Is Pope Francis the Final Pope According to Prophecy?

• The “Prophecy of the Popes” is an unapproved private revelation attributed to the 12th-century Irish bishop, Saint Malachy.
• This prophecy consists of 112 cryptic Latin phrases, each allegedly describing a future pope in succession.
• The final and most descriptive entry refers to “Petrus Romanus,” or Peter the Roman, whose reign is said to precede a period of great tribulation.
• Most historians and scholars conclude the document is a forgery from the late 16th century, created to influence a papal election.
• The Catholic Church has no official stance on this prophecy and does not consider it authentic or binding on the faithful.
• Catholic teaching on the end of time is rooted in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, not in speculative prophecies of dubious origin.

The Origins of the Prophecy of the Popes

The tradition behind the “Prophecy of the Popes” claims that Saint Malachy, an Irish archbishop, experienced a vision during a visit to Rome around the year 1139. In this vision, he was supposedly shown every future pope, from Celestine II onward, until the end of time. He is said to have recorded these future pontiffs in a sequence of 112 short, enigmatic Latin phrases or mottoes. According to the legend, Malachy presented this manuscript to the reigning pope, Innocent II, and the document was then placed in the Vatican Secret Archives where it remained forgotten for more than four hundred years. This narrative provides a dramatic backstory for the prophecy, suggesting it is a lost piece of divine insight from a recognized saint, hidden from the world for centuries before its eventual rediscovery. This story has captivated many over the years, contributing to the prophecy’s persistence in popular imagination.

Despite the compelling legend, the prophecy did not appear in any known historical record until its publication in 1595. A Benedictine monk and historian named Arnold de Wion included the list in his book, Lignum Vitae, Ornamentum et Decus Ecclesiae (The Wood of Life, Ornament and Grace of the Church). This first appearance occurred roughly 450 years after the death of Saint Malachy, a fact that immediately raises significant questions for historians and theologians alike. The complete absence of any mention of such a significant series of predictions in any document prior to 1595 is a major point of contention. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a contemporary of St. Malachy who wrote a detailed biography of his life and chronicled his many miracles, never once mentioned this papal prophecy. This silence from a close associate and biographer is widely considered to be compelling evidence against its authenticity.

A critical analysis of the prophetic phrases themselves reveals a notable discrepancy that further supports the theory of a later origin. The mottoes describing the popes who reigned before the prophecy’s publication in 1595 are often remarkably specific and accurate. For instance, the phrase for Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644) is Lilium et Rosa (“the lily and the rose”), and his family’s coat of arms featured lilies and roses. Such precision is common for the pre-1595 popes, with mottoes frequently corresponding to a pope’s family name, birthplace, or coat of arms in a clear and direct way. This striking accuracy for the popes of the past strongly suggests the use of hindsight, a literary device known as postdiction, where “prophecies” are written after the events they describe have already occurred.

In stark contrast, the phrases corresponding to the popes who reigned after 1595 become significantly more vague and open to broad interpretation. The clear and specific connections that defined the earlier entries largely disappear, replaced by ambiguous mottoes that can be forced to fit a wide variety of circumstances. For example, the motto for Pope John Paul I is De medietate Lunae (“Of the half moon”), a phrase so obscure that its proposed connections are highly strained. This abrupt shift from clarity to ambiguity at the precise point of the prophecy’s publication is a key reason why most scholars dismiss the document. It strongly indicates that the author had clear knowledge of the popes up to the late 16th century but could only offer vague guesses about those who would follow.

Scholarly and Historical Scrutiny

The prevailing consensus among modern scholars is that the “Prophecy of the Popes” is a 16th-century forgery. The most widely accepted theory suggests it was created around 1590 with a specific political purpose: to influence the outcome of the papal conclave of that year. The intended beneficiary of this fabrication was likely Cardinal Girolamo Simoncelli from Orvieto. The prophetic motto for the next pope on the list was De antiquitate Urbis (“from the old city”), and Orvieto’s Latin name is Urbevetanum, meaning “old city.” The creator of the prophecy likely hoped that by “predicting” a pope from an “old city,” the cardinals would see Simoncelli as the divinely appointed candidate. This attempt at influencing the papal election was ultimately unsuccessful, as Cardinal Niccolò Sfondrati was elected, taking the name Gregory XIV.

The argument for forgery is substantially strengthened by the complete lack of any manuscript evidence or mention of the prophecy before its 1595 publication. For a revelation of such magnitude, supposedly given to a well-known saint, it is highly improbable that it would leave no trace for over four centuries. As mentioned, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, who knew Malachy personally and wrote about his life, never referred to it. This historical silence is deafening and presents a significant challenge for those who defend the prophecy’s authenticity. If the prophecy were genuine, one would expect some reference to it, however oblique, in the extensive writings of the Church during the centuries it was supposedly hidden away in the Vatican archives. The sudden emergence of the complete text without any prior historical footprint is a classic hallmark of a fabricated document.

The creation of such documents was not uncommon during the period in which the prophecy appeared. The 16th and 17th centuries were a time of intense religious and political conflict, particularly during the Counter-Reformation. Prophecies, both real and fabricated, were often employed as tools of propaganda to lend an air of divine authority to a particular cause, individual, or political agenda. They could be used to rally support, demoralize opponents, and suggest that a certain outcome was preordained by God. The “Prophecy of the Popes,” with its detailed list leading up to the then-present day, would have served as a powerful piece of propaganda, suggesting a divine roadmap for the papacy that conveniently supported a specific candidate for the papal throne.

Furthermore, a closer examination of the list of popes reveals internal inconsistencies that undermine its claim to divine origin. The list includes several antipopes, who were illegitimate claimants to the papal throne, without making any distinction between them and the validly elected popes. For example, the prophecy includes a motto for Antipope Clement VII. From a theological standpoint, a genuine revelation given to a Catholic saint would not be expected to treat schismatic antipopes as legitimate successors of Saint Peter. This lack of theological precision suggests that the author was more of a historian compiling a list of papal claimants rather than a saint receiving a divine vision. The inclusion of antipopes points to a human author with a historical, rather than a doctrinal, perspective.

The Final Pope: “Petrus Romanus”

The 112th and final entry in the prophecy is notably different from all the preceding mottoes. Instead of a short, cryptic phrase, it is a longer, more descriptive paragraph that introduces a figure named “Petrus Romanus,” or Peter the Roman. This final passage reads: “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End.” This apocalyptic language sets it apart from the rest of the document, concluding the list of popes with a dramatic prediction of persecution, the destruction of Rome, and the Final Judgment. This unique format has drawn considerable attention and has been the source of much speculation.

Proponents of the prophecy have attempted to link Pope Francis to this final entry, though the connections are tenuous at best. For example, it is pointed out that Pope Francis’s birth name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and his father was an Italian immigrant to Argentina named Pietro, which is the Italian form of Peter. Furthermore, his family’s Italian heritage is used to satisfy the “Roman” part of the name. Some also connect the name “Francis” to St. Francis of Assisi, whose father’s name was Pietro di Bernardone. These interpretations, however, require a significant amount of creative flexibility and are not direct or obvious connections. They demonstrate the speculative nature of trying to make a modern figure fit a vague and ancient prediction.

To strengthen their case, supporters often point to the supposed fulfillment of the penultimate motto, Gloria olivae (“the glory of the olive”), which is the 111th phrase on the list. This motto was applied to Pope Benedict XVI. The connection was made through the Benedictine Order, one of whose congregations is known as the Olivetans; thus, the name Benedict was linked to the olive. This interpretation was seen by many as a confirmation of the prophecy’s validity, thereby setting the stage for the appearance of the final pope, Peter the Roman. The apparent success of this motto in describing Pope Benedict XVI has been a key factor in the renewed interest in the prophecy during the pontificate of Pope Francis.

However, critics of the prophecy argue that these connections are circumstantial and unconvincing. The name “Peter” is one of the most significant and common names in the history of the Church, and Italian heritage is extremely common among popes. Attaching significance to the fact that Pope Francis’s father was named Pietro is a stretch, especially since the prophecy seems to refer to the pope himself. Furthermore, the Catholic Encyclopedia itself notes that the prophecy does not state that no other popes could come between the 111th pope (“Glory of the olive”) and the final one (“Peter the Roman”). The text only implies that Peter the Roman will be the last. The strained efforts to make Pope Francis fit the “Petrus Romanus” description highlight the prophecy’s fundamental vagueness.

The Catholic Church’s Perspective

The Catholic Church has never officially endorsed the “Prophecy of the Popes.” It holds no official status within Church teaching and is generally regarded by theologians and historians as a 16th-century forgery. At best, it would fall into the category of a private revelation, which is a key distinction in Catholic theology. The Church teaches that public Revelation, necessary for the salvation of all, was completed with the death of the last apostle and is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (CCC 66). Even if a private revelation is deemed authentic by the Church, such as the apparitions at Fatima or Lourdes, the faithful are not required to believe in it. Therefore, no Catholic is under any obligation to give credence to the predictions attributed to St. Malachy.

Catholic teaching on the end of time, a field of theology known as eschatology, is based firmly on the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospels and the teachings of the apostles. Christ himself stated clearly that the exact time of his Second Coming is unknown to anyone but the Father (Matthew 24:36). The Church encourages a disposition of watchful readiness and hopeful anticipation for Christ’s return but firmly discourages attempts to predict the specific timing of the end of the world (CCC 673). The focus of Catholic life is on faithful living in the present, not on decoding speculative timelines or prophecies of dubious origin. The Church’s official teaching directs the faithful toward the certainty of Christ’s promises rather than the uncertainty of human predictions.

The Church makes a critical distinction between public Revelation and so-called private revelations. Public Revelation is the deposit of faith given by God through Christ and the apostles, and it is binding on all believers for all time. Private revelations are spiritual experiences or messages given to individuals for their own spiritual good or for the good of the Church in a particular historical period. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, their role is not to “improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history” (CCC 67). The “Prophecy of the Popes,” even if it were not widely considered a forgery, would not be part of the deposit of faith and could not add, subtract, or change anything about what Catholics are required to believe.

Moreover, the Church cautions against an unhealthy interest in curiosities and predictions about the future. An excessive focus on prophecies, signs, and portents can distract the faithful from the core essentials of Christian life, which are prayer, participation in the sacraments, and the practice of charity. Such speculation can lead to unnecessary fear, anxiety, and a form of spiritual fortune-telling that the Church explicitly warns against (CCC 2115). The proper Catholic disposition is one of faith, hope, and love, grounded in a relationship with Jesus Christ and trust in His Church, rather than in esoteric predictions. The Church guides her children to find their security in God’s revealed truth, not in the shifting interpretations of a centuries-old, unapproved text.

Faith Grounded in Christ, Not Prophecy

In conclusion, the scholarly and historical evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the “Prophecy of the Popes” is not an authentic work of Saint Malachy but a 16th-century composition. The document’s sudden appearance centuries after its supposed creation, the stark difference in accuracy between the mottoes before and after its publication, and its political context all point toward it being a fabrication. Catholic faithful should understand that this text has no official standing in the Church and is not considered a reliable source of information about the future. Giving credence to it is not required and, given the evidence, is not advisable from a historical or theological perspective. It remains a historical curiosity, not an authentic divine message.

The foundation of Catholic hope is not built upon private revelations or speculative prophecies, especially those with such questionable origins. Catholic faith and hope are centered on the person of Jesus Christ, His life, His teachings, His death, and His resurrection. The ultimate promise for believers is not found in a cryptic list of papal mottoes but in Christ’s assurance of eternal life and His continued presence with the Church through the Holy Spirit. This faith is lived out through participation in the Church’s sacramental life and adherence to the teachings passed down through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (CCC 1817-1821). This provides a firm and unshakable foundation that does not depend on esoteric predictions.

The role of any pope, including Pope Francis, is to serve as the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the Church on earth. His mission, like that of every one of his predecessors, is to shepherd the flock entrusted to him, to confirm his brethren in the faith, and to proclaim the Gospel message to the entire world (CCC 880-882). The faithful are called to be in communion with the Holy Father, to pray for him and his intentions, and to receive his teaching with respect. His identity and mission are defined by his sacred office, established by Christ himself, not by whether his papacy fits into a preconceived notion derived from an unapproved and likely forged document.

Ultimately, the proper Catholic response to questions about the future and the end of time is not to seek out signs and timelines in unapproved prophecies. Instead, the focus should be on living a life of authentic Christian discipleship in the present moment. This involves a commitment to daily prayer, frequent reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist, study of the faith through resources like the Catechism, and the active practice of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. True preparation for whatever the future holds, including the eventual return of the Lord, is found in a life of ongoing conversion, steadfast faith, and active charity toward God and neighbor.