Ah, the risks of using Roman Numerals as ordinal numbers. So easy to get “IV” and “VI” mixed up.and I don’t like Innocent VIII and Alexander VI.
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat we would say Peter’s seat]. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Matt 23:1-3]
The authority of the papacy does not depend on the Pope’s personal merits or on him even being in the state of grace. The Pope is a man like all others and will be judged on his merits by God. However, when he teaches and governs in his role as Pope, sinner Popes are just as authoritative as saintly Popes.We’ve been fortunate to have had so many great popes that its had to single out sometimes the bad ones. One of the Urbans(I think VI) was terrible and I don’t like Innocent VIII and Alexander VI. So what do we do with their writings and encyclicals and such? Has the church ever said?
You mean this one poll, right? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=578697?Ah, the risks of using Roman Numerals as ordinal numbers. So easy to get “IV” and “VI” mixed up.
Alexander-6 was a saintly and holy man. Alexander-4, on the other hand, was probably the worst Pope we have ever had. I once ran a poll on CAF asking who was the worst Pope in history, and Alexander-4 won by a significant margin.
I ran this poll for apologetic reasons. Protestants sometimes bring up “bad” Popes, and there have been several, but I wanted to find the worst of the worst, so that I could focus any such discussions on that guy. Thus, no protestant could complain that I had focused merely on a “bad” Pope but not a REALLY bad Pope. Indeed, no protestant could accuse me of trying to skew the discussion in favor of the Church by citing Alexander-4.
Alexander-4 had little time for Church business, but when he did take the occasional break from his mistresses and debauchery to attend to the affairs (the, ahem, official affairs) of his Office, he managed to be quite orthodox. He never attempted in any way to justify his sinful life by enshrining his conduct into Church teaching (which was just about the ONLY bad thing that he never tried to do).
Despite his bad behavior, the Church does not try to disclaim him or cover up his reign. He has always been included in every list of Popes, and every Catholic reference source on Popes describes his shameful reign. He was Bishop of Rome, fully and completely Pope of the Church, and the undisputed earthly boss. Whatever he taught as Pope occupies a place in the hierarchy of authority, the same as the teaching of any other Pope.
Jesus was aware of such hypocrisy, yet insisted that we submit to its authority:
Yes, I have such time trying to remember… can my daughter enter a bar when she is 12 or 21. So difficult if we pay no attention to what is written there.Ah, the risks of using Roman Numerals as ordinal numbers. So easy to get “IV” and “VI” mixed up.
I presume your ‘bad’ Alexander is the Pope also known as Rodrigo Borgia. He actually was Alexander 6 (VI), not Alexander 4 (IV).Ah, the risks of using Roman Numerals as ordinal numbers. So easy to get “IV” and “VI” mixed up.
Alexander-6 was a saintly and holy man. Alexander-4, on the other hand, was probably the worst Pope we have ever had. I once ran a poll on CAF asking who was the worst Pope in history, and Alexander-4 won by a significant margin.
I ran this poll for apologetic reasons. Protestants sometimes bring up “bad” Popes, and there have been several, but I wanted to find the worst of the worst, so that I could focus any such discussions on that guy. Thus, no protestant could complain that I had focused merely on a “bad” Pope but not a REALLY bad Pope. Indeed, no protestant could accuse me of trying to skew the discussion in favor of the Church by citing Alexander-4.
Alexander-4 had little time for Church business, but when he did take the occasional break from his mistresses and debauchery to attend to the affairs (the, ahem, official affairs) of his Office, he managed to be quite orthodox. He never attempted in any way to justify his sinful life by enshrining his conduct into Church teaching (which was just about the ONLY bad thing that he never tried to do).
Despite his bad behavior, the Church does not try to disclaim him or cover up his reign. He has always been included in every list of Popes, and every Catholic reference source on Popes describes his shameful reign. He was Bishop of Rome, fully and completely Pope of the Church, and the undisputed earthly boss. Whatever he taught as Pope occupies a place in the hierarchy of authority, the same as the teaching of any other Pope.
Jesus was aware of such hypocrisy, yet insisted that we submit to its authority:
There was the “Hammer against the Witch” that came out and other superstitions at that time of Innocent VIII. The Urban I mentioned complained about not being able to hear his cardinals scream while being tortured.The authority of the papacy does not depend on the Pope’s personal merits or on him even being in the state of grace. The Pope is a man like all others and will be judged on his merits by God. However, when he teaches and governs in his role as Pope, sinner Popes are just as authoritative as saintly Popes.
Of the Popes you mentioned, I am not aware of any formal teaching documents from them (the practice of sending out periodic teaching documents is relatively new to the last couple centuries–prior to that, Popes generally only intervened when they were needed to definitively settle some doctrinal controvery, to enact canon law, or to serve as a kind of supreme court for ecclesiastical disputes).
We do? Are you quite certain?Code:We know now there's no such thing as witches . . .
Sounds like necromancy. I’m not saying that the supernautral doesn’t exist but to the extent that things were back in Innocent 8th’s day if you weighed more than the bible then you were a witch. The inquistors looking for the “mark of the devil” which was a mole or anything.We do? Are you quite certain?
I know several people who believe quite sincerely that they are witches. I also know of a certain witch in Scripture who may well have been shocked when her summoning of the dead was successful, but who was nevertheless practicing witchcraft . . .
That’s the guy.I presume your ‘bad’ Alexander is the Pope also known as Rodrigo Borgia. He actually was Alexander 6 (VI), not Alexander 4 (IV).
I’ve been doing a little research on some of these guys and, as a general rule, they were to involved with temporal power to have time for anything spiritual. It wasn’t on their radar.We’ve been fortunate to have had so many great popes that its had to single out sometimes the bad ones. One of the Urbans(I think VI) was terrible and I don’t like Innocent VIII and Alexander VI. So what do we do with their writings and encyclicals and such? Has the church ever said?
“We have them where I come from too, only we spell it differently.” (spoken by the modern New Yorker, Jeff Douglas, to a Scottish lass from two centuries ago who was explaining that “witches” are troublemakers, from the musical Brigadoon, by Lerner & Loewe)We know now there’s no such thing as witches
When the church went into Germania they came across the Celts. They were competition and had to be irradicated. There native religion was demonized and they were witches and so ongoes the story. If there sacred spots could not be irradicated churchs were built on them.“We have them where I come from too, only we spell it differently.” (spoken by the modern New Yorker, Jeff Douglas, to a Scottish lass from two centuries ago who was explaining that “witches” are troublemakers, from the musical Brigadoon, by Lerner & Loewe)