Talk:Prophecy of the Popes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

EDIT REQUEST

Please delete this biased opinion being stated as fact in the Interpretation section without any footnote to support the statement yet given as an example:

"For example, Pope Clement XIII is referred to in a prophecy as Rosa Umbriae (the rose of Umbria), but was not from Umbria nor had any but the most marginal connection with the region, having been briefly pontifical governor of Rieti, at the time part of Umbria."

Since when is being a "pontifical governor in Rieti, Umbria" concidered "the most marginal connection with the region"? "It is one of the smallest Italian regions and the only peninsular region that is landlocked."

Clement XIII (1758-69), certainly had conenctions with the government of the Italian state of Umbria and whose emblem was a rose, was called by Malachy Rosa Umbriae, the "Rose of Umbria."

Therefore, this is not "the most marginal connection" but rather amazingly accurate which clearly shows bias on the part of the aurthor to dismiss that facts for their own personal agenda of debunking the prophecy.

Saint Malachy even prophesied the precise date of his own death, and got it right. Whether someone chooses to believe it or not should not be allowed as undocumented examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozdawn (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You are definitely correct that that sentence is uncited as it stands; I had noticed it before but never addressed it. If we do remove that sentence, I would suggest we replace it with a similar, cited example demonstrating the general lack of connection between the post-publication mottos and historical popes. For example:

For example, Peter Bander, a proponent of the prophecies, notes that other proponents have tried "in vain" to find a plausible connection between ursus velox and Clement XIV, commenting, "This is again one of the instances where any interpretation would be purely guess work."

(The subsequent reference to Bander introducing his quote could then be simplified to simply, "Bander wrote in 1969:".)--Trystan (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there any Reliable Sources pointing out that many of these Prophecies can easily be self-fulfilling if the Cardinals and/or the Pope want to make them 'come true'? This applies to all the claims about Coats of Arms, and claims like 'Comes from X', and many others - the Cardinals presumably knew that Clement XIII had been "pontifical governor in Rieti, Umbria" before they elected him Pope, and the Prophecy writer presumably knew that the Rose was the emblem of Umbria.

Not sure of sources, but why would the Cardinals want to make the prophecies come true? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, before I get damned as just another pseudo-skeptic, let me mention that I'm not saying the pseudo-skeptics are right, but there just won't be any Reliable Sources for the really interesting papal coincidences, mainly because what's really interesting about them has very little to do with their mottos (although there are also non-self-fulfilling relatively minor coincidences that do connect to their mottos, but not enough to make a sensible person bat an eyelid given that a few hits are inevitable just by chance). But as there will be no Reliable Sources for the really interesting stuff, if I ever get to write it up on Wiki, the appropriate place for that is (multi-lingual) Wikinfo (and since almost nobody goes looking there I probably won't bother).

But anybody else who wants to write up their own ideas on the subject free from WP:RS and WP:NOR constraints should know that (multi-lingual) Wikinfo may be some sort of option for them, provided they don't mind probably only having a tiny audience for their idea, at least intially (but don't bother with English Wikinfo, which now seemingly only allows editing of existing articles). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have kept my eye out for sources discussing self-fulfillment, but haven't seen any. Proponents of the prophecy are obviously unlikely to admit this as a factor, and the skeptics tend to dismiss any plausible connections at all and downplay the extent to which the church hierarchy might give the prophecy any credence. Intuitively, this isn't too surprising, as many of the purported "hits" for the post-publication popes don't actually identify the pope at all, so could not have been the product of deliberate fulfillment. Mottos 97 and 104 aren't commonly related to the popes at all, but to other things that happened in the world at the time. Motto 82 would have been equally true of any pope elected at that conclave. It's plausible that someone could suggest that mottos 102, 107 and 108 influenced their respective conclaves, but I haven't seen anyone do so. They are instead dismissed as not-too-surprising random hits.

There is the medal that was made in Germany of Clement XI with his motto on it. But even the credulous reliable sources don't claim this was a fulfillment of the prophecy.--Trystan (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

st malachy list ends with pope ben

the list of st malacny ended with olive (bible uses olive branch or tree to mean jews many times as pope benedict is jewish he fits this prophecy) and someone later added peter the roman to the end of the list BUT that last addition was NEVER part of the list of st malachy... so that with that list ending with pope benedict 16, many thought that then would mean ,,,, with no more popes listed by st malachy , this MEANT THE 2ND COMING WOULD OCCUR ... AS THE LORD WOULD THEN BE THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, WITH NO FURTHER POPES NEEDED... so this implies that HERE already is the Lord already here ... but unknown !!!! except that the ramblings , yammerings e.g. of George W Bush who claims at one point to speak with the Lord / God , then can be understood to mean that Pres GW Bush was IN TOUCH with the Lord (here on earth and not via prayer is what he meant)... ... midy stone lowist branch ... @@68.195.88.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM (but it might get the prize for the craziest post here this week - and there's a lot of competition...)DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Prophecy fulfilled

The Prophecy fulfilled as follows:

1. "Glory of the olive" still resides/sits in Rome as Pope Emeritus, His Holiness, Benedict XVI.

2. The Church has been in a state of persecution and crisis with who knows how much more to come.

3. Pope Francis is "Peter the Roman" by virtue of the fact that he is the first Jesuit pope whose motto is based on the Benedictine motto of 1 Peter - in the same manner as "Glory of the olive" refers to the motto of Benedict.

4. St. Francis is considered the ultimate minder of the flock - it has been said that no one in history was as dedicated as Francis to imitate the life, and carry out the work of Christ, in Christ’s own way. He will "pasture his sheep in many tribulations".

5. Pope Benedict was the first pope to receive the Ring of St Peter after it was re-instated by John Paul II who did not wear the ring.

6. Contrary to traditional custom and belief, Benedict did not destroy his ring as he should have but instead simply "disabled the seal" so he could keep the ring.

7. Pope Francis will now wear the same ring as Pope Benedict enjoining them both to St Peter at the same time - something that has never happened in the history of the Church!

8. The prophecy of popes 111 and 112 are meant to be taken together and not separately as these events unfold.

9. Pope Benedict as Glory of the olive retired but is not gone and "there will sit - In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church."

10. Pope Francis as Peter the Roman was appointed to "pasture his sheep" in the many tribulations to come. The End. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozdawn (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a forum, but his explanation doesn't sound so far-fetched. I wonder. The good thing is, we will know very soon if the prophecy is true or not. It will happen in our lifetime (or not). 88.153.214.148 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Some people in here don´t grasp the most basic logic! "It will happen in our lifetime (or not)" lol! That is true for every proposition in the universe!!! --Againme (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, "far-fetched" is what I would, in fact, call it. Also, where's the link with Petrus Romanus? No. 3 in the "theory" above doesn't make sense. His own motto comes from St Bede and Matthew 9 (see this). Unless he means the Jesuit motto, but that (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam) comes from Loyola and neither it nor Ora et labora comes from Peter 1 (Does he mean Peter 1 because the word "glory" is used in it quite a bit!!! That's pretty desperate.) DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter the Roman

Can some one place this and remove the Argentinian Chap from the Prophecy which is not part of, and replace it with this information, and place his coat of arms. Any questions just e-mail me. --Gabirro (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Tarcisio Pietro Evasio Bertone was incharge of the Vatican from 28 February to 13 March 2013 thus the Prophesy of St Malachi is fulfilled. He was born in Romano Canavese a comune (municipality) in the Province of Turin in the Italian region Piedmont, located about 40 km northeast of Turin."

To add something about this, we would need a reliable source indicating that it is (or was briefly) viewed as a fulfillment of the prophecy by some significant number of proponents. It strikes me as unlikely that many would view it so, what with Rome not being destroyed and the world not coming to an end.--Trystan (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The prophecy doesn't actually say the world will end. But yes, sources are needed, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha, I´m still laughing... applause to Trystan for this answer! --Againme (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the general consensus that he would need to have actually been pope for the prophecy to be fulfilled? Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen from the last few threads, this article attracts editors who don't seem to get the basic principle that someone else besides themselves needs to have come up with the theory (and published it somewhere vaguely "reliable"!) before it can appear here. Oh well. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Againme DeCausa

Your Eminences and Excellencies in the Field Of Prophecy

The Prophecy list known as of Saint Malachy refers to the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church Tarcisio Pietro Evasio Bertone named Pietro and born in Romano, thus Peter the Roman.

Tarcisio Pietro Evasio Bertone, in the absence of a Pope was thus and in fact fulfilling in the Office of “Pope in Charge”, and now to some extent he Tarcisio Pietro Evasio Bertone along with another office in the Vatican hold more power than the actual Pope, thus his Office is of a more intricate and hands on job of power, than that of a Pope.

In relation to what is referred to the destruction of Rome and the Terrible Judge.

This part of the Prophecy is yet to come, and we are in the momentum of the early days of such events.

Best regards, Rui Alexander Pires Costa Galvao Gabirro Gabirro (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

“I known nothing or very, very little”

And has someone else thought of this idea and published it somewhere (and if so, where?) or is it just your own "revelation"? DeCausa (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa

Your Eminence and Excellency in the Field Of Prophecy

What revelation?

The first part is a FACT and the second part is still a PROPHECY.

Best regards, Rui Alexander Pires Costa Galvao Gabirro

“I known nothing or very, very little”

--94.4.83.104 (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking if what you typed is published anywhere or is it your own idea? Also, cut out the typographical "decoration" around your posts, which is disruptive. I've deleted it. DeCausa (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Next popes

• Just out of curiosity, do you intend to put the next popes into the table too ? Hektor (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think even Francis should be listed in the popes column. It's a bit silly to be matching any prophecies to actual post-publication popes to begin with, and is only justified by demonstrating that such a correspondence is commonly made by proponents, and there aren't any disputes about which pope goes with which motto up to Benedict XVI. But most of our sources, both skeptical and credulous of the prophecy, note that it is open to the interpretation that many popes could come between gloria olivae and Petrus Romanus.

To list Francis in that row of the table gives undue weight to one particular view put forth by a minority of proponents (with proponents themselves being in the minority), that Peter the Roman would be the immediate successor of Glory of the Olive. I would support going back to having the "Interpretations and Criticisms" cell span all three columns for that row. The text for that row as it currently is mentions both interpretations with appropriate weight.--Trystan (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There has been some press coverage (mainstream media that is) of how/whether Francis fits in to the prophecy. As far as I can see it's been mostly along the lines 'people have been trying to come up with theories but it's all very tenuous'. I think we do need to capture that in some way. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we do need to capture that in the article, and indeed in that very row of the table, but I think it's better to do it in a way that can be explained and qualified, rather than by simply listing Francis as corresponding to Petrus Romanus as if that was the dominant view of proponents. I think it would be more in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to have that row look like the following. Either that, or change the pope column to something like "Francis or unknown future pope, according to various interpretations."--Trystan (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

112.

Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End.

Most analyses of the prophecy note that it is open to the interpretation that additional popes would come between the "glory of the olive" and Peter the Roman. Popular speculation by some proponents of the prophecy attach this prediction to Benedict XVI's immediate successor. Since Francis' election as pope, proponents in internet forums have been striving to link him to the prophecy. Theories include a vague connection with Francis of Assisi, whose father was named Peter.

You're right, that would be more appropriate/NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Requesting the following to be added to the theory for Pope Francis. "Arguments in favor of this theory include Pope Francis' chosen papal ring, which depicts St Peter holding the keys to the Holy See, as well as the Pope's Italian descent"

Article about and image of papal ring:

SirAthos (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What's that got to do with this article? (A)The Telegraph article you cited makes no linkage with the Prophecy of the Popes so your theory is unsourced WP:OR (B) All popes' rings have depictions of St Peter, see Ring of the Fisherman, but even if this is not the Ring of the Fisherman, he's the successor of Peter according to the Catholic Church, and every Pope is going to have a ton of Peter-related paraphernalia and symbolism (C) "the Pope's Italian descent", er, so what? DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Italian descent" thing is meant to hint at the "Roman" part of Peter the Roman. But yeah, OR. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, should have explained more. Yes, the descent is a hint to the "Roman" part (I've read that the Pope's parents are actually from Rome, though further research to confirm it has been so far fruitless). As for the ring, I was under the impression that it's different from previous rings. (They always depict Peter fishing from a boat, but since they still display Peter, I can see the argument that the difference is not relevant). The article was simply quoted to show the current ring, not because it mentions the Prophecy of the Popes. SirAthos (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading WP:OR, yes, at least part of the initial statement can be regarded as OR. Mea culpa. SirAthos (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. If you're a new editor the Wikipedia alphabet soup of policies take a while to pick up on. I've "turned off" your edit request. Feel free to switch it on again if you want it to remain. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

Hi!

I was wondering if you could change the image of Pope Francis' arms in the table below (which is the version used when he was Cardinal) into the current one he uses as Pope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Signum_Francisci_I.svg

There are notable differences present in this newer version, such as the colour of some devices as well as the added Papal accoutrements of a three-tiered mitre and the Keys of St Peter. This version of his arms was recently confirmed by the Vatican.

Thank you for your attention and time. 202.125.102.35 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The file you linked to doesn't appear to exist. If you want to make this change, please first find a working link (links look like this: [[:File:Some image.svg]]). Then post here with your suggested change and wait for a few days for people to comment. If, after that, there is a consensus to make the change, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template and an admin will come along and update the article for you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Malachia wasn't a lady

Please in the very first line change Sancte Malachiae to Sancti Malachiae or use the abbreviated form as in Wion book. Pinea (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone authorized to edit this article change the coat of arms of Pope Francis to File:Signum Francisci.svg? --Masz (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

At the end of times

It is not appropriate to imply that "psecutione" in Wion book certainly means "persecutione" rather than "prosecutione". In this last case "In prosecutione extrema" simply means "at the end of times", clearly implying that there are plenty of popes after Gloria olivae. You can see the medieval abbreviations dictionary (Lexicon abbreviaturarum. Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane) by Cappelli at page 257 of the sixth edition. The examples of abbreviations for "per" and "pro" are very similar and basically depend on the handwriting of the notary.

I glanced briefly through Wion book and couldn't find any other example of use of this kind of abbreviation. This could imply that Wion too wasn't sure how to read the manuscript he was copying and decided to be deliberately ambiguous.

There is certainly a source for "prosecutione" because I first read it somewhere. Please find it and quote it. Note that most secondary sources, living in the pre-digital era, had no access to Wion book. They where reading texts reprinted later by other authors. This is why the alternative reading is usually overlooked.

In any case I repeat what stated above three weeks ago: original texts should be quoted in their abbreviated form to avoid any error (see the sex of Malachia above) or innuendo (as in this case). I recommend at the very least to write "p(er)secutione" (as I did earlier but was canceled) or better to discuss both possibilities. Pinea (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If we have more sources saying "persecutione" than "prosecutione", we should go with that. But we should be clear that Wion wrote "psecutione", not either word. If it is "prosecutione" and "at the end of times", I don't see how this clearly implies more popes. We have no idea when the end of times is, or whether we're already there. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I meant that plenty of popes become possible, not that they are sure. The problem with the current text is that it seems to imply that we are already at the end of times. Another reason for that is that the final sentence of the prophecy is treated as the 112th motto, while it is not a motto. Pinea (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But he did write persecutione; the straight line through the descender in the p is the scribal abbreviation for per, and is distinct from the scribal abbreviation for pro. All of our reliable sources say persecutione. Unless we can find a reliable source theorizing that Wion made a mistake and meant to write something else, and discussing the resulting phrase, the only change to the article that would be supported is replicating the scribal abbreviation in the table, as we do with the other scribal abbreviations in the original text.--Trystan (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. As for the current text, it doesn't imply we are in the end times. Just that whoever wrote the prophecy figured the end times would come after the pope with the olive motto. But we also have a clear and prominent disclaimer that this may not be true. Up to readers to believe what they choose. I suppose the number 112 should go, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have the patience to read the reference I pointed out above (which is here [1]) you see at the second column line 3 that exactly at the age of Malachy ("XII p" means first half of the XII century as explained at page IX of the dictionary) an horizontal line through the descender meant "pro". In the same page there are similar examples. If you have little experience with paleography, please let me remind two things: 1) the age indicated beside each example is simply the age of the document, where Cappelli spotted this abbreviation, but the same abbreviation might have been in use in other periods as well 2) this is a dictionary of handwriting examples, it isn't a list of mathematical rules. I mean that each scribe had his own handwriting as today and you are able to properly interpret a single word only if you have a piece of document of some extent so that you can check what he does consistently and what can be an occasional variant (maybe due to a trembling of the hand or any other reason why that day he was not writing as usual). I repeat again my question above: why there are no other examples of this abbreviation in hundred of pages of Wion's book (unless I overlooked)? Pinea (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just now I just read Scribal abbreviation, quoted by Trystan, and I commented it in the talk page. The effort of standardizing the scribal abbreviations used through many centuries in many different countries is an impressive piece of original research. Unfortunately old time scribes had no way to access it. Pinea (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The abbreviation in Wion looks to me quite like the examples from Dizionario di Abbreviature Latine ed Italiani for per, and not much like the examples for pro. Not that my opinion matters, just what is supported by reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Either all small differences between "per" and "pro" abbreviations are due to peculiarities of scribe, century or country and Wion font could indicate both or you have to consider that the font used by Wion is different from all the examples in Cappelli book. The font has a horizontal line cutting the descender (as in column one of page 257 both for per and pro), but is terminated by a small vertical appendix. Actually the issue can be settled only by scrutinizing Wion book or other books from the same printer until we find which fonts he used for per and pro. Pinea (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A missing dot

While the Wion text is reproduced with painstaking accuracy (including those horrible "s" fonts, which are a useless torture for most readers) there is a period missing after "Psecutione". By omitting it, you induce readers to give excessive importance to the period after "sedebit". If you restore the original text a lot of fuss will go away. Pinea (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

From Pope Francis' first Angelus

"I offer a heartfelt greeting to all you pilgrims. Thanks for your welcome and your prayers. Pray for me, I beg you. I renew my embrace to the faithful of Rome, and I extend it to all of you, who come from every part of Italy and the world, as well as the many who're with us by the means of communication. I chose the name of the Patron of Italy, St Francis of Assisi, and this reinforces my spiritual link with this land where – as you know – my family has its origins. But Jesus has called us to be part of a new family: his church, in this family of God, walking together on the way of the Gospel. May the Lord bless you and the Madonna keep you in her care. And don't forget this: the Lord never gets tired of forgiveness! We're the ones who get tired of asking for it."

"My family has its origins" couple that with Tu es Petrus.......Peter the Roman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.204 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

St. Francis' father was Pietro, not Peter. They are not interchangeable. Please amend this.

I would also suggest that the page's protection be demoted, allowing users to edit again, while still blocking IPs and new users. I think while the possibility of vandalism is still there, much of the excitement around this topic has abated in the last few days. Please advise. SteelMariner^Talk 19:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Admins will obviously respond as they think fit. But it should be noted that the issue that arose wasn't IP vandalism (the article was already semi-protected) but registered users trying to put their own unsourced/synthesized pet theories (otherwise known as WP:OR) into the article. As can be seen from this talk page, there continues to be no lack of this potential. DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. If only wikipedia had some kind of edit-approval system for controversial topics. SteelMariner^Talk 21:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Pietro and Peter are interchangeable. Just two spellings of the same name. We don't all speak English (or Latin). But perhaps having the Italian name in parentheses would be a good idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Or, having the English name in parentheses, as Pietro was his actual name. SteelMariner^Talk 04:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd considered that, but the source uses "Peter". If we put the English name in parentheses, and have a sentence saying Francis' father was named Pietro, that sentence wouldn't be backed by the source. I think it would be "safer" to parenthesize the unsourced (but clearly correct) translation. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that O'Brien or Bander might possibly have claimed that Francis'father had an English name and translating it is OR? This reminds me Gaddhafi's claim that Shakespeare was an Arab named sheikh Speare! Using the original names is simply avoiding chauvinism. Pinea (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean Carlie Walker of The Fraser Coast Chronicle said (or said the forums said) "Peter". However, that source has since been updated, including more theories and the use of Pietro in his patronym. So yeah, whatever one you want in parentheses is fine now. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a contentious field, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).And yes, I know it is only about article titles, but is an indication of what Wikipedia wants, so to speak. Lectonar (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The naming convention for titles is aimed at making articles "easy to find", as explicitly stated, and its application elsewhere has no motivation. So I believe that it is actually an indication that "Wikipedia wants" the opposite of what you are implying. Otherwise for consistency you have also to translate "Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone" to "Francis of Peter of Bernhard the big".Pinea (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

Requesting the theory for Pope Francis to be modified as follows. "Theories include a vague connection with Francis of Assisi, whose father was named Peter." "Theories include a vague connection with Francis of Assisi, whose middle name was Pietro and whose father's first name was Pietro."

The connection is not only being linked to Francis of Assisi father's name Pietro, but also to Francis of Assissi's middle name which is Pietro.

RazorX (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But not by the source currently in the article. Can you provide a WP:RS for that linkage? DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. There are several in a first page search, but here's the first three from a quick Google. The nicer looking page is listed first. http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Occupy-The-Vatican/3035176 http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/march2013/donnad315-4.htm http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2167229/pg1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razorx (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

None of those look anything remotely like a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. A blog, a forum and...who knows what "fivedoves.com" is. DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not his middle name in the modern sense, it's a patronym. The name "Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone" simply indicates that he was the son of Pietro di Bernardone.--Trystan (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I'm basically unilingual, but I know a di/du/dos when I see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Trystan you are incorrect in stating that it is not his middle name in a modern sense as that is the name he was baptised in. You cannot alter his birth certificate baptisimal name to suit what obviously has become in this article an attempt by Catholic aplogetics attempting to hide the truth. Wikipedia is about truth ,I request his full name be included in the article as previous poster asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.142 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we "Catholic aplogetics" are truly evil. But I love it that you think Francis of Assisi has a birth certificate. DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: It doesn't like there is a consensus for the requested change. Next time, please make sure there is a consensus for your changes before activating the {{edit protected}} template. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Look guys, this subject is not yet over. The Web is currently exploding with videos and articles about the prophecy being automatically fulfilled with Peter as apart of the name "Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone". I believe a compromise of using Trystan's previous comment is the best one. The edit could be: "Theories include a vague connection with Francis of Assisi, whose patronym included Pietro." Just take out the father part and put in the patronym part. Keep vague connection and add in patronym. I think it's important to get the word patronym in there so people have the opportunity for themselves to say yes or no to a fulfillment. Here's an example of how fast this is moving on the Web. Right now this guy has over 70,000 views on his video in which he shows and sites this very Wikipedia entry quite often. Prophecy of the Popes FULFILLED! Pope Francis IS Petrus Romanus! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Qzg7op0-M All I am saying is that the editors here have an opportunity to add some yes or no balance to the entry. Right now a mass of articles and videos are saying that Pietro is his name, or is his middle name, etc. So again please review the current entry and let's at least balance it out by adding in patronym.

Wikipedia doesn't follow blogs. The internet is full of considerable volumes of total junk. There's no reason for this article to follow it, just because the volume of junk has reached a certain level. In fact, Wikipedia policy precludes us from following it. It's pretty obvious there's a widespread internet-based misunderstanding of the status of "di Pietro" (of similar silliness to Dan Brown thinking "da Vinci" was in itself a name for Leonardo). If and when a reliable source makes this point, it might be coverable here, but not before. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "when a reliable source makes this point" - Understood sir. Thanks again for your time and comments DeCausa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.26.192 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wion errors

Pope 7 and 8 are out of order. It is also missing Pope Innocent 111.Year 1179-1180 Shouldn't it be Pope 11368.231.105.187 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The names of the popes have been exchanged by a material error of Wion or of the typo, but the Mottos and their latin interpretations are in proper order. Please read comment already in the text of the article. Innocent III papacy started in 1198. Pinea (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC

.

Analysis of the line "In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit."

The author of the Prophecy clearly had a specific reason to insert this separate sentence "there will sit" at this particular point in time describing the final persecution of the Church. The editors of the current page state:

< 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". >

This sentence hardly refers to "other unnamed popes to come" as people are trying to suggest here otherwise the author would have simply numbered these other popes as he named all the others. Likewise, many are trying to connect this sentence with the last pope 112 but when read in the order that it appears, the reference is to the preceding pope 111 indicting a unique break in the continuity of list. This could only occur if the preceding person continued to live and sit in Rome. Since Benedict is the only Pope on the list to voluntary "retire" in such an unusual manner and remain in Rome, the use of this sentence to describe a "retired" pope that still sits in Rome becomes clear. In this context, the author indicates that "Glory of the olive will sit through the final persecution".

Grammatically - it's pretty straight forward. When read in conjunction with the preceding pope, it simply says: "Glory of the olive - In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit." - no hidden meaning here.

Accordingly, this would describe the current situation in Rome today given Pope Benedict's sudden and unexpected retirement. So everyone focused on "debunking" these Prophecies by trying to point out the few that might not be so accurate should instead focus on the other 100 that are. Unless all 112 can be absolutely debunked without question, the naysayers need to lay off. For someone making such predictions over 400 years ago, even to get just one right would be amazing in and of itself. Why not try making a list of the next 100 to see if anyone could get as close as this list is - most likely that would end up being 0 for 100! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozdawn (talk • contribs) 08:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Anything added to the article needs to be based on what can be found in reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the various views as they are reflected in those sources. The text you quote is an accurate reflection of the sources we have available. Anything we add to it needs to be based on additional reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

List having 113 popes instead

What if there are actually 113 popes listed and this line is dedicated to Pope Francis leaving Petrus Romanus for the next pope? In fact, it is a different sentence like all the others before it. So why not a list with 113 popes instead of just 112?

There is no second sentence after "sedebit." because the main verb is missing. There is only one sentence. Note that there is a period after persecution as well. You either consider both periods or none. Pinea (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't notice that one. Always thought it to be an imperfection, but now that you mention it... it does appear to be a period there. Anyway, my idea was something like "In fact, it is a different «paragraph» like all the others before it." (sorry for my bad English but i could not remember the right word at the time). So, why doesn't that mean a different pope? Also, are you referring to the verb in the Latin sentence or to the one in the English translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.195.201 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Latin sentences (as well as in other languages) must include a verb, which states what is done or happens and a subject, the person who "acts". Petrus Romanus is a subject (because it is in the nominative grammar case) and the pertaining verb can only be "sedebit". The other verb (pascet) infact already has its subject, which is "qui" (=who). So there is only one main sentence (Petrus Romanus sedebit) wjth the associated relative sentence (qui pascet).Any attempt to divide this sentence into two or three periods violates the rules of our language both in Latin and in English. Please note that the period typographical sign, usually used to point out the end of the sentences, may have many other meanings. For instance we use it in the email addresses and ancient Romans where using it immediately before and after numerals (example: 3= .III.); a usage followed by Wion in his book too. So don't worry the two extra periods in Wion book certainly have a meaning. Unfortunately the "reliable sources" of WP probably didn't know that those periods existed, as they were not reading the original book and they are usually omitted by the authors that report the prophecy. Pinea (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Great explanation!!! :) Others should read it!!! Anyway one question remains in my mind: Why the break in the text? Why not a "continuity" in the same line? Any clue? Maybe to give more emphasis to the name, perhaps?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.239.161 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that the typo is simply trying to convey the graphical appearance of the writing in the manuscript, which was similar to a candlestick for esthetic reasons, an aim quite common in old manuscrpts. All the 111 pope names were one above the other and draw the candle, while the final words were the basis of the candlestick in this way:

Pastor & nauta

Flos Florum

De medietate lunae

De labore solis

Gloria olivae

In prosecutione

Extrema S.R.E. sedebit

Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in many tribulationibus:

quibus transactis Judex Tremendus judicabit populum suum

Finis

If my guess is right the periods indicate the end of a line but not the end of the sentence. No "reliable source" will ever be able to prove me right, but I would be very surprised if they are able to come out with a better explanation . So the meaning of the sentence could simply be: "At the end of times (when Revelation foresees tribulations and final judgement) there will still be a pope in Rome". Pinea (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay

A statement in a newspaper introduced by the sentence: "Apparently a lot of scholars believe..." cannot be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. Should be easy to name at least one of them, if really there are so many. Clearly James Weiss was quoting some sort of "coffee machine" poll and he didn't mean to refer qualified opinions published by qualified editors. Moreover it cannot be ignored that such an opinion is missing in all the other sources (like Bander and O Brien) considered reliable by this article. Wonder why? Now this opinion is presented in our article as an indisputable truth. Nobody contested it simply because it was never "officially" put forward through the standard channels of science. Please De Causa or any other change this OR Pinea (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The source for this is a statement in the Huffington Post by a professor of Church History at Boston College. Isn't that WP:RS times 2? I can't really see what the problem is - it certainly isn't WP:OR. Nor is there any evidence that it is "some sort of "coffee machine" poll". I do however see that, according to the posts on this page, it is counter to your own theory on this. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any pet theory, simply made an educated guess to show that when data are scarce many theories can be put forward. If you prefer you could also believe that there were two ink dots on the manuscript and the typo couldn't figure out what they were. Both theories are better than accepting that Petrus Romanus is a subject of no action (as there is no verb other than "sedebit"). In the XVI century they knew grammar and syntax better than a lot of scholars today. Stating that the first line "forms a separate sentence and paragraph on its own" gives UNDUE WEIGHT to UNVERIFIABLE opinions (Weiss doesn't specify any name of the lot of scholars). Personally I am afraid that expert readers will qualify that sentence with much stronger words. Pinea (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Like anything on Wikipedia, it's not meant to be taken as indisputable truth. Just a claim, along with its source. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a sufficiently reliable source to indicate that some people interpret it that way, though the current wording might be giving that view a bit of undue weight. I would support changing it to "While almost all interpreters read this line as part of the "Peter the Roman" prophecy, some view it..."--Trystan (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In principle ok, but "almost all" seems a bit strong and would prefer "most". DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "almost all" on one side doesn't leave much room for "a lot" on the other. How about just "some" for both? Not untrue. But if not, I also prefer "most". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The "apparently" goes a long way to undermining the "a lot," to my mind. I think the interpretation is worthy of mentioning, but we do just have a throwaway line in a news article raising the possibility, vs. the consistent interpretation found in every other source we have. Though I don't feel too strongly about our wording one way or the other.--Trystan (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Table: Petrus Romanus

I'm working may way through the table pope by pope. It's fairly slow going, so I thought I would jump to the end and have a look at the final popes. My edits to the Petrus Romanus line were promptly reverted with the edit summary "this is supose to be a sequencial list, so Petrus is supose to come after!".

I don't think the table should attach any actual pope (especially before the next pope is selected, but even afterward) to the Petrus Romanus prophecy. The great majority of our reliable sources, both skeptical and credulous of the prophecy, note that it can be interpreted as being open to many popes between "glory of the olive" and "Petrus Romanus". At the most, we could say something like, "Popular speculation by proponents of the prophecy attach this prediction to Benedict XVI's successor.", which can be cited to the HuffPo article. Thoughts?--Trystan (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think an asterisk next to Peter Turkson will suffice. We already mention the possibility of popes occuring between the olive and the end. Any more than that would seem like we're telling readers which idea to believe. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I really shouldn't allow myself to get dragged back into this insane debate, but it seems I'm far too weak-willed and thus I seemingly can't help myself :) At least as far as I've seen, there seems to be only one source saying there may be other popes between Glory of the Olive and Peter The Roman, and that's the Catholic Encyclopedia, seemingly yet again trying to eat its cake and still have it (or have its cake and eat it, as they say in my part of the world). But regardless of how many sources are in fact saying this, there can be no reliable sources saying it, because any source trying to interpret prophecy is unreliable by definition. That's why this demand for reliable sources in this context is so insane (and why most of the article should be shifted to a fringe article, and WP:IAR should be used there to drop the demand for reliable sources for interpretation, while still insisting on reliable sources for the alleged facts, and that the alleged facts should seem clearly relevant to the prophecies; but that's seemingly not going to happen, which is yet another reason why I shouldn't be letting myself get involved).

Incidentally in my view sources claiming to debunk these particular prophecies are also inherently unreliable (and remain so even if we accept the prophecies are forgeries, as I do), but that's a separate question and not relevant to the point under discussion here. Also as far as I'm concerned any religious encyclopedia such as the Catholic Encyclopedia is inherently unreliable anyway on a vast range of topics, not just this one, no matter how scholarly it purports to be; but again that's a separate question and not particularly relevant here. And personally I rather expect the prophecy may well make the Cardinals reluctant to elect anybody called Peter (though of course they might yet surprise me), but every Pope is always the successor to St Peter, and thus is the next Peter, and thus is a Peter, and is Bishop of Rome and thus is a Roman, so every Pope is Peter the Roman, and this particular Prophecy is thus largely or entirely devoid of 'prophetic content' unless the next Pope turns out to be the last one (so any interpretation to the contrary seems even more unreliable than usual). That is of course perfectly possible even if the prophecies have no substance, given how many nuclear weapons there are in the world, and given our apparent closeness to the Technological Singularity (current least unreliably guesstimated date 2029AD, give or take a few years, using Moore's Law to work out when the power of a computer chip should match the power of the human brain, at least according to Ray Kurzweil), etc. In a sense the prophecies have already scored a hit (though arguably a rather minor one) by running out at such a seemingly inherently ominous time in human history. Indeed it would not greatly surprise me if the 'terrible judge' who will judge his people, according to the Petrus Romanus prophecy, turns out not to be Jesus Christ on Judgment Day, but some malevolent Quasi-Super-Intelligent Machine or Person (Quasimp for short) inflicted on us as a side-effect of the afore-mentioned Technological Singularity, though Christians may well interpret it as the Anti-Christ. Again this may well happen even if there is no substance to the Prophecies.

Got that off my chest - hopefully I'll now be able to restrain myself from any further involvement in this insane debate, though I'm none too confident of that :) All the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources that note the prophecy is open to the interpretation of popes coming between the Olive and the Roman also include Bander (who states the interpretation comes from medieval sources), O'Brien, and the HuffPo article (quoting a professor of church history at Boston College), in addition to the Catholic Encyclopedia.--Trystan (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Trystan, I wrote that when I was only aware of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I now agree with you on this topic for reasons given in Talk:Prophecy_of_the_Popes#A_possible_Fix.3F, which has just put me in severe danger of becoming a hardline sceptic - perish the thought :) - though the HuffPo Professor's logic is faulty, based on an incorrect translation (which we also have at present), and your advice would be appreciated on how to go about fixing it - perhaps taking out HuffPo and adding O'Brien and Bander might be a start? but I'm not sure how to put in a correct translation? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are no reliable sources on how to interpret the prophecy in the sense of applying the prophecy to post-publication historical events, but there are reliable sources for grammatically analyzing the prophecy, and reporting on how it has been interpreted. The proposal to fork the post-publication table off into another article without reliable sources would be best discussed in a separate section.--Trystan (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to discuss it unless somebody else wants to do so, as I'm no longer interested, owing to the huge increase in my scepticism after reading the article in Talk:Prophecy_of_the_Popes#A_possible_Fix.3F - Doomsday Prophecies are dubious enough to start with, though I found this one unusually interesting and entertaining before now, but I guess a Doomsday prophecy that says Doomsday can happen anytime in the next zillion years is simply not a proper self-respecting Doomsday prophecy, and therefore simply not worth bothering about :) Tlhslobus (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the goal is to not give credence to any particular interpretation of the prophecy. I think listing the next pope (or even theoretical next pope) in the table attached to Petrus Romanus sends a much stronger endorsement of one interpretation than does removing those cells and noting in the text that some proponents apply it to the next pope.--Trystan (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever we do with that, we shouldn't have anybody in that column till someone is picked. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise by using Turkson's name. What does anyone think about moving the Petrus Romanus (or the whole Interpretation) section to immediately below the list? That way, anyone reading the end of it would be almost forced to consider both sides, in more detail than a column could allow. We could then also delete the second, somewhat conflicting (dreadful or terrible?) translation. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been treating the table as a sort of lengthy appendix, so that a reader could read through the text portions and get a good sense of the topic, with the option (but not the requirement) of delving into the very detailed analysis of the text. My preference is definitely to keep all the paragraph-style portions of the article above the table. If we want to avoid duplication and go into greater detail, perhaps we could just include a "See previous section" link in that row?

I've updated the translations to match each other, and match the translations of our sources more closely.--Trystan (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My view of the end of the table according to my original research

I wrote it into the article, and it was canceled because it is an original research. This is really true, and original researches actually do not belong to Wikipedia. I am about to write a book on this in order to be able to cite my thoughts, but my book is not yet published, and now I am too late. We might see the correct interpretation of Malachy's prophecy very soon, and a book on this would no longer be of much interest. I hope that telling you the main results of my research is possible in this talk page. I would end the table as follows:

In p̲ſecutione extre-    ma S. R. E. ſedebit.		Petrus Romanus,		qui paſcet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus tranſactis ciuitas ſepticollis diruetur, & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit populum ſuum. Finis.
266	112. In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, he will sit.	Francis (2013 - present)	Jorge Mario Bergoglio	who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [could be Rome, but need not] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End. Note that, in all likelihood, Petrus Romanus, which is nothing else than a synonym for pope or Roman bishop, and also the interpretation qui pascet... is not ascribed to Saint Malachy, but to Ciacconius, as indicated in the last table row. I carry out the most important reasons in the next subsubsection entitled "The last motto and the Petrus Romanus adiectum of Ciacconius".
Quæ ad Pontifices adiecta, non ſunt ipſius Malachiæ, ſed R. P. F. Alphonſi Giaconis, Ord. Praedicatorũ, huius Prophetiæ interpretis.
What has been added to the popes is not Malachy's, but Alphonsus Ciacconius' from the Order of Preachers, the interpreter of this prophecy.

--Bachmai (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First I thought that the last motto In persecutione extrema S. R. E. sedebit. could possibly be related to Benedict XVI (2013 - ) again, because it does not sound like a byname. A byname, however, would not be necessary, as Benedict XVI already has one: Gloria olivae; only his re-election would have required an additional statement, the last motto. However, as expected, a new pope was elected, as has already applied to the faked mottos that are predictive sentences, namely No. 13:  "De schola exiet." and No. 62: "Fructus Iovis iuvabit." --Bachmai (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, there arises the question why No. 112 differs in style from the other 40 true mottos (No. 72-111) prophesied by Philipp Neri. This question could be answered as follows: The last word "sedebit", which would be suitable to any other pope too, seems necessary as we now have two popes, but only one of them is reigning, which was indicated by "sedebit". Further, the persecutio might indicate that Pope Francis, as a reigning pope, is in the focus of the persecution of the church, so that he could die earlier than Pope Benedict XVI, and only Benedict XVI will experience the triumph of the church, which is said by gloria olivae, i.e.: glory be to the olive, which symbolizes the church. Every hymn ends with a Glory be and not with a persecution. And this should also apply to Philip Neri's mottos of the list of popes. Many people do not recognize that olivae need not be a genitive, it can equally be a dative, likewise to the usual "Glory be" (Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto), which is followed by a dative. The same applies to "Gloria in excelsis Deo" ("excelsis" is dative plural, not genitive). --Bachmai (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The last motto and the Petrus Romanus adiectum of Ciacconius

I refer to the last two lines of the table:

Which sentences are mottos and which ones adiecta (added things), seems obvious prima facie, because the first prophecy page (p. 307 in Lignum Vitae) consists of three columns: Column 1 contains the motto, Column 2 the papal name, and Column 3 the interpretation; thus, the adiecta are in the second and third column. Already on the second page comes the transition to a two-column mode, where the first column again contains the mottos, but the second one comprehends papal name and interpretation. This remains so until to the beginnung of the fifth and last page, but the popes Gregory XIV, Innocent IX and Clement VIII already lack an interpretation. Then, for reasons of saving space, the prophecy gets back to a three-column mode, but now, since future papal names are unkonwn, all three columns seem to be used for mottos. This was believed up to now, but it was neglected that the last paragraph of this last three-column part is written in the style "papal name followed by an interpretation": Petrus Romanus, qui pascet ….

There are many reasons why the sentence „In persecutione extrema S. R. E. sedebit“ is a motto and thus part of the prophecy of Saint Malachy, whereas the paragraph Petrus Romanus, qui pascet …. Finis.“ is only an adiectum added by Ciacconius and thus not part of the prophecy of Saint Malachy. The most important reasons are as follows:

• The first 71 mottos are not prophetic but faked. However, these faked mottos show us how the prophecy was understood before it was printed, in other words: before the printing style could influence its understanding. These mottos show that the sentence In persecutione extrema S. R. E. sedebit (He will be sitting (reigning) in the last persecution of the holy Roman church) was indeed understood as a full motto although its style clearly differs from the other 40 prophetic mottos, as it is a predictive sentence in the future tense. The fakers even respected the proportion of the 41 prophetic predictive sentences. If exactly one out of 41 mottos has the form of a predictive sentence, you expect that 71 faked mottos contain 71/41 = 1.73, rounded two predictive sentences. And these tow predictive senteces can be found in the 13th motto: De Schola exiet (He will exit from the school“) and in the 62th motto: „Fructus Iovis iuvabit“ (Jupiter's fruit will help). Note that these predictive sentences are even also written in the future tense. Additionally, the distances between the predictive sentences is rather constant: There are 48 non-predictive sentences between the 13th and 62th motto and 49 between the 62th and the 112th one, which is the last prophetic sentence.

• The sentence of the style Petrus Romanus, qui pascet …, which starts with a papal name or a pope synonym and is followed by a relative pronoun qui (who), however, cannot be found in the faked 71 mottos. Instead, this style can be found many times in the adiecta, the explanations that are ascribed to Alfons Ciacconius. The pope synonym is, of course, replaced by the known papal name, but it is followed by a relative pronoun many times. In 12 out of all 74 interpretations, a relative pronoun follows even directly after the papal name, and in eight out of these 12 cases, this relative pronoun is even qui (who) like in the Petrus-Romanus adiectum, the other four mottos use the relative pronoun cuius (whose). This clearly indicates that the sentence Petrus Romanus, qui pascet … is not a motto, but an adiectum added by Ciacconius, as mentioned directly afterwards at the end of the prophecy.

• The relative sentence qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, et Iudex tremendus iudicabit populum suum followed by Finis. already reads like an interpretation of In persecutione extrema S. R. E. sedebit. The persecutio (persecution) is interpreted by multae tribulationes (many tribulations), and the adjective „extremus“ is interpreted in the sense of last by pointing to the Final Judgement and by the word finis. Additionally, it is also interpreted in the spirit of extremely strong as it announces the destruction of the seven-hilly civilization“, which can be the City of Rome, but also the Prostitute Babylon sitting on the great beast with seven heads that correspond to seven mountains (Revelation 17, 1-9).

--Bachmai (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why everyone is reading only last 2 sentences? Maybe it should be read including all 3? Gloria Oliuae(who is not dead yet and apparently situation is rare and unique), who will still be alive during persecutions of christians in the time of Petrus Romanus. Finis.

from wiki: Petrus was regarded as first pope and was crucified. Many cultures have circle themed prophecies, where things end as they started. Why there is even belief, that christianity(especially in current form) is going to be forever? update: when I was writing this I didn't even knew, that he was italian, so this is interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.117.48 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC) 92.26.117.48 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis and 13

The new pope was elected on the 13th March in 2013 - everyone knows the connotations of the number 13--Melitikus (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This article's destiny

In 8 to 11 years, when Francis is succeded by another Pope, this list is going to end in Benedict XVI, as proponents are going to situate the fulfilment of the prophecy in an unknown future, counting an unknown number of popes between B. XVI and Peter the Roman... Remember I said it! --Againme (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

About "Peter the Roman"

DeCausa

About this: "...St. Francis himself had the birth name Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone and was born in Assisi, the city then in the Duchy of Spoleto (Holy Roman Empire btw), which would then be incorporated into the Papal States (1201-1213) whose head was Rome." - Early life of St Francis. His name and his birth place.

First, I was not trying any "tenuous" connection in that sense. Nor is tenuous or was trying anything. The source is already there in fact (above). The phrase is a fact (about the origin). Is part of that interpretation (already there in part), obviously speculative - and only in this sense tenuous - but the obvious interpretation is already there, just tried to give you a more complete view.

Remove it as you did is perfectly legitimate and even partly understandable - and maybe I have precipitated, but I only agree with your justification in part, by the clear reason above. One advice if I may: for the next time, do it, but choose better words and not be so "frivolous" or precipitated (if was that the case, sorry if not) in the interpretation of the edition of someone else. I'm always receptive and you are free to call me to attention if you want. Remove, correct me and call me to attention here - also on my page if you have time and desire.

I'm no vandal and I have no agenda. I am honest and I wish to have a correct action in wikipedia. Not being a forum, please, allow me the justification. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzoGraal (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And if I did (?) in the line with the traditional interpretations to the Prophecy of St. Malachy, very symbolic. (although they are relative and subjective interpretations - of course in terms of belief in it or on the side of the believers point of view, which is logical. Then there is the debate between the two camps, skeptic and believer. (Apart: Previously, I forgot to sign. Thank you.) --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just put the info in front of the citation, not behind it. I don't see the bit about Assisi in the source, though. That would need its own. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the edit is the unsourced "connection" with Rome, to make him Peter "the Roman". Of course, it is correct that "Assisi, the city then in the Duchy of Spoleto (Holy Roman Empire btw), which would then be incorporated into the Papal States (1201-1213) whose head was Rome" But a reliable source] is needed to say that those facts represent the connection with the Prophecy of the Popes. Without it, it's original research and not relevant to a Wikipedia article. (As it is, it just sounds tenuous to me.) DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said at exactly the same time as you below (without an edit conflict, for some reason), we should mention the Italian parents. It's a tenuous link, but it's sourced. And we're already claiming it's a tenuous theory. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In an "update" in the source there's a list of "tenuous" connections coming out of the internet, including that one. Why mention that one rather than the others? I think we're on the outer edge with that source as it is. Firstly, it's not a first rate source by any means: it's a pretty gossipy piece in a fairly obscure publication. Secondly, the real point of the piece is it's a tongue-in-cheek article that's saying "look at the crazy stuff coming out of the internet on this". I don't think, even with the current use of the word "tenuous", we're really reflecting the piece. I think it's worth saying that after the election the internet was all a-bubble with speculation - bu that's as far as it should go. The individual pieces of speculation aren't warranted here because no serious author is discussing them and therefore attaching notability to them. My preference would be to delete the "Theories include..." sentence. I think it's giving more weight to specific "theories" than is due. DeCausa (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I figured if we have the "Peter" half, we should also include the "Roman". And yeah, Internet forums aren't always the most "serious" places. But, in absence of more prestigious opinion, they're the de facto experts on the matter. It's really not like these connections are any "crazier" than the ones offered in books. As long as a reasonable person can follow the logic behind a connection (not necessarily believe it's prophecy), any reliable source should do. When more mainstream ones come around, we can upgrade. Better than nothing at all for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I entirely agree with DeCausa that sentence "Theories include..." should be deleted. Pinea (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa, thank you and I apologize if I was susceptible in reaction. I agree, and in that sense I think you´re absolutely right. And the source: the lack of accredited authors or serious publications, addresses perhaps many trends. And always points to the Italian parental links of Pope Francis (though northern Italy, and not the center), the birth name of Saint Francis - and his father´s name, to which his birth name is attached - theories born shortly with his Election in blogs, sites etc.. I honestly do not know almost nothing that is debated in these forums. I read the "source" and I assumed that beyond the two initial points, there are also included the 3rd, coupled to the first two, i. e. the birth place of the inspiring Saint - and inspiring Saint of the Pope, Assisi, city integrated in the Papal States still in his youth. I think this is debated there by logic, part of the first two points there. His vision of the Savior and his pilgrimage to Rome. Even in good faith, I acknowledge that I ran the risk of adding original research, not only by the lack of credible source ahead (and the source of the article is there until better as I see), but, as I said, it was in good faith, because I thought that was giving a clear and more complete sense to the 2 points or the 3 points of the fundamental argument of those forums or articles - the "source" already mentioned. I see that after all I have to review and rethink what I did and I have to be more aware - and more prudent. As for the fanatics - I do not want to have fanaticism as reference - whatever their religion or church. I hope they are not all fanatics in these discussions and interest in symbology or prophecy, skepticism or belief. Thank you. --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, thanks. I've read your discussion, and so is all up to you here - and waiting perhaps more references or publications(?). Thank you. --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

All is up to all of us. All I can do is say what I think is best for the article. I think it's more important to have a complete table than to worry about how a particular source matches up to others we use for different claims. If we are comparing sources for the same claim, I'd go with the more "serious" one. But if we have no competition, something is better than nothing, unless it is from a totally unreliable (not just obscure) source. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and I agree with you. On the other hand I did not want to go from someone who relies in sources (or source in this case) to the rejection of the same sources, far from it - for now is what we have. Present there, in the forum discussions, there certainly are also many experts and more erudite people in these matters, which is natural and inevitable. --LuzoGraal (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)--LuzoGraal (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)