- This topic has 5 voices and 38 replies.
-
Posts
-
No, I (am glad to say I) do not. Conspiracy theories involving the Jesuits go back years, and it was over at Donnie's other board that I butted heads with someone claiming the Jesuits were somehow involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. A while back in a class I took on the history of the papacy, the issue of why the Jesuits were historically viewed scornfully by some people came up. The reason seems to have been that the Jesuits befriended people of high rank, and were therefore seen as having access to power channels. There may have been other reasons as well, but this makes some sense. The Jesuits took a different approach than, say, the Franciscans.
Well I guess the Petrus Romanus prophecy wasn't fulfilled. So doom off for now. I hope this guy is a good Pope. He didn't want the job so that probably means he will do great.
That is why I assumed you raised the name of Peter Turkson as a candidate – the prophecy of St. Malachy.
I had never heard of the Prophecy of Malachy until you guys just mentioned it on the board. I did find a pretty good piece explaining it in the National Catholic Register. According to that piece at least, the prophecy is not Canon and it is widely considered to be a forgery. I don't know how much I trust in modern prophecy anyway. It represents too much magical thinking for my mostly rational mind I think.
This will probably throw off the Nostradamus followers. I don't think Francis is mentioned in any prophecy. Been reading a little about him, he's very pro-life. Good.
He nearly won the last time. It's not that big of a surprise that he won this time. Apparently he is a compromise that most of the Cardinals could agree on.
He nearly won the last time. It's not that big of a surprise that he won this time. Apparently he is a compromise that most of the Cardinals could agree on.
How do we know he nearly won last time? Because the press says so? The ballots are destroyed after every vote, that is where the smoke in the chimney comes from and the Cardinals are sworn to secrecy about the vote tallies. If I remember it right there are only two cardinals who tally the votes and they are both non-voting.
How do we know he nearly won last time? Because the press says so? The ballots are destroyed after every vote, that is where the smoke in the chimney comes from and the Cardinals are sworn to secrecy about the vote tallies. If I remember it right there are only two cardinals who tally the votes and they are both non-voting.
Yeah, I wonder how they know this as well. One point, though - I thought that the votes are read aloud as they are counted, so theoretically more than one cardinal could tally the votes. Also, I am not certain whether or not final vote counts are announced to the others. I would almost think they would have to be, or else voting could go on forever. I would not be surprised if votes are changed to align with those who have a better chance at winning, and this would really only be possible if vote counts are known at least in part.
Here are the Rules for voting and counting the ballot from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
There are four possible forms of election: scrutinium, compromissum, accessus, quasi-inspiratio. The usual form is that of scrutinium, or secret ballot, and in it the successful candidate requires a two-thirds vote exclusive of his own. When there is a close vote, and only then, the ballot of the pope-elect, which, like all the others, is distinguishable by a text of Scripture written on one of its outside folds, is opened to make sure that he did not vote for himself. Each cardinal deposits his vote in the chalice on the altar and at the same time takes the prescribed oath: "Testor Christum Dominum qui me judicaturus est me eligere quem secundum Deum judice eligi debere et quod idem in accessu præstabo"—"I call to witness the Lord Christ, Who will be my judge, that I am electing the one whom according to God I think ought to be elected", etc. (For the form of the oath see Lucius Lector, "Le Conclave", 615, 618.) The ballot reads: "Ego, Cardinalis N., eligo in summum Pontificem R. D. meum D. Card. N."For this election by secret ballot three cardinals (scrutatores) are chosen by lot each time to preside over the operation of voting, three others (revisores) to control the count of their colleagues, and still three others (infirmarii) to collect the ballots of the sick and absent cardinals. If the sick cardinals cannot attend the balloting, then the three infirmarii go to their cells and bring back their votes in a box to the three cardinals presiding, who count them and put them in the chalice with the others. Then, all the ballots having been shaken up and counted, if the number agrees with the number of electors, the chalice is brought to the table and the ballots, on the outside of which appear the names of the candidates, are passed from hand to hand to the third cardinal who reads the names aloud. All present are provided with lists on which the names of all the cardinals appear, and it is customary for the cardinals to check off the votes as they are read. Then the three cardinal revisors verify the result which is proclaimed as definite....When the required two-thirds are not obtained, the ballots are consumed in a stove whose chimney extends through a window of the Sistine Chapel. When there is no election, straw is mixed with the ballots to show by its thick smoke (sfumata) to those waiting outside that there has been no election.
The only way the press could know what the vote tally was is if a Cardinal talked and for some reason I don't see any Cardinal being particularly friendly to a journalist, especially in regards to the Conclave after the way Catholicism in general has been treated by the press in the last 10-15 years.
