When does the 2025 conclave resume? Smoke times, full schedule for May 8
When does the 2025 conclave resume? Smoke times, full schedule for May 8
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Black smoke rises from Sistine Chapel indicating no pope elected
Black smoke was seen rising from a chimney on the Sistine Chapel indicating no pope has been elected after the first day of the conclave.
The first day of the conclave to select the new pope has ended without a successor being named.
Black smoke billowed out of the Sistine Chapel at 3 p.m. ET (9 p.m. local time in the Vatican) on May 7, indicating that a two-thirds majority had not been reached to select the replacement for Pope Francis, who died on April 21 at the age of 88.
The first day of the conclave ending without a new appointment isn't uncommon. There is no deadline for the voting and while Pope Francis was selected in just one day, the longest election (that of Pope Gregory X in 1271) took just shy of three years.
Around 45,000 people were gathered in St Peter's Square to await the announcement on Wednesday, reported Vatican News. We don't know much of what goes on inside the chapel's walls, as voting cardinals are sequestered from the outside world and sworn to a vow of secrecy under the penalty of excommunication. Even the staff within the building, such as medical personnel, liturgical assistants and domestic workers, must take the oath.
We do know voting will now continue into May 8, and for as many days after as it takes. Here's what to expect in the coming days as the papal conclave continues.
Conclave live updates: No pope named as black smoke rises on historic conclave's first day
When did the conclave begin?
Of the 135 cardinals eligible to vote in this conclave, 133 were in attendance when it began on May 7. The day began with a 10 a.m. Vatican time (4 a.m. ET) Mass 'Pro Eligendo Romano Pontefice' (Holy Mass for the Election of the Roman Pontiff) in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican.
Around 3:45 p.m. Vatican Time (9:45 a.m. ET), the cardinal electors assembled in Pauline Chapel in the Apostolic Palace to pray the Litany of the Saints and then proceed to the Sistine Chapel, confirmed Vatican News. After reciting the oath of secrecy, "extra omnes" (everyone out) was proclaimed and the electors were left to their work.
What happens next? See May 8 schedule
The first ballots were cast on the evening (Vatican time) of Wednesday, May 7. The black smoke billowing over the Vatican that night indicated that no pope was chosen, meaning voting will continue.
Voting will happen four times daily in the coming days, twice in the morning and twice in the evening, according to the Vatican's news agency. Each day, the smoke will indicate to those watching outside where the cardinals are in the process. When white smoke finally appears, we will know a new leader of the Catholic church has been chosen.
The schedule for Day 2 (May 8) and the following days looks something like this, according to Vatican News:
1:45 a.m. ET (7:45 a.m. Vatican time): The cardinals head to the Apostolic Palace (the pope's official residence) from Santa Marta (where the cardinals stay during the conclave).
The cardinals head to the Apostolic Palace (the pope's official residence) from Santa Marta (where the cardinals stay during the conclave). 2:15 a.m. ET (8:15 a.m. Vatican time): The day begins with Mass in the Pauline Chapel.
The day begins with Mass in the Pauline Chapel. 3:15 a.m. ET (9:15 a.m. Vatican time): Midmorning prayer in the Sistine Chapel.
Midmorning prayer in the Sistine Chapel. 4:30 a.m. ET- 6:30 a.m. ET (10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Vatican time): Two votes are allowed in the morning. The expected time for smoke if a pope were to be elected would be around 10:30 a.m. local time and again after noon, according to Vatican News.
Two votes are allowed in the morning. The expected time for smoke if a pope were to be elected would be around 10:30 a.m. local time and again after noon, according to Vatican News. 6:30 a.m. ET (12:30 p.m. Vatican time): Cardinals return to Santa Marta for lunch.
Cardinals return to Santa Marta for lunch. 9:45 a.m. ET (3:45 p.m. Vatican time): The cardinals return to the Apostolic Palace.
The cardinals return to the Apostolic Palace. 10:30 a.m. ET (4:30 p.m. Vatican time): Voting resumes in the Sistine Chapel
Voting resumes in the Sistine Chapel 11:30 a.m. ET to 1:00 p.m. ET (5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Vatican time) : If white smoke appears, it is expected after 5:30 p.m. local time. Otherwise, we can expect the day to wrap up with white or black smoke around 7:00 p.m. local time.
: If white smoke appears, it is expected after 5:30 p.m. local time. Otherwise, we can expect the day to wrap up with white or black smoke around 7:00 p.m. local time. 1:30 p.m. ET (7:30 p.m. Vatican time): Voting is concluded and the electors return to Santa Marta.
Watch live coverage of the conclave
USA TODAY will stream coverage of the conclave on its YouTube channel, available here or at the embed above. The livestream is scheduled to begin at 3 a.m. ET on Thursday, May 8.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pope Leo XIV blesses cyclists competing in the Giro d'Italia as final stage enters Vatican gardens
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Leo XIV blessed the more than 150 cyclists competing in the Giro d'Italia on Sunday as the three-week race's final stage began with an unprecedented ride through the Vatican gardens behind St. Peter's Basilica. After entering the Vatican, overall race leader Simon Yates and leaders of the other classifications got off their bikes and walked forward to shake hands with the pope, who was presented with a replica of the leader's pink jersey. 'You are role models for young people all over the world,' Leo told the peloton. 'May God bless all of you on this last part of the Giro d'Italia. Congratulations to all of you. May you know that you are always welcome here in the Vatican. You are always welcome by the church, which represents God's love for all people.' In an off-script moment, Colombia's Nairo Quintana, the 2014 Giro champion, stopped to greet the pope after all of the other riders had already moved on. While popes have blessed the Giro riders before and the race has previously passed through or next to St. Peter's Square, this marked the first time that the route took the peloton on a three-kilometer (nearly two-mile) route inside the Vatican walls. Bringing the race inside the Vatican was originally intended as an homage to Pope Francis during the 2025 Holy Year but after Francis died, Leo — the first American pope — decided to honor the event in Francis' memory. The cyclists entered the Vatican through the Petriano gate to the left of St. Peter's, rode around the basilica and then climbed up toward the gardens before exiting near the Santa Marta hotel at the Perugino gate. Santa Marta was where Francis lived. The passage through the Vatican occurred during the non-competitive neutralized period before the stage. The official start was given after the riders exited the narrow Perugino gate. British rider Yates could cruise to the title with an advantage of nearly four minutes over Isaac Del Toro of Mexico. The 143-kilometer (89-mile) final stage concluded with a circuit of eight laps through downtown Rome and finished next to the Circus Maximus. It's the third time since Leo was elected last month that he has met with the sports world. Two weeks ago, Leo held a private audience with top-ranked tennis player Jannik Sinner. Then last week, he welcomed the players and staff of Italian soccer champion Napoli to the Vatican. ___ AP cycling:
The Hill
11 hours ago
- The Hill
For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
MAGA Accuses Democratic Senator Cory Booker of Doing 'Nazi Salute'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, a Democrat, has drawn criticism from right-wing commentators and social media after making a gesture that bears similarity to the controversial one previously made by Elon Musk and Steve Bannon, for which they faced heavy backlash. Newsweek reached out to Booker's office and Elon Musk by email outside of normal business hours on Saturday evening for comment. Why It Matters Musk during President Donald Trump's second inauguration in January made a gesture that many claimed was a Nazi salute, while the tech mogul and his allies defended it as a harmless and well-intentioned gesture meaning "my heart goes out to you." Musk made the gesture twice. Musk responded at the time to the criticism with a message on X, saying: "Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The 'everyone is Hitler' attack is sooo tired." Bannon, host of the influential War Room podcast and former White House strategist, then made a similar gesture during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February and saying, "fight, fight, fight." Supporters of Musk and Bannon have also claimed that the pair have made a "Roman salute," which was depicted in 18th and 19th-century art, but there is no historical evidence from ancient Rome that it was a common practice. What To Know Booker spoke at a Democratic convention in California on Saturday, ending his speech with a gesture where he put his hand over his heart, then extended his hand out to the crowd – much in the way Musk and Bannon did, though not as forcefully as Musk did it. The video was first posted by Richie Greenberg, a San Francisco-based political commentator and former GOP mayoral candidate for the city, and quickly spread among MAGA-social media. Moments ago, Cory Booker salutes 4,000 CA Democrat Party delegates. — Richie Greenberg (@greenbergnation) May 31, 2025 Greenberg posted the video with the caption: "Moments ago, Cory Booker salutes 4,000 CA Democrat Party delegates." Collin Rugg, co-owner of conservative news site Trending Politics, reposted the video, adding that he is "looking forward to the wall to wall coverage from the "honest" and totally not biased media." Social media influencer Gunther Eagleman wrote that Booker was a "straight up NAZI," adding "WOW" and "HOLY S***!" Right-wing journalist Nick Sortor similarly piled in with the video, writing that Booker made a "Nazi salute" and calling him "literally Hitler" for doing so. U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) listens as U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to reporters following the weekly Senate Democrat policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on April 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.... U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) listens as U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to reporters following the weekly Senate Democrat policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on April 29, 2025 in Washington, DC. MoreBooker has garnered much attention since his record-setting speech, remaining on the Senate floor and continuing to speak for 25 hours and five minutes, surpassing the previous record held by Senator Strom Thurmond in 1957. Booker used his time to protest Trump and Republican policies, invoking the late Representative John Lewis of Georgia and the need for "good trouble" in times of crisis. The speech earned Booker some goodwill, which was reflected in a recent poll released by AtlasIntel, which found him the fourth-leading candidate among Democratic voters for a potential 2028 presidential nominee, ranking just behind Pete Buttigieg, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and Kamala Harris.
