm with Dave making similar comments, I am amazed that my point was completely missed. My point is that Malachy prophecied one thing, and Protestants quote him to try to "prove" the opposite of what he claimed. Let me try and draw a clearer contrast.

Malachy gave alleged prophecies about future popes that promoted the ideals that:

That the Catholic Church would endure until the return of Yeshua, but remain faithful to the Gospel
That the last pope would be "Petrus Romanus"
That Petrus would be a good shepherd who would "nourish the flock" during hard times.

Well...no...Malachy never said Petrus Romanus was the false prophet. He described him as a faithful man and I talked about this in detail at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/feb2013/jovial215-3.htm . It is really the dislike of the Catholic Church by many in the Protestant movement that has generated the ideal that the Catholic Church will unveil the False Messiah. Let's call this evil Protestant version of the last pope PETER OF ROME, to distinguish him from the white knight PETRUS ROMANUS story we hear from Malachy.

Donna said, "I wouldn't consider any Pope a good shepherd ...Why would you expect the leader of the Roman Catholic church which promotes false doctrine, which is another word for lies, to be raptured? " I think that completely misses the point I was trying to make. My point is why would we quote a Catholic prophet? Would Malachy be raptured if he were here in our time? If not, why would we quote him? Why would we rely on what he said? If everything Catholic is evil, why are we quoting a Catholic source to "prove" that the last pope is here? If everything Catholic is evil, Malachy's writings must be tosssed out as a pile of rubbish and not quote it and we have no evidence that the last pope is here.

My point is that to embrace the concept that a PETRUS ROMANUS exists is to embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church. To embrace the Protestant PETER OF ROME concept is inherently inconsistent, yet it seems a lot of people are catching the inconsistencies to it. It's like embracing evolution and creation at the same time. It's like saying God created Adam and Eve...and then monkeys evolved into man. MY point is that if Malachy heard from G-d, and you quote him to prove something, you have to accept ALL of what he said as being from G-d, not just the parts you like. To accept all of what Malachy said is to accept the idea that the Pope is a good shepherd...and that there is not a rapture because no pope gets raptured.

Several people tried quoting things like the Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass or Mary as co-Redemptor to impeach the validity of the pope. But doesn't that impeach the validity of Malachy as a source? In order to claim a prophecy on how many popes there are going to be....isn't a NON-Cathloc source needed if the Catholic Church is so bad? How can these teaching impeach the pope without impeaching the source that this one is the last pope? Is it really so hard to see the inconsistency in all this?

Since Pope Francis is not a Peter and not personally or ancestrally from Rome , and his Dad was from a region that was French when Malachy gave his prophecy, there's no way to conclude he could be the evil Protestant PETER OF ROME or the literal PETRUS ROMANUS prophecied by Malachy.