IF NOT, THEN WHY? 3: BENEDICT XVI, THE MALACHY PREDICTION AND CLOSED TIMELIKE WORLDLINES

 

B. Lukács

 

President of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee

of the

Hungarian Academy of Sciences

 

CRIP RMKI H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49, Budapest, Hungary

 

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

Sometimes a theory is impossible, so cannot be true; and still it works. Surely something mimics Truth; it is then interesting and worthwhile to see, what mimics what. The Malachy Prophecy seems to work, while the underlying assumptions seerm physically improbable.

 

0. ON THE EVOLUTION IN SCIENCES

            While I believe in Scientific Truth, I do not believe in the truth of any particular theory used just now. We know that any particular theory used just now has substituted a previous theory proven wrong not too far back in the past. The general (and convenient) belief/expression is that the present theory is more true than the previous one; and I think this is generally true in quantitative sense: the new one answers more questions than the old one, or gives more accurate predictions, or simpler to apply &c. However in qualitative sense the continuous improvement is often not true.

            In Physics Democritus used an atomistic description which we now like to call correct, and with this scheme he was practically unable to give explanations or predictions correct either in quantitative or in qualitative sense. After a century came Aristotle, telling that atomism is probably incorrect and surely unimportant; he used a strongly inhomogeneous world picture with a preferred center and rest at proper place as preferred state of motion; physicists generally like now to call this incorrect but still Aristotle was able to give lots of good predictions in qualitative sense even if few enough correct quantitatively. His system survived 1900 years and then Galileo disproved it. Based on Galileo's rather semiquantitative observations and arguments Newton then demolished the Aristotelian physics (except in Thermodynamics, to be sure), and the new one showed a Democritean structure, with mass points moving with never diminishing momenta (in sums), with forces depending on relative distances of agents, and not on distances from preferred points of space, and Newton's World was infinite, the same everywhere, and unevolving. Philosophers then were eloquent in jubilating on old Aristotle overthrown.

            At the latest time as 1926 Relativity & Quantum Physics demolished Newton's World. There are no mass points: Y waves live & interact in at least 6N dimensional phase spaces, results of Measurements are ultimately stochastic, Space-Time is inhomogeneous and may be finite in all of its dimensions.

            As for Gravity, it seems that Democritus did not know what is it (I am deliberately ungrammatical, but it would be even worse to use Past Tense for an Ultimate Truth, even if we do not know It for sure, and my tenses are correct in Uralic languages anyway). Maybe some interactions of the small atoms? Aristotle told that Gravity is the relation of the piece of matter to geometry of Space. Newton told that Gravity is the result of mutual pulls of mass points: Earth is composed of many masses so if a new one is carried to the neighbourhood, the result will be a net pull towards Earth's center. But in the neighbourhood of giant Jupiter the pull points to Jupiter's center and so on; the ultimate cause is force between mass pairs. Then came Einstein telling that Gravity is the property of Space-Time. Space-Time has a nontrivial geometry, and from this geometry come some properties of unforced motions. Aristotle would have cherished this idea; but Einstein went, of course, further, telling that the geometry is not prescribed but the product of matter being there. For sure, Sun does not pull Earth. No force acts on Earth, but the geometry is such that Earth Gravitates toward Sun. For somebody in General Relativity Newton was moderately correct about forces, but he was simply misguided for Gravity and his opinion in this topics bordered Superstition. Aristotle, in contrast, was surprisingly correct for somebody 2200 years in the past although somewhat simplicistic.

            In some areas of Physics now theories live 5 years in average. When I was choosing topics for my BA dissertation (that was in 1969) the most interesting Particle Physics title was "ρ-π-π Vertices in the Third Times Modified Veneziano Model". I thought maybe that was my last time to choose freely, so I would like something more True than a third times modified model, so I opted for Gravitational Collapse. When I am writing this, General Relativity survived 91 years in unmodified form, but my young colleagues do not know what is the Veneziano model modified any times. However signals are clear that even General Relativity will change, hopefully in my life.

            As for Astronomy, Pythagoras believed that Earth revolved around either Sun or the Central Fire. Aristotle believed that Sun revolved around Earth. Aristarchus supported Pythagoras, but in vain. Copernicus believed that Earth revolved around Sun, Galileo supported him and Church believed that She condemned Galileo for making the support indecently stubborn. Then after Newton Copernicus' scheme was accepted, but in 1915 Einstein showed that the question "who revolves around whom" has no meaning at all, not being a covariant statement. Then in 1992 Church observed anomalies in the process of Galileo's trial and annulled the verdict in a backward acting way. What is Truth in this question?

            And Physics & Astronomy are our best Sciences. As for the Age of Earth pre-Classic Greeks guessed some thousands of years, Aristotle Infinity, Alexander of Aphrodisias more than a million years, Early Middle Age 5000 years, XVIIIIth century mainly on physical arguments ~10,000 years, XIXth century on physical, chemical & geological arguments 40 million years, which then jumped to a billion, and then gradually to 4.55 billion years.

            For Economy I rather would not list best theories telling opposite Truths. In Scholarship look for National Histories.

            So at a given temporal point we cannot answer questions about Ultimate Truth, although in average Science goes forward. But Ultimate Questions cannot be answered in average; they should be answered Yes or No.

            Orman Willard van Quine tells us [1] that changes in Science follow a certain Parsimony. We have lots of assumptions when building up a Theory. Then, if an observation contradicts a prediction, we change some assumption, but those which are the "cheapest". So the Ptolemaic World Scheme was improved and improved by introducing more and more epicycles and excentric cycles for 1500 years; and only then took Copernicus over.

            But even this is not so simple. Historians of Science tell that the Aristotlean World Picture collapsed when Galileo's telescope resolved Milky Way into individual stars. They are obviously neglecting the original works of Aristotle. De Caelo gives an explanation for Milky Way, and from this explanation the prediction would have been (nobody applied Aristotle's theory to telescopes) that after some magnification the picture will be light spots surrounded by darkness [2], as it was. Because neither Galileo nor his opponents were fluent in Aristotle, they agreed that there was something against Him. Now we know that there was, but they should not have yet known.

            So it seems that a kind of "scientific fashion" is involved in each Yes/No choice. Maybe if we could observe the many-world histories of Everett [3], we could enjoy many formally very  different theories for the same topic, which were, however, quite similar for many quantitative predictions. Alas, we cannot do this.

            But we can remember it. And this view gives a Prediction. There may be cases when somebody quite good a scientist/scholar invents a theory whose fundaments seem quite impossible for us; and still he is not a madman, and his theory can explain a lot of facts. Maybe not so much as the Best Theory, but still, it is surprisingly good compared to Common Opinion that it is Fundamentally Wrong. And in a century futureward...?

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

            Since Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005, the cardinals convened and elected the next Pope, successor of St. Peter, on the 18th. The new Pope is ex-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from Bavaria, who took the throne name Benedict XVI.

            I work mainly in Heavy Ion Physics, General Relativity and Thermodynamics; the discussion of the person of the new Pope does not belong to the above disciplines (but his throne name does). owever, he seems to be either the last or the last-but-one Pope of the famous Malachy Prophecy, and prophecies do belong to General Relativity. This is the reason for writing a brief comment.

            When I am typing this text, the USA election has turned into its finish. In the House of Representatives a massive Democratic dominance is expected, in the Senate the predictions are cca. 55-45 and for presidency the last number I have been heard is 48 % for Obama (D) vs. 42 % for McCain (R), meaning popular votes. As for electorial ones, who knows...

            I write down these numbers to show that I have no prediuction of my own because I am not involved in politology. I am simply a physicist, theoretical, who started in General Relativity. (I emphasize the last, because the profession has some particle physicists, routinely making GR and cosmology statements. But, according to the GR paradigm, Gravity is not the 4th interaction, but the structure of the manifold. Sapienti sat...)

            For any case, we are hearing explanations for the more probable success of Obama. One is the Iraq & Afganistan War; they have already lasted longer than was expected, and they were started by a Republican administration, so some dissatisfied people may prefer now a Democrat. Also, just now there are serious financial problems, recession is expected and the Dow Jones index is going downward. Again, dissatisfied people may prefer CHANGE and Obama is more change than McCain is. And so on.

            However, the experts of politology had an interesting explanation for the 2000 & 2004 successes of Bush Jr.: the votes of the Evangelically Reborn.

            It is rather difficult to decide from Central Europe, what is this movement and how many followers it has. Some European experts of politology estimate the number as high as 30 million, which seems me too high, but I confess that I could not give another estimation. And it is not a political movement, even not a Church. Still, throughout the last century hard-core Protestants voted more to the Republican side than to the Democrats.

 

2. SOLA SCRIPTURA, MIDDLE EASTERN PROBLEMS & SO ON

            Catholics must not take the Bible literally. Maybe lots of them do; due to lack of theological education. But "Sola Scriptura" is a Protestant slogan, coined by Luther. If everybody can understand the message of the written text of the Bible and there is no other source of the Wisdom, then there is no need for an ecclestical order (although a few specialists are still handy in the same way as lawyers & judges are handy even if the law books are written). On the other hand the Catholic Church always and continuously have been telling that the Scripture is only one source of the two; the other is Tradition.

            Let us take an example: Mary, wife of Joseph, mother of Jesus. (I chose this unusual identification, because until this point everybody is in consensus except some hard-core Marxists who teach that Jesus did not exist, so maybe Mary neither.) Now: what about the virginity of Mary? When did it end, if at all? The question is simple, there is only one true answer, even if our non-religious knowledge is poor. E.g. lots of religions give definite answers even if diverse ones.

            Non-Abrahamic people do not generally have any opinion. As for the Abrahamic faiths, Moslims tell that Mary was the wife of Joseph, and Jesus (Isa ben Miriam) was a prophet, so surely he was the son of Joseph coming from a respectable family. So Miriam/Mary was surely virgin until the bridal night; and then no more.

            As for the religions originating from Moses, I do not know the Samaritan opinion, but I guess it is close to the Karaite opinion. The Karaite opinion is close to the Moslim one. As for the Jewish/Rabbanite answer I have been informed that there is no obligatory opinion about the details of the Joseph-Mary marriage; but anyway, Jesus was the firstborn of Mary, and he was conceived on the usual way.

            Now we have arrived at the Christian faiths. Unitarians have in this point more or less the Moslim opinion: Jesus was the son of Joseph, and Mary was a good wife & mother. So Mary was virgin until the bridal night and no more. (Here I specifically mean Unitarians in Transylvania. In the Anglo-Saxon world Unitarianism is an elite philosophical religion of few, but there are villages in Transylvania where that is the dominant religion.  Transylvanian Unitarians have ecclesialistic organisation, a Bishop, 400 years of religious argumentation & such. John Toroczkai, jeweller and the son of a deceased Bishop, was executed in 1638 for sacrilege: namely he told that Christ was a regular man, and “if Christ descended now from Heaven, I would send him to my vineyard to tend the grapes”. The Prince, Sigismund Rákóczy, presiding in the special committee of Investigation, happened to be Calvinist.)

            But the majority of Christians soon in the first centuries AD accepted that there had been some mystery about the birth of Jesus, and they elaborated various schemes. Sometimes they are complicated. E.g. Nestorians carefully distinguish the human Jesus from the divine one: when on the Earth the second lived within the first.) At the end of the first millennium AD the overwhelmingly dominant ecclestical opinion was a witty slogan formulated by a Greek theologian telling that Mary was virgin before, during, and after the birth. Up to now, this is the opinion of both the Catholic and the Greek Orthodox Churches.

            Of course, a great miracle is needed for the triple statement; but the necessary miracle to be Son of God is hardly less, so we can continue. But, clearly, there is no explicit confirmation of the second and third parts of the statement in the text of the Bible.

            Accordingly most Protestants believe that Jesus had brothers & sisters; e.g. James. Indeed, the Gospels sometimes mention "siblings of the Lord". The Catholic Church tells that the original formula surely was translated from Aramaic, and the corresponding Aramaic expression may mean brothers, nephews, cousins &c. I append this argumentation with the note interesting for any Indo-European that in the Magyar ("Hungarian") the generic term means brothers & sisters, although in specific cases you can single out only brothers or only sisters as well. (Uralic and Altaic languages do not have genders.)

            So: was Mary a virgin on the day after the wedding with Joseph? One would think that all Christians should accept this (Catholics according to tradition, Protestants as Sola Scriptura), still it seems that Unitarians do not accept it. And they are Protestants, at least according to the Torda Parliament decision in 1568. (They are a substantial religion in Transylvania, they gave two rulers to the land, John Sigismund in the middle of XVIth century and and Moses at the beginning of the XVIIth.) I must confess that for me it seems as if the written texts in themselves stated the virginity at least until the birth; but I am not a theologian.

            All non-Unitarian Protestants agree with Catholics (and Greek Orthodoxes &c.) in the virginity of Mary until the birth; of course Catholics do this according both to the Scripture and to the Tradition, while non-Unitarian Protestants believe this according to Sola Scriptura, based on which Unitarians do not believe that. No Protestant seems to believe in the virginity after the birth; I think they believe that they do (not) this according to Sola Sriptura; but surely, the Scripture do not state the lack of virginity afterwards. I think this discussion demonstrates that in religious matters everybody uses some tradition, but Catholics know that they use extra-Scripture information too, while Protestants generally believe that they do not. Now, for taking the Scripture literally, the Catholic Church traditionally emphasizes not to take everything literally. Obviously, the literal reading (which is ambiguous, as has been demonstrated on the above example) could contradict Tradition.

            For the present topic, the critical part is the Revelations. A rather disturbing text if you take it literally. Lots of apocalyptic scenarios are in it: an angel pouring liquid into the Euphrates which then dries up (so the Persians can cross; an idea which may have terrified Apostle Paul, alias Saulus of Tharsus, full-right Roman citizen. Horsemen of Death, Plague, &c. And the Antichrist, working Chaos. OK, at the end Christ comes again, subdues the Antichrist. The Jews in Jerusalem converse, Christ performs the Final Judgement, and closes the shop (meaning the terrestrial existence of Man) forever. Some go to Heaven, some to Hell.

            OK, this is the final hope for all believers. But just before the advent of 1000 AD there were hysterical scenarios in Western Europe. People became terrified for their sins. Other people became too lazy: why to sow if we shall not be here next summer to reap? Pope Sylvester II (a wise guy, good mathematician; and also a definitely good guy: he gave the regal title and the crown to Hungary just in those critical days) had a multiple option. He might have confirmed the simplest interpretation of the Revelations. Note that there a thousand years or a millennium is definitely mentioned. Also, he was quite a good mathematician to explain that there had been no Year 0, so the 1000 years would be full a year later. Another option would have been to explain that there would not be immediately Final Judgement: if you take Revelations literally, the Antichrist would start to make Chaos at the end of next year, then the Chaos goes for cca. one generation, and only then the Second Advent of Christ and Final Judgement. So now you still should better sow.

            Instead Pope Sylvester took a highly nontrivial approach by telling that you should not take Revelations literally. This approach then turned out not simply correct but also successful. Christ did not close down the terrestrial history of Humanity either in 1000, or in 1001, or in the next generation. Revelations did not go to fulfilment literally. Then what?

            Maybe the story will happen essentially as in Revelations, only the "thousand years" cannot be read literally. In the next millennium witty people suggested some probable dates. I understand 1666 as 1000+666, the latter being the Number of the Beast, and I do not understand the 1844 of the Millerites; but afterwards they found some error of calculation anyway. Then as 2000 AD came closer and closer the "double millennium" became a more and more popular candidate. We can remember the suicide act of the sect believing that they "go to Heaven" with (on?) Comet Haley-Bopp, but I think Revelations were somehow behind the Y2K hystery as well. I myself could not be able to read 2000 years instead of 1000 from Revelations; but anyways, that prediction is now obsolete.

            However there is another scenario, as close to Sola Scriptura as it is possible after 1030 AD. If we assume that the "thousand years" did not exactly mean 1000 (why?), but the scenario is as literal as possible, and the Malachy Prophecy is true, then the Age of the Antichrist starts about 2010 AD!

            Now, I am a physicist. But here not my belief is important: in the recent days (and for the next 4 years) the important factor is the belief of coherent groups of USA voters. And they are mainly not physicists and many of them are Protestants. Remember Sola Scriptura...

            Summarizing the Literal Revelations + Simplest Malachy Prophecy scenario (details in the subsequent Chapters) the present Pope is the penultime one; and he is an octagerian. The Antichrist starts during his successor.

            First one would think that the only consequence is a somewhat higher political/military instability because of hystery. (OK, good people should in principle prefer Final Judgement Now. But remember, they did not like too much it in 999 AD.) But for religious Sola Scriptura people the prediction suggests definite activity in Holy Land politics.

            Namely, imagine Sola Scriptura people who are relatively sure that in a Final Judgement Now they would go to Heaven. (I think many Evangelically Reborn are such people even if I cannot see the details from Eastern Central Europe clearly.) Now, remember: Revelations tell that the Jews in Jerusalem will convert when Christ has come again.

            But then: if there were serious troubles on the Holy Land, then there would not be Jews in Jerusalem anymore (emigration & such...). But Revelations tell that they will convert there. So: if the troubles will not be prevented, Christ cannot come to Finally Judge in the near future; and then the Case of Salvation suffers serious delay in the best case. So the best option of a serious Sola Scriptura sinless USA voter is to vote for the candidate more active on the Holy Land.

            In 2000 some commentaries interpreted the Bush victory as result of block voting from Evangelically Reborn voters. This explanation was repeated in 2004, when the victory was bigger. Then I think, it is proper to analyse the Malachy Prophecy just before the present voting in USA.

            But the Malachy Prophecy is not interesting for a physicist as a way to predict the result of the elections. I shall be able to interpret any result on November 5. The only interesting question is a double one:

            1) Could Bishop Malachy predict what he predicted in any way?

            2) And if not, then why is the surprising success of the predictions up to now?

 

3. ON THE MALACHY PROPHECY

            Although practically everything is uncertain about Middle Age manuscripts, there is a more or less self-consistent story behind the Malachy Prophecy. In this Chapter I summarize the story with a single references, which is [4]. (The literature is big enough.)

            In 1139 Maelmhaedhoc O'Morgair, Bishop of Connor visited Rome to report, under Pope Innocent II. The later biographer of the Bishop of Connor was also somebody: Bernard of Clairvaux. Later both became Saints.

            According to the biographer, the Bishop of Connor saw visions and had the gift of prophecies. This is not too surprising because you can see from the names that he was Irish. Mountain Scots, Welsh and Irish often speak about their "second sight", and Lowland Scots and Englishmen often accept their claims. Now, the Bishop of Connor wrote a list and gave it to the Pope. Pope Innocent II placed the manuscript into the archive. (Note that this special story is not mentioned by Bernard of Clairvaux, but, as we saw, generally some visions are.) There is no evidence that anybody would have read the manuscript until cca. 1550; but there is no either for the opposite, of course.

            Then the text was found by historian Onoviro Panvinio and in 1559 the manuscript was published as part of the book Lignum Vitre, of the Benedictine historian Arnold Wion. The structure of the prophecy is simple enough: no names, no data, but one sentence, a motto, for each consecutive Popes: 111 sentences. Then a short closing comment about another Pope and Final Judgement. Experts tell, however, that some mottos are "very true" for some Popes.

            So an almost unequivocal list of Popes can be matched to the mottos. The only problem is that the mottos indicate at least 2 Antipopes; but some rather well matching mottos fix most uncertainties. And so the sequence of 111 Popes seem to end with Benedict XVI!

            I am going to give some examples for demonstration. But first: why Malachy? Now, Bishop Maelmhaedhoc is mentioned by Bernard of Clairvaux as Malachias; it is Malachy in England. Even now some Irish has officially both a Gaelic and an Anglicised name. E.g. in 1959 the Irish President was famous Eamon de Valera and the Prime Minister was Seán F. Lemass. However the Minister of Exterior was Frank Aiken for English speakers, but Proinsias Mac Aogáin otherwise. While half of the complications about the name Maelmhaedhoc comes only from Irish orthography, still Malachias was simpler for a Frenchman.

            Now some hits. The Malachy List starts with a Pope "Ex castro Tyberis", so cca. "From a castle on R. Tiberis". Now this Pope should be Celestine II (1143-1144), because he was the first successor of Innocent II; and look: Celestine II was born in Citta di Castello, along Tiberis (Tevere).

            An excellent hit if you accept the 419 years in the archive. If you have some doubts, we must look for Popes after 1559. Then look:

            Urban VIII (1623-1644): Lilium et rosa. For us, Urban VIII is rather the Pope of the Galileo trial. However it is true that he was from Florence (lilies in the arms) and on his own escutcheon he had bees; and "bees collect honey from lilies & roses".

            Clement IX (1667-1669): Sydus Olorum. That is cca. "star of swans" or "constellation of swans", and he was living in the Chamber of Swans during the election.

            Pius VI (1775-1799): Peregrinus Apostolicus. That means apostolic pilgrim, and indeed this Pope travelled long for XVIIIth century Popes and at last he had to leave Rome because the Italian Army of General Buonaparte (for Frankophiles, Napoléon).

            Gregory XVI (1831-1846): De Balneis Hetruriae. That seems to be "From the baths of Etrury", and his order was founded by St. Romuald in Balneo, Etrury.

            Much more hits are reported, but you may or may not believe that the hit of Ardent Fire at Pius X is significant; anyways the Bishop of Connor may have automatically assumed that a Pope would be ardent believer. Then let us see the last severaal Popes.

            Benedict XV (1914-1922): Religio depopulata. That is cca. Extinct religion, or at least "a religion whose population seriously decreased". This can be explained either with the effects of World War I, or of the Spanish Flu just after (it had more victims than the War), or with the loss of Russia for any religion. For more Benedicts see a later Chapter.

            Pius XI (1922-1939): Fides intrepida. That is Intrepid faith, and commentators tell us that Pius XI fought hard for faith between the World Wars.

            Pius XII (1939-1958): Pastor angelicus, i.e. Angelic shepherd. Of course, this is an automatic hit for any pope.

            John XXIII (1958-1963): Pastor et nauta, so Shepherd and sailor (or mariner, or such). The usual explanation is that he was the Patriarch of Venice, which is the City of Ships; but also note that his family was occupied in fishing.

            Paul VI (1963-1978): Flos florum; flower of flowers. The commentators tell that his arms showed lilies.

            John Paul I (1978): De meditate lunae. Now this motto is explained in many ways, not surprisingly for a Pope ruling only 38 days. The mirror translation would be "Of the middle of Moon". Now what is that? Commentators seem to agree that it is somehow the "Half-Moon", and Ref. [4], still in the life of Paul VI, tried with some big upheavals in the Moslim World. But now it is told that his rule started at a half moon and ended at the next.

            John Paul II: De labore Solis. This motto is ambiguous. It can be mirror-translated as "From the work of Sun", but what is that? By some poetic allusion it is interpreted as "from a solar eclipse", and some commentators tell that he was born during an eclipse; I must still check this for Wadowice. Others tell that he was the Pope during the famous 1999 solar eclipse (mentioned already by Nostradamus); that is true, but that eclipse was not total either in Wadowice or in Rome. Again, "he came from East", as the Sun. Finally, Virgin Mary is the Woman Clothed into Sun, and Polish John Paul II was the Pope most devoted to Mary in the last half-millennium.

            For Benedict XVI (2005-?), Gloria olivae, see later.

            And then there is a closing remark. I give an approximative English translation, because that Pope has no motto at Maelmhaedhoc. It tells that there will be an extreme persecution of the Church, and then the Holy See will be occupied by Petrus Romanus (Peter II), he will feed the "sheep" "in many tribulations", then "the city of seven hills" will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will come. Finis.

            The "sheep" is obviously the "sheep of St. Peter", so the Christians. The City of Seven Hills cannot be anything else than Rome, and the formidable Judge must be Christ of the Final Judgement. So this paragraph must describe the End of the Story, obviously with some Apocalyptic scenarios just before, maybe an Antichrist persecuting the believers.

            Opinions are equivocal about the chronology of Petrus Romanus in the Prophecy. Clearly, the simplest is to put this scenario just after the Pope Gloria olivae, maybe with a moderate interregnum because of the Antichrist, persecution & such. True, some commentators observe that this continuity is not stated. Petrus Romanus can live in any time after Gloria Olivae. But then: why just 111 Popes were named by Maelmhaedhoc? They are even not all Popes from Second Millenium: Benedict XVI is already from Third Millenium!

 

4. ON CAUSALITY

            Cause causes Consequence. This seems to be obvious; but great Aristotle distinguished 4 types of "causes" and one was later than the Consequence [5]. OK, this is so because in Greek (also in English or Magyar) the same simple pronoun asks for Cause and Purpose. (In English: why?)

            From Newton upwards we rigorously distinguish Cause and Consequence. In Classical Mechanics (also in Optics) Cause always precedes Consequence, although the equations of Mechanics are symmetric to time reversal. Planetary motions are as calculable forward as backwards. Still, there is an Arrow of Time, and it shows the real direction of processes. If you like, this is the belief of physicists of XIXth century. (Thermodynamics is irreversible.)

            Then in the years starting in 1905 Einstein finds an elegant form in which Belief is transcribed into Rule.

            You have an invariant four-distance, whose infinitesimally small element ds is calculable as

              ds2 = c2dt2 - dx2 - dy2 - dz2                                                                 (1)

Now, faster than light (FTL) travels would produce ds2<0. Since acceleration from STL to FTL would result in lots of infinities (see any textbook of Special Relativity), it seems that Physics tells that we cannot go above light velocity. But anything we know in our environment is STL now; so it seems that Physics imposes the Rule of Local Causality:

              ds2 ≥ 0                                                                                                                       (2)

where equality holds for light.

            This means a lightcone structure in spacetime. You cannot leave the lightcone, so surely you cannot turn back in time. Causality is complete; nice.

 

5. PROPHECIES

            From time immemorial people believe that Future sometimes betries itself. You can get glimpses from Future, if you pay enough to a mage; prophets prophesy even freely. But sometimes even the layman gets dreams and visions. (Highland Scots much more frequently than Londoners.)

            Greeks had organisations for this. Dodona of Zeus was more reliable than Delphi of Apollo. (Delphi sometimes was pro-Persian.) But Delphi was better than the local shrines, and shrines were better than the neighbour. And Aristotle also dealt with the problem [6]. He is not too definite; he does not rule out the phenomenon, he tells that some dreams may be signs; but then he says that the topics now "have been discussed", and stops.

            And this was the state of art throughout Middle Ages. There is something; we do not know, exactly what, and the ability is unreliable. So when (if?) Maelmhaedhoc O'Morgair, Bishop of Connor writes 111 mottos for 111 consecutive Popes onto a pergamen, then Pope Innocent II says "thank you" and simply puts the pergamen into the archive. Irishmen are strange, their prophecies seem better than others' ones; but still...

            But after Newton Causality of physical processes contradicts to prophecies and other foresights. OK; maybe Spirit is not physical and so It (She? Both Psyche and Ruach are feminine) can go backwards, even if hardly. But henceforth Science is against prophecies; Scholarship is not so definite. And then we arrive at 1905, and as we have seen, backward processes are forbidden (for physicists, at least).

 

6. MATTER GOVERNS GEOMETRY

            In 1913 Albert Einstein (born at Ulm, Württenberg, Germany, 1879) starts a new research about describing processes in any coordinate system. But he discusses the problem not with his wife and colleague and co-student Mileva Marity (born at Titel, Bács-Bodrog County, Hungary, 1875), but his friend, colleague and co-student Marcel Grossmann (born in Budapest, Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun County, Hungary, 1878). According to the wife's first biographer, Desanka Trbuhovic'-Djuric' [7], this is not nice; and indeed Mileva was hurt in 1913-14 and divorced in 1919, but we are not sure, why (formally the cause of the divorce was stated as Elsa, second cousin and later wife of Albert).

            In 1913 General Relativity (verallgemeinerte Relativitätstheorie) is ready [8]. There is a metric tensor gik(x) in spacetime. The infinitesimal distance is written as

              ds2 = gikdxidxk                                                                                                            (3)

(with automatic summation in all indices occurring twice, above & below, which is the Einstein convention). If you uses another coordinates, gik changes in a prescribed way. There is a metric tensor even for an observer in the whirlpool Maelstrom.

            However, clearly gravitation influences gik. Grossmann is not interested in this last equation which Einstein finds alone. (Priority to Hilbert is not clear.) Einstein's Equation is

             Gik  = -(8πG/c4) Tik                                                                                         (4)

where Gik is a definite expression formed from gik, linear in second derivatives, Tik is the material energy-momentum tensor, and G is the Cavendish constant. So if you know the matter distribution, you can calculate the geometry of the spacetime. However the matter moves just in this geometry, so after you calculated the geometry, you must calculate the matter distribution for the next moment, and then again. So it is not easy to get exact solutions for spacetimes.

            Still some people find some spacetimes; this is a profession. And then a substantial part of them is acausal. So far I found cca. half a dozen acausal solutions of the Einstein Equation.

            Acausal means the following. We require (3), and also (2). (Local causality.) So there are lightcones. And still there are Closed Timelike Loops, i.e. you can go into your Past to go always Forward to Future, inside the lightcone. (You can go to the East in Western direction because the surface of the sphere is not simply connected.)

            We do not like such solutions, and generally throw them away after publishing them. However there are signals that maybe we are too rigorous; and we cannot formulate a clear  and strict mechanism forbidding the formations of such spacetimes. Anyways, they are solutions of the Gravitational Equations!

            So now in all other disciplines of Physics backward processes in time are ruled out; but in General Relativity they are not. Not yet? Maybe. We do not like acausal processes. But still we cannot rule them out. See the book [9]; and, of course, definitely my contribution in it.

 

7. MAELMHAEDHOC ON A CLOSED TIMELINE?

            I do not suggest that Maelmhaedhoc O'Morgair, Bishop of Connor went forward on a Closed TimeLine, collected the information about future Popes and returned to Pope Innocent II. I do not like the idea; if he could do it, I should be able to do too (gik is objective in General Relativity), and I am unable. However it seems that some cardinals always believed; and some were not sure.

            Indeed, this might have been behind some hits. A possible scenario behind the hit about Clement IX, Sydus Olorum is as follows. In 1667 the conclave cannot agree; then one cardinal tells that: look, Malachy tells that the next Pope will be Sydus Olorum. Now, this guy has his bed in the Cella Olorum. This is a sign!

            I do not know the situation at the conclave in 1667. Maybe Clement IX was a strong candidate; maybe not. Details belong to historians. But the Malachy Prophecy was known for the cardinals and many others since 1559.

            The above idea was tried, without success, in 1958. According to rumours, Cardinal Spellman had hired a bargue, put up some sheep, and made some turns on Tiberis, as pastor et nauta, but he then was not been elected. Instead of Spellman Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, Patriarch of Venice and scion of fishermen was; so doubly a Nauta, and of course any Pope is a Pastor ex officio.

            Gloria olivae is Benedict XVI. And he is the last-but-one name on the Malachy list.

            Well, as for the selection of the throne name, there are alternatives. Maybe Benedict XVI does not take the Malachy list seriously. I would not be surprised. Or maybe he tells to himself: OK, I am Gloria olivae, but there will be an indefinitely long gap between me and Petrus Romanus, the last Pope of the time of catastrophes and Final Judgement. Or even: OK, I am the penultimate Pope; after me catastrophes, but comes Christ soon and Judges. I do not know what he believes. But surely he knows the Malachy Prophecy, and knows that others know too. And the Name!

 

8. BENEDICTS

            I do not know why Joseph Ratzinger from Bavaria chose the name Benedict. Lots of reasons can be imagined.

            For example, St. Benedict organised the first Western order of monks. Previously there were hermits in Egypt, maybe some were holy; but Benedictines were useful even from everyday viewpoints. They learnt and worked. In Early Middle Ages they were centers of Civilisation amidst Barbarism. Central Europe, so also Bavaria, can thank them not to fall deeper into barbary than happened. Indeed, Hungary's first library and first school in 995 were situated not in the Grand Ducal Court (royal from 1000), not in the capitol Gran but on the Hill of St. Martin, in the first Benedictine monastery.

            Other commentators believe that Joseph Ratzinger's idea came as a homage to Benedict XV, the Pope of Religio depopulata. Benedict XV tried to stop World War I in 1917 with an impartial and honest peace; but Entente and the Prussians were not partners, both believing that they will be able to crush the enemy. Charles IV, King of Hungary (as Emperor of Austria, Charles VII/I) and his wife Zita of Parma were partners, but Austria & Hungary were not enough; and for this attempt Austria & Hungary were indeed crushed into pieces in the "peace". Maybe Benedict XVI regards Benedict XV as Pope of Honest Peaces. Or he may know anything nice about earlier Benedicts; I do not know any specific, but here for the sake of completeness I list the Benedicts of the Malachy List.

Benedict XI: 1303-1304. Concionator Patareus.

            The motto can be read as "Preacher from Patara; and it is told that he was born in Patara and belonged to some order of preachers. Later he became the Master General of the Dominicans, but I do not know anything of his excellence.

Benedict XII: 1334-1342. Frigidus Abbas.

            The motto is cca. "the cold abbot". Onoviro Panvinio, historian of the Vatican Library under Paul IV and some successors (d. 1568) mentions the name of the abbey as "monasterium Fontis Frigidi" [4], and then the motto is clear. However the rule of Benedict XII does not seem too successful or excellent.

Benedict Antipope: 1394-1423. Luna Cosmedina.

            He was a famous antipope; namely he valiantly fought for a lost and heretic cause; of Avignon and on the Iberian peninsula. His name was Peter de Luna, and his titulary curch is said to have been St. Mary in Cosmedina, so the hit is excellent. Only, I do not believe that Joseph Ratzinger would be fanatic to honour the name of an Antipope.

Benedict XIII: 1724-1730. Miles in bello.

            He fought for discipline and against luxury; and some commentators explain the motto with this fight. Maybe his example is commemorated by Ratzinger?

Benedict XIV: 1740-1758. Animal rurale.

            There are some explanations for the surprising motto, not too interesting for us. The candidate is recorded to have told that he was not the holiest, neither the best stateman, but he was the most honest; he was a compromise. It is difficult to find an easy explanation for his memory suggesting the name for Ratzinger.

Benedict XV: 1914-1922. Religio depopulata.

            See in Chapter 3. I think he is a good candidate.

            And then:

Benedict XVI: 2005-?. Gloria olivae.

            Now what is "Glory of the olive"? There is an explanation suggested in the minutes after taking the name (Benedict XVI neither denied nor confirmed it) going as follows. Some Benedictines long since believed that the Pope Gloria olivae will come from the Benedictine order because one branch of that order is the Olivetans. Also, it is told to be that there is a tradition about St. Benedict, namely that he would have told that "before the end of the world" a Benedictine Pope would lead the Church against Evil. Now this is practically the same as the end of the Malachy Prophecy.

            Now imagine the situation when Joseph Ratzinger (for hislaic opponents: the Pfanzerkardinal, a quite strange and unimaginative nickname) is choosing his pontificial name. If he chooses John Paul III, Pius XIII, or even Lucius IV, no problem. While still he is the Gloria olivae of the Malachy List, Lucius IV does not suggest him considering himself the penultime Pope, just before Petrus Romanus, severe tribulations and devastation of Rome. OK, Benedict XVI also do not suggest it if it is taken after Benedict XV, the Pope working (unsuccessfully) for a Honest Peace. But if he does not declare this and still calls himself Benedict, a pattern is at least not denied. Namely, the explanation is possible that maybe the times are almost full, comes the Antichrist. Who is he? Look at [10], from 1998, which already discusses Antichrist scenarios.

 

9. CONCLUSION 1: HOW DO THE EVANGELICALLY REBORN AMERICANS VOTE?

            I am finishing the text on 3rd November, 2008, on the eve of the USA elections. I am not going to predict the results; but as I mentioned in Chap. 1, in 2000 and 2004 it was a commonplace that coherent “evangelically reborn” votes helped the Republican candidate for presidency. But why?

            By simple logic, there is a group of voters consisting of individuals who

1)      take Revelations very seriously and more or less literally;

2)      believe in the Malachy Prophecy; and

3)      want to go directly to Paradise without dying first.

I do not know how big is this group, but the USA presidential elections are rather won with small margins.

            Now, Malachy predicts Gloria olivae the penultimate Pope and by many commentators he is the present Pope, above 80. Under the final Pope start the Troubles. According to Revelations these Troubles are caused by the Antichrist; then Christ comes soon and the Jews of Jerusalem convert. So comes Final Judgement, and the Good Guys go directly to Paradise.

            So, by formal logics, Christ cannot come if there are no Jews in Jerusalem (see Revelations). Therefore for the group fulfilling Criteria 1-3) above the support for the State of Israel is crucial, so they vote for the candidate promising more about this.

            However, this point may be less important for them now. Namely, as the Final Judgement comes nearer and nearer (according to their calculation), it is more and more probable (for them) that for the remaining short time the Israeli army can maintain the order in Jerusalem.

            For Catholics Revelations is not something to be taken literally since 999 AD…

 

10. CONCLUSION 2: ON CAUSALITY

            For anybody interested in General Relativity the situation is really interesting.

We simply sit and observe. If in the next few years the Antichrist appears, or somebody starts to persecute Roman Catholics, or Rome starts to be destroyed, then Maelmhaedhoc really saw Future; either on a Closed TimeLine, but we do not feel such acausal metrics in our neighbourhood, or by violating even Local Causality (2). I do not give serious probability to this; but we will see.

            Anyway, this project is free of cost. You simply read some newspapers sometimes; chances are great that the observation will not result in anything, but there is a small chance that you can get evidences for Acausality. Only: what is the profit just before Final Judgement? Of course you can still publish; but immediately after...

 

11. CONCLUSION 3: AND IF NOT…?

It is much more probable that in the next few years we shall not see signs for the Antichrist. Then there is an alternative, and it is hard to decide between the two horns: either there is an indefinite gap between Gloria olivae and Petrus Romanus, or the Malachy Prophecy is wrong.

With a great gap between Gloria olivae and Petrus Romanus the “theory” practically ceases to be a theory. In addition, then the Malachy Prophecy will not interest anybody religious anymore. A prophecy prophesying mottos of 111 Popes is interesting for mathematical statistics, but not for anything else.

However, my question in this series is: if not, then why? If there are no Closed TimeLines in our neighbourhood (which is not sure but is probable) and the spacetime has 4 dimensions with (+---) signature (see my paper in [9], starting at p. 277) and anything must obey lightcones, then indeed the success of the Malachy Document is rather surprising. The number of hits seems much higher than for random guesses.

I told that up to now we cannot be sure if Global Causality holds in General Relativity. However for the sake of argumentation assume for a moment that in our present problem Causality holds. Then Maelmhaedhoc O'Morgair, Bishop of Connor, in 1139 could not see a list of later Popes; and still there are the surprising hits. If somebody cannot give an explanation sooner or later, how, then any argumentation via “scientific methods” loses its force sooner or later. Namely, if impossible theories can lead to improbable but correct results, then we cannot anymore choose between “good” and “bad” theories.

In the remaining paragraphs I cannot “solve the mystery”. However, I list some arguments for caution.

First, there might have been mystifications about the Malachy Document. Also, it is connected with “mysteries of Faith” while Physics, Mathematics & such generally avoid such topics.

The Document existed in only one copy up to the second half of the XVIth century. In this more than 400 years it may have been altered. Of course, very careful scientific investigation of the pergamen, tint &c. can more or less decide about age, alterations &c., but really careful and really impartial investigations can help.

The document was finally published in printed version by Arnold Wiot in the book Lignum Vitre. As you see, I am not citing that publication. I do not, because I have not read it. If you want to find the Wiot publication, you can start with [4]. It is really important to work with the original publication.

As an analogy, the Nostradamus Prophecy is almost synchronous with the printed version of the Malachy Prophecy; Nostradamus published it in 1555. A very interesting prophecy was realised a few years later, and this is the main reason for their publicity. I could formally refer the Nostradamus book; only, some scholars state that the first edition cannot be found. I do not know if it is true or not; only: be careful.

However, as time goes by, less and less falsifications of the Malachy Documents were possible. As a working hypothesis, here I accept that the text is unchanged from 1559.

Then we can see that Sydus Olorum type effects, when the Prophecy itself was the Cause of its Fulfilment in a causally orthodox way were possible; but we do not yet know in how many cases. Historians could find this out: they can know the heraldics, birthplaces &c. of the Cardinals. OK; if we neglect all cases when a Sydus Olorum effect acted, still the number of hits seems much higher than for a random list; but how much higher?

Impartial historians (but how to select them?) could check the details of the excellent hits. E.g.  Benedict XI: 1303-1304, Concionator Patareus is an excellent hit if and only if he was born indeed in Patara. Similarly Benedict XII: 1334-1342. Frigidus Abbas is a hit if and only if Onoviro Panvinio is correct that his abbey was the "monasterium Fontis Frigidi".

OK, the uncertainty is surely less with Gregory XVI (1831-1846): De Balneis Hetruriae. The statement is that his order was founded by St. Romuald in Balneo, Etrury; simple enough to verify. Only, we cannot quantify how probable was this hit. It would have been an even more excellent hit if he himself had been born in Balneo, Etrury; it would have been still a hit if his family could have traced back to Etrury 500 years ago; and so on. It seems as if there were something here; but I cannot quantify in the rigorous sense of Mathematical Statistics.

And I am sure that hits are at least rarer than commentators like to state. Let us state all Popes since 1922: Fides intrepida, Pastor angelicus, Pastor et Nauta, Flos florum, De meditate lunae, De labore solis & Gloria olivae. We read and heard lots about these Popes. However if a con man were to create a list of future Popes, he surely would try with Fides intrepida, Pastor angelicus and Flos florum. At least the “nauta” in Pastor et nauta is something not following automatically from being a Pope. As for De meditate lunae and De labore solis we still do not really understood the mottos. And Gloria olivae?

Anyway, experts of Mathematical Statistics could and should start with such a project. I am sure, the project would not have any religious importance. Namely, if Christ comes according to Revelations and the Malachy Prophecy, then He arrives before the project ends (see the previous Chapter). However if not, then we shall have better methods to decide if a theoy is good or not.

 

REFERENCES

 [1]       Van der Quine O. W.: Methods of Logic. Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, New York, 1963

 [2]       Lukács B., Martinás K. & Bérczi Sz.: Symmetry and Katachi in the Works of Aristotle. Forma 15, 173 (2000)

 [3]       Everett H. III: Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957)

 [4]       Bander P.: The Prophecies of St. Malachy. TAN Books, 1969

 [5]       Aristotle of Stageira: The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995. Bekker N° 198b10 - 199b23

 [6]       Aristotle of Stageira: The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995. Bekker N° 463a12 - 464b19

 [7]       Trbuhovic'-Djuric' Desanka: U senci Alberta Ajnstajna. Bagdala, Krushevac, 1969

 [8]       Einstein A. & Grossmann M.: Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation. Z. Math. Phys. 62, 225 (1913)

 [9]       Buccheri R., Saniga M. & Stuckey W. M. (eds.): The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. NATO Science Series Vol. 95, Kluwer Academic, Dordrercht, 2002

[10]      Dawson J. P.: Is the Next Pope the Last Pope? http://www.jpdawson.com/lastpope.html