Talk:Prophecy of the Popes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Miscellaneous

I believe it is only fair to introduce claims of skepticism with regard to prophecies. Prophecies like this, like Nostradamus and others are too easy to retro-interpret. Prophecies that require "retroactive clairvoyance" are not prophecies at all.

While I agree with your standpoint on this particular text, so far your efforts to promote it have not accorded with the neutral point of view and/or have bordered on original research. For example, in your first edit, you made the imperative statement, "This prophecy should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism," not realizing that it is very difficult (I have never seen it done, but am willing to be shown otherwise) to address the reader directly and at the same time retain neutrality.

Insofar as I have encountered in my reading, those who wish to object to this text being treated as prophetic literature usually make the argument I summarized in the second paragraph of "Authenticity," namely, that it is a Rennaissance-era forgery, being attested to in no source prior to its discovery in 1590, not even in the purported author's contemporary biography. In support of this view, the mottos regarding popes before this date include several that admit rather less vagueness than most of the lot, such as the first one, From a castle on the Tiber, whereas after this date, all the mottos are fairly open to interpretation, and whatever success interpreters have had in ascribing meaning to them is the product of this vagueness.

In the "Interpretation" section, I have tried to answer the question, How have interpreters of the list interpreted it? This is inherently not an argument for the prophecies' authenticity, and therefore I felt there is no need to "refute" it point-by-point to maintain the NPOV, and to do so borders on original research. In fact, I have never seen a widely-published motto-by-motto critique of the list. If you are aware of one, it would be worth mentioning, but in fact I doubt such a critique would be particularly interesting, there being no well-agreed-upon fashion of quantifying the vagueness of a three-word Latin phrase.

You seem to be moving this page towards what is described here as "partisan commentary, even while presenting both points of view." For example, in the discussion of JPI, the text before you edited it reported that the motto De medietate Lunae is usually interpreted in terms of the phase of the moon at the time of JPI's accession, and that in actuality he become Pope the day after the last quarter, and then importantly, it left it to the reader's own judgment as to whether this is close enough or not. Your edit, instead, clearly wishes to answer that question for the reader, which it cannot do and retain neutrality. Shimmin 22:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

While I understand that to some presenting skepticism in-line with interpretation of the predicitions can come across as partisan commentary, I would argue that in sitations like this it is not applicable. In this case, the Latin phrases are so vague that even a non-skeptic, alternate interpretation is considered criticism of other interpretations since no benchmark or clear rules of interpretation exist. I am simply attempting to counter the postdiction rife in this entry, and with vague prophecies in general. Canadacow 03:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I just edited the article to trim the last paragraph in the Provenance section. In my opinion it took a 90-degree turn away from discussing the 'provenance' of the text and into an argument about authenticity. The jolt was only aggravated by jumping right into the attack, without giving the reader even basic background information on the prophecy being debunked.

I have no interest in getting into an edit war but I suggest that readers in general are smart enough to draw their own conclusions about whether or not to believe vague prophecies from Catholic arcana. If you need to present detailed arguments on the question maybe it would be better to create a section for Authenticity instead of littering the rest of the article. Such a section, besides statistical definitions of postdiction, might contain the Church's official view on the prophecies. That would be a factual piece of information that I would appreciate reading in an encyclopedia article. --63.65.27.18 14:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an authenticity section. There used to be an authenticity section but that was removed by someone else for reasons beyond me. I will disgree with you, however, that such vague prophectic interpretations are easily dismissed by those reading. Something like associating Pope John Paul II funeral with the eclipse seems amazingly accurate, until one thinks about how the date of his funeral would be insignificant unless it fit the preconceived interpretation of the prophecy. Canadacow 13:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a morbid interest in this article for some reason. Although I don't plan to get involved in the controversy I wanted to mention that I've come across claims that the "Peter the Roman" section was added in the 19th Century. If this can be confirmed, it would be worth including. Have either of you encountered it anywhere?

Added a small paragraph on this. Cited a massive google search for Malachy+1820--Will2k 04:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the interpretations of the mottos clearly smack of postdiction and other interpretive tricks to make them match, but there are so many people who believe them that it's probably not appropriate to simply dismiss the idea that they're true, as silly as that might seem. A middle-of-the-road approach might be to present a brief argument for each side in turn, rather than trying to balance out each individual paragraph. But that's just a suggestion. Csernica 06:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the claim that the "Peter the Roman" section is a later amendment, but have no means of knowing whether it is true or not. Another confusion in online sources is 1559 vs 1595 as the original publication date: I follow the latter based on a 1554 birth date for Arnold de Wyon and the assumption that even the most erdudite of historians would not have published by the tender age of five. Another claim is that a particular historian of the papacy, whose name I can't remember right now, accepts the prophecy in his 1557 magnum opus. Again, I don't have access to the print sources I would need to sort out fact from rumor. Shimmin 12:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cant we just check the 1595 text and see that this passage is not there???StrumStrumAndBeHanged 21:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

About taking Pope John Paul II's funeral date instead of his death date as discussed in the article: from what I can tell, most don't attach much significance, if any, to his death/funeral date having solar activity. Obviously, taking just the funeral date smacks of blatant postdiction, but the prophecy is more usually attributed to solar activity on his birth date, as I understand it. Notice that many of the other prophecies coming true, so to speak, also have much more to do with birth dates and the times when they were elected to the papacy, rather than their death. So I think it is best if we completely ignore the death/funeral date altogether, because I don't think many people consider that a fulfillment of the prophecy. TheProject 19:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the main thing to beware of in the "Skepticism and authenticity" section is not NPOV, but the No Original Research policy. Articles should only include that which can be sourced from outside Wikipedia. However clear something may be to the author of a Wikipedia article, it is not for Wikipedia authors to insert their own opinions; we should only report what is generally believed or understood, or what we can specifically attribute to particular people or groups. Phrases like, "Using the date of funeral and not his date of death (which lacked any notable solar activity) is suspect and evidence of postdiction" appear to be expressing the personal opinion of the author; which is not encyclopaedic. TSP 00:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is, sadly, a good point. I can't even find anything from CSICOP on it. How disappointing. Csernica 23:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: Revelation 17:10-11; Is this referencing to the Pontiffs' reign since "The Healing Wound" of 1929? donald d baxter dbaxter0120@hotmail.com

Interesting that he chooses Benedict XVI as his name. However, according to baby name sites, Benedict means "blessed," nothing to do with peace, really. Writerchick 17:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The prophetic connection is the relation to the Order of St. Benedict (as suggested by the article)--Will2k 19:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

So what's the connection between the Benedictines and olives? The article on the Benedictines says their motto is pax, "peace"—is there any more than that? —JerryFriedman 19:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Benedictine arms include the olive branch, and the OSB is sometimes referred to as the Olivetans. Still, the choice of the name Benedict is only a distant connection to the olive. We'll only know how close Ratzinger wants to play it when his own papal arms become known. Shimmin 19:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Benedictines have a coat of arms, etc.; one thing is certain, the Olivetans are not the Benedict order, despite umpteen repeats all over the Web, always in the context of St. Malarky, that they are. The Olivetans are a very small sub-branch of the Benedictine group: see the Catholic Encyclopedia article.

I'm wondering if anyone has taken the last entry as not the end of the world, but rather, that major changes will come to the church? Everyone's always talking about major reform in the church, and how it has to "get out of the middle ages," etc Just a thought

Writerchick 21:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did Shimmin remove the part that refers to the history of the article as an example of postdiction? I think it was perfectly appropriate. Is there a Wikipedia policy not to do self-references?

UnHoly 01:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The policy does not seem to require the removal as indicated. (But the same point can be made without explicit reference to this article.)20:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: does anyone know if this a valid source List of Popes and their corresponding mottos ? The list is claiming that the current pope is 267, while the media is reporting that he is 265. Never mind, Catholic Encyclopedia is confirming that he is #265. I'll remove the link to the List of Popes until a correct one can be found.

If you count the number of Pope in the List of Popes page, you'll find that the answer you get is 266 not 265. The reason is some count Pope Stephen II who died 3 days after election. As the text of JPII article says, "JPII was the 264th Pope according to the Vatican (265th according to sources that count Pope Stephen II)". {And yes, that includes counting Saint Peter.} Hence, the current one is either 265th or 266th depending how you count -- KTC 02:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concerning two of the prophecies:

"Pope Clement XIII, whose used a rose as his personal emblem, is referred to in the prophecy Rosa Umbriae, the rose of Umbria." Is there any reference to this? I've never heard that the rose was his personal emblem, so I'm not sure if this is really true. The interpretation in the list of prophecies below doesn't mention this and states "Served in Umbria before becoming pope - Umbria's emblem is the rose" instead. This isn't completely true either, as it seems to imply that he served in Umbria directly before becoming pope. In fact he was governor of Rieti (which is in Umbria) in 1716. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04032a.htm for this.

Rieti was in Umbria briefly: in the 19c, thru 1927 if memory serves. At any rate, Rieti was not in Umbria in the 18c (and for the record, although that's immaterial, is not in Umbria now), nor was it in Umbria in antiquity, but rather in Sabine country. This last matters, since after the very early Middle Ages and all the way to the early 18th century, Umbria was not in general use to describe the area, rather the then historical term Duchy of Spoleto (although it was all in the Papal States at the time and there was no more Duchy of Spoleto); so that, at the time the prophecy was purported to be written (12c), at the time the prophecy may have been written (late 16c), and at the time this particular prophecy turns out to have applied (the time of Pope Clement XIII) — Rieti did not qualify as Umbria. Bill 17:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered an article about Roman Umbria and although I couldn't find a good map for the region I think Rieti could have been in Roman Umbria.

The actual regions in Ancient Rome were relativly undefined and were essentially based on old tribal regions. Reiti was on the edge of Umbria, Picenum and Latium. However, Clement's other governship, Fano was in the middle of Umbria.

I also heard the claim that Rieti has a rose as its symbol. Does anyone know if this is true?--BobaFett 04:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In the list it says for Clement XIV: "Had the image of a running bear on his family crest" I'm not sure about this either. On http://truecatholic.bizland.com/The_Prophecies_of_Malachy.htm it says for this pope: "Without producing any evidence, the American interpreter Robb states that the Pope's family coat of arms showed a running bear. However, with the death of Panvinio we lose much of the informations which helps earlier interpreters.

The best online reference for Papal heraldry is Roberto Piperno, whose site is based on photographs of Roman monuments.

As much as I admire RP, his is not the best papal heraldry site. The two best I know of are Araldica Vaticana and Гербы пап римских - Coats of arms of the Popes. That doesn't affect the value of the argument above. Bill 17:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clement XIV arms did not include any type of bear, according to the sources above and as described below. In traditional European heraldry, a bear or other animal would not be depicted as running. Animals in arms were drawn/painted as if they could hold that position forever--your arms were a symbol of you and your status, and you wanted to keep your high standing forever. Also family arms are a modern invention, probably created by companies who wanted to sell "family coat of arms." Arms typically represented an individual, not a family. Family members could certainly have similar arms to each other, but not identical. I realize that some changes had been made by the late 18th century when Clement XIV lived, but I don't think the nature of arms had yet changed that much. I'm not an expert on heraldry--if someone has other information that contradicts what I wrote, please feel free to add it. Wakedream (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

His picture of the crest of Clement XIII shows the cross, diagonal bars, two crowned towers, and a crowned double-eagle. No roses.

His picture of the crest of Clement XIV shows a monument unfortunately attacked by the elements. It has a round feature, maybe a ring or the crescent moon at the bottom, three stars across the middle, and something I cannot make out across the top. It might be two arms with crossed swords, or it might be a large carrot. It certainly doesn't resemble a bear. Shimmin 23:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wion, O'Kelly and Cucherat try in vain to give a reasonable explanation of this legend. There is no bear in the arms of the Pope and to my mind it is unlikely that the imminent French revolution is typified in Malachy's description. This is again one of the instances where any interpretation would be purely guess work."

So I'm not sure if it is really proven that his family crest showed a bear... --BobaFett 16:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For Paul V it says: "His coat of arms bore a dragon and an eagle, which in heraldic circles was known as the Gens Perversa"

Is there a reference for this? Maybe people in "heraldic circles" started calling it that way after he became pope... then this would not really have been very prophetic.--BobaFett 21:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the Bander book, Gens Perversa meant "The Wicked Race" which, heraldry-wise meant including a dragon and eagle on the arms well before the the pope came in. I am no heraldry expert though and this is something that would probably require some research. There is another interpretation as well--When this pope was in power, there was a war between the Ghibelines and Guelphs whose crests were the dragon and the eagle. Perhaps this might be another option. --WillDarlock 17:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The latest addition to the article says that the prophecy for Benedict XIV is "a wordplay on 'lamb' from his family name Lambertini". Well, I checked with an online translator and lamb is 'agnello' in Italian. I don't think that one can count the English meaning of an Italian name, so maybe this interpretation should be removed.--BobaFett 01:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. This one doesn't fit. I'll remove it. --WillDarlock 17:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

For Pope Gregory XVI the article says: "He was a Camaldolese, and the order is stated to have been founded by Saint Romuald, at Balneo, in Etruria, present day Tuscany; which is not true: there is no such place, and St. Romuald founded his order at Camaldoli."

How is this to be understood? Did the explanation arise that the Camaldolese order was founded in Balneo, Etruria in order to explain this prophecy? Or is it some kind of old legend that the order was founded there, that is not true, but existed before the time of Gregory XVI and independently of the prophecy?

Interesting though, if it should really be true that the city doesn't exist. I also read that the order was founded "in the thirteenth century in a locality called in Latin <Balneum,> in Etruria", thus the prophecy.--BobaFett 03:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Did no one understand my last question? I was thinking, that in the case that there is a legend that says that the Camaldolese order was founded in Balneo, in Etruria, a possible interpretation of the prophecy could be that the prophecy refers to the legend. Any thoughts about this?

Something else - for Clement XI it says in the article: "Urbino, the city where the Pope was born, is often stated to include a garland of flowers on its coat of arms. (It does not.)"

I have found two weblinks though. First this one, called "Urbino stemmi" which means "Urbino coats of arms": http://www.moveaboutitaly.com/marche/urbino_stemmi_it.html On the last picture a symbol of some kind of bird inside the sun, surrounded by flowers can be seen.

Then I have found this site about the city of Urbino: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/webjean/urbino/ In the upper left corner the same symbol with the circle of flowers can be seen. If you click on "Italiano" and then select an entry from the menu you can see that the symbol is also used next to the headline of each subpage of the website. Does anyone know what kind of symbol this is? Is this really a coat of arms of Urbino? Does anyone when the symbol was created? Before or after Clement XI became pope? If it is a symbol that has been created after he became pope, this could have been done as an allusion to the prophecy - it could not be used for interpreting the prophecy then. So does anyone know more about this?--BobaFett 04:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

By my reckoning, the ongoing importation of text from another website, complete with Latin translations and occasional historical notes, would appear to be a copyright violation. Shimmin 17:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the text of the prophecy itself is copyrightable. In that case, the prophecy should stay verbatim. The translation and the explanation has to be original, though. They should be removed and rewritten by contributors if they are not. --Kvasir 18:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the complete list would be better served as WikiSource than here. Shimmin 02:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kee-rikey! No, the complete list does not belong here any more than the complete text of Pride and Prejudice belongs in that article. The article should be about the prophecy, not be the prophecy. Yes, it should be on Wikisource if Wikimedia should have it at all. But no, this is not a copyright violation as far as I can tell. The list itself is several hundred years old, and it along with the translations (brief phrases all; for many only one or two good ways to express them in English) appear all over the web without attribution.

I still suspect any translation you find on the web is likely to be a copyvio. They are likely using the translation of some writer who has written about the prophecies since 1923, and you'd be surprised how many variations on a Latin phrase can make it into English. For starters, Latin does not have articles, but English often seems awkward without them, so whether to use the definite or indefinite article, or none at all? Shimmin 11:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I support no added English articles because it may give the prophecy intepretation an inherit bias. A literal simple translation reflecting the use of cases is fine. --Kvasir 12:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I'd have thought an external link to a reputable website, like this one that provides the list and the occasional translation would be equally appropriate. Csernica 04:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah... I didn't know such thing as Wikisource exists. In that case I'd support this moved there provided with complete translation. Many external links containing the prophesy doesn't have the complete translation. By putting it on wikisource the info can be found in one place. Brief references and explanation can be included there as well the same way the table is set up now. --Kvasir 04:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notable Popes

I proposed a new section for popes with lengthy explanation and reference following the prophecy table. This would better the appearance of the table. A link could be used in the table to link the reader to the elaborate explanation in this section that is too big for the table. --Kvasir 19:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latin

It would be nice to have somone with sufficient knowledge of latin to complete the translation on the prophecy table. Also it would be great to standardise all the capitalisation of latin phrases, at least on the same page. --Kvasir 00:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to start translating the Pope names...

)

---

Bingbing. I modified the entry recently to state that the mottoes are in a combination of Latin and Italian, although Latinised Italian would have been more precise. This was as per John Hogue's book. However, this has been reverted to remove the reference to Italian. Does anyone have a definitive reference for this? Vashti 14:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any Latin and Italian dictionaries should do it. IIRC the only word that is not sound Latin (proper names excepted) is Montana - and that is merely stretched.

The Latin looks to me like good Renaissance, probably written by a native speaker of a Romance language. I would guess that this is one argument for the 1590 (or is it 1595?) forgery. Septentrionalis 15:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now is the entire prophecy in "good Renaissance" Latin? Or perhaps just the pre-1590s phrases or just the post-1590s ones? It could be a "re-write" of existing St. Malachy's work or just re-writting it using better Latin. Even if it was a forgery, it doesn't explain the recent interpretation since its publication. --Kvasir 17:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I meant the entire text; I do not see any suggestion in the article that it was not all written at once, whenever that was.

It is not our business to express POV on authenticity - although a few quotes from a skeptical source would probably be useful. Septentrionalis 04:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As a translator myself, I'd point out that the difficulty of translation is often context. Epithets of two to four words can't give you much context, even if those words can be understood by somebody with school-level Latin. So "Aquila rapax" (Pius VII) means something like "Greedy Eagle" but this doesn't get you very far: is it the pope himself or, more likely, Napoleon, who held him captive? Even with no Latin at all, you can probably guess what "Religio depopulata" (Benedict XV) means! The "context" here would, presumably, be events in his papacy such as the carnage of WWI and the 'Flu outbreak afterwards, Communist Russia's official renouncing of the faith and the spread of secularism in general; any or all of which left religion "depopulated". Ag 86.150.208.154 (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Petrus Romanus

It seems to me that it should be noted in the article that, since the Papacy traces itself back to the Apostle Peter, a prophecy that uses the term "Peter the Roman" to refer to a Pope could be simply generic -- could it not refer to ANY Roman Catholic Pope? (Perhaps even Benedict XVI, the last one otherwise listed?)

It could. It occurred to me some time ago that it could simply be a summary of all the reigns of all the popes throughout the entire life of the church of Rome, in which case it would make sense as the interpolation it appears to be. Csernica 17:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then one must wonder why the list, for some reason, stopped at Benedict XVI. Seems quite arbitrary.--Will2k 04:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that the list is not authentic (for many of the reasons cited by the skeptics) and that the original writer ran out of paper at that point. Unless 111 is numerologically interesting and that total number of mottos was meaningful somehow. Csernica 06:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most numbers less than 1000 are numerologically interesting; 111 combines three ones into a whole, and therefore symbolizes the Trinity. Septentrionalis 20:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The funny thing here is that every pope description contains only 2 or 3 words except for Peter The Roman that contains a huge description text. Doesn't anyone think this is kind of weird? Beside that it has no title (e.g. Gloria Olivae). It seems to me this prophecy was not written by the same person. If it was written by some other prophet than it could actually refers to Gloria Olivae as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.169.165 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

NO: You are right in distinguishing all papal motto's before and up to Petrus Romanus, from Petrus Romanus. All the first are mottos in there own right, but Petrus Romanus is not a motto but an announcement. He is no 'regular' pope, like all the others who succeed each other. He is an 'irregular' pope, being the last one, just as Peter (I) was the first one. With Peter it began, with Peter it ends. Therefore there is a certain logic to this, having no papal motto but a rather cryptic description. --Stijn Calle (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Expect Petre Roman to be next Pope. No matter he was a former Communist from an Orthodox land. --Error 00:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we take the prophecy on face value, as we would see it made into a Hollywood movie, then after Benedict, the next guy to be elected Pope will be the antichrist, or the devil, or something bad like that. That would also mean that this next Pope is a current Cardinal, whispering in the ear of the current Pope. Maybe he doesn’t know he will be elected the next Pope, therefore not knowing he is the antichrist. Maybe HE is a SHE, and that will be a fitting end to the old rules of the Catholic church.

NO Petrus Romanus will be a real (thus male) pope (Tu est Petrus, et super hanc ...) and the promise is that the gates of Hell will not prevail because, of the petrine function. The pope won't be the antichrist (as a historical figure, mentioned in the bible with a particular role), that will be somebody else. But just as Peter (thus the Church 'hierarchy') distanced itself from Christ (I do not know this man) and repented, Peter II (thus the Church 'hierarchy'), will (has) distanced) itself from Christ and will repent. --Stijn Calle (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Scan / Photo of the original

I don't mean to discredit anyone here, but it seems to me that it's a bit strong to have "Facts" on the "Erroneous claims" when there is no Photo or Scan of the ORIGINAL list - the one written by St. Malachy - but only from the books based on the original list.

It is stated that Petrus Romanus is in the original list, when it fact the writer of the article is referring to the fist published book - which is not the real ORIGINAL list!

In another words: please consider adding or asking in the article for a scan or photo as a proof, instead of just transmitting the reader the idea that Petrus Romanus was indeed in the original list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.169.51 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church's View on the Prophecy

What is the official view of the Church on the Prophecy? Is anyone able to do some researches on that? What I know for sure is that Malachy was canonised. But is it possible that his work (if it was indeed his) be disregarded by the Church in whole? I haven't seen anything reported by the media (other than the internet) mentioning the Prophecy. Is the Prophecy viewed as dubious and non-existant by the Church? If that is the case, speculation about the Church electing someone to fulfill the prophecy would be untrue. --Kvasir 21:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Church appears to view Malachy's prophecies as a 16th century forgery, from what I can make out. However, I believe they technically fall into the category of what's called "private revelation", placing it in the same categories as the Fatima and Lourdes appearances - Catholics don't *have* to believe in them (fortunately), but can if they choose to. Vashti 17:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Church view of the Prophecies

From my understanding of the feed-back of The Vatican for the last few decades, the prophacies are taken "verbatim". It is significant that there is only one Pope left after Pope Benedict.

I have been told that in comparing the Church's official list of Popes with that of the list of Saint Malachy, there is just one Pope that Saint Malachy has that Rome cannot accept, the anti-popes concidered too.

Just consider that from approx. 1142 this list predicted the list of every Pope to come in the future!

In 1958, Blessed Pope John xxiii, took the name John xxiii, to make up for the anti-pope of the same name, 1410-1415.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd links

The link regarding "is Benedict the False Prophet" seems quite sensationalistic and unscholarly, including such things as assertions that Prince Charles is the Antichrist. Does it add anything to this page to have it listed? Vashti 19:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this now. Vashti 16:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The addressing of cardinals

The Catholic Herald has a section on the appropriate terms of address for church leaders. Specifically, the title "Cardinal" becomes part of the priest's name, so "Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger", for instance, is more correct than "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger", although this last is becoming more established. "Joseph, Cardinal Ratzinger" is not correct. Vashti 16:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

There is also a reference for this in Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Vashti 03:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

May I point out that the Catholic Herald is wrong. It is true that, in Latin, the title "cardinal" appears between one´s cristian name and the surname (eg. Josepho Cardinalem Ratinger, or Josepho Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Ratzinger or Josepho Card. Ratzinger or Josepho S.R.E Card. Ratzinger.

However, in modern Languages, the title cardinal usually precedes the cristian name (e.g. His Eminience Cardinal Angelo Sodano, or Cardinal Joseph Ratinger).

This is the common pratice as shown by the documents issued by the Vatican itself. In the vernacular versions, it is common to see: "To Our/My Venerable Brother Cardinal Christian_name Surname", while the Latin version reads "Venerabili Fratri Nostro Christian_name S.R.E. Card. Surname". (AB)

General cleanup

I went thru this morning and did a preliminary cleanup, fixing typos (like "chegny", an obvious scanning error for "chequy"), bad English apparently due to translation out of French, etc. — but mostly checking on the interpretations. The statements made in support of the symbolic names included a lot of downright lies and nonsense, which I removed of course. Items that checked out, I finally inserted that info in <!-- comments -->, including the URLs of pages from reliable sites, to save others the trouble of redoing work already done; unfortunately at first I didn't do this, so not all items that check out are so marked. My main online sources were the Vatican Heraldry Site, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Italian Wiki. There still remains a fair amount of garbage. Bill 12:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Continued today; items now marked TRUE, FALSE, or UNCHECKED. I removed most of the false items, but kept a few, where insistently repeated elsewhere, in order to include the rebuttal. Otherwise, rebuttals are commented out. Bill 17:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would think it better to have three columns: the Prophecy, the alleged explanation, and the truth-value of that explanation. Septentrionalis 17:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense, overall. There would be one problem: alleged explanations can and will sprout endlessly — do we go to the trouble of refuting every false one? (I've also spent a bit more time on this baby than it deserves; so don't look to me to do the initial new 3‑column set‑up!) Bill 17:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

St. Malarkey

Admit it, folks, "St. Malachy" not only is a forgery, but is dead wrong as well. Ratzinger/Benedict the "Glory of the Olive" -- Oh please!!!

Already admitted. Read the article.--Will2k 04:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

No doubt about it; and, since I've been one of the main editors of the article, it's proof that you don't need to buy in to something in order to edit it carefully. (Amidst all my own debunking, I actually added one or two "proofs" that had been overlooked, too!) "St. Malarky", by the way, is a clever find: now why didn't I think of that? Bill 11:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgery or not, it is very interesting that Malachy's list has just about ended right at the turn of the millenia. Even if forged in the 15th-16th centuries, it is pretty remarkable to be ending around a time when even the Mayan Calendar has predicted the end of the world. We will find out within the next 10 years if this really is Malarky. --WillDarlock 21:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This may well have been intentional - after all, if you predict the average length of a papacy, you might well try and make the number of predictions match (approximately) the turn of the millenium. However, it is equally likely coincidence. Titanium Dragon 06:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess "the end is near" indeed -- Old Benadict is 79, has already had a couple of strokes and is suffering from a "bad ticker" -- but really folks, this is Saintly Malarky!!!

Software glitch

As pointed out in the revision history, my last edit, I reverted to umpteen revisions ago.... It was indeed inadvertent, but an admin needs to look at this. What showed on my screen when I reverted was (I forget exactly) only about 3 or 4 edits by someone, ending in the reinsertion of the Olivetans business; I therefore went back to the edit immediately before that, and reverted. This kind of thing has now happened to me at least twice in the last four or five days; there seems to be some kind of glitch in the software (in the revision history routines). Has anyone else noticed it? How do we alert the proper people so they can check? I obviously don't want to do this again.... Bill 09:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I though it would be that - I've been caught out by the same thing before (here, where I embarassingly re-added a terribly out-of-context paragraph to an article that I'd been terribly proud of having swiftly expunged in the first place). I assume that the 'edit' link just very occasionally brings up an archived version instead of the current one - a race condition of some sort? TSP 11:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow; Wikipedia can be nifty: someone around here knows just about anything! That certainly looks like the right overall diagnosis; doesn't address how I can avoid it, or even be aware of it — but I just learned something, thanks. Apparently it's just part of the recent overload on Wiki that I've noticed the last five or six weeks; I guess I'll be checking my edits after the fact now. Best, Bill 12:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's just a guess (I wonder if it should be a proverb - To A Computer Scientist, Every Problem Looks Like A Race Condition). I am surprised that it gave you something quite so far back - mine was just the edit before, so I assumed my browser just had it cached; but that's not likely in this case, but it seems truly random for it to give you something for several months back. We'd need the opinion of someone who knows the code, really... TSP 12:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Checks: Eugenius III, Pius IV, Pius V

In response to, and by and large agreement with, recent edits by WillDarlock:

Eugenius III: "Forse" is Italian for "maybe"; your source therefore has him listed as "Bernardo, maybe 'di Paganelli di Montemagno' ". Dubious, but that source is not alone, so we'll toss it into the pot.

Pius IV: You're right, Medici his last name. (Whether he was related to the famous Medici family of Florence — he was probably not — is irrelevant; I got sidetracked by that!) The jump from pharmacum to "Medici" is a bit much, mind you; no wonder someone out there wanted to make him a medical doctor.

Pius V: Antonio (or Michele) Ghisleri: You're right, I went too fast. On the other hand, "Michele" is not Latin, and does not mean angel: the closest we can get is that very often Italian churches in honor of the archangel Michael are called indifferently "S. Michele" or "S. Angelo": so it's another jump, if smaller than the previous one, to declare that a person named Michael born in Bosco is an angel.

Best, Bill 17:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking these Bill. I agree on all your points above. Your work on fact-checking is helping clear up a lot of errors from various sources. --WillDarlock 17:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Gloria Olivae"

I excised all mention of St. Benedict Labre. While Pope B. was born on that saint's feast day, with whom he shares both names (Joseph by birth, Benedict his regnal name), St. B. L. himself has nothing to do with Olivetans, olives or anything that might be related — and therefore mention of him is not germane in terms of the prophecy. Bill 11:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the chief point of this article are the claims that are made, rational or not, and in this case, the assertion should be included and answered. Septentrionalis 17:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we specifically source both the claim and the refutation? If not, I don't see the necessity of including them. As it stands I don't see any encyclopedic value in pointing out that the pope can be connected tenuously with an arbitrary saint who has no connection to the Prophecy motto. TSP 19:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Further to my edit. Benedict XVI has stated his two reasons for choosing his name here. (1) It connects him with Benedict XV the "prophet of peace"; (2) It connects him with the Patron of Europe and Father of Western Monasticism. He says nothing about wanting to fulfil the prophecy (NB in St John's account of the Passion some of Jesus' actions *are* attributed to his desire to fulfil the scriptures perfectly). Unless the belief that he chose the name to fulfil the prophecy is widespread (evidence please) I see no reason to keep such idle speculation in an article that already is longer than it deserves. Stroika 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

On the discussion page of the Saint Malachy article, someone wrote the following about the interpretation of this prophecy:

"If you go back into this pope's life you'll find that he often meditated & prayed in the Benedictine temples. This would probably tie him closer to the order than just taking the name which anyone of the cardinals could have done to influence the fulfillment of the prophesy."

Does anyone know if this is true?--BobaFett 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is it proven that the Order of Saint Benedict has an olive branch as one of its symbols, as the article says? The whole order and not just the Olivetans? Where could one find information about this?--BobaFett 05:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The prophecy "After the very aged Pope’s death, a middle aged pope (also, a Roman of good age) will be elected. He will be accused of harming the Holy See and will last a long time, doing controversial work." It wasn't until John Paul II's passing that this prophecy was fulfilled. And now, you thoughtless geniuses, does Joseph Ratzinger fit the description of "a Roman of good age"? Good luck with this one, my felonious saboteurs. - St. John the Baptist.

Another bit of garbage removed

I just removed a bit about there being an unusual number of sunspots thruout John Paul II's pontificate; it's not true, see for example this serious page at Berkeley on the 11-year sunspot cycle with graph. Bill 14:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Question re Petrus Romanus

Could this mean "Rock of Rome" as well as "Peter of Rome"? My Latin's not brilliant. EamonnPKeane 23:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither is mine, but I do know that "Petrus" and "Romanus" are both nominative. Therefore, any translation of this phrase which includes "of" is incorrect. The most literal translation would be "Peter Roman" with the sense of "Peter the Roman" in that Latin does not have the definite article. Regarding "Peter" vs. "Rock", what you suggest might be possible, except that "Petrus" is definitely a masculine proper name and "petra" is a feminine, common noun; however, the meaning of "rock" is certainly in play, as it is in Matthew 16:18. Besides that, any understanding of this phrase must unavoidably allude to the name "Peter" because of its reference to the "Prince (sense: "First" in order of precedence) of the Apostles" who is therefore the "First (sense: both in terms of chronology and precedence) Pope" and, most fundamentally, the "rock" upon which Christ builds His Church. Thus, whether or not there are popes between "Glory of [the] Olive" and "Petrus Romanus," it is entirely understandable, the apocalyptic overturns of the prophecy aside, why the latter is widely understood to be the last Pope, who, in some fundamental way, recapitulates the "reign" of the first pope and is truly "Peter II," there having been no pope since Peter the Apostle whose name (regnal name at least) was "Peter". --Midnite Critic 03:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you should be more cautious about dogmatizing; there are several cases where Romanus or its inflected forms are most naturally translated "of Rome". Civitas Romana, "The City of Rome", is perhaps the most obvious. Septentrionalis 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If I am being overly dogmatic, I apologize. However, IMHO, using "of" should be restricted to translate formations involving the genitive insofar as possible. In any event, I have never seen "Petrus Romanus" translated as anything other than "Peter the Roman," although "Roman Peter" might actually be the most literal. --Midnite Critic 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Roamin' Peter??? Wasn't that Alexander VI's nickname?

Skepticism and authenticity

Remove the following lines:

But, regardless of their recurrences, the likelihood is still very low that the birth and death of a Papal figure would happen to coincide with the days of an eclipse as prophesied by a bishop more than 850 years ago. Regardless of whether or not fate or chance were involved, the prophecy still became a truth.

Gee, what's the likelihood that someone would (a) be born in a year when there's an eclipse and (b) die during a year when there's an eclipse? I'll tell you what the odds are: It's 1 to 1. Thats' right, everyone who ever lived or died was born in a year when there was an eclipse and died/will die in a year when there was/is an eclipse. Why? It's called The Moon. You know, that big round thing that sometimes lights up your night sky? It has eclipses as well. More than once a year. It's not special. Get over it. Now if you meant a SOLAR elipcse, well, that's a bit more rare. But, beyond that, stating that "prophecy still became a truth" is a POV statement and is thus in violation of the general wikipedia rules (it states a matter of faith as a matter of fact, and that's a no-no around here.) Thus, it is DELETED!

• It's not in the year of an eclipse, but rather the day of an eclipse. Sounds remarkable, but on the other hand, since there are only a few solar eclipses per year, the chances of being born on the day of a solar eclipse might be something like 1:100, and the chance of having your funeral on the day of one are the same, so having both occurances are perhaps 1:10000. Still a more likely occurance than getting struck by lightning. Also, the eclipses where in far away locations from where John Paul II was both times, and were partial. But having that correspond with a prophesy is much more remarkable. But given that many of the post-1595 Pope-prophesy matches are weak or non-existant, I'm sort of on the fence, but I tend to buy into the theory that this was a 16th century forgery intended to influence a Papal election at the time. The eclipse thing is probably a lucky hit. --208.204.155.241 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are solar eclipses almost every day on the earth. The chance that a particular day will coincide with an eclips, somewhere on the planet is very high. Stijn Calle 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not true: a calendar year has from two to five solar eclipses, which can all be partial. The earth gets a total eclipse (somewhere) roughly two years in three (or seven in ten). Solar eclipses can be: (i) purely PARTIAL wherever visible, with maximum coverage in one or other polar region; (ii) partial but centrally aligned (= "ANNULAR") from some locations at maximum eclipse, with partial non-central eclipse to either side; (iii) TOTAL, along a track several thousand miles long and up to about 200 miles wide (usually much less), again with partial eclipses visible to either side of this track; (iv) a hybrid ANNULAR-TOTAL eclipse (such as on 8/4/2005, day of JP-II's funeral) which is annular along most of its track but just barely total over a few hundred miles where it takes place near to local noon. See Fred Espenak's "FIFTY YEAR CANON OF SOLAR ECLIPSES 1986-2035" (NASA Reference Publication 1178 Revised, of July 1987) 86.162.49.88 (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What happens if the anti-popes are removed?

It would seem to me, that if you were making a prophecy of this type, you wouldn't bother with people making rival claims to the papacy, you'd rather focus on the true succession.

So what happens when antipopes are removed from the list? Do the prophesies match up as well or even better?

The answer is no. Traditional matches are made including the anti-popes. Anyone willing to exclude them would have to make up new matches.--Damifb 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New Interpretations

I've added new interpretations to the following prophecies: Concionator patereus, Medium corpus pilarum, Crux Romulea, In tribulatione pacis, Gens Perversa, Lilium et rosa, Bellua insatiabilis, Sydus Olorum, De Flumine Magno, Poenitentia gloriosa, Rastrum in porta, Columna excelsa, Rosa Umbriae, Canis et coluber. These were taken from my website, http://www.malachyprophecies.com/main.htm, and contain references to the site. --User:Jeremy 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In p̲secutione extrema S.R.E. ſedebit.

I would like to ask opinions to: what if this (In p̲secutione extrema S.R.E. ſedebit.) makes reference to one or more popes between Glory Olivae and Petrus Romanus, since it is a different sentence? Do you think it's possible? Could it be another motto?

I don't know Latin enough to make a good interpretation of this... but could, in any way, this sentence also means that a pope will sit (doing nothing) during a church persecution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.207.30 (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I believe that the last Pope is supposed to be Peter II, not Brix the destroyer. Am I missing something, or is it vandalism? 75.57.113.156 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't even have to ask. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

John Paul II and the eclipse

It is commonly stated that he was born "during" a solar eclipse. Untrue. He was born on the day of a partial eclipse, but around 12 hours after it was all over. The eclipse was visible only in the Indian Ocean - not in Poland. Or Fatima or Rome, for that matter. JackofOz 04:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that really either here or there? Garrick92 11:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Just setting the record straight. But you've got me thinking further. I question the following sentence from the article:

For example, the association of John Paul II with the motto De labore Solis ("the Sun's labor"), allegedly due to his birth and funeral both occurring at times of solar eclipse ("labores solis"), can be seen as a statistically likely post-diction, as eclipses occur two or more times each year.

Firstly, it’s a fact that solar eclipses did occur both on John Paul’s day of birth and on the day of his funeral - see [1] and [2] - although those events did not occur during the precise duration of the eclipses (see above). Secondly, assuming eclipses occur up to 7 times in any one year, the chances of any one person being born on the day of an eclipse are 7/365, or about 1 in 52. Check my maths, but I think the chances of being both born on the day of an eclipse and being buried on the day of another eclipse are (7/365) squared – or 1 in 2718. This is hardly what I’d call “statistically likely”. Thirdly, how likely is it that a prediction made at least 400 years ago (no matter who made it), that associates a future person with the Sun in this way, is going to get it right? Very, very, unlikely. I’m not arguing that Malachy or whoever therefore must be taken seriously; but equally, it's simply not accurate to say this was easily predictable - the very opposite is true. -- JackofOz 05:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

        Ok, so what are the odds of becoming a Pope?  If you put that variable in there, the odds are REALLY ridiculous.

If you assume two eclipses a year, occurring randomly, and that human births also occur randomly and evenly throughout the year, you get the odds of 1 in 33489 of a person being born and dieing in a 24hour period where a solar eclipse occurred somewhere in the world. This sounds like long odds until you remember that there are about 6.7*10⁹ people alive today on the planet, giving a stonking guess of 200,000 people alive today for whom this would be the case. The human brain is bad at distinguishing when long odds give surprisingly big numbers. Actually, the question asked p(person born on two eclipses when predicted by an ancient prophecy) is loaded with more assumptions than my brief calculation. The question people are actually asking is p(someone will find a way for someone to conform to a prophecy|the prophecy is somewhat vague and people are willing to interperet liberally). Indeed I now note a total of nine independent and spurious reasons why Pope JPII conforms to the prophecy, all of which could be equally right. Also, why are the anti-popes included, given that the prophecy supposedly concerns only the apostolic succession? This article needs some skepticism injected. JABITheW (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the occurance of a literally 'solar eclipse' is circumstancial. The eclips of the sun much more indicative of the situation of the catholic church in the last three decades of the 20th century (his mandate). Faith has been obscured. Even churchmen inside the church fell away from the teachings on a grand scale. Stijn Calle 09:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a newspaper picture of JP-II using a filter to observe the eclipse of 1999 (August 11th) at Castel Gandolfo. Given its track across the highly-populated Eurasian land mass (from Cornwall to India) it is estimated that this, the last total eclipse of the second millennium A.D., was seen by more people than any previous one. The event is both real and, arguably, a metaphor, e.g. sun (Christianity) eclipsed by moon (Islam, secular feminism, neo-paganism, ...). Another "Labor Solis" near the end of JP-II's life was the Transit of Venus of 2004 (June 8th) the first such event since 1882. This was effectively a mini-eclipse of the sun, once again a real phenomenon with, arguably, symbolic meaning (e.g. Christianity damaged by sexual permissiveness and consumerism, against which JP-II repeatedly warned). 86.162.49.88 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The birthplace of Copernicus was Toruń, not Cracow (Kraków). What's more, JP2 was born in Wadowice, not Cracow (Kraków); he was the Archbishop of Cracow, though. Anyway, what Tony Allan says seems useless here (he says the connection is forced, but it contains two mistakes, anyway). I'd remove the whole part about Tony Allan, Cracow, Copernicus, etc. Could someone please change it?

Geography

Molfetta is in Sicily? Charles Matthews (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in Naples, one of the Two Sicilies. 98.155.74.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC).

Further up this page: Church's view

Further up this page I'v posted my comments on this question and my understanding of how the Church views; "prophecy of the Popes" of Saint Malachy.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Siena Coat-of-Arms?

I saw the Siena coat of arms bearing the Wolf with the two children on it, and my gut instinct tells me that the picture there is fraudulent. I have been looking for the Siena coat of arms used to explain Pope Eugene IV prophecy and cannot find it, but I'm pretty sure the one used here isn't right. Can anyone shed any light on this? ArdetNecConsumitor23:04, 14 August 2008 (EST)

Gregory X also appears to be wrong. Honestly, would any Pope have a snake devouring a woman as a coat of arms? Because of these false images, I'm removing all of the images from user F9QPS81 and replacing them with the COA's on wikiCommons. F9QPS81 also edited this article quite a bit so F9QPS81's contributions need to be checked as well. « ₣M₣ » 02:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Popes: 265 our 267?

The raizon could be this: The pope Benedict IX wose, for three times, the Bishop of Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.181.78 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are actually quite a lot of variant views about who was a "genuine" Pope when. Even the official list in Annuario Pontificio gives up trying to decide at one point & simply lists 2 simultaneous Popes for 963-5. Peter jackson (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

1820 origin of Petrus Romanus

It is not in fact true that the prophecy first appears in 1820, as can be seen by earlier quotations[3] [4] of the text. RandomCritic (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Indeed, here is a direct link to the 1595 edition, I have Petrus Romanus highlighted, scroll down, it's right where it's supposed to be.

Obscure explanations

The "historical reference and explanations" part next to each pope is not easy enough for a layman to understand, for example one Latin statement for Antipope Paschal III says road beyond the Tiber. And the explanation says that he held the title of Santa Maria in Trastavere. I don't even know what that means. I feel that this article needs significant cleanup in that direction. Lighthead ^þ 02:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually researched that specific one within Wikipedia, and without, and understand it now. What could be done in this case is say that Trastavere's root meaning is beyond the Tiber. But to do this to all of them would involve a major undertaking if anyone's willing. Lighthead ^þ 02:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak points of explanations

Some explanations of the motto's concerning the popes of 12th centuries are based on unfounded statements:

1. Pope Alexander III was NOT a member of the family of Paparoni. He may have been Bandinelli but this is also uncertain. The author of the article atributed to him both these surnames without providing any source or evidence. About the origins of Alexander III see:

• Werner Maleczek: Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216, Vienna 1984, p. 233 note 168
• M. Pacaut: Alexandre III, Paris 1956, pp. 52 ff.

2. Pope Eugene III also was not a member of the family Paganelli Montemagno. This familiar denomination appears only in the accounts from 15-16th century and contradict the earlier testimonies that Bernard was a man of humble origins, not of aristocratic family. See:

• Johannes M. Brixius: Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130-1181 Berlin 1912, p. 86
• http://www.cantieresanbernardo.it/files/Bernardo_di_Chiaravalle.html#_ftnref44

3. Hungarian origins of Antipope Callixtus III are also not proven. He was abbot of Struma nar Arezzo in Italy cfr.

• Johannes M. Brixius: Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130-1181 Berlin 1912, p. 68-69
• Hermann Reuter: Geschichte Alexanders des Dritten und der Kirche seiner Zeit, vol. 3, B.G. Teubner, 1864, p. 6 note 6

CarlosPn (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pope Pius XII (Pastor Angelicus) Interpretation

The motto means "an angelic shepherd". There are only two occasions historically concludable from the Bible that Christ would send His angel to prepare His way. If, proceeding only from the standpoint of an internal flaw in the Wikipedia policy, and in full knowledge of Christ hiding His angel, what is the consensus of including the interpretation of "Angelic Shepherd" to include the fact that during the primacy of Pius XII the second appearance of Christ's angel began to occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Palamar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarcisio Bertone Evasio Pietro, born in Romano Canavese

the current Chamberlain is Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone Evasio Pietro, born in 1934 in Romano Canavese. The strange coincidence that in his full name there's Peter and the word contained in his place of birth there is the word Roman. He is the substitute of the Pope and some people believe that he's Petrus Romanus. See italian version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.195.199 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrlink92, 28 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 267-th pope, Benedict XVI was born in 1927, and there is a mistake with that formulation(born 2005), please edit.

Mrlink92 (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Done He does look a little old to be celebrating his 6th birthday next year. Fixed; thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Authenticity and Skepticism Section is a POV Violation

This section paints a really biased picture for the authenticity of this prophecy. I'm going to put up a tag above the "erroneous claims" part. SteelIron^Talk 06:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That whole section should be removed or rewritten to show who is saying what.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is clearly original research. I will remove it, someone who disagrees may discuss it here. SteelIron^Talk 00:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrection Detected

I today removed the following passage from the article:

"During John Paul II's funeral Mass, with a large delegation of bishops from the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches present, Cardinal Ratzinger, the celebrant, in the portion of the Eucharistic Prayer where the union of the Church with its bishops, priests and faithful is invoked, inserted a special mention of the Orthodox bishops present. This was an extraordinary innovation, considering Rome regards these bishops as schismatic."

This passage is, quite simply, wrong. During Pope John Paul II´s funeral, the Eucharistic Prayer I (a.k.a. Roman Canon), was used. It was recited in its original (Latin) version. No word in the official text of the Canon was changed, and it was recited in the exact words that can be found in the official Latin version of the Missale Romanum.

The the word "orthodox" does appear in the text, but it is not an addition by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. It is part of a phrase that has been present in the text of the Roman Canon for centuries.

The same text can also be found in the Missal of Pope St. Pius V (a.k.a Tridentine Missal -- issued after the Council of Trent). When the present form of the rite of the Mass was adopted by Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the text of the ancient Roman Canon, that was the only possible Eucharistic Prayer prescribed by the Tridentine Missal, was retained as one of the options in the new rite, and was numbered as Eucharistic Prayer I.

The text of the passage in question reads:

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas et benedicas + haec dona haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

The reference to the local Bishop (et Antistite nostro N.), was ommited because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and the reference to the Pope (famulo tuo Papa nostro N.) was also ommited because there was no living Pope.

This paragraph of the prayer begs God to accept and bless the offerings, which are offered for His Catholic Church -- praying also that He may grant to pacify, guard and rule the Church -- in unity with His servant our Pope N. with our Bishop N., and also with all the worshipers (cultoribus) of the orthodox, catholic and apostolic faith (orthodoxis atquue catholicae et apostolicae fidei).

Thus, the word orthodox here is not used as a reference to the "Orthodox Christians", who are schismatics. The word is used in its literal sense, meaning correct, true, and is used as an adjective of the Faith. But the reference is to one faith only, the faith of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, the mention, by the celebrant of the Mass, of the word "orthodox", was not an innovation.

To hear the Latin version may have surprised people from the English speaking countries, but that is due to the fact that the very poor and liberal translation of the Missal to the English language --- perhaps in an effort to avoid this kind of confusion --- fails to translate the word orthodoxis (as well as some of the other words) and states: We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles."

Small removal

Removed a non-fact: "A booklet containing the Papal Prophecies written in the 1950s is the only evidence of a Petrus Romanus." This was clearly false, as older documents mention the prophecy of Petrus Romanus.

Unofficial position of the Church

For those wondering, here is how the Church views the Prophecy of the Popes:

1. Since the Church believes superstition is a sin, and the prophecy includes a number of superstitions (Pope reigning on a half-full moon, shooting star on coat being light in the sky, etc.), the prophecy can't be authentic, because God doesn't sin.

2. Since the Church believes Divine Revelation is unrepeatable ( and Saint Peter is a part of Divine Revelation), and the prophecy claims a second Peter will reign, the prophecy can't be authentic, because God won't repeat Divine Revelation.

3. Since the Church believes the Second Coming is unknowable and unknown, and the prophecy includes a countdown to the end of the world (via the reign of the Antichrist), the prophecy can't be authentic, because it contradicts Dogma.

Oct13 (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)