JSRG
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2019
- 2,133
- 1,364
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
There are several points of evidence that is a forgery.
The first is that although Malachy supposedly gave this prophecy in the 12th century, there is no mention of until the late 16th. Now, this by itself does not prove it is a forgery. It could be the prophecy was lost and only rediscovered; there are plenty of times we have only rediscovered old documents long after they were made, and perhaps the prophecy, once made, was simply put into a vault somewhere and few knew about it at the time. But it means that one should, at at minimum, be cautious.
The second is the point that so many have pointed out: The prophecies are quite easy to connect to popes before the prophecy was uncovered, but much harder to do so for popes after the prophecy was uncovered. It is not clear if your "it was pretty accurate if a forgery" is supposed to refer to the earlier popes on the list or the later ones. The earlier ones are simply explained by it being a forgery, and to call the later ones "pretty accurate" is to stretch things. Certain popes one can consider to well align, but others are much more strained, which would be typical if someone were to rattle off so many random brief descriptions.
It is, however, true that whether something is "strained" or not can be subjective, but there does seem a distinct difference in the earlier ones from the later ones.
This brings us to the third one, which is more objective, and was brought up by M.J. O'Brien, a priest who wrote a work critical of the prophecy (also available here) that, while a bit old (19th century) is worth reading. He observed that the list of prophecies prior to discovery bear a startling similarity to the information given about popes in a work by Onuphrius Pavinius (or Onofrio Panvinio) that was published a few decades prior to the prophecy's publication. As he observes:
Any person who opens this work and compares the account of the popes in it from Celestine II. to Paul IV., with the corresponding part of the "Prophecy of St. Malachy" will come to the conclusion that the writer of the latter, if not Panvinius himself, must have been some one who followed Panvinius's account rather too closely. In Panvinius's Epitome, the popes' armorial bearings are given, but not in every case. When the arms are given, we usually find that they figure in the prophecy, when not given, the prophecy is a play upon, or a description of the pope's name, country, family, or title, when cardinal.
He also notes that the prophecy follows errors in Panvinius's work, such as the inclusion of antipopes (sometimes there were multiple people claiming to be the pope--the ones regarded as the wrong ones are called antipopes). After Adrian IV, it lists Victor IV, Callixtus III, and Paschal III--all antipopes. It was actually Alexander III who is regarded as the true pope during that period. But what is notable is that Pavinius's book lists, apparently erroneously, Victor IV, Callixtus III, and Paschal III. And this is followed by the prophecy. Similarly done is listing Nicholas V (antipope opposing John XXII) between John XXII and Benedict XII, which is done in Panvinius's work. Granted, Panvinius does describe Nicholas V as an antipope, and the prophecy for him is "schismatic crow" in apparent acknowledgment, but then why are the prior antipopes listed as if they were actual popes, with no such indication?
But if someone wants a summary of the problems with the prophecy, I will once again quote M.J. O'Brien (summarizing criticisms, which he discussed in more detail afterwards):
The foregoing is what Moréri has to say against the prophecies, and nearly every thing which has been said against them since his time is merely a repetition of his words. His objections may be summarized as follows: 1, The silence of St. Bernard; 2, the silence of those whose relations with the Holy See were of such a nature that they would surely have heard of those prophecies if they had existed; 3, the silence of those who wrote about the popes, especially of Ciacconius; 4, the silence of Irish writers; 5, internal evidence: (a) anachronisms; (b)prophecies founded on false assumption of facts; (c) non-fulfilment of prophecy from 1590.
Upvote
0
