History channel at 4pm showing doc that Francis is last pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenjaminJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s been a long, LLLLOOOOOONNNNGGGG time since the History Channel was about history.

In fact, it’s practically ANCIENT history.
 
CTBcin said:
40.png
puer.dei:
'Fraid so. I went and checked the program guide on TV, and that’s exactly what this nonsense is.
le sigh
Click to expand...
Well, considering most of the channel is based around Ice Road Truckers and Ancient Aliens, what more would you expect?
Click to expand...
I understand this is most likely satire, if you’re going to pick a show…American Pickers would have been the correct answer.

Side Note: I very much enjoyed IRT.
 
I don’t know how it can be considered a history channel, seems more theological. But interestingly enough the Prophecy of Malachi predicted that Pope Benedict will be the second to last Pope. Whether or not it came from St Malachi, so far it has been true in its descriptions of Popes it would seem.

We will see, won’t we. In the mean time, we should pray the rosary while the Eucharist has been taken away. (Daniel 10:3 Daniel 12:11 Matthew 24:15)
 
Last edited:
Yes, the History Channel should consider sticking to things that occurred, which by their very nature, are in the past, and thus history!, as opposed to being the Future Channel, pontificating and speculating on events which may or may not happen in the future.

On a side note, the Science Channel should also stop emulating the SyFy Channel and stick to science, and not airing shows that describe possible alien creatures on planets in galaxies millions of light years away.
 
General question: Is the documentary actually “showing” (i.e. arguing) that Francis is the last pope, or is it a documentary about the alleged prophecy that he would be, analyzing it from multiple angles, including those who dismiss it? Because thoere are two rather different things.

As for a more specific reply:
Paul_Edwards said:
I don’t know how it can be considered a history channel, seems more theological. But interestingly enough the Prophecy of Malachi predicted that Pope Benedict will be the second to last Pope. Whether or not it came from St Malachi, so far it has been true in its descriptions of Popes it would seem.
Click to expand...
No, it hasn’t been true in its descriptions. Or, perhaps more accurately, it has been true in its descriptions… up until the point when it was first revealed in the 16th century (centuries after Malachy). Then all of a sudden, the descriptions are much, much harder to fit with their respective popes. The conclusion is quite obvious: It was a forgery, and it was able to “predict” the preceding popes because it was written afterwards, but couldn’t get the future ones right because they hadn’t happened yet.

Jimmy Akin provides a useful analysis here:
http://jimmyakin.com/2013/02/how-reliable-is-the-st-malachy-prophecy.html
 
Last edited:
I’m sure the “History channel” is doing what it can to attract an audience (and revenue as a result). That involves delving into “controversy” and conspiracy, even if (when) it proves to be false later on. And no one will hold them accountable (how would they?) because they will have already moved onto the next conspiracy.
 
If Pope Francis is the last Pope, then everyone at the History Channel should be VERY AFRAID because that would mean THE END OF THE WORLD!
 
Last edited:
I would like to point out that Pope John Paul was described as “eclipse of the sun” and he was born during a solar eclipse and died during an eclipse.

I will take a look at that link. We will know for certain whether or not the prophecy is true very soon, for example if the tribulation doesn’t happen (or if it does).
 
Paul_Edwards said:
I would like to point out that Pope John Paul was described as “eclipse of the sun” and he was born during a solar eclipse and died during an eclipse.
Click to expand...
If you make up 37 different vague prophecies, by the law of averages you’re going to end up with at least a few that manage to be true.

In fact, let’s take a closer look at this eclipse prophecy. First off, he didn’t die during a solar eclipse; that’s when his funeral was held (note that the eclipse during his birth and funerals were in different parts of the world). And the eclipses happened in other parts of the world, i.e. not where he was born or where his funeral was. But let’s suppose that’s “close enough.”

Eclipses generally happen multiple times a year. So to “fit” the prophecy all you have to do is find some event of reasonable importance in his life that happened during an eclipse. Over the course of nearly 85 years, your odds of that happening aren’t unreasonable at all.

For that matter, the prophecy doesn’t even say “eclipse of the sun.” It’s the vaguer “from the labor of the sun” (de labore solis).

Even if someone insists it’s a pretty big coincidence to ascribe to accident, we run into the problem that other predictions are so hard to fit to the popes they would seem to disqualify the prophecy, not to mention how big the coincidence that virtually all of the prophecies before 1595 (when the “prophecy” first surfaced) fit the popes perfectly, but afterwards you have to stretch and squint to make them fit the popes most of the time.
 
Last edited:
I see, Thankyou for pointing that out. We will only know for sure then if there is another few papacies, after that it would be possible to stamp it out as definite forgery, and everyone would perhaps be more cautious of private prophecies from then on
 
Ten or so years ago, we used to get two History channels—History I and History II. The second history channel was the good one that dealt with actual history and not ancient aliens. The cable provider took that one off of us; I imagine it was the more expensive one. Since then, all we have is the aliens from outer space one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top