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.
Carlos Caso-Rosendi 
I follow your logic in this article, Carlos, but I am not sure about the apostate flock of Bergoglio being destroyed by the Beast that comes up from the bottomless pit. Would they not be allies? Very interesting article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had the same doubt but perhaps in the end the enemies of God will fight each other in a final moment of confusion. The two witnesses appear and they are conquered and killed. I’ve read the passage many times and I have read many interpretations as well. Now I have the feeling that these blurry images are going to become more and more clear very soon in the months/years to come. Thank you for your comment!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Caiaphas and the Romans were allies against Christ and yet the Romans were the ones who destroyed the Temple and ended the Jewish religious system. Former friends can become enemies.
LikeLike
Yes, indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fr Hesse made an interesting observation about the Fatima vision ,he said Sr Lucia when speaking of the Bishop in white ,walking among the ruins of the great city passing the corpses of the dead,did not use the word corpses,but the word cadavers ,which lead him to believe they were spiritually dead.Also interesting to note that the Crucifix in many churches is been replaced by bare Crosses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. Mr. Andrea Cionci makes the same distinction: “cadavers” instead of “corpses”. As for the Cross without the Corpus, that is a hallmark of Protestantism. It betrays a horror of the Sacrifice. That is something the devil can’t bear. That body is the image of his final defeat.
LikeLike
Hi Carlos, While discussions relating to the End Times, and in particular, Malachi’s list, are always interesting, I never build them into my lifestyle. It will happen when it happens, and there’s nothing I can do about that except consider the possibility that it will be tomorrow. God bless John
LikeLike
This is a post inviting to speculate, play if you will, with some passages of Scripture and private prophecy. It’s a small blog, certainly not an opinion maker 🙂 and no one is betting the farm on one thing or the other. As for my position on the occupant of the Throne of Peter is quite clear, I do not push anyone to believe what I believe (no one does it ever anyway!) But let me say in my defense that I have seen enough. I defended him in the past when I did not have the information I have now. But that is a personal position not propaganda. BTW, I think the “remnant” is bigger than anyone expected and the revolutionaries and their leader are more and more alone every day. Lincoln said one cannot fool all the people all of the time. He was right. God bless!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Carlos, I hope you didn’t interpret my previous post as critical of yours in any way. In regard to the current “occupant of the Throne of Peter”, I think you have chose a good word – sure he occupies the throne, but does nothing whatever to justify that occupation. John
LikeLiked by 1 person
You got it! I see what you were referring to. Yes, the man is sitting there. Nice job if you can pull it but I believe he can’t. Trying to outsmart Christ is a fool’s errand. It never ends in a nice place. And I think you are right: everything is interesting and should serve for our edification but one can never be too careful. I believe we don’t have ten years left, perhaps we have less than five but it is useless to stress about such things. Christ said He’s coming, our job is to be ‘on the watch” but we are not asked to be anxious. On the contrary, we are invited to trust.
LikeLike
To the principle of Divine Sovereignty the devil opposes the ‘principle’ of conquest by stealth, force or outright robbery. God’s answer to that is St. Peter. Once Peter is anointed as the Prince of the Apostles in charge of the Royal Household of Israel (cf. Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22) he proceeds to conquer Rome for Christ. He offers a glorious martyrdom reflecting Mt. Calvary on Mons Vaticanus, where the prophets of old Rome used to give their oracles (the mount of the vaticinii, or predictions). Having taken that, he continues through his successors until emperor Gratianus surrenders the title of Pontifex to the head of the See of Rome in the 4th century. Rome is thus given by Peter to Christ as a trophy and so Rome now belongs to Christ by the principle of Divine Sovereignty and by the principle of Conquest. The devil has been humiliated. Now —right now— Our Lord has lured his enemies to Rome. The knuckleheads believe they have conquered back the unconquerable. 😁 But their sad situation is: they have come out of their hiding place and are now surrounded and ready to be dispatched back to hell. They have done all their blasphemous deeds in sight of the whole world. Their days are counted. Peter’s victory will be complete. They should have known that when they realized that Benedict XVI took the Petrine munus with him to Heaven. For the usurpers their carnage will be their loot.
LikeLike