Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pope begins reign with massive blunder

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I refer to the designation "the first".

The Emperor Nero is not known to history as "Nero the first". Why not? Because there hasn't been a second one, and so the number is not needed.
King John of England is not known to history as "John the first". Why not? Because there hasn't been a second one, and so the number is not needed.
I have an inherited school History book, where the Tudor Queen Elizabeth is not called "Elizabeth the first". Why not? Because at the time of publication, there had not been a second one, and so the number was not needed.

Do you see a pattern developing? The convention is that names only need to be numbered when they're being used more than once.
If there is ever a second Pope of that name, this one would become "Francis the first" retrospectively.
Until then,a plain "Pope Francis" would have been the correct usage.




posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
If there is ever a second Pope called Francis, naming this one Francis 1 will eliminate future confusion.
I do see your point but don't find it really matters if Francis adds the 1 to his name.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Beartracker16
 

It matters to pedants.
All right, so it's half a tongue-in-cheek rant.
I did hold back from suggesting that he belonged in one of the deeper circles of Dante's Inferno, along with the idiots who invented the phrase "King-mother" (because they misunderstood the meaning of "Queen-mother") when Princess Diana was alive.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
It's an attempt to plant the subliminal thought that they'll be around long enough for a second.
Which just tells me that they know they are doomed.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Beartracker16
 

It matters to pedants.
All right, so it's half a tongue-in-cheek rant.
I did hold back from suggesting that he belonged in one of the deeper circles of Dante's Inferno, along with the idiots who invented the phrase "King-mother" (because they misunderstood the meaning of "Queen-mother") when Princess Diana was alive.



Maybe they were trying to be hip, it actually sounds alright outside of royal titles. Actually you're right to hold back on the Jesuit side of it, since you know he would be the first.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

But his real name wasn't Francis, was it?
I thought his previous name had been Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

At this time, it does not matter what the next Pope's current name is. They can pick any name they want, and rename him Pope Francis II. And if he doesn't want to change his name, then he won't become the next Pope. They'll just find someone who is willing to become Pope Francis II.








 
 
reply to post by Planet teleX

Originally posted by Planet teleX

It's an attempt to plant the subliminal thought that they'll be around long enough for a second.
Which just tells me that they know they are doomed.

Huh?



edit on 3/13/13 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 

It's simple. Due to the current controversies they are undergoing they are in a state of damage control. By using the designation 'the first' they can boost a little confidence in their followers by reassuring them of the churches continuity. It's a message and obviously taken from a marketing playbook.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

Maybe it's the press who's adding the numeral. When he was introduced, he was introduced as Francis.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Planet teleX
 


Originally posted by Planet teleX

It's simple. Due to the current controversies they are undergoing they are in a state of damage control. By using the designation 'the first' they can boost a little confidence in their followers by reassuring them of the churches continuity. It's a message and obviously taken from a marketing playbook.
They've been successfully profiting off of the Christianity racket for 2000 years. That's not going to stop anytime soon.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 

No, I don't think it's the press.
I watched the announcement live and heard the name given as "Francisco primo", so it sounds like it was actually announced in that form.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
PS I've been putting the mistake down to ignorance rather than conspiracy theory- but what if "the first" is a deliberate smack in the face to those who thought he would be the last?



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

Maybe it's the press who's adding the numeral. When he was introduced, he was introduced as Francis.


I have only seen one reference to Francis I, that was the Telegraph, London.
There has also been clarification,
"On the day of his election, (today that is) the Vatican clarified that his official papal name was Francis, not "Francis I." A Vatican spokesman said that the name would become Francis I if and when there is a Francis II"
I did also see one twitter post, with the same objection as the OP.
edit on 13-3-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

Thank you for that update.
It sounds as though the inclusion of "first" in the announcement was a bit of unpremeditated "off-the-cuff" thinking, and they've had second thoughts on the subject.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by smurfy
 

Thank you for that update.
It sounds as though the inclusion of "first" in the announcement was a bit of unpremeditated "off-the-cuff" thinking, and they've had second thoughts on the subject.



Well frankly, and to be truthful IMHO, nobody is going to talk about the new Pope with an added number, except in retrospect. He will have his own share of controversy, should it be hokem or not, and all the politics that go with the job.
What I do admire is the faith of people in Jesus Christ as we or I only know him as given, and that as a true humanitarian, I don't give a toss if he is not the son of God, I don't look for a second coming, or a Messiah, we don't have the ability to comprehend all that jazz, we do though have the capability for empathy, something day and daily, attempted to being destroyed by government and legalities in their real ignorance.
edit on 13-3-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
yesterday was the 13/03/2013 in AU and for the first time ever I actually looked at the date and mathematically, I said, it was a significant date, but nothing happened here yesterday until I logged in and saw that the new pope has been chosen on this day. In the northern hemisphere it is the 13th.

it is a sad day for me because I despise the corrupt organisation. How blasphemous that they should even think that any one of them would be 'christs regent' on Earth.

the organisation is filled with pedos and when I saw the pic of them smiling on the balcony...I felt nauseated.

some People are working out the numerology but they do so in the abbreviated format and leave out the 2000 and so it is wrong.




posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


It's not a major blunder and it's not worth ranting about.

Pope Francis or Pope Francis 1

It doesn't really matter



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by skepticconwatcher
 

Agreed it's not major, so think of it as a joking rant if you like.
I did acknowledge as much in reply to the first respondent.
But it matters to pedants, as I said.

PS Apparently enough people agreed with me that the Vatican had second thoughts on the matter.

edit on 14-3-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by skepticconwatcher
 

Agreed it's not major, so think of it as a joking rant if you like.
I did acknowledge as much in reply to the first respondent.
But it matters to pedants, as I said.

PS Apparently enough people agreed with me that the Vatican had second thoughts on the matter.

edit on 14-3-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

I like the added post script message.

We are surrounded by prophecy but most people don't see it. The books are being written nonetheless.





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join