St. Malachi’s prophecy includes various antipopes. That leads me to believe that Petrus Romanus is most likely the man sitting in the throne of Peter right now and an antipope as well. If one pays attention to the possessive in:

“In persecutione extrema Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus; quibus transactis, civitas septis collis diruetur, et Judex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.”

That is normally translated:

“In the final persecution of the S.R.E. (Latin initials for Holy Roman Church), there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations; after which the seven hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.”

He will feed (pasture) his flock —not the flock of Christ?— and then the Terrible Judge (presumably, Jesus) will judge “populum suum” that is literally “his own people” —is there a counterpoint in the sense of “his flock, Petrus Romanus’ own” versus “his people, Jesus’ own”?

The tribulation is the time when Petrus Romanus will lead his flock (be it Bergoglio or a true final Pope). If we compare this to the days of Calvary there was a true High Priest (Simon Peter cf. Matthew 16) feeding his flock (the early Christians) while Caiaphas led his own flock (the Mosaic system condemned to extinction). The days to come may bring this counterpoint to perfection … no one knows yet.

And then we have sedebit “will sit” and not “will reign” as it is usually translated. “Sitting” on the throne is not the same as “reigning” and now I ask: Isn’t that the kernel of Pope Benedict XVI’s Renuntiatio problem, the munus? Isn’t that the very right to reign proper of being the Pope?

One more detail in this hasty analysis: the matter of “…the great city which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt where their Lord also was crucified” (Apocalypse of St. John 11:8) That is a not so veiled reference to the nature of the apostate flock: those of Sodom and those of Egypt, these last are symbolically the secret sect so fond of things Egyptian.

When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit will make war on them  and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. (Apocalypse of St. John 11:7-8)

Could Petrus Romanus be the “Bishop dressed in white” the visionaries of Fatima believed him to be the Holy Father (but he was not) and who was advancing towards a cross of made of corkwood, a false cross too weak to hold the body of the true Christ?

I am not affirming anything. I am merely asking questions as the puzzle takes shape in my mind.