I agree with @Martin54 for a change - how could anything falsify one of these predictions?
Religio depopulata is a good example of a prediction that could have falsified the Prophecy. Under many popes no part of the Christian religion would have been substantially destroyed or laid waste. But that did happen during the reign of Benedict XV.
Aquila rapax is another where many popes would not have seen any serious rampaging about Europe by an army carrying eagle standards.
Pastor & nauta: many popes would have had no connection to anything nautical.
Flos de florum: not every pope has flowers on their coat of arms.
Wion's very first prediction that was not made after the fact is Ex antiquitate Urbis which seems to have been intended to facilitate the election of his friend who was from Orvieto (Old City.) If someone who had no connection to any ancient city had been elected, Wion's predictions would have been falsified from their very beginning.
Some of you seem to be equating "not proven false" with proven true, but that's not what I have said. Some seem to have the idea that, because Wion falsely attributed all of his predictions to St. Malachy, the predictions have been proven to have no value. I don't see the logic here and have explained how Wion's subterfuge was necessary to avoid attention from the deadly Roman Inquisition.
Let me say it one more time: Wion's list of papal predictions is not proven be true, but neither has it been proven false.
But these interpretations are just after the fact nonsense. The Christian religion was not destroyed during WWI. (If it was, why are there so many Christians around?) And nobody is ever reminded of the Napoleonic wars and thinks "oh yeah, eagles!"
A substantial part of Christianity certainly was destroyed in WW I and in the Communist revolution, perhaps more than at any time since the Roman persecutions. If you are saying that this prediction falsifies Wion's prophecy, I can't agree. Once again, I am not saying that it is proof of validity either.
It may be approaching the time for this thread to close, as we just seem to be shouting at each other. Before it does let me repeat an analysis that cannot be criticized as being made "after the fact." The prediction for Pope Francis is: In psecutione. extrema S.R.E. sedebit.
(He will reign in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church.)
My analysis is that this "persecution" will be in the form of an ISIS attack on the Catholic cardinals and on the Vatican. I further think that this attack will force both the Pope and the retired Pope to leave Vatican City which seems to indicate either a dirty bomb or poison gas attack (or perhaps, both.)
Retired Pope, Benedict XVI, is very old. If he should die before any negative event at the Vatican, then Wion's prophecy is falsified. If Pope Francis should retire or otherwise leave the papacy before his prediction is fulfilled (as I have described) then the prophecy is falsified.
Some indicated that this analysis is not good enough for them, but, if that is the case, then I really don't know what would be.
Aquila rapax is another where many popes would not have seen any serious rampaging about Europe by an army carrying eagle standards.
Given that the Holy Roman Empire had eagles on its standards and was rampaging about Europe until the end of the eighteenth century I would say this is untrue. Prussia and then Imperial Germany had eagles on their standards as well.
There's another point you're glossing over. You take 'pastor et nauta' as referring to the Pope concerned. (I think you're also under playing the number of old cities and connections with nautical things around.) But you don't take 'aquila rapax' as referring to the Pope at the time. You're giving yourself as many ways to verify the prophecy as you need, rather than any consistent principle of interpretation.
A substantial part of Christianity certainly was destroyed in WW I and in the Communist revolution, perhaps more than at any time since the Roman persecutions. If you are saying that this prediction falsifies Wion's prophecy, I can't agree. Once again, I am not saying that it is proof of validity either.
Oh nonsense. People were destroyed, religion obviously wasn't. And it's ridiculous to talk about "falsification" since these "prophecies" are so vague as to be completely useless. I mean, what the hell use is a two-word prophecy?
You're giving yourself as many ways to verify the prophecy as you need, rather than any consistent principle of interpretation.
Once again, you read something into my discussion that is not there. I did not say that any of Wion's predictions has "verified" his prophecy. I only said that none of his predictions has been so out of line that it falsified it. The two are not the same.
People were destroyed, religion obviously wasn't. And it's ridiculous to talk about "falsification" since these "prophecies" are so vague as to be completely useless. I mean, what the hell use is a two-word prophecy?
The communist revolution in Russia devastated a good part of the Orthodox Church.
The prediction did not say that all religion would be destroyed.
In 1880 Fr. O'Brien commented on Religio depopulata: "Troubled timed are foretold by this. The blood of the martyrs shall flow."
You're giving yourself as many ways to verify the prophecy as you need, rather than any consistent principle of interpretation.
Once again, you read something into my discussion that is not there. I did not say that any of Wion's predictions has "verified" his prophecy. I only said that none of his predictions has been so out of line that it falsified it. The two are not the same.
While this is technically correct, the point still stands. The prophecy has only not been falsified because when it is out of line you've widened the interpretation to cover the line.
People were destroyed, religion obviously wasn't. And it's ridiculous to talk about "falsification" since these "prophecies" are so vague as to be completely useless. I mean, what the hell use is a two-word prophecy?
The communist revolution in Russia devastated a good part of the Orthodox Church.
The prediction did not say that all religion would be destroyed.
It's hard to be specific when you can't be bothered to write more than two words to convey your divine revelations.
People were destroyed, religion obviously wasn't. And it's ridiculous to talk about "falsification" since these "prophecies" are so vague as to be completely useless. I mean, what the hell use is a two-word prophecy?
The communist revolution in Russia devastated a good part of the Orthodox Church.
The prediction did not say that all religion would be destroyed.
It's hard to be specific when you can't be bothered to write more than two words to convey your divine revelations.
I've even forgotten what those two words were - *All's Lost!*, perhaps?
The prophecy has only not been falsified because when it is out of line you've widened the interpretation to cover the line.
If the prediction, Religio depopulata, had been for John Paul I, it would have failed.
If the prediction, Petrus Romanus, actually applied to Pope Francis (as most seem to think), then the prophecy is falsified as he has no connection to that name. If you would like to cite a prediction that has failed, you are welcome to do so and we can discuss whether or not the interpretation has been unduly "widened."
In any case, I have interpreted the actual prediction that applies to Pope Francis, and we certainly hope that it does not come true. But, being interpreted before the occurrence, I do hope that, if that interpretation turns out to be correct, we will not have these accusations of "widening."
Messingham's abridged version would cast Pope Francis as Petrus Romanus.
Wion's original of 1595 does not do that. Messingham's version is not correct, so it has not falsified the prophecy.
Let's say one of the prophecies was scheduled to come true in May. What would/should you do about it? What should we do about it?
I understand keeping an eye on happenings that seem to match up with things Jesus said. But ISTM that's mostly to be prepared, in case we need to run and hide. And to maybe help others do the same.
*Do whatever he says* echoes the words of Our Blessed Lady to the servants at the Wedding at Cana, but she was referring to Her Son, not some old guy in a palace...
The prophecy has only not been falsified because when it is out of line you've widened the interpretation to cover the line.
If the prediction, Religio depopulata, had been for John Paul I, it would have failed.
It means he, a religious man, died shortly after taking office.
Or: the Roman Catholic church was suffering persecution in various parts of the world during his pontificate, as it has been throughout the twentieth century. Or there is the ongoing decline in religious adherence throughout the twentieth century in Europe and the United States. If you don't limit religio to the Roman Catholic church, and it seems you don't since you seem to refer it to the Russian Revolution, then we have a massacre of protestors in Iran during the Iranian revolution. There are options.
If the prediction, Petrus Romanus, actually applied to Pope Francis (as most seem to think), then the prophecy is falsified as he has no connection to that name.
Oh come now. He's the Successor of Peter in Rome.
(For that matter, you could interpret it as a Second Peter, so a fisherman, or someone with any maritime connection, or a man of the people, or like Peter compared with Paul not a theologian like his predecessors, or like Peter betrayed his brethren by not protecting liberation theologians from the government but then like Peter repented; or you could interpret it as meaning a rock, with all the metaphorical implications of that, so a builder or someone who holds up the church, etc etc.)
IOW, the *prophecies* are so vague that they mean only what one wants them to mean...
I believe that i have offered the forum a specific interpretation of the prediction for Pope Francis. It is so negative that i don't care to repeat it. If fulfilled it will (in my opinion) constitute a validation of Wion's prophecy. The forum has indicated that it thinks my interpretation is extremely unlikely to come true. On the other hand, if it should happen, then the skeptics say that they will not accept this as a validation because not ever last Catholic in the world will have been subjected to the foretold persecution.
This is the skeptics idea of rationality and fairness.
If the prediction, Petrus Romanus, actually applied to Pope Francis (as most seem to think), then the prophecy is falsified as he has no connection to that name.
Oh come now. He's the Successor of Peter in Rome.
(For that matter, you could interpret it as a Second Peter, so a fisherman, or someone with any maritime connection, or a man of the people, or like Peter compared with Paul not a theologian like his predecessors, or like Peter betrayed his brethren by not protecting liberation theologians from the government but then like Peter repented; or you could interpret it as meaning a rock, with all the metaphorical implications of that, so a builder or someone who holds up the church, etc etc.)
Because of the combining of the last two predictions, analysts actually did attempt to fit Pope Francis into the "Petrus Romanus" mold. No one engaged in the fantasy that you have described.
I came to understand that Francis did not, in any way, fulfill the "Petrus Romanus" label and looked for a solution. I found that solution in Messingham's error of combining the last two predictions into one. This act may have been done to throw the Roman Inquisition off of the trail. Wion was still alive in 1624 and could still have suffered consequences for his illegal prophecy.
You can’t offer your interpretation of a supposed prediction for Pope Francis as any kind of reason why anyone should think that this long list of vague fragmentary phrases are a reliable guide to anything. Especially when they haven’t ever been a reliable guide to anything in the past - except, of course, all the parts which you admit were frauds cooked up after the fact.
You can’t offer your interpretation of a supposed prediction for Pope Francis as any kind of reason why anyone should think that this long list of vague fragmentary phrases are a reliable guide to anything. Especially when they haven’t ever been a reliable guide to anything in the past - except, of course, all the parts which you admit were frauds cooked up after the fact.
The motto for Pope Francis is not a "supposed prediction." It is clearly written in the LIGNUM VITAE, and is there for everyone to see: In psecutione. extre-
--ma S.R.E. sedebit.
I have corrected two common errors.
The first is the combining of this two line prediction with the following one of eight lines.
The second is the forced translation of "sedebit" as "there will sit," which is not correct.
The skeptics repeatedly criticize interpretations of the mottoes as being made "after the fact" and thereby "shoehorned into fitting. My interpretation of motto number 112 calls for a very unlikely event that has not yet happened!
Why isn't that good enough for you ?
What response from us would make you happy and/or satisfied? You seem to want all of us to agree with you that the prophecies are real, and that your interpretation is accurate.
You dislike the criticism of skeptical Shipmates. But you've got to know that most people--not just Shipmates--are going to be skeptical about something like this.
And they should be. There are all sorts of prophecies about all sorts of things, Christian or otherwise, and all sorts of items, places, and incidents that are supposed to be special, mysterious, and meaningful.
You mentioned trying to "throw the Roman Inquisition off of the trail". I've occasionally looked at the prophecies of Nostradamus. I don't know whether there's anything to them or not. They're very cryptic, and I suspect he was a cagey dude who had no interest in being burned at the stake. And that makes it very difficult to figure out what he meant (or if he even wrote them), and if there's anything to them. So while I might occasionally review them once in many years, I'm not expecting them to come true. I expect I could cope if they *did*; but, for me, focusing on them would be a mistake--and, for me, keep me from having a life.
Nostradamus was called up by the Roman Inquisition for his quatrains. Apparently he found a way to explain himself out of trouble. Wion predicted Judgment Day under the 39th future pope from 1590, and, also that this pope would be St. Peter. That's far more specific that any of the quatrains, and I have explained how Fr. Wion managed to avoid prosecution for his heretical writing.
Once again you read something into my writing that is not there. I have repeatedly stated that Wion's predictions have not, so far, been proven true, only that they have not been conclusively falsified. Yet that assertion is repeatedly contended with here.
I've stuck my neck out and offered a specific interpretation of the prediction for Pope Francis, and I have specified a future tragedy in that regard. If that unlikely event should (God forbid) take place, then we have to accept that as a confirmation of Wion's prophecy.
You can’t offer your interpretation of a supposed prediction for Pope Francis as any kind of reason why anyone should think that this long list of vague fragmentary phrases are a reliable guide to anything. Especially when they haven’t ever been a reliable guide to anything in the past - except, of course, all the parts which you admit were frauds cooked up after the fact.
The motto for Pope Francis is not a "supposed prediction." It is clearly written in the LIGNUM VITAE, and is there for everyone to see: In psecutione. extre-
--ma S.R.E. sedebit.
You’re clearly supposing that it’s really a prediction.
I have corrected two common errors.
The first is the combining of this two line prediction with the following one of eight lines.
The second is the forced translation of "sedebit" as "there will sit," which is not correct.
I’m skeptical of your qualifications to interpret Medieval Latin.
The skeptics repeatedly criticize interpretations of the mottoes as being made "after the fact" and thereby "shoehorned into fitting. My interpretation of motto number 112 calls for a very unlikely event that has not yet happened!
Why isn't that good enough for you ?
The fact all of the rest of them are admitted frauds or vague gibberish makes it unlikely that the last one or two are any different, no matter what they say.
The fact all of the rest of them are admitted frauds or vague gibberish makes it unlikely that the last one or two are any different, no matter what they say.
That's fine, Dave. Given the very negative character of these last two, let's hope that you are right. However, if by some unfortunate miracle the prediction for Francis is fulfilled, then i will suggest that you reconsider.
The fact all of the rest of them are admitted frauds or vague gibberish makes it unlikely that the last one or two are any different, no matter what they say.
That's fine, Dave. Given the very negative character of these last two, let's hope that you are right. However, if by some unfortunate miracle the prediction for Francis is fulfilled, then i will suggest that you reconsider.
You think that would somehow negate all the previous fraud and gibberish?
BTW, i checked the Vulgate for its translations of "sedebit," and nowhere was "there will sit" to be found.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The Vulgate doesn't translate anything into English, only into Latin. The literal meaning of sedebit is "(he, she, or it) will sit."
BTW, i checked the Vulgate for its translations of "sedebit," and nowhere was "there will sit" to be found.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The Vulgate doesn't translate anything into English, only into Latin. The literal meaning of sedebit is "(he, she, or it) will sit."
Quite.
However, if one were to translate (for example) the English "In the city there will sit a King" one might say "In urbe Rex sedebit". One could translate that as "A/The King will sit in a/the city", but for that the word order "Rex in urbe sedebit" would be more natural.
Point is not to teach Latin (at which I'm rusty and thus the above could be bollocks) but rather to illustrate that translation is a tricky business as words and constructions don't exactly map from one language to another. The added complication with mediaeval Latin texts is how good the writer was at Latin given it would not have been his first language.
@undead_rat, following on from @KarlLB's post, allow me to ask you this: What is your own preferred translation of the words, "In p[er]secutione extrema S. R. E. sedebit"?
And this thread is rapidly becoming unreadable, and incomprehensible.
(Why do I keep coming back to it? In the vain hope that, one day, preferably in this century, undead_rat will post something that makes sense. As others have said, the subject is of some interest...)
And this thread is rapidly becoming unreadable, and incomprehensible.
(Why do I keep coming back to it? In the vain hope that, one day, preferably in this century, undead_rat will post something that makes sense. As others have said, the subject is of some interest...)
Sometimes one just keeps coming back to stare at the disaster. Ask (or don't) how I know.
However, if one were to translate (for example) the English "In the city there will sit a King" one might say "In urbe Rex sedebit". One could translate that as "A/The King will sit in a/the city", but for that the word order "Rex in urbe sedebit" would be more natural.
A good sentence to show how what looks as if it is a simple statement of fact can have multiple meanings. In a work describing systems of government, the sentence may be showing that a city is where a king will sit on his throne; after a victory on the battlefield, it may be describing the triumphal action of the victorious king. And so forth.
Comments
Religio depopulata is a good example of a prediction that could have falsified the Prophecy. Under many popes no part of the Christian religion would have been substantially destroyed or laid waste. But that did happen during the reign of Benedict XV.
Aquila rapax is another where many popes would not have seen any serious rampaging about Europe by an army carrying eagle standards.
Pastor & nauta: many popes would have had no connection to anything nautical.
Flos de florum: not every pope has flowers on their coat of arms.
Wion's very first prediction that was not made after the fact is Ex antiquitate Urbis which seems to have been intended to facilitate the election of his friend who was from Orvieto (Old City.) If someone who had no connection to any ancient city had been elected, Wion's predictions would have been falsified from their very beginning.
Some of you seem to be equating "not proven false" with proven true, but that's not what I have said. Some seem to have the idea that, because Wion falsely attributed all of his predictions to St. Malachy, the predictions have been proven to have no value. I don't see the logic here and have explained how Wion's subterfuge was necessary to avoid attention from the deadly Roman Inquisition.
Let me say it one more time: Wion's list of papal predictions is not proven be true, but neither has it been proven false.
In psecutione. extrema S.R.E. sedebit.
(He will reign in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church.)
My analysis is that this "persecution" will be in the form of an ISIS attack on the Catholic cardinals and on the Vatican. I further think that this attack will force both the Pope and the retired Pope to leave Vatican City which seems to indicate either a dirty bomb or poison gas attack (or perhaps, both.)
Retired Pope, Benedict XVI, is very old. If he should die before any negative event at the Vatican, then Wion's prophecy is falsified. If Pope Francis should retire or otherwise leave the papacy before his prediction is fulfilled (as I have described) then the prophecy is falsified.
Some indicated that this analysis is not good enough for them, but, if that is the case, then I really don't know what would be.
There's another point you're glossing over. You take 'pastor et nauta' as referring to the Pope concerned. (I think you're also under playing the number of old cities and connections with nautical things around.) But you don't take 'aquila rapax' as referring to the Pope at the time. You're giving yourself as many ways to verify the prophecy as you need, rather than any consistent principle of interpretation.
"This" happens and doesn't destroy all Christians.
The true believer of the prophecy says, well, it destroyed a lot of Christians. That's close enough.
The true believer of the prophecy can't understand why people don't believe the prophecy was a genuine prophecy.
There, I Have Spoken...
Once again, you read something into my discussion that is not there. I did not say that any of Wion's predictions has "verified" his prophecy. I only said that none of his predictions has been so out of line that it falsified it. The two are not the same.
The prediction did not say that all religion would be destroyed.
In 1880 Fr. O'Brien commented on Religio depopulata: "Troubled timed are foretold by this. The blood of the martyrs shall flow."
I've even forgotten what those two words were - *All's Lost!*, perhaps?
If the prediction, Religio depopulata, had been for John Paul I, it would have failed.
If the prediction, Petrus Romanus, actually applied to Pope Francis (as most seem to think), then the prophecy is falsified as he has no connection to that name. If you would like to cite a prediction that has failed, you are welcome to do so and we can discuss whether or not the interpretation has been unduly "widened."
In any case, I have interpreted the actual prediction that applies to Pope Francis, and we certainly hope that it does not come true. But, being interpreted before the occurrence, I do hope that, if that interpretation turns out to be correct, we will not have these accusations of "widening."
You may "kick it forward," if you wish. I have offered you a concrete interpretation for number 112, and you may hold me to it.
BTW, going by Messingham's version of 1624, the predictions are already falsified as has been pointed out.
Wion's original of 1595 does not do that. Messingham's version is not correct, so it has not falsified the prophecy.
Let's say one of the prophecies was scheduled to come true in May. What would/should you do about it? What should we do about it?
I understand keeping an eye on happenings that seem to match up with things Jesus said. But ISTM that's mostly to be prepared, in case we need to run and hide. And to maybe help others do the same.
What do we do between now and then?
Thx.
*Do whatever he says* echoes the words of Our Blessed Lady to the servants at the Wedding at Cana, but she was referring to Her Son, not some old guy in a palace...
Or: the Roman Catholic church was suffering persecution in various parts of the world during his pontificate, as it has been throughout the twentieth century. Or there is the ongoing decline in religious adherence throughout the twentieth century in Europe and the United States. If you don't limit religio to the Roman Catholic church, and it seems you don't since you seem to refer it to the Russian Revolution, then we have a massacre of protestors in Iran during the Iranian revolution. There are options.
Oh come now. He's the Successor of Peter in Rome.
(For that matter, you could interpret it as a Second Peter, so a fisherman, or someone with any maritime connection, or a man of the people, or like Peter compared with Paul not a theologian like his predecessors, or like Peter betrayed his brethren by not protecting liberation theologians from the government but then like Peter repented; or you could interpret it as meaning a rock, with all the metaphorical implications of that, so a builder or someone who holds up the church, etc etc.)
Or what can be forced onto them.
Hmmm. I don't automatically do what *anyone* says.
I believe that i have offered the forum a specific interpretation of the prediction for Pope Francis. It is so negative that i don't care to repeat it. If fulfilled it will (in my opinion) constitute a validation of Wion's prophecy. The forum has indicated that it thinks my interpretation is extremely unlikely to come true. On the other hand, if it should happen, then the skeptics say that they will not accept this as a validation because not ever last Catholic in the world will have been subjected to the foretold persecution.
This is the skeptics idea of rationality and fairness.
Because of the combining of the last two predictions, analysts actually did attempt to fit Pope Francis into the "Petrus Romanus" mold. No one engaged in the fantasy that you have described.
I came to understand that Francis did not, in any way, fulfill the "Petrus Romanus" label and looked for a solution. I found that solution in Messingham's error of combining the last two predictions into one. This act may have been done to throw the Roman Inquisition off of the trail. Wion was still alive in 1624 and could still have suffered consequences for his illegal prophecy.
Corrected quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
The motto for Pope Francis is not a "supposed prediction." It is clearly written in the
LIGNUM VITAE, and is there for everyone to see:
In psecutione. extre-
--ma S.R.E. sedebit.
I have corrected two common errors.
The first is the combining of this two line prediction with the following one of eight lines.
The second is the forced translation of "sedebit" as "there will sit," which is not correct.
The skeptics repeatedly criticize interpretations of the mottoes as being made "after the fact" and thereby "shoehorned into fitting. My interpretation of motto number 112 calls for a very unlikely event that has not yet happened!
Why isn't that good enough for you ?
Indeed.
What response from us would make you happy and/or satisfied? You seem to want all of us to agree with you that the prophecies are real, and that your interpretation is accurate.
You dislike the criticism of skeptical Shipmates. But you've got to know that most people--not just Shipmates--are going to be skeptical about something like this.
And they should be. There are all sorts of prophecies about all sorts of things, Christian or otherwise, and all sorts of items, places, and incidents that are supposed to be special, mysterious, and meaningful.
You mentioned trying to "throw the Roman Inquisition off of the trail". I've occasionally looked at the prophecies of Nostradamus. I don't know whether there's anything to them or not. They're very cryptic, and I suspect he was a cagey dude who had no interest in being burned at the stake. And that makes it very difficult to figure out what he meant (or if he even wrote them), and if there's anything to them. So while I might occasionally review them once in many years, I'm not expecting them to come true. I expect I could cope if they *did*; but, for me, focusing on them would be a mistake--and, for me, keep me from having a life.
Once again you read something into my writing that is not there. I have repeatedly stated that Wion's predictions have not, so far, been proven true, only that they have not been conclusively falsified. Yet that assertion is repeatedly contended with here.
I've stuck my neck out and offered a specific interpretation of the prediction for Pope Francis, and I have specified a future tragedy in that regard. If that unlikely event should (God forbid) take place, then we have to accept that as a confirmation of Wion's prophecy.
We don't have to accept anything as a confirmation of Wion's prophecies.
Neither are we obliged to accept your *specific* interpretations. Your guess is as good as anyone else's...
it actually happens.
That's fine, Dave. Given the very negative character of these last two, let's hope that you are right. However, if by some unfortunate miracle the prediction for Francis is fulfilled, then i will suggest that you reconsider.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The Vulgate doesn't translate anything into English, only into Latin. The literal meaning of sedebit is "(he, she, or it) will sit."
Try actually studying Latin.
It's easier in the present tense of Esse:
Est felis
Quite.
However, if one were to translate (for example) the English "In the city there will sit a King" one might say "In urbe Rex sedebit". One could translate that as "A/The King will sit in a/the city", but for that the word order "Rex in urbe sedebit" would be more natural.
Point is not to teach Latin (at which I'm rusty and thus the above could be bollocks) but rather to illustrate that translation is a tricky business as words and constructions don't exactly map from one language to another. The added complication with mediaeval Latin texts is how good the writer was at Latin given it would not have been his first language.
It's not askable.
(Why do I keep coming back to it? In the vain hope that, one day, preferably in this century, undead_rat will post something that makes sense. As others have said, the subject is of some interest...)
Sometimes one just keeps coming back to stare at the disaster. Ask (or don't) how I know.
Or it's like that scab on your knee that you just HAVE to keep picking at...
A good sentence to show how what looks as if it is a simple statement of fact can have multiple meanings. In a work describing systems of government, the sentence may be showing that a city is where a king will sit on his throne; after a victory on the battlefield, it may be describing the triumphal action of the victorious king. And so forth.