Posted on 03/05/2025 9:44:09 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
The release of Conclave mere weeks before the U.S. presidential election is no accident…The conclave’s primary factions fall roughly along a progressive/conservative split that mirrors American politics. To be sure, there is a divide in the Catholic Church between those who prioritize conserving tradition and those who seek an updated, more inclusive church.
It’s not that the filmmakers want the church to go away entirely. They just want a church that matches their progressive views…“Let us pray for a pope who doubts,” one cardinal says in a pivotal sermon. “Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance.”
“Certainty” is framed in Conclave (as it often is by progressive Christians) as the most egregious sin…The church isn’t the past, one liberal cardinal asserts; the church “is what we do next.” He might as well have been advocating for a church defined by “what can be, unburdened by what has been.”
In the end, the victor is a dark-horse, mysterious candidate who wasn’t even on the original invite list: Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), who has led Catholics in some of the hardest places in the Middle East (Baghdad, Kabul). He wins because he appears to be the most humble, Jesus-like servant leader—decidedly not seeking power.
But here’s the twist: Benitez isn’t a he at all. He’s intersexual, having been “assigned” male at birth and living as a man, even though he later discovered he had female reproductive organs.
When Lawrence discovers the secret and confronts Benitez, the new pope (who tellingly chooses the name Pope Innocent XIV) says, “I am what God made me,” a familiar line in the LGBT+ movement. “I know what it is to exist between the world’s certainties,” he adds, in a binary-defying statement intended to be the film’s mic-drop line…
(Excerpt) Read more at thegospelcoalition.org ...
It is not news to discover that the Vatican is historically a political hotbed, and that popes have been selected by corrupt practices for the most secular of reasons. In the Renaissance, with the French army at the gates and Spanish army on the other side of town, the Cardinals picked Pius III because he was aged and decrepit and wouldn’t last long, while the French and Spanish settled between them who would be elected next.
That having been said, this film is apparently more about politics than religion.
A different opinion/view:
The Eastern Orthodox Churches would argue that their origin is with Christ, the apostles and birth of the church at Pentecost.
The Coptic Orthodox Church traces its origins to Christ, the apostles and birth of the church at Pentecost and the evangelizing of Saint Mark in 42AD.
The Armenian Apostolic Church claims its origins to Christ, the apostles and birth of the church at Pentecost and the evangelizing of two of Christ's apostles, Saints Thaddeus and Bartholomew.
The Assyrian Church of the East traces its roots back to the early Christian community established in Mesopotamia during the first century AD. It is often associated with Saint Thomas.
Protestant churches generally tract their roots to Christ, the apostles and birth of the church at Pentecost.
It's based on the Latin translation of the Hebrew word Golgotha: Calvariae locus (the place of the skull). I don't know if we owe that to St. Jerome--maybe it was already in earlier Latin translations of the Gospels.
You are describing the Roman Catholic viewpoint. Christian churches all generally see their genisus as being Christ, the Apostles & Pentecost. Each 'church' has its own view of who/what constitutes the universal 'catholic' small 'c' church. Unfortunately, not all are in agreement
You're welcome! Hopefully better cinematic content inspired by Catholicism and its inner workings -- or just better cinema in general :) will be the norm in time...
I just posted an article about evangelicals observing Lent. No “Lent” isn’t in the Bible...
But neither is Christmas nor December 25th :)!
No “Lent” isn’t in the Bible...
= = =
How about ‘lint’?
Is there any lint in (or on) someone’s Bible?
No “Lent” isn’t in the Bible...
= = =
How about ‘lint’?
Is there any lint in (or on) someone’s Bible?
I have a few translations, but my favorite is beautiful, lavender, and has my name engraved. Try to keep them in good condition despite Bible Gateway online being a constant go-to. :)
IIRC, only the disciples who had followed Jesus throughout his entire ministry were eligible to replace Judas.
Since Saul was busy with Pharisee work and persecuting converts to “The Way”, he wasn’t in the picture yet.
My ultimate point was they decided they needed a 12th.
Christ said He chose 12 and one was a devil.
If that premise is played out, Satan had the legal right to that 12th spot in a spiritual sense.
I do realize that would probably throw the Church into fits of rage to even contemplate, but it seems that the bible predicts that demons would be right at home in the Kingdom of Heaven on earth aka the Church.
It’s not an accident that Judas held the money bag.
The Church is mighty wealthy and powerful these days while Satan is on the scene.
Saul/Paul was His chosen vessel for prophetic things that even maybe the other Apostles didn’t fully appreciate or understand.
If we accept that New Covenant Church is a Spiritual picture of Israel, before it had King David and King Solomon, Israel had a King Saul.
I’ve actually witnessed Christians quote Saul/Paul as much, if not more, than Christ.
I’ve witnessed Christians argue with Saul/Paul’s words in a twist to try to explain away Christ’s own words.
It’s not that popular a belief, but Israel had a Saul period, and the Church was going to also experience a Saul period, as well..
So, even though 11 Apostles cast lots for the 12th Apostle, He chose 12 and one was the devil.
And no one can now argue that Saul/Paul wasn’t an important part of His plan for the New Covenant Church, outside of the plan and knowledge of His closest followers on earth, even after His Resurrection.
His ways wasn’t even His Disciples Ways and His thoughts weren’t even His Disciples thoughts.
It wasn’t for them to know everything.
And btw, the first martyr was a man who waited on tables,Stephen, not one of His 11.
Amazingly prophetic that a man named Saul would have himself quoted so much over these last 2,000 years, like he had a king like influence.
And instead of one of His 12 Disciples to be the first martyr, it was His will that it was a man His Disciples selected to wait tables and feed people. Work that was seemingly less important for the 11.
If I asked the Church how much longer would this King Saul period of the Church will last, would I get anything but blank stares and odd looks?
If I asked the Church how much longer will Satan be allowed to hang out in this period of the Church, would I get those same blank stares and odd looks?
Does Satans reign on earth and the modern 2,000 year Church Age end at the same time or does Satan and the Church Age get another 1,000 to continue to leaven the lump?
That’d be a fun question to ask the Church.
How many Sodomites does it take to make up a Conclave?
Sorry, I can’t find the word “Cardinal” in the scriptures.
It's kind of black-pilling to realize that even with the plot twist at the end, Conclave wasn't degenerate ENOUGH to win the Oscar.
I agree that acting and photography were good in THE CONCLAVE...Yes, I actually watched the movie...Ralph Fiennes did a good job...
I would give 2 1/2 stars, out of 4 stars, for the movie...It was worthy of Best Picture...
I would like to praise the author of the article for correctly describing the medical condition of the new Pope in THE CONCLAVE...
I read some posts from FR members criticizing the film because the new Pope is transgender...A person born with both male and female organs is not transgender...That is intersex...Yes, intersex people do exist...
Caitlyn Jenner is transgender...He was not born with both male and female sex organs...
There is nothing wrong with criticizing the movie...But, it would be nice to get the details right...
Presbyterian congregations are ruled by elders who assemble in a "Session". You won't find any mention of elders assembling in a "Session" in the Bible, either.
You aren't going to find the word "Lent" in the Bible, because it comes from a Germanic root for "spring". ("Springtime" in modern German is "das Lenz".)
However, Moses, Elijah, and most notably Jesus all fasted for 40 days. This inspired a 40-day (partial) fast for catechumens prior to their baptism at Easter. Later on, this practice was extended to everyone else.
The names for Lent in languages closer to the Bible reflect this. In Greek, for example, it's called "Megali Tessarakosti" ("Great 40 Days") or "Megali Nisteia" ("Great Fast"). In Latin, it's "Quadragesima" ("the Forty").
well put :) thank you. and may you have a Blessed Lent/Quadragesima!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.