Popes

Message 194 of 289

You know, the Medicis produced a bunch of popes. Four of them. Of course, this was back in the days when being a pope was not particularly dependent on being either pius, religious or even morally upright.

There was Leo X, Clement VII, Leo XI, and Clement XI.

Leo Xwas pope from 1513 to 1521. His claim to fame was the selling of Indulgences to finance the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica. Oh, yeah, and challenging Martin Luther's 95 theses. And as per usual in those days, he was involved in all kinds of political intrigue and waging of wars. Popes were never known for their pacifism back in the day.

Clement VII - He was pope from 1523 to 1534, after Pope Adrian VI who had a very short tenure after Leo. This dude was politically adept, but not adept enough to keep from being imprisoned during the sack of Rome in 1527. He paid his way out of that little unpleasantness. He was indifferent to the Reformation well underway, and he advocated a militaristic means of evangelizing "by force and arms, if needful". And you wonder why people are afraid of organized religion. He was involved in all that Henry VIII mess in England, too. Nasty business, that.

Pius IV - Was pope from 1559 to 1565. He is known for presiding over the culmination of the Council of Trent. Under his reign, Michelangelo re-built the basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli (in the Diocletian's Baths).

Leo XI - Pope only from April 1, 1605 to April 27 of the same year. He became ill almost immediately after being elected pope and died within the month, not having any time to do much damage anywhere.

posted by MartiInMexico

Replies 1 - 10 of 11

1 2 Next »

Sorry about the boo-boo in my stated lineup of popes. Of course, it should read Leo X, Clement VII, Leo XI, and Pius IV.

posted by MartiInMexico
over 2 years ago

I do not think being religiouse was a qualification in that period of time. If the Pope would have given good ol Henry a divorce so much unpleasantness could have been averted and maybe things would have been different. Although, the church of England was much more tollerant in many ways in the years following the break with Rome.

posted by Espirit
over 2 years ago

The Popes were more into the power not religion, the Kings and Queens went to the Popes before ruling on decisions. I believe it was in the late 1500's when Mary Queen of Scots fought against the Catholic Church leaders from both sides to attempt to solve their doctrinal differences. So I guess the bottom line was the Popes were not as they are today it was more a position of power then religious leadership.

posted by gnibaby
over 2 years ago

There was a heavy duty Protestant movement in and around the Court of Henry VIII before the Pope refused the divorce. Upon Henry's move to make himself head of the church, the Reformists stepped in. Thomas Cromwell was a confirmed Protestant as was Cranmer who had already gotten married in Holland. Even if the Pope had granted the divorce (actually annullment) from Katherine, I believe the powers around the throne would have moved in as soon as Henry died, placing Edward VI on the throne backed by his maternal uncles, the Seymours who were dyed in the wool Protestants. When Edward died, Elizabeth would have moved to the throne instead of Bloody Mary. At this point, everything which happened anyway would have fallen into place. I don't think it would have made a difference, just moved things up.

I would advise anyone interested to read Barbara Tuchman's entitled "Pursuit of Folly" which includes, as one of its sections, a review of the bad moves the Popes made in dealing with the Reformation.

posted by pattiwatt
over 2 years ago

view link This is a little long , but quite interesting , I think . especially for this forum , note the role of Catherine De Medici in suppressing Protestantism in France

posted by Dirck
over 2 years ago

We're smart, we can manage to read something longer than one paragraph here. LOL I printed it out to read a little later. Thanks for the link.

posted by MartiInMexico
over 2 years ago

view linkHere is the background of the first of my family to arrive in America , the Vignes , who were French protestants ( Huguenots) who had fled Valenciennes , france for Leiden , Holland and then came to Nieuw Amsterdam on the very first shipload of settlers to land there view link Here is some more family history . I am descended from Christina Vigne , the eldest of the Vigne daughters who arrived on that first ship , and Dirck Holgersen , a Norwegian who came to Nieuw Amsterdam to work in the maritime building trade .

posted by Dirck
over 2 years ago

Popes have always been known for their well shall we say "indiscretions". Having been raised Catholic I was always aware of this. Michaelangelo had trouble getting the Popes to pay him for his work and I think the Popes of today may have played a role in covering up the sexual misconduct of priests.

posted by anakris
over 2 years ago

But! as much as Micelangelo complained...I read recently that church artist were paid very handsomely and lived much more higher quality lives than most other people of their times.

Many of those artist got their patronage from the deMedicis and were taken care of respected by
Lorenzo who gave so many of them a start, a chance to showcase their talents introducing them
to other patrons who made their work visible and the church made their works highly visible in the churches that were adorned with their handiwork. and....everybody went to church in those days! Many didn't read and learned their bible from murals and statues and stained glass windows.

Michelangelo had a repution of paying his workers rather high wages, too.

posted by MalteseColleen
over 2 years ago

Back in the day, the first son would inherit the land and the title and the second son would go into the church. It was less a calling and more a way to prevent problems in inheritance. The priestly princes would live as richly as if they had inherited the title and lands, through all the various income sources and lands possessed by the church. Many, if not most, only paid lip service to the concept of celibacy, enjoying the favors of one or more women, generally with some degree of discretion.

My understanding is that the requirement of celibacy was placed on priests in order for the church to avoid losing property to inheritance disputes. An unmarried priest could be placed on church property to minister to the needs of the faithful, and there would not be legitimate offspring to try to lay claim to the property after the death of the priest. All property would remain in the hands of the church.