Talk:Prophecy of the Popes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re-Interpretation

I have studied Pope Paul IV and I believe there is a different connection between him and the prophecy. I am just asking that you consider this possibility. This Pope was known for his firm stance against birth control and his support of celibacy. A baby is much like a flower- natural, a source of joy to others and needing sunlight to grow. Sunlight, which a baby cannot get until it is out of the womb. Perhaps the prophecy could mean that this Pope, by oppposing birth control, is giving joy to these babies, by helping to give them light. Popes were influential, he could very well have influenced people to let these births occur. If a baby is a flower, he is like a flower to flowers- like what the prophecy states. If this appears inaccurate or incorrect, simply don't put it in. I won't be offended. 211.28.125.161 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with your interpretation of Paul VI. In my opinion, this is the real intention of the prophecy. --Bachmai (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is Paul VI (Giovanni Montini, Pope 1963-1978) - the 'V' and the 'I' have obviously been switched around by mistake. 86.162.49.88 (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that these are opinions given by WP editors over the meaning of the text being discussed? it absolutely doesnt matter what your opinions are (or mine). all that matters is whether reliable sources have discussed such theories. if your opinions spur you to research what others have said, including flying your davinci airplane to the vatican to do research, and lead you to find documents accessible to the public which show your ideas have been discussed before, great, mr hanks. otherwise, please dont speculate here.50.193.19.66 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Vatican

What is the Vatican's standpoint on the prophecy? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search of "site:.va malachy prophesy" and came up with:

BICENTENARY OF THE BIRTH OF LEO XIII

Lumen in caelo (light in the sky) is the motto which summarizes St. Malachy’s prophetic vision regarding the pontificate of Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci (Leo XIII), the bicentenary of whose birth is marked this year.

A reference to the Prophecy of the Pope, but without endorsement.

AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII

14. And thenceforth, the Apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, began to lift to heaven that "clean oblation" foretold by Malachy, through which the name of God is great among the gentiles.

57. ..."The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth," said the Holy Spirit in the Prophecy of Malachy.

Two references to, and endorsement of, Malachi 1:11 and 2:7.

1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of hosts.

2:7 For the lips of the priests shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.

Oct13 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

'Glory of the Olive'

Reference to Pope Benedict 'Glory of the Olive' can also be explained (perhaps?) by his birthplace in Marktl.

The town's coat of arms includes capers (small olives) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.31.121.84 (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Capers aren't olives. They're related to mustard, cabbage and papayas - i.e. Brassicales. Grover (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Olives in Bible- the Jewish people are referred to many times as Olive Tree/Branch of the Olive in the Bible and so would be taken

to mean a Jewish person as Pope Benedictus SVI happens to be .. and so the glory of the olive simply means a Jewish person/pope. See e.g. Romans 11:17 /s whodan haydadjr 68.195.88.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

One other reference could be the significant number of times Benedict has reached out an offer of recconciliation to the many splintered groups within the Catholic Church and to other Faith Communities in the wider Christian Community. Such actions could be considered to be "offering an olive branch" examples include:

Anglicanism: with the formation of the Ordinariate Lutheranism: With the Joint Statement on the doctrine of Salvation Orthodox Church: Detailed negotiations SSPX: lifted excommunications on thier bishops and invited them to return to full communion with Rome without doing research I can only think of these right now but there are more.

Anruari (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Originally only 111 popes. 112 was added later

"The problem with the prophecies as listed in The Prophecies of St. Malachy, published by the Thomas A. Nelson, a Catholic Publishing House, is that Malachy's original works listed only 111 Popes, not 112, as given in the TAN version of the prophecies. Sometime between the first and subsequent printings the 112th, Petrus Romanus, was added to Malachy's prophecy. It was added after the 1820 publication of the prophecies." - http://www.bibleprobe.com/last10popes.htm 50.47.132.26 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Untrue. The 1595 edition by Arnold Wion has "Petrus Romanus" in it right where it's supposed to be, see highlighted:<ref>http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/context/bsb10160249_00001.html?context=petrus+romanus&action=Finden%21&contextSort=score%2Cdescending&contextRows=10&contextType=scan</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.20.29 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Listings of the prophecy

Would this better be in wikisource, and not listed here? It makes the article unusable. Even if it goes here, assigning the popes to the prophecy the way it is listed here is original research. WP:NOR Dominick ^(TALK) 13:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree here.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Prophecy

It is very simple. 3 Universities in the US a few years ago has discussed the prophecies, based en many datas and arguments.

Their conclusions was very simple: prophecies doesen´t exists

carlos jacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.104.162.64 (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And if 3 US University Departments of Parapsychology discussed the matter and concluded that prophecy did exist, I would remain thoroughly skeptical, and I expect so would you. So I feel perfectly entitled to remain skeptical when 3 other US University Departments reach a different conclusion (and I say this even though I remain almost certain that the prophesies were not produced by Malachy). For instance, should it amuse some sufficiently powerful Great Joker in the Sky to make some or all of these seemingly forged prophesies come true, then presumably they will come true. Of course I have no way of proving that any such Great Joker does or doesn't exist, though the apparent absurdity of this crazy world often makes it rather hard for me to imagine some plausible alternative explanation :) But one thing that would surprise me would be that anybody in any of your 3 University departments had given any thought whatsoever to the Great Joker possibility, or any of dozens of simlar alternative explanations, so that's just one of several reasons why I think I'll just have to continue to take their assertions with a large pinch of salt. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny joke

I'm reading and reading and reading this fantastic revelation only to realize in the end of the article that it's probably all a forgery from the 16th entury that have been succesively appended to fit the past. Funny joke indeed, but not encyclopedic. Shouldn't there be at least a little tiny-puny little hint in the lead, about this? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, and FWIW, the article seems to have been hijacked and locked by the pseudo-skeptic lobby, alright. 186.204.107.129 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation

What I find particularly worrying about this article is that the interpretation of the titles supposedly ascribed by Malachy seems to be original research. People are literally guessing at what the titles might mean. Most of it seems incredibly tenuous. I would like to see the interpretations removed unless they can be referenced to a respectable source. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post exactly the same. I'm surprised there isn't more about this on this Talk page. There's virtually no sourcing for the "interpretations". It looks like one big WP:ORFarm. Horrendous. DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely. I remember coming across this type of thing in a Reader's Digest book called Mysteries of the Unexplained (ISBN 9780895771469), and it had this topic listed. (I did a little checking on Google Books, since the book itself is back with my parents; it's listed on page 16, with a source called Predictions by a Joe Fisher attributed to it.) --JB Adder | Talk 15:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have that book. It says that this "prophecy" was "erroneously attributed" as from Malachy. It further states that it was first published in 1595, and calls it a "forgery." And yes, it is on Pg. 16 of the book. The book ISBN is 0-89577-146-2. --174.103.114.44 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with getting rid of interpretations here.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"destruction of Rome OR Jerusalem"

The prophecy only mentions a city of seven hills, so there is no way to tell if it is talking about Rome or Jerusalem. Opening sentence should mention the seven hills and "Rome or Jerusalem" instead of Rome only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.20.29 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Or any of these cities. Probably best to just assume it means Rome than to list sixty cities. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, it is Rome or Jerusalem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.20.29 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Any source saying it might mean Jerusalem? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Cleanup - Deleting the Tables

This article has been tagged with significant issues for several years. I'd suggest that a good start would be deleting the entirety of both tables, which are a combination of overlong source material and unencyclopedic original research (it's hard to get less encyclopedic than purporting to interpret prophecy). With the tables gone, I think the task of addressing the cleanup issues will be much more manageable.--Trystan (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree here.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation - the case for WP:IAR

I suggest WP:IAR applies here (ignore all rules if it helps improve Wikipedia). There are probably no 'respectable' or 'reliable' sources for 'interpretation'. So you could scrap the interpretations entirely, but, at least in my view, that would disimprove the article, by depriving an interested reader of possibly the only worthwhile alternative to all the unreliable and false claims on the Internet. Also, that would at least arguably be a major violation of WP:NPOV, arguably imposing a pseudo-skeptic perspective on everybody else, here in Wikipedia, and leaving no non-pseudo-skepic alternative to all the wild Doomsday claims unleashed on the Internet by Benedict resigning in favour of the 'prophesied last Pope'.

Instead you can allow stuff that inevitably looks like original research (often it isn't really original research, it's repeating a claim found elsewhere on the Internet, typically from an unquotable 'disreputable' or 'unreliable' source'), provided the reported facts seem relevant to support or refute the alleged 'prophecy', and ideally are adequately documented (with citations and/or with links to relevant decent Wiki articles), with false claims being deleted, and uncertain claims being flagged with 'citation needed'. That's basically what I've done by modifying where appropriate the interpretations for the Popes since John XXIII - the interpretations were all already there, except for the Olivetans bit for Benedict XVI, which I added as accurately as I could, because it's already found inaccurately in many places on the Internet.

What I think should be removed at present are many facts that are clearly true but seem simply irrelevant to the particular 'prophecy'.

Exampe 1: 261 105 Intrepid faith Pius XI (1922–1939) Established Vatican City as a sovereign country with the papal office as head of state.
I think this interpretation should go because it's true but seemingly irrelevant to the 'Intrepid Faith' Prophecy.

Example 2:: 260 104 Religion destroyed Benedict XV (1914–1922) Reigned during, but had no influence to stop, World War I. This unprecedented period of violence was mainly fought between the Christian powers of Europe, destroying empires which had lasted centuries and began the worldwide spread of atheistic Communism.
I think the atheistic Communism stuff is relevant to the 'prophecy' of 'Religion destroyed' and should stay (and be improved with rewording and links), while the World War One stuff seems irrelevant and should go.

But I'd rather hear some feedback before making those deletions. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that IAR applies. This article needs the rules applied more than most - it always makes me cringe every time I look at it, but unfortunately don't have enough interest in it to observe WP:SOFIXIT. Whilst I agree that by their nature it's difficult to find WP:RS for the interpretations it's not impossible and we shouldn't give up on it. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that some of them not only look like WP:OR that's what they literally are. Sources do exist eg this one. Although only a few are covered here, some conflict with what's in the article. The other thing is that the list needs to make a clear distinction between pre- and post- 1590s i.e. when it was thought to have been written. The "predictions" prior to that date are obviously correct. Btw, the fact that is universally thought to be a forgery from that date doesn't come out very clearly in the article.

On the specific proposal to remove clearly irrelevant interpretations, then I think that has to be right. DeCausa (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your extremely valuable link. I may get back to you about some of your other points later. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Both your source (for which thanks again) and the Catholic Encyclopedia are far more nuanced about whether it is a forgery than you are, and I've had to tone down my own previous criticism in the article to reflect this. I have left somebody else's stronger criticism in the Interpretation section, with the 'citation needed' that I had on it before I got your link, in the expectation that the requisite confirmatory citation would be quickly forthcoming (but now I'm not so sure it will be, as your link suggests it may eventually have to be toned down a bit, with 'almost all' perhaps changed to 'many' or even just 'some' (the word used in your link), etc). Your link is excellent, but is nevertheless seemingly surpassed by the editor who seemingly correctly mentioned 3 fleurs-de-lys on Paul VI's coat of arms (your link only mentions one). Its comment about John Paul II's connection to the sun being forced now seems somewhat overtaken by events. All of which leaves me inclined to be very cautious about deleting other people's work - so far much of what I as a sceptic had expected to be wrong has turned out to be right (and none of it has yet turned out to be clearly wrong so far), while stuff that I as a sceptic had assumed to be right has sometimes turned out to be questionable. Anyway I've done as much as I want today, and I'm not sure whether I'll be back to this article any time soon. All the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I suspect many of these theories come from here, as it's the first relevant site that comes up on Google after Wiki. That's why I say much of it is probably not 'original research' but comes from a source which looks none too reputable or reliable (the list of 'Jewish' Popes there doesn't help its repute, etc). But it may well be getting its info from less disreputable places (after all quite a lot of it is the same as your link).I'm not sure what implications that has, if any. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Prophecy/Prophecies/Prophesy/Prophesies

They appear to be a list of prophecies, rather than a prophecy. I don't care how you spell it, but it should be consistent, in spelling and form, throughout the article. Anybody have a preference? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources themselves seem to waver between calling it a prophecy and several prophecies. I've tried to stick to the latter, and with the c spelling.--Trystan (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of individual preference. The noun is "prophecy" (sing.), "prophecies" (pl.). The verb is "to prophesy"; present tense 3rd person sing. is "he/she prophesies"; past tense "I/you/he/we/they prophesied". It doesn't take a crystal ball to get these right; a dictionary suffices. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd figured the "s" spelling was a British thing. Thanks for clearing that up. I've pluralized "prophecy", except where used in a title. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it me or there has been some serious vandalism on this page? A big part of the list is not showing anymore. I propose reverting this article to At least "21:30, 7 February 2013" (before the pope announce he was stepping down from the job) and BLOCK the article to all users. Too many changes were made and a lot of information was lost probably due to not-well-informed editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator.w3 (talk • contribs)

That would not be a good idea. All that is at issue at present is a single deletion of 19,000 characters which is the subject of ongoing discussion in the previous section, and which is the only thing that needs reverting (assuming it does need reverting, which is being discussed). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest that this would not be a good idea. I spent several hours yesterday going through the article adding properly-cited reliable sources and making sure our text is supported by them, covering all parts of the article outside of the table. There is no sense undoing that work, and the good work of other editors over the past few days, over a dispute about the table.--Trystan (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i do understand that. My suggestion was just to avoid that important information would get removed because of the recent attention the prophecy gained again. Since i didn't know exactly what info was credible (and lack the time to check it) i decided to make the suggestion to send it to a date it should be OK (this has not been very active before pope's announcement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator.w3 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Position of the Roman Catholic Church

The following line was readded recently; I've removed it again: "The Roman Catholic Church denounces the alleged prophecies as both forgery and postdiction, while the topic continues to be a part of papal hysteria and conspiracy theories, often fueled by Anti-Catholic sentiments." We don't have a reliable source stating the Church's position on the prophecies, or that they are related to anti-Catholicism. As someone noted above, "St. Malachy’s prophetic vision" is quoted with seeming approval in at least one place on the Vatican's website. Without some definitive statement, we can't speak for the Catholic Church, or synthesize an argument about what we think their position would be.--Trystan (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this has just been added back again by LimosaCorel (talk · contribs). There is now a citation, but not one that supports the text as added. There is also now original research synthesizing an argument that the Church couldn't possible support the prophecy based on citations to the Bible.

The article from HuffPo added as a source is a good one, and we can use it, but we need to actually read what it says and reflect that. We can't shoehorn it into supporting text that it simply doesn't support, and it doesn't say anything about official church condemnation, postdiction, or Anti-Catholicism. Based on the HuffPo article, I would suggest we say: "The Catholic Church does not put any credence in this prophecy."

In this vein, we could also change "academic historians" in the lead to "Catholic historians", as all of the historians we cite or discuss(O'Brien, Feijóo, Moréri) are, I believe, members of Catholic clergy. That also accords with the HuffPo article, which states "Reputable church historians and clerics have considered it a forgery."--Trystan (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

References

You are one hair away from falling for these conspiracy theories. They are not real, they are horoscopes and any priest or bishop, who are the authoritative speakers for God and the Holy Mother Church will tell you just that.

Jesus Christ, as believed by the Catholic Church promised self-sustenance against destruction, this is supported by Catholic dogma ex cathedrae. Splitting hairs does not solve the problem. We have given many oppurtunities for these doomsayers to share their input, but the Catholic Church remains firm on this hocus pocus boogeyman crap. LimosaCorel (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay... Well, I don't normally find it constructive, as a Wikipedian, to discuss my personal views, but I can absolutely assure you that I am in absolutely no danger of "falling for these conspiracy theories." Rest assured on that point. :-)

However, requiring that the article be neutral and reliably sourced is not "splitting hairs". Everything we say needs to be verifiable. As I said above, there is a lot we can say, such as that Catholic historians largely dismiss the prophecy. The HuffPo article can even be used to say the Church as a body doesn't give it credence, but the text keep adding, passionately as you may believe it, isn't supported by any source you have yet provided.--Trystan (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Further edits

Right, so the lead now reads that the prophecies were first presented by Cucherat and then published by Wyon in 1595. Cucherat wrote about the prophecies in the 1870s. I really shouldn't revert LimosaCorel (talk · contribs) any more, lest it verge on edit warring, but if anyone else would like to fix that glaring error, or any of the other unsourced and improperly sourced content that has recently been added, it would be appreciated.--Trystan (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation of Sources

Sources Used in Article

Author	Year	Title	Reliability (w.r.t. verifiable facts)	Approach to Prophecy	Notes
Allan	2009	Prophecies: 4,000 years of prophets, visionaries and predictions	Low	Mixed	Brief discussion of the prophecy in a non-scholarly, unreferenced work. Factual errors evident (e.g. birthplace of Copernicus).
Bander	1969	The Prophecies of St. Malachy	High	Accepting	Scholarly work by notable Cambridge lecturer examining prophecies in detail.
Bruno	2010	Hell . . . If I Know	Very Low	Accepting	Self-published, unreferenced, glaring factual errors.
Feijóo y Montenegro	1724-1739	Teatro crítico universal	High	Critical	Scholarly work by notable Benedictine historian.
Gurugé	2010	The Next Pope	Low	Critical	Brief overview of the prophecy in a self-published work with some references.
O'Brien	1880	An historical and critical account of the so-called Prophecy of St. Malachy, regarding the succession of the popes	High	Critical	Scholarly, referenced work examining prophecies in detail.
Catholic Encyclopedia	1913	"Prophecy"	High	Accepting	Brief overview of the prophecy with references. Note: Not an official publication of the Catholic Church.
Sieczkowski	2013	St. Malachy Last Pope Prophecy: What Theologians Think About 12th-Century Prediction (HuffPo)	Mid	Critical	News article.

I've created this table for myself and other editors to assist in keeping track of and evaluating the sources we have in this article. We should keep WP:RS and WP:UNDUE in mind in terms of the how and how much we use each source.

Both self-published sources (Bruno and Gurugé) need to be treated with extreme care and used very sparingly. In particular, in the prose portion of the article, I don't think we should mention or cite Bruno at all. There's no need to bring up a self-published, non-notable work by a non-notable individual only to demonstrate that it is completely unreliable.--Trystan (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is quite interesting in itself. I haven't looked at the assessmments themselves, but it makes me think that maybe the article could have a short section on sources, particularly those that have put forward "explanations". It would help to put those explanations in context DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No, self-published sources should not be used sparingly, they should not be used at all. I have removed Bruno and Gurugé. StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not quite true per WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:ABOUTSELF. It may be that Bruno and Gurugé don't meet the citeria included in either of those policies (I don't know I haven't looked into it) but it's wrong to say that self-published sources "should not be used at all". DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant, of course, that these self-published sources should not be used at all in this article. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I definitely have no argument with getting rid of them entirely.--Trystan (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know where you get your assessments from, but I have little reason to doubt them, except that I didn't see the Catholic Encyclopedia as being 'accepting' ('mixed' seems far more accurate to me), while my impression of Allan (from the bits I could see online) was that he was not 'mixed' but a sceptic who occasionally conceded a few unimportant points to the other side for the sake of appearing fair-minded (but I could be wrong as I've only seen a few bits). I originally used him because I was given him as a reliable source by DeCausa, but I have to accept that he doesn't qualify as an RS by recommended Wiki standards, and so all references to him should presumably be deleted (though everything he says is demonstrably correct except where he's being skeptical, apart from the trivial detail that he should give Pauk VI 3 fleur-de-lys instead of one).

The consequences seem to be that we have no 'reliable sources' after 1969 (with the possible exception of Martin because he's not yet on your list, but I'm almost certain he'll fail as well). Therefore everything after Paul VI presumably has to go - not because it's wrong (some of it is, but much of it is self-evidently correct), not because it's original research (it's all out there on the Internet and known to thousands or perhaps millions, albeit in totally unreliable formats, where it's impossible to distinguish fact from rubbish), but because it's a subject which almost no scholars take any interest in. That's basically why I originally said it was a case for WP:IAR, and presumably why DeCausa originally suggested relaxing the RS requirements in some unspecified manner - I quote: 'If that's done, then I think there's a case for perhaps not being quite as stringent on whether the source is WP:RS or not as might otherwise be the case. DeCausa (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)' - but maybe I shouldn't be citing DeCausa, as he's not an RS :) It's partly also why I've suggested now splitting the article into a mainstream and a WP:FRINGE article, though presumably even in the fringe article we will still have a similar dispute over sources, always assuming we can agree on what views, if any, are 'notable' enough to deserve a fringe article. In any case, I will be doing no further work on the links until this gets cleared up (I may start an 'In Art, Literature, and Culture' section to mention Peter de Rosa's novel Pope Patrick, but that's a safer area where I hopefully won't get many hours of work reverted).

I suggest you simply delete everything in the table after Paul VI. And you should probably also delete everything after Pius X unless you happen to have a copy of Bander available and it happens to have the required info (I got one reference to him through him being quoted by someone else, but apart from that I haven't seen what he says online). You can put in the Catholic Encyclopedia stuff about the Cross of Savoy (two Popes before Pius X), but then for consistency you should also include the meaningless arse-licking 'interpretations' they put in about Pius X and Leo XIII. They're self-evident crap, but from a 'reliable' source (which 'reliably' tells us in a suitably scholarly fashion that Jesus was born from a Virgin and performed miracles and rose from the dead, and so on ad infinitum) so it can (and arguably 'must') be included, whereas the demonstrable truth (such as that John Paul II was born and buried on the day of a solar eclipse) cannot be included because it's pointed out by perhaps a dozen demonstrably correct but 'unreliable' sources on the Internet (and one or two in print) - I thought that was supposed to be the reason why we had WP:IAR - how silly of me.

Bruno seemingly cannot be included either, even under the heading 'minority and fringe views', because it turns out he's self-published, even though he may well be the only person who actually articulates a possible reason why we got 760,000 hits this week (and perhaps why this topic is of any interest at all) - that because of the apparent hits in recent times, many people fear the doomsday part of the prophesy may be right regardless of whether it was written by Malachy or not. He also has his facts wrong about Benedict, though it would not be hard to reword them into two weak but correct Olive links, which we (perhaps rightly) are not allowed do; and, give or take a trivial detail or two, he seems basically right about the other Papal links, quite likely unlike the mainstream.

The net effect of all this will presumably be that there will be no place on the Internet where people can easily find factually reliable info about the prophesies. But there doesn't seem to be much more that I can do about that, and I reckon I've already wasted too much of my time on this subject through foolishly suffering from the delusion that WP:IAR, supposedly one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, actually meant something, and that Wikipedia was meant to be, as repeatedly proclaimed by Jimmy Wales, about providing people with access to knowledge (which I foolishly imagined to mean the demonstrable truth rather than evasions and falsehoods backed up by scholarly authority - I thought that was what we were supposed to have left behind with the Middle Ages) instead of preventing them from accessing it. So I'm giving up, at least until I have some reason to think I won't just be wasting more of my time, but I don't expect such a reason is particularly likely to be forthcoming. Anyway, best of luck to all of you. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, why aren't some of you supporters of all Wikipedia rules (with the seeming exception of WP:IAR) busily trying to shut down List_of_papabili_in_the_2013_papal_conclave, a tissue of speculation (some of it utterly implausible, since it includes two cardinals over 80 and thus too old to vote) that violates a huge number of Wikipedia rules (most of them listed on its talk pages)? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Afterthought: Since it is felt undesirable to go through the next stage of dispute resolution procedures because it would take too long, maybe somebody should contact someone like Wikipedia Founder User:Jimbo Wales to ask him to appoint somebody to sort things out quickly. Wales's user page normally tells people to go through dispute resolution procedures, but perhaps this is an exception given that it seems to be agreed normal procedures will take too long. I'd contact him myself, except that I'm no longer interested and don't want to get involved. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation issues

Pope #247 is described by "Animal Rurale".

The interpretation says: "Might be a play on words because of his famous laws about missions in the two papal bulls'".

It might be noted that in Latin, Papal bull is refereed as "Bulla apostolica". The word "bulla" has absolutely no allusion to animal. This interpretation is only valid for English speaking people, so it should be removed.80.22.192.23 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I've deleted it. It's either particularly silly WP:OR or it's just a hoax. DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How can we spell out that, once translation is corrected, there is no Petrus Romanus 'prophecy'?

The previous section makes clear that, once the correct translation is in place, all we are told is that the last Pope will reign some time in the next zillion years - in other words nothing is predicted, at least regarding the last Pope (as distinct from a preceding time of persecution, which incidentally may be 'last persecution' and not necessarily 'extreme persecution' - arguably the Church is already (mildly) 'persecuted' by being ridiculed, etc). And a prophecy that predicts nothing is simply not a prophecy. Does anybody know how we can spell this out without being guilty of OR, etc? Also, do we need to check the wording to eliminate expressions like 'the Peter The Roman Prophecy'? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true - it seemingly does make a prediction - that the next Pope will NOT be Peter the Roman. And probably not the one after that. And possibly a zillion more. The point is it 'predicts' the last (or perhaps extreme) persecutium between Gloria Olivae and Petrus Romanus. That requires at least one Pope. And probably at least two (because if there was only one why not give him a standard label?). And of course there's no limit to how many such popes there may be (nor does it even say who gets persecuted and who does the persecuting - in theory, it could even be persecution by the Church, though that seems an implausible interpretation). And since extrema can mean last instead of extreme, the 'persecution' could often or always be as mild as the criticism and ridicule the Church suffers today, so it's not making any clear prediction there either. So even if the prophecies were true, there doesn't seem to necessarily be anything there to be unduly worried about. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see here which is probably inescapable is that it is all OR, we would have to find a RS that states that. For all we know you could be right though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what we say now? "In the Lignum Vitae, the line "In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit." forms a separate sentence and paragraph of its own. While often read as part of the "Peter the Roman" prophecy, other interpreters view it as a separate, incomplete sentence explicitly referring to additional popes between "glory of the olive" and "Peter the Roman"." I'm not clear on what you are suggesting we change.--Trystan (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a seemingly clear mistranslation, found in two places (the table and the Petrus Romanus section) which at least appears to be significantly contributing to a worldwide Doomsday scare, in which our mistranslation is being used by the media to say that the Prophesies predict the next Pope will be the last, when a correct translation would seemingly basically say the exact opposite - that the Prophecies actually seem to predict at least one (and probably at least two) next Popes, and quite possibly zillions of next Popes. There is also a second translation problem, that we are reporting a Prophesy that a period of 'extreme' persecution is about to start, when an alternative translation is the less scary 'last' persecution (which could easily be very mild and unfrightening, such as criticism and ridicule of the Church in the way we already have today, and need not even be persecution of the Church - though our mistranslation currently says it must be). Meanwhile so-called experts, like our 'reliable' source Church historian Father James Weiss on our 'reliable' HuffPo reference, at least appear to be basing their own arguments on our mistranslation (albeit in this instance using the mistranslation in a non-alarmist manner). And meanwhile we can't fix our mistranslation and everything that flows from it, because any correction will get reverted as OR (or as using a non-RS source from a blacklisted website). As a result, nothing has changed since I first reported the problem several hours ago. And, as you, Trystan, pointed out in a slightly different context a few days ago, bringing the matter through normal dispute resolution will probably freeze the mistranslantion and associated nonsense on our site for at least 30 days, thereby potentially further contributing to the worldwide Doomsday scare. Therefore I have decided, possibly mistakenly, that this matter is potentially so serious and urgent that it needs to be brought to the immediate attention of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, so I have now just posted a relevant note on his Talk page, in the hope that he can help bring about some sort of quick fix, or at least delegate the task to some high-ranking admin to do it for him. It may well be that I'm being unduly alarmist, but if so Jimmy Wales will presumably be well able to decide that for himself.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to bringing more eyes to this article. Though as I said above, I'm afraid that I am not clear on what your concern on this point is; the article and the sources you mention explicitly discuss the "many popes in between" interpretation.

Regarding the translation of "extrema", all of our sources say "final". I thought I had updated both translations in the article earlier, but missed one. They now both say "final".--Trystan (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1-Thanks for fixing the 'extreme' issue (well it's fixed at least for now - regretably we presumably have no RS to point out that the forger's persecution 'prophecy' need not be of the Church, and may be so mild as to be indistinguishable from the criticism and ridicule we already have now - this may conceivably have unfortunate consequences but probably won't, and I'm far too exhausted and disillusioned to even try to argue the point)

2-I will perhaps shortly post here a copy of my still ongoing discussion with Jimmy Wales (about which I'm not optimistic, as he was pretty dismissive in his initial reply), so that we have it here for reference when Wales archives it (as he frequently does). Meanwhile it's here. But part of what I say there is relevant to your questions here. Briefly I say in my second post (which he hasn't yet answered) that we have a mistranslation that helps fuel the ongoing worldwide scare and may lead to reputational damage for Wikipedia, as well as possibly leading to Wikipedia being sued for negligently causing mental health issues and suicides. I add that common sense (or any Latin Professor) should tell anybody looking at the alternatives (such as Wales if he bothers to look, or any juror if Wikipedia gets sued) that our current (mis)translation has to be wrong because it makes no sense, while my alternative makes sense and is backed by dictionary references, and at least one other online site, albeit not RS. I add that without his support the problem won't be fixed, because the existing mistranslation is allegedly backed by allegedly reliable sources, even though as far as I'm concerned the very fact of having this mistranslation makes them unreliable. I say that I think (but can't prove) that the purpose of the original mistranslation was to increase book sales (including sales of so-called reliable sources) because the mistranslation changes a Doomsday-who-knows-when non-prediction into a Doomsday-soon prophecy (for older sources) and a Doomsday-next-pope today (whereas the correct translation says Doomsday-who-knows-when-but-almost-certainly-NOT-next-Pope). Had I the time I would probably have added that a source that has the mistranslation is thus unreliable through either dishonesty or sloppy scholarship. I should perhaps also have added that another reason it won't be fixed without his support is because I'm too exhausted and disullusioned to carry on this fight much longer, and I doubt if anybody else will do it if I don't; I did point out that I'd wasted far too much of my time on it already and that Wikipedia is his baby not mine.Almost as an afterthought I added that there may be problems getting reliable sources to spell out the implications of the correct translations (I'm considering checking out sources in French, as I speak French, but I'm not sure I want to bother any more)

3-You say we already quote the 'reliable' sources as saying that there may be many intermediate Popes, and indeed we do. But first, there are several other problems with keeping our mistranslations (as already mentioned above), and second, the mistranslation hugely weakens the credibility of the claim that there may be intermediate Popes, and the mistranslation is apparently there for precisely that purpose - I should know: I think I was the first to post the Catholic Encyclopedia's claim to this effect (I was certainly the first to add it to the table), but as you can easily see from my previous Talk posts, I never for one moment took the claim as anything more than reassuring nonsense until I discovered the mistranslation (and even then I initially continued to assume it was reassuring nonsense, as I had discovered the mistranslation while investigating the clearly dodgy reassuring nonsense of the Huffpo 'expert' Father James Weiss that turned out to be based on the mistranslation (with '...' added, which is what made it look dodgy and caused me to take a closer look)). Incidentally the comment refers to it as being viewed as an incomplete sentence by those claiming intermediate Popes - but to anybody looking at it, it doesn't look incomplete, as it ends in a full stop (or 'period' in American English), and so on (and of course it isn't incomplete, just incorrectly translated) - the net (and presumably intended) effect is once again to incorrectly damage the credibility of the intermediate Popes idea (as those sources putting forward the mistranslation presumably intend) - but I could probably pointlessly go on like this all night, so I'll stop.

4-But unless you have any better ideas, I suggest we ignore the issue at least until if and when Jimmy Wales replies to my second post. All the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Below is the promised (see item 2 above) copy of the still ongoing conversation between me and Jimmy Wales (about which I'm not optimistic, as already mentioned), posted here so we have a copy when he archives it: (Tlhslobus (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

Our mistranslation, etc, seems to be contributing to a worldwide Doomsday scare, but we may need your authority to correct it

You can find some of the details at Talk:Prophecy_of_the_Popes#Mistranslation.2C_leading_to_misleading_commentary.2C_etc, Talk:Prophecy_of_the_Popes#A_possible_Fix.3F, and Talk:Prophecy_of_the_Popes#How_can_we_spell_out_that.2C_once_translation_is_corrected.2C_there_is_no_Petrus_Romanus_.27prophecy.27.3F. Below is a summary of the problem as I see it, which I'm also about to post there:

We have a seemingly clear mistranslation, found in two places (the table and the Petrus Romanus section) which at least appears to be significantly contributing to a worldwide Doomsday scare, in which our mistranslation is being used by the media to say that the Prophesies predict the next Pope will be the last, when a correct translation would seemingly basically say the exact opposite - that the Prophecies actually seem to predict at least one (and probably at least two) next Popes, and quite possibly zillions of next Popes. There is also a second translation problem, that we are reporting a Prophesy that a period of 'extreme' persecution is about to start, when an alternative translation is the less scary 'last' persecution (which could easily be very mild and unfrightening, such as criticism and ridicule of the Church in the way we already have today, and need not even be persecution of the Church - though our mistranslation currently says it must be). Meanwhile so-called experts, like our 'reliable' source Church historian Father James Weiss on our 'reliable' HuffPo reference, at least appear to be basing their own arguments on our mistranslation (albeit in this instance using the mistranslation in a non-alarmist manner). And meanwhile we can't fix our mistranslation and everything that flows from it, because any correction will get reverted as OR (or as using a non-RS source from a blacklisted website). As a result, nothing has changed since I first reported the problem several hours ago. And, as you, Trystan, pointed out in a slightly different context a few days ago, bringing the matter through normal dispute resolution will probably freeze the mistranslantion and associated nonsense on our site for at least 30 days, thereby potentially further contributing to the worldwide Doomsday scare. Therefore I have decided, possibly mistakenly, that this matter is potentially so serious and urgent that it needs to be brought to the immediate attention of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, so I have now just posted a relevant note on his Talk page, in the hope that he can help bring about some sort of quick fix, or at least delegate the task to some high-ranking admin to do it for him. It may well be that I'm being unduly alarmist, but if so Jimmy Wales will presumably be well able to decide that for himself.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need more eyes on the problem. It is unclear to me whether you are saying that we have an incorrect translation of our own making (original research), or whether the translation given in reliable sources is incorrect (according to whom?). I would say that a "worldwide Doomsday scare" is a bit overstating the situation, but then I have to say that I am personally pretty immune to worrying about "prophecy". :-) We certainly should try to make sure that we not repeat incorrect information from unreliable sources and that's particularly true if it is frightening people. (On the other hand, if reliable sources say things that frighten people, it's not our job to cover them up of course.)

As I know nothing about any of this, all I can state are general principles. It does sound quite interesting so I'm sure some good editors will jump in to study the situation and make sure the world is set right. :-) I mean, if nothing else, one of our unsung heroic jobs is to help prevent misinformation leading to worldwide panic. Someone has to do it, and we're here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So, Peter Turkson will be the next and last pope? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Old Roman saying: He who goes into a conclave as a Pope comes out as a Cardinal. It means the favourite usually loses (though Ratzinger beat that saying last time, so there may be hope for Turkson yet). But after checking out the various translations on Wiki Catalonia, I've decided the likeliest interpretation of the forger's 'prophecy' is that whoever wins will only be the second last Pope - though that's my 3rd different interpretation in 3 days, so I guess by tomorrow I'll be predicting the 3rd last Pope will be Jimbo Wales :) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That WOULD be an omen om strange times indeed! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Gråbergs: the world might then even become a marginally saner place, and that really would be strange and unprecedented times indeed :) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As I partly mentioned above I've checked out the Article on Wiki France, and the translations on Wiki Catalonia, and I've re-read Jimbo's reply, and decided to delete the foolishness that I'd written here earlier today, pending a re-think and possible new reply after I get up tomorrow. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation and mistranslation

These complaints about "mistranslation" are largely unfounded. There are four issues here: 1) "extrema", 2) "sedebit", 3) S.R.E., 4) the relationship of this sentence to others.

1) Latin extremus, the superlative of exter, means with reference to space "outermost", with reference to time "last". It's not ambiguous at all. Extrema persecutio means "last persecution", the final one in a series of persecutions. In a telling misquotation in the 1680 Acta Sanctorum [1], we read "In persecutione ultima," showing clearly that extrema was understood in the sense of last.

2) Sedebit is the 3rd person singular future active of the verb sedeo. The normal, uncolored meaning of this verb is "will sit". In the context of a discussion of an episcopal see, however, it almost certainly means "will keep the sedes, the see or seat of a bishop"; of which a more natural translation would be "reign". It does not mean "will remain" or "will persist" over time; that would be manebit or permanebit. Sedeo can only mean "remain" in the sense of "stay in one place without moving," which contextually does not make much sense.

3) S.R.E. certainly stands for Sacra Romana Ecclesia (Holy Roman Church), but since it is an abbreviation we do not directly see what case it is in; it could be construed as a genitive modifying persecutio, or as the subject of sedebit, but the last is less likely because one does not usually refer to a church as "sitting". At least, I would like to see evidence of a text which includes the word ecclesia as the subject of some form of sedeo.

4) Has been discussed already in this article, though unfortunately edits have obscured the point: the text as given does not clarify what the subject of sedebit is, though such grammatical indications as there are point to Petrus Romanus -- namely, that the clause beginning Petrus Romanus only contains the relative clause beginning qui pascet, and has no finite verb agreeing with the subject -- a grammatical necessity for any Latin sentence. That verb is most naturally supplied by going back to sedebit.

However, we do not need to depend upon our own analysis, because this text was repeatedly reprinted in the decades following its appearance, and many of the reprintings expanded the abbreviations and rearranged the paragraphs to show how the editors understood the flow and meaning of the sentence. For instance, in this edition in the 1662 Flosculi Historiarum [2], the text is unambiguously expanded as follows:

In perſecutione extremâ Sacræ Romanæ Eccleſiæ ſedebit Petrus Romanus, qui paſcet oves...

The same reading is to be found in the 1656 Chronologia Principum [3]

In the 1657 Lux Evangelica[4] we find, as a heading, In perſecutione extrema S. R. Eccleſiæ ſedebit.

The genitive ending -æ on Eccleſiæ ("of the church") shows, without question, that it is intended to modify persecutio and cannot be the subject of sedebit.

Other early printings retain the abbreviation S.R.E., but all run the last two paragraphs together, making Petrus Romanus the necessary subject of sedebit (Florilegium Insulæ Sanctorum, 1624 [5]; Commentaria in Acta Apostolorum, 1627 [6]; Vitis Florigera, 1639 [7]). Since what is really of interest in this article is the manner in which the prophecy has been received -- not in its truth or falsity -- it should at the very least be noted in what way the lines under dispute have been read from a very early period in their history. But, in fact, given the context, this is the only way in which a person of the time, who was familiar with Latin, could have read these sentences.RandomCritic (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Camerlengo and such

[[8]] This is not an appropriate time to add this to this article. There is no specific proof saying that the next pope will be the end pope and anyways we are not a news site reporting current news so this has no bearing on the current article and way it is presented. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I see the problem with adding this (except maybe the bolding of "Pietro" and "Romano"; no need to force the point). Whether or not the next pope will truly be the last, we can verify that the Petrus Romanus prophecy is the last in this list and appears after the "Glory of the Olive" one. Also verifiable that this Camerlengo (though not a pope) is "sitting in" as one, his middle name is Italian for Peter and he's from Romano. Given how this entire article involves assigning real people to prophetic mottos based on often flimsy circumstantial evidence and interpretation, it seems strange to ignore a much more explicit coincidence like this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The crucial distinction is that we report on how others have assigned real people to prophetic mottos based on flimsy evidence, insofar as can be verified by reliable sources. We don't synthesize such silliness ourselves.--Trystan (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's part of the reason I don't like the "nudge, nudge" bolding. To make the connection so explicitly is synthesis. But the Bertone info, if not attached to the table and unbolded, doesn't outright make the association. It just presents verified facts, and readers can jump to the conclusion they wish. Yes, there's a fine line between implying something through the way it's presented and stating it in words, and I can see how some may think this crosses that line. But I don't think it does. Anyway, here's [http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/final-pope-already-running-vatican/ a source] making the connection. I imagine it may be knocked down as a fringe site, but it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My rationale on why not to include it is that it doesn't matter who the Camerlengo is at this point as the entire bit is not related to the prophecy of the popes and will need to be removed within 2 weeks. It strikes me more of current event news and off subject reporting. I don't see who putting the camerlengo and conclave info does anything to actually improve the subjeect of this article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If we aren't stating (or at least implying) that proponents of the prophecy view this as a fulfillment of the prophecy, the information is not relevant. And to make that statement requires a reliable source indicating the idea has some non-trivial traction among proponents.

WND has been repeatedly brought up at WP:RSN and the consensus is that it is not a reliable source. This article in particular is highly problematic in that it makes several rather dubious claims about a living person.--Trystan (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

ſ = s

Böri (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

yes. Didn't notice that before. Oops. DeCausa (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible false "hits"

I'm still moving through the table pope by pope, butI thought it would be a good idea to take a closer look at the more remarkable "hits" that we record in the second table. At least two of them don't accord with our available reliable sources and seem highly dubious.--Trystan (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Clement XIV

The claim that this pope had a running bear on his family coat of arms seems quite unlikely. O'Brien, and all the papal historians through the centuries that he cites, mention no such thing, but instead say it has been a struggle for proponents to explain the prophecy. Bander notes that one source makes the claim without evidence. I've updated the text to try and capture this. It's possible that this claim was first based in a misreading of O'Brien, who discusses the bear as an armorial symbol generally.--Trystan (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This was put there by me because DeCausa had given me Tony Allan as a reliable source, and, knowing no better, I gratefully accepted this at the time. He clearly is no RS, as your review of sources itself seems to make clear. He was already wrong about John Paul II. Now he's wrong about Clement. He's unscholarly and without source notes if I remember your review right. Therefore he's not an RS, and you should get rid of every reference to him, and get rid of every table entry supported only by him if you are going to insist on the support of an RS source (as you almost certainly should in this main article, as distinct from some hypothetical fringe article, which almost certainly won't happen now, as the number of people interested in creating it dropped two days ago from one to zero (even though I still think in theory it ought to be created, but I'm just no longer interested)). Of course I also think Bander and O'Brien are non-RS because they (allegedly) carry the mistranslation (I am 100% certain it is a mistranslation, but I haven't actually seen any proof that they carry it), but that is presumably still in dispute.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Innocent XII

This one is really quite the conundrum. Neither O'Brien, writing in 1880, nor Bander, writing in 1969, gives this pope's name as Antonio Pignatelli del Rastrello, but just as Antonio Pignatelli. (Rastrello is Italian for rake, and the motto is "the rake in the door.") It would be truly remarkable if all the historians O'Brien drew from had missed what would be the single most obvious and accurate of the post-publication prophecies.

In a 1979 update to his work (which I only have snippet access to), Bander notes somewhat cryptically, "Mr. J.L. Todhunter informed me that his "Dictionary of the Popes" gives the name of Innocent XII as Pignatelli del Rastrello. If this name is correct, Malachy's legend would be an obvious reference to the pope's name." (It's worth noting here that Bander is, obviously, a believer in the prophecies, and tends to be rather accepting of connections that make them appear more accurate.)

However, the claim that this popes name was "del Rastrello" is repeated at the Innocent XII article, and throughout the Internet in (as far as i have found) unreliable sources. So we appear to have some comparatively unreliable 20th century sources which claim that this pope's name was "del Rastrello", and more reliable older ones which strongly imply that it was not. The explanation that seems the most plausible to me is that Rastrello was appended to the pope's name some time in the 20th century, and the false claim has gained traction since then. That's all speculation, though; it could be a series of remarkable coincidences. Any help on how to approach this in the article, or highly reliable sources confirming whether or not this was the pope's name, would be appreciated.--Trystan (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica's entry on Innocent XII gives his name as only Antonio Pignatelli. I'd say that is a pretty reliable source and an indication that "del Rastrello" was tagged on at a later date. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Even the reference given here to support the "del Rastrello" name gives his name as Antonio Pignatelli, and says his last name is "also listed" as del Rastrello, without saying where. Googling "Pignatelli del Rastrello", excluding "Innocent" and "Antonio", doesn't give much to suggest anyone else in history has had this name. The few results have to do with these prophecies. I'd say this is a dubious claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Ludwig von Pastor in History of the Popes vol. 32, as well as near-contemporary Lorenzo Cardella list him only as Antonio Pignatelli, without del Rastrello. Other false hits are also Lucius II and Eugene III. Modern scholars refuted the statements about their origins, see, for example, thei entries in DBI: [9], [10]. Similarly, Antipope Callixtus III was not cardinal bishop of Tusculum, but of Albano. CarlosPn (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a pass at updating Innocent XII, as well as the other popes you mention. I had meant to include the dubiousness expressed by both O'Brien and Bander regarding Callixtus' alleged title, but lost track of that detail in the effort to untangle them from each other.--Trystan (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added more references and pointed out another inaccuracy concerning Anastasius IV. The mottos in the prophecy clearly refer to the 16th century state of knowledge and imaginations concerning previous Popes CarlosPn (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

More specifically, according to O'Brien, they appear to be an exact match for Onofrio Panvinio's 1557 Epitome Romanorum pontificum, replicating the details of that work errors and all.--Trystan (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Epitome is available here, so we're able to compare it with the "prophecy" :) CarlosPn (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A source provided by Pinea (talk · contribs) was very helpful, as it gave the pope's name as "Pignatelli del Rastello", rather than "Rastrello" (both rastello and rastrello appear to be alternate spellings for the same word, as far as I can tell, with the former possibly being archaic). Using that as the search term, I was able to find some much earlier sources claiming that was this pope's name, though there still seems to be a question as to whether that claim is correct. It was made at least as early as the 1758 edition of de Vallemont's Les élements de l'histoire. Cucherat, writing in 1873, notes this claim made by de Vallemont, (though I'm not certain whether or not he agrees with it). I've update the article to try to capture this.--Trystan (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The pope belonged to a minor branch of the ancient and powerful Pignatelli family. This branch had the title of "counts of Spinazzola". It is my understanding, but I do not have reliable sources, that "del rastello" was a sort of nickname used to distinguish this branch from the other branches and based on the fact that their palace was very close to a "rastello" in the walls of Naples. I assume that it should be possible to find a reliable source to prove the location of the palace near the rastello (somebody in Naples must know today where this palace was). I read it somewhere (don't remember where, but possibly on the web). On the other hand it is probably very difficult to prove when the nickname started to be used, whether before or after the papacy of Innocent XII. The book of Vallemont is very close to those times and this gives credit to the hypothesis that the nickname is quite ancient and could be difficult to prove that it was not used before the papacy, as I would suppose. Pinea (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)