Talk:Prophecy of the Popes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Francis as 'Peter the Roman'?[edit]

Considering that there is room in the Prophecy for there being other Popes between the next-to-last Pope (which corresponds to Pope Benedict) and 'Peter the Roman', it is not appropriate for Pope Francis to actually be listed in the table as 'Peter the Roman'. I am going to take that out. Shocking Blue (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's probably the right way to handle it. Was there a reason you left his Coat of arms in? DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis is the Roman Rock. Ergo Peter the Roman. When you understand the differences between Jesuits and Franciscans you will see. Remember most people are blind to the wisdom of the Father and the Mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.88.176 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? Since there is no surety of Pope Francis truly being "Peter the Roman", maybe he falls under the "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit." motto? According to the interpretation of multiple Popes between "Glory of the olive" and "Peter the Roman", he would be the first Pope to fall under this motto (in my view, there would be only one such Pope, and it would be Francis himself). And that the true "Peter the Roman" would still remain to be seen. Anyway, without Francis this table seems very incomplete. 94.72.119.168 (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice try but that would be too speculative to put in the article. It's worth bearing in mind that the original list was a forgery, so let's not overthink this. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
In any case we'll never find out, as nothing is going to happen either with this or the next pope. So the real ID list is going to have to be discontinued... --Againme (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Francis is a Jesuit, taking his name from a co-founder of the order (Francis Xaviour). The Jesuits first met at Saint-Pierre de Montmartre - Peter, of the mountain of the martyr. FurryAminal (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Silver and gold have I none. What I have I give you. In the name of Jesus, stand up and walk."
Quoted by Francis of Assisi to the then Pope, who was bragging about Papal riches. Carlo (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I prophesize an influx of speculative edits now that this guy is running things. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Petrus Romanus Coat of Arms[edit]

It is inappropriate for Wikipedia to refuse the addition of Pope Francis' Coat of Arms under the 112th Pope heading for Petrus Romanus, particularly when the Coat of Arms for all prior Popes retroactive to Pope Innocent III (Pope 15) have already been posted in Wikipedia. Saint Malachy only furbish predictions for 111/112 Popes & Pope Francis is the 112th Pope, regardless of attempts to split this last prophecy into two sections in order to insert multiple Pope X's for the purpose of masking the identity & delaying the inevitable arrival of the final 112th Pope &/or Anti-Pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.215.152 (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources both credulous and skeptical, old and new, mention that the prophecy is open to the interpretation of multiple intervening popes between Glory of the Olive and Petrus Romanus. It would be inappropriate to endorse one possible interpretation by matching Francis to Petrus Romanus in a definitive way.--Trystan (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Pope Francis[edit]

Pope Francis was elected the 112th Pope on 13/3/13 & therefore Wikipedia is logically obliged to post his Coat of Arms for reference purposes. If Wikipedia wishes to indulge in religious superstition, then kindly remove the Coat of Arms of all prior 111 Popes, which Wikipedia has speculatively correlated to the same prophecies. If Wikipedia wishes to keep the existing Coat of Arms of all prior Popes, then kindly create a special subsection for all of the 'Intervening Popes' & their respective Coat of Arms in between Glory of the Olives & Petrus Romanus (ie- Pope 111a/Pope 111b/Pope 111c, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.215.152 (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The coats of arms of previous popes are relevant, because the prophecies are often written (for pre-1590 popes) or at least interpreted as a reference to them. I've explained above why Francis isn't matched to the Petrus Romanus prophecy in the same way as previous popes, so there is no place to include his arms, nor is there a reason to.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Number Of Prophecies in Fr. Wion's Original List is 113.[edit]

Wion's original list of pope prophecies consists of 111 one line paragraphs, one two line paragraph, and one eight line paragraph. Just 29 years after the publication of the Lignum Vitae, Thomas Messingham altered Fr. Wion's work by combining the two line paragraph with the eight line. Every subsequent author on this subject has followed Messingham's lead. He compounded his error by translating "sedebit" as "there will sit." Wiktionary gives:

 1. third person singular future a

active of sedeo.

    sedeo: 1. I sit, I am seated.
           2. I preside. 

en.glosbe.com: "he (she,it) will sit, he (she, it) will be seated." "Sedebit" occurs in the Vulgate many times and is never translated as "there will sit," but almost always as "he will sit." (Math. 25.31; 1 kings 1.13-17; Isaiah 16.6; Zechariah 6.13; Malachi 3.3)

In a court of law, a copy or transcription of a document may not be admitted as evidence in place of the original. Whatever reason Messingham and his imitators had for altering Fr. Wion's original need not concern us. What is important is to correctly number and correctly translate Wion's paragraphs. Furthermore, the idea of "intervening popes" has no basis. From the time of the Lignum Vitae's publication in 1595 up until Pope John Paul II, there is no case of an intervening Pope. (John Paul II is clearly indicated by "De labore solis," latin for a solar eclipse.) After 37 paragraphs of no intervening popes, why should this idea suddenly take on any legitimacy? It is an invalid suggestion made by the same authors who took upon themselves the liberty of altering Fr. Wion's original list.

Pope Francis is not "Peter the Roman" for the simple reason that his prophecy is number 112 which reads:

 "In psecutione.extre-
 ma S.R.E.sedebit."

He will sit (preside) in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church.

I would ask that Wikipedia put correct numbers on Wion's paragraphs and correctly translate them. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is limited to reporting what has been published in reliable sources. Our own interpretation and analysis of the original text is irrelevant, as original research is not a part of what Wikipedia does.
We do describe the original formatting of the text, as well as the view that the lines should be interpreted separately. This is a very minor view in the sources and the article accordingly spends little time on it. On the other hand, the "intervening popes" interpretation is found in both skeptical and credulous sources spanning many years, so it is appropriate to represent in the article.
If you feel the published analyses of this subject are largely incorrect, well, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.--Trystan (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)