The Last Pope

I don't see this as that improbable, to be honest. Look at how the churches of Europe functioned during the reign of Antipopes. Corruption, sure, but the world didn't end. People still went on pilgrimages between the different territories. Etc.

I think the French Church is very representative of how this would play out. Francis basically set up his own church, didn't he? He had no problem withholding tithes from French Churches, and the French monarchs ultimately ended up choosing their own bishops.

As a matter of fact the Gallican church is a very good example of walking a very thin line between independence (from Rome) and heresy. Their performance is truly remarkable.

I've to say that I'm a bit disappointed by the general consensus: it looks like that the large majority of the posters believe that there was no real chance of getting rid of the papacy at some time in the past.

I'm personally unconvinced, and maybe one day I'll write a TL about the last pope (a kind of minority report :D)
 
Last Popes?

If a schism becomes permanent, you might have several people calling themselves Popes of the Catholic Church, none of whom are THE Pope. So, the last Pope before the schism could be refered to as "The Last Pope" and justifiably so.

What happens if Rome is sacked durring a long, bitter conclave--and there are few, or no, cardinals? You can't choose a Pope without Cardinals, and only the Pope chooses Cardinals. Or in modern times, all the cardinals that are elligible to vote can reach Rome, very likely--then someting terrible happens tothe Conclave--terrorists, most likely--and the College is wiped out.
 
I would note that even at the height of the consiliar movement there were no serious moves to actually abolish the Papacy from within. The Papacy is an office with a hell of a lot of institutional charisma, it draws itself in a succession from Christ himself. It's pivotal in the Catholic Church, and a Catholic Church with no Pope is not, in my view, possible from a sociological point of view. Far more likely is the option that the Church splinters into a variety of different churches, all of which lay claim to the Papacy -- as happened in history. But even then there is an institutional push for unity, which the consiliar movement in fact showed.
 
I'm personally unconvinced, and maybe one day I'll write a TL about the last pope (a kind of minority report :D)

I'm not sure why Gian Galeazzo would want to take Rome, BTW.

But my stance is that the Pope as an Archbishop of Rome is hard to get rid of, but we can easily weaken the pope's influence.
 
How about a 5th century POD,
When Attila was marching toward Rome, It was the Bishop of Rome that organized the ransom and lead the troops out of the city.
Placing His Troops at the top of a hill and the wagons at the foot, He sent a message -The Loot or A Fight- . No Fool - -Attila took the loot and left.
Having saved Rome gave the Bishop the moral authority to assert the supremacy of The Bishop of Rome, leading the Troops gave Him the Temporal Authority.

But there are quite a few PODs possible in this..........What If

The civil authorities in Rome had prevented the Bishop from the gathering of the Ransom -- Attila would have continued south.
The Military troops had not allowed the Bishop to take command - Attila would have continued south.
Attila could have desired both the loot and the City - Attila would have continued south, after having defeated the Romans.
His put down of the Germans that were sacking the city, could have been delayed leaving no city to return to.

Any of these would prevent the establishment of a unified Papacy under the Bishop of Rome.
 
I'm not sure why Gian Galeazzo would want to take Rome, BTW.

But my stance is that the Pope as an Archbishop of Rome is hard to get rid of, but we can easily weaken the pope's influence.

The usual title is Bishop of Rome, though he's also the Archbishop of Rome (why do we use the lesser title?)
 
If a schism becomes permanent, you might have several people calling themselves Popes of the Catholic Church, none of whom are THE Pope. So, the last Pope before the schism could be refered to as "The Last Pope" and justifiably so.

What happens if Rome is sacked during a long, bitter conclave--and there are few, or no, cardinals? You can't choose a Pope without Cardinals, and only the Pope chooses Cardinals. Or in modern times, all the cardinals that are eligible to vote can reach Rome, very likely--then something terrible happens to the Conclave--terrorists, most likely--and the College is wiped out.

I think a back-up plan was established during the late 700s. During an emergency, the laity can elect the Pope, so destroying the College of Cardinals will probably not be enough.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why Gian Galeazzo would want to take Rome, BTW..
When he died of plague, Bologna has just been taken and Florence was negotiating a surrender. GG was already lord of quite a number of cities in Central Italy, including Perugia, Gubbio, Assisi, Siena and Spoleto. There is no guarantee he would look at Rome and Latium next, sure: however I guess that he would certainly start meddling with the big noble families controlling Rome and playing the usual game of "divide et impera". It's quite obvious that even in the parlous state of papacy at the beginning of 15th century there was something to gain in controlling the papacy (and at this time the pope is not in good relations with the kingdom of Naples, the emperor just got a bloody nose when he last marched into Italy against GG and the king of France is supporting the anti-pope in Avignon). It is obviously a long shot, but assuming GG can juggle his eggs with flair and manages to consolidate his dominions I do believe he can has quite a bright future. If he controls the Roman pope and uses him as a (more or less willing) tool for his strategies, it would make sense for the king of France to stick to his own pet pope in Avignon for the duration. So there is no negotiated end to the Great Western Schism, and two competing popes. If there are two popes, there can easily be three popes (a German one?), four popes (an English one?) and so on.

But my stance is that the Pope as an Archbishop of Rome is hard to get rid of, but we can easily weaken the pope's influence.
How can I disagree, seeing that there is still a pope after 2000 years? However my point is that there is a huge difference in having a single Pope, lording it over all of Western Christendom (at least in religious matters) and a number of popes, just like there is a number of independent patriarchs in Orthodoxy.
 
How about a 5th century POD,
When Attila was marching toward Rome, It was the Bishop of Rome that organized the ransom and lead the troops out of the city.
Placing His Troops at the top of a hill and the wagons at the foot, He sent a message -The Loot or A Fight- . No Fool - -Attila took the loot and left.
Having saved Rome gave the Bishop the moral authority to assert the supremacy of The Bishop of Rome, leading the Troops gave Him the Temporal Authority.

But there are quite a few PODs possible in this..........What If

The civil authorities in Rome had prevented the Bishop from the gathering of the Ransom -- Attila would have continued south.
The Military troops had not allowed the Bishop to take command - Attila would have continued south.
Attila could have desired both the loot and the City - Attila would have continued south, after having defeated the Romans.
His put down of the Germans that were sacking the city, could have been delayed leaving no city to return to.

Any of these would prevent the establishment of a unified Papacy under the Bishop of Rome.

I'm always been a bit sceptical about the story of the pope marching up to the camp of Attila and convincing him to turn back: it looks just too nice, like something written up by an agiograph rather than an historian. I wouldn't go as far as equalling this pious legend with the so-called donation of Constantine, but...

The problem is that all the records of the "dark age" have been written, re-written, polished and embellished by the church.
 
I would note that even at the height of the consiliar movement there were no serious moves to actually abolish the Papacy from within. The Papacy is an office with a hell of a lot of institutional charisma, it draws itself in a succession from Christ himself. It's pivotal in the Catholic Church, and a Catholic Church with no Pope is not, in my view, possible from a sociological point of view. Far more likely is the option that the Church splinters into a variety of different churches, all of which lay claim to the Papacy -- as happened in history. But even then there is an institutional push for unity, which the consiliar movement in fact showed.

I'm not claiming to be a theologian for sure, but I can certainly agree that nowadays a catholic church is predicated on the existence of papal authority (although I understand there are churches which are in communion with the catholic church without recognising the authority of the pope).

It was not always like this, though: prior to the Great Schism of 1054, there was a single catholic church (based on the Nicean Credo, IIRC) but the Patriarchs were not subjected to the authority of the pope.
In the 11th century there were a number of Paupers grass-root movements in Christendom, advocating a complete reform of the church and and end to the luxuries and the vices of the church: while these movements (the one I know better about is the Pataria, in Northern and Central Italy) did not include the abolition of the papacy in their agenda, they were certainly more inclined to base the church government on assembly of faithfuls rather than on an established hierarchy. If they had been successful, the papacy might have been abolished.
Additionally there were examples of local churches (the Gaelic church and the Gallican church of 6th century come to mind) which effectively started to go on their own ways: the Roman church managed to pull both back into its fold, but again it might have been different.
Last but not least, in China there is a National Catholic church (obviously supported by state and party) which does not recognise the authority of the pope and consecrates its own bishops.

I'm pretty sure there have been other similar cases, but as I've said history of the church and theology are not my strongest suits :D
 
Top