The Conclave to Elect a New Pope

Anyway, Druon’s novel The Royal Succession (#4 in the series) tells about a conclave to elect a new pope.  The cardinals dithered for two years, in which time the medieval church had no pontiff, being unable to settle on anyone.  Finally, when the cardinals were meeting in the cathedral, the noble who would become the future French king Philip the Tall, nailed the doors shut and set guards so the cardinals could not leave.  He knocked out a small hole where food could be passed through.  After they still could not form a consensus, Philip only allowed them bread and water.  When they still couldn’t elect anyone, he tore off part of the cathedral’s roof so the electors would get rained on.

Eventually, one cardinal, known mainly for flirting with heresy for his belief that souls would not be rewarded or punished until they are raised at the Judgment Day, complained to the others that the hardships were draining his health and that he would soon die.  As Druon tells it, the cardinals decided to elect him, allowing them to leave the building, being confident that after he died, they could hold out for someone better.

Upon his election, this cardinal, now Pope John XXII, rose from his sickbed–his illness evidently a trick–and took charge, paying 35,000 florins to those who voted for him and becoming one of the most powerful of the popes.  His predecessor had moved the papal court from Rome to the French city of Avignon, and Pope John kept it there, reigning from 1316 to 1334, making him the longest-lived of the Avignon popes.  When the papal court finally moved back to Rome in 1377, Avignon kept electing its own popes, later condemned as anti-popes, until 1437.

Anyway, the practice of locking the cardinals into the cathedral and not letting them out until they pick somebody, continues to this very day!  (Though they get to stay in better conditions, including adjoining sleeping quarters.)

In the process, they must be completely isolated from the outside world.  They all vote for someone and are allowed only four ballots per day until one person receiveds two-thirds of the vote.  The paper ballots are then burned.  If black smoke is seen from the chimney, due to the addition of chemicals, that tells onlookers that no pope has been elected.  Finally, once the two-thirds threshold is reached, chemicals are added to the ballots that when burned will give off white smoke.

Traditionalists will hope that a conservative is elected, someone (unlike Pope Francis) who looks favorably on the Latin Mass and will not bend on the historical teachings regarding sex and gender.  The best bet for that might be an African Pope.  There are reportedly some strong candidates, such as Cardinal Robert Sarah, in that new center of world Catholicism.  Those who want another pontiff who is open to change and champions social justice, like Pope Francis, might turn to Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines.

But as as long-time Vatican observer Sam McCarthy points out, it could be just about anyone.  The conservative/liberal dichotomy does not always apply.  Often the deciding factor for the cardinals is the personality of the person they are electing.

Me, I’m pulling for Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York City, since I actually met him when he was archbishop of Milwaukee.

But why should we Protestants care?  We don’t really have a dog in this fight.

A conservative pontiff might be an ally as we battle the scourge of secularism, though he might also lure more of our number to the false teachings of Rome.  A liberal pontiff who makes compromises with the scourge of secularism would be harmful for the greater cause of Christendom, though he might continue to cause Catholic conservatives to distance themselves from the papacy, which by our standards would be helpful.

We Lutherans are often accused of being “too Catholic” with our sacraments and our liturgy, but we also define ourselves against the Catholics, especially the institution of the papacy, which our confessions describe as “anti-Christ.”

Apologists for Catholicism claims that the papacy keeps the Roman church orthodox, but I don’t see it.  Having an infallible pope makes it possible to change doctrines, as keeps happening for centuries, adding Purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, clerical celibacy, and more teachings that were unknown for most of the history of the church.  The problem with Catholicism is that it is not nearly Catholic enough.  And it is not nearly evangelical enough, in practice downplaying the Gospel of free forgiveness through Christ, substituting elaborate ways for us to gain “merit.”

As for the papacy, read “The Power and Primacy of the Pope” written by Philip Melanchthon in the Book of Concord, which contains Lutherans’ authoritative confessions.  It starts like this:

1 The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2 Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3 And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

4 These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

Keep reading to see why. . . .

Photo: Cardinals by Catholic Church England and Wales via Flickr, CC BY-ND 2.0