That may be. But there have been surprises before. I’ll bet nobody thought Angelo Roncalli, as John XXIII, would rock the boat. Surprise!
Lance Armstrong at 10000:1 and closing…
Edit: Richard Dawkins at 666:1 takes the prize, however.
Is there clear evidence of that?
Specifically, Mary Magdalen, Martha, etc. seemed to be following Jesus around just as much as the men – why aren’t they considered as ‘apostles’? Just because they were female?
P.S. Jesus clearly didn’t choose Matthias – he only became an apostle after Jesus was dead.
So since the 12 Apostles were converted Jews, does that mean there is a Biblical rationale for only ordaining converted Jews?
On another note, how many ballots will it take? I am presuming that Benedict16 has handpicked his successor so I predict 2 ballots but I would not be surpised if it took 1 or 3. 4 or more would be VERY suprising to me.
As G.K. Chesterton observed, a man who’s afraid or unwilling to defy convention DOESN’T end up nailed to a cross.
The male apostles were preaching a message that sounded absolutely absurd. It would have sounded no more absurd coming fro ma woman.
That’s very presumptuous of you. Once he resigns and the conclave starts, the man will have no more authority over the Catholic Church and the cardinals. It would be very hard to carry something like that through.
But at least if you assert that he has that much control, then you can’t also be on the side that says he has mismanaged the curia and had very little control over the Vatican in the last eight years. Choose your accusation wisely.
It takes a two-thirds supermajority to be elected; the current rules anticipate as many as 35 ballots (1, 4, 4, 4, 7, 7, 7, 1): Papal conclave - Wikipedia
Notice I said it would take 2 ballots? I don’t think B16 can control the votes but I’m sure he has dropped a few hints and is counting votes. The first ballot will see where everyone stands and the second elects the new Pope.
When have I ever been on the side the said B16 didn’t control the Vatican. The man was in charge of the Holy Inquisition and Dean of the CoC. He was the most influential person in deciding the course the Church would take in covering up the molestation cases. Please point out ANY post where I imply Benedict was not the guy in charge of everything.
Benedict appointed about two-thirds of the cardinals who will choose the next Pope. That’s how he has influence. By the time they vote, he won’t be the Pope anymore, so it won’t matter what he wants.
A good overview of how the papal conclave works: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/europe/pope-selection-process/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Well, actually, the Christian religion only made sense if you were already Jewish, initially. Paul’s the one who expanded it to everybody else.
As to ballots, who knows. Paddy Power, my favorite site for finding odds on ridiculous random prop bets, is giving 5/2 for the fourth ballot, 11/4 for the eleventh or later, and 4/1 for the third or fifth.
(Names: Peter is even money right now, with Pius coming in next at 9/2.)
Except for a few errors.
A majority is not 50%+1 if there is an odd number of voters.
The announcement of the new Pope is not given by the oldest cardinal but by the protodeacon, the most senior of the cardinal-deacons.
Do they eliminate the lowest vote getter on each ballot?
No.
EH-Assumed not. Would make vote easier though.
Good. I’m glad you’re consistent. I hope you’ll come to his defense if someone ever says that he didn’t have enough control over the curia or the Vatican. I also think that what you’re stating, even with the “two ballots” caveat, is highly improbable. “Handpicking” one’s successor implies it’s a shoe-in. As I said, he won’t have the power to do this even if he is somehow illicitly counting votes from Castel Gondolfo (which in itself would seemingly require the person who is informing him to excommunicate himself by that very action).
Marley, I agree with this. “Influence” is a lot weaker than “handpicking.”
If anyone is interested in papal electoral politics, I strongly recommend Fr Andrew Greeley’s book, The Making of the Popes 1978. Greeley was in Rome for both of the 1978 conclaves and seems to have had very good sources about how the different wings of the cardinals campaigned (very discreetly) and also how the votes went on the ballots. He also attaches appendices which have the balloting for several of the other 20th century conclaves. (The clear message from it was to forget all that “vow of silence” bit. Cardinals are human and want to talk about what happened and how they chose a pope, and people want to know. It leaks. )
Overall, a fascinating account - I think I’ll re-read it this weekend.
Yea, the system is pretty vulnerable to deadlocks, for that reason.
Also, I think the CNN article is in error. Didn’t Benedict get rid of the “run-off after seven ballots” thing that JPII instituded. IIRC, the new Pope will need two-thirds to win regardless of how many ballots have been cast.
Here’s a cite for this. The next pope will indeed need 2/3rds. So conceivably there could be a longlasting deadlock, as opposed to the old system, where a result after seven ballots was guaranteed.
No, not guaranteed – that would be a plurality. This still requires a majority. 50%+1. So if there are more than 2 candidates still running, they could split the votes so nobody gets a majority.