Hereditary papacy

No. Not only the Papacy legitimacy basically depended from a modicum of stability and credibility as head of the Church and blessed by God as a specific title and function (implying that married popes would be systematical would already be largely out of there); but you had enough struggles among the potentes and aristocracy in Rome (or Christiendom) to prevent any family for monopolizing the Pontifical throne.
Even Crescentii and Tusculani couldn't hold Papacy to their exclusive benefit, essentially for both these reasons. And it's considered the low point of medieval papacy.
 
Well, the Patriarchate of the Church of the East developed into a hereditary theocracy by the late middle ages, but they existed in rather different circumstances.
 
Well, the Patriarchate of the Church of the East developed into a hereditary theocracy by the late middle ages, but they existed in rather different circumstances.
Not only that, but it emerged in quite different circumstances too : Roman Papacy is a product of the Roman Empire, as the (partly self-styled, partly sponsored, but essentially accepted) head of the church in the West on an institution that survived the Empire itself. It took time to really solidify itself as the not only moral and pastoral, but organisational and theological head of western Christiendom, but there was a supremacy from inheriting part of imperial support and established customs/rules.

On the other hand, the Church of the East went trough being more and more peripherized socially, to the point its head was obtained by bribing the Caliph or the local ruler and/or trough outripen scheming. Interestingly the Mongol period was a time for a certain respectability to reappear, but only briefly as the Nestorian clergy went down and barely recorded. Would have the Church of the East have participated to the institutionalisation of societies as in Europe or Caucasus, it might have been different.

HRE was also theoretically elective yet...
Not before the Golden Bull and even there in a limited fashion. Before this the dynastical principle was pretty much clear (if not wholly respected, mostly because of the papal conflcit and aristocratic power) for Ottonians, Salians and Staufen and that's really the Interregnum that forced the elective principle in the XIVth century, and even that wasn't enough to break the dynastic succession with Habsburgs.
 
Last edited:

Kaze

Banned
Pope Hormisdas was the biological father of Pope Silverius. Crescentii family Popes up to 1012, the Theophylacti still occasionally nominated sons as Popes and went as far as selling it. If you go further down the line to Pope Alexander VI, he had secret plans to make his son Cesare Borgia pope after him. So in theory it could work.
 
Last edited:
More likely, Peter. We know that Peter was married. He probably had kids. If a son follows in his dad's footsteps....

If the Bishop of Rome is a direct make decendent of St.Peter (making the Papal States a literal patramony) I doubt you'd even see a dinstict Catholic Church as the question of the position's exclusive and superior position to the other Pentarchs wouldent be in question.
 
If the Bishop of Rome is a direct make decendent of St.Peter (making the Papal States a literal patramony) I doubt you'd even see a dinstict Catholic Church as the question of the position's exclusive and superior position to the other Pentarchs wouldent be in question.
Ah. Because the Eastern churches have to agree? Why?
IMO, you could easily get a Sunni/Shia kind of split in Christendom. (Shiites believing that Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law was the appropriate successor).
 
Ah. Because the Eastern churches have to agree? Why?
IMO, you could easily get a Sunni/Shia kind of split in Christendom. (Shiites believing that Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law was the appropriate successor).

Apples and Oranges, unless you're posulating a much more rapid divergance of the Nicean rites or the Peterian Succession only being implimented several centuries down the line when it won't get the baked in doctrinal legitimacy. The Sunni Shia split occurred very earlier on and was as much a political power structure question for a new state (no established rule set or greater power to mediate one), while the question of the Roman Bishopric succession would come up while the Roman Emperor was around to decide the issue. And if Rome's status as "special" is a done deal, than you've removed the main bone of contention between the Latin and Orthodox rites by having already established they're under different rule sets.
 
Why on Earth would Nero, of all people, decide who succeeded Peter when he died!?!?

... there's no Bishopric of Rome at the time of Nero. Not one with any real scale or formal structure. If the Peterian Succession becomes offical Church doctrine, it's going to have to be Post-Constantine. Unless, again, you're suggesting a schisming of the church so early that you aren't going to be getting anything remotely resembling the Catholic Church
 
I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand. We did have a sort of hereditary papacy during the Saeculum obscurum and the Tusculan Papacy, which saw a single family wear the
Pontifical tiara. It wasn't father to son (except indirectly with Sergius III eventually succeeded by his son John XI) but it was fairly similar to the Montenegrian Petrović-Njegoš dynasty, which ruled the Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro as a hereditary state, the succession passing from uncle to nephew (and possibly brother to brother if I'm remembering correctly). So such a succession could develop, but it wouldn't be all that stable and would see a major decline in the dignity and unity of the Church; ultimately we'd likely see France or the Holy Roman Empire invade and force a reform (not unlike what the Salians did with the Gregorian reforms really).
 
Pope Hormisdas was the biological father of Pope Silverius. Crescentii family Popes up to 1012, the Theophylacti still occasionally nominated sons as Popes and went as far as selling it. If you go further down the line to Pope Alexander VI, he had secret plans to make his son Cesare Borgia pope after him. So in theory it could work.
And Alexander (Rodrigo Borgia) was the nephew of Callixtus III (Alfonso Borgia)

From the early Middle Ages until the XIX century the Papacy was mostly held by members of a handful of noble families. Just look at a list of Popes and see how many had names like Medici, Orsini, della Rovere, etc. So, while not hereditary, it was like an elected monarchy.
 
From the early Middle Ages until the XIX century the Papacy was mostly held by members of a handful of noble families.
That's not entierly and neither systematically true : especially in the XIth and XIIIth centuries (but as well during Byzantine Papacy as well) you had an international drive to choose popes outside Roman politics, for political but as well ideological/theological reasons (such as bolstering the influence of new monastic movements).
It would be more correct to say that Papacy was an elected theocracy tempered by local and international politics.

Note that it's exactly why it couldn't lead to an hereditary title : it was far too disputed by local families and considered with great interest by the important kingdoms, that anyone would led a family litterally inheriting it : you had freaking schisms when French church tried to monopolize it in the XIVth, I don't dare to imagine if a given family would attempt this : you mention Borgias, and it's quite exemplary on how it finished on this matter.

As for Tusculani, they really get a bad rap, not totally undeserved,but mostly because Ottonian papacy needed someone to blame for the situation. In fact, Tusculani popes activrly augmented the power of the pontiff by feeding on their familial wealth and not the contrary. Even during Crescentii Papacy, most of the popes seem to have conflicted with the dominant family for the sake of at least a token independent institution. I think @Carp know a lot about the Roman politics on this period, ang might be able to describe it better.
 
Well, Alexander VI according to his detractors was trying to establish a papacy of patrilineal succession. So Cesare Borgia might be one figure to hang such an alt-historical innovation. Another is actually Maximilian. During the time he was King of the Romans, unable to arrange a coronation through the pope of the time (which I think was Alexander, actually), and deeply embedded in all the struggles for power in Italy, a cardinal managed to convince him the priesthood was no prerequisite for the papacy and that he should just try for the office directly.
 
Top