On Prophecies of A Future Evil Pope

There are a few different prophecies of this type, private revelations about the future of the Church, stating that a future Pope will be non-canonically elected, and will lead people astray.

Principles of caution: First of all, there are many false private revelations in the world today. These false private revelations often contain heretical and schismatic errors. A common error is the attempt to make the faithful fear the institutional Church, and flee Her to be led by visionaries and small groups formed around visionaries.

Second, any true private revelation can be misunderstood by the visionary. Third, any true private revelation, absent an interpretation by the visionary, can be misunderstood by interpreters today.

I have spent many years of studying and writing Catholic eschatology, based on Sacred Scripture, the prophecies of Saints, and the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary at various apparitions. I have concluded that a certain sequence of events will occur, regarding the papacy. My eschatology is fallible and highly speculative.

Under Pope Francis, a great schism will occur. I have been predicting this for many years, before it was apparent from the reaction of conservatives to the Pope. This is the conservative schism; it is well underway. I speculate that Pope Francis will resign, once the conservative schism reaches the point of many conservatives falling away from the Church.

The next Pope will be very conservative. He will excommunicate the conservative schismatics and heretics. Conservative Popes do not put up with that kind of shit, the way that liberal Popes do. (Swearing for emphasis.) So when the conservative Pope is elected — who I think will be Cardinal Arinze as Pope Pius XIII — the conservative accusers of Pope Francis will rejoice. They will be so happy! They will be triumphant! They will expect the conservative Pope to “set everything right”. He will not.

The next conservative Pope is not going to reject Vatican II. Instead, he is likely to declare that (1) all the teachings of every Ecumenical Council on faith and morals is infallible, including all teachings of the Second Vatican Council. He will reject the idea that Vatican II is merely pastoral, and so can be disregarded. He might also include in this declaration that (2) the decisions on discipline of an Ecumenical Council cannot err gravely, as this contradicts the indefectibility of the Church.

These actions by the new Pope will leave zero path back to the Church for the conservative schismatics under Francis, the Francis-accusers, other than repentance. No more rejection of any teaching on faith or morals of an Ecumenical Council. No more claims that Vatican II is destroying the Church by means of the Novus Ordo Mass. So their joy at the election of a conservative will be very short lived.

I also expect the new Pope to issue an ultimatum to the Francis accusers, (3) to sign some type of document recanting their accusations of teaching grave error or failing in faith, as well as any accusations against Pope Francis that he was not a valid Pope.

However, the new conservative Pope will likely make some changes that please conservatives, such as (4) reception of Communion kneeling, on the tongue, changes to the Novus Ordo Mass and expansion of The Latin Mass, etc.

The new Pope may (5) make changes to Canon Law prohibiting a repeat of the behavior patter under Pope Francis, no more public accusations against the Pope of grave errors in teaching (not possible), grave errors in discipline (not possible), invalidity, and no personal accusations against the Pope. [Even though Popes can sin gravely, it is not the place of any idiot with an internet connection to make the accusation.] These are reasonable necessary restrictions to prevent grave scandal from causing vast numbers of Catholics who are weak in faith from falling away completely due to the constant stream of accusations against the Vicar of Christ.

The conservative Pope will also issue many infallible teachings, some of which anger the conservatives, but most of which anger the liberals. The liberal Catholics will be compelled to reject certain common heresies among them, and to submit to the authority of the Church over doctrine and discipline. Many will refuse, and a liberal schism, larger than the conservative schism, will cause most Catholics to leave the Church.

But I digress. I was writing about a false Pope. Neither Pope Francis, nor the next conservative Pope is false or invalid. There are dogmas at stake here. One cannot merely assert that a Pope is invalid and evil. Any Roman Pontiff accepted by the body of Bishops as the valid Pope is necessarily valid, regardless of the circumstances of his election. So even a non-canonically elected Roman Pontiff is valid if the body of Bishops accepts him. And every valid Pope has the prevenient grace of God to have never-failing faith and to be free from grave errors in doctrine and discipline.

So a non-canonically elected Pope, accepted by the body of Bishops, cannot lead us astray. And though Popes can sin gravely in personal matters, they cannot fail gravely in faith and therefore, they cannot intend to harm or destroy the Church.

Neither is this contrary to free will, as the Pope freely accepts his office and he may freely lay it down. In accepting the office, every Roman Pontiff accepts the charisms and graces that are given to the person of the Roman Pontiff by Christ, the Son of God.

The conservative Pope, Pius XIII, will be martyred. He will be captured during World War 3, put on trial, blinded, and taken to a prison in Iraq to die peacefully, just like king Zechariah in Sacred Scripture.

{12:12} And the leader who is in their midst will be carried on shoulders; he will go forth in darkness. They will dig through the wall, so that they may lead him away. His face will be covered, so that he may not see the land with his eye.
{12:13} And I will extend my net over him, and he will be captured in my dragnet. And I will lead him to Babylon, into the land of the Chaldeans, but he himself will not see it. And there he shall die.

[2 Kings]
{25:2} And the city was enclosed and besieged, even until the eleventh year of king Zedekiah,
{25:3} on the ninth day of the month. And a famine prevailed in the city; neither was there bread for the people of the land.
{25:4} And the city was breached. And all the men of war fled in the night along the way of the gate which is between the double wall at the garden of the king. Now the Chaldeans were besieging the city on all sides. And so Zedekiah fled along the way which leads to the plains of the wilderness.
{25:5} And the army of the Chaldeans pursued the king, and they overtook him in the plains of Jericho. And all the warriors who were with him were dispersed, and they abandoned him.
{25:6} Therefore, having apprehended him, they led the king to the king of Babylon at Riblah. And he was speaking with him in judgment.
{25:7} Then he killed the sons of Zedekiah before him, and he dug out his eyes, and he bound him with chains, and he led him away to Babylon.

Two Popes Elected

Rome will be captured by the enemy in World War 3 (by the Islamic extremists). The next election for Roman Pontiff will take place outside of Rome. And there will be so few Cardinals available for this conclave, that the Cardinals will decide to allow some Bishops to participate in the conclave. This will be a valid conclave and valid election, even though non-canonical. For the authority to elect each new Roman Pontiff rests with the body of Bishops (the successors to the Apostles), even though it is ordinarily exercised by the Cardinals. That is why the acceptance of a Roman Pontiff by the body of Bishops confirms the validity of a Roman Pontiff. (It does not confirm the validity of the conclave, as even an invalid conclave can produce a valid Pope, if the body of Bishops subsequently accept him.)

Then the liberals who had departed from the Church under Pius 13th will decide that they have enough Cardinals and Bishops for a conclave of their own, outside of Rome. This, too, will be a non-canonical conclave. However, this liberal conclave will not merely be non-canonical, it will also be entirely invalid. The difference is that, in the one case, the electors are those Cardinals and Bishops who remained faithful to both Francis and Pius 13th. Whereas the other conclave is by schismatics.

So then we will have two Popes, one valid and one invalid. These two conclaves of course occur after the death of Pius 13th. I think the valid conclave occurs first, but I could be wrong on that point. Check with me at the time of the event.

Now the antipope is I think elected by the liberal schismatics, and they will have a vast number of supporters, as liberal errors are much more common in the Church than conservative errors. Having the support of liberal society and the liberal media, the liberal antipope with his many liberal schismatic supporters will seem like a valid Pope to the unbelievers, to secular society. But the true Pope will be the one elected by the faithful Cardinals and Bishops, of course.

This antipope will be the most prominent antipope in the history of the Church to that point in time. His support from politicians, media outlets, and a large number of unfaithful Catholics will allow him to do much harm. He will teach grave errors, which is impossible for a true Pope. He will make very harmful changes to discipline, which is also impossible for a true Pope. He will reject the teachings of Pius XIII as heresy, and of course a true Pope would never accuse a past valid Pope of heresy — not since Vatican I made the dogmatic definition on the never-failing faith of every Roman Pontiff.

And that is the explanation for the prophecies about two popes, and for the prophecies about an evil pope, non-canonically elected, who causes grave harm.

But know this: the dogmas of the Catholic Church are an unbreakable unmovable Rock against which all false or inaccurate or misinterpreted prophecies will be broken and crushed. It remains true that no valid Pope can ever teach or commit heresy; no valid Pope can intend to harm or destroy the Church. Every valid Pope has the charism of truth and of never failing faith. So during the time of the evil (seemingly good) liberal antipope, there will be a true Pope.

And certainly, this evil liberal Pope from the prophecies is NOT Pope Francis. Since he has been accepted by the body of Bishops, he is a valid Pope, and therefore he can never err gravely on doctrine or discipline, as the evil antipope will err. That is the explanation.

So how does this end, the conflict between the true Pope, who will be moderate, not particularly holy, whose supporters are not very ardent, not a particularly good Pope; and the false Pope, who will be eloquent and have lots of ardent supporters? The Allies will recapture Rome, driving the army of the Muslim extremists back. Then both men will go to Rome, each to bolster is claim to be the valid Roman Pontiff. Having lost the city of Rome, the Muslim extremists will strike the city with a nuclear missile, killing both the popular antipope and the unpopular true pope. The next conclave, outside of Rome, will be valid and will elect a true Pope whose validity is not disputed.

Ronald L. Conte Jr.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to On Prophecies of A Future Evil Pope

  1. Alex says:

    Ron, who will elect the conservative pope Pius XIII? We have a clear majority of cardinals who want Change and Change Now not after another 40-50 years when all of them will be dead or after another Council Vatican III. The drive for urgent change is now even more than during 2013 conclave when many cardinals were elevated by pope Benedict. Now many are elevated by pope Francis. And despite all good words of pope Francis, the real changes are very few. One may say, 8 years of expectations, good words but very few actions.

    On contrary of your prediction, I see after pope Francis retires a canonically elected pope with vast majority who will be more liberal than pope Francis. And because the ultra conservative minority has no more than 10 cardinals, maybe much less (Burke, Muller, Sarah, Brandmuller, don’t know all but they are very very few) they will stage their conclave and will elect most likely cardinal Sarah if he wants to. If he refuses (because he doesn’t oppose fully pope Francis, not yet) then they may elect a non-cardinal: either archbishop Vigano (who already speaks as a self appointed pontiff) or bishop Schneider as younger one. This schism is a fact. While the one you call “liberal schism” is a hypothetical construction and assumption “what if”. It simply didn’t happen and may never happen. Not if a liberal pope continues the works of pope Francis, St John Paul II and St John XXIII and Vatican II itself.

    For the true successor of Peter, I envision a younger liberal bishop or even a priest, because cardinals Marx and Schoenborn are too outspoken and also old. For example, the bishop of Speyer Germany has a great spiritual charge (you can watch him on youtube), but there are many others of course. Why not American or Brazilian if most Catholics live in Brazil. And because I entioned Brazil, watch the mass from the national shrine Our Lady of Aparecida (youtube). You will find they have even newer modified rite apparently approved by Church authorities. The Latin mass crusade is absurd that even pope Francis may cancel – there is a Vatican commission to check how many people attend the Latin masses.
    So let face the reality that might be different from the theory.

    • Ron Conte says:

      I don’t think the next Cardinal will be a liberal, nor one of the schismatics who oppose Francis. Rather, a compromise candidate, one that liberals and conservatives can support, such as Arinze, who harkens back to the time of JP2 and B16.

    • Alex says:

      “a compromise candidate, one that liberals and conservatives can support, such as Arinze,”
      Why should the liberals support a compromise candidate when they have a clear majority to elect their candidate? Because the ultra conservatives blackmail with a schism or what? Cardinal Bergoglio was that compromise, he had roughly 1/3 of the votes (exactly as in 2005 conclave), when cardinal Ouelett gave him his votes to make the compromise happen (according to media reports that were confirmed as being correct by cardinals after the conclave). If cardinal Bergoglio wasn’t elected with the votes of Ouelett or refused (as reported in 2005 he didn’t want to be elected when he scored second) then the next Latin American in line was cardinal Maradiaga – a much much more liberal choice. We all know that. No surprise Maradiaga was immediately put in the group of 8 top cardinals to direct the reform. And we saw how the compromise pope Bergoglio worked for the ultra conservatives. They were not satisfied to work together with the liberals who gave them the best compromise choice possible in 2013, rather they were bewildered by him.

      Why on earth someone would support the ageing cardinal Arinze or any other “compromise” that will bring another five years or more of nothing to do? Because Arinze will die soon? What’s the point of two conclaves then? That means to double cross the reform just started by pope Francis. And Francis makes sure it doesn’t happen by appointing pro reformist cardinals, such as cardinal George. That’s why I say, reality can disprove theory, the theory should be based on the reality to be a true explanation of it.

    • Alex says:

      PS. I don’t want anyone to think that somehow I “promote” German bishops (if my personal view expressed in comments has any weight at all, something I hardly doubt to be the case).
      The most logical choice would be the next pope to come from the biggest Catholic country that is Brazil, the biggest Catholic continent that is Latin America (second biggest country Philippines, I don’t believe it will happen for card.Tagle, third biggest Mexico). In both 2005 and 2013 conclaves the Brazilian cardinals were the leading figures versus prelates from Vatican, but they could not gather a majority compromise vote. I’m sorry for card. Odilo Pedro Scherer who had all qualities only didn’t have the support of majority. (as card. Bergoglio wouldn’t have it until card. Ouelett’s move). In that line of thought, one may search for bishops within the Latin American world who have every personal and pastoral quality to serve the larger Church.
      And no I do not see African pope anytime soon, not because of his color but because the majority of Catholics in traditional Catholic countries, both in Europe and Latin America, wouldn’t like to be taught Christianity by newly converted countries into the flock, (countries with very deep national, societal, economic and even tribal controversies), and that inevitably will reflect in the vote of the cardinals majority of whom are still Europeans. Why would the Latin American electors vote for an African and not for a Latin American? I remember the funny words of cardinal Turkson before 2013 conclave said in broken English how an African pope would be no worse than a Latin American pope…it just doesn’t work that way it is not a Mundial or so. If a compromise is sought the compromise should go to the biggest Catholic places not to the outskirts of Christianity. Why not otherwise elect a Chinese cardinal so he can convert China? it just doesn’t work that way. John Paul II was elected out of the most catholic country and changed history with the fall of Communism. Benedict was his right hand for so long (less German than Vatican). Bergoglio comes from traditionally Catholic country. And let think on the many words Francis said since then, how the current system (capitalist or whatever name) must change. And we will see where the next choice will lead. God does not act in a vacuum.

  2. erm6 says:

    Hi Ron. I was interested to read this latest edition of your speculation. I have been thinking more about your speculations lately, especially the part about a conservative Pope who will confront the critics of his predecessor Francis. I went back to your article from last year, https://ronconte.com/2019/05/29/predictions-pope-francis-vs-his-critics/, where you wrote, “When the next Pope is elected… the critics of Francis will rejoice. But their joy will be short-lived. The new Pope, though very conservative, will not accuse Pope Francis of heresy… and will not permit the schismatics to return, unless they accept the teachings of Pope Francis.” The part where it says that they will “rejoice, but their joy will be short-lived” gives a very vivid picture which frequently comes back to my mind.

    I have been wondering about how Pope Francis might resign. You speculated, “Pope Francis will resign, after the schism reaches a peak and many Bishops and priests reject the Holy See and the Pope” (in https://ronconte.com/2020/07/15/the-prophecy-of-three-popes/) and now, in this latest article, “Pope Francis will resign, once the conservative schism reaches the point of many conservatives falling away from the Church.” I am going to speculate slightly differently about how Pope Francis might resign: I suggest that the immediate context is not a peak in conservative dissent, but rather a new surge in the liberal distortion of Pope Francis’ teaching, where these liberal distortions penetrate into developing countries and affect the lives of the poor more seriously than before.

    The reason for my slightly different take on the circumstances of a Francis resignation, is that I think the Pope’s love the poor would cause him to feel grieved at seeing the poor affected by harmful liberal distortions of his own words, more so than by a peak in conservative dissent in wealthier countries.

    Liberal politicians in developing countries might distort Francis’ words (from this recent documentary) in order to push through legislation to legalize gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples (both of which Pope Francis opposes). Such legislation would cause suffering to Catholics in developing countries, but it might not be immediately evident to the Pope, until he receives ad limina visits from bishops in those countries. When those bishops arrive for ad limina visits (which may be delayed by the coronavirus) they will tell sorrowful tales how the poor in their countries are affected by this legislation. This will cause Francis to feel great sadness for the poor who have been affected, and he will feel concern that his own name has been unwillingly tied to this harmful legislation, by means of the distortion of his own words. This may prompt him to consider resigning, and after prayer and reflection, he may decide to so.

  3. Sunimal Fernando says:

    Check the St.Malachi pope list. Pray for Pope Francis. He is the last true pope. Always praise the Lord.
    Pedro Regis told ” long years of trials” ?
    Long years of suffering ?
    But Jesus told at the end, time will be shortened. We like, Jesus second coming is near or not ? Pray for his coming soon.

    • Ron Conte says:

      The last Pope on St. Malachy’s list of Popes figuratively represents every Pope from Pope Francis to the last Pope before the Return of Christ several hundred years from now.

  4. Matt says:

    Your eschatology is not fallible or speculative. Your many years of research and book you wrote on the topics are based on of Catholic saints and Church recognized and true and valid apparitions by the Blessed Virgin Mary. A devout Catholic, without knowledge of writings of prophecies of Catholic saints of the future, has to know that the time that we live in is terribly wicked and that God will end it very soon.

Comments are closed.