Talk:Prophecy of the Popes/Archive 5

Birth Name of Francis
The discussion on this item is sometimes based on wrong assumptions. Please note:
 * at that time and for a few centuries afterwards there were neither public birth registers nor baptismal records in the church. The only "official" name of Francis was "Francesco", because his father decided so and fathers were in power at that time. We also know that his mother would have preferred "Giovanni" but I doubt she baptized him before her husband came back from France.
 * at that time and for a few centuries afterwards there were no family names, at least for common people. The name of the father and of the grandfather were specified, when strictly needed to uniquely identify a fellow, but it is a bit anachronistic to consider them a family name. A similar well known case (two centuries afterwards) is Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Note that Martini is not a family name but specifies the name of the grandfather by means of the genitive case of "Martinus" = Martin. Pinea (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We could still technically call it a "given name", as the source does. Normally, that means "given by the parents", but could also mean "given by historians to uniquely identify the fellow". Not saying we should, but could. Words are stretchy things. I think it's enough to just say his dad was named Pietro, since that's all the "given name" adds to the theory, anyway. We should probably mention Pope Francis' Italian, loosely Roman, parents. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look for a "given name" "given by historians to uniquely identify a fellow", there is already another one and much more widely used: "d'Assisi". This is really very similar to a family name, because many families in Italy and in other countries too got their family name from a town, where an ancestor came from. Construing "di Pietro di Bernardone" as a given name is OR, nobody ever had a family name like that. You would be right if there would be only "di Pietro", provided Pietro wasn't the name of the father, but of some ancestor.

Thinking that any Italian is Roman is even worse. For most of Italians Rome was the capital of a different state up to 143 years ago. A Roman would hardly understand the Piedmont dialect spoken by pope Francesco's parents. Even today millions of Italians have voted for a political party, which asks the secession from Rome. If one adopts your perspective all the popes of the last many centuries (last two excepted) could be defined as "Roman". Maybe in a Mid-West village people wouldn't see the difference between a Roman and an Italian or maybe any Latino, or even any catholic, but the world is different. Pinea (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Loosely Roman. Quite. But all these interpretations play rather loose, to fit the mottos. Not sure which village the connection originated in, but it's not my view that Italians are all Roman. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed O'Brien as source for Petrus Romanus translation
I have removed O'Brien as a source for the Petrus Romanus translation, on the grounds that, firstly, although he may well be a reliable source for other matters, his translation of this passage is unreliable because it is a correct translation of an incorrect (and thus by definition unreliable) source text, and, secondly, because his translation does not correspond to the text in our article, for which we are using him as a citation. I suspect there are similar problems with Bander, but I can't check his text, and in any case I expect his problems are less extensive than O'Brien's. At any rate somebody else can worry about Bander (for what little it's worth, my suspicion is that we should also drop Bander and, if no other reliable translation is available, we should produce our own, justifying it under WP:IAR, but I don't want to get involved in that kind of argument again). Below is O'Brien's source text and translation: -- In persecutione extre- ________   In the final persecution ma S. R. E. sedebit Pe- ________  Of the Holy Roman trus Romanus qui pascet ________  Church there will reign oves in multis tribulati- _______ Peter the Roman, who will onibus, quibus transactis, _______ feed his flock amid many civitas septicollis diru  _______ tribulations, after which etur et judex tremendus _________ the seven-hilled city will judicabit populum. Finis. _______ be destroyed and the _______ dreadful Judge will judge _______ the people. The end. -- The above can be seen from the following snippets: snippet1 snippet2 snippet3 snippet4: - What we are currently offering is: - In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit. Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus, quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, & judex tremendus judicabit populum suum. Finis. This may be translated into English as: In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop]. 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.[13] - Differences in Latin texts: L1) 'suum' (his) is missing from O'Brien, but is correctly present in our text (we know it's correct, because we can see it in our picture of the Wyon original). So O'Brien, correctly translating his incorrect text, has the Judge judge 'the' people instead of 'his' people. This may seem trivial, but it's not trivial in terms of the reliability of the source. Nor is it obviously trivial in terms of the meaning of the text - the likely cause of the omission is that O'Brien's own source was probably some English publication whose customers would mostly be non-Catholics (and some of whom would be non-Christians), who might be less inclined to buy Malachy, a Christian and Catholic archbishop if the judge was judging 'his' people because the implication is that there's no need to judge the others because they're all damned to eternal agony in Hell anyway ('Outside the Church there is no Salvation', as Catholics were taught in those days, and, more or less, up to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s).

L2) The full stop (period in American English) after 'sedebit' is missing from O'Brien, but is correctly present in our text (once again, we know it's correct, because we can see it in our picture of the Wyon original). (I expect some similar problem will also be found in Bander, but I'll let somebody else worry about that). Snippet2 makes it quite clear that O'Brien has no full stop in his English translation, and it alse shows the bottom part of the Latin line 'ma S. R. E. sedebit Pe-', where you can see at the right there are 7 characters for 'sedebit' followed by a space and 2 characters for 'Pe' - in other words there is no full stop between 'sedebit' and 'Pe', and two sentences have become one.

Also the absence of the full stop from O'Brien's Latin can be clearly seen on page 25, using snippet5: This clearly shows: In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Pe- trus Romanus qui Pas-

One contributor here has said in the past that it makes no sense with the full stop. It is true that our translation (in both our text and our table) 'In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit.' does indeed make no sense (and conceivably that is what the contributor meant), but that is simply because we are using a nonsensical translation that is found in no reliable source and in only one highly unreliable source, namely our own article. Because of the large number of possible ambiguities in this sentence, there are a very large number of possible translations for this sentence that do in fact make sense, and any source which fails to point this out is made unreliable by that failure. One perfectly reasonable translation is 'He will reign during the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church', and if you need to replace our existing nonsense with something, that's probably as good as any, though you should mention it's only one of many possibilities (and you can use WP:IAR to justify it - it's clearly an improvement on the unsourced absurdity that we currently have; I should also mention that there's nothing 'incomplete' about it either, contrary to another quoted allegedly 'reliable' source). It would presumably mean that Francis is the second last Pope, Pope 112 from Prophecy 112, with Petrus Romanus being Pope 113 from Prophecy 113. And there's nothing 'dodgy' about it, unlike our absurd translation, or the perfectly sensible but thoroughly dodgy translation that I suspect may nevertheless have not-exactly-miraculously helped persuade many Cardinals to elect an Argentine Pope ('In the succession, the Holy Roman Church will go to the furthest limits' (the arguably slightly dodgy word is 'succession', and the very dodgy, but still arguable, words are 'will go to') or as Francis himself almost immediately publicly said (approximately) 'The church has gone to the ends of the Earth to find a successor to St Peter' - though you'd have to look elsewhere for his exact words). Of course if you were to put in a translation that makes sense and ends in a full stop, you might have to modify other bits of nonsense that 'reliably' assert as fact that 112 and 113 are a single prophecy contrary to the 'unreliable' evidence of our own eyes. As it happens we assert they are the same in some places, say they may be different in some places, and show them as different in other places notably the table where we show an unnumbered prophecy between 111 and 112. This is the sort of nonsense you end up with when you insist on treating the self-evidently wrong as reliable, and the evidence of your own eyes as unreliable, but as long as people do insist on doing that here, there is no point in trying to fix the matter. I don't want to overstate the problem - it mostly just is or seems ridiculous and/or self-contradictory, but at least by and large it probably doesn't seriously mislead anybody who reads enough of the article (though it may seriously mislead people who only read some small parts of it). But all that is largely irrelevant to the question of O'Brien's reliability on this particular part of the text, except as an answer to any claim that the full stop makes no sense (which, if it refers to the full stop in the Latin, would be false and unsourced). L3) There are other arguments I could use, but I'll simply mention one without making it part of my case. Both O'Brien and our text say persecutione, whereas Wyon says psecutione. Other (not-particularly-reliably-sourced) Wikis (France, Catalonia) say this can be either persecutione or prosecutione (and prosecutione can mean following or succession, and thus may have helped elect Francis as mentioned above), and my look at the limited available typographical documentation slightly inclines me towards prosecutione (and most modern experts favour prosecutione for typograhical reasons, according to Wiki France's unsourced assertion), but the contributor here who said in the past that the full stop makes no sense also said that the typography for prosecutione is different and it can only mean persecutione. Since he may well know something that I don't, I'm not using this as part of my case for O'Brien's unreliability here, but people should be aware that there is a debate regarding persecutione. Differences in English texts: E1: 'the' instead of 'his', as already mentioned above in L1. E2: Missiing full stop (or period in American English), as already mentioned above in L2. E3: Our translation 'sit [i.e., as bishop].' - O'Brien has 'reign' (without full stop). Here it's our translation (with the full stop) that's nonsense, and it's wrong to atribute it to O'Brien (and I'm almost certain it will also turn out to be just as wrong to attribute it to Bander) E4. There are a number of other minor differences (our 'pasture his sheep in' to O'Brien's 'feed his flock amid', etc) which don't change the meaning, but we arguably should be using a single exact translaton from a single source - however I'm not making that part of my case as it's perhaps arguable and there's already more than enough without it.
 * Notwithstanding the rest of your points (which I admit I only skimmed over), I'd say there's a difference in meaning between feeding a flock and pasturing sheep. Pasturing is more about providing security and guidance for the sheep while they get their own food, while feeding implies providing the food itself (like for non-grazers), and doesn't touch upon the guidance or security parts. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, InedibleHulk, and one more reason for not citing O'Brien for this particular translation. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What we do about our absurd translation and about attributing it to Bander, and about other issues mentioned above, is something that is probably best left to others (as I suspect I have neither the inclination nor the competence to fix them). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Can anybody supply Bander's actual source Latin and English translation for 112 (or, arguably, 112+113)?
Can anybody supply Bander's actual source Latin and English translation for 112 (or, arguably, 112+113)? This is the Latin that we are showing as: In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit. Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus, quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, & judex tremendus judicabit populum suum. Finis.

This is the translation we currently give: In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop]. 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.[13]

As already mentioned in my above post (regarding O'Brien), like O'Brien, Bander may well give a correct translation of an incorrect source text. At any rate, it seems very unlikely that he gives our current translation, because it is currently meaningless and thus clearly wrong. We could make it meaningful by removing the full stop (period in American English) at the end of "there will sit (as a bishop)." But then we are still mistranslating Wyon's original, by changing two sentences into one, and are thus still wrong. Any source which omits that full stop in the Latin is translating an incorrect text, and is thus unreliable by definition, at least for this particular translation. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bander has:
 * ''In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations; after which the seven hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.
 * The footnote for our translation says "See, e.g. ...", as we do not exactly follow either O'Brien or Bander, but they would likely be of interest to someone who wanted to read similar English language translations. Perhaps we could make that more explicit. It is certainly true that they both omit the "suum", which is particularly surprising for O'Brien since he was working from the original (as well as from Cucherat; the error may have started there). I'm not sure that that one error renders them entirely unreliable. We do explicitly point out that it was an error in a later footnote.
 * The ignored full stop, however, occurs in every single translation, including Menestrier, de Vallemont and Feijóo y Montenegro. It is highly unlikely to be an error. The more likely explanation is that our cited historians didn't miss it, but simply universally disregarded it as something unimportant to the meaning (e.g., perhaps it is just there to mark the end of a line so that the name "Petrus Romanus" appears in line with the other mottos).--Trystan (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Piteously and Choosing
Miserando atque Eligendo = Piteously and Choosing  What is the meaning of these words -  prophecy of the Bible? Why piteously? Is it because of the plagues?

--AltıncıTas (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM. Is that "theory" discussed in any WP:RS? DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is currently no RS. There are only these. More or less the same meaning: But, i think that's about the third secret - Three Secrets of Fátima in fact. UN and world religions (19th minute): This is my personal opinion, so it can not be added here, i know it. I saw, as if there is a hidden meaning in the words. Anyway, not a problem. You can evaluate it yourself for the article. Sorry for my Turkenglish! --AltıncıTas (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter Bander van Duren
I've not commented on an article before so please forgive me if I'm trampling on any protocols. I think that the description of Peter Bander is misleading - it reads as if he was part of Cambridge University itself, whereas he was at Wall Hall College at Aldenham which was associated with the Cambridge Institute of Education.

Dom Murphy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.136.105 (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The End of the World as prophesized by Jesus in Matthew is set. The whole world knows Him! The responsibilities of the Chosen People have been prostituted and heavily financed by pseudo Christians and Jews. Pope Francis is 112. Current statistical data indicates most likely your world will end first before the whole world ends mainly due to pollution of air (remember you can go days without water, but you brain will die in 10 seconds without quality Oxygen. Hawaii has the best quality Oxygen) and water (The Mocker Trap). John the Baptist summoned it up quite elegantly when he referred to the ruling members as and I quote, “You brood of vipers! “ First they poison you and then they swallow you whole. Before 1850 the Earth and Heavens were in balance and Organic. Now as the Earth forms rings of space junk like Saturn, we escalate the process by utilizing Inner Space of multiple CPUs. It’s quite simple to see instead of using simple arithmetic to pollute and destroy, we use geometric exponential equations. Yes the process is definitely speeding up. Before 1850 going back to the beginning everything was clean except for the minds of the frustrated rulers as John pointed out so clearly. Oh well. St. Peter established the Church. St. Francis of Assisi rebuilt the Church and now Pope Francis will be the last Pope like the Dalai Lama. China’s intensions are quite clear, Human Spirituality is the Enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.88.176 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

The Number Of Prophecies in Fr. Wion's Original List is 113.
Wion's original list of pope prophecies consists of 111 one line paragraphs, one two line paragraph, and one eight line paragraph. Just 29 years after the publication of the Lignum Vitae, Thomas Messingham altered Fr. Wion's work by combining the two line paragraph with the eight line. Every subsequent author on this subject has followed Messingham's lead. He compounded his error by translating "sedebit" as "there will sit." Wiktionary gives: 1. third person singular future a active of sedeo. sedeo: 1. I sit, I am seated. 2. I preside. en.glosbe.com: "he (she,it) will sit, he (she, it) will be seated." "Sedebit" occurs in the Vulgate many times and is never translated as "there will sit," but almost always as "he will sit." (Math. 25.31; 1 kings 1.13-17; Isaiah 16.6; Zechariah 6.13; Malachi 3.3)

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

Pope Francis is not "Peter the Roman" for the simple reason that his prophecy is number 112 which reads: "In psecutione.extre- ma S.R.E.sedebit." He will sit (preside) in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church.

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


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

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


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

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

May I make a suggestion? Since there is no surety of Pope Francis truly being "Peter the Roman", maybe he falls under the "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit." motto? According to the interpretation of multiple Popes between "Glory of the olive" and "Peter the Roman", he would be the first Pope to fall under this motto (in my view, there would be only one such Pope, and it would be Francis himself). And that the true "Peter the Roman" would still remain to be seen. Anyway, without Francis this table seems very incomplete. 94.72.119.168 (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice try but that would be too speculative to put in the article. It's worth bearing in mind that the original list was a forgery, so let's not overthink this. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case we'll never find out, as nothing is going to happen either with this or the next pope. So the real ID list is going to have to be discontinued... --Againme (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * "Silver and gold have I none. What I have I give you. In the name of Jesus, stand up and walk."


 * Quoted by Francis of Assisi to the then Pope, who was bragging about Papal riches. Carlo (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I prophesize an influx of speculative edits now that this guy is running things. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Petrus Romanus means Rock Roman: It refers to thoroughly excavated (tunnelled) volcanic bedrock under Rome city. Swiss cheese bedrock under Rome will cause total collapse of Rome and Vatican when next major earthquake or volcanic eruptions of Alban Hills inevitably will hit (both happened last time c. 600 BCE). This scientific volcanic fact should somehow become added to text just to replace non-scientific theological doomsday mumbo jumbo about Petrus Romanus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.238.162 (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "somehow" is along with a reliable source positing the idea. The whole idea. Not one source for a prior earthquake and another for the name meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Berg - mountain - rock. Is it staring us in the face? And the final "two" sections are each a fragment of a sentence when taken alone. But together they work very well, if we assume a tiny typo that would imply them being seperate. Time will tell. LeapUK (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Double Error
Neither Bergoglio nor Ratzinger are the correct names in your list. They are only curates. If you would prefer the correct information, some amount of moderation here will have to make a positive effort to provide the accurate data. Until then, Wikipedia is in error concerning those two slots. If any other editor is interested in fixing this, please respond here.
 * Can you explain yourself? Are you a sedevacantist or a supporter or other claimants to the papacy? --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If your "correct information" has been published in sources that fulfill Wikipedia's "reliable sources" criteria please go ahead and let us know. If, however, it has been published in sources that do not fulfil that criteria (for instance, most websites don't) or it has not been explicitly published anywhere but you've worked it out yourself please don't bother - we're not interested. DeCausa (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Languages links
I've tried to add the Polish version link but I get an error. The Polish wiki page about this prophecy is Przepowiednia Malachiasza. I've tried to link English page to the Polish one but I still get an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasiu.legutko (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It must be because the Spanish Wikipedia has two articles, "Prophecies of St Malachi" and "Prophecy of the popes" (which is one of his prophecies among many, apparently). Polish wiki links one of them, so it cannot link to the other (Enwiki links the other, and by linking it to Polish, all the wikis Enwiki links would link to Polish wiki as well, which cannot be done because it would link to two Spanish articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.44.165 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Those bones
Now the article is protected, let's see if there is any case for including something. We have good sources that the bones were put on display but I don't see anything in those that talks about the prophesy. About the nearest to a reliable source that mentions both is on the Inquisitr site. If the prophesy said something clearly relevant like This pope will display Saint Peter's bones, we could just give the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusion but it all seems so vague I can't see anything worth including. --Cavrdg (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Proper translation of "sedebit." Correct numbering of mottos.
In his "AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL ACCOUNT...,"(1880) Fr. O'Brien proved that the list of papal mottos could not have been written prior to about 1550. Therefore the most likely composer of the list is Fr. Wion himself. His 1595 publication of the list of mottos should be given priority over anyone else's editing. In 1624 Fr. Thomas Messingham published his edited version of Fr. Wion's work, and every subsequent commentator has copied Fr. Messingham's edited version rather than the original. This is not as it should be. Fr. Wion's original should be given priority. Here is Fr. Messingham's edited version:

Pastor & Nauta.

Flos florum.

De mediatate lunae.

De labore solis.

Gloria Olivae.

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, &judex tremed judicabit populum suum. FINIS.

The effect of Messingham's spurious editing has been to shorten Fr. Wion's list by one, leaving only 112 papal mottos. Now that it has become obvious that Pope Francis does not fit into the "Petrus Romanus" title, it is time to number the motto list according to Fr. Wion's original publication. It is also time to translate "sedebit" correctly. The phrase: "There will sit" does not exist in Latin. That rendering is an invention needed to make Fr. Messingham's conflation of the last two mottos work in English. The correct translation is "He (she, it) will sit (reign, preside.)" This may easily be verified online and by referencing the Vulgate Bible.

My request is that the motto: "In psecutione.extrema S.R.E. sedebit." be given its correct number of 112, its correct translation: "He will preside in the final persecution.of the Holy Roman Church," and its correct application, i.e. for Pope Francis. The inclusion of Francis's coat of arms would also be appreciated. Another note might be that, of all of the mottos, no. 112 for Pope Francis is the only one that is a true complete sentence (contrary to what our WIKI article presently states.)

My last objection is to the inclusion of the spurious hypothesis that a number of popes might intervene between mottos. That is an unfounded conjecture of Fr. O'Brien's which is parroted by the Catholic Encyclopedia. In the first 110 mottos there has never been a case of an "intervening pope" that was not associated with a papal motto. (We can be sure of this fact because of "De labore solis" for Pope St. John Paul II, a definite motto hit, if there ever was one.) So there is really no reason to suppose that such should suddenly happen now.

The out of place period that follows "psecutione." should be retained. It is a part of the original and may have a prophetic significance.Jeffreyerwin (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeffreyerwin (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As has been previously discussed, the article presents a summary of what the reliable sources say on the topic. Our own interpretations constitute original research and are not relevant.--Trystan (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New information in an Italian article
Hi!

as I wrote in the Italian version of this page, a new peer-reviewed italian article shows that the Prophecy of the popes already circulated at papal court in 1587. Therefore, I suggest to cite this new source, and IMO we have to say that the theory of the 1590 forgery is false. With this discover, two mottos - Urban VII's and Gregory XIV's ones- could not have been written ex post.

The link of the article is: https://www.academia.edu/20929069/Profezia_e_alchimia_alla_corte_di_Gregorio_XIII_e_Sisto_V_un_carteggio_dallAccademia_Carrara_di_Bergamo_Aevum_89.3_2015_

Bye! Hallkall (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting find. I've updated the article to include the new information. There's a bit more there that could be included; the author of the 1587 letter cites them in the context of proposing that "the dew of heaven" is favourable to the papal prospects of a Cardinal Claudio Albani.--Trystan (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your corrections are great, really a high standard. I corrected only one little mistake about Italian geography - Bosco is in Piedmont, non in Lombardy. I only doubt about this sentence of the incipit: "Given the very accurate description of popes up to 1590 and lack of accuracy after that year, historians generally conclude that the alleged prophecies are a fabrication written shortly before they were published".

Two remarkes: - I would not say "accurate decription... up to 1590", because now we know that after 1587 the mottos are not accurate, because they are not be forged ex post. - "shortly before"? Wion's book is published in 1595, we know the prophecies existed in 1587. I'd change the adverb :D

I think it would be great to say something about the use of this prophecies in Albani's circle. But the cardinal to whom is linked "the dew of heaven" is not Claudio Albani, but Giovanni Girolamo Albani.

Sorry for my poor English! bye!Hallkall (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked it a little, but we are still in a position where the majority of sources treat motto 74 as one of the accurate ones. Comensoli Antonini makes a good case it isn't, and on closer inspection it does seem out of step with the first 73. We can give him more weight as a more recent source, but it would be good to get some additional sources supporting him.--Trystan (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right, but there is a fact: the prophecies existed already in 1587, so the theory of 1590 forgery can not be true.

I would try to add th Albani's anedoct, if you not agree, cancel it! and please, check my English!Hallkall (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Improving the wikipedia article "Prophecy of the Popes"
Is there anyone else interested in improving the wikipedia article "Prophecy of the Popes" ? - Exodus2320 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In p[er]ſecutione. extrema S.R.E. ſedebit. - Translation
''In p[er]ſecutione. extrema S.R.E. ſedebit.'' can mean "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit." but also "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church he will sit." in Latin. Thus, one single Pope can be meant. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

English usage of an Imaginary noun.
The phrase "there will sit" represents an English usage of an imaginary noun. "It is raining" illustrates the same. It is my understanding that this usage of an imaginary noun does not exist in Latin. Therefore "sedebit" in this context can only mean "He will sit (reign, preside.)" Referencing the Vulgate we find "sedebit" as "he will sit (or reign)," but never as "there will sit." Jeffreyerwin (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)jeffrey erwinJeffreyerwin (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)10/4/2016


 * We can't override the translation provided in reliable sources based our own research; that would constitute WP:OR. Translations are often not literal, but reflect the best match to the general meaning, taking the context into account.--Trystan (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This should help in your misunderstanding : the basis for "sit", "rule", and "reign", is best understood from the citation, "to serve God is to reign". (p. 118, Journal of a Soul, by John XXIII) - 100.14.81.196 (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The church breathes with both lungs
Current Pope Francis has only one lung (his other was removed), and it is said the church "breathes with both lungs" meaning the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church each as a lung; sic since Francis has one lung, then his remaining intact lung obviously refers to Rome, hence Peter the Roman prophecy is fulfilled with this reasonable and logical interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.220.248.90 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The number of lungs the head of the church breathes with has nothing to do with how the governing body survives. One's ancient and metaphorical, one's 81 and anatomical. Two completely different worlds, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You speak with a Hulk brain. The prophecy is metaphorical. SMASH.

John Paul I
I have reverted the addition of dubious material to the chart for John Paul I. See previous discussion at Talk:Prophecy of the Popes/Archive 3. It would be nice to include something about how proponents of the prophecy connect JP1 with the motto, but we need a reliable source describing how they do so. It is unfortunate that there is a gap in the reliable sources here, since the major, thorough analyses (Bander & O’Brien) pre-date JP1, and the more recent popular coverage hasn’t delved back past JP2.

As the calendars provided indicate, neither the date that he became pope (1978-08-26) nor the date that he died (1978-09-28) were the dates of quarter moons. There was a last quarter moon the day before he became pope, and he died several days after the next last quarter moon.

While the lunar calendars are helpful in determining if a source is patently incorrect, they aren't useful for establishing how believers in the prophecy interpret the prophecy. There was a first quarter moon on the day of his birth, but we need a reliable source about the prophecy, not just a moon chart, to support a claim about how believers in the prophecy interpret it in connection to JP1. It is original research (of the most dubious kind, prophecy fulfillment) to make those connections on our own.

None of the sources provided are reliable. One is the news page of an on-line astrology retailer, which gets one thing right (the quarter moon on the day of his birth), but numerous others wrong. We can't use an inherently unreliable source based on it throwing everything against the wall and seeing if anything sticks. God's Unusual Saints is self-published, and contains several obvious inaccuracies, including the moon phases mentioned above and an incorrect etymology/translation for Belluno. The BibleProbe website is also self-published and clearly not a WP:RS.--Trystan (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)