Alexander VI (or: How did they stop worry about a "bad pope")

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jestersage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jestersage

Guest
Okay, let’s be frank: Alexander VI is a bad pope, if not the worst pope; bad enough that teh Protestant attempt to shoehorn Savanorola as “precursor” to protestanism, which begin some 10 years after the end of Alexander VI. Yet, I am wondering: aside from the supernatural protection of Christ on the Church, what other reason would prevent quite a significant group of Christians to not fall away and remained Catholic?
 
Did the Borgia Pope do anything naughty to the religious teaching of the Church or was he just personally naughty (I doubt he was alone in that, just the most notorious 🙂 )?
 
I expect that the great consolation for a bad pope like him is that he would be pope only for a few years, then be gone. And Pope Alexander lived only 11 years before he died. All they had to do was wait and that problem would be over. In such a case, I wouldn’t worry.
And for a layperson like myself, what he did would have had little effect on myself.
 
Kaninchen said:
Did the Borgia Pope do anything naughty to the religious teaching of the Church or was he just personally naughty (I doubt he was alone in that, just the most notorious 🙂 )?
Click to expand...
My impression is that it’s mostly the latter. He was known for having a number of children, primarily by married women, and for favoring them with church offices that they were extremely unqualified for.
 
Did anyone hear meet Pope Alexander VI? Did you observe every moment of his life?

Or did you just hear a bunch of slander about him from his enemies.
 
PluniaZ said:
Did anyone hear meet Pope Alexander VI? Did you observe every moment of his life?

Or did you just hear a bunch of slander about him from his enemies.
Click to expand...
His affairs are certainly a matter of public record. He himself acknowledged his offspring and had them reside with him at Rome.
 
Jestersage said:
Alexander VI is more famously known under Rodrigo Borgia. Most famous portrayal is under the Showtime series “The Borgia”
Click to expand...
You realize Showtime’s “The Borgias” is a fictional soap opera and largely not actual history, right?
 
DarkLight said:
His affairs are certainly a matter of public record. He himself acknowledged his offspring and had them reside with him at Rome.
Click to expand...
Which makes him a sinful person, certainly.

His pontificate is quite another thing.
 
Regarding why Catholics didn’t leave the Church en masse:
  1. The vast majority of Catholics were probably illiterate peasants who had no idea what the Pope was doing and even if they had, they would have seriously hesitated to question a Pope or any church official for fear of losing their own souls.
  2. The small minority of educated Catholics still may not have known what the Pope was doing, especially if they did not live in proximity to him and see all of his business; it’s not like there was a Reuters news service broadcasting his every move to all European cities.
  3. The tiny handful of educated Catholics who had some idea that he might have been doing bad things either didn’t want to cross him for fear of penalties to themselves (loss of money, power, status; or even possible excommunication), or were actively in cahoots with him, or perhaps were focused more on their own salvation and spiritual life rather than the peccadilloes of the Pope. It might also be that there was a huge respect for the Church as an institution and people with knowledge did not want to harm the Church or start a schism, so they chose to turn a blind eye to the Pope’s doings.
 
I don’t know enough about him to comment, but it seems to me that the average Catholic worldwide at the time would have had little interest in his doings. There were no Catholic newspapers, no other newspapers, no TV and radio 24 hour news channels, no CAF, no discussion forums. So I think that for most people, what happened at the Vatican was of little interest or concern in their daily lives.
 
It’s hard for modern Catholics to wrap their heads around, but for most of Church history the pope in distant Rome had little to do with their day to day spiritual lives.
 
Thanks for the replies.

The reason I am asking this is because you have two side attacks on the Papacy, and through it, the church:
-The obvious: the Vatican bank, the molestation cover up, and etc. Close mirror to the simony and etc going on within. My mother, as well as a few other self-proclaimed catholics, gone lukewarm because of that. This is the closest parallel to Alexander VI, but not the main reason I am asking
-The traditionals: Then you have “traditionalist” who especially love to target Pope Francis (even though they target everything after Vat-II), and claim everything is corrupt, against the traditions of Church itself, etc. They ended up in schism.

In short, what we have experience are nowhere compare to the behind the screen on-going of Alexander VI. Yet, a schism did not occur then, and Savanorola’s rebellion, with reasoning not unlike those started by sedavacantist, failed.

And so I want to know the average people (and saints from that era) how they deal with the situation, as even my priest, one who favor tradition, does consider Alexander VI as the most-corrupted pope, as he engaged in simony, neopotism, sexual relaitons with mistress, but then say that’s why Alexander VI never did anything that is considered ex-cathedra.
You realize Showtime’s “The Borgias” is a fictional soap opera and largely not actual history, right?
Click to expand...
It was already downplayed significantly.
 
twf said:
It’s hard for modern Catholics to wrap their heads around, but for most of Church history the pope in distant Rome had little to do with their day to day spiritual lives.
Click to expand...
I often think we would be better off returning to this mindset instead of the endless arguing over every little thing that the Pope (and by that I mean, all the Popes in my lifetime) does.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I often think we would be better off returning to this mindset instead of the endless arguing over every little thing that the Pope (and by that I mean, all the Popes in my lifetime) does.
Click to expand...
The Fathers tell us to follow our local bishop…first and foremost. He is entrusted with our souls. Historically, the Pope’s primacy was in and among his brother bishops with little direct impact on laity outside of Rome. Not to say that we can or should return to that…with mass media the Pope will always have a direct impact now… but I agree that it isn’t always necessary to hang on His Holiness’ every word.
 
As somebody from the outside, I would like to add another dimension to this conversation, especially about the historical difficulties. Many Roman Catholics these days have an attitude that one cannot speak critically of the Church and its hierarchy. The Church, we hear, is Holy - of God - and can do no wrong because of that.

As we all know, historically, there have been horrible Popes and horrible actions that the Church has instigated (ask any Jew what they know of such actions). Power corrupts and we have seen much corruption in the Church’s history.

I believe there needs to be a stepping up to the plate. Own what has been corrupt and begin to make amends. Point out what is good but don’t brush the dirt under the rug, or worse yet, rewrite history. You will have much more respect from those of us on the outside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top