Allegories Gone Wild – Of Papists, Popes, And Puerile Prophecies
15 November 2009 by KA
In the wild weird and wooly world of woo, the Catholic Church has had some truly bizarre ideas. From stigmata to the cilice, from the flagrum to exorcism, these people seem to have all sorts of crazy ideas.
One of the major fantasies of the monotheists is the concept of the end of the world. As we see lives begin and end, we project this cycle of life and death and rebirth onto the larger world, and the theists among us re-interpret wildly to retrofit reality to their pre-supposed peccadilloes.
Among the odder oddities one can stumble across in the laundry lists of lunacy, is the Prophecy of the Popes, as given by one alleged Saint Malachy:
The Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to Saint Malachy, is a list of 112 short phrases in Latin. They purport to describe each of the Roman Catholic popes (along with a few anti-popes), beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143) and concluding with a pope described in the prophecy as "Peter the Roman", whose pontificate will end in the destruction of the city of Rome.
Are there issues with this? You bet your sweet aunt’s fanny there is.
The prophecy was first published in 1595 by Arnold de Wyon, a Benedictine historian, as part of his book Lignum Vitæ. Wyon attributed the list to Saint Malachy, the 12th‑century bishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland. According to the traditional account, in 1139, Malachy was summoned to Rome by Pope Innocent II. While in Rome, Malachy purportedly experienced a vision of future popes, which he recorded as a sequence of cryptic phrases. This manuscript was then deposited in the Roman Archive, and thereafter forgotten about until its rediscovery in 1590.
‘Cryptic phrases’? Is this facepalm time? 
On the other hand, Bernard of Clairvaux’s biography of Malachy makes no mention of the prophecy, nor is it mentioned in any record prior to its 1595 publication. Some sources, including the most recent editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia, suggest that the prophecy is a late 16th‑century forgery. Some have suggested that it was created by Nostradamus and was credited to Saint Malachy so the purported seer would not be blamed for the destruction of the papacy. Supporters, such as author John Hogue, who wrote a popular book titled The Last Pope about the claims, generally argue that even if the author of the prophecies is uncertain, the predictions are still valid.
How so? Let’s take a brief look into it:
Interpretation of the mottos has generally relied on finding correspondences between the mottos and the popes’ birthplaces, their personal arms, and the events of their pontificates. For example, the first motto, Ex castro Tiberis (From a castle on the Tiber), fits Pope Celestine II’s birthplace in Città di Castello, on the Tiber.
Pope Celestine II (died March 8, 1144), born Guido di Castello, was pope from 1143 to 1144. Self-fulfilling prophecy there. Next.
Pope Clement XIII, referred to in the prophecy as Rosa Umbriae, the rose of Umbria, is stated to have used a rose "as his personal emblem" (his coat of arms does not include one, however, nor was he from Umbria nor had any but the most marginal connection with the region, having been briefly pontifical governor of Rieti, at the time part of Umbria). The technique of word play was evident in instances where interpreters find a phrase fitting more than one explanation.
‘Word play’ is christlation for ‘let’s make it fit!’
It is notable that where the interpretation of the prophecy is clear (as is the case for almost all of the Popes prior to 1590), the reference is almost always to some characteristic possessed by the Pope prior to assuming the Papacy — e.g., his birthplace, his arms, his surname, or his cardinal see. However, for more recent Popes, efforts to connect the prophecy with the pope have often focused on the events of his pontificate.
This sounds more like a literary version of cold reading to me.
In recent times, some interpreters of prophetic literature have drawn attention to the prophecies, both because of their success in finding connections between the prophecies and recent popes, and because of the prophecies’ imminent conclusion. Interpretations made before the elections of recent popes have not generally predicted their papacies accurately.
Small wonder that.
For those interested, the popes and their ‘corresponding mottos’ can be found here. And the skepticism kept on coming for the prophecies of Saint Malarkey:
Spanish writer father Benito Jerónimo Feijóo wrote in his Teatro Crítico Universal (1724-1739), in an entry called Purported prophecies, that the ones by Saint Malachy’s were a shameful forgery, claiming that they were created ad hoc during the 16th century. As a proof, he offers an accurate fact: that the first time the prophecy is mentioned is on a handwritten account by patriarch Alfonso Chacón (a.k.a Alphonsus Ciacconus, 1540-1599) in 1590 (this account would be later published, in 1595, by the abovementioned historian Arnold de Wyon); in this account, Chacón only comments the prophecies until the papacy of Urban VII (whose papacy only lasted September 1590, and was the current pope at the time Chacón wrote the comment). According to Feijóo, Chacón, who held a great intellectual prestige at the time, was lured to comment the prophecies by someone who wanted to help cardinal Girolamo Simoncelli (1522-1605) reach the papacy. By showing them to be accurate till Urban VII, it was expected people to believe the next ones; that way, Girolamo Simoncelli could be easily elected pope, since the prophecy after Urban VII’s one tells about a pope Ex antiquitate urbis (from the antiquity of the city), a fact that seems to fit him, who was cardinal of Orvieto (literally "old city", urbs vetus), or at least better than Gregory XIV, who was elected pope after Urban VII. Thus, the forgery would have been useless, since Simoncelli was not elected pope. Jesuit father Claude-François Menestrier also claimed that the prophecies were forged in order to help the papal candidacy of Girolamo Simoncelli, offering similar reasons to those of Feijóo. Spanish historian José Luis Calvo points out that the prophecies seem to be very accurate till Urban VII, fitting perfectly even the antipopes, but that afterwards great efforts have to be made in order to make the prophecies fit their pope. Feijóo’s explanation is usually regarded as being the most probable proof of the forgery.
So, nutshelling it: said ‘prophecies’ were forged in the 16th century, and were eerily accurate (if you accept the 12th century publication fib) up to Urban VII who was pope during…drum roll please…the 16th century. Many many tickle up the raisin (if I might use a little wordplay on an old bibble saying). For those of you who don’t get the esoteric mangling: it’s easy to see the writing on the wall, and it’s mostly graffiti that adorn the smoke and mirrors.
And one has to but Google this topic, to see that this obvious hoax has survived nearly 5 centuries, even though anyone with half a mind (or half a critical eye) can see that this is an utter fraud.
The ubiquity of stupidity is appalling.
Till the next post, then.
15 November 2009, on 4:15 am
We must remind ourselves that half the people in the world have below average intelligence.
15 November 2009, on 4:37 am
A brief TV show run here in Australia called “John Saffran vs God” took issue with all these biblical prophecies. After being told that the bible (taking some liberties) was able to retrospectively predict 9/11 he tested the process. Turns out, using the same techniques, the bible also predicts the downfall of Vanilla Ice’s career after the hit song, Ice Ice Baby. The lyrics to Ice Ice Baby also predict 9/11.
“They have eyes, but they cannot see” indeed.
15 November 2009, on 6:55 am
Gordon, more than half the people in the world don’t know the difference between average and median.
15 November 2009, on 11:51 am
LOL! You have the name of that show?
15 November 2009, on 1:29 pm
@KA just Google John Safran
15 November 2009, on 3:50 pm
SAINT Malachy?…more like Saint Malady; and the, literally insane, Opus Dei batshit cult…WTF?
Reminds me, a wee bit, of the Python’s: “Saint Loony of the cream bun and jam” sketch.
Considering the totally bonkers history of religions in general, and this example of Western World insanity in particular, one might ask: “Are the almost commonplace, if indeed more secular, sado-masochistic sexual practices any REAL surprise?
Is it any wonder, indeed, that any purported ‘Psychological’ concept of a so-called “normal” human being, begins to approach a sort of speculative “skeptical fantasy”. In other (groping) words, given the long history of human bonkerdom, the possibility of behavior having some genetic factor, the questions: “What IS normal?”, and “Is there any one of us that really fits that hypothetical definition?”
Strictly speaking…my answer?…
ummm…NO?
Even answering that question based on information I DO know about myself, anyone in my immediate family, or anyone I’ve ever associated with in my almost 70 years of life…and that’s just, for the most part, outward appearances (and staring in the mirror?)…it’s apparent that we’re all a bit wacky.
Just my personal wacky opinion, of course!
Having long ago escaped a rather heavy duty, guilt ridden, upbringing as a Catholic; after reading your excellent little exploration of the Church’s history of bonkerdom; I’m not surprised I was never told about any of that shit when I was a little (or larger) evolving tyke.
It’s the kind of stuff that just MIGHT have caused a permanent position of a “dropped jaw”, resulting in constant, utterly flabbergasted, ‘renting of garments’ and constant drooling.
What’s that?…
drooling all over my haircloth cilice?
“Homina, homina!”
15 November 2009, on 8:51 pm
ChuckA – I refer to the guy as ‘Saint Malarkey’ further on in the article.
16 November 2009, on 3:35 am
Adrian – actually, Safran’s program’s claim was that a compilation of all of Vanilla Ice’s lyrics predicted 9/11. Also, that the Congressional report on 9/11 predicted Vanilla Ice’s career downfall.
Pretty funny though.
16 November 2009, on 9:51 am
Ah, yes, I’m terrible with specifics. Sorry for the discrepancies. I’m on summer break at the moment (one more year of my primary degree!), so I’m taking a determined break from fact checking
On a side note, I published a proof of the non-existence of God, through the nature of infinity and whatnot, on Ray Comfort’s blog as a response to a considerate, educated theist. And Ray censored me! The bastard!
16 November 2009, on 11:57 am
You are forgiven, my son.
Ray Comfort censored you?!?!? No way! Why, he’s never done such a thing!
/mock horror off
He never lets my comments thru either, so don’t feel bad.
16 November 2009, on 3:56 pm
Sort of off topic but thought it’d be of interest here:
Evangelist Gets 175 Years for Sex Crimes
http://news.aol.com/article/evangelist-tony-alamo-sentenced-to-175/766790
I know, shocking right? Too bad they don’t have a moral code to guide them.
16 November 2009, on 9:50 pm
Yeah, Alamo’s not deluded, not @ all. (rolls eyes)
16 November 2009, on 10:23 pm
ChuckA- I would think that normal in this case is “average” in which case you are much above average.
Perhaps what we call everyday reality is nothing more than a socially programmed hypnosis in which we are all collectively caught up in. Every once in a while some people have broken out of this socially programmed hypnosis and can determine the sane from the insane. Usually these rational people who have broken out are a motley group of sages, psychotics and geniuses.
Perhaps we need to ask ourselves, are we part of a psychosis of the collective mind? That what we have been calling normal is really the psychopathology of the average. I liken this to living in an insane asylum; once you are admitted neither the psychiatrists nor anyone else can tell whether you are sane or not. Interestingly, it is only an occasional patients who notices that you are not insane at all.
17 November 2009, on 7:43 am
Hey, Tony D…
Thanks for giving me a positive…benefit of doubt(?)…regarding…what!…
a hypothetical “Normalcy Curve”?
The last part of your comment reminds me of one of my all-time favorite films: “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” (1975). For a reminder?…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jReNeEHH2lQ&feature=related
As long as I’ve already strayed into OT territory…
Thinking about that film, it’s an interesting tid-bit, at least to me, in retrospect, that Jack Nicholson is…if I’m not mistaken…a “fellow atheist”.
OK…now I’m thinking “Easy Rider” from 1969; my favorite year of that decade. A film with, IMO, some rather “heavy”, long lingering messages regarding…”Freedom”.
“Nick-nick…swamp!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EpvRvaki-E&feature=related
18 November 2009, on 2:48 pm
ChuckA……. It is of some interest to know that a number of years ago a few medical interns, residents, or just students, feigned insanity and got themselves admitted to a mental institution. After they arrived they dropped the sham and acted “ normal.” During the time they were institutionalized ( a few days) none of the medical staff including the psychiatrists were cognizant of the fact they were normal. Only some of the insane patients realized that the perpetrators were not insane. After their release they wrote it up in a prestigious psychiatric journal and embarrassed the hell out of the psychiatrists who were shocked to learn that once a person is considered insane and institutionalized their medical acumen failed at distinguishing between the sane and insane
18 November 2009, on 2:58 pm
ChuckA…Thanks for the reminder “One Flew Over The Cookoo’s Nest.” Great picture and superlative acting. What happened to the film making industry since 1975?
Jack Nicholson is too rational, intelligent, and intellectual to be a theist.
19 November 2009, on 11:57 am
The part of Malachy’s predictions that no one has reported is that he also said all the popes would be only six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.
19 November 2009, on 4:26 pm
Or 3 degrees, since the advent of the interwebs.
& his nick is Malarkey.
20 November 2009, on 3:45 pm
I don’t really get the point of this post. Catholics (or most of them I should say) don’t believe in the Prophecy of Saint Malachy. So, are you trying to say that Catholics are stupid for something that they don’t believe in, or are skeptical about?
20 November 2009, on 9:20 pm
BV:
No, I think you’re missing the whole point. Religion is bizarre, & as a result, the thought process tends to spawn even more bizarre ideas. Every religion seems to result in a breakdown of critical thought processes.
24 November 2009, on 6:39 pm
BV is right!
In no other field of human activity, are the participants urged to leave their intellect and common sense at the door as eagerly. In the our increasingly dangerous and complicated world, critical thinking is perhaps our most valuable tool. But, in order to be devout followers of a monotheistic faith, we have to abandon that tool.
That’s why I decided that religion was a pernicious waste of time at age 12. It asked too much of me.
24 November 2009, on 7:22 pm
Brooklyn Boy – my response to BV was about the Malachy prophecies, not Catholicism in general.
10 January 2010, on 12:46 am
Jesus Christ has raised me from the dead according to a contract law agreement I have with Him. The final pope in the list of names, Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman), refers to the private and public revelation of St. John the Baptist.