Like other false prophecies, the St. Malachy Prophecy about the popes just keeps turning up.
I’ve already shared my thoughts on a common misinterpretation (that I myself was guilty of for some time) of Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision of the “Two Popes.” In my response to Ann Barnhardt’s declaration that Francis is an anti-pope, I tackled the alleged prophecy of St. Francis — which also comes up all the time but is almost certainly not authentic. There are a number of contemporary prophecies that strike a discordant note or have been condemned, the most popular of which right now is probably Maria Divine Mercy/The Book of Truth. I wrote a brief commentary on the Maria Divine Mercy phenomenon a couple years ago and a followup after it was condemned. Since then, many sites have done more thorough debunking of MDM. For a few, see here, here, and here. (Note: links to other sites do not equal endorsement of their other content. Also, since MDM followers tend to get very aggressive in defense of the prophecies, I will moderate comments equally aggressively. Our editorial position is that while MDM messages often sound authentic, they have been condemned, and we must accept this decision barring an ecclesiastical decision to the contrary.)
The St. Malachy Prophecy itself is probably the most popular of all of these, probably because it’s so foreboding. It comes up all the time, especially during conclaves. In fact, it’s so popular that Archbishop Gänswein not only referenced it in his recent interview with Paul Badde, he actually said he believes Francis may be the last pope!
But most scholars of Catholic prophecy believe that the Malachy prophecy is a forgery. A fake. And though we all love to poke fun at his interminable “things to know and share” articles that attempt to explain away every papal impropriety, Jimmy Akin just published an article on the St. Malachy Prophecy (yes, to know and share!) that’s actually very good. A brief sample:
3. Why are people talking about the prophecy now?
The next-to-last motto in the prophecy of the popes has been associated with Pope Benedict XVI. Since he is now at the end of his papacy, that would bring us to the last name in the prophecy of the popes, which many have taken to indicate the final pope at the end of the world.
This passage reads as follows:
Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.
4. Is this an approved private revelation?
No, it is not. Although it has been influential in some Catholic circles for several hundred years, it is not approved by the Magisterium.
5. What evidence is there concerning its authenticity?
A significant mark against its authenticity is the fact that it was not published until 1595, though St. Malachy died in 1148. There is no record of the prophecy existing in the intervening 447 years.
Allegedly, this was because the prophecy lay, forgotten, in a Roman archive, and it was not rediscovered until 1590.
This explanation is possible in principle, but the fact that we cannot establish its existence for hundreds of years until after its supposed author’s death is also consistent with the claim that it was a forgery composed around 1590 and then “salted” into the archive. (“Salting” is the term used for planting false records in archives.) It also may never have been in the archive but merely claimed to be.
While the fact that we have no mention of this document in the hundreds of years between the times of its reported composition and re-discovery does not prove that it is false, it does cast significant doubt on its authenticity.
It’s worth reading the whole thing. Most Catholics have heard of this prophecy, and very few have any idea about its questionable provenance.
You may be asking yourself why does this matter? Well, it mattered to Our Lord to warn us about false prophets. He said they would come, and He made no bones about how He felt about them:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Mt. 7:15)
Prophecy is a thing many people look to when trying to make sense of confusing events or ominous occurrences. They want some means by which to know what to expect, and how to deal with it — and probably most of all, whether they can expect things to get better or worse.
We are living in a time that almost certainly falls into line with various prophecies of various saints of the past. I have friends who have studied authentic prophecy for decades, and they talk to me about the parallels all the time. But these are the same people who are most concerned when they see people following a prophecy that has already been debunked, or continues to fool a lot of people.
We should take pains to make sure that we are not credulous consumers of every dubious claim about the future. We should not have, as St. Paul put it, “itching ears,” gathering to ourselves teachers according to our own desires, and not tolerating sound doctrine. (2 Tim. 4:3). It’s not wrong to want to get a handle on what’s happening and to have a clearer sense of heaven’s plan. But sometimes, it’s better to just trust that Christ asleep in the boat does not mean we’re going to perish in the storm.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
Well one thing’s for sure. Francis is not Petrus Romanus.
I think he could very well be Petrus Romanus, The Malachai prophecy always has a little twist… I think Pope Francis is very much ‘feeding’ his sheep during tribulation; the focus of his papacy being on taking care of the temporal order to the seemingly neglect of the spiritual.
Maybe if your interpretation is that he’s feeding them TO tribulation, or just feeding them tribulation itself.
I agree about the “twist”. I have a pet theory that “Petrus Romanus” ties in with the tradition of St Peter turning back on the road out of Rome after seeing the vision of Our Lord making his way there to be crucified again. Toss in some “warning/chastisement” events, the third Fatima secret of a bishop in white being executed in the holy city, and the fact that Francis is being pegged left and right as the “anti-pope”, and you’ve got a very delicious twist indeed. Remembering the fact that Peter betrayed Our Lord **even after he was told by Him that he was going to do it**, before going on to be the rock upon which the Church was built, is it not possible that Petrus Romanus could be a pope who leaves a little to be desired, then through a change of heart – maybe even from a direct warning from God to all mankind – goes on to be one of (if not the) most courageous popes in Church history, at the ultimate expense of his own life?
St. Malachy prophecy: The only supposed (Catholic) private revelation that Protestants accept.
Why do Protestants accept it? They look like fools even if they do.
It states : In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit…. or In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit
Emphasis on “Holy” – so if they accept these prophecies they must accept the Roman Church is Holy. Hence they are contradicting themselves because something must be true if it is holy.
Jokes on them.
Don’t know. If you can stomach it, youtube for petrus romanus.
To be more precise, look for Tom Horn and Chris Putnam and their book Petrus Romanus.
I found that book in a bookstore once and picked it up out of morbid curiosity. Five hours later, I highly regretted it.
Yes I know there’s craziness with Christians about Petrus Romanus. The one guy said that aliens would be accepted by the Church as a savior???
It is insanity and anyone who believes this probably believes they will be magically saved via a rapture (that is why they have 2 pilots on planes right? LOL)
However, just like the Muslims are invading Europe. A feat they could not accomplish for centuries. The Church does not need outside forces to try to destroy it.
It is doing it from within its own membership. Auto-destruction….
Yes, once Petrus Romanus unveils the alien antichrist, the pre-trib rapture will take up all the evangelicals before the plague of cybernetic zombie ninjas consume the flesh of the living.
My brother and I joke,.. God, please let the rapture be real so all these evangelicals will go away.
That’s funny – if I do see zombie ninjas I’ll make sure I pray the rosary 🙂
You forgot to mention Planet X/Nibiru/the Destroyer. I’ve had a lot of down time over the past several years I am ashamed to say.
Lol. I hear ya. I find myself wandering into the depths of youtube insanity before I realize that I’ve stepped into a digital asylum. Entertaining, though.
All I will say now is “BIN” (before its news) and all that insanity.
Before the Mandela effect it was “before it was news”.
What good Protestant does not want to see the destruction of the papacy, Vatican, hierarchy. It would be so tremendously self gratifying for them.
Of course they accept it, but only because they misunderstand it like most people do. People seem to interpret the prophecy as the “last pope” preceding Jesus’s return; second coming. Protestants see it as some kind of proof that the RC always was evil and that they themselves Protestants have always been correct in rebelling against the RC and that the RC will finally be brought down and then Jesus will return and that the RC was just one big satanic sham for 2000 years.
But people misunderstand the prophecy of the last pope. The “last pope” prophecy is the last pope of THIS CHURCH AGE. A NEW RC church age will begin with a triumph in which all democracies and republics will fall. The freemasons will be dissolved. Liberals and communists will be defeated. The RC will triumph and re-establish itself as a world-wide power as it once was. You see, WWI was actually started for the sole reason of eliminating the last of the Catholic monarchs. At that point, the RC & Vatican were reduced to nothing but a little sliver of land mass in Italy in which they just became a world-wide non-governmental organization competing in the public square with other organizations. That’s what the RC has been reduced to, and the protestants played a role in that. Starting back with the protestant reformation, helped begin the centuries long process of reducing the RC to what it has become today: just an NGO club with zero governmental influence completely separate from what we now live in called a “secular society” that sees life from an atheistic point of view. We basically lost God’s protection which allowed for liberal and communist policies to be established world wide. Those policies fall along the lines of feminism, welfare, child support, no-fault divorce, abortion, affirmative action, EEO, etc. All of these policies help create an artificial matriarch society in which females have guaranteed survival and privileges at the expense of the forcible redistribution of wealth from men. A matriarch society is the opposite of what God intended under natural law, a patriarch society. Satan hates God, so Satan tries to always do the opposite of what was intended by God, hence the establishment of a matriarchal type of secular society.
But God is absolutely brilliant. It’s almost like a chess game in which God checkmate’s Satan every time. The irony: The irony is that while Satan has used women against men to establish a feminist socialist society where men have had their rights under natural law suppressed, Satan himself will have his head crush by a woman: The Blessed Virgin Mary. It will be a very embarrassing defeat for Satan, and what a brilliant chess move by God.
At that point, a new RC church age will begin. This church age will be an absolute miracle and will establish what was thought to of been impossible. This new age will go on for a 1000 years or so as indicated in Revelation. At the end of the last church age is when the anti-christ does actually arrive onto the world scene and men are deceived once again. This is when Jesus, like a roaring lion headed into battle, makes his return and defeats the anti-christ and tosses Satan into hellfire forever.
I’m praying very hard for it. I’m hoping there is a surprise moment in 2017 in which the RC begins to regain its power and all western democracies & republics (that the protestants love so much) are destroyed. Feminism, welfare, etc will be destroyed along with it and men will also regain their former rights under natural law.
Actually, virtually no Protestants have ever heard of it. But you can think that if it makes you happy.
I think it’s funny that an article about Catholic prophecy, particularly pertaining to the pope, you have a picture of the papal medallions in the Basilica of Saint Paul outside the Walls. According to legend, when the blank medallions are full, the world will end. There are four blank medallions left. Was the connection initial?
The author misapplies this scripture passage to the wrong “believers.”
What we have been getting since this pope was “elected” (I believe some Cardinals including Bergoglio were probably excommunicated according to Pope John Paul II’s document regarding the election of a pope. If so, all decisions of the conclave are null and void. I hope it is looked into one of these days). But the one/s feeding the sheep unsound doctrine and confusion to many with itching ears–liberal Bishops, Cardinals, priests and lukewarm “catholics”– is the current head of our Church and his Freemason bishops. So many seem to love these new teachings. And we are being warned to stay away from prophesy?? Reducing the well-known and older Catholic prophesies to those of MDM shows more of a hatred of prophesy. There are some who toss them all, when they are gifts from God. Even Fatima mentions that apostasy begins at the top.
No, not being warned to stay away from prophecy. Being warned that some prophecy is false, so stick to the good ones. All the approved apparitions of Our Lady seem to be applicable now, there are great riches to be found in Emmerich, properly understood, St. Hildegard von Bingen is apropos…there’s a lot to choose from.
Certain prophecies, however, give us cause for concern. And our eagerness to look for answers can offer a certain incentive to believe anything that sounds right. That is where the devil hooks us.
Thanks, John, for your patient reply to my exasperated remark :)) Jesus said many times to his disciples that “I have told you this before it happens so that you will know that I told you.” Prophesy is supposed to prepare us for what is coming and to help us prepare ourselves even to mitigate with prayer and sacrifice. I have followed prophesy closely over the years which has increased my faith. I have also lived to see many come true already. I don’t look for sensation or chase the messages, but I love the sound of His voice and appreciate the gifts that come with it. Books by Fr. Ianuzzi or Fr. Esper are very helpful because they show what is happening using many prophesies from of old up to the present time. Of course, we know they are not necessary to believe in order to to attain salvation, but they are an invaluable help towards holiness. They also uplift and give courage when despair might come instead.
Thanks for the article, but again, the ones with itching ears, I believe, are the apostates in the Church itself.
I wouldn’t be so quick to denounce the prophecy. Frankly, I don’t think it’s worth the time to write either for or against it at this point but I can easily see how Francis could fit in as Peter the Roman in a couple of ways: his frequent use of referring to himself as the Bishop of Rome and secondly his concern for the poor almost exclusively in the temporal sphere (to the neglect of the spiritual) could fit quite nicely into the ‘feeding his sheep during tribulation’ – there is tribulation: and Francis is more concerned about literally feeding people instead of spreading the Gospel. There is always a twist to these Malachai prophecies. The destruction of Rome seems to fit in nicely with other prophecies as well.
I have heard many people cite this prophesy and supplemental scripture/prophesies to back it up. What is interesting is that we are at the moment of whether or not there is any validity (though I am very skeptical). I have never really understood the passage “… he will nourish (pasture) the sheep in many tribulations…” as I cannot determine if it is meant to imply this “pope” would nourish the sheep through many tribulations ( keeping the faith even though the world does not) or would be feeding the sheep tribulations ( leading the sheep away from the faith and into destruction). We will however see soon enough and expect the same results as the Mayan Dooms Day prophesy. However, what ever can hasten the return of our Lord Jesus Christ gets my support. This world is just abysmal.
I don´t agree with the idea that St Malachy´s prophecy is a forgery. It has supporters and detractors. There are respectable people that give credit to it. The reasons for considering it false are not conclusive in my opinion. I don´t have a defined position, we simply don´t know.
Dear Gabriela, It is refreshing to “hear a voice” that sounds somewhat open to the possibility of the authenticity of the prophecy of St. Malachy. I myself have thought about this for some time and my considerations follow.
1) Mr. Akin’s allegation that “This explanation is possible in principle [that St. Malachy’s prophecy was lost in the Vatican archives], but the fact that we cannot establish its existence for hundreds of years until after its supposed author’s death is also consistent with the claim that it was a forgery composed around 1590 and then ‘salted’ into the archive. (‘Salting’ is the term used for planting false records in archives.)” To draw the conclusion that because the existence had not been established for ca. 450 years therefore it is a forgery or its 450 years of silence is consistent with the claim that it was a forgery is absolute nonsense–logically it does not follow. As one individual asked, would anyone question the authenticity of the findings by archeologists considered hundreds of years old as forgeries just because there were buried for a thousand years? Of course, when it comes to evolution, which is based ultimately on the idea of reincarnation at which time some being returns to earth in better condition than he was when it died, eventually after however many reincarnations, becoming god, it is legitimate to be skeptical about skeletal findings supposedly “making the link” to animals. This should be evident to any mind with an openness to truth. And furthermore, where is there any, and I mean any, positive evidence of forgery?!
2) If the prophecy of St. Malachy is a fraud, it would make the Catholic Church
look pretty stupid when She has authorized the permanent enshrinement of that
prophecy in one of the most famous Basilicas of Rome as well as of the rest of the
world! When the Church is so careful in approving apparitions, sometimes taking decades, is She going to be indifferent and careless when She allows such a prophesy to be enshrined at St. Paul’s, a Church under the nose of the Holy Office?
3) When Pope Benedict was elected, he was considered the 265th Pope of the Catholic Church. The Prophecy of St. Malachy starting with Celestine II listed 112 Popes including 10 anti-Popes, the last mentioned being Pope Petrus Romanus, which will, according to the Prophecy will the the Pope at the end of the world. Between the 111th Pope and Petrus Romanus therefore there could be any number of Popes. In the initial listing of Popes of the Prophecy Innocent II was followed by Celestine II, Celestine II being the 167th Pope. If 111 Popes are added to 166 (Pope Innocent II) and the 10 anti- Popes deducted we would be presently at Pope #268, i.e., Francis. However, in Malachy’s Prophecy Pope Benedict is the 267the Pope, the last one mentioned before Petrus Romanus. Furthermore, if one checks the “Official” listing of Popes, as the one I have in my living room which gives a sketch of each Pope and a little biography one will find that John XVI and John XX are not listed. That is, there is a gap between John XV and John XVII and a gap between John XIX and John XXI. What happened to those two
Popes? I can’t accept that there was a “miscount” twice on the same name–John. Perhaps once, but not twice! I haven’t had the time to research this so I personally have no explanation, but something is fishy.
4) Also, according to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (under Prophecy), Cornelius a Lapide the great commentator on Sacred Scripture, actually uses the Prophecy of St. Malachy in his “commentary ‘On the Gospel of John’ (C. xvi) and ‘On the Apocalypse’ (Cc xvii-xx)” If this well respected Scripture Scholar deems it worthy to believe in the
authenticity of that Prophecy, I think it is going to take much more than sloppy logic to prove its being forged or spurious.
God bless you and Our Lady protect you always. Father David R. Belland
Dear father, it is an honour for me to receive such an interesting analysis from your part. As I told above, I don’ have a definite position, but I can’t consider this prophecy as a fraud so easily. If you read Spanish, let me suggest you to visit the web page of father Alfonso Galvez, an old traditional priest. On his site you will find two essays where father Alfonso analyzes the hyphotesis of Benedict XVI as “gloria olivae” and Francis as “Petrus Romanus”. I found those analysis really sound (though not conclusive, of course), I strongly recommend the reading.
Dear Gabriela, many thanks for the reference to Fr. Alfonso’s article; yes, I am interested and intend to visit his Web page. Although familiar with Italian, I’ve never studied Spanish, but perhaps some of the Italian will spill over. On the other hand I do have a sister who is a nun with the Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary, who does speak Spanish having lived in Puerto Rico for some years. She is home for the next week on vacation and perhaps she can do some translating. Thanks again so much. God bless and Our Lady protect you always. Fr. David R. Belland
If you read Italian, you will manage with the Spanish, for sure! God bless you!
Dear Steve, Good job
We will know with complete certainty very soon, since there can only be at most one more pope named Peter the Roman according to the prophecy. If Francis is the last pope, we will certainly know that in the reasonably near future given his age (he could live to be 100 though). On the other hand, Francis doesn’t fit the description of Peter the Roman since the prophecy says feed the flock in times of tribulation. Francis is *causing* spiritual tribulation now, not feeding the flock so much, or putting it another way, feeding the flock with various poisons, some more, some less, as so many articles here and at sites like The Remnant Newspaper point out. Some smaller poisons include the need to confess the use of air conditioning after Laudato Si (at least a venial sin) and bow to that global warming garbage. Bigger poisons are that certain adulterers can receive Holy Communion, and that the vast majority of marriages are null, and saying that arch-heretic Luther was right.
If there are more than two more popes, then it is a forgery. Sequences of popes could be:
Option A: B16 -> Francis (as Peter the Roman) -> END
Option B: B16 -> Peter the Roman -> END
Option B represents La Salette’s Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. There could be no more popes after END if the prophecy is true.
The evidence of forgery provided is really just an accusation deception because of lack of writing it down for a while, so it must be a fake. Many things were not written down in those ancient days and used word of mouth. The Pentateuch wasn’t written down for thousands of years until Moses.
The consequences of this prophecy being real is just too uncomfortable for many.
Anti Popes are not included in the Malachy prophecy
I have the book, “The Prophecies of St. Malachy.” It has a space after “The glory of the olive” which fits Pope Benedict. I believe that we are now living in this space. After the space, comes “Petrus Romanus.” Only our first pope had the name Peter. I believe that St. Peter will rise from the dead to lead the Catholic Church in a time of unprecedented crisis and chaos!!
Dear joelfago, I believe you are quite right about being in the “space after ‘The glory of the olive’. Remember that the olive branch is the symbol of victory and peace. It is my guess that Benedict may be the one to make the Consecration of Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, whereby she is victorious over Satan and the period of peace she foretold will follow the consecration of Russia will be ushered in. I have written a paper on the Malachy prophecy and the Age of Aquarius which is the sign about which the New Agers are thrilled. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a New Ager–by no means!. I won’t “spill the beans”, but if you are interested in that paper, just email me at [email protected] asking for a copy. God bless and Our Lady protect you always. Fr. David R. Belland
Are you suggesting Benedict ‘will’ consecrate Russia as ‘pope’? — as in never really relinquishing the chair of Peter pope?
Dear sam, This is not without possibility. God bless. Father Belland
Interesting. I mean not many have embraced this concept. Can you tell me more? Are your thoughts along the same plane as Fr. Kramer’s? He doesn’t believe Francis is pope but that Benedict was.
I don’t think I can answer that question. I’ve been chastised for something I said in another post a bit farther down. It seems free speech, even when one analyzes the Latin grammar of an Official Papal Document, has been limited. God bless and Our Lady protect you always. Fr. Belland
Oh come now; free speech has never been a traditional Catholic value.
I am and have just sent you an email asking for a copy.
St. Malachy does not specifically mention that no other pope would reign between “Gloria olivae” (no. 111) and “Petrus Romanus” (given as no. 112).
I don’ t understand the argument. Why the list is supposed to be complete until “gloria olivae” (BXVI), but a misterous and convenient gap appears between “gloria olivae” and “Petrus Romanus”? In my opinion, if BXVI is actually “gloria olivae”, then Francis is “Petrus Romanus”. If not, nothing of this has any sense. No gaps.
In the footnotes of the Book of Revelation, it says with clarity that the seven-hilled city that will be destroyed is Rome. We know that the Book of Revelation is true and so it follows that people of Rome as well as all people should always be ready to face God when He asks for an accounting of our love and actions. I thank Cardinal Ganswein for his answer to this question. As a friend of Pope Benedict XVI, they probably have had interesting discussions about prophecy. Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) was in charge of the CDF where all documents on various victim souls, prophetic elements and messages had to be submitted. He may have a certain time frame in mind for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that we are not privy to. You will never convince me that something huge isn’t close.
Prophecy is not, strictly speaking, a prediction of what is going to happen in the future. It is a declaration of God’s unchanging holiness amidst the fluctuating spiritual-historical settings in which fallen humanity finds itself; generally, in the form of the denunciation of sins that have become chronic or characteristic and that will be tolerated by Him no longer. Prophecy is a contradiction of the notion that God’s mercy is unrelated to the truth, and that justice is somehow “contrary to the logic of the Gospel” itself.
The “predicting the future” part comes in as a warning of what will happen if the offer of repentance simultaneously extended is ultimately rejected, or as a guarantee of God’s own authorship of the message–for who but the Almighty can say for certain what will take place? In this sense one might muse that the “Francis the Destroyer” prophecy has “come true” whether its historical origins are spurious or not.
And as for the present Holy Father being the last, we could do worse than to remind ourselves of the attitude of Sophie Scholl. Destined to be beheaded for speaking out against National Socialism as a member of the White Rose, Sophie was once asked whether she thought that the cultural convulsions of her own place and time might not, in fact, signify the beginning of the end of the world. She replied, and I paraphrase, that she didn’t see any point in worrying about it, since we could be sure that the end of the world for each one of us was coming soon enough.
The strange social phenomenon of the misuse of the St Malachy ‘prophecy’ and private revelation more generally (including Maria Divine Mercy) by groups with otherwise contradictory agendas is discussed extensively in my book ‘No False Prophet: Pope Francis and his not-so-cultured detractors’ available at https://www.amazon.fr/False-Prophet-not-so-cultured-variations-intellectum-ebook/dp/B018NX2A9E , which can also be read free of charge by KindleUnlimited subscribers. You may or may not agree with the conclusions of this study, but that there is a need for serious and responsible engagement with the subject-matter ought not to be in doubt.
Dear PB, please refer to my comments in reply to Augustinian Thomist below. And be kind enough to do me the favor of setting forth your objections to my comments based on your book. Do you consider Fatima a “private” revelation and thus include those who believe in Fatima detractors? Certainly Fatima is no private revelation for it consists of requests and warnings which pertain not just to Catholics but to the WHOLE world. But just because a prophecy is “private” doesn’t meant that it is not meant to be believed and, in cases, practiced, e.i., the revelations of Our Lord to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque concerning His Sacred Heart. Indeed, one must be prudent when it comes to prophecy, and of course one must not adhere to those which are not approved by Holy Mother Church. It would also be more cultured, to say the least, if, instead of just name calling, you would argue against the assertions to which you object. I KNOW! You have referred to your book, but it is quite uncharitable to go around just calling people names and without at least giving some argument against their position; do not those whom you attack have some right to know what, here and now, against what they are to defend themselves?. God bless and Our Lady protect you always. Fr. Belland
The site Unam Sancatam Catholicam, in its blog, once made a case for the authenticity of the prophecy. You can find it here. In that post, Boniface explained that while he himself doesn’t know if the prophecy is real or not, it is frequently put down without much argument. Anyway, I think it is an interesting read.