UPDATE: NB: After the The Great Roman™ saw this he offered:
That I recall it was not included in the Franciscan Sources and it is believed to have been written at the time of Boniface VIII who suppressed a Franciscan branch authorized by Celestine V. Not sure of the details though.
Some people have a false notion of St. Francis of Assisi. They see garden statues of Francis with birdies. They saw Brother Sun, Sister Moon. They’ve heard, or said, the prayer he didn’t write. You get the idea. Being Christian means rolling in the grass and hugging lambs as bluebirds flit around you.
In fact, Francis was a serious hard ass. The writings of Francis show that he had lofty ideas about the sacrality of sacred worship – HERE – and other matters. He would have been appalled, I think, at the Novus Ordo as it is employed.
Also from the accounts this great saint comes a prophecy of a false Pope. Biretta tip to a reader.
Shortly before he died, St. Francis of Assisi called together his followers and warned them of the coming troubles, saying:
1. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
2. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death.
+++
3. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
4. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
5. Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
6. Those who preserve their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, [Christ] these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
7. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”
(Except for breaking up the narrative into numbered paragraphs and adding bold print for emphasis, the prophecy is presented without any alteration, as given in the Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882, p. 248.)
Loading ...
It does seem to me to be a prophecy of the Great Western Schism and the surrounding tumult both before and after.
I am extremely skeptical about this. I have never come across this before – it is certainly not in the writings of Saint Francis.
“a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate”
This cannot be a reference to Pope Francis. He was most certainly canonically elected.
I think we’re living this now. The description of Jorge Bergoglio (stage name Pope Francis) fits him to a “t”.
Non-canonically elected (substantial error or impeded See in the resignation, violations of Universi Dominici Gregis, take your pick).
Destroyer, not A Pastor, not a Shepherd (attacks on the faithful, spewing heresies like a lawn sprinkler, idol worship, syncretism, disbelief, Freemasonry, etc, etc.)
This is chilling.
I have met so many people over the years who say they love St. Francis. I usually give them a copy of Little Flowers of St. Francis, the only approved biography of the Saint. I try to reread it every couple of years. Reading it prevents me from thinking too highly of myself to put it mildly. His life was not sunshine, lollypops and rainbows like the 60’s song said. It is said, that St. Francis was given the throne abandoned by Lucifer. He had the stigmata but kept it hidden. I fully believe he made the above warning.
From all I have read, the current pontiff was validly elected. However, I have read rumblings that his election was discussed and planned ahead of time. From what I understand, this “lobbying” is against the “rules.”
So, if lobbying did occur and is a violation of the process of selecting a pope, does that mean Francis was invalidly elected? I don’t know cannon law well enough (actually at all) to know. But, my intuition is it doesn’t invalidate the entire election.
Perhaps others here, who are experts in Church law, can chime in?
Regarding the update: I read in a commentary on Dante’s Paradiso that during the pontificate of Boniface VIII there was a branch of the Franciscans that were sedevacantists. (St. Peter, in the Paradiso, makes a comment suggesting that Boniface isn’t Pope—elsewhere in the Commedia the language is that of real-but-bad pope).
Perhaps this is what The Great Roman is alluding to: he would have read the prophecy (forgery or otherwise) as intending to refer to him.
Perhaps I am one of the nerds that has been aware of this prophecy of St Francis for some time now.
Maximillian:
St Francis would not have written it, he spoke it just prior to his death.
The preamble account makes clear that there were many witnesses.
The Great Roman’s report is interesting but is there anything to support his statements? If so let’s have so there may be clarity.
I do have faith that these are the words of St Francis. But my sense is that the current Pontiff, while both cruel and doltish, is not the major destroyer predicted.
It may be pessimistic, but Francis is likely a minor player compared to what is coming….
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
“Being Christian means rolling in the grass and hugging lambs as bluebirds flit around you.”
Hah! Love that!! Seriously, though, will grass stains show up on my black habit?
@Maximilian:
There were 3 reasons why Francis’ election could be invalidated:
1/ It was revealed that one surplus ballot was counted at the last round of the conclave that elected Francis.
2/ A lobby of clerics, mainly cardinals campaining on behalf of Cdl Bergoglio, seriously contravened to John Paul II’s Instructions “Universis Dominici Gregis”.
3/ Any Jesuit priest who is likely to be called (or elected) to a higher position must first obtain permission from the head of the Jesuit Order.
One can get a view of the original book “B.P. Francisci Assisiatis Opuscula” per Fr.Lucam Waddingum (printed 1623)
The prophecy “Prophetia XIV” : “Magnum in Ecclesia schisma et tribulationem futuram” is on pages 480-81-82:
https://books.google.fr/books?id=NHlMAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q=480&f=false
@Jacques:
Regarding #2: The law is completely clear that violations of the rule forbidding pre-“campaigning” before (or during) a conclave DO NOT invalidate the election.
Regarding #3: It is my understanding that once a Jesuit has been made an ordinary bishop of a see, by the order of the Pope, he is no longer under obedience to the superior of the Jesuits (though he may be obliged to give consideration to that superior’s advice, and once he is a cardinal his office in respect of his duties to the bishop of Rome take precedence over obedience to the Jesuit superior. It is implausible in the extreme that the Rule of the Jesuit order subordinates the election of a Jesuit cardinal bishop to the papacy to the superior’s approval.
I propose a solution whereby Pope Francis is not the prophesied pope in question, but one leading to “The Destroyer”. It has to do with Canon Law regarding the location of the papal election.
By Canon Law, the Conclave MUST be held in the Sistine Chapel; barring that, it must be held within Vatican City. Also, it cannot start sooner than 15 days after the death (or resignation) of the sitting pope, but MUST begin NO LATER THAN 20 DAYS after the Papal Throne is vacated. IOW, a quorum of the Cardinal Electors MUST be inside Vatican City and in the Conclave by the end of the 20th day. given the number of prophesies by different saints and blesseds that talk about a Muslim invasion of Rome, I can see where such a situation would lead to delaying the conclave until after the 20th day.
If that is the case (the conclave being delayed, or without a quorum of electors present), then no matter how many Cardinal Electors are in the Sistine Chapel, A VALID POPE CANNOT BE ELECTED. They may hold votes and burn the dry straw for white smoke, but the man appearing to the crowds will not be The Pope, but a False Pope.
This person would not be an anti-pope — the anti-popes of the Middle Ages were in fact validly elected under the rules of the time. It was only after the Council of Constance convinced two reigning anti-popes to resign and excommunicated the third, and then arranged for the election of Martin V, that things became resolved. One of the first things Martin V did was to change the Apostolic Constitution to make it clear that an election of a pope cannot take place until the existing pope had died. Instead, since his pretended election occurred in violation of the Apostolic Constitution, he would be a False Pope, ruling without the charism of infallibility. This false pope would truly bring confusion and schism upon the Church.
@TonyO
Universis Dominici Gregis forbids lobbying for a candidate under excommunication penalty. It is unclear if the candidate himself is excommunicated too.
Someone said: “Little Flowers of St. Francis, the only approved biography of the Saint”.
I am also fond of the the Little Flowers of St Francis, but have never heard anyone characterize it as a biography of him, let alone the only approved biography of him. What does “approved biography” mean? The earliest biographies of Francis are those by by Thomas of Celano first of all and Saint Bonaventure (literally, he’s a saint). The Little Flowers of Saint Francis is a “florilegium”, a collection of edifying stories, that dates much later than the 2 biographies mentioned, and compiled by anonymous.
I’ve been reading aloud to a blind friend the very good biography of St Francis of Assisi by Fr Augustine Thompson, OP, a commenter on this blog which is why I became aware of that book. It’s really good and sifts through what Francis’ real biography is. Fr Thompson makes it clear that some of the stories we love in the Little Flowers of St Francis such as the wolf of Gubbio are not factual occurrences. Francis is an amazing person even when we keep to the facts, and that doesn’t mean we don’t love the more fanciful stories too.
I have heard so, so many dubious and often outright wrong historical claims from Catholics, that are often believed because they are “traditional” after having been repeated for a long time. I feel that we are strongest when we do try to get the facts straight and acknowledge that some material is either spurious or is “hagiographical” in the sense of expressing something about sanctity without being literal biography. It’s a real shame when our true Faith is dismissed because we insist on things that are doubtful or false.
By Canon Law, the Conclave MUST be held in the Sistine Chapel; barring that, it must be held within Vatican City.
Well, it’s actually by the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis , rather than Canon Law, but that’s OK.
The law does provide quite explicitly that the election must be held in the Sistine Chapel. But there is an old principle that a law that cannot be obeyed is not binding. If, for example, the Sistine Chapel (and all of Rome) were to be destroyed by an earthquake, or by a nuclear bomb, then this provision could not be followed, so some other rule would have to control.
Also, it cannot start sooner than 15 days after the death (or resignation) of the sitting pope, but MUST begin NO LATER THAN 20 DAYS after the Papal Throne is vacated. …If that is the case (the conclave being delayed, or without a quorum of electors present), then no matter how many Cardinal Electors are in the Sistine Chapel, A VALID POPE CANNOT BE ELECTED.
Again, the same principle of law obtains: if it was impossible to start the elections by the 20th day, then some other rule would control. The constitution is intended to PROTECT the election of a pope, not to make it impossible.
There were 3 reasons why Francis’ election could be invalidated:
1/ It was revealed that one surplus ballot was counted at the last round of the conclave that elected Francis.
Jacques: where did you get this?
The difficulty is that since the cardinals are supposed to maintain secrecy about the election, any detail like this is automatically suspect: if it is even partially accurate, it could ONLY come from a cardinal who is breaking the obligation of secrecy. How can you trust that cardinal’s account?
Universis Dominici Gregis forbids lobbying for a candidate under excommunication penalty. It is unclear if the candidate himself is excommunicated too.
Interestingly, the document DOES clearly and explicitly have 3 provisions that apply a punishment of excommunication latae sententiae.
78. If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged…
80. In the same way, I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, …
81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
It is clear the penalty lands on those who commit the violation. The three acts are: (1) simony, (2) accepting interference from secular authorities on the election, or (3) entering into a pact, agreement, promise, or commitment to oblige them to vote a certain way.
Separately, it forbids various other kinds of shenanigans:
79. Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings…
82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.
I must correct my prior comment that #79, regarding lobbying for the office before the pope’s death: it does NOT explicitly provide that such election is still valid. However, if #78, about simony (which is much worse a crime) expresses the rule that this sin does not invalidate the election, and if lobbying as forbidden by #79 does not even incur excommunication, then frankly there is no firm basis for asserting that such behavior DOES invalidate the election. It is just a grave offense, it seems to me.
(Note: while it is possible for lobbying beforehand to arise to the level of a “pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote”, it also might not. They could all just agree, beforehand, “given all we have discussed, it makes the most sense to all of us to vote for Bill,” which is not a pact to do so.)
TonyO, thank you for that correction re: Universi Dominici Gregis.
I am, however, concerned about your statement that “… some other rule would control.” I believe this belief would be valid only if the Apostolic Constitution were divinely inspired. It is, unfortunately, a document created by men — created after much prayerful consideration, but still one created by men. I’m sure the cardinal electors who decided they didn’t like the choice the full conclave made were using that “some other rule” mentality when they assembled and elected the first anti-pope, launching the Western Schism.
Only when something is objectively impossible (as in meeting in the Sistine Chapel if it’s been destroyed) would that mentality apply. My supposition was that Rome itself (not necessarily Vatican City — I have faith that the Swiss Guards would do their duty in defending the Vatican City State) would be engulfed in chaos, preventing the cardinals from reaching the Vatican, much less assemble in the Sistine Chapel. Instead of disembarking from the jet and taking a car to the Vatican, the chaos might prevent an auto from being used in the city, or even might result in serious threat of bodily harm to the cardinals.
The chaos would not be an act of war or an act of God, but would be an act of man. Perhaps the chaos would be formulated for just such an event, where people could legitimately believe that the person coming out of such a conclave (that did not meet the provisions of “no later than 25 days”) was not a validly-elected Pope. Unless some provisions are made prior to the conclave, and are approved by Francis (such as meeting in Castel Gandolfo, for example), I don’t know how many people would simply accept that some of the Vatican hierarchy decided — on their own after the Papal Throne is vacated — to go ahead and have the election anyway.
BTW, Universi Dominici Gregis expressly forbids and prohibits any changes to the election procedures between the death of the old pope and the election of a new pope. This is to prevent just such an event from happening: where the Vatican hierarchy would, on its own authority, change the election procedures that might somehow give THEIR man a greater chance of being elected.
The thing is, and someone who’s interested might look for quotable quotes on that, I can at present only operate under “I’ve heard and it sounds logical”, but still with that proviso the thing is:
(At least) If someone has the semblance of being Pope, and is a Catholic bishop, but some secret hindrance invalidates, in itself, canonically his election, then he becomes Pope by virtue of being accepted by the clergy and layfolk of the diocese of Rome as their bishop. The election then is in itself invalid by our hypothesis, but he still becomes Pope.
(I don’t think someone not a bishop could, under that title, claim the powers of a Pope-elect, though.)
In nomine Domini and subsequent laws are to deal with the question “how does the Church of Rome get her bishop”. All in all sensible regulations, to be sure, but the purpose is not to put up hindrances in order to make the chance of the ghastly situation more likely in which the Holy See is actually vacant but all think some specific person is the Pope.
@TonyO
The surplus ballot counted during the last round of the Conclave that elected Francis was revealed by the well known journalist and vaticanist Antonio Socci.
Francis of Assisi died in c. 1226. The 13th century was relatively tame compared to the 3 anti-popes of the 14th and the 6 anti-popes of the 15th.
Muzhik says,
This person would not be an anti-pope — the anti-popes of the Middle Ages were in fact validly elected under the rules of the time
The elections of those anti-popes were not nearly as clean as you imply.