The real Conclave involves plotting, not the Holy Spirit, to determine the next pontiff

Conclave official movie poster

A few weeks ago, my wife and I saw the movie Conclave.

Here is some of what Wikipedia reported about it:

Conclave is a 2024 mystery thriller film directed by Edward Berger and written by Peter Straughan, based on the 2016 novel by Robert Harris. The film stars Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Sergio Castellitto, and Isabella Rossellini. In the film, Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Fiennes) organizes a papal conclave to elect the next pope and finds himself investigating secrets and scandals about each candidate.

Conclave premiered at the 51st Telluride Film Festival on 30 August 2024, was theatrically released in the United States by Focus Features on 25 October 2024 and in the United Kingdom by Black Bear UK on 29 November.

The film basically shows that corruption, politics, and plotting are all used in the process to elect a pope.

Now a reader, who did not know my wife and I saw that movie, sent me a link to the following:

The real Conclave: The secret plotting under way to elect the next Pope

December 1. 2024

On December 7, Pope Francis will create another 21 cardinals in a lavish Vatican ceremony. But there are mutterings about the health of the Pope himself, who is in his 87th year and often in a wheelchair. Who should be the next Pope, they ask, and how can someone ensure his favoured fellow cardinal reaches the throne of St Peter?

The plotting that surrounds the election of a Pope is the stuff of Conclave, the film based on Robert Harris’s novel of the same name, and starring Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci and John Lithgow, released this weekend. It is set when a fictional pope has died and cardinals from across the world are locked into the Sistine Chapel for secret deliberations until they reach a two thirds majority decision to elect a new pope.

But the election of a pope is more complicated – and conspiratorial – than Conclave suggests. Rather than be the only setting for such plotting, a conclave is the endgame. For conversations about those considered papabile – likely candidates to become Pope – happen with increasing frequency as an existing papacy grows longer, and a pontiff grows older.

Of course, cardinal-electors are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their final choice of Pope. But, in reality – as in Conclave – mucky manoeuvrings are par for the course. As John Cornwell wrote in A Thief in the Night, his celebrated investigation into the curious death of Pope John Paul I in September 1978 just 33 days after his election, today’s Vatican can be “a palace of gossipy eunuchs… a village of washerwomen… they get down in the river, wash clothes, punch them, dance on them, squeezing out all the old dirt.”

Well before the cardinals will gather in the Sistine Chapel for a real conclave, blocs of voters have started to form. …

Despite its name – “con clave” means “with key” and suggests deliberations are secret – what goes on behind locked doors has rarely stayed private for long. Prior to the first conclave in 1241, popes had either been imposed on the Church by the powerful kings or rulers in charge of Rome, or elected by the city’s inhabitants by popular acclaim. https://www.yahoo.com/news/secret-plotting-already-underway-elect-180000545.html

God’s Holy Spirit is not what motivates those who vote for a pope in a conclave.

There is nothing resembling a pope or conclave authorized in the Bible.

Nor was this a practice of early Christians, the original catholics. Here is something from my free online book Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:

Thousands of years ago, pagan emperors used to use the title Pontifex Maximus. This is NOT a title listed in the Bible.

Tertullian wrote about a corrupt (according to one or more Roman Catholic saints) Roman bishop named Callistus:

The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the bishop of bishops — issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” (Tertullian. On Modesty. In Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Basically, Tertullian said Callistus was following in the practices of pagan leaders, like the Pontifex Maximus. Calling a professed Christian leader the “Pontifex Maximus” was considered to be highly insulting. Perhaps it should be pointed out that while God does tend to have one main leader at a time, nothing in the Bible tells of a title like “bishop of the bishops.”

Yet, a version of that title was given to the Roman bishop Damasus by Roman Emperor Theodosius:

Imppp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius aaa. edictum ad populum … declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, (380 febr. 27). (IMPERATORIS THEODOSII CODEX, LIBER DECIMUS SEXTUS, CTh.16.1.3,)

Imperial emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius {sent} out a decree to the people … declares that the high pontiff Damasus and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness, (IMPERATORIS THEODOSII CODEX, LIBER DECIMUS SEXTUS, CTh.16.1.3, February 27, 380. Translated by Bob Thiel)

So, in 380 the Bishop of Rome was formally granted the title “high pontiff.” Sometimes rendered as ‘supreme bridger’ or ‘supreme bridge builder.’

Roman Catholic sources claim that Damasus’ successor, Siricius then picked up the title pope:

SIRICIUS, ST. (384-399) … was the first to assume the title of pope from the Greek papa meaning father (Lopes, p. 13).

Since Jesus taught:

⁹ And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9, DRB)

Taking the pagan title pontiff as well as the title pope (meaning father) would have sent a strong signal to those who wanted to hold to the original faith that many in Rome had clearly changed.

This, along with the acceptance of other changes, may be part of the reason that some Paulicians and other groups began to call the Roman Catholic pontiff the “Antichrist” in the 4^th and later centuries (Newman JH. The Protestant Idea of Antichrist. [British Critic, Oct. 1840]. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman. Copyright © 2004 by The National Institute for Newman Studies).

It was not until the year 1059 that it was decided that Cardinals (a non-biblical office) would vote for a pontifex maximus (a non-biblical office). Perhaps it should be pointed out that the pontifex maximus was the highest-rnaking religious official in ancient pagan Rome, and a title that Roman emperors took–it was after one (Gratian) refused to take the pagan title that a Bishop of Rome assumed a version of it in the late 4th century.

It is highly possible that the next man elected pope will be an antipope as well as the final Antichrist of scripture (see also Some Doctrines of Antichrist).

Related to other un-Christian acts at/by the Vatican, the Continuing Church of God put together the following video on our Bible New Prophecy YouTube channel:

15:02

Vatican’s ‘Bait & Switch’?

On June 13, 2024, the Vatican released “a new document was presented by the Dicastery for Christian Unity on the role of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) in view of an eventual unity with all the Christian Churches.” This is something that certain ecumenical ones, including Pope Francis and Cardinal Kurt Koch (the prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity) have been working on. This document is intended to reduce the relative importance of the Patriarch of Rome, compared to leaders of other faiths (and we believe many are sincere about that) to increase unity among the world’s churches. The 1700 year anniversary of Emperor Constantine’s Council of Nicea is set for 20 May 2025. This is something that the Eastern Orthodox, Vatican, various Protestants, and the World Council of Churches endorse, but not the Church of God as ‘Judeao-Christians’ also did not attend the 325 A.D. council. Some Greco-Roman prophecies are looking for a council that will result in unity and satisfy the heretics, whereas others warn against it as well as the rise of an antipope, who looks to be the final Antichrist of the Bible. Biblically, the 13 June change to the pope’s role looks like it will be a type of “bait and switch” as the False Prophet, the two-horned beast of Revelation 13:11-17 will still rise up. Might signs and lying wonders be used for worldly unity? According to an Eastern Orthodox writer, might false Marian matters be involved for that type of unification? Is there a church against the “unity of God” that Emperor Theodosius had adopted in 381 A.D.? Who could be the “secret sect” some think arises in the end times? Dr. Thiel and Steve Dupuie discuss these matters.