I don't think it will be Schonberg as he is talking of retiring soon after recovery from prostate cancer.
Due to the increasing possibility of a schism, I believe that in the next conclave the balance will tip towards the side of a "conciliatory candidate." I believe it is important to remember that although Francis is nominating liberal cardinals in full swing, many of those who voted for him in 2013 may seriously regret this.
is it canonically possible to stage a papal coup d'etat? for example a Pope names all cardinals he likes, after he dies they elect a new pope from within their own ranks. I dont think this is realistic or has ever happened. but is it possible?
From what I have read, sadly it appears to be very possible indeed and may in fact even already be in process. The present way of electing a Pope is not I think all that old. Originally the Pope was elected by the people of the city of Rome themselves. The Pope is an Absolute Monarch there is no reason at all why he might not fix things for his own reasons...if God permits it.
Supposedly he is already looking to change the rules for the conclave....anything is possible at this point. https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2...clave-rules-dont-say-it-hasnt-happened-before
While there may be chicanery and worse going on in Vatican , the Petrine office is still and forever will be divinely guided. There have been many bad popes for reason that only God knows and has allowed. But I trust that because this office (not individual men) are what is perfect, it will work out as God intends. Bottom line is the Church will survive… it will have its Calvary and Passion .. it must ,.. but we know the gates of hell will not prevail. So, while not easy at times, we go forward with trust.
I hope for Cardinals Sarah, Burke, Mueller, or Bishops Schneider, Strickland, etc. This time, I think we may have to include Almighty God into the equation. We have reached that point, where, even though he has given us free will, direct intervention may not be so unthinkable anymore. Remember, at the height of the 'vaccination'-campaign, we reached a point just short of persecution. I was pondering how, if need be, I could quickly grab my kids and exit through the back door into a wooded area. We unvaccinated people were denied access almost everywhere, including in many workplaces (some parishioners got fired). Then, suddenly, the Omicron-variant swept through the world like a wildfire, infecting almost everyone, 'vaccinated' and unvaccinated alike. After that, the 'vaccination'-campaign was suddenly over, and no-one talks about it anymore. Very strange! Now, new research seems to suggest (to me as a mere layman) that the Omicron-variant is not a natural mutation of the Covid-'virus'. Coming back to the Pope-question, I think we have perhaps reached the breaking point. I keep thinking of the prophecy of St. Malachi (really the prophecy of St. Philip Neri), according to which "Gloria olivae" (Pope Benedict XVI) is perhaps the last real Pope. After that comes he who "sits in/among the final/extreme persecution/persecutioners of the Holy Roman Roman Church (In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit...)" After that - Finis. Perhaps the end of an age?
If the prophecies of St. Malachi are accurate and the last pope will be named Peter, then I believe he will hail from Africa. The faith is on fire there, truth is not compromised and I think this man will be responsible for restoring the church. God bless!
Whenever I see that Austrian cardinal I think of this poster I saw in Vienna calling him a soul murderer:
Just took a quick scan of current cardinals with first name Peter and I could only find 5.... 2 from Africa! And I cannot imagine any Cardinal elected would have the audacity to call himself Peter. Turkson (Ghana) Erdo (Hungry) Parolin ( Italy) Baretto (Peru) Okpaleke (Nigeria)
There is an old saying that he who enters the conclave as Pope comes out of the conclave as cardinal.
I think that the problem with the next Conclave is that the Church is already in De Facto Schism and that, of course includes the Cardinal Electors. They each see things so differently,some of them being heretics and some of them, not. It is a little like cats and dogs meeting to elect a leader, that cats will vote for a fellow cat and the dogs for a doggy. Since it requires a two thirds majority to elect a Pope I think they may well hit an impasse. A cul de sac. Or imagine all the Democrat and Republican Senators in the USA met to vote for a President and each required a two thirds majority. Well it ain't gonna happen. You would have immediate and permanent stalemate. The only way out I would guess if they reached to someone outside the conclave, someone unknown who is not tied into one side or the other, at least in an obvious way. A kind of jack in the box. Or one other thing can happen which happens very,very rarely, but is permitted by the Conclave Rules. A Cardinal can stand up and say that he has been directly inspired by God to choose a certain person as Pope. He may had had a vision , or God spoke to him directly or whatever. But of course having being told by God who to vote for the Cardinal cannot change it, it is a permanent vote whatever happens. This is a very serious matter and the other Cardinals would have to take it seriously and do discernment. It is as if God stepped into the room and pledged a vote. Anyway I suspect the next Conclave will last a long, long, long time with much shouting and table thumping. https://www.loyolapress.com/catholi...ip/10-things-to-know-about-electing-the-pope/ Is it my imagination or do one or two of the Cardinals appear to be going into ecstasy in this video?
Perhaps the next conclave will literally take place during a thunderstorm. I remember that, in 2013, on the day of Benedict XVI's resignation, a reporter in Brazil commented that that day there was one of the worst storms in Rome in recent years, a fact that reached the peak of prophetic symbolism with the descent of lightning on the dome of St. Peter's Basilica.
Thank you, I would love to see Cardinal Sarah as the Holy Father. That said, regarding the prophecy of St. Malachi/St. Philip Neri, we are already in the time of the last person on the list. The man is a strange phantom and could be a Pope or an Anti-Pope, as the text description differs significantly from that of the others. A name is not reliably given to this phantom man. Whilst the name "Petrus Romanus" is mentioned, this is actually an addition, since there is a full stop after "sedebit". The footnote right below the text states that the additions ("adiecta") are not from St. Malachi/St. Philip Neri, but instead by someone else who interpreted these prophecies ("huius Prophetiae interpretis"). Alphonsus Ciacconius is mentioned as the author of the additions, although they could perhaps be from Arnold Wyon himself (the author of the book) - it does not really matter. In any case, the additions are mere interpretations of the prophecies; thus, the name "Petrus Romanus" cannot be taken very seriously, in my opinion. In any case, the strange phantom described by the words "will sit in/among the final/extreme persecution/persecutioners of the Holy Roman Church" does relate to Pope or Anti-Pope Francis. This is very clear, since the preceding prophecies can be accurately counted back to St. Peter, the first Pope. I have only copied page 311, but there are more Pope-prophecies in the book. We are now definitely in the time of the last man in the book, the so-called "Petrus Romanus", even though that name is questionable. His predecessor was "Gloria olivae" (Benedict XVI). Since we have reached the last man in the book, this means we are in the "final/extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church", if one was to take the prophecy seriously. God bless!
Yeah, the punctuation for the final part of the prophecy is very strange. The subject for “sedebit” isn’t even necessarily clear since S.R.E. isn’t spelled out (so I don’t think it has to be genitive). I remember a while ago looking through dictionaries to see if sedere could possibly mean “sit vacant” but I don’t think it has that connotation.
Thank you dear forum members for your contributions on this highly interesting subject. I am a bit of a prophecy-buff and have just reflected on this a bit more. Some of you have been saying Petrus Romanus is yet to come. Perhaps you are right (on the basis of taking this prophecy seriously at all). Reconsidering the full-stop after "sedebit and the spacing of the paragraphs, maybe Petrus Romanus is an entirely different man from the one who "sits in/amongst the final/extreme persecution/persecutioners of the Holy Roman Church". So perhaps the text after the full-stop is not an adiectum (addition), but another prophecy concerning an entirely different Pope? If this was true, then as a result we would have: 1. Right now, the strange phantom (Pope or Anti-Pope), who "sits in/amongst the final/extreme persecution/persecutioners of the Holy Roman Church". 2. The one who is to come, "Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep in many tribulations: after this has been completed, the city of the seven hills (Rome) will be destroyed, and the tremendous Judge will judge his people. End." Please feel free to correct my poor translation and/or thoughts. I must admit, I love prophecy discussions. God bless!
