The Prophecy of The Popes

1235715

Comments

  • undead_rat wrote: »
    I see it as my life's work, and I have been working on it for about sixty years.

    But in the end, we have to hold these things lightly, no matter how personally we may have invested.

    (Here is my own bee-filled bonnet: https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/2940/non-christians-can-perform-christian-miracles )

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    I suppose that would be like 'the gays' as opposed to 'gays '? But what about 'the English' as opposed to 'English'. I think I agree with you for example that saying 'the English do......such and such' is lumping everyone in together, but would it not be the same if one said ' English people do.... such and such'. Wouldn't one have to say 'some English people do... such and such ' ?

    No, because you're not referring to English people as if they're another species.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    I suppose that would be like 'the gays' as opposed to 'gays '? But what about 'the English' as opposed to 'English'. I think I agree with you for example that saying 'the English do......such and such' is lumping everyone in together, but would it not be the same if one said ' English people do.... such and such'. Wouldn't one have to say 'some English people do... such and such ' ?
    “People who happen to be English”?

    "People with Englishness"
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Brexitally challenged.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Brexitally challenged.

    Following the template of eg. "visually challenged", that would mean that Brexit is a general aspect of most nation's politics(like vision is for human bodies), but that the English have a reduced ability to do it.

    "Continentally challenged" might be a closer fit. (Dare I say "incontinent"? That would jibe with the popular "brexshit" epithet.)
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 18
    Brexitly surely? Brexitally looks Englishly challenged. Minimalism being an English thing after all. Ah. But you're possibly Cambrian? I can hear it in Brexitally.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    I suppose that would be like 'the gays' as opposed to 'gays '? But what about 'the English' as opposed to 'English'. I think I agree with you for example that saying 'the English do......such and such' is lumping everyone in together, but would it not be the same if one said ' English people do.... such and such'. Wouldn't one have to say 'some English people do... such and such ' ?
    “People who happen to be English”?

    to the domicile they are returning.
  • If someone refers to 'the Jews' I would not think that they are referring to another species of human beings or indeed of any other species at all.
    I would think that they were referring to some people of the human species who have either an ethnic or religious connection to the group of people sometimes known collectively as 'the Jews'
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    I suppose that would be like 'the gays' as opposed to 'gays '? But what about 'the English' as opposed to 'English'. I think I agree with you for example that saying 'the English do......such and such' is lumping everyone in together, but would it not be the same if one said ' English people do.... such and such'. Wouldn't one have to say 'some English people do... such and such ' ?
    “People who happen to be English”?

    to the domicile they are returning.

    Now write it a hundred times.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    If someone refers to 'the Jews' I would not think that they are referring to another species of human beings or indeed of any other species at all.
    I would think that they were referring to some people of the human species who have either an ethnic or religious connection to the group of people sometimes known collectively as 'the Jews'

    It's a dehumanising way to talk about a group of people. As a disabled person for instance, people talking about 'the disabled' is dehumanising. I'm a disabled person, not 'a disabled' (nor am I a 'person with disabilities' since it is society that has disabled me). 'Jewish people' rather than 'the Jews' follows the same principle.

    Being English isn't a form of marginalisation, so the dehumanisation aspect isn't a part of the experience.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    If someone refers to 'the Jews' I would not think that they are referring to another species of human beings or indeed of any other species at all.
    I would think that they were referring to some people of the human species who have either an ethnic or religious connection to the group of people sometimes known collectively as 'the Jews'

    For us, "the Jews" etc carries connotations of the cries of "Juden Raus"; those are not present in "the Jewish people". So rather than talk of the large migration of the Jews into Palestine in the later 1940s and the consequent dispossession of many Palestinians, we'd talk of the migration of Jewish people etc. No rational reason, it's just how it is.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Wikipedia quotes from the entry for Jew in The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style:
    It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.
    They don't comment on the usage of the term the Jews, however.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The use in the first sentence of the quotation is to use the noun instead of the adjective. We'd still normally use Jewish in the later examples (although we'd be unlikely to make such a comment in any event).
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited January 19
    {ETA: This is in reference to your post that started with "Hello, I'm just popping my head in..."}[/i\

    Bill Noble--

    Good post! :)
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    A quick look at the English website for the newspaper Ha'aretz suggests a distinct lack of concern with the use of Jew , and even the Jews. See, for example, the current top story ‘Very Fine People’: An Oral History of Trump and the Jews. It would seem awkward to me to replace every instance of Jews in that article (mostly, but not entirely, in quotes from American Jews) with Jewish people.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    If someone refers to 'the Jews' I would not think that they are referring to another species of human beings or indeed of any other species at all.
    I would think that they were referring to some people of the human species who have either an ethnic or religious connection to the group of people sometimes known collectively as 'the Jews'

    For us, "the Jews" etc carries connotations of the cries of "Juden Raus"; those are not present in "the Jewish people". So rather than talk of the large migration of the Jews into Palestine in the later 1940s and the consequent dispossession of many Palestinians, we'd talk of the migration of Jewish people etc. No rational reason, it's just how it is.

    Who's us? Works better,
    Dave W wrote: »
    Wikipedia quotes from the entry for Jew in The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style:
    It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.
    They don't comment on the usage of the term the Jews, however.

    What about the the attributive use of the noun in Jew hating?
  • I accept what Gee D says. yet the person who hears another person using the expression 'the Jews' should be prepared to ask themselves 'do I think that that person was meaning the word to be used as an insult or not ? My point is that we should not be looking for insults where they may not be there.
    Usually we can tell when someone is trying to be insulting.
    My OED describes the word 'Jew' as 'a member of the Hebrew race' (that immediately raises questions about what does the word 'race' mean ? Secondly the OED,an old edition, tells me that figuratively it means an 'avaricious,extortionate person'
    'Jew' is a noun and from the same area of the world comes the noun 'Arab'.
    Like 'Jew' the word 'Arab' can be applied to many different types of people who share the same ethnic background but who do not necessarily share the same nationality as well as to those who do not share the same religion. Some Arabs can even be Jews ,or can they ?
    Do we automatically understand the word 'Arab' as an insult ? If not,do we have to accept that the word 'Jew' is necessarily an insult ?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    No.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Martin - "us" is Madame and I.

    Forthview - I accept that "Jew" may not appear to all the way it does to us. I tried to be clear that I was setting out our view.
  • I accept also that one has to be careful in what one says and how one uses words.
    There are not all that many communities of the Jewish faith in Scotland but one district of Glasgow, Newton Mearns, is reputed to be the home to a significant number of people of Jewish heritage, so much so that, amongst the community, it is sometimes referred to as 'Jewtown Mearns'. This expression would, however, only be used by members of the community amongst themselves.
    A good few years ago on a quiz show on Scottish radio the question was asked What is the capital of Israel ?
    I think it was on the same show that a well known Glasgow Scottish comedian,on being given the answer to the question, said ' Now, that's a surprise, I always thought it was Newton Mearns'
    That caused a major 'stushie' with the comedian being forced to apologise. People of Jewish faith can make jokes about other Jews, people who are Catholic can make jokes about people of Catholic heritage.
    Yes, we should be aware of times when what we say might be insulting to others, but as listeners we should also be aware that others are not always trying to insult or belittle us.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    I accept also that one has to be careful in what one says and how one uses words.
    There are not all that many communities of the Jewish faith in Scotland but one district of Glasgow, Newton Mearns, is reputed to be the home to a significant number of people of Jewish heritage, so much so that, amongst the community, it is sometimes referred to as 'Jewtown Mearns'. This expression would, however, only be used by members of the community amongst themselves.
    A good few years ago on a quiz show on Scottish radio the question was asked What is the capital of Israel ?
    I think it was on the same show that a well known Glasgow Scottish comedian,on being given the answer to the question, said ' Now, that's a surprise, I always thought it was Newton Mearns'
    That caused a major 'stushie' with the comedian being forced to apologise. People of Jewish faith can make jokes about other Jews, people who are Catholic can make jokes about people of Catholic heritage.
    Yes, we should be aware of times when what we say might be insulting to others, but as listeners we should also be aware that others are not always trying to insult or belittle us.

    If you kick someone's leg by accident, they still have a sore leg regardless of your intentions. Intent doesn't erase harm, especially when such harm is a symptom of living in an antisemitic society (for example). When people refer to disabled people as 'the disabled', it's still dehumanising even though it's usually not intended to be insulting - it's a symptom of structural ableism within society. I can acknowledge that it (probably) wasn't intentional but also acknowledge how dehumanising it feels.
  • I accept that harm can always be caused but I have a genuine question 'what is the difference between saying 'disabled people' and 'the disabled'
    I can see that it might be better not to use the word 'disabled' at all and to stress that people are 'enabled in other ways' . Italians say 'diversamente abile' (differently enabled) but is that not stressing that these people are 'different is some way from others ?
    But at the end of the day we are all different from others. When does our 'difference' from others become an insult, whether intentional or not ?
  • Forthview wrote: »
    I can see that it might be better not to use the word 'disabled' at all and to stress that people are 'enabled in other ways' .

    Umm... no it really wouldn't. Being disabled is real. No disabled person I've ever encountered wants that kind of bullshit. What we do want recognised is that we're disabled not by our differences but by the way society treats us and our needs.
  • My wife works in accessibility for a very large firm named after a large river. Her co-workers who are disabled despise the term "differently abled."
  • I'm disabled, and please don't "differently able" me, it offends my feelings as an English teacher.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 19
    I'm rapidly becoming disabled and that's what I'll f....lamin' be. 'Differently abled' is Bowdlerized bollocks. And it won't be society's fault.
  • my earlier question was about the difference between using the words' the disabled' and needing to say 'disabled people'.
    I was privileged to work for 10 years with children who had multiple disabilities - most had some or all of the following disabilities unable to see, unable to hear, unable to talk, unable to walk ,unable to eat, unable to drink ,unable to control voluntarily their bodily functions.
    While recognising their disabilities it was our task to enable and to encourage them to learn to enjoy life, to interact with others and to access what they could of the important activities of life.
    To do that one had to have a positive outlook on life and to stress one one can do rather than what one can't do..
    I try to maintain that positive outlook on life as I cope with my own personal disabilities due to age and health.
  • That is an amazing story. I work in a group home for disabled adults who are mostly functional; they really only need some stern redirection most of the time. Your former job sounds way more difficult.
    The age thing is getting to me, also.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    my earlier question was about the difference between using the words' the disabled' and needing to say 'disabled people'.
    I was privileged to work for 10 years with children who had multiple disabilities - most had some or all of the following disabilities unable to see, unable to hear, unable to talk, unable to walk ,unable to eat, unable to drink ,unable to control voluntarily their bodily functions.
    While recognising their disabilities it was our task to enable and to encourage them to learn to enjoy life, to interact with others and to access what they could of the important activities of life.
    To do that one had to have a positive outlook on life and to stress one one can do rather than what one can't do..
    I try to maintain that positive outlook on life as I cope with my own personal disabilities due to age and health.

    Now that's a life's work.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    my earlier question was about the difference between using the words' the disabled' and needing to say 'disabled people'.
    I was privileged to work for 10 years with children who had multiple disabilities - most had some or all of the following disabilities unable to see, unable to hear, unable to talk, unable to walk ,unable to eat, unable to drink ,unable to control voluntarily their bodily functions.
    While recognising their disabilities it was our task to enable and to encourage them to learn to enjoy life, to interact with others and to access what they could of the important activities of life.
    To do that one had to have a positive outlook on life and to stress one one can do rather than what one can't do..
    I try to maintain that positive outlook on life as I cope with my own personal disabilities due to age and health.

    'The disabled' is othering and treats disabled people as a separate species, rather than as people. 'Differently abled' is seen as offensive by most disabled people. Acknowledging that it is living in an ableist society that disables us doesn't mean not having a positive outlook, but being conscious of institutional and individual ableism in order to fight it. Disabled people's rights are hard-won thanks to the tireless work of disabled activists and allies, not sitting back and waiting for abled people to give us our rights. Disabled people's rights are under constant threat and have been in the UK since the Tories got into power, this is an ongoing struggle.
  • Pomona I'll have to leave it there as I don't understand some of the words you use.
    I am happy for you to use them and wish you well in your struggle.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    The problem with the phrase 'the X' lies in the implications of the definite article, namely that X constitutes a determinate group with distinct boundaries.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    The problem with the phrase 'the X' lies in the implications of the definite article, namely that X constitutes a determinate group with distinct boundaries.

    And "disabled people" doesn't? Any adjective does that.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited January 20
    mousethief wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The problem with the phrase 'the X' lies in the implications of the definite article, namely that X constitutes a determinate group with distinct boundaries.
    And "disabled people" doesn't? Any adjective does that.
    Most words have fuzzy boundaries. X people generally implies that you're talking about representative or typical members of the group. The word all is available for generalisations without exception. Birds can fly; all mammals suckle their young.

    The point is that the word 'the' means something. Christians believe X is a statement about religious belief, which people on the fringes may believe to varying degrees. "The Christians", on the other hand, implies a particular group distinct from other groups.
  • I rather sympathise with @Forthview's uncertainty! It's hard to know how to sensitively refer to people with disabilities, so I look to @Pomona to advise me as to the best way to go about it.

    That's a serious question, from one who is coping with increasing problems of mobility (or lack of it), and therefore has a vested interest in the answer.

    Apologies to H&As for continuing with what I guess is really a bit of a tangent...
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    I certainly didn't intend to be considered any kind of authority! 'Disabled people' is the standard phrase and is fine. It largely depends on an individual disabled person's preferences if you're talking to an individual. Most people in my experience dislike 'people with disabilities'.

    I only used disabled people as an example since I'm able to talk about it from personal experience. I think though that it is connected to the wider phenomenon within the Church of discussing groups of people as if they exist wholly outside of the Church - 'the disabled', 'the poor', 'the Jews'. Conspiracy theories like the one posted here often discuss Jewish people without seemingly having had any input from Jewish people. Modern Judaism is wholly separate from the Judaism in the Early Church, and most modern Jewish people prefer it that way and do not take kindly to being caught up in Christian conspiracy theories. Making up conspiracy theories without someone's or without a group's consent isn't actually being an ally to them.
  • Thanks @Pomona - that's all quite clear, and I take your points.
  • {Slight tangent.}

    Dafyd--
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Most words have fuzzy boundaries. X people generally implies that you're talking about representative or typical members of the group. The word all is available for generalisations without exception. Birds can fly; all mammals suckle their young.

    Errrr...

    There are many kinds of birds that can't fly, per Wikipedia's "Flightless bird" article. Kiwi, cassowaries, penguins--though ISTM penguins fly *under water*.

    And mammals? Monotremes (platypus, echidna, etc.) are classified as mammals (ScienceMag). Per the second paragraph:
    But one branch of mammals doesn’t suckle: the egg-laying monotremes, which include today’s platypus and echidna, or spiny anteater. These animals lack nipples. Their babies instead lap or slurp milk from patches on their mother’s skin. Monotremes are thought to have diverged from other mammals roughly 190 million years ago, so most paleontologists figured that suckling evolved after that split.

    I'm not poking at you, just pointing out some of the weird and wonderful weirdness of the world.
    :)
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    The existence of birds that can't fly was my point; I hadn't appreciated that 'suckling' applies only to mammals with nipples.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    {Slight tangent.}

    Dafyd--
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Most words have fuzzy boundaries. X people generally implies that you're talking about representative or typical members of the group. The word all is available for generalisations without exception. Birds can fly; all mammals suckle their young.

    Errrr...

    There are many kinds of birds that can't fly, per Wikipedia's "Flightless bird" article. Kiwi, cassowaries, penguins--though ISTM penguins fly *under water*.

    And mammals? Monotremes (platypus, echidna, etc.) are classified as mammals (ScienceMag). Per the second paragraph:
    But one branch of mammals doesn’t suckle: the egg-laying monotremes, which include today’s platypus and echidna, or spiny anteater. These animals lack nipples. Their babies instead lap or slurp milk from patches on their mother’s skin. Monotremes are thought to have diverged from other mammals roughly 190 million years ago, so most paleontologists figured that suckling evolved after that split.

    I'm not poking at you, just pointing out some of the weird and wonderful weirdness of the world.
    :)

    etc?
  • The year is 1953. The time between March and June. The British were busy preparing for the coronation of a new queen and the beginning of a 'new Elisabethan age'
    In March of that same year Joseph Stalin died. In much of Europe there was always fear as to what might happen in the Soviet Union and whether a nuclear holocaust might be unleashed which would almost inevitably bring the world to an end.
    Two ten year old children were talking, in the way of 10 year olds ,about what might happen in the world. One of them said: I've heard that when the Jews go back to their homeland, it is a sign that the world will soon come to an end. I was the child to whom this was said.

    Whatever the rights or wrongs of what was said, I do not for one minute think that the child who said it was meaning in any way to insult people of Jewish faith, nor indeed was that little girl 'othering' Jewish people. She was merely stating what she believed - whether it was in fact correct or not. By prefacing it with 'I've heard...' she is in a sense removing from herself the responsibility for the absolute truth of the statement.

    I recounted this little incident 68 years afterwards to show, as you probably know, that there are many conspiracy theories about the end of the world as we know it.
    Indeed it wasn't until about five years later that I heard about what is being called here 'The prophecy of the popes,' Often when a new pope is chosen as indeed in 1958 these 'prophecies' are trotted out and I remember clearly 'Pastor et Nauta' (shepherd and sailor)used for the much loved and respected pope John XXIII.

    They were not heard of again in general Catholic circles until the sudden death after one month in office of pope John Paul I and, of course, by that time we were much further down the line, leaving only 'de labore solis' and' de gloria olivae' before the arrival of Petrus Secundus Romanus.

    However in the remarks about the Jews as opposed to the Jewish people,one poster has suggested that the use of the words 'the Jews' is dehumanising and 'othering' which means that one considers them to be, according to the definition of 'othering' which I read, an alien species'

    For me,at least, there are so many 'others' who make up the rich tapestry of human civilisation.
    'Being English isn't a form of marginalisation, says one poster.I would agree with that,but neither is nor should be the words' the Jews' nor indeed 'the disabled'

    How do we know that 'being English' is not a form of marginalisation ? To my mind that depends upon how one interprets what someone is saying. I have heard people being dehumanising to the English.

    We should all definitely seek not to give offence to others by the way in which we speak ,but in the way we listen we should not always be ready to put the meanest of motives on those we hear if they do not always use the words which we expect them to.

  • Forthview,

    Thanks for your post in which you mention this thread's subject. First of all, you must be referring to the spurious 1624 version of the papal prophecies (as virtually everyone does) because you list only "De labore solis" and "Gloria olivia" before the advent of the final pope, Petrus Romanus, (where on earth does the "secundus" come from?)
    That is not correct.
    Going by the original version of 1595 we have one additional prediction and that is the one which applies to Pope Francis. It reads in Latin:

    In psecutione. extrema S.R.E. sedebit.

    (He will reign in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church.)

    Going by the mistaken 1624 version, the prophecies have failed because Pope Francis is in no way Petrus Romanus. But going by the original of 1595 we see that either a confirmation or falsification is instore. If no persecution of the Catholic Church takes place under Francis' papacy, then the prophecy will have failed.


  • Please could you define what you mean by *persecution*?
  • Forthview--

    FWIW: Growing up in a fundamentalist church that kept an eye on Biblical signs of end times (in the sense of the anti-Christ, the tribulation, the rapture, the second coming, etc.), I was taught that one sign was for the Jewish people to be "back in the land". It wasn't seen as a bad thing. They weren't going to cause anything. Certain people / countries / forces would be against them--because they're God's people, IIRC.* But IME this wasn't any kind of conspiracy theory against Jews.


    *They were still considered to need salvation, like anyone else.
  • Martin--
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I'm not poking at you, just pointing out some of the weird and wonderful weirdness of the world.
    :)

    etc?

    Translation, please? Thx.
  • Golden Key wrote: »

    BTW: that link has a pic of the cutest baby echidnas at the top of the page!
    :)

  • Thankyou ,Golden Key, for your explanation. I don't think it was meant as a bad thing either. It was, I would have understood, merely a 'sign of the end times'
    which might be good for some, but frightening for others.
    I certainly don't think it was meant as a conspiracy against the Jews. If I used the word 'conspiracy' it was simply because this thread seems to be alive with 'conspiracy theories'
  • Undead rat I am more than happy to bow to your superior knowledge of the Prophecies of St Malachy.
    I'm not clear how one understands 'in extrema persecutione S .R.E. sedebit' who exactly will be doing the sitting,if not Petrus (Secundus) Romanus.
    I'll have to leave it to you to explain what form the 'persecutione' will take but I'm sure that B.F. will know that S.R.E. refers to Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae and goes with 'in extrema persecutione Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae' (in the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church).
    One just possible explanation, if one believes in the accuracy of the 'Prophecies' ,is that this final persecution of the Holy Roman Church will lead ultimately to a new and vibrant Church and, of course ,a golden age for all.
  • Forthview,

    Thanks for your reply and continued interest. Fr. Messingham's reprinting of 1624 is the source of the world's confusion about Wion's papal prophecies. Two predictions were conflated into just one. Here is the 1595 original of numbers 112 and 113:

    (112)
    In psecutione. extre-
    ma S.R.E. sedebit.

    (113)
    Petrus Romanus, qui
    pascet oves in mul-
    tis tribulationibus:
    quibus transactis ci-
    vitas septicollis di-
    ruetur, & Judex tre
    medus judicabit po
    pulum suum. Finis.


    I didn't know how to make the necessary paragraph indentations, but one can view Wion's original page on Wiki and confirm that these 10 lines do, in fact, constitute two distinct paragraphs.

    Here is how Fr. Messingham chose to reprint the above ten lines:

    In persecutione extre-
    ma S. R. E. sedebit Petrus
    Romanus qui pascet oves
    in multis tribulationibus:
    quibus transactis civitas
    septicollis diruetur, & ju-
    dex tremed* judicabit po-
    pulum suum. FINIS.


    Messingham did not offer any commentary so we don't know why he chose to make this alteration. His book, FLORILEGIUM INSULAE SANCTORUM, is available as a reprint, and one can also find the relevant page online. This History of the Irish Saints would have been far more popular than Wion's tedious 2000 page history of his Benedictine Order.
    Perhaps that is why every analyst of these papal prophecies has chosen to use Messingham's altered version which has been translated as:

    In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will sit Petrus Romanus who will feed his sheep through many tribulations: when these things are finished the city of the seven hills will be destroyed, and the terrible judge will judge his people. The end.

    I must add that the Latin verb, "sedebit," is incorrectly translated here as "there will sit" which is a phrase that employs the use of an imaginary noun as in "it is raining." That usage did not exist in Latin, and sedibit is correctly translated as "he (she, it) will sit (reign, preside)."
    In Latin the form of the verb indicates the pronoun, so prediction number 112 is a complete sentence, contrary to what is postulated on WIKI.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »

    BTW: that link has a pic of the cutest baby echidnas at the top of the page!
    :)

    etc? What others?
Sign In or Register to comment.