Most influential Popes ever?

[RomanItalianEuropean]

The main candidates for me are Innocent III (1198-1215), Julius II (1503-153) and Paul III (1534-1549).

Innocent III started the Fourth Crusade. Altough the outcome was not what he originally wanted, he used it to establish Latin rule over the Byzantines. He made England, Aragon and Sicily tributaries of Rome. He also deposed the German Emperor Otto IV by replacing him with his protegè Frederick II, already King of Sicily.

Julius II, aka the warrior pope (apparently he chose his name in honor of Julius Caesar rather than Pope Julius I). He managed to oppose for a decade France, Spain and others in their attempt to become masters of Italy. He sent the Borgias back to Spain and personally led Papal Armies against the French. He was a great patron of the Arts. His successors, the Medici Popes, were just as great patrons but way less effective in foreign policy (altough they advanced their family's interests significantly). Julius II ratified the Treaty of Tordesillas and was the first to establsih bishoprics in the Americas. He created the Swiss Guards.

Paul III initiated the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation. He was also a patron of Copernicus and issued several bulls condemning the enslavememt of the Indios in America by Portugal and Spain. He mediated bewteen the French King and the Germanic Emperor to make peace within Christendom and face the Ottomans, altough the crusades he organized were not successful. He created a duchy in Parma for his nephew, and sent him to fight (successfully) the Protestants in Germany.

 

[Kazanov]

Karol Wojtila, Aka Jean Paul II, traveled across many countries influencing lots of governments, lobbied against communism, protected pedo-priests all over the world and even protected some questionable catholic sects while fighting some heresies.

 

[Barsoom]

Innocent III's crusade ignored his wishes, and even his ban. That's the opposite of influential.
Julius II fought. Force is not influence, in fact usually follows after attempts at influence have failed.

I can find 3 better candidates even if I use just one name:
Gregory I the Great, instituted papal supremacy.
Gregory VII, instigated the papal renaissance, took papal supremacy to its furthest extent.
Gregory XIII, we use his calendar.

 

[pithorr]

Karol Wojtila, Aka Jean Paul II, traveled across many countries influencing lots of governments, lobbied against communism, protected pedo-priests all over the world and even protected some questionable catholic sects while fighting some heresies.

Now you are on the verge of being DoWed by Poland

 

[Eusebio]

Simon Peter is probably up there

 

[cpreston5]

Does Urban II not deserve a mention for kicking-off the Crusades generally? His full list of actions in office might be quite limited, but the influence of that one major policy was pretty extensive.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I read pops.........most influental pops.........

 

[Barsoom]

Simon Peter is probably up there

I'm not so sure. First, it seems his only acts as bishop of Rome were to found a church there and die colorfully. Second, early bishops of Rome had some prestige due to their city's role in the empire but no specific role or primacy until much later.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Innocent III's crusade ignored his wishes, and even his ban. That's the opposite of influential.
Julius II fought. Force is not influence, in fact usually follows after attempts at influence have failed.

I can find 3 better candidates even if I use just one name:
Gregory I the Great, instituted papal supremacy.
Gregory VII, instigated the papal renaissance, took papal supremacy to its furthest extent.
Gregory XIII, we use his calendar.

Yet you forget Gregory IX. (*shakes head*)

That said, Innocent III was certainly influential - he was the first of the "superpopes" run of the 13th C.

Otherwise, Greg I & Greg VII are good choices.

 

[Kazanov]

Now you are on the verge of being DoWed by Poland

Over here we love Wojtila, we even have tons of statues of him. Best pope ever, i said the things about the pedos because is what i dont like about the guy... but he even faced Pinochet, he was the most based Pope of history.

 

[pithorr]

Over here we love Wojtila, we even have tons of statues of him. Best pope ever, i said the things about the pedos because is what i dont like about the guy... but he even faced Pinochet, he was the most based Pope of history.

Nothing can help you, expect hordes of winged hussars to arrive soon.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Over here we love Wojtila, we even have tons of statues of him. Best pope ever, i said the things about the pedos because is what i dont like about the guy... but he even faced Pinochet, he was the most based Pope of history.

Karol Wojtyla didn't exactly stare down Pinochet. In fact, he was highly criticized for merely 'suggesting' democratic reforms to replace Pinochet's openly Nazi internal policies before disappearing into a closed door meeting with the tyrant where all discussions are completely off the record. And I don't think the word Nazi is misplaced when Manuel Contreras, commander of DINA, has Walter Rauff - who made his bones as Reinhard Heydrich's aide during the formation of SD - standing behind him whispering in Pinochet's ear.

But, since Rauff arrived in South America through the direct assistance of the Roman Catholic Church, should we nominate Eugenio Pacelli as an incredibly influential Pope who completely rewrote the history of the twentieth century?

We could start by mentioning Adolph Hitler come to power in part through Centre Party's support and subsequent dissolution during passage of the Enabling Act, and Hitler's Reich's first international treaty is authored by Pacelli.

Or discuss in passing that IOR, Vatican Bank, is formed in summer of '42 under Pacelli's regime and is complicit in laundering raubgold through Switzerland according to the US State Department Bigelow Report.

Pacelli's famous silence during the war, ostensibly to protect the lives of further Catholics and Jews, might be commendible. He is documented to have saved a few hundred Italian Jews at Castile Gandolfo (love that name). And, according to his housekeeper's memoirs, Pacelli suffered screaming nightmares after OSS shared graphic details of the Death Camps with the Pope following the surrender of Rome.

But, this last point only makes Pacelli's decisions more puzzling. He chose to ignore the fact Roman Catholic churches and monastaries across Europe - most especially the monastary of San Giraloma on the banks of the Tiber, and the Abbey of Montserrat outside Barcelona - are used by Giovanni Montini and Alois Hudal as Ratlines across which the criminals crawled to safety so The Spider could begin to spin its web.

Truly, this is an influential Pope.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I'm not so sure. First, it seems his only acts as bishop of Rome were to found a church there and die colorfully. Second, early bishops of Rome had some prestige due to their city's role in the empire but no specific role or primacy until much later.

Every Bishop of Rome derives his authority from Peter, his status as 'First among Equals' among the Patriarchs flows from Christ renaming Simon 'The Rock' and handing him the Keys to the Kingdom. Yet his influence is negligible?

In Rome, spiritual authority is second to political authority; and therein lies the problem: the tail wags the dog.

 

[Barsoom]

Every Bishop of Rome derives his authority from Peter, his status as 'First among Equals' among the Patriarchs flows from Christ renaming Simon 'The Rock' and handing him the Keys to the Kingdom. Yet his influence is negligible?

In Rome, spiritual authority is second to political authority; and therein lies the problem: the tail wags the dog.

Exactly, the authority of the bishop of Rome derives in theory from the primacy of St. Peter but in practice from the status of the imperial city. (OK, that's maybe a little overstated.)

The bigger reason for my hesitation (not rejection, mind you) is a definition issue, because this is after all a Paradox forum. One can argue that the butterfly which causes a hurricane is very influential and by some definitions he is, but I prefer to see influence as something that's exercised consciously. Peter's influence is almost all posthumous, with more direct causes in the actions of subsequent popes. While it is absolutely true that their influence depends on their "descent" from St. Peter, his status is the result more of his being than of his doing.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Exactly, the authority of the bishop of Rome derives in theory from the primacy of St. Peter but in practice from the status of the imperial city. (OK, that's maybe a little overstated.)

The bigger reason for my hesitation (not rejection, mind you) is a definition issue, because this is after all a Paradox forum. One can argue that the butterfly which causes a hurricane is very influential and by some definitions he is, but I prefer to see influence as something that's exercised consciously. Peter's influence is almost all posthumous, with more direct causes in the actions of subsequent popes. While it is absolutely true that their influence depends on their "descent" from St. Peter, his status is the result more of his being than of his doing.

Peter's influence is not posthumous, his deeds are recorded for all to see. He gathered the faithful unto himself in the center of the world and brought faith to many more before dying for what he believed. He was the Rock upon which that entire church was built. And through Christ's Church, miracles have been wrought upon this earth. This is a cornerstone belief, and is not debatable from their perspective or mine.

Where we are in complete agreement is your suggestion that the influence of the Bishop of Rome is primarily political set against a backdrop of divine glory. And knowing the defacto Christian Leader of the world is subject to political compromise, rather than championing the beliefs endowed in the Ring of the Fisherman, saddens me beyond belief.

 

[pithorr]

Peter is a semi-legendary character

 

[Semper Victor]

The primacy of the Roman bishop as Peter's successor (according to the Catholic Church) is taken from these verses from the Gospel of Matthew (KJV, Matthew 16, 18-19):

(18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In an unsubtle attempt to make this clear to everybody, the Latin version of Matthew 16, 18 is engraved in a gilded bronze inscription along the base of the dome of Saint Peter's basilica in the Vatican (Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam mean et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum):

 

[Eusebio]

Peter is a semi-legendary character

Well, we know Peter existed since we have letters from a certain Paul mentioning that he met him more than once. But admittedly w/r/t the thread on whether he was ever Bishop of Rome all we have is later church tradition.

The primacy of the Roman bishop as Peter's successor (according to the Catholic Church) is taken from these verses from the Gospel of Matthew (KJV, Matthew 16, 18-19):

My theory here is that the author of Matthew is making the point that the Jews, i.e. Jewish practices (represented by Peter) will be bedrock of the Church. The Roman church later hijacked the pericope to boost their authority against the other sees.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

The ‘first’ bishop of Rome is always said to be Linus, who was invested by Peter right before his reverse crucifixion. It is this investiture through which the authority Christ invested in Peter flows.

 

[Eusebio]

The ‘first’ bishop of Rome is always said to be Linus, who was invested by Peter right before his reverse crucifixion. It is this investiture through which the authority Christ invested in Peter flows.

Right, technically you're correct. I should have said that there is no evidence other than later church tradition that Peter founded the church in Rome and invested Linus.