How a Pope is elected/What happens now?

[Siliconjunkie]

I did some research on how The Pope chooses a name and came across and excellent link that describes the entire process from election to death.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/election.asp

[super gerbil]

nice find

[John Prophet]

you'd have to go to a nonCatholic website to get soem of the ugly details of past conclaves, lol....as in, oh, locking them in with no food and water until they made a choice, lol

quite the political fight between the several factions in the cath church

Malachi Martin, who was a top Jesuit preist/Vatican insider for many years wrote a nice semi-novel called "The Final Conclave"...sort of a true story with the names changed deal

[vikeor]

everything is a fight for power now :/

[super gerbil]

you'd have to go to a nonCatholic website to get soem of the ugly details of past conclaves, lol....as in, oh, locking them in with no food and water until they made a choice, lol

without food or water?? Where did you hear that? They do lock them up, away from the rest of the world so that no one can influence their desicion like with a bribe or etc. (for example you can think of this like a jury). Also another reason to lock them up is that in the past, it would take them months to make a decision.

come on JP, provide some support

[Siliconjunkie]

JP, what ISN'T a conspiracy to you?

[MegalosSkylaki]

Try to find a copy of an old Technicolor film, based on the best-selling Noval,
The Shoes of The Fisherman

The World is facing famine and War.
A priest named father Kirov(Anthony Quinn) is called to the Vatican from a Siberian camp as he is needed by the Pope to broker a peace between the USA and USSR led by Sir Lawrence Oliver as Premier-- who are on one side against Red China which is sinking into famine.

David Janssen plays a Journalist who reports on the death of the Pope and the election of a new Pope. Vittorrio deSica(?) nominates Quinn, who becomes the World's first eastern block Pope[which actually predates the history].

The intricacies and politics of picking a new Pope are shown at some length.

"Whoever goes in[to the Election] as Pope. comes out as Cardinal", the saying goes, reports Jannsen.

The movie is an overall classic with Rome and the Vatican seen through the long lens. And please don't give away the ending.

MegalosSkylaki

[John Prophet]

lol...I am not saying they lock em up with no food and water, lol..saying that it DID happen...and there have been many other such occurances related to these "conclaves"

murders, illegitimate children GALORE, veneral diseases, all sorts of political intrigue etc are all part of Catholic history....but it is too shocking to think of them witholding food and water to force a decision after months of delays???

I dont at all understand the mindset today where people are so quick to use the words "conspiracy theorist"..you people act like there are no shady deals anywhere....you think that at these EXTREME levels of power that the people are just average honest people like your next door neighbor??

its hilarious


no, everything is not a conspiracy to me...but if the facts of history are ugly then so be it


JP

[Siliconjunkie]

murders, illegitimate children GALORE, veneral diseases, all sorts of political intrigue etc..all part of Catholic history....

As well as human history..

I dont at all understand the mindset today where people are so quyick to use the words "conspiracy theorist"..you people act like there are no shady deals anywhere....you think that at these EXTREME levels of power that the people are just average honest people like your next door neighbor??

I don't think that anyone is saying that. But, some people, such as yourself seem quick to try to poke holes in everything. Which is why I ask you, What isn't a conspiracy to you? I also noted you didn't actually answer, just said "not everything is"

I think there would be some debate about your "facts", case in point, your 9/11 theories.

[super gerbil]

lol...I am not saying they lock em up with no food and water, lol..saying that it DID happen...and there have been many other such occurances related to these "conclaves"

murders, illegitimate children GALORE, veneral diseases, all sorts of political intrigue etc are all part of Catholic history....but it is too shocking to think of them witholding food and water to force a decision after months of delays???

You are the first person i've heard saying the locked them up without food or water. yes the church has had a pretty nasty past, with corrupted popes, the crusades, etc. and i guess taht it isn't that hard to believe that what your saying might have happened. But, I have never seen any trustable sources saying it did happen.


Also, the Church has changed greatly for the better these modern times, mainly because of Pope John Paul II.

[Chuckiechan]

I think the lack of food and water thing was to force them to make a decision when they couldn't come to terms.

Like duct taping two batteling siblings together until they chill out!

The short story is they meet as a group and decide over the candidates and take votes. Black smoke comes out the chimney if no unanimous decision is reached, white smoke if a Pope is chosen.

They'll figure it out.

[John Prophet]

You are the first person i've heard saying the locked them up without food or water.

Thanks for the compliment.

Well guys..what can I say....I think you people have a false notion of who to accuse of being a "conspiracy theorist"

I have figured out your definition though

conspiracy theorist="one who knows more about history than I do" or perhaps "one who is better read than I am"

sorry to be ugly but thats what I am seeing...maybe soem of you need to hit google next before you start accusing



It was funny...I went to a restaurant after I signed off techimo...they had a TV on cspan....the guy is sitting there laughing talking about the things that go on during a conclave and he is mentioning the TIMES they have forbade them food wand water so as to speed up the decision making process.

SO thats pretty good...I now have cspan fooled and they are quoting my "conspiracy theories"


so YOU guys are the one that tried to make it a conspiracy theory....I was simply making an offhand joke about a historical fact.


JP

[Siliconjunkie]

conspiracy theorist="one who knows more about history than I do"

Gimmie a break. You keep coming up with your crazy off the wall theories that you can only back up with some off the wall website with an obvious agenda. (a la 9/11)

If you aren't going to do anything but whine about people not agreeing with your theories, start your own thread for that.

[John Prophet]

yes yes..it hurts to admit you are wrong huh, lol

I restate...my "off the wall" idea is simply a historical fact...are you disputing that or are you man enough to admit you are wrong?

(I am looking all through this thread and I think you mentioned 911, not me)


one simple solution though..if you prefer me to not respond to your threads just say so....no skin off my nose

[Sweet]

there are alot of interesting news stories out there right now...

here is one...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e&sid=84439559

[MegalosSkylaki]

Good show for returning the Thread back to posted Topic, Sweet.

What often sounds like positing a conspiracy theory is simply the naive belief that the World should be Perfect --and the amazing "discovery" that it's Not.

Let's stay on Thread Folkes.

Anybody see the film The Shoes of The Fisherman , about the Election of the first Eastern Block Pope through a Conclave and the attempt to avert WWIII ?

[Siliconjunkie]

What often sounds like positing a conspiracy theory is simply the naive belief that the World should be Perfect --and the amazing "discovery" that it's Not.

I don't think thats necessarily the case.

I think it is 2 things
1) Someone proposing something that doesn't agree with your view.
2) Someone proposing something that doesn't stand up to reason.

Example of #1
Someone saying that Bush rigged the election.
Bush supporters will immediately dismiss this as foolish, because it goes against their beliefs.

Example of #2
The theory that somone actively planted exposives in WTC and caused the collapse intentionally.
This fails the reason test for most people. It just doesn't seem logical. It will be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

I don't think anyone actually thinks the world should be perfect or anything like that.

And, no, I haven't seen the movie.

[John Prophet]

I think the average person doesnt WANT to believe in conspiracy theories....in doing so they lose their sense of control and safety.

Doesnt matter how many THOUSANDS of times it is proven that govts and big businesses continually participate in conspiracies

We all deep down would like to believe that "our" govt wouldnt do such things.....we can all admit that, say, the USSR or Nazis would rig elections, kill competing politicians, experiment on their own people biologically/chemically, etc etc.....but for some reason we'd like to think our boys arent like that.

We can see how their "state owned" companies can participate in nefarious activities...but we refuse to see that with Halliburton or Unocal.

maybe there is yet another definition of "conspiracy theory"

"conspiracy theory"=a label I quickly place on something when I am scared to really consider the truth

[Siliconjunkie]

Do you really think that people think that everything is done above the table? That there are not shady deals and everyone is honest?

Conspiracies do happen, no doubt about it.

But, at the same time, that does not mean every conspiracy theory is legitimate or even reasonable. Most of them fail the logic test, or are based on massive speculation and ignoring gaping holes in them.

Most of them also fail the motive and cost/benifit test. The things gained by some of these theories come with very little actual gain while taking HUGE chances. It just doesn't make sense to take the risk.

I have no doubt that ANY/ALL politicians are crooked. But, I also think that they aren't stupid enough to do something that would get them in seriously deep doodoo if they got caught, on the scale that some of these theories propose.

And, lastly, most conspiracy theories work under the assumption that the theorist is the only one that can "see the truth" or "see through the lies", meaning that the rest of us are just ignorant bumpkins that lack the ability to see it. We see it, we just don't put as much stock in it. I could believe that some/most of the mainstream news sources are tainted to at least some degree. But, at the same time I find it hard to believe that ALL of them are just shoving things under the carpet that would be of huge concequence. Many of these things just can't be hidden all that easily (9/11 & chemical/biological testing). There are too many mouths to quiet, too many ways to disprove it.

[John Prophet]

Well would you believe them if the govt admitted to them????? lol they have admitted to all sorts of chem/bio testing...hundreds of things ADMITTED to and in rare cases apologized for.....such as releasing diseased mosquitos to see if they could be used to bio warfare. But if you only believe what the mainstream media harps on you wouldnt know that.

I think what you dont realize is exactly HOW controlled our media is....and then you, like most people, figure that if there were a big conspiracy that SOMEHOW it would leak through the mainstream media...or "somehow theyd get caught"

-------

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

— William Colby
former Director of the CIA

-------


do a google search for "Operation Mockingbird"


--------



THEY DO GET CAUGHT...but they spin it further and the mainstream people KNOW there are certain questions they CANT ASK.

Dan Rather said as much himself...he said that they just CANT ask the hard questions....and he had to go overseas to even make that statement.


If we just listed out the PROVEN FACTS so far about 911...it would be enough to win a court case....it would be WAY too much "circumstantial evidence" for any judge or jury to overlook. But it is presented in the mainstream media as one little tidbit here, one tidbit there...they dont try to put the picture together for you.

-----------


Ok, let say the worlds BIGGEST bank robbery just happened....lets say that I am the head of the security company that is responsible for the bank....lets say that I had security guards on duty but for some reason they werent able to get to the bank lobby in time even though the robbers were there for an hour...one guard was in the bathroom with diarrhea, one was in another room on the phone with his dying mother etc etc...one guard was off that day getting his gun cleaned.

Now lets say that I had warnings from 14 various agencies AHEAD OF TIME telling me that a bank robbery was coming.

Lets say that FIFTY totally unprecedented things happened that day...weird behavior, total breakdown of DOZENS of alarm systems and total breakdown of DOZENS of long accepted standard operating procedures

Lets say that I claim I had NO IDEA that it was possible for the bank to be robbed and I had no forewarning and it was all out of the blue.

Lets say that 5 minutes after the crime, even though I maintain that I had no clue, that the Luchese crime family is blamed for the robbery.

Lets say that two of my men were seen having breakfast with a Luchese captain on the morning of the event....and that these same 2 men just happen to be the heads of a later "joint inquiry" into the events

Lets say that I myself used to vacation with the Luchese family.

Lets say that my father was in business with Luchese family members and that on the morning of the robbery he was meeting with the brother of the main Luchese robber

Lets say that on the morning of the event that I had arranged for there to be 5 "drills" of various banks in town being robbed....I had the means to make various false alarms appear on the "radar screens" of security companies and police departments as part of my "drills"

Lets say that when questioned about it that I gave 3 or 4 different versions of events that morning....3 or 4 different timelines

Lets say that I was across town when I was told that the bank was being robbed....but I was in the middle of a meeting with 2nd graders where I was giving a lecture on "how to balance your checkbook"...and even though I was told of the robbery I kept giving the presentation because "I didnt want to frighten the kids" and "I didnt want to overreact but instead to portray strength"

Lets say that my top deputy was around the corner from the bank and even though the news was all over tv for an hour while it was still happening..my deputy says he didnt know about it till they bad guys were long gone.

Lets say that a huge crowd of onlookers had gathered but still no guards showed up even though they were only 5 minutes away.

Lets say that when the guards finally "scrambled" that they drove 25 mph and went the wrong way

Lets say that I blamed it on 19 robbers from the Luchese family....we will say that their car blew up when they left and they are all dead and their bodies vaporized.

When their car myteriously blew up it also made the house of the guy who owned the bank blow up...even though the house was 5 miles away...and the guy who owned th ebank got BILLIONS of dollars due to his recently taken out insurance policy.

Lets say there is NO evidence that it was them.

Then a few weeks later 9 of them show up alive but I still dont change my story that the same 19 were involved and that they all died in the getaway.

Lets say that news surfaces that some of the supposed robbers were living in houses that I paid the rent on....lets say that they were trained on weapons and tactics in police stations that I controlled.

Lets say that the someone suspiciously closed several accounts the day before the robbery and withdrew MILLIONS of dollars....lets say that person was 3rd in command in my security business.

Lets say that a week before the attack the bank was "closed for maintenance" and there were all kinds of contruction workers and contractors and "security specialists" going in and out.

Lets say that a few friends of mine had been told to avoid coming near the bank that day..that there was going to be "trouble"

Lets say that my little brother was the head of the onsite bank security and he also worked security where they rented the getaway car.

Lets say that I stall and dont have an investigation for 14 months.

LEts say that I ask for the investigation to be "limited"

Lets say that even though it was the largest robbery ever that I give the investigation a budget of $50

Lets say that I appoint friends and subordinates with grevious conflicts to "investigate" the crime.

Lets say that I blame it on "negligence" but I dont fire anyone..instead I give everyone involved promotions and huge bonuses

Lets say that whistleblowers start coming forward saying that I did indeed have prior knowledge...but I put gag orders on all of them.

Lets say that at first I claim there were no recordings of the dispatchers from that morning...that they all had "malfunctioned"...but later the recordings are leaked to the press and they tell a totally different story than what I tell

Lets say that within 5 minutes of the crime that I go and confiscate the video surveillance tapes from neighboring stores.....then I refuse to show them siting "security reasons"

Lets say I do release 5 frames of a tape but that it doesnt show the 19 robbers and the date on the tape is wrong

Lets say that because of the crime I am able to triple my power through new and oppresive laws that couldnt possibly have passed without the huge crime being committed.

Lets say that because of the crime I am able to get a tripled budget.

Because of the crime my best friend who runs a gun business is able to sell triple his normal amount of guns to the cops in a no bid contract.

Lets say that I had written in my documents for years of my desire to go to war with the Luchese family but that I wouldnt be able to without some "huge catastrophic bank robbery"

Lets say that I had my troops massing on the border of the Luchese property the week BEFORE the robbery

Lets say that I signed an order to attack the Luchese family....I signed it the day BEFORE the robbery

----------


are you starting to get the picture here??

at what point is it MORE ridiculous to try to explain it all away....at what point do you HAVE to say that I was involved in it?

JP



oh by the way.....how many were involved in the Manhattan project? how long did it stay quiet?