St. Malachy Prophecy: Is The Next Pope the Last?

St. Malachy Prophecy: Is The Next Pope the Last?

By N Oji Mzilikazi

Originally published in the Montreal Community Contact Volume 23, Number 05 March 7, 2013

“For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.”

Matthew 24:5, Mark 13:6

The surprised resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, the first papal resignation in 600 years, has Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church in closed session to elect a new pope.

While 12th-century Irish saint, St. Malachy didn’t see that coming, he is reputed to have prophesied that the next pope would be the last – the end of the world would follow. The Church would suffer persecution, Rome would be destroyed, then the Last Judgment, Rapture, and eternal life with Jesus in the Hereafter.

It is worth noting that right-wing Christian Churches, Christian fundamentalists, and Christian Zionists believe that Jewish Islamic conflict is the prophetic scriptural concordat to usher in the apocalyptic Armageddon – the end of the world. So they send millions of dollars annually to fund Israeli settlements, and are vociferous in agitation for America and the “Coalition of the willing” to bomb Iran.

For all the morality and goodness God-beliefs and scriptures engender, the Roman Catholic Church was built on numerous scriptural and doctrinal lies, distortion.

The Vatican City is the spiritual and administrative center of the Roman Catholic Church.  It has its own currency, its own bank and even its own postage stamps.  Not to mention, it has the greatest and best treasures, art books and priceless manuscript’s that the world has known.

Catholic doctrine is that the Vatican is the “rock” mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 17:18, when he said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church.” As well as Peter becoming the first Pope and starting Jesus ministry as Christianity.

If the conversation had taken place in Rome, or Rome had become Christian during Peter’s time, one might be tempted to believe those assertions, but none are true.

Rome became Christian, better yet; freedom of worship was established during the reign of Constantine I, Emperor of Rome 306-337. Who, it is related, saw a flaming cross in the sky due to the confluence of the planets. He moved the capital of Rome to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople. The cross was later adopted as the symbol of Christianity.

Though many Christians believe that the crucifixion was specifically designed for Jesus, crucifixion was the Roman method of execution for lower class, non-Roman criminals and political agitators.

As history recorded, when the gladiators/slave revolt under Spartacus 70-71 BC was suppressed, Marcus Crassus lined the road from Capua, a city north of Naples to Rome with 6,000 crucified gladiators/slaves.

Since Jesus “died” on the cross, the Church repositioned the crucifix, a common instrument of torture and death as holy and newfound symbol of faith. And the previously used symbol of a “fish” to denote Christianity faded.

Jesus as a Jew preached to his fellow Jews in Jerusalem and its environs. Matthew 17:13-30, relates that while on the shores of Caesarea Phillips, not Italy/Rome, Jesus inquired of his disciples whom they thought he was.

Simon Peter declared he was Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God.  And to that, Jesus then said: “Upon this rock I will build my Church.”  That rock is not a physical place (The Vatican) like the church would like us to believe, but upon Jesus transfiguration, Jesus becoming The Christ.

Luke 1:31 and Matthew 1:18-21 clearly states that when the Angel of the Lord appeared unto Joseph, he told him to name the child Jesus. There is no mention of Christ as part of his birth name.

John wasn’t born John the Baptist. If Jesus was born Christ, why would he warn about false Christs? Mark 13:22, “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise…”

Jesus was prosecuted for claiming Christ hood.  Matthew 26:63, stated that the high Jewish priest said unto Jesus, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” 

Matthew 27:17, Pilate asked the people, “Whom will ye that I release unto you?  Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?”

Matthew 22:42 Jesus asked the Pharisees, “What think ye of Christ?  Whose son is he?” 

According to Catholic dogma, Jesus passed on leadership to St. Peter and his successors, the popes. Also Jesus commanded St. Peter to place his seat in Rome.

Nonetheless, the title of Pope was synonymous with being Bishop of Rome and not with omnipotent power or leadership of a worldwide faith. Furthermore, Jesus never bequeathed supreme leadership to any one of his disciples. Jesus repeatedly reiterated that anyone who wanted to be great must serve others.

If all of Jesus’ disciples had established churches, they would all be Popes.  None would have to submit to another for they all learned from the same master.

Since Peter was the first disciple to recognized Jesus as the Christ, the Church painted him as Jesus’ right hand man, and said the name Peter means rock.  Even so, Peter wasn’t rock-solid and had too many character flaws to be Jesus inheritor.

If Peter truly understood Jesus mission, he would not have cut off the right ear of Malchus in the Garden (John 18:10) to which Jesus had to heal (Luke 22:51.)

Peter was arrogant. When washing his disciples’ feet Jesus came to Peter, Peter declared, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.”  Jesus had to threaten him, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me” (John 13:5-8).  Peter then said to Jesus that if he was going to wash his feet, he might as well wash his hands and head.  Once again Jesus had to rebuke him. Peter still didn’t understand the symbolism of the washing.

After the resurrection, Jesus had dinner with his disciples.  He asked Peter if he loved him more than the other disciples, and John 21:17 stated, “Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, lovest thou me?”

Imagine Peter being sadden because the question was put to him three times.  Didn’t Peter deny Jesus three times before his crucifixion?

Peter wasn’t really close to Jesus.  At the last supper, Jesus mentioned that someone would betray him.  John 13:23-24 tells us, “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of the disciples, whom Jesus loved.  Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be whom he spoke.”

Peter wasn’t even a witness to the crucifixion.  When Jesus was on the cross and, “Saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home” John 19:26-27.

When Mary Magdalene came to the sepulcher and realized Jesus had risen, “She runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved…they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulcher.” John 20:2-4.

John 18:15-16 stated that when Jesus was taken before the High Priest, Peter and the other disciple followed.  Because the other disciple knew the High Priest, he was able to enter into the palace, and then it was he that spoke to the doorwoman to give Peter access.

Peter was very much insecure with the relationship Jesus had with the other disciple.  Jesus told Peter to follow him.  John 21:20-22 carries the narrative, “Then Peter, turning about seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following. Peter said to Jesus, lord, and what shall this man do?  Jesus saith unto him, if I will that he tarry til I come, what is that to thee?  Follow me.”

Here was Jesus telling Peter to mind his own business, and simply do what he’s told.

One of the underlying teachings of the scripture is that God’s kingdom is not of this world; therefore one should be in it, but not of it.  The role of Pope and the papacy in the politics, governments and economy of the world for so many centuries clearly conflicts with the tenets of scripture.

There is no scriptural justification for clerical celibacy. Leviticus 21: 13-14 instructs priests to “take a wife in her virginity.”

Scripturally, celibacy was an individual choice not an imposition. Jesus says in Matthew 19: 12, “…And there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it.”

Bear in mind that true eunuchs, according to Deuteuronomy13: 1 “Shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”

Paul’s response to the Corinthians on the question of if “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” was “It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than burn.” Nevertheless, when Catholic priests cannot abide, they cannot marry.

Given the documentary evidence – which continue to unfold, in regards to child abuse and pedophilia in every corner of the world with a Catholic Church or a Catholic Order – and their cover-up, and that boys are overwhelmingly the victims of their sexual abuse, one must conclude that the Catholic Church has been a refuge of pederasts, a breeding ground for pedophiles and homosexuality.

Just last month, 74-year-old Cardinal Keith O’Brian, Britain’s most senior Catholic was forced to resign by Pope Benedict XVI because of “sexual misconduct.”

If three serving priests and an ex-priest didn’t accuse him of “inappropriate acts” against them, Cardinal O’Brian would’ve been in Rome to select the next pope, and could’ve been elected pope.

As an internet search could verify, there were popes that were married, popes that were sexually active after receiving “Holy Orders,” popes that fathered children, and popes that had male lovers.

The Catholic Church has long lost its spiritual and moral authority, and the right to pontificate on marriage and the family.

For centuries the Catholic Church held a vice-grip around the throat of mankind. The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the divisions within Christianity – “compromising the unity of Christ,” and for many evils in this world, including genocide of Indigenous peoples, racism against Blacks, and the consigning of millions of Africans to the terrors of hell on earth. Would Pope Benedict XVI be its last.

Parole Denied

Parole Denied

By N Oji Mzilikazi

Originally published in the Montreal Community Contact Volume 23, Number 04 February 21, 2013

Where the death penalty is non-existent, 25 years to life is often levied as the punishment for first degree or capital murder. Even so, remorse, reformation, and good behaviour often position the convicted to obtain parole, attain freedom to walk in parks, stroll on boardwalks, enjoy sunrise and see night fold.

There is no such privilege in controlling relationships. Life could be taken whenever. There is no parole for the other. They’re never free to live, much more to try and find another partner, lover, or to love again. The abuse, the pain is forever – that is, until.

Inmates on death row know the dates they’ll expire, permanently leave the world of man, retire.  They have, are given time to put their house in order, say goodbye to loved ones, make a last will and testament, talk to their maker, have, as well as enjoy a last supper.

There is no such privilege in controlling relationships. Life could be taken whenever. There is no parole for the other. They’re never free to live, much more to try and find another partner, lover, or to love again. The abuse, the pain is forever – that is, until.

Relationships can be enforced, but Love cannot be forced. Love chooses. Love gives freely of herself to whomsoever her heart fancies.

Love willingness accounts for the power of her magnificence, those blessed able to mine her treasures, experience unbridled pleasures. Still, there are many who believe that love, marriage, and even going around with another confer ownership of person.

The chemistry that cause people to fall in love, form relationships, and/or stay together, aren’t forged in the fires of fear, intimidation, jealousy or insecurity.

Love chooses. Love gives freely of herself to whomsoever her heart fancies. Love is also fragile, subject to change, to rearrange, thus love retains the right to withdraw.

Love cannot strive or live in toxicity. Love’s fragility, susceptible to change, power of withdrawal, and fears in regards to losing love often lead to possessiveness, efforts to control the object of one’s love, emotional volatility, and domestic abuse.

The insecurity of abusers leads them to create a climate of fear, and to deliberately undermine self-esteem and self-confidence of the other. In furtherance, their reaction is of wrath, infliction of pain to any retort. To hiring a killer(s) they sometimes resort, execute accidents to hide a homicide, or engage in straight out infanticide and murder-suicide.

Domestic violence does not elevate, gives a person social standing or respect. Hurting the person one loved or once loved is never a gain. Their death won’t alleviate the hurt, pain from love’s withdrawal, love’s betrayal, changed love, or love being rearranged.

Surviving children are horribly damaged, indelibly scarred, ashamed. The killer’s family gets a sullied name, friends cannot but feel embarrassed, assume a bit of guilt, and the memory of the murderer irrespective of achievements is one of shame. Still, people kill over love, lost love, betrayed love, and unrequited love time and time again.

No intimate relationship should end with someone doused in acid, murdered, screaming, pleading, cursing, begging, bleeding, being cursed at while dying.

As much as you love, or are even blinded by love, demand, insist upon respect. Don’t allow yourself to be dehumanised, treated like property. Don’t wait until abuse is entrenched and your life is in danger to act.

Nip the first display of verbal abuse, physical abuse and attempts to psychological control in the bud. Make the first time your lover or partner raise their hand to hit you their last.  Take it off or at least make the effort to do so. It is better to be judged by twelve in a court of law than to be carried out of a church by six.

Don’t make excuses for the other, and say things to the effect like he/she didn’t mean it, it was on account of stress, or merely an over-reaction. The practice and encouragement of abuse leads to its perfection and entrenchment.

I’ve intervened, seen teenage girls crying from verbal abuse and/or from slaps by their teenage boyfriends.

Anecdotal evidence points to teenage girls abused by their boyfriends afraid tell their parents out of fear for what their parents will do. In protecting those males from consequence, both they and their abusers feel abuse is part of the relationship template.

(Rihanna running back to Chris Brown gives the impression that love tolerates, overrides abuse.)

Love uplifts, makes hearts flutter and soar, not tremble in fear, walk on pins and needles, and scared of saying the wrong things.

Let there be no shame in your relationship game. Tell your family and friends if your partner has a temper, is a stalker, searches through your things, breaks into your emails, monitor your cellphone, gets angry over nothing, the slightest of things, and believe they own you.

Leave him/her. Unless there is professional intervention, those acts will progressively worsen. I know people do stand things for the sake of children, but socialization in an unhealthy home environment often damage children for life.

According to personality, severity of behaviour and danger posed, get a restraining order, find shelter. If warranted, leave town, city, province, state. It cannot be overemphasised, be vigilant. Abusers, stalkers, and controllers respect no papers or borders.

Before you go around with, cohabitate or marry, try to gage the true personality, the mentality of your love interest. Study them. Check out both their personal history and that of their family. Don’t be confused by social standing, pedigree, bankbook balance, or them being handsome or beautiful. Parole denied is simply not a good place to be.