Who was Pope Alexander VI?

[PiousTemplar]

Just a quick question. Who was Pope Alexander VI? What did he do?

Whats all the fuss we get about him? What is the speculation going around of how he was ‘corrupt’?

Sorry if I am simply talking garbage, they are just things I have heard around the place.

God bless all.

 

[awatkins69]

Well, it’s not speculation. He was a pretty bad pope. He committed fornication, thievery, and murder, multiple times. See here.

 

[GratefulFred]

For those who want a fuller biography:

newadvent.org/cathen/01289a.htm

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

He was one of the Borgias. Lucrezia and Cesare’s Father. He also had other Children. Cesare particualrly was a Psychopath. Machiavelli based “The Prince” on Cesare.

Apparently accidentally poisoned himself when trying to Poison someone else. Some folks say he Singlehandedly Justified the Reformation. Descriptions of his Bloated, Rotting Corpse abound in Anti-Catholic Literature.

Bad, Bad Guy.

 

[LilyM]

He was one of the Borgias. Lucrezia and Cesare’s Father. He also had other Children. Cesare particualrly was a Psychopath. Machiavelli based “The Prince” on Cesare.

Apparently accidentally poisoned himself when trying to Poison someone else. Some folks say he Singlehandedly Justified the Reformation. Descriptions of his Bloated, Rotting Corpse abound in Anti-Catholic Literature.

Bad, Bad Guy.

Bad, bad guy indeed, but still not necessarily the WORST Pope. That title is more usually awarded to John XII. You don’t wanna know …

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Bad, bad guy indeed, but still not necessarily the WORST Pope. That title is more usually awarded to John XII. You don’t wanna know …

Actually, LilyM, I DO know.

St. Robert Bellarmine Rightfully described Good Ole John XII as “The Dregs.”

Devil Worshipper (He actually toasted The Devil at the Altar), Rapist of Women Pilgrims on St. Peter’s; Turned the Lateran Palace into a Brothel, and Had Simultaneous Affairs with His Mother, His Sister and His Father’s Mistress.

On top of that, He was a Gang Leader before being elected Pope. At Age Eighteen.

According to Italian Chronicler Liutprand, he was caught in Flagrante Delicto with a Woman by the Same’s Husband, who then proceeded to beat The Pontiff to Death with a
Hammer. He was only Twenty-Seven. So yes, I know all about John XII.
You can learn SO much from Books.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Why would God let morons like them Pope?

 

[LilyM]

Why would God let morons like them Pope?

Why would He let a moron like Judas be an Apostle? Offhand I can think of a few reasons:

a) He loves the morons too, and wants them to be saved too, and by bestowing such favours on them tries to draw them to Himself for the good of their own souls

b) By doing this He teaches us that His grace is sufficient and the moronitude or otherwise of the recepient doesn’t matter, He can still work through ANYone. It teaches us not to get swelled heads if He bestows special graces or honours on us, as He truly rains on both the just and the unjust

c) The fact that the Church survives in spite of such morons among its leaders - and laity too - is a sign that it truly is divinely protected and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. After all, even these morons did not teach a single iota of error or heresy, no matter how personally sinful they were their teaching was still spot on.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Why would He let a moron like Judas be an Apostle? Offhand I can think of a few reasons:

a) He loves the morons too, and wants them to be saved too, and by bestowing such favours on them tries to draw them to Himself for the good of their own souls

b) By doing this He teaches us that His grace is sufficient and the moronitude or otherwise of the recepient doesn’t matter, He can still work through ANYone. It teaches us not to get swelled heads if He bestows special graces or honours on us, as He truly rains on both the just and the unjust

c) The fact that the Church survives in spite of such morons among its leaders - and laity too - is a sign that it truly is divinely protected and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. After all, even these morons did not teach a single iota of error or heresy, no matter how personally sinful they were their teaching was still spot on.

Actually (and Unfortunately) that is not quite true, LilyM.
You CAN learn a lot from Books.

John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) authored the Definitive “Cum Inter Nunollos,” which flatly declares that it is Heretical to say that Christ and His Apostles owned no Property.

When He died he was Incredibly Wealthy (24 Million Gold Florins). Before He died, He tried to Justify his wealth and convince the Faithful by Stating that Jesus did not Live in Poverty-------and Executed 114 Franciscan Monks who said that He did.

As well as that, He was a Simonist AND an a Gifted Alchemist who condemned Alchemy so he could eliminate the Competition.
(Smart Guy).

He also claimed that God is the Sole Resident of Heaven----according to Him, even The Saints and the Blessed Virgin would have to wait until the Day Of Judgement to get in.
He also believed there was no one in Hell either.
So yes, NOT QUITE right about Spot On Teaching.

 

[Rolltide]

Actually (and Unfortunately) that is not quite true, LilyM.
You CAN learn a lot from Books.

John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) authored the Definitive “Cum Inter Nunollos,” which flatly declares that it is Heretical to say that Christ and His Apostles owned no Property.

When He died he was Incredibly Wealthy (24 Million Gold Florins). Before He died, He tried to Justify his wealth and convince the Faithful by Stating that Jesus did not Live in Poverty-------and Executed 114 Franciscan Monks who said that He did.

As well as that, He was a Simonist AND an a Gifted Alchemist who condemned Alchemy so he could eliminate the Competition.
(Smart Guy).

He also claimed that God is the Sole Resident of Heaven----according to Him, even The Saints and the Blessed Virgin would have to wait until the Day Of Judgement to get in.
He also believed there was no one in Hell either.
So yes, NOT QUITE right about Spot On Teaching.

These personal views, however, were not taught in an infallible manner. They were part of his own fallible opinions. Not everything that comes out of a pope’s mouth is infallible. For that matter, hardly anything that comes out of their mouth is. For it to be infallible, he has to specifically invoke infallibility.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

These personal views, however, were not taught in an infallible manner. They were part of his own fallible opinions. Not everything that comes out of a pope’s mouth is infallible. For that matter, hardly anything that comes out of their mouth is. For it to be infallible, he has to specifically invoke infallibility.

That is true.

Popes did not begin declaring their own Infallibility until the 19th century, as a Matter of Fact.

I’m sure John XXII’s Declarations were later rendered Null and Void.

 

[Rolltide]

That is true.

Popes did not begin declaring their own Infallibility until the 19th century, as a Matter of Fact.

I’m sure John XXII’s Declarations were later rendered Null and Void.

Yes. They were, of course, null and void from the moment he uttered them, but there were those who spoke out against his opinions, even at the time, and clarifications were offered both while he was alive and immediately following his death. And while it is true that infallibility was not defined until the nineteenth century, it existed since the early church. In the same way, just because the Assumption of Mary was declared dogma in 1950 does not mean that Mary was magically assumed in 1950. It was simply defined then in the face of challenges to the belief.