Video: How does a Pope get elected?

posted at 8:01 am on March 9, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Now that the date for the papal conclave has been set, many people might wonder just what happens when the cardinals get sequestered in the Sistine Chapel.  No, they don’t stop the tours because of a Washington Monument strategy to protest sequester budget cuts — well, er, they do stop tours of the Sistine Chapel, but that’s because the cardinals have to meet in isolation, and it would be a little awkward to have tourists traipsing through during a vote.  In fact, the Sistine Chapel has been closed to visitors for most of the last week while security and other logistical preparations for the conclave took place.

Catholic News Service has a good five-minute explanation of the process, along with some very serious commentary from former conclave voters as to the burden they carry.  One says flatly that he’s happy to be too old to participate this time (via The Anchoress):

Of course, that’s the serious take.  The less-serious primer is just as accurate, but … a little more amusing.  It’s a couple of weeks old, but it’s definitely worth a watch, especially if you have a burning desire to be the cause of the white smoke coming out of the chimney.

You have a more likely career track to Hollywood stardom or the NFL Hall of Fame, in other words.

Speaking of the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican is allowing a small contingent of media to tour it today to give people a better idea of the preparations made for the conclave.  Unfortunately I didn’t make the cut, but I hope to pick up some video from other news outlets after the video/photo tour.

HAatV-560


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

By appealing to dim-witted low information Cardinals?
Works here.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 9, 2013 at 8:15 AM

They “Vote”…LMMFBO! Is there a bigger group of idiots gathered in one place? Wait, yeah there is. But I’d say Washington and Rome are tied.

Tbone McGraw on March 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM

The second video is both funny and instructional. Very well done, and not so solemn as the first put out by the Catholic News Service. I’d still trying to find a YouTube video of the Father Guido Sarducci SNL piece where he explains that the Cardinals get pizza delivery and try to find the next Pope in the pizza.

So Ed, next time you get a pizza in Rome, you might want to give that suggestion a try. :)

Yeah I know I’m going to pay for that one. But keep up the good reporting from Vatican City. It’s good that at least one practicing Catholic who doesn’t ask uneducated questions like, “will the cardinals finally elect a pope who is living in the 21st century and recognize a woman’s right to an abortion and free contraceptives?”

Thanks for the reports and enjoy your visit to this historic occasion

simkeith on March 9, 2013 at 8:45 AM

How does a Pope get elected?

…Soros people and the SEIU make sure… the voting machines are working right?

KOOLAID2 on March 9, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Thanks for the reports and enjoy your visit to this historic occasion

simkeith on March 9, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Yes, this is greatly appreciated, Ed.

Connie on March 9, 2013 at 9:03 AM

So what about the “lobbyists”? Come on! You know the cardinals and others are lobbying for their cardinal friends to be elected pope. And the flip side is going after your enemies and those you disagree with. I think we have already seen it happen this election.

Blake on March 9, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Feel free to answer, Ed. Also, since so many flew into town, what are the accommodations for the Cardinals like? And where are they staying at the Vatican? The place is huge so I’m sure there is plenty of room. I assume each cardinal has a bit of an entourage, too.

Blake on March 9, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Ed, try to hold yourself down to one gelato per day.

Also, Burke for Pope.

Greek Fire on March 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM

They “Vote”…LMMFBO! Is there a bigger group of idiots gathered in one place? Wait, yeah there is. But I’d say Washington and Rome are tied.

Tbone McGraw on March 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM

You got the acronym wrong, & you contradicted yourself in the last two sentences.

I’m certainly no Catholic, but one doesn’t have to be Catholic to spot the biggest idiot in this conversation.

itsnotaboutme on March 9, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I find it hilarious that someone can be voted INto infallibility.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Blake on March 9, 2013 at 9:05 AM

This film covers the History of the Conclave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbFc1vTszVE

It also shows the cells the Cardinal Electors stay in during the conclave.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I find it hilarious that someone can be voted INto infallibility.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

You’ve got it wrong. The Church is infallible, and the Pope, when speaking for the Church on matters of faith, is infallible. That means that the message originally given to us by Jesus is transmitted by the Church from age to age without error.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2013 at 9:42 AM

All the secrecy is meant to protect everybody from the knowledge that between votes, the have a pickup basketball game between the “Mighty Miters” and the “Cozy Croziers”. The Mighty Miters are 5:0

J_Crater on March 9, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I find it hilarious that someone can be voted INto infallibility.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Obviously you have little understanding of Papal Infallibility in Catholic teaching and the biblical as well as historical confirmation and use of it.

Ex Cathedra.

“Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff.”

Perhaps this explanation will help you.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM

How does a Pope get elected?

Practice?

Wait, no. That’s how you get to Carnegie Hall.

Hmmm. I don’t know this one. I suppose I should watch the video…

Fallon on March 9, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I find it hilarious that someone can be voted INto infallibility.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

You’ve got it wrong. The Church is infallible, and the Pope, when speaking for the Church on matters of faith, is infallible. That means that the message originally given to us by Jesus is transmitted by the Church from age to age without error.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Indeed.

Ex Cathedra means a supernatural protection from error by the Holy Spirit.

The Successor to St. Peter is prevented by the Holy Spirit from leading Catholic Souls into errors when speaking ex cathedra.

ex cathedra binds all elements of the Church…Scripture,Teaching,Tradition and Spiritual. It must unify in principle.

“But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM

You’ve got it wrong. The Church is infallible, and the Pope, when speaking for the Church on matters of faith, is infallible. That means that the message originally given to us by Jesus is transmitted by the Church from age to age without error.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2013 at 9:42 AM

That’s just a bunch of theological mumbo jumbo. The fact is that the bible isn’t infallible and neither was Jesus, if he even existed. One need only a rudimentary understanding of history to know that the church has foisted error upon error on humankind throughout the ages.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:12 AM

That’s just a bunch of theological mumbo jumbo. The fact is that the bible isn’t infallible and neither was Jesus, if he even existed. One need only a rudimentary understanding of history to know that the church has foisted error upon error on humankind throughout the ages.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Thank you for demonstrating your fallibility.
All but the most lunatic-fringe of skeptics admit that a religious leader named Jesus of Nazareth existed.
A variety of ancient non-Christian Roman & Jewish historians referred to him many times in their writings.

itsnotaboutme on March 9, 2013 at 10:24 AM

The fact is that the bible isn’t infallible and neither was Jesus, if he even existed.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:12 AM

You’ve just revealed your biases there, Butch. There are a lot of historical texts we do accept as authoritative that have a lot less evidence of their authenticity than any book of the bible does. There are certain books that I personally quibble with (mostly Paul’s epistles), but the historicity of the Gospels is pretty clear to me, even from a strictly scholarly view.

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Ah, Ed, Rome! Hope you are living it up there. Rome, wonderful city. On a normal week the place is in motion, can’t imagine it during the conclave. Have fun, and stay away from fiddle playing on the Capitoline.

Limerick on March 9, 2013 at 10:30 AM

A variety of ancient non-Christian Roman & Jewish historians referred to him many times in their writings.

itsnotaboutme on March 9, 2013 at 10:24 AM

No they don’t. There is no mention of Jesus in Roman literature except to speak OF him being a person who people built a cult around, and the only “major” works that mentioned Jesus in the first person are texts written by people who were part of that cult… Hardly unbiased “proof” of his existence…

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:34 AM

That’s just a bunch of theological mumbo jumbo. The fact is that the bible isn’t infallible and neither was Jesus, if he even existed. One need only a rudimentary understanding of history to know that the church has foisted error upon error on humankind throughout the ages.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:12 AM

You are an excellent example of the vacuous.

Must be Hell.

And as usual…Boring as Hell to those like you who inflict the rest of us with your philosophical mediocrity.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:35 AM

but the historicity of the Gospels is pretty clear to me, even from a strictly scholarly view.

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Spoken like a true believer. You have no basis to make this claim gryphon… The same logic and system of “evidence” you use are the same logic and system of “evidence” that people of OTHER faiths use to forward THEIR faiths as the “one true faith”.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

A variety of ancient non-Christian Roman & Jewish historians referred to him many times in their writings.

itsnotaboutme on March 9, 2013 at 10:24 AM

No they don’t. There is no mention of Jesus in Roman literature except to speak OF him being a person who people built a cult around, and the only “major” works that mentioned Jesus in the first person are texts written by people who were part of that cult… Hardly unbiased “proof” of his existence…

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Wrong again.

Josephus
Tacitus
Suetonius
Julius Africanus
Origen
Pliny the Younger

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Thanks for that fatuous comment! ;-)

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Wrong again.

Josephus
Tacitus
Suetonius
Julius Africanus
Origen
Pliny the Younger

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM

These claims fall to pieces upon examination.

The Flaws:

1) None are contemporary accounts
2) Some are frauds (The Testimonium)
3) Some only reference christians, and not ‘jesus the christ’
4) Several only reference religious leaders of the cult, or folks like ‘chrestus’ and not Jesus the christ.
5) Many reference events that clearly come after the purported time of jesus.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Spoken like a true believer. You have no basis to make this claim gryphon… The same logic and system of “evidence” you use are the same logic and system of “evidence” that people of OTHER faiths use to forward THEIR faiths as the “one true faith”.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

I didn’t say anything about “the one true faith,” dipshit. In fact, I’m a lapsed Catholic and currently unchurched. What I said was, the historicity of the gospels, that is, the fact that what is documented in them actually took place, is pretty clear to me. It’s also clear to many non-Christians. Now whether you believe that Jesus is who he says he is? I really couldn’t care less. But regardless, I bet you have no problem with believing in the historicity of Plato’s socratic dialogues or Julius Caesar’s journals — both of which have far less evidence for their historicity than do all four of the extant canon gospels.

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:44 AM

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Josephus (A.D. 37 – c. A.D. 100)

Josephus’ Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) refers to Jesus in two separate passages. The common translation of the first passage, Book 18, Ch. 3, part 3, is disputed and is most likely from an altered source. F. F. Bruce has provided a more likely translation:

Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today.

The translations of this passage are discussed in Josephus: Testimonium Flavianum from Jesus.com.au.

The second passage is from Book 20, Ch. 9, part 1:

…so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…

Tacitus (c. A.D. 55 – c. A.D. 117)
Annals, book XV:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Suetonius (c. A.D. 69 – c. A.D. 140)

Lives of the Caesars – Claudius, sec. 25:

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.

Lives of the Caesars – Nero, sec. 16

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240)

Chronography, XVIII refers to writings by Thallus and Phlegon concerning the darkness during the Crucifixion:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun…Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth – manifestly that one of which we speak.

Origen (c. 185 – c. 254)

In Against Celsus, Origen quotes Celsus, a second-century skeptic, on Jesus. Celsus’ view of Christians and Christianity.

Pliny the Younger (c. 62 – c. 113)

Letters, 10.96-97 records Pliny’s dealings with Christians

There are also Talmudic References to Jesus and to Christians.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:46 AM

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM

No doubt you think King David is a myth as well.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:50 AM

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Relax buddy, no need for names. Did I call you a name? No.

Now, what is written in the gospels is NOT fact at all and NObody, save a time traveler, could EVER corroborate the tales forwarded in the Gospels so your claim that they have been is nothing but specious self deception. They’re nothing but a sadly told fairy tale.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM

There are also Talmudic References to Jesus and to Christians.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Worth noting as an aside, the Talmud was not written until quite some time (a century or two?) after Jesus. Before that, it was an oral tradition. Christianity was never strictly an oral tradition. The earliest known manuscripts of the gospels were dated such that they could have been written by contemporaries of the twelve apostles.

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:46 AM

The Flaws:

1) None are contemporary accounts
2) Some are frauds (The Testimonium)
3) Some only reference christians, and not ‘jesus the christ’
4) Several only reference religious leaders of the cult, or folks like ‘chrestus’ and not Jesus the christ.
5) Many reference events that clearly come after the purported time of jesus.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Now, what is written in the gospels is NOT fact at all and NObody, save a time traveler, could EVER corroborate the tales forwarded in the Gospels so your claim that they have been is nothing but specious self deception. They’re nothing but a sadly told fairy tale.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Simply untrue. The earliest manuscripts of the four extant canon gospels are dated such that they could have been written by contemporaries of Jesus, or at least his twelve apostles. You can’t say the same about Plato’s dialogues (many of which may or may not have even been written by Plato), or Caesar’s journals (the earliest manuscripts having been dated to centuries after Julius Caesar’s death).

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:53 AM

The earliest manuscripts of the four extant canon gospels are dated such that they could have been written by contemporaries of Jesus, or at least his twelve apostles. You can’t say the same about Plato’s dialogues (many of which may or may not have even been written by Plato), or Caesar’s journals (the earliest manuscripts having been dated to centuries after Julius Caesar’s death).

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Hardly unbiased accounts… People caught in the thrall of cultish endeavors ALWAYS write biased accounts of their leaders existence.

I’m not claiming anything about Plato’s dialogues or Ceasar’s journals…

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 10:46 AM

The Flaws:

1) None are contemporary accounts
2) Some are frauds (The Testimonium)
3) Some only reference christians, and not ‘jesus the christ’
4) Several only reference religious leaders of the cult, or folks like ‘chrestus’ and not Jesus the christ.
5) Many reference events that clearly come after the purported time of jesus.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM

The earliest Talmudic reference is dated during Apostolic Times.

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”{21}

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Hardly unbiased accounts… People caught in the thrall of cultish endeavors ALWAYS write biased accounts of their leaders existence.

I’m not claiming anything about Plato’s dialogues or Ceasar’s journals…

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM

You have religious ferver confused with historicity. It beggars belief that three synoptic gospel authors, one whom wasn’t even an apostle (St. Luke), would literally conspire to make up a whole series of events whole-cloth simply to influence and con people for thousands of years to come (which they would have been successful at, by the by).

And I know you’re not claiming anything about Plato’s dialogues or Caesar’s journals, but don’t you think it’s the least bit curious that those, with less supporting evidence, are taught as historical fact while the gospels, with more supporting evidence, aren’t?

I’m not talking about religious faith. I’m talking about the work of hundreds of archaeologists, translators, and other scholars of many different faiths or even none. They agree that the gospels are historical accounts. Now, what conclusion you draw from that? I couldn’t care less. The evidence is there, and it does you no service at all to ignore it.

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I’m not claiming anything about Plato’s dialogues or Ceasar’s journals…

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM

According to your criteria of historicity…

Socrates did not exist because we have only Plato’s dialogs and these are suspect as sympathetic to Socrates.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 11:08 AM

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Followers of cult leaders ALWAYS write biased accounts of their leaders existence gryphon… Mohammed’s followers did much the same with him, EVERY religion has “corroborating evidence” to help “support” their religions claims… People often manufacture evidence to help support their religion, like Turin’s shroud, etc… Tell me something we don’t know.

You don’t get to dismiss all the “extraordinary evidence” that supports other religions while conveniently allowing the “extraordinary evidence” that supports your own. That’s not how logic works my friend. That is nothing but self deception.

Look, we ALL want to think we’re special, and that we “know” more than the next guy, but you don’t have to sacrifice your reason to do so, you SHOULDN’T have to do so yet here you are doing it.

There is no way in hell that the god that could be, the god of the cosmos, is the god of the bible, or the koran, or any other man made religious text you wish to defend.

Religions are like farts, YOURS is good, but everybody else’s stinks.

“It is time we admitted, from kings and presidents on down, that there is no evidence that any of our books was authored by the Creator of the universe. The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology. To rely on such a document as the basis for our worldview-however heroic the efforts of redactors- is to repudiate two thousand years of civilizing insights that the human mind has only just begun to inscribe upon itself through secular politics and scientific culture. We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself.”
Sam Harris

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I suppose it’s time to dust off the DVD “Shoes of the Fisherman.”

wukong on March 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Dude, you wanna talk about “biased?” I think you’re far more biased against the historicity of the gospels than I am religiously biased, considering I am unchurched.

So let me ask you these two questions in closing: Did Socrates exist? Did the events in Julius Caesar’s battle journals happen?

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM

The late David Flusser, Professor of early Christianity and Judaism and Orthodox Jew, while commenting on the Testimonium says,

Although it is generally recognized that the passage concerning Jesus in the extant Greek manuscripts of his Jewish Antiquities (18:63-64) was distorted by later Christian hands “the most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote,but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator.” (The Sage from Galilee – Rediscovering Jesus Genius, page 12)

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 11:16 AM

So let me ask you these two questions in closing: Did Socrates exist? Did the events in Julius Caesar’s battle journals happen?

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM

It’s most likely that Socrates actually existed….. Too many sources mention his existence. It was not only Plato who wrote about him, but also Xenophon, Aeschines etc., and the Socratic dialogue became a literary genre. Aristotle refers to him quite often as a real figure.

I cannot think of any scholar who has seriously argued in the last couple of centuries that Socrates did not exist. (I don’t deny that there may have been some crank somewhere who did; but I would be inclined to doubt that anyone who regarded that as plausible could properly be regarded as reasonable.)

Ceasar’s existence is not in doubt. Too many civilizations wrote about him to ever doubt that he existed… It is likely, with Ceasar being a learned man in his day, that he did in fact keep records and journals where he wrote his thoughts down. I have no doubt of this. It may be that he embellished facts in HIS writing of it, but I don’t doubt he kept journals of his life.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Look, we ALL want to think we’re special, and that we “know” more than the next guy, but you don’t have to sacrifice your reason to do so, you SHOULDN’T have to do so yet here you are doing it.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM

This is amusing.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 11:25 AM

SauerKraut537

It is interesting that you brought up the subject of the Shroud of Turin. No one knows why or especially how the image on the shroud was created.

wukong on March 9, 2013 at 11:26 AM

It’s most likely that Socrates actually existed….. Too many sources mention his existence. It was not only Plato who wrote about him, but also Xenophon, Aeschines etc., and the Socratic dialogue became a literary genre. Aristotle refers to him quite often as a real figure.

But aristotle was not a contemporary of Socrates. He was a student of Plato. And how do we know that all those mentions of Socrates weren’t due to come cult-like ferver? Hell, the earliest found manuscripts of Plato’s dialogues may or may not have been written by Plato! There’s no way to know for sure.

I cannot think of any scholar who has seriously argued in the last couple of centuries that Socrates did not exist. (I don’t deny that there may have been some crank somewhere who did; but I would be inclined to doubt that anyone who regarded that as plausible could properly be regarded as reasonable.)

Nor can I think of any scholar who has ever seriously argued that Jesus didn’t exist. Your double standard here is stunning.

Ceasar’s existence is not in doubt. Too many civilizations wrote about him to ever doubt that he existed… It is likely, with Ceasar being a learned man in his day, that he did in fact keep records and journals where he wrote his thoughts down. I have no doubt of this. It may be that he embellished facts in HIS writing of it, but I don’t doubt he kept journals of his life.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I didn’t ask you about Caesar’s existence, genius. I asked you if you believed the journal manuscripts, written hundreds of years after his death, were historical in nature. Did they describe things that actually happened? A simple yes or no would do.

Or not. You don’t have to bother. Your biases are shining like the mid-day sun.

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 11:29 AM

SauerKraut537

It is interesting that you brought up the subject of the Shroud of Turin. No one knows why or especially how the image on the shroud was created.

wukong on March 9, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Isn’t it though?

The latest scientific paper on The Shroud of Turin concludes the image was produced with an energy burst phenomena comparable with modern lazers.

There is also the phenomena of pollen,microbes,dust and resins etc. embedded in the weave specific to both geographic region and historic cultural use dating to the period of the Crucifixion.

workingclass artist on March 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Both those videos were very good! Thank you for sharing them & for your reports from over there, Ed.
“What is your quest?” LOLZ!!!!

KS Rex on March 9, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Those were two GREAT videos.

aquaviva on March 9, 2013 at 12:10 PM

So, basically, the Apostle Peter would never have even been considered to be Pope.

29Victor on March 9, 2013 at 12:15 PM

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:27 AM

…you spelled BUTCH wrong!

KOOLAID2 on March 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Also, Burke for Pope.

Greek Fire on March 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Have you read this? I was very impressed.
http://www.taylormarshall.com/2013/03/pope-prediction-10-reasons-cardinal.html

fourdeucer on March 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM

It was ancient Rome dude, what records would you expect to find if you’re going to discount every historian’s mention?

There was no Social Security administration, education system, no selective service, no IRS. There wasn’t even a centralized police force. If you weren’t a patrician you did not matter. Of COURSE there aren’t going to be any records of Jesus apart from historians’ accounts.

Do you know what we know of Caesar’s upbringing before he became famous? Nothing. No records of that period at all. The only reason we know what he was doing around age 16 or so (running from Sulla’s proscription lists) is that he told us so in his own later writings. And he was a patrician.

Even IF these records existed, Jerusalem was sacked after 2 revolts in the 70′s and 130′s.

pauljc on March 9, 2013 at 12:48 PM

“What is your quest?” LOLZ!!!!

KS Rex on March 9, 2013 at 11:59 AM

LOLZ! And “What is your favorite color?”

Two very great videos, Ed. Thanks for sharing.

PatriotGal2257 on March 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM

In a manner that speaks volumes about Catholicism. Read into that what you will.

And please, stop talking about the ‘shroud’. If you need science to prove your faith, you have NO faith.

doufree on March 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Do the older Cardinals get to participate in the discussions even if they can’t vote?

Or are the Cardinal-Electors the only ones in the room?

Does the junior C-E get everyone coffee?

goatweed on March 9, 2013 at 1:21 PM

I find it hilarious that someone can be voted INto infallibility.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

The US has done it twice now.

Alberta_Patriot on March 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Video: How does a Pope get elected?

Promising free birth control works.

Alberta_Patriot on March 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM

They “Vote”…LMMFBO! Is there a bigger group of idiots gathered in one place? Wait, yeah there is. But I’d say Washington and Rome are tied.

Tbone McGraw on March 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM

You got the acronym wrong, & you contradicted yourself in the last two sentences.

I’m certainly no Catholic, but one doesn’t have to be Catholic to spot the biggest idiot in this conversation.

itsnotaboutme on March 9, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I believe I upset the Alter Boy. LMMFBO = Laugh My Mother F’n Balls Off…I bet “itsnotaboutme” was the Priests favorite Alter boy, he held the their bags just the way they liked it.

The Holy Roman Criminals…

Tbone McGraw on March 9, 2013 at 7:02 PM

I find it hilarious that someone can be voted INto infallibility.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Like clockwork, the clueless come out with the “infallible Pope” meme.

Is it a requirement for every Catholic thread?

Thanks for letting everyone know that you have no idea how the Catholic Church works and we can safely ignore whatever you write.

Just a bit of advice; Jack Chick comics are not a good place for research.

Tomblvd on March 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM