Talk:Prophecy of the Popes

Peter will come

...at a time of extreme persecution of the RC church.

At present the RCC is accepted or tolerated in many countries.

Therefore it is not yet the time of Peter the last Pope.

How valid is the above argument? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, what? Sophie^Wilder 16:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

'Proving' that the prediction is not yet valid (despite the lightning). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

All seems very clear to me. Thought I think the lightening is the more unimportant of the two.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And don't forget the conclave opens on the Ides of March.

(I belong to the 'odd coincidences can be fun' persuasion). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Was it the Ides of March date or it being Red Nose Day (and the cardinals all being dressed in red) that caused the shift of date?

Given that the succession of the Popes has been diverted since the 1903 election (in an incident involving the Archbishop of Krakow, whose successor was eventually elected Pope in a quid pro quo), the Prophecy of the Popes is not necessarily presently valid. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We're never going to have articles about the Ides of March or Red Nose Day on here, BoN. This isn't an encyclopedia. You're thinking of some other wiki.--Spud (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(For posterity's sake, I should add that the BoN originally gave those two dates red links). Spud (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Beware the Ides of March (or, if you are a drinker from leather bottles, the Hides of Marc) is a rent-a-quote - and Nobody expects what will be found on Rationalwiki (but Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kosielsko certainly won't). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually the conclave has started several days before the Ides of March. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Referring to the date originally proposed (and the coincidences might well have been a reason). If not necessarily marking the end of the world, Francis noted he came #from# the ends of the Earth. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is not rational enough, has nobody realized the obvious? The prophecy ends with de gloria olivae, there is no motto for petrus romanus, so it isn't necessarily a pope. When Benedict resigned who was in charge for current affairs? Pietro Tarcisio Bertone born in Romano Canavese. Prophecy fulfilled for what concerns the names. It sure makes Bergoglio a non-pope, and it sure doesn't fit much with the doomsday scenario (to our knowledge, I dunno if in the eyes of the writer of the prophecy attributed to Malachy we are doing fine). Sure there are ways to force a prophecy to fit (Benedict could have chosen a different name), but not always (What about de labore solis?). Not that I care much, The prophecies are not binding for a god. If they were, Fate would be superior to that god. ^{— Unsigned, by: 93.37.84.48 / talk / contribs} 13:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Copeland

This idea's gotting a bit more mainstream about a Year ago when Kenneth and Pope Francis started to discuss uniting the protestant and Catholic Church Church. It started to rile up Conspiracy Theorists, but it didn't happen yet, obviously. Kinda wondered if that was relevant to this article since I'm terrible at weighing that--Pacifir (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

113 Papal Mottos

The list of Papal mottos as original published by Fr. Arnold Wion in 1595 has 113 paragraphs. The first 111 of these consist of just one line. Number 112 has two lines, and number 113, eight lines. This simple fact is essential to a correct understanding of this prophecy.

In 1624 Fr. Thomas Messingham published FLORILEGIUM INSULAE SANCTORUM, a work which edited Fr. Wion's list of mottos by combining the last two paragraphs into a single paragraph. Every subsequent analyst has repeated Fr. Messingham's error thereby leading to the present day confusion about Pope Francis fitting into the "Petrus Romanus" mold.

Pope Francis is not "Petrus Romanus" simply because he is number 112 on Wion's list of mottos, and the Petrus Romanus motto is number 113. Here is the motto that applies to Francis:

In psecutione. extrema S.R.E sedebit.-----He will reign during the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church.

The correct translation of "sedebit" is "He (she, it) will sit (preside, reign.)" The phrase "there will sit" is an English construction that does not exist in Latin.

https://en.glosbe.com/la/en/sedebit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Arnold_Wion_-_Lignum_Vitae

Jeffreyerwin (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)