Pope Innocent III

  • Thread starter Thread starter William_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

William_II

Guest
Who is Pope Innocent III to you? Do you regard him as a good Pope or as a bad Pope?
 
Is there not anyone here who is famliar with Pope Innocent III?
 
Innocent III has one of the most famous quotes of Popes about Popes in one of his sermons.

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If
salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
 
Thank you Gerard.

What does the Pope’s quote actually mean in regards to being judged by men? How did Innocent III feel he would be judged or not judged by men if he glorified himself?
 
He was much maligned but more recent scholarship has vindicated him greatly. He was venerated by a couple recent Popes. Leo XIII moved his remains to a more prominent location in Rome. Bl. John XXIII titled one of his encyclicals after a phrase he said was inspired by its usage by Innocent III (Mater et Magistra–the Church as Mother and Teacher of all nations) and also compared his hopes for renewal from the Second Vatican Council with Pope Innocent’s hopes for the Fourth Lateran Council.

He also had mystical visions leading him to approve the Franciscans and Dominicans.

Oh, and one more interesting thing: the Imitation of Christ was thought to be written by him for a while.
 
GerardP said:
Innocent III has one of the most famous quotes of Popes about Popes in one of his sermons.

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If
salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
Click to expand...
But I thought the Pope was guided by the Holy Ghost in such a way that all of his acts were merely the external expression of the internal movements of the Holy Ghost who inspires, guides, and pertects from erro all that he does and says? 😉
 
But I thought the Pope was guided by the Holy Ghost in such a way that all of his acts were merely the external expression of the internal movements of the Holy Ghost who inspires, guides, and pertects from erro all that he does and says? 😉
Click to expand...
All of his acts? Protected from error in all he does and says?

No. The pope is not impeccable. He is protected from error in all that he teaches in matters of faith and morals. This does not mean ‘only’ when he issues an ex cathedra statement. . .but it also does not mean that when he is speaking as a private person–or even when he is speaking, say delivering the Angelus on a Sunday, that he is ‘protected from error’. He can stumble over a word, or even predict that the Cubs will win the Series. . .and no one can claim that, “See, the Pope said it so it’s infallible or without error!” He can make mistakes in many areas (and he confesses on a regular basis, too, God bless him). . .but that doesn’t take away from the true nature of infallibility when the charism is exercised. If anything, it is a proof of the charism’s existence, in that in 2000 years we have never had a Pope who promulgated a teaching related to faith and morals which was wrong.
 
William_II said:
Thanks for the link. I like this Pope.
Click to expand...
He supported St Francis (being a Franciscan of course I love him for this) and that other great saint St Dominic, who between them established two of the greatest orders of the Church. 👍 :getholy:
 
Tantum_ergo said:
All of his acts? Protected from error in all he does and says?

No. The pope is not impeccable. He is protected from error in all that he teaches in matters of faith and morals. This does not mean ‘only’ when he issues an ex cathedra statement. . .but it also does not mean that when he is speaking as a private person–or even when he is speaking, say delivering the Angelus on a Sunday, that he is ‘protected from error’. He can stumble over a word, or even predict that the Cubs will win the Series. . .and no one can claim that, “See, the Pope said it so it’s infallible or without error!” He can make mistakes in many areas (and he confesses on a regular basis, too, God bless him). . .but that doesn’t take away from the true nature of infallibility when the charism is exercised. If anything, it is a proof of the charism’s existence, in that in 2000 years we have never had a Pope who promulgated a teaching related to faith and morals which was wrong.
Click to expand...
I was kidding. I understand that the Pope can fall into error. He is infallible by virtue of the extraordinary magesterium when he is defining a dogma ex cathedra, and by virtue of the ordinary magisterium when he is teaching what the Church has already defined.

He can, however, deviate from the faith if he daparts from what the Church has always taught. For example, when John XXII taught publicly on several occaisions that the souls of the faithful departed will not enjoy the beatific vision until after the final judgment, he was in error. Fortunately in that day, everyone did not rally around him and defend the error simply because a Pope taught it. Instead, the Cardinals confronted him with the error and he finally retracted it on his death bed.
 
According to Wikipedia, Pope Innocent III oversaw the Fourth Lateran Council, which put forth much reform in the Church. The law that Catholics must receive Reconciliation at least once a year is a result of this council.
 
William_II said:
Who is Pope Innocent III to you? Do you regard him as a good Pope or as a bad Pope?
Click to expand...
Pope Innocent III, if I am not mistaken is the pope who was associated with the calling of the crusade against the Cathar heresy (also known as the Albigensians named after the French town of Albi) in Languedoc and Provence in what is now Southern France.

The Cathar heresy was a very anti-clerical movement within western christendom that was focused in Southern France. Among its primary criticisms of the church was the church’s wordly power and more particularly its vast holdings of private property and wealth. The Cathar beliefs had relations to eastern religions and adopted a core belief that all matter was intrinsically evil. This is a belief that is seemingly at odds with orthodox christianity which holds God was made material in the form of the incarnation and He continued to be made material in the Eucharist.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father

Pope Innocent III lived during the era and was pope at a time when the church was trying to suppress this movement. This is also the time of St Francis of Assisi and St Dominic, the latter of whom founded the Dominicans to combat this very heresy. Itinerant preachers failed to fully defeat the heresy, although certainly many souls were won by the efforts of holy preachers like St Dominic, and so Pope Innocent III, I think maybe ca. 1209 (?) called for a crusade against the Albigensians. The mainly French noblemen with some Spanish magnates, who were sometimes accompanied by papal legates, as well marched into the territory and conquered it, killing thousands of people in actions that would today probably land these men to face a war crimes tribunal in the Hague.

Today I think the Albigensians would simply just be considered another branch of christianity… the difference between what happened to them and the protestant reformation was that the protestants were not crushed by warfare, but these folks were.

There is a famous quote which is allegedly (I know nothing of the veracity) attributed to a papal envoy or a bishop of some sort who accompanied the army as it was besieging one of the heretic-held cities. The envoy or the bishop was asked how the soldiers should tell the catholics apart from the heretics, and he replied: ‘kill them all, God will know His own.’

Pope Innocent III I think is also one of the popes that wrote a constitution for the status of the jews, and I think he may have required them to wear yellow badges.

I also think he had something to do with the start of the Franciscans.

Only God knows if he was a saint or not.
 
Interesting and insightful post, D M. Do you like this Pope as well? I think he was quite the character. Have you ever seen the famous fresco of him that I’d mentioned earlier in the thread?
 
William_II said:
Interesting and insightful post, D M. Do you like this Pope as well? I think he was quite the character. Have you ever seen the famous fresco of him that I’d mentioned earlier in the thread?
Click to expand...
I’m sure he must have a great guy if one had known him personally… St Francis of Assisi was his contemporary and they had met each other personally.

I have seen the fresco… I think you are referring to this one?

http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspec...aits/Innocent III/Innocent-III-Subiaco-BR.jpg
 
Yes, that’s the very fresco that I admire, although I’ve seen other pictures of it with better lighting. What do you make of it?

Although I enjoy reading about Innocent III, I don’t know if I’d be very compatible with him on a personal level or not. He seems very forceful, almost tyrannical.
 
William_II said:
Yes, that’s the very fresco that I admire, although I’ve seen other pictures of it with better lighting. What do you make of it?

Although I enjoy reading about Innocent III, I don’t know if I’d be very compatible with him on a personal level or not. He seems very forceful, almost tyrannical.
Click to expand...
I think it almost reminds me of Byzantine artwork, the lack of expression in the face with the eyes staring blankly (and if you look very closely you will notice that the eyes are not at the same level, but in fact are quite ‘googly’ to use a colloquial expression) is the same way that the Byzantine emperors and empresses were often depicted in frescoes… I’m not an art historian, but I wonder if there could be any linkage in styles here?

Innocent III is considered one of the most politically powerful popes in the middle ages, and perhaps there is some allusion here to a comparison to a medieval emperor?

I don’t know…
 
Thank you.
When I asked what you made of it, I was actually asking if you liked it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top