A Pope-Emperor: is it possible?

[American Emperor]

Can anyone think of a scenario where a man is able to assume both the offices of Pope AND Holy Roman Emperor? Because as far as I know, the only requirement to become Pope was that a person be a Catholic male. Are there any other qualifications that I'm missing?

I had two possible situations in mind: either where an Emperor (Pre-Investiture Controversy) uses his authority to appoint himself Pope. I know that it's pretty ASB-ish and tough to pull off, but I thought I'd throw it out there anywhere.

The other one, which I thought had a little more potential, is where a Pope (post-Golden Bull) makes a bid to get elected Emperor. He would already have three of the seven votes in his pocket (his three archbishops), so he would only need to convince one more elector to snatch up the crown.

Can anyone think of any other ways to make this idea work or is it back to the drawing board for me?

[Analytical Engine]

Originally Posted by American Emperor

Can anyone think of a scenario where a man is able to assume both the offices of Pope AND Holy Roman Emperor? Because as far as I know, the only requirement to become Pope was that a person be a Catholic male. Are there any other qualifications that I'm missing?

Yes: The candinate must be a secular prince...







At least, I think that they had to be secular...

[Grey Wolf]

I suppose you COULD get an ever-victorious emperor overthrowing the Pope, and forcing the cardinals to declare him the next one at the point of a sword

Or you could get him making one of his sons a cardinal, then on his death this son is the only one left and makes a bid for the imperial crown too

Whatever, I reckon it would only happen ONCE

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Nekromans]

The Golden Bull doesn't stipulate that the Prince-Electors must elect a secular head, but it does imply that he will be temporal head only.

[Analytical Engine]

Originally Posted by Nekromans

The Golden Bull doesn't stipulate that the Prince-Electors must elect a secular head, but it does imply that he will be temporal head only.

I stand corrected...

[American Emperor]

Originally Posted by Nekromans

The Golden Bull doesn't stipulate that the Prince-Electors must elect a secular head, but it does imply that he will be temporal head only.

So what does that exactly mean? That if a "spiritual" leader were to be elected he would first have to resign his Church position before assuming the throne? Or does it mean that the office of emperor is only supposed to be a secular institution? If it is the second, one could argue that a man could be both Pope and Emperor every once in a while, as long as the two offices weren't permenantly merged into a single position afterword and all successors weren't automatically Pope-Emperors as well. The Golden Bull may have just been trying to keep the difference between church and state clear.

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by American Emperor

So what does that exactly mean? That if a "spiritual" leader were to be elected he would first have to resign his Church position before assuming the throne?

I think a head of a religious institution could still retain his post there and become HREmperor as well. IE: the Hochmeister (pre-1410) could theoretically be elected emperor and still be Grand Master of the Order. same goes for a bishop, or anyone (I think). I'm not sure if that HREmperor could then go for Pope as well though.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

I suppose you COULD get an ever-victorious emperor overthrowing the Pope, and forcing the cardinals to declare him the next one at the point of a sword

Better...

Any catholic male can be elected pope. He of cause has to be ordained then.
Would only work if he was very popular with clergy and princes alike, and considered very pious.
At some point people are no longer swayed by threats.

Even then...

[ImperialVienna]

Maxmilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, at one point considered trying to make himself Emperor-Pope...

[PaleHorseRiding]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

Better...

Any catholic male can be elected pope. He of cause has to be ordained then.
Would only work if he was very popular with clergy and princes alike, and considered very pious.
At some point people are no longer swayed by threats.

Even then...

there is always some corrupt priest somewhere who would ordain you

[Susano]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

Better...

Any catholic male can be elected pope. He of cause has to be ordained then.
Would only work if he was very popular with clergy and princes alike, and considered very pious.
At some point people are no longer swayed by threats.

Even then...

Lets not forget that medieval pope elections were not nearly as orderly as nowadas. if teh Emperor does so, then simply the majority of Latin Christianity would not regognice him and elect an anzi-pope (or more like, the Emperor will go down in history as anti-pope, as theres no way for him to win that).

Even in the more orderly Early Modern Age, the Emperor would not be accepted by the Ctaholic Community, and there would be a shism.

[Mike Stearns]

I think the only way to have an Emperor-Pope would be if one of the later Roman Emperors converted to Christianity or was seen as being benefactor of the church and made Pope. Constantine or Theodosius are the most likely, I think.

[Matthais Corvinus]

IMO Christianity's saving grace is its strict church-state divide. I think that you could have a caesarpopism in the West as well as the East, but actually uniting the two positions I don't think is possible.

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Matthais Corvinus

IMO Christianity's saving grace is its strict church-state divide. I think that you could have a caesarpopism in the West as well as the East, but actually uniting the two positions I don't think is possible.

Actually, the concept of the seperation of Church and State didn't arise until about 300 years ago. Before that, the belief was that the King was God's chosen representative on Earth. It wa called the Divine Right of Kings, which means that a dynasty of Imperial Popes is possible if the POD is back far enough.

[Matthais Corvinus]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

Actually, the concept of the seperation of Church and State didn't arise until about 300 years ago. Before that, the belief was that the King was God's chosen representative on Earth. It was called the Divine Right of Kings, which means that a dynasty of Imperial Popes is possible if the POD is back far enough.

The various Kings of Europe were not God's chosen representatives, and were not viewed that way. The Pope was "God's Vicar on Earth" holding an office that had been (in theory) passed from Pope from Pope since St. Peter (the rock upon which Christ built his church). Kings had a divine right to rule, and were regarded as "anointed", but the Pope held a place that was very separate from that of secular monarchs. He was the spiritual leader of all Christianity (or at least the Roman Catholic variety) a wide-ranging position that no other European monarch (even the Holy Roman Emperors) were able to claim.

The Church and State have maintained pretty separate bureaucracies, with the Pope being the spiritual leader of Christiandom and the Holy Roman Emperor being the secular leader of Christiandom. I would ask you to compare the development of Islam, where the state and religion (in the office of the Caliph- an office which conflates the duties of both the Pope and Emperor) are the same thing, to Christianity, where the state and church maintain a pretty strict separation.

[kaiser_romanoi]

As far as I know, the Pope COULD HAVE BEEN the emperor if he had wanted as in the donation of Constantine, the forementioned Roman emperor gave him the power of govern the empire. It was the Pope which crowned the emperors, he was the source of legitimacy. Of course it would had caused a lot of problems.

[Jaded_Railman]

Well, the Donation of Constantine being a fake and all, that's not 'legitimate' in the most literal sense.

[ZhaneAugustine]

The only way I could see it happening, is the son of the previous emperor had been promised the Papacy, ala John XII (though I don't think his dad was the emperor, but a powerful noble), and once daddy dies, with no heir to assume the throne, and with support from the military and the church, he'd take both thrones.

But seing as how Johnny boy couldn't keep it in his pants, ala Bill Clinton, I don't think it would have worked in the long term. More than likely he'd be run out of the Church lands, if not strangled by a pissed off husband.

[American Emperor]

I understand now that an Emperor could not pull off a coup on the Church and make himself Pope. Christians would never accept such a hostile takeover. But I still don't see why a Pope could not get himself elected as Emperor. I think we've established that religious leaders were capable of occupying secular thrones as well. As I said before, the Pope would already be guaranteed three of the seven votes before he even announced his candidacy. His elector-archbishops would go certainly go along with it as a way to strengthen the Church's power. So all the Pope would need is one more elector to side with him and he's won the Crown. Are you telling me that the Vicar of Christ himself would not be capable of scaring one vote his way? And as long as this happens before the Reformation, I doubt that many loyal Christians are going to question it, especially if the Pope claims that he "received a vision from God" saying that this is His will.

[Susano]

Ist not assured that the three Archbishops would go along, though likely, of course. And the Pope shoul dbe able to outright buy a further vote. Just - the same as with Christianity and the other way round might apply. Germany might not accept a hostile takeover. Sure, the Electros are the Electors, but I could simply see enough prionces ignoring that and electing an Anti-EMperor (of which tehreve been enough IOTL, too).