Well, here we go. The announcement of the resignation of Pope Benedict was caused somewhat of an explosion with the prophecy-sphere of eschatological conspiracy-theorizing and speculation. What of St. Malachy's prophecy? Does this mean the final pope is here? How did the authors of Petrus Romanus know that the Pope would resign?

The answer to these questions is as follows: St. Malachy's prophecy is a proven fraud. The next pope is not likely to be the final pope. And for well over two years now, long before Petrus Romanus was written, there has been talk of the Pope resigning. See for example here, where there was public talk of his resignation as late 2011. In fact, Benedict’s brother, George Ratzinger, also a priest, suggested last year that the Pope might retire at age 85. And Benedict, himself even made a case for papal resignation in a book titled, “Light of the World” published back in 2010. Despite the bold claims of the authors of Petrus Romanus, nowhere in the book do they ever actually predict the Pope would resign. What they do (see page 59) is simply cite some of the previous discussions that were in the news concerning the Pope stepping down, and strongly speculate that this might take place in 2012. 2012 of course, was the target date set by the authors for the revealing of the Antichrist or the False Prophet. Next on their agenda: To show how the Vatican is planning on ushering in an alien Antichrist.

Oil Fields Joel Richardson WND

For years, it was assumed that the nation of Saudi Arabia, with its vast oil reserves, would long reign as the wealthiest oil-producing nation in the Middle East. According to present estimates, Saudi Arabia sits atop approximately 266 billion barrels of oil. The Muslim dominated OPEC countries together claim roughly 1,112 billion barrels.


The following post contains a handful of Biblical passages describing the nature of the Day of the Lord and the return of Jesus, emphasizing the wrath, judgment and violence that He will use as He executes justice against the wicked. I've also juxtaposed some comments by neo-liberal Brian Mclaren concerning his views on the return of Jesus. Mclaren's comments are instructive. First, Mclaren's derogatory comments about Jesus are deeply offensive to me as a follower, worshipper and lover of Jesus. Second, Mclaren's arrogance, hubris and confrontational approach toward those who hold to a historical, conservative, literalist hermeneutic should be noted by all who care about preserving orthodoxy. And finally, it is the sharp contrast between Mclaren's comments and the Scriptures that should be noted again, by all who desire to be men and woman of the Scriptures and not men and woman whose faith-system is dictated by the spirit of the age. As Paul so aptly warned (my paraphrase), "Do not allow yourself to be conformed to this world, rather be transformed [into the image of the living Word of God], by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2)

The following post is an updated and abbreviated version of a previous post, with added diagrams at the conclusion for those who are more visually orientated. Depending on how one understands the question of two kings or three in Daniel 11:40-45, it will dramatically affect how one understands the events that precede the coming of Jesus.

Looking For More? Check Out My Free Resources.