The Prophecy of The Popes

2456715

Comments

  • stetson--

    Hmmm, re what you said about Hal Lindsey. He wrote about both the Catholic church and interest in the occult, but I don't recall his connecting/equating them. At least, in his book "The Late, Great Planet Earth".

    I had Issues (tm) with the movie version. Besides the rather literal portral of the Whore of Babylon, a more serious one: the film told about all these horrible things to come; and IIRC the last screen quoted "And I will make a new heaven and a new earth". But the movie had nothing about what to do about it. There was no altar call.

    I don't know if HL had any control of that.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    @Golden Key

    Just to be clear, Lindsey wasn't connecting or equating the RCC with the occult. He was saying that the Whore Of Babylon symbolized the occult, and leaving the Catholic church out of it.

    My source for this is the Spire Christian Comic There's A New World Coming, which was based on the book of the same name, but which I assume said basically the same thing as TLGPE.

    As for the movie, I never saw it in its entirety, but friends who did told me that it did not seemed geared toward evangelism at all. Though I doubt it would have found a lot of mainstrean acceptance if it had engaged in overt proselytization.

    Bit of a low point for Orson Welles, but he had a few of them in the late 70s.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    I was hearing this whole "Next Pope will be the Antichrist" thing in the schoolyard back in the early 80s.

    As an Ulster Prod you would've grown up with the knowledge that every Pope that has ever lived is the anti-christ. And that the Roman Church is the Whore or Babylon. Anyone got anything new on this, let me know!!

    In the 1970s, Hal Lindsey made it somewhat more palatable to contempary American(ie. Catholic-friendly or at least tolerant) sensibilities by positing that the Whore of Babylon was occultic religious practices like astrology etc.

    Which really doesn't make much sense, because why would occultism in the current era be specifically associated with Rome?

    Furthermore, while I know people make big bucks off of fortune-telling, it almost certainly isn't the economic mainstay implied by Revelation 18.

    Well, it's not that occultic practices are specifically associated with the RC Church. But the classic fundamentalist Protestant view has been/still is for some that Roman Catholic practices are superstitious flummery. So therefore everything is lumped in together. Relics, shrines, oils for rites, candles and vestments, Ex Cathedra, magic with the Sacraments, Papal Infallibility, praying for the dead, praying to the saints. It's all deviltry, necromancy, divination and trusting to dark forces!

    Even as a Paper Wall Anglican I still grew up feeling guilty about reading my horoscope in a magazine!
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Ooooh! Ooooh! "Petrus Secundus" could refer to the fact that there are two Popes (Petrus) at the same time! Never mind the incorrect grammar!
    But weren't we told that "petrus" meant "rock"? So it would be the second rock. At first I was thinking of Rock Hudson, but then we had Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson...so we have already had two Rocks without (apparently) the world ending. But then I realized that "second rock" is referring to "the second rock from the sun," which would be Venus, named after a Roman goddess. Roman. As in Rome. That makes it undeniably clear that the prophecy means that the last pope will be a woman!

    As usual with such "prophecies" one just employs a lot of abstract imagery and vague terminology. And then just trust in the ingenuity of the credulous to fill in the blanks for you.

    Yeah but as we ALLLLL know Jesus is the petrA! The mighty crag. Not the pebble.

    κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾄδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

    !!!
  • Anselmina wrote: »

    Even as a Paper Wall Anglican I still grew up feeling guilty about reading my horoscope in a magazine!

    I would too, but because giving it the time of day would make me feel like a credulous fool rather than anything occult (in any case I think of astrology more like a failed science than directly occult).
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Anselmina wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    I was hearing this whole "Next Pope will be the Antichrist" thing in the schoolyard back in the early 80s.

    As an Ulster Prod you would've grown up with the knowledge that every Pope that has ever lived is the anti-christ. And that the Roman Church is the Whore or Babylon. Anyone got anything new on this, let me know!!

    In the 1970s, Hal Lindsey made it somewhat more palatable to contempary American(ie. Catholic-friendly or at least tolerant) sensibilities by positing that the Whore of Babylon was occultic religious practices like astrology etc.

    Which really doesn't make much sense, because why would occultism in the current era be specifically associated with Rome?

    Furthermore, while I know people make big bucks off of fortune-telling, it almost certainly isn't the economic mainstay implied by Revelation 18.

    Well, it's not that occultic practices are specifically associated with the RC Church. But the classic fundamentalist Protestant view has been/still is for some that Roman Catholic practices are superstitious flummery. So therefore everything is lumped in together. Relics, shrines, oils for rites, candles and vestments, Ex Cathedra, magic with the Sacraments, Papal Infallibility, praying for the dead, praying to the saints. It's all deviltry, necromancy, divination and trusting to dark forces!

    Well, like I said, my understanding of Lindsey's view of The Whore Of Babylon was based largely on this, from a comic book which doesn't mention Catholicism at all. Plus my general impression of the guy, ie. he never seemed to be all that obsessed with Catholicism, even as one evil among many. (I think I remember one passage from one of his books where he mentions the RCC and the Mormons have a lot of wealth, but this was via making a point about some other institutions).



  • stetson--

    FWIW: I think maybe your comic book was different from the book "The Late, Great Planet Earth". I think maybe I also read one of his other books, but that was the main (and first?) one.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    stetson--

    FWIW: I think maybe your comic book was different from the book "The Late, Great Planet Earth". I think maybe I also read one of his other books, but that was the main (and first?) one.

    Yeah, I think the TLGPE was his first book, published in 1970. There's A New World Coming was published in 1973, and that comic would have come out some time after the second book.

    Whatever anti-Catholicism was present in the early days of his career, I'm guessing Lindsey toned it down considerably as the 70s wore on. That was the era when US evangelicals in general stopped seeing the RCC as a major nemesis to be fought, and some even embraced it as a useful ally against social liberalism.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Ooooh! Ooooh! "Petrus Secundus" could refer to the fact that there are two Popes (Petrus) at the same time! Never mind the incorrect grammar!
    But weren't we told that "petrus" meant "rock"? So it would be the second rock. At first I was thinking of Rock Hudson, but then we had Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson...so we have already had two Rocks without (apparently) the world ending. But then I realized that "second rock" is referring to "the second rock from the sun," which would be Venus, named after a Roman goddess. Roman. As in Rome. That makes it undeniably clear that the prophecy means that the last pope will be a woman!

    As usual with such "prophecies" one just employs a lot of abstract imagery and vague terminology. And then just trust in the ingenuity of the credulous to fill in the blanks for you.

    Yeah but as we ALLLLL know Jesus is the petrA! The mighty crag. Not the pebble.

    κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾄδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

    !!!

    Isn't that just a different case ending?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Ooooh! Ooooh! "Petrus Secundus" could refer to the fact that there are two Popes (Petrus) at the same time! Never mind the incorrect grammar!
    But weren't we told that "petrus" meant "rock"? So it would be the second rock. At first I was thinking of Rock Hudson, but then we had Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson...so we have already had two Rocks without (apparently) the world ending. But then I realized that "second rock" is referring to "the second rock from the sun," which would be Venus, named after a Roman goddess. Roman. As in Rome. That makes it undeniably clear that the prophecy means that the last pope will be a woman!

    As usual with such "prophecies" one just employs a lot of abstract imagery and vague terminology. And then just trust in the ingenuity of the credulous to fill in the blanks for you.

    Yeah but as we ALLLLL know Jesus is the petrA! The mighty crag. Not the pebble.

    κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾄδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

    !!!

    Isn't that just a different case ending?

    Second declension masculine nominative, first declension feminine dative.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    In the Latin version of the words of Jesus to Peter about the 'rock' we have..
    Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam
    petram is accusative case of petra
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Even as a Paper Wall Anglican . . . .
    This is a new expression to me. What does it mean, please?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Ooooh! Ooooh! "Petrus Secundus" could refer to the fact that there are two Popes (Petrus) at the same time! Never mind the incorrect grammar!
    But weren't we told that "petrus" meant "rock"? So it would be the second rock. At first I was thinking of Rock Hudson, but then we had Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson...so we have already had two Rocks without (apparently) the world ending. But then I realized that "second rock" is referring to "the second rock from the sun," which would be Venus, named after a Roman goddess. Roman. As in Rome. That makes it undeniably clear that the prophecy means that the last pope will be a woman!

    As usual with such "prophecies" one just employs a lot of abstract imagery and vague terminology. And then just trust in the ingenuity of the credulous to fill in the blanks for you.

    Yeah but as we ALLLLL know Jesus is the petrA! The mighty crag. Not the pebble.

    κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾄδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

    !!!

    Isn't that just a different case ending?

    Second declension masculine nominative, first declension feminine dative.

    Not that Jesus spoke Greek to Peter of course. Or Latin... I wonder what the Aramaic is? Ah! Keepa, Keepa; as in Kephas.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Even as a Paper Wall Anglican . . . .
    This is a new expression to me. What does it mean, please?

    I'm gonna take a guess just for fun.

    A Paper Wall Anglican is an Anglican whose beliefs and practices maintain only the slightest difference from those of Catholicism. In other words, the separation between the two faiths is like a wall made of paper.

    Amirite?
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Even as a Paper Wall Anglican . . . .
    This is a new expression to me. What does it mean, please?

    I'm gonna take a guess just for fun.

    A Paper Wall Anglican is an Anglican whose beliefs and practices maintain only the slightest difference from those of Catholicism. In other words, the separation between the two faiths is like a wall made of paper.

    Amirite?

    Virtually. It was a nickname given to the Church of Ireland which I think many people would have to say has beliefs and practices wildly different to the Roman Catholic Church! But in prejudiced Northern Ireland, the similarities of our liturgy (eg, believing in the one holy catholic and apostolic church, general confessions etc) and having parish communions with some similarities to our Roman Catholic brethren etc, was quite close enough to the Whore of Babylon to be considered barely separated by a 'paper wall'. Also, we had bishops, and, technically, priests although usually just referred to as 'the minister'. And even though vestments were/are canonically banned in the CofI our leaders dressing up in cassock, surplice and scarf was also censurable.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    I have no idea what the Aramaic is for 'rock' and 'Peter' but I am sure that there will be the same play on words.
    Most of the Apostles' names are either transliterations or translations.
    'Andrew' for example is, as far as I know , not a transliteration but rather a translation into Greek of a name meaning 'manly'
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Thanks to Anselmina for explanation of 'paper wall Anglican' which I have never heard here in Scotland. Although the 'English Church' here in Scotland is generally on the high side of Anglicanism, I don't think that there are any Episcopal churches in the Glasgow area which would call their eucharistic services 'Mass'.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    I have no idea what the Aramaic is for 'rock' and 'Peter' but I am sure that there will be the same play on words.

    Cephas, I believe.

    I don't know that Aramaic has two words for rock distinguished by gender. I have poked my head down the rabbit hole and discovered there's a bit of a Protestant/Catholic argy-bargy with the Prods saying that since Peter is Petros and the Church is built on Petra it shows the Church isn't based on Peter as the first pope, and the Carflicks saying Peter is Petra but masculinised to Petros because he was a chap and therefore the passage does demonstrate the Church is built on a Petrine papacy.

    Who knows eh?
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Even as a Paper Wall Anglican . . . .
    This is a new expression to me. What does it mean, please?

    I'm gonna take a guess just for fun.

    A Paper Wall Anglican is an Anglican whose beliefs and practices maintain only the slightest difference from those of Catholicism. In other words, the separation between the two faiths is like a wall made of paper.

    Amirite?

    Virtually. It was a nickname given to the Church of Ireland which I think many people would have to say has beliefs and practices wildly different to the Roman Catholic Church! But in prejudiced Northern Ireland, the similarities of our liturgy (eg, believing in the one holy catholic and apostolic church, general confessions etc) and having parish communions with some similarities to our Roman Catholic brethren etc, was quite close enough to the Whore of Babylon to be considered barely separated by a 'paper wall'. Also, we had bishops, and, technically, priests although usually just referred to as 'the minister'. And even though vestments were/are canonically banned in the CofI our leaders dressing up in cassock, surplice and scarf was also censurable.

    Hahaha yes! I remember my Presbyterian maths teacher arguing (jovially) with a CoI classmate about this - "You say you're a Protestant and yet every week you say you believe in the 'one holy catholic church!' ". And yet the CoI is almost devoid of what one would call "Anglo-Catholicism"... when I moved to an English school it was my turn to be confused when an Anglican teacher said that he regarded the CoE as Catholic... very puzzling for an Ulster boy...
  • Thanks Anselma!


    Hahaha yes! I remember my Presbyterian maths teacher arguing (jovially) with a CoI classmate about this - "You say you're a Protestant and yet every week you say you believe in the 'one holy catholic church!' ".
    Interesting, as this (American) Presbyterian has confessed belief in “the holy catholic church” or “one holy catholic and apostolic church” Sunday after Sunday all my life. I’ve always been aware of some Lutherans who’d substitute “Christian” for “catholic,” but we never did, at least in my lifetime/experience.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    Although the 'English Church' here in Scotland is generally on the high side of Anglicanism, I don't think that there are any Episcopal churches in the Glasgow area which would call their eucharistic services 'Mass'.
    I know there is at least one in Edinburgh (Old St Paul's), and I believe St Michael's is even higher up the candle.

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    I'm sure you will agree, Dafyd, that Edinburgh is definitely not' in the Glasgow area.' There is a very high (Anglo-Catholic) in the Hyndland area of Glasgow church but its services are not advertised as 'Mass'
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited January 9
    I wasn't disagreeing about the Glasgow area. I was just saying that one can't extrapolate from the Glasgow area to the whole of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    As an aside, I know Glasgow and Edinburgh agree they are definitely not in the same area, but I don't know whether people in Inverness or the Orkneys would agree.
  • Thanks for all of these responses and for the removal of the all caps on the headline (my bad.) I noticed comments regarding the "track record" of Wion's list of 113 papal predictions and the observation that this record was much better prior to 1590 when his list first appeared. As I mentioned in my first post, Fr. O'Brien proved (1880)* that St, Malachy absolutely did not write this prophecy and that it must have been composed sometime after 1557. Therefore, the first 74 predictions were made after the fact and would be expected to be very accurate. But that observation does not invalidate the remaining 39 papal predictions which must stand or fall on their own merits.

    To test the validity of a series of prophecies, one selects a "risky prediction" and then sees if it has come true. Horn and Putnam (2012)** discussed the "Religio depopulata," (Religion depopulated) motto for Benedict XV, 1914 to 1922:
    "This is the kind of prediction we like because it was easily falsifiable. . ..If Roman Catholicism had grown or even stayed the same this would have been necessarily falsified.
    Yet, in a remarkable fulfillment, this was the time when Catholicism lost more adherents in one short period than at any "other time in history. . .. World war one was devastating to the Roman Catholic Church, and then to add insult to injury, some 200 million left the Russian Orthodox fold to join the Bolshevik revolution or were killed by the communists. . . .Religion was heavily depopulated during this period."


    Writing in 1880* O'Brien noted of Religion depopulata: "Troubled times are foretold by this. the blood of the martyrs shall flow."

    *An Historical and Critical Account of the So-Called Prophecy of St. Malachy, O'Brien, 1880

    **Petrus Romanus, Thomas Horn & Chris Putnam, 2012
  • Hahaha yes! I remember my Presbyterian maths teacher arguing (jovially) with a CoI classmate about this - "You say you're a Protestant and yet every week you say you believe in the 'one holy catholic church!' ". And yet the CoI is almost devoid of what one would call "Anglo-Catholicism"... when I moved to an English school it was my turn to be confused when an Anglican teacher said that he regarded the CoE as Catholic... very puzzling for an Ulster boy...

    Please tell me your good instructor wasn't ignorant about the meaning of the word "catholic"?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    So what’s the track record on the predictions for all the other popes?

    If memory serves it's really good on the ones between its alleged date of writing and date of "discovery" but kind of shit after that. But maybe I'm thinking of a different false prophecy.
    No, I think you’ve got it. Funny that this “12th century” prophecy should contain names
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Thanks for all of these responses and for the removal of the all caps on the headline (my bad.) I noticed comments regarding the "track record" of Wion's list of 113 papal predictions and the observation that this record was much better prior to 1590 when his list first appeared. As I mentioned in my first post, Fr. O'Brien proved (1880)* that St, Malachy absolutely did not write this prophecy and that it must have been composed sometime after 1557. Therefore, the first 74 predictions were made after the fact and would be expected to be very accurate. But that observation does not invalidate the remaining 39 papal predictions which must stand or fall on their own merits.
    Seems awfully suspicious, though, doesn't it? If the prophecy were genuine, there's no reason for the sudden drop-off in accuracy just at the time it was "discovered" - but if it were a fake, that's exactly what one would expect.
    To test the validity of a series of prophecies, one selects a "risky prediction" and then sees if it has come true.
    "A" risky prediction? Why not pick all of them? Is that the smell of cherries I detect?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 10
    Forthview wrote: »
    I have no idea what the Aramaic is for 'rock' and 'Peter' but I am sure that there will be the same play on words.
    Most of the Apostles' names are either transliterations or translations.
    'Andrew' for example is, as far as I know , not a transliteration but rather a translation into Greek of a name meaning 'manly'

    As uh sed prior. There is no Aramaic wordplay. Kephas is the Greek alliteration of the Aramaic Peshitta Keepa, Kepha.
  • thank you,Martin54.You use two words there 'keepa' and 'kepha' What is the difference between them. ?
    According to the text you make reference to ,is Jesus recorded as saying something like 'you are' keepa' and on this 'kepha'
    In a number of European languages there is a similarity of sound which indicates the similarity of meaning
    e.g. tu es Petrus et super hanc petram....... (Latin)
    tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra............ (Italian)
    tu es Pierre et sur cette pierre...................(French)

    In others there is no similarity of sound but we know that the name Peter is connected with 'rock' or 'stone#
    e.g. you are Peter and on this rock.......... (English)
    du bist Peter und auf diesem Felsen...... (German) Fels Felsen = rock
  • That makes me wonder where 'rock' comes from, as a word, since it doesn't seem to come via German or Latin / French. I looked it up - medieval Latin. That's odd, isn't it.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I think it does have links to French - the word "rocher" is commonly used for a big rock.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Defining "prophecy" as "telling the future" is fundamentally wrong in the first place.

    It's about communication from God. If your starting point is forging the identity of who is delivering God's message, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence about the genuineness of the message.

    I mean, basically it isn't any different from QAnon.
  • ISTM there are at least two forms of prophecy in the Bible, or jobs for prophets:

    1) speaking truth to power: e.g., telling David he done wrong in setting Bathsheba's husband to be killed so that *he* could have her;

    2) declaring something that will (or should) happen:. e.g., "And this shall be a sign unto you: ye find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger".

    2b) declaring something that will happen, *unless* you get your act together: e.g., Jonah telling the people of Nineveh that God would destroy them. The people repented, God relented, and Jonah reportedly pouted. (Though, at that point, the pouting was probably more about everything leading up to his arrival in Nineveh.)

    I think there are different ways of knowing things, and maybe sometimes people perceive a possible/likely future.
  • There is plenty of foretelling the future in the OT prophets. Methinks the "prophecy is not telling the future!" crown protesteth too much.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    There is plenty of foretelling the future in the OT prophets. Methinks the "prophecy is not telling the future!" crown protesteth too much.

    Methinks that some prophecy telling the future does not mean that prophecy = telling the future, in much the same way that oranges being fruit does not make all fruits into oranges.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    There is plenty of foretelling the future in the OT prophets. Methinks the "prophecy is not telling the future!" crown protesteth too much.

    Methinks that some prophecy telling the future does not mean that prophecy = telling the future, in much the same way that oranges being fruit does not make all fruits into oranges.

    Methinks I never claimed otherwise. Methinks you need to reel in your straw man.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    There is plenty of foretelling the future in the OT prophets. Methinks the "prophecy is not telling the future!" crown protesteth too much.

    Methinks that some prophecy telling the future does not mean that prophecy = telling the future, in much the same way that oranges being fruit does not make all fruits into oranges.

    Methinks I never claimed otherwise. Methinks you need to reel in your straw man.

    Well then, maybe "prophecy is not telling the future!" was not an accurate description of what anyone said. But given that was your characterisation, and you negated it, it seemed that the opposite was "prophecy is telling the future!".
  • orfeo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    There is plenty of foretelling the future in the OT prophets. Methinks the "prophecy is not telling the future!" crown protesteth too much.

    Methinks that some prophecy telling the future does not mean that prophecy = telling the future, in much the same way that oranges being fruit does not make all fruits into oranges.

    Methinks I never claimed otherwise. Methinks you need to reel in your straw man.

    Well then, maybe "prophecy is not telling the future!" was not an accurate description of what anyone said. But given that was your characterisation, and you negated it, it seemed that the opposite was "prophecy is telling the future!".

    If it seemed that way to you, you don't understand what "opposite" means of a categorical statement.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    There is plenty of foretelling the future in the OT prophets. Methinks the "prophecy is not telling the future!" crown protesteth too much.

    Methinks that some prophecy telling the future does not mean that prophecy = telling the future, in much the same way that oranges being fruit does not make all fruits into oranges.

    Methinks I never claimed otherwise. Methinks you need to reel in your straw man.

    Well then, maybe "prophecy is not telling the future!" was not an accurate description of what anyone said. But given that was your characterisation, and you negated it, it seemed that the opposite was "prophecy is telling the future!".

    If it seemed that way to you, you don't understand what "opposite" means of a categorical statement.

    You're the one who claimed that there were people saying "prophecy is not telling the future!". No-one said that in the sense of denying that prophecy could possibly include telling the future. If there are any category errors going around, you're the one who set them up.
  • Hmm, the old "I know you are but what am I" defense.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Hmm, the old "I know you are but what am I" defense.

    Read my original statement. Actually read it this time. Do you understand what the word "defining" means?
  • Let's say I don't. What does it mean?
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Oh FFS this is silly. Sometimes you go around looking for fights to pick and I've no idea why.

    It means that telling the future is not the fundamental core characteristic of prophecy. It means that "prophecy" and "telling the future" are not synonyms. It means that prophecies can happen without telling the future, and people can tell the future without it being a prophecy.

    It means that fruits are not defined as varieties of orange. It means that Christians are not defined as people who wear crosses. It means that Americans are not defined as people who carry guns and reject government-funded health care. It means that not all Israelis are Jews and not all Jews are Israelis.

    It means that we use words as an attempt to communicate concepts and this only works to the extent that we have a shared understanding of how those words relate to concepts. It also means that sometimes misalignment of concepts happens innocently and sometimes it happens because people are just being pains in the arse.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Let's say I don't. What does it mean?

    hang on hang on. I think MT is making a funny. In fact, its the very definition of it.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    An actual 'funny' (noun) would involve causing mirth. At best what you have is an attempted funny.
  • I swear to be funny or die in the attempt!
  • undead_ratundead_rat Shipmate
    edited January 11
    Seems awfully suspicious, though, doesn't it? If the prophecy were genuine, there's no reason for the sudden drop-off in accuracy just at the time it was "discovered" - but if it were a fake, that's exactly what one would expect.

    I have already explained this, but I'll try again. St. Malachy was definitely not the author of the Prophecy of the Popes. Fr. Arnold Wion was the true author. He used the ruse of attributing his predictions to St. Malachy to avoid being put on trial for heresy by the Roman Inquisition. Catholic theology holds that prophecy ended with the Book of Revelation. One can get away with making a "political" prophecy about who will be elected pope in 1590, but one is risking being burned at the stake if one says that the world will end under the reign of the 39th future pope. Fr. M. J. O'Brien proved that Wion used a 1557 papal history by Fr. Pavinious as his source of information.

    Of course the first 74 predictions were very accurate. They were made after 1557 using Pavinious's history. The remaining 39 were not made after the fact. Many are rather innocuous and could easily apply to any pope. To truly test the prophecy we look for those that would be very unlikely to be fulfilled. "Religio depopulata" is one of these. Popes are not expected to depopulate religion. It happens only under exceptional circumstances such as an world-wide persecution by a Roman Emperor or by a pandemic such as the Black Death, and it happened only one time since the publication if the prophecy in 1595.

    Fixed quoting tags. @undead_rat you got them back to front. Preview is your friend in getting it right. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • I rather was trying to make a point - who on this thread has defined prophecy in terms of foretelling?
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    We're not going around this circle again. The starting point was you claiming that someone had said "prophecy is not telling the future".

    If you cannot parse yourself out of this circle at this point, you're on your own. Bye.
  • No, the starting point is you saying "Defining "prophecy" as "telling the future" is fundamentally wrong in the first place." When nobody had.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 11
    The entire thread is about a 'prophecy' that is nothing more than a set of supposed predictions, and people debating the accuracy of those predictions. Can you really not understand the context in which I made my statement?

    Even if you take that as the starting point, your description of what was said is still wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.