Once or twice or more, nepotism was a serious problem in the Vatican.
The term originated with the assignment of nephews to important positions by Catholic popes and bishops. In theory, nepotism was regarded as a cardinal sin by the church, particularly when the Popes made their nephews cardinals on a regular basis. For this reason some say nepotism might have been called nephewism as well, especially when the very English term originates from the Latin word nepos which exactly mean nephew, though protectionism and favoritism was not strictly exclusive to the nephews .
For sure that a lot of things happened around the medieval bridges of Rome, which scandals are almost under the bridge nowadays.
For instance, Pope Callixtus III, head of the infamous Borgia family, in 1456, made two of his nephews cardinals; one of them, Rodrigo, later used his position as a cardinal as a stepping stone to the papacy, becoming Pope Alexander VI.
This Pope Alexander then elevated his mistress's brother, Alessandro Farnese, to cardinal; and Farnese would later go on to become Pope Paul III.
Paul III in turn appointed his own two nephews, aged 14 and 16, as cardinals, as well as pulling strings for his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese, to get him more and more land, and eventually making him a Duke in Italy.
However maybe history judges the nepotism of the medieval church a bit too harshly, because otherwise it would be just about time to openly acknowledge by all that since the era of the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, both in the IV century AD, the church had profoundly changed. From a persecuted and underground entity, the Roman church evolved to an imperial powerhouse. Even today it is one of the world powers.
Before that the church and the empire used to have different values and moral codes, but what man could have done, when the Roman church became a loyal and supporting part of the empire, moreover the medieval Roman Church itself became the empire. The Latin they used was not a Holy Tongue, but simply the very language of the Roman Empire.
Maybe in the church or in a democracy, positions should not be hereditary or distributed by leverage. Like being a church, it must have higher standards than the external world. The practice of the wide open nepotism was finally limited when Pope Innocent XII issued a decree called Romanum Decet Pontificem, in 1692.
The papal executive order prohibited popes in all times from bestowing estates, offices, or revenues on any relative, with the exception that one really qualified relative (at most) could be made a cardinal. It can be quite interesting that finally an almost innocent Pope, called Innocent XII, that he really wanted to stop nepotism and simonia by creating a very stringent the church law, but he also created a notwithstanding clause in it, an exemption, namely, that a maximum of one, a close relative, who also must be a qualified one, can still be made a cardinal by a regnant Pope.
Why did this leniency occur? Why was an exemption made by a very stringent Pope?
A hidden tradition says that this exemption goes back to the early Jerusalem congregation. It goes back to James. It is not very well known that among the Apostles there was someone who was related to Jesus himself. He is James, the brother of Jesus. Although he was called also the son of Alpheus, a very early liturgical text calls him, James the brother of God. Of course it is an anachronism, together with the term which says that Mary would be the mother of God. NONSENSE, of course.
It is rather obscure whether James is a brother or a half brother or just a cousin to Jesus, and what was the role of Alpheus, James’s father in the extended family of Jesus, where Jesus had other siblings and sisters as well. Nonetheless, the researchers agree that despite the popular view, it was not The Apostle Peter, who succeeded Jesus, but it was James the brother of Jesus who became the leader of the Jerusalem congregation, by the appointment made by Jesus himself.
It looks like that the Papal exemption was exactly worded because of James, the successor of Jesus in the leading of the Jerusalem Messianic movement, as he was the brother of Jesus, known as James the Less.
It can be a surprise, but we tend to forget that the Messiah is profoundly not, or not only a religious leader, but a King on the very throne of David, the ancient King of Israel, and the Gospel of Matthew starts with the very family tree of Jesus, showing that he is a straight descendant of David the King.
According to the Gospels, also the Wisemen from the East, they came to see the newborn King. Herod sent his troops to kill the throne claimant child. On the very Holy Cross the Roman sign reads that this is the King of the Jews. Jesus was a real king, anointed by the hand of the Prophet John, actually who was his cousin, and by the Spirit of God. Jesus was not only the Chief Prophet of all time, but also a royalty, a descendant of a long line of Kings in Judah from David to Jechonias.
In a monarchy the successor is naturally the next of kin, or the capable of them. Just like the Papal exemption says: “except of one really qualified relative”, that can be made a cardinal.
Was James the Less qualified to lead the Jerusalem congregation after Jesus left?
He was an Apostle already, thus it should be an immediate qualification like an ordination. But some people could say, uh-huh, when one’s brother was Jesus himself, then one would become easier an Apostle. Nonetheless the tradition holds that James was not only a brother, but he was also qualified. And his being qualified was reflected in the Papal exemption regarding a maximum one, though a really qualified relative to be elevated into the ranks of the cardinals. Actually when James died, his successor was Simeon of Jerusalem, his other brother. How was James qualified to lead the Jerusalem congregation?
He was also known by the name of James the Just. It was not his birth name, it was the name that he earned. He was named The Just because of his virtues, his character, his piety. He used to spend countless hours with prayers in the Jerusalem Temple, where he went alone prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.”
However, of course he was Jewish, and his original Hebrew name is quite distorted in English. In Hebrew his name is Yakov, Ha-Tzadik. Beside his belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and he is the Messiah, James was fully Jewish, keeping all the 613 commandments given by God to the Jews in the Torah, which is the Five Book of Moses. Maybe there are other just people all around the world, but nobody can be a Jewish Righteous / Tzaddik, only if they try very hard to keep all the 613 Torah commandments.
Sin meant that somebody broke the law of the commandments. To believe in something was a thing, but one must have acted according to the commandments. The breach of the commandments was considered as sin.
Even when Jesus asked his opponents that “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I'm telling the truth, why don't you believe me?” It is meant that nobody can prove that Jesus himself broke the commandments. Jesus and his brother James were Jews, as it is clearly written in the Gospel of John as Jesus said it himself that: “we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.”
As Christians we must keep the Commandments in the Gospels given especially to us, following our Master and King. May the Lord strengthen our Faith, that Faith will bring forth the required good deeds for the always greater glory of God, to whom we pray in the name of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit. May the King come to us today. AMEN
The term originated with the assignment of nephews to important positions by Catholic popes and bishops. In theory, nepotism was regarded as a cardinal sin by the church, particularly when the Popes made their nephews cardinals on a regular basis. For this reason some say nepotism might have been called nephewism as well, especially when the very English term originates from the Latin word nepos which exactly mean nephew, though protectionism and favoritism was not strictly exclusive to the nephews .
For sure that a lot of things happened around the medieval bridges of Rome, which scandals are almost under the bridge nowadays.
For instance, Pope Callixtus III, head of the infamous Borgia family, in 1456, made two of his nephews cardinals; one of them, Rodrigo, later used his position as a cardinal as a stepping stone to the papacy, becoming Pope Alexander VI.
This Pope Alexander then elevated his mistress's brother, Alessandro Farnese, to cardinal; and Farnese would later go on to become Pope Paul III.
Paul III in turn appointed his own two nephews, aged 14 and 16, as cardinals, as well as pulling strings for his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese, to get him more and more land, and eventually making him a Duke in Italy.
However maybe history judges the nepotism of the medieval church a bit too harshly, because otherwise it would be just about time to openly acknowledge by all that since the era of the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, both in the IV century AD, the church had profoundly changed. From a persecuted and underground entity, the Roman church evolved to an imperial powerhouse. Even today it is one of the world powers.
Before that the church and the empire used to have different values and moral codes, but what man could have done, when the Roman church became a loyal and supporting part of the empire, moreover the medieval Roman Church itself became the empire. The Latin they used was not a Holy Tongue, but simply the very language of the Roman Empire.
Maybe in the church or in a democracy, positions should not be hereditary or distributed by leverage. Like being a church, it must have higher standards than the external world. The practice of the wide open nepotism was finally limited when Pope Innocent XII issued a decree called Romanum Decet Pontificem, in 1692.
The papal executive order prohibited popes in all times from bestowing estates, offices, or revenues on any relative, with the exception that one really qualified relative (at most) could be made a cardinal. It can be quite interesting that finally an almost innocent Pope, called Innocent XII, that he really wanted to stop nepotism and simonia by creating a very stringent the church law, but he also created a notwithstanding clause in it, an exemption, namely, that a maximum of one, a close relative, who also must be a qualified one, can still be made a cardinal by a regnant Pope.
Why did this leniency occur? Why was an exemption made by a very stringent Pope?
A hidden tradition says that this exemption goes back to the early Jerusalem congregation. It goes back to James. It is not very well known that among the Apostles there was someone who was related to Jesus himself. He is James, the brother of Jesus. Although he was called also the son of Alpheus, a very early liturgical text calls him, James the brother of God. Of course it is an anachronism, together with the term which says that Mary would be the mother of God. NONSENSE, of course.
It is rather obscure whether James is a brother or a half brother or just a cousin to Jesus, and what was the role of Alpheus, James’s father in the extended family of Jesus, where Jesus had other siblings and sisters as well. Nonetheless, the researchers agree that despite the popular view, it was not The Apostle Peter, who succeeded Jesus, but it was James the brother of Jesus who became the leader of the Jerusalem congregation, by the appointment made by Jesus himself.
It looks like that the Papal exemption was exactly worded because of James, the successor of Jesus in the leading of the Jerusalem Messianic movement, as he was the brother of Jesus, known as James the Less.
It can be a surprise, but we tend to forget that the Messiah is profoundly not, or not only a religious leader, but a King on the very throne of David, the ancient King of Israel, and the Gospel of Matthew starts with the very family tree of Jesus, showing that he is a straight descendant of David the King.
According to the Gospels, also the Wisemen from the East, they came to see the newborn King. Herod sent his troops to kill the throne claimant child. On the very Holy Cross the Roman sign reads that this is the King of the Jews. Jesus was a real king, anointed by the hand of the Prophet John, actually who was his cousin, and by the Spirit of God. Jesus was not only the Chief Prophet of all time, but also a royalty, a descendant of a long line of Kings in Judah from David to Jechonias.
In a monarchy the successor is naturally the next of kin, or the capable of them. Just like the Papal exemption says: “except of one really qualified relative”, that can be made a cardinal.
Was James the Less qualified to lead the Jerusalem congregation after Jesus left?
He was an Apostle already, thus it should be an immediate qualification like an ordination. But some people could say, uh-huh, when one’s brother was Jesus himself, then one would become easier an Apostle. Nonetheless the tradition holds that James was not only a brother, but he was also qualified. And his being qualified was reflected in the Papal exemption regarding a maximum one, though a really qualified relative to be elevated into the ranks of the cardinals. Actually when James died, his successor was Simeon of Jerusalem, his other brother. How was James qualified to lead the Jerusalem congregation?
He was also known by the name of James the Just. It was not his birth name, it was the name that he earned. He was named The Just because of his virtues, his character, his piety. He used to spend countless hours with prayers in the Jerusalem Temple, where he went alone prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.”
However, of course he was Jewish, and his original Hebrew name is quite distorted in English. In Hebrew his name is Yakov, Ha-Tzadik. Beside his belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and he is the Messiah, James was fully Jewish, keeping all the 613 commandments given by God to the Jews in the Torah, which is the Five Book of Moses. Maybe there are other just people all around the world, but nobody can be a Jewish Righteous / Tzaddik, only if they try very hard to keep all the 613 Torah commandments.
Sin meant that somebody broke the law of the commandments. To believe in something was a thing, but one must have acted according to the commandments. The breach of the commandments was considered as sin.
Even when Jesus asked his opponents that “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I'm telling the truth, why don't you believe me?” It is meant that nobody can prove that Jesus himself broke the commandments. Jesus and his brother James were Jews, as it is clearly written in the Gospel of John as Jesus said it himself that: “we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.”
As Christians we must keep the Commandments in the Gospels given especially to us, following our Master and King. May the Lord strengthen our Faith, that Faith will bring forth the required good deeds for the always greater glory of God, to whom we pray in the name of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit. May the King come to us today. AMEN
