Talk:John of Nepomuk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
John of Nepomuk is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details. |
|
==John of Nepomuk==
Here are some outside sources:
Details of his torture may have included hot irons and cutting out his tongue. There is an intriguing bit of information here: "When his body was exhumated, in his scull the exhumators found unusual substance which looked like tongue. They considered it as a miracle. In 1980s the anthropologist investigated this "tongue“ and they discovered that it is a part of brain – brain tissue. You can see it in St Vitus’ Cathedral at Prague Castle where Jan Nepomucký was buried." He was exumed in the 18th century and his body parts tested in 1980's. --16:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
considered the first martyr of the seal of confession Romanists have to help the rest of us out with this very special category. And why "considered"? Is there some doubt? Wetman 18:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dr Johanek, as he was called because of his small stature Isn't the diminutive widely used in Czech for anyone, like "Johnny" irregardless of dwarf stature? Wetman 20:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Date of Beatification
The article gives two dates, 31 May and 25 June, 1721. Which is correct?? Cheers/JackofOz 22:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting this. I tried to look for the source of the June 25th date but was unable to find anything (other than originally wikipedia sources). The official pages [1] say that the date is May 31st, although they state that he was beautified on that day :-). I corrected the article. Matt ෙ 08:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Death Date and Archbishop of Prague dates?
The article talks about his being thrown in the river on March 20, 1393 and also says: "In 1393 he was made the vicar-general of John of Jenštejn (1348-1400), Archbishop of Prague from 1378 to 1396."
How could someone continue to be the Archbishop of Prague after his death?
Also, it is unclear about his death and the issue relating to it. Might be better to rewrite it putiing the issue first and consequences later.
It clearly says that John of Jenštejn was the Archbishop of Prague, who reigned from from 1378 to 1396, 4 years before he died. That should clarify how John of Nepomuk was made the vicar-general in 1393, shortly before his death.--Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Considered
Wetman, perhaps you might get the input you request if you, a) Wouldn't use a pejorative in reference to a demographic of a billion people, and b) wouldn't have asserted as you conclusion two very telling inferences about your negative POV on the subject.
- Whatever that may have meant, I have made some changes in the text today, as well as trying to give the article some visual congruity. I've added a Notes section. The text ended "Rome, making use of a forged biography, has canonized a man whose very existence can not be demonstrated." This does not follow from what has been laid out in the preceding text: I've made it "Rome, making use of a forged biography, has canonized a man whose cultural role has become shifted."
- My other changes were mostly explanatory additions and links. The most important addition was "The connection of John of Nepomuk with the inviolability of the confessional is part of the development and transformation of the legend..." An essential link. --Wetman 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Usury
Usury : premium or increase paid, or stipulated to be paid, for a loan, as of money; interest. Obs. or Archaic
"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury. " --Deut. xxiii.
first written down in the hebrew language
anyway Usury is the tool by fellow brethren who are not our brothers, to gain foothold in alien and foreign communities and gradually take em over.
The most rare known practitioner of Usury was Saint. John of Nepomuk from Prague :
"Among his contemporaries, the new vicar-general enjoyed no special reputation; he was rich, possessed houses, and lent money to noblemen and priests."
This certainly smells like Nepomuk must have been a crypto Jew
"Saint" Nepomuk was beautified by the catholic church in May 31, 1721, when Azkenazi Jews were abundant living in Prague. St. Nepomuk is a phony by traditional Catholic standards. The fact that Bohemian grove uses Nepomuk as its patron Saint tells me enough. The Bohemian grove uses Nepomuk to piss on the Catholic religion, just as today Rome pisses on its own tradition and religion by allowing Ratzinger to play ball.
This smells like a Azkenazi Jew game from deep within a total depected Roman Catholic church.
Whatever you understood it as, it seems to have worked. You removed one negative point-of-view conclusion, and you refrained from the use of pejoratives in the discussion about such changes. You just might yet turn out to not be a bigot.
St. John of Nepomuk is always depicted with 5 stars above his head, not 7 as the article states.70.171.16.240 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pope Benedict IX?
From the article: "...The first is the accusation of the king, presented to the pope Benedict IX on April 23, 1393..."
Benedict IX lived in the 11th century. Probably it's supposed to be Pope Boniface IX? Top.Squark (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
