How different the world would be without a specific Pope?

[DSS]

While the implications of the world where the Catholic Church doesn't have a Pope are interesting, that isn't the question I'm asking here

So, of all the Popes of the RCC (before 1900 of course), which Pope's death in an alternate reality would make the world the most "interesting," for better or for worse? For example, although this is After 1900, John Paul II's death before becoming Pope would have a profound impact on the world.

But besides any Pope during the twentieth century (if I included the 20th Century, everyone would be saying JPII), who's death in an alternate reality would have the most "interesting" effect on the world?

 

[QuoProQuid]

Do you mean dying before their Papacy or during it? That makes a big difference.

 

[Ain]

I think he means before.

 

[QuoProQuid]

I think he means before.

Ah. I suppose answering Peter would be cheating then, wouldn't it?

 

[Michael Wittmann]

Let me see, Warsaw pact nations will have a sizable minority of Atheist/Agnostics?

 

[Alex Richards]

How about Innocent III, the last of the truly great Medieval Popes (as in the last one to wield considerable temporal authority outside of the Papal States). Without him, we could see a very different situation in the HRE, Sicily, a different Third Crusade and probably no 4th Crusade.

 

[carlton_bach]

How about Innocent III, the last of the truly great Medieval Popes (as in the last one to wield considerable temporal authority outside of the Papal States). Without him, we could see a very different situation in the HRE, Sicily, a different Third Crusade and probably no 4th Crusade.

Him, or Gregory the Great, or Urban II, not being popes is liable to have a great effect on the future of the Catholic church.

 

[Amedras]

Pope Julian II was the one who decided to tear down St. Peter's Basilica and build the current, much larger one. It ran immensely over budget, and the Church decided to make up the difference with indulgences.

Something was going to happen to the Church in the 1500s, but a Julian II-less church would've probably had it happen on very different lines.

 

[wolf_brother]

Pius IX reigned over the dying days of the Papal States. With someone more open to the liberal, Italian patriots, revolutionaries demands (such as Tommaso Pasquale Gizzi) could easily see a surviving Papal States with the Pope as either ceremonial, even de jure or de facto, head of an Italian confederation.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

Gregory VII. Cleaned up the immense financial and sexual improprieties of the Church in his day by defrocking literally half the priests in Christendom. Also hardened the Church's organization by insisting that without fail a priest had to be chosen by a bishop (previously, some parish priests were appointed by local nobility, and some were elected by their congregations - the sacrament of ordination seems to have been fuzzily understood before Greg 7).

On the one hand, he delayed the Protestant Reformation by 200 years by reforming the Church from within. On the other, the hard emphasis on priests being accountable to their superiors did a lot make the Church less flexible.

When he dies is important - prior to becoming Pope, he was the Papal Treasurer (the only Pope to have previously held that office) and had already done a lot to reform the Holy See itself (the only person who can withdraw funds from his Treasury is the Pope himself, and said Pope has to come in person, not send a letter or a minion. Amazing how many financial irregularities that clears up).

Gregory I would arguably be a bigger change, but that one's SO big I don't think we can really figure out how it would go.

 

[Wendell]

How about Innocent III, the last of the truly great Medieval Popes (as in the last one to wield considerable temporal authority outside of the Papal States). Without him, we could see a very different situation in the HRE, Sicily, a different Third Crusade and probably no 4th Crusade.

I think you mean a different Fourth and potentially no fifth, unless you're suggesting that he reigns earlier?

 

[Alex Richards]

I think you mean a different Fourth and potentially no fifth, unless you're suggesting that he reigns earlier?

Sorry, got the dates mixed up a bit.

 

[Yorel]

Not having Alexander VI could have interesting consequences: it's under his papacy that the Roman Catholic Church reached a peak in decadence. After all, in our imagination, Rodrigo Borgia/Alexander VI is the perfect example of a corrupted Pope. Hell, he has even turned out as a conspiracy villain thanks to a particular video game that was released a few years ago
Avoiding Alexander VI could also pass by getting rid of his Uncle Calixtus III, since the latter was viewed as a particularly weak pope and dislike for his nepotism (favoring his nephews).

I'm also wondering what would happen if we didn't have had Boniface VIII, just to see if the conflict between Philippe IV of France and the Papacy still happens and the consequence on the Templar's fate.
In a darker genre, I'm wondering what Attila & his Huns would have done if there had been no Pope Leo I...

 

[Tomac]

Not having Alexander VI could have interesting consequences: it's under his papacy that the Roman Catholic Church reached a peak in decadence. After all, in our imagination, Rodrigo Borgia/Alexander VI is the perfect example of a corrupted Pope. Hell, he has even turned out as a conspiracy villain thanks to a particular video game that was released a few years ago
Avoiding Alexander VI could also pass by getting rid of his Uncle Calixtus III, since the latter was viewed as a particularly weak pope and dislike for his nepotism (favoring his nephews).
I'm also wondering what would happen if we didn't have had Boniface VIII, just to see if the conflict between Philippe IV of France and the Papacy still happens and the consequence on the Templar's fate.
In a darker genre, I'm wondering what Attila & his Huns would have done if there had been no Pope Leo I...

It's hard to imagine a pope more corrupt than John XII (elected - and I use that term very loosely - in 955 at the age of 18), who died in AD 963 of a "stroke". Being as he was twenty-six, this is unlikely and as he was boinking a woman when her husband caught them, it's more likely that the "stroke" was a sword stroke or maybe a cudgel to the temple (legends do state that "the devil smoke him on the temple" ).
So with this one, we could go either way, John (born Octavius, son of Alberic, ruler of Rome) Octo doesn't get the nod (his father forced the Roman nobles to elect his son on the death of the then existing pope) and isn't pope, or is elected and lives a long and happy life, totally destroying the papacy for generations.
Either way, this character was a beaut!

 

[Giysqun Wilde]

Isn't there some saying about all nephews and nieces really being their own children?

 

[Yorel]

It's hard to imagine a pope more corrupt than John XII (elected - and I use that term very loosely - in 955 at the age of 18), who died in AD 963 of a "stroke". Being as he was twenty-six, this is unlikely and as he was boinking a woman when her husband caught them, it's more likely that the "stroke" was a sword stroke or maybe a cudgel to the temple (legends do state that "the devil smoke him on the temple" ).
So with this one, we could go either way, John (born Octavius, son of Alberic, ruler of Rome) Octo doesn't get the nod (his father forced the Roman nobles to elect his son on the death of the then existing pope) and isn't pope, or is elected and lives a long and happy life, totally destroying the papacy for generations.
Either way, this character was a beaut!

Now that's a corrupted Pope

Didn't know about it. Of course, people generally know about more famous Popes that made themselves celebrities for good or bad reasons. Plus, that Pope falls in a period where the Papacy wasn't yet an independant state...
Alexander VI is probably less corrupted, but he does have some pedigree: married while he was a priest and a very sulfurous reputation...

Isn't there some saying about all nephews and nieces really being their own children?

That's probably the results of some pamphlets against the Church... Sadly, there are probably such cases were a "nephew" was in fact a natural son. Alexander VI is a typical example: his son Cesare Borgia was always adressed as "the Pope's Nephew". I'm not sure this is a good example though as I think I read somewhere that the Roman Court wasn't blind to the truth... There are probably other Popes that had children, made them pass as their nephew and had them elected as Pope but such case might be pretty rare on the 265 Popes the Roman Catholic Church has known.

 

[modelcitizen]

John Paul II was not only Pope for a considerable time, but his warmth and outreach and commitment against Communism makes me think that a tl without him would be a bit colder, a touch meaner, and less free.

 

[JjeeporCreepor]

I was going to say Gregory VII, but somebody beat me to it.

I think the Church was already starting to assert its independence from royal authority and make efforts at reform before he became Pope, but he was the one who really kicked the whole process into overdrive. A pretty remarkable character, all things considered.

Or what about...the greatest Pope the Catholic Church never had, St Bernard of Clairvaux?

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Where could we work to keep popes as simple spiritual figures, and no more? or its not possible at all?

 

[Space Oddity]

How about Innocent III, the last of the truly great Medieval Popes (as in the last one to wield considerable temporal authority outside of the Papal States). Without him, we could see a very different situation in the HRE, Sicily, a different Third Crusade and probably no 4th Crusade.

I'd say without him, there'd be a better chance of MORE great Medieval Popes--Innocent gets a somewhat overrated record in my book.