Talk:Prophecy of the Popes

Transalation of "In persecutione extrema S.R.E."

Five times in the last three days, IP editor has changed the translation of "In persecutione extrema S.R.E." from "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church" to "In extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church". I have reverted twice and another IP has reverted twice. We have scholarly reliable sources for the translation that use "final", which we should follow.--Trystan (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Pope Francis is dead. Do we update the article to say "sorry guys, the prophesy was wrong"? It seems like a bit of a stretch for Wikipedia Editors to make that decision unilaterally for all Catholics. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

In the original Prophecy of the Popes document in Lignum Vitæ, each of the previous 111 mottos (e.g. Gloria oliuæ.) delineated a separate pope. Each motto started with a capital letter, and ended with a period. The 112th motto, “In pſecutione.” starts with a capital letter, and ends with a period, which following the order of popes, would be Pope Francis. The next motto, before Petrus Romanus, "extrema S.R.E. ſedebit.", has a period at the end. It does not have a capital e for extrema, which could indicate that it is not a motto for a pope. extrema means occurring at the end (of a period of time). S.R.E. means Sacrae Romanae Ecclesiae or Holy Roman Church. ſedebit (Sedebit) means it (or someone) to be seated (in the future). The sentence reads, “At the end of the Holy Roman Church, the Holy Roman Church (or someone) to be seated.” Currently, the central governing body of the Catholic Church and the Vatican City, is called Sancta Sedes, or Holy Chair. Sedes refers to the episcopal throne. Sedebit could be referring to the episcopal throne. After Pope Francis, there could be an end of the Holy Roman Church governing body, and then the 113th pope, Petrus Romanus will be the last pope of the current church. It's the “extrema S.R.E. ſedebit.” that is interesting. Enhancement321 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC) "The terrible Judge will judge his people" is not a line that references Petrus Romanus. It's talking about a different guy, so I'm not sure what you're on about. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC) Pray tell, who does it reference then? Enhancement321 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC) Are you asking me to be a Prophet or to predict the outcome of the upcoming Conclave? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC) Petrus Romanus might not be a new pope, it might refer to the apostle Peter, implying that the (legitimate) papacy ended (perhaps because a heretic/apostatic might be elected in the upcoming conclave) so that during the sede vacante Saint Peter is effectively bishop of Rome again. 213.142.96.169 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC) You made that up on the spot and excluded Pope Francis for convenience which is pretty rude to Catholics. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC) No, you didn't understand. I think "In persecutione S.R.E. sedebit" applies to Francis while "Petrus Romanus..." applies either to a pope who will be elected in the upcoming conclave or to Saint Peter because a heretical/apostatic modernist might be elected so it may say that Saint Peter is bishop of Rome again. There's a dot after "sedebit" while "Petrus Romanus" starts after a brake just like the prophecies above so they may be two separate sentences. 2001:4BC9:1F98:5231:A14E:3CC5:ED49:7263 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Francis and the penultimate prophecy

Why isn't Francis mentioned for "In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit"? The page doesn't mention the fact that it can also be translated as "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church he will sit" instead of "there will sit". This way it would be a completed sentence. The last prophecy about "Petrus Romanus" may be a reference to Saint Peter rather than a Pope Peter II, implying that there will be a sede vacante in Vatican City during the tribulations. 2001:4BC9:1FBB:6A7E:BC21:4D32:59F7:64DA (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

With Pope Francis’s death as of today on April 21. I find it fitting to add him to this list, considering the next pope will have to be chosen soon. 23.125.202.60 (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I don’t agree with that (2A02:C7C:6A52:CF00:6508:CF35:B99:D824 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC))

Why isnt Francis listed in bold next to 112 but Benedict is in bold next to 111?164.119.5.96 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur. In the original Prophecy of the Popes document in Lignum Vitæ, each of the previous 111 mottos (e.g. Gloria oliuæ.) delineated a separate pope. Each motto started with a capital letter, and ended with a period.

The 112th motto, “In pſecutione.” starts with a capital letter, and ends with a period, which following the order of popes, would be Pope Francis. Enhancement321 (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Why don't u add Francis in as bold then? 166.181.89.186 (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The correspondence between popes and mottos is based on reliable sources. There is general agreement (in sources both credulous and skeptical) on that correspondence for the first 111 mottos (with some variations, noted in the article). But many sources note that there is then the possibility of a gap. For example, O’Brien says: "Next in order comes Petrus Romanus, who is the last, but the prophecy does not say that no popes shall intervene between "gloria olivæ" and him. It merely says that he is to be the last. So then any person may suppose as many popes as he pleases before "Peter the Roman.""--Trystan (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

How can you have 111 spots all be filled with no gaps but then all of a sudden for the 112th say there may be a gap? Theres no difference between the other popes not having gaps so this is literally moving the goalpost. 164.119.5.96 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternate number of total present popes possible

Brief: German historian Hermann_Joseph_Hiery is noted in the German language article as having determined a new order of popes in relation to the prophecy during research. He removes three pontiffs who are alleged antipopes from before 1595, making Pope Benedict XVI number 108, Pope Francis number 109, and leaving three unknown future pontiffs. Malachiasweissagung#Abweichende_Zuordnung_der_Päpste

I will not reproduce the linked references on the German page, they are 33 & 34. Hiery's research into the prophecy does not seem limited to remunerating it, so in light of the passing of Pope Francis ruining the mainstream interpretation there may be merit to incorporating his research. His article in Vatican Magazine doesn't seem complete- the online version is abridged. Ludwig Neidhart's work makes the remuneration clear. I have translated and partially reproduced a table from his accessible PDF:

Untitled Table from L. Neidhart

Text of the Prophecy	Common Attribution	Hiery’s Attribution
49. Scourge of the Sun	Alexander V (1409–1410), Antipope	Martin V
50. Stag of the Siren	John XXIII (1410–1415), Antipope	Eugene IV
51. Crown of the Golden Sail	Martin V (1417–1431)	Nicholas V
52. Heavenly Wolf	Eugene IV (1431–1447)	Callixtus III
53. Lover of the Cross	Felix V (1439–1449), Antipope	Pius II
54. Of the Modesty of the Moon	Nicholas V (1447–1455)	Paul II
55. Grazing Bull	Callixtus III (1455–1458)	Sixtus IV
56. Of Goat and Inn	Pius II (1458–1464)	Innocent VIII

And so, it would seem Hiery uses context to remove Alexander V, John XXIII, and Felix V. Ludwig Neidhart also comments that previous methods of aligning pontiffs seem to have focused on the signs of the popes, such as coat of arms, rather than the events of their respective papacies and then agrees that popes after Martin V seem to line up better with this consideration by Hiery. It seems if a new table is formed for the page, papal coats of arms will be unnecessary. I am not an experienced editor so I am not making a disruptive decision to change the page. denigrating the original table seems overbearing even though this independent research I am presenting is compelling. potentially someone knows a way to include a new table in a similar style which will not be a takeover of the page.

Here are two references for this information which will aid English speakers interested in looking further to understand the concept and implications. The first is an article on a well-known Vatican journalist blog in Italian. Austrian priest Fr. Joachim Heimerl wrote this letter and Marco Tosatti hosts it. [1] The second reference is an American Catholic journalist, Anthony Stine PhD, who presents the article with a translation to English from a source better than Google Translate.[2] Patron Vectras (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I added a section in the article which mostly copies the section from the German language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patron Vectras (talk • contribs)

It's an interesting theory, but the article is limited to summarizing what appears in reliable sources, with appropriate weight to balance between those sources. This excludes self-published sources like self-published websites and blogs. Not sure about whether Inside the Vatican itself qualifies as a reliable source, as there is little information about it available, but I have left it for now.--Trystan (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for working this information into the article in a proper way. Patron Vectras (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Prophecy's mottos should not be numbered

Prophecy's mottos should not be numbered!

They were not in the original publication and it is wrong to number them in the article.

Each person should interpret it as they were actually printed and not in accordance to someone who, later, defined there were "112 motos" 2001:818:E33B:A200:3E6C:5B66:1E41:73E4 (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The numbering is found in reliable sources and practically very useful for referring to mottos in a consistent way. The view that there are any number other than 112 mottos is a fringe minority view in the sources, already overindulged in the article.--Trystan (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree! It's a distortion of the list. An interpretation that could be wrong. It's bias and should not be shown. If numbers are indeed needed, then the popes' numbers to which each motto refers should be used instead. It will allow easy reference and avoid a biased interpretation that is what everyone "supposedly" aspire... (e.g.: Benedict XVI is the pope number 265) 2001:818:E33B:A200:3E6C:5B66:1E41:73E4 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)