Plausibility Check/Challenge: Protestant Pope?

At first I was going to put this in the ASB forum, but I put it here just in case someone could figure out how to do it without ASBs. My idea is that a reformer (Martin Luther or a Luther-analog) ends up as Pope. I'm thinking that maybe Martin Luther and the early protestant reformers work for change within the Catholic Church, rather than splitting from it. Of course, this would require a more tolerant Pope (or series of Popes) that doesn't just excommunicate all of the reformers. This movement grows for a while, and culminates with a reform-minded (OTL protestant) Pope who reforms Catholic doctrines and traditions. The result is a united church with Catholic structure (Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc.) and a more Evangelical Protestant theology (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.). Is this even plausible? What would be the best POD for such a scenario? What would the effect on history be?
 
At first I was going to put this in the ASB forum, but I put it here just in case someone could figure out how to do it without ASBs. My idea is that a reformer (Martin Luther or a Luther-analog) ends up as Pope. I'm thinking that maybe Martin Luther and the early protestant reformers work for change within the Catholic Church, rather than splitting from it. Of course, this would require a more tolerant Pope (or series of Popes) that doesn't just excommunicate all of the reformers. This movement grows for a while, and culminates with a reform-minded (OTL protestant) Pope who reforms Catholic doctrines and traditions. The result is a united church with Catholic structure (Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc.) and a more Evangelical Protestant theology (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.). Is this even plausible? What would be the best POD for such a scenario? What would the effect on history be?

There were a few such opportunities. In 1484, a deadlock between Rodrigo Borgia and Giuliano della Rovere (the future Alexander VI and Julius II, respectivly) almost lead to the election of Cardinal Marco Barbo. Barbo came within five votes of being elected Pope, and as pope would probably have been a reforming influence to some degree (at the very least, he wouldn't resemble either of his challengers, and in fact his election may mean that neither of them ascends to the Papal throne). However, since neither Borgia nor della Rovere wanted to see Barbo elected, they backed Cardina Cibo, who was elevated as Innocent VIII.

Another option could be Pius III. After his election, he made it clear that he was going to attempt to carry out reforms within the Catholic Church. However, he old and infirm (perhaps one of the reasons that della Rovere arranged his election), and died within a month of his election. He cannot live for a great deal of time, but even a few years of robust health may be enough to at least make some substantial reforms.
 
At first I was going to put this in the ASB forum, but I put it here just in case someone could figure out how to do it without ASBs. My idea is that a reformer (Martin Luther or a Luther-analog) ends up as Pope. I'm thinking that maybe Martin Luther and the early protestant reformers work for change within the Catholic Church, rather than splitting from it. Of course, this would require a more tolerant Pope (or series of Popes) that doesn't just excommunicate all of the reformers. This movement grows for a while, and culminates with a reform-minded (OTL protestant) Pope who reforms Catholic doctrines and traditions. The result is a united church with Catholic structure (Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc.) and a more Evangelical Protestant theology (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.). Is this even plausible? What would be the best POD for such a scenario? What would the effect on history be?

Certain things like like the introduction of sola fide and sola scriptura would never happen. That would require a complete reworking of the theology of "sacramental grace" in Catholicism. Also it would be impossible to deny the Mass as a Sacrifice and Real Presence without contradicting a millenium-worth of theological and liturgical development in the Eastern and Western Christian worlds.

Some things could change. Perhaps the Roman Rite could allow optional celibacy for deacons and priests. There would never be a married episcopate, as this is not historic in the apostolic tradition (Orthodox bishops are either monks or celibate secular clergy.) At best, Luther or a Luther-analog would have to rise to the episcopate and the Papacy while still in Catholic orders. So Caterina von Bora would have to exit stage in this scenario. To this day the law of celibacy in the Roman rite is no more than a discipline. It could be changed at any time, but it would have to follow the Orthodox model.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Trent (or better yet, an earlier council) made celibacy for the lower clergy definitively optional rather than theoretically compulsory. Even after the medieval "crackdowns" on the often-disregarded rule of celibacy, priests in the geographical extremities of the Latin Church often had a "wife" and children well into the Reformation period. Perhaps optional celibacy would have kept some areas under Roman control by legitimizing priestly families and admitting that the celibacy ideal was unworkable within a general social context. It would also take a bit of wind out of the sails of reformers, who made clerical celibacy an issue and mark of differentiation.
 
Wasn't the "married" priests giving church land to their kids instead of leaving it to the church a major reason why they started a celibacy campaign? To my knowledge it actually wasn't specifically prohibited until at some point after Rome fell though I may be wrong about that.
 
There could never be a protestant pope, the whole protestant movement was based around the decentralization of the Church and individual faith. But there can be Reformist Popes who can change the church into something more resembling one of the protestant churches.
 
The scenario has been proposed in Kingsley Amis's The Alteration although I'm not sure how he became Pope. Had it happened, the Reformation would have been an internal matter within the Catholic Church. There may well have been other protestants i.e John Knox and Calvin but not with the same influence. Luther survived because he was protected by powerful Prussian nobles others may not have survived.

Would Luther have amended the Churches attitude towards commerce, there are theories that protestantism and the work ethic were necessary for commerce to develop and societies to move from fuedalism to capitalism?

Would Henry the 8th get his annulment? He wouldn't have recieved the title "Defender of the Faith" as that was awarded for an essay attacking Luther. Amis gets round the Henry issue by having his older brother living and Katherine of Aragon bearing him a son. Henry's problem was that Katherine of Aragon had powerful relatives that the Church couldn't afford to offend.

Could it have happened? Not a protestant pope but a reformist pope intent on cleaning up the Church may have headed off the reformation apart from in a few small countries. However the church may well have been beyond reform and Luther had he been put on the throne to shut him up may well have had to compromise
 
Wasn't the "married" priests giving church land to their kids instead of leaving it to the church a major reason why they started a celibacy campaign? To my knowledge it actually wasn't specifically prohibited until at some point after Rome fell though I may be wrong about that.

Clerical celibacy was the "rule" for both the secular and religious Roman clergy (i.e. the parish priest and the monastic) for quite some time; de jure from the 5th century-ish forward. If a clergyman were married when ordained, he was expected to abstain from marital relations during his time as a priest. Eventually the ordination of married men ceased in preference towards single men. Around the same time in the 5th century the Easterners explicitly permitted marriage before ordination and permitted conjugal relations in marriage. Priests, however, were not supposed to have sex before celebrating the Eucharist (Sundays and feasts) as well as during fast periods. Eastern priests had little time to have sex, and weren't "better off" than a Western priest in practice.

Western compliance with celibacy was uneven to say the best. So with the rise of the influence of monasticism in the West (as well as issues over inheritance, money, etc.) Popes placed greater emphasis on celibacy in the parish clergy and started to put pressure on enforcement.
 
Last edited:
Clerical celibacy was the "rule" for both the secular and religious Roman clergy (i.e. the parish priest and the monastic) for quite some time; de jure from the 5th century-ish forward. If a clergyman were married when ordained, he was expected to abstain from marital relations during his time as a priest. Eventually the ordination of married men ceased in preference towards single men. Around the same time in the 5th century the Easterners explicitly permitted marriage before ordination and permitted conjugal relations in marriage. Priests, however, were not supposed to have sex before celebrating the Eucharist (Sundays and feasts) as well as during fast periods. Eastern priests had little time to have sex, and weren't "better off" than a Western priest in practice.

Western compliance with celibacy was uneven to say the best. So with the rise of the influence of monasticism in the West (as well as issues over inheritance, money, etc.) Popes placed greater emphasis on celibacy in the parish clergy and started to put pressure on enforcement.

Actually, de jure clerical celibacy was instituted bit by bit, and didn't become final until IIRC 1200+ in the West. And, of course, official celibacy wasn't well observed (I'm a descendant of the last Roman bishop in Iceland, through his son the priest...)

To this day, there are married Roman priests - and not just converts. Some of the Uniate churches brought their eastern allowances with them, so Ukrainian Uniate priests in Canada (although not the US) are allowed to be married.
 
Certain things like like the introduction of sola fide and sola scriptura would never happen. That would require a complete reworking of the theology of "sacramental grace" in Catholicism. Also it would be impossible to deny the Mass as a Sacrifice and Real Presence without contradicting a millenium-worth of theological and liturgical development in the Eastern and Western Christian worlds.

Lutherans believe in the Real Presence - although, apparently only DURING the service:confused: The precise FORM of the 'Real'ness, that does differ, but might be tweakable.

Some things could change. Perhaps the Roman Rite could allow optional celibacy for deacons and priests. There would never be a married episcopate, as this is not historic in the apostolic tradition (Orthodox bishops are either monks or celibate secular clergy.)
??? Remember the New Testament passage that says that a Bishop must have one wife. (In context, it presumably really means no more than one.) Peter, himself, was married. You really can't claim it's not historic.

I BELIEVE, although I can't document it, that the practice occasionally happened much later, although the usual practice in the East was to raise monastics to the episcopacy, and in the West to use celibate men.

Edit: It looks like I was wrong. I don't see any accepted married Bishops later than St Gregory of Nyasssa (sp?) in the 4th century. So, you are right in practice, even if I may be in theory....
 
Last edited:
To this day, there are married Roman priests - and not just converts. Some of the Uniate churches brought their eastern allowances with them, so Ukrainian Uniate priests in Canada (although not the US) are allowed to be married.

Part of the reason why American Eastern Catholic priests were forbidden to wed before ordination was the Roman Catholic bishops' fear that the RC laity would be scandalized by married Catholic clergy. The celibacy rule is still on the books in the US, but the Vatican has loosened it somewhat in recent years.

One of the priests in my RC parish back home is a married ex-Anglican priest, and no one is scandalized in the least! I don't get this fear, honestly. Many RC's I know have no difficulty accepting a married clergy. It'll come sooner than later I think.
 
Last edited:
Maybe if you split Catholicism three ways like earlier in the middle ages: one Pope in Italy, one in France, one in Spain, all claiming to be the true Pope. Protestants take advantage of the situation in one of these countries: say, the Hugenots force the government to install your "Protestant Pope." in France only. Of course, this would be only a temporary situation, as Protestant theology tends against centralization. Or the French Protestant papacy transforms into a council of bishops in a French version of Anglicanism. Perhaps this would make an interesting new thread: what if at the time of the Reformation the Catholic Church had had competing Popes?
 
Let's not forget, the Reformers were pretty much universally agreed that the Papacy is the seat of the Antichrist. That having been said, this doctrine only came to be after Luther tried, and failed, to reform the church from within.
 
Top