Is it possible for the HREmperor to use the Reformation?

What I mean is would it be possible for an Emperor of the Holy Roman empire to use the 95 theses of Martin Luther against the Pope in a kind of investiture controversy 2.0?
Say the Emperor decides that the pope and a large part of the church is indeed corrupt and he starts to rebuild the Ottonian Reichskirche/ replaces large swaths of high clergy with loyal men (with charges of corruption as reason).

Of course the pope wouldnt allow this but who could the pope depend on to exert power?
Does this give the HRE a chance at reform? Does the Emperor have any chance at all or is he just deposed and another elected?

I think if the Emperor waits until the reformation starts in earnest, with the northern princes converting, that he would have sufficient support to not get deposed internally.
 
He'd need a tame antipope since the Church hierarchy is an important prop for his rule. And he'd have to reject the antiepiscopalian theses. Compare treatment of reformist Jan Hus.
One possible albeit difficult way could involve a continuing/further papal schism with a third Pope under HRE control/influence.
This however could butterfly the theses anyway as that Pope/Church might be more reformist.
 
The Pope had been removed from Imperial/German politics since the Golden Bull, so there is little reason for the Emperor to embrace the Reformation for it.

EDIT: It's important to remember that by 1517 the main enemies of the Emperor were the secular princes (the ones that converted to Protestantism), the Roman Church was hardly a concern for him.
 
Could we see something like a Church of England ? With the Archbishop of Mainz in the roll of Canterbury perhaps even titled Pope
 
The Pope had been removed from Imperial/German politics since the Golden Bull, so there is little reason for the Emperor to embrace the Reformation for it.

EDIT: It's important to remember that by 1517 the main enemies of the Emperor were the secular princes (the ones that converted to Protestantism), the Roman Church was hardly a concern for him.

Not entirely so The Church was much more reluctant to internal reforms than Charles V is given credit for. The (Catholic) Church at first thought it to be a useful distraction for a too powerful emperor. Don't forget that the troops of the devoutly Catholic Charles V did end up sacking Rome. Which is a clear sign that though he follows the Pope in spiritual matters, he as Emperor is supreme in worldly matters.
Moreover whereas the Emperor (Charles V) wanted a conference on church reform relatively soon, the church as a whole (including Catholic rivals of Charles V) was very reluctant, when they finally started, it was much too late. An earlier approach, one Charles/Karel/Carlos V did acknowledge stranded on political agendas.
 
An Emperor? Yes. Charles V? No.

If you mean someone as powerful as Charles V, then I agree, partially. Even Charles V realized reforms, like those eventually made with the Counter-Reformation, were needed. He as a devout Catholic did not want to break the Church, in-spite what some here seem to think he ought have done... Personally as I Catholic I respect he stayed with his beliefs, though I realize he did not have to gain politically be converting.

In fact, if an Emperor would have become Protestant, then I suspect that some of the Imperial Princes, which were motivated by political concerns, might in this TL, turn out to be defenders of the Catholic Church in The Empire.
 
What I mean is would it be possible for an Emperor of the Holy Roman empire to use the 95 theses of Martin Luther against the Pope in a kind of investiture controversy 2.0?

It would, but given how badly Investiture Controversy vol. 1 had played out, I think the Emperor would be quite unwise to do so.
 

Kaze

Banned
One of the half-hearted offers made by the Protestant princes was they would lay-down their political / military power turning it over to direct control of the emperor if they were allowed to keep their religion - basically it would have unified Germany right then there would have been no need for Napoleon or Bismark. The emperor was not a friend to realpolitik and rejected the offer before negotiations could have begin.
 
One of the half-hearted offers made by the Protestant princes was they would lay-down their political / military power turning it over to direct control of the emperor if they were allowed to keep their religion - basically it would have unified Germany right then there would have been no need for Napoleon or Bismark. The emperor was not a friend to realpolitik and rejected the offer before negotiations could have begin.

I seriously doubt such negotiations would have gone anywhere really. Like with similar conflicts in the Low Countries and France, one can't totally separate the religious from the political.
Now it doesn't mean Charles ended up handling badly, frankly he did, his vast empire outside of The Empire contributed to this. His brother Ferdinand, limited to the Austrian and later Austrian, Bohemian and (partial) Hungarian resources was more realistic, since he had a much smaller personal powerbase than his brother, and importantly he was not distracted by other very important Spanish (including colonial) and Italian concerns and his role in international politics was a bit smaller too.
Anyway many of the Protestant Imperial Princes also had political disagreements and concerns, which in all likelihood would have made them join some sort of opposition against a too powerful Emperor anyway.
 
Top