Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Faith

‘Nightmare Scenario’: The Papal Conclave Lasts Two Years — It’s Happened Before

Mar. 12, 2013 11:45am Billy Hallowell

Could the conclave to elect a new pope take more than two years to complete? While this is certainly an unlikely scenario (after all, the Vatican has said that a new Catholic leader will likely be at the helm before Easter), such an elongated deliberation has actually taken place in the past (32 months, to be exact). And it’s what Business Insider called a “nightmare scenario.”

The year was 1268 and the cardinals were meeting in a palace in the medieval village of Viterbo to choose a new leader following Pope Clement IV’s death, according to a 2005 ABC News report. It apparently took the Christian leaders so long to make a decision, that the people became inpatient. The bizarre timeline resulted in what Catholic historians say is “the longest conclave in history.”

Are We Headed for a Repeat of the Longest Conclave in History? | Pope Benedict XVI, Catholic Church

This file picture taken on December 31, 2012 shows Pope Benedict XVI arriving to pray in front of the nativity crib in Saint Peter’s Square after celebrating the Vespers and Te Deum prayers in Saint Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

In sum, the process lasted two years and eight months. Rather than sitting idly while church leaders continued to discuss and debate, Catholic sources say that residents of Viterbo took action in an effort to speed the process along. The people decided to close the cardinals in, hoping that their efforts would force them into a decision (conclave comes from the latin word “cum-clave” which means “with key”).

“The idea was to make it uncomfortable to persuade cardinals to get on with the job,” said Monsignor Charles Burns, a retired archivist who worked at the Secret Vatican Archives.

But that did little to help the situation, as the leaders still couldn’t decide. So, villagers decided to try and starve the cardinals out. After all, with limited food, they figured the men might be more willing to expedite a decision. In addition to using this tactic, they also tore the roof off of the palace where they were meeting in an effort to expose them to the elements.

Pope Gregory X (Photo Credit: Public Domain)

In the end, after 32 months, the cardinals finally selected Gregory X, a Catholic who wasn’t a cardinal nor a priest. At the time, he was a crusader fighting in the Holy Land, ABC News reported. He returned eight months after his selection and was responsible for enacting measures that would lead to speedier conclaves.

In 1274, Gregory X put a rule into effect that said that cardinals would only get one meal per day if the conclave went beyond three days, the AP reports. And if it went beyond the eight-day mark, they only received bread, water and wine. This rule is no longer on the books, but there are others aimed at keeping the process running smoothly. Thus, a nearly-three year conclave is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Just in case you aren’t convinced, consider the method through which cardinals will vote in the days ahead. Each cardinal writes his choice on a paper inscribed with the words “Eligo in summen pontificem,” or “I elect as Supreme Pontiff.” They approach the altar one by one and say: “I call as my witness, Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who, before God, I think should be elected.”

Senegalese cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr (C) and Italian cardinal Angelo Scola (R) follow a grand mass in St Peter’s Basilica ahead of a papal election conclave on March 12, 2013 in St Peter’s basilica at the Vatican. Cardinals prayed in St Peter’s Basilica on Tuesday ahead of a conclave to elect the next pope with no clear frontrunner after Benedict XVI’s historic resignation as leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics left behind a Church beset by scandals. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

The folded ballot is placed on a round plate and slid into an oval silver and gold urn. In the past, a single chalice was used to hold the ballots. But conclave changes made by Pope John Paul II in 1996 required three vessels: one for chapel ballots, another for ailing cardinals at the Vatican who can vote from their beds and the third to hold the ballots after counting. No cardinals are expected to require the bedside voting, but all three flying saucer-shaped urns were in the Sistine Chapel regardless.

The ballots are then bound together with a needle and thread – each pierced through the word “Eligo” – and burned in the chapel stove along with a chemical to produce either black or white smoke.

Up to four rounds of voting are allowed each day after the first day, and a two-thirds majority – 77 votes – is needed.

If no one is elected after three days – by Friday afternoon – voting pauses for up to one day. Voting resumes and if no pope is elected after another seven ballots, there is another pause, and so on until about 12 days of balloting have passed.

Under norms introduced by Benedict XVI just before he resigned, the cardinals then go to a runoff of the top two vote-getters. A two-thirds majority is required; neither of the two top candidates casts a ballot in the runoff.

Want more information about the process of electing a pope? Check out TheBlaze’s extensive coverage here.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

(H/T: Business Insider)

–

Other Must-Read Stories:

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (68)

Soundstorm
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 6:55pm
Not to criticize Catholicism so much in light of Christ’s message and all the good works it does, but it often seems to me this publicity hungry prima donna organization still acts like the world revolves around it after all these centuries.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lunalight
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 1:54pm
  When I first read this, I was slightly offended because I am learning about the Catholic Church with the intent to join the “Universal Church” at the end of the month. Then, two things hit me- 1. your experience is probably very limited with the Catholic Church (I was very offended by them when I lived in Nevada, but it is much different where I am now). 2. Your statement suggesting you feel the Church acts like the world revolves around them, reinforces that the Church is still very strong and that the members still believe that the Church is the “Universal” Church. By the way, in case you are new to the Blaze, there is an emphasis from Beck that the mainstream media doesn’t always get it right. Perhaps your views of the Catholic Church are slightly skewed due to the improper representation of the Church in the mainstream media.
  
  Report this comment
flatbroke
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 5:19pm
Although i am not catholic, and these events dont effect me as a christian, i think the vatican should allow priests to marry, and remove the infallablity thing from popes, i hope that the new pope is a good dude.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 4:55pm
I thought Jesus was in charge. Tell him, not us?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
swsb6x
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 3:33pm
Wow what if there were no pope? Maybe the church would get back to a more biblical model where Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Now we know that would never happen because there’s too much riches, politics and power invested in the “Babylonian Whore” that is the Roman Catholic church.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- independent1958
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 4:14pm
  Apostle Peter the first Pope would probably be sad to hear you say that.
  
  Report this comment
- Welcome Black Carter
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 5:44pm
  Yeah it’s all made up. I’m sure there is so much to be gained from going to a service in a language you don’t speak.
  The church is not the Daughter of Babylon. That is old thought. The daughter is the USA.
  I just unlocked a 1/3 of the Bible for you. You can thank me later…
  
  Report this comment
charper1013
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 3:22pm
Two years without a Pope WOULD be a nightmare! Without a Pope’s guidance, who knows what could happen! Priests could be abusing children, the church could be suppressing women, the Vatican’s policies would never be updated to reflect the 21st century… Oh wait.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Bavarian
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:37pm
Papst Benedikt was much better the John Paul II.
Let us pray that the Holy Spirit directs the Cardinals to make the proper choice for Our New Holy Father.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- omega309
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 3:23pm
  Matthew 23:9
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:14pm
  Call no man Father, Really Omega and you claim to read the bible
  
  To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word “father” in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word “father.”
  In fact, to forbid it would rob the address “Father” of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.
  But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.
  For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:15pm
  Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Is. 22:20–21).
  
  This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
  Change with the New Testament?
  Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men “father” in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:16pm
  First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”
  Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong, as we shall see.
  Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:17pm
  The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”
  
  Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people “doctor,” for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that “doctor” is simply the Latin word for “teacher.” Even “Mister” and “Mistress” (“Mrs.”) are forms of the word “master,” also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word “teacher” and “docto
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:18pm
  So What Did Jesus Mean?
  Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love “the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men” (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their g.asping after marks of status and prestige.
  He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
  Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).
  Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:19pm
  Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
  As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
  
  Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into “gurus” is worldwide.
  This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a “cult of personality” around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:20pm
  The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
  Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); “To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).
  He also referred to Timothy as his son: “This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18); “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1); “But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).
  Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4); “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:20pm
  Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
  
  Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2 Cor. 12:14); and, “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).
  
  John said, “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1); “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as “fathers” (1 John 2:13–14).
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:21pm
  By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests “father.” Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.
  
  Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them “father.” Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as “my son” or “my child” (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).
  
  All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.
  
  Report this comment
battles
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:28pm
The lavish meals they are probably being fed most certainly will have a bearing on how long their decision takes.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
omega309
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:54pm
The real nightmare scenario would be if hell was not fire. But being buryied up to your neck in sand, and in pitch darkness with no sound, the nothing. And to be conscious FOREVER. Does one have breath to breath the sand, especially when volatile in ones hand.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- omega309
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:10pm
  Are you confident your really going to like midnight? Velvet
  
  Report this comment
midnightvelvet
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:29pm
My bad. I see you’re quoting somebody else this time.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
midnightvelvet
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:28pm
This is your idea of a nightmare?! What…the world stops turning if there’s no Pope tomorrow? More over-the-top headlines. It’s SHOCKING. It’s a NIGHTMARE. Can you stand to see THIS? Geez! Get a job a a carnival sideshow, for goodness sake.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
hi
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:24pm
Please try a Bible church or church that goes through scripture and teaches it. Jesus is love and grace.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- independent1958
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:16pm
  You just described the Catholic church!
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 3:03pm
  I was born Catholic.
  Regardless of the political tides that steer the Catholic church, i will forever remain a Catholic.
  I can no sooner shed my Catholic skin and become Protestant than trade my white skin for black.
  I could very well worship in another church… but i will always be Catholic.
  
  Report this comment
Sargeking
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:06pm
We might care who was elected Pope if it really made any difference. It doesn’t and it really doesn’t matter. To me this event is merely fluff in cyberspace.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
shorelineliz
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:57pm
The Prophecy of the Popes (Latin: Prophetia Sancte Malachiae Archiepiscopi, de Summis Pontificibus) is a series of 112 short, cryptic phrases in Latin which purport to predict the Roman Catholic popes (along with a few antipopes), beginning with Pope Celestine II. The alleged prophecies were first published by Benedictine monk Arnold Wion in 1595. Wion attributes the prophecies to Saint Malachy, a 12th‑century Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland.
Given the very accurate description of popes up to 1590 and lack of accuracy after that year, Catholic historians generally conclude that the alleged prophecies are a fabrication written shortly before they were published. The Roman Catholic Church also dismisses them as forgery.The prophecies may have been created in an attempt to suggest that Cardinal Girolamo Simoncelli’s bid for the papacy in the second conclave of 1590 was divinely ordained.
Proponents of the prophecies claim that Pope Benedict XVI corresponded to the pope described in the penultimate prophecy. The list ends with a pope identified as “Peter the Roman”, whose pontificate will allegedly bring the destruction of the city of Rome and usher in the beginning of the Apocalypse.

Liz says: woohoo! Can’t wait for the Four Horsemen!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- flatbroke
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 5:26pm
  I believe the bible for all prophesy, not some pope, the bible is the only reliable source for all end time prophesy, but by all means bring on the end times, i am ready for Jesus rightous rule of the nations from Jeruselum , bring it on. gonna be awesome!
  
  Report this comment
- lefty5005
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:02am
  Can I quit my job yet?
  
  Report this comment
shorelineliz
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:54pm
OMEGA309
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:14pm
If you want to know how seriously unimportant this subject is, read the book of Hebrews.

@Omega:
which chapter and verse?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- omega309
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:13pm
  I said the book, because I’m not into talking points and it most assuridly is about a personal relationship with God that is not to do with a church or a pope, pastor,reverend,minister, or any other clergy, and only thru the son shall anyone enter the kingdom of God. Guidance is thru I Will Be, not ” I want to be”.
  
  Report this comment
shorelineliz
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:53pm
AMERICANSTREGA
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:12pm
Shorelineliz;
And a couple nicely steamed pieces of asparagas on the side. Great, now I’m hungry!

@american:
ohhhh.that does sound good. I love me some steamed asparagus. And some orange slices. fresh raspberries. dang. now you got ME hungry! LoL!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
shorelineliz
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:51pm
GONZO
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:38pm
I was referring to St. Malachy’s Prophesy of the Popes.

@Gonzo:
I will look that one up. haven’t heard of that one.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- shorelineliz
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:57pm
  So if the next Pope is “Peter the Roman” we are all screwed, right?
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:26pm
  If you’re a Christian you’re not screwed Shore, you get a crown and a horse and you get to fight a battle you can’t loose! I’m looking forward to it.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:27pm
  make sure you read the part where it said this supposed prophesy is a fraud.
  
  and even if it is not, Peter the Roman is not numbered as the other Popes are, so therefore, there could be several popes between Benedict XVI and the Last Pope
  
  But some people don’t let facts bother them, accusation is all you really need
  
  Report this comment
galaxie_man
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:18pm
My guess:
Cardinal Tarcisio Pietro Evasio Bertone, currently serving as “Camerlengo” or Chambelain of the Vatican. He is currently in charge during “sede vacante” (no pope)

I read with interest the prophecy of irish archbishop Malachy. He predicts the last pope will be “Petrus Romanus”, and my pick fits the prediction I read. With 47 italian cardinals appointed by Benedict XVI, the deck seems stacked in favor of an italian pope, as well as Benedict himself seemingly working to make the prophecy come true. Interesting stuff.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- shorelineliz
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:49pm
  I really hope the next pope isn’t Italian. Elect an AFrican dude. Or philippino. Or south American. Please. Anyone but an italian. If an Italian gets in then: yes, Malachi Martin’s prediction of “the last pope” will come true.
  
  Report this comment
- BaldingEagle1776
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:57pm
  Racist!
  
  Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:07pm
What happen to the Glenn Beck that used to be on FOX? I really miss that guy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:24pm
  Remember the red phone on the set? Remember when Glenn would out this administration? We have a Communist destroying OUR country. There is a lot going on now in his 2nd term way more than his first. I wish Glenn would explain why he stop reporting on this corrupt EVIL. Obama’s Reported Pick To Be Next Secretary Of Labor Worked For Soros-Funded Illegal Immigrant Group, Refused To Rule Out Saudi-Style Blasphemy Laws In America… I think Glenn has been threatened…
  
  Report this comment
- midnightvelvet
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:35pm
  He had an excellent research team. I loved watching what they had to offer. Quite often, I ended up turning the channel when Glenn himself came on. I listened to him regularly on his radio program. I died laughing, listening to More-On trivia! Then he started crying on air and decided he was a spiritual leader, and I listened to him less and less. He is not one of the reasons I read this site, though I do miss the old Glenn who was just a radio commentator.
  
  Report this comment
- Bavarian
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:41pm
  Glenn Bexck has his own network, The Blaze TV. He still has his show @ 5PM. You can get it by subscribing to the web feed. If you put a ROKU box on a TV, you can watch his entire program schedule. He is working to get his channel on DirecTv, already on Dish, and on cable systems.
  
  Report this comment
- lefty5005
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:07am
  He and his family were promised a place in “the bunker” with the rest. Does anyone know where the bunker is? I am sure someone who knows will not be allowed in “the bunker.” On one hand I don’t want to survive to see the chaos that will ensure but on the other hand I want to be able to “off” some of the individuals who brought it upon us. Maybe I can find that bunker. I will assure you though it is not located in Chicago or New York city.
  
  Report this comment
shorelineliz
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:07pm
The Keys of This Blood by Malachi Martin:

Martin wrote this book as a geopolitical and georeligious analysis of the last decades of the 20th century. He identifies this period as the millennium end-game for a new world order, which has three main contenders. It will establish the first ever one-world government. Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and international business leaders are in competition to establish this one world government and that this competition will intensify around the turn of the 20th century. The book further claims to be an inside account of what the pope is doing to win this geopolitical struggle and how he played an instrumental role in the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
Martin identifies the three main players vying for world domination in the world today and thus lays the ground for his historical analysis: materialism with the East and West in their communism or socialism and capitalism or liberalism, which he places on one side together, and the Roman Catholic Church, the only truly geopolitical spiritual organization in existence today. One of the two sides must win, for they cannot coexist.
Martin introduces the concept of superforce in the book. Superforce is the unofficial name given by Martin for a more or less formal group of people within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Martin claimed that this superforce is a sort of ecclesiastical version of a hostile corporate takeover team.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
shorelineliz
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:05pm
GONZO
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:59am
If Malachy was right, it actually ends AFTER this one is elected.

@Gonzo
Dont you just LOVE Malachi Martin and “the keys of his blood?” cool book, huh?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:38pm
  I was referring to St. Malachy’s Prophesy of the Popes.
  
  Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:03pm
.
NIGHTMARE SCENARIO Oh My……

If that happens I hope those altar boys are covered under ObamaCare…..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- shorelineliz
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:08pm
  They need to cover the 14,000 In Ireland first.
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:57am
I’m fairly sure the functions of the church would move just fine for quite some time without a pope.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- shorelineliz
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:04pm
  Dear God/Lord: Please let them elect a Pope soon. I can’t stand the suspense! My knickers are in a botch. Please. Please. Please. Let them get it over with. My coffee is getting cold just waiting and my all bran muffin is getting stale. Please God. Just let them elect a freaking pope already!
  
  Report this comment
- omega309
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:14pm
  If you want to know how seriously unimportant this subject is, read the book of Hebrews.
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:52am
A day and a half.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
shorelineliz
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:51am
Wow. Spooky and cool stuff.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AmericanStrega
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:49am
Will the world come to an end if a new Pope isn’t elected within 2 days or 2 years? I’m Catholic and have lost all respect for the religion. In my opinion John Paul II was the last Pope.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:59am
  If Malachy was right, it actually ends AFTER this one is elected.
  
  Report this comment
- shorelineliz
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:02pm
  I actually preferred Benedict. With Hollandaise. LOL!
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:04pm
  I know what you’re saying Gonzo.
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:12pm
  Shorelineliz;
  And a couple nicely steamed pieces of asparagas on the side. Great, now I’m hungry!
  
  Report this comment
- Bavarian
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:35pm
  The last true Pope was Pius XII
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.