actually, I consider the conclave of 1821 as a watershed within the church, given that it was the first post-Napoleon conclave and the majority of its participants did not even know what the ceremonial / the laws that regulated it should be, so it is truly a cornerstone of the era
what would you change in the popes of the past
- Thread starter Nuraghe
- Start date
actually, I consider the conclave of 1821 as a watershed within the church, given that it was the first post-Napoleon conclave and the majority of its participants did not even know what the ceremonial / the laws that regulated it should be, so it is truly a cornerstone of the era
not to mention that this conclave gave rise to a succession of very reactionary popes who made the last decades of Pius IX Otl seem like a very moderate period in the history of papal policies, although personally I am predisposed to see another interesting crossroads in the previous centuries, in particular in the pontificate of Benedict XIV ( who was a dear pen friend of Voltaire.... ) and on Innocent XI ( a fierce rival of the Sun King ), obviously I am excluding the entire period corresponding to the Protestant Reformation ( because it is the one most subject to drastic changes, which can be triggered even by a small change in the life of any pontiff of the time )
Last edited:
I'm curious about the effects of this, but what would happen if a cardinal of Alexander VI's political "dexterity"* had been elected pope instead of Paul III/IV? Was there such a cardinal present? Would the emperor allow it, or would he or France veto it? How would this pope (let's call him Alexander VII) handle the reformation?
Same question for a spirituali being elected as pope. I don't mean Reginald Pole (he wouldn't have the same "seniority"/experience he would've had in the 1550s) in the same time frame
*by this I mean someone who while they are unscrupulous and zealous (sadly the Paul's were only one of those two things), they are also doctrinally/theologically sound (even if they piss off a lot of the cardinals opposed to them).
Same question for a spirituali being elected as pope. I don't mean Reginald Pole (he wouldn't have the same "seniority"/experience he would've had in the 1550s) in the same time frame
*by this I mean someone who while they are unscrupulous and zealous (sadly the Paul's were only one of those two things), they are also doctrinally/theologically sound (even if they piss off a lot of the cardinals opposed to them).
I apologize for not having been able to answer you earlier, but unfortunately I was traveling along the Italian highways, it is better to do Homer's Odyssey in comparison
However let's start by saying that the spiritualists as we know them were born as a reformist faction of evangelical inspiration under the Otl papacy of Paul III ( who strongly supported him) furthermore it was he who put them at the head of a commission which in 1536 drew up the "Consilium de Emendanda Ecclesia" i.e. their main political program, so it is very difficult to see any of them obtain the papacy early ( especially since the sack of Rome is still tremendously fresh in popular memory so it would be the equivalent of mass political suicide, furthermore it must be remembered that Otl Carafa was also not part of it at the beginning ), as regards a possible candidate for papacy who is quite politically skilled but also strictly defender of Catholic orthodoxy, looking in the list of cardinals of the period, it is difficult to find a profile that fits him ( apart from Farnese himself ), among the 35 participants ( of which only 10 were foreigners, with the same number who did not participate, also non-Italians ) in the conclave the only ones who perhaps could be vaguely similar to your hypothetical pontiff are Giovanni Domenico de Cupis ( excellent papal administrator, served under 3 popes ( from Julius II to Clement ) and was considered by his colleagues as "Excellent among the mortals "close friend of Loyola, protector of Scotland and France, died in 1553 ) Matthäus Lang von Wellenburg ( man of great experience and political acumen, humanist, well-known opponent of Luther from the beginning, his support was fundamental for the imperial election of Charles V as well as being a mediator for the Treaty of Vienna of 1525, but being German he I see his election as very difficult, furthermore, even though he was already a cardinal in 1512, he only took part in the conclave of 1534 ), Lorenzo Campeggi ( who had been a pupil of Julius II, and who obtained the esteem of first Maximilian, then Henry VIII ( at least until his great question ) and Charles V, also becoming bishop of Salisbury and cardinal protector of Germany, was one of the main actors at the Diet of Augsburg )
Unfortunately I can't tell you this, I don't know if it was called that or not, but they had almost the same political positions, and I also forgot to mention it, he was also held in esteem by Gattinara ( which should say a lot about his political skills )
Last edited:
well, hello everyone, another round, another race, in that messy chaos that is the politics of the papal curia, in particular today we would take a brief look at the clandestine relations between the England of the Stuarts and the papacy, if you are ready let's start
Reigns of James and Charles I
diplomatic relations between James and the Holy See began, albeit indirectly and informally, as early as around 1580, when several English and non-English clerics were hosted at the Scottish court ( some whispered thanks to the complicity of the Duke of Lennox ) of particular importance were the secular priest William Watts and the two Jesuits Robert Persons and William Holt
without forgetting that a document found in Rome mentions at least 4 Jesuits by name: Jean Lourin (1559–?), Ralph Allen (1547–88), Vincent Belandre and Clément du Puy (1553–98), we can see that they are all foreigners ( given that their local counterparts, around twenty in total, were too recognizable by most also due to their significant family ties, for example Gordon, Hays, Crichton ) is that they were on a special mission, called "in Scotiam pro conversion regis "
various Letters from Pontiffs, in particular Clement VIII and then Gregory XV, towards the heir to the English throne, first towards James between 1592 and 1605 then subsequently with Charles in 1623
in May 1621, the Catholic George Gage traveled to Rome to negotiate a dispensation for the marriage of Prince Charles and the Spanish Infanta, although officially a representative of the English Roman Catholics, he was in reality an undercover envoy of James I, the mission of Gage kept him in the Eternal City for fourteen months and returned to England in July 1622 to report on the progress of the negotiations.
He returned to Rome again in January 1623 with the same commission, but the discussions were interrupted and ended in March, when Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham visited Madrid in vain, after King Charles married Henriette Marie of France, ushering in a new era in world, relationship between London and Rome
in 1633 Sir Robert Douglas, a Roman Catholic Scot, arrived in Rome, although he was more an envoy of Queen Henrietta Maria than of Charles I, the king seems to have taken him to some extent into his confidence, and not he was against his plan to encourage Urban VIII to create a British cardinal ( he immediately proposed George Conn as cardinal ), Scottish, born to a noble Catholic family in 1598, Conn had studied in Douai, Paris, Rome and Bologna. In 1623 he entered the family of Cardinal Francesco Barberini. Bright, intelligent, ambitious and well-connected, it is clear why Conn appeared to the Queen and her entourage, and ultimately to the King, as the perfect candidate for the purple ) It was Douglas who later suggested to the Pope that he send an envoy to London, and His Holiness chose for this purpose the Oratorian Gregorio Panzani, who arrived in London on 15 December 1634.
Officially he was sent as the Queen's agent, but in reality his relations with the king were very close. Panzani was succeeded by the Scot George Conn, who remained in England from 1636 to 1639; while another Scotsman, Sir William Hamilton, was simultaneously acting as Queen Henrietta Maria's agent in Rome. In 1639, Count Carlo Rossetti arrived in England as an envoy of the Pope but, given the nature of the times, his stay was short and troubled. In retrospect, it is evident that the papal envoys would have been better advised if they had limited their activities in England to the general position of the Catholics, or to foreign policy matters, such as the Palatinate. However, they all made the mistake of seeking individual conversions, and in the process incurred the ire of both Puritans and High Church theologians
After 1640, the position of British Catholics deteriorated rapidly
The arrest, incarceration and in some cases execution of priests have begun again; papal agents left England; and diplomatic relations were completely severed for the time being
Among the various communications between the two branches there was also a first approach with Charles in 1636 followed by the subsequent project by Nicholas Fortescue in 1639 to explore the possibility of a revival of the Order of Malta in the land of Albion with consequent research among the main archives of Malta for a list of the Order's former branches in the British Isles. This list includes excerpts from the Liber Bullarum of the Order from 1526 until its dissolution in 1540 by order of Henry VIII
reign of Charles II
Charles II who was encouraged by the French ambassador to ask Cardinal Philip Thomas Howard ( a distant relative of his ) to step forward for the papal throne ( with the support of the French cardinals ) to prevent the election of Odeschalchi ( future Pope Innocent XI ) who had already had disagreements with Louis and then with James II
discussion of the formation of an English neighborhood in the City under royal control ( formally located near the English college, as well as the main headquarters of the embassy )
without forgetting the enormous mess that the appointment of Oliver Plunkett ( who was one of the main victims of the false Oates conspiracy, also had fled to Rome from Cromwell's persecutions, given that he was a descendant of the notoriously pro-monarchist Dukes of Fingal ) as archbishop of Armagh and primate of Ireland in 1669 ( a position he held for 12 years ) with the mission of renovating the church in Ireland by Clement IX caused, especially regarding the heated rivalry that arose with the archbishop of Dublin Peter Talbot, regarding the precedence of the archbishopric of Armagh over that of Dublin and who had the real authority in the local hierarchy, he as an envoy from Rome or Talbot who was was appointed by the King of England to head the Irish Catholic hierarchy in civil matters
James II
Innocent with his papist subjects, even if being able to separate what is reality from propaganda, especially in a highly politicized topic like this is very complicated ) he remembered that James had tried several times to make Edward Petre ( his personal confessor ) a cardinal without success , due to his numerous attempts at mediation in the Gallican question between Louis and Innocent, all seen / judged too partial by Rome ( if we also added the subsidies he received, things became more complicated for him )
p.s
this comment may be subject to future updates ( like, I'll answer myself to add new information on the matter ) but rest assured that the next topics will be more on topic with the discussion in general ( alias how changing the papacy can change history in general if possible )
Reigns of James and Charles I
diplomatic relations between James and the Holy See began, albeit indirectly and informally, as early as around 1580, when several English and non-English clerics were hosted at the Scottish court ( some whispered thanks to the complicity of the Duke of Lennox ) of particular importance were the secular priest William Watts and the two Jesuits Robert Persons and William Holt
without forgetting that a document found in Rome mentions at least 4 Jesuits by name: Jean Lourin (1559–?), Ralph Allen (1547–88), Vincent Belandre and Clément du Puy (1553–98), we can see that they are all foreigners ( given that their local counterparts, around twenty in total, were too recognizable by most also due to their significant family ties, for example Gordon, Hays, Crichton ) is that they were on a special mission, called "in Scotiam pro conversion regis "
various Letters from Pontiffs, in particular Clement VIII and then Gregory XV, towards the heir to the English throne, first towards James between 1592 and 1605 then subsequently with Charles in 1623
in May 1621, the Catholic George Gage traveled to Rome to negotiate a dispensation for the marriage of Prince Charles and the Spanish Infanta, although officially a representative of the English Roman Catholics, he was in reality an undercover envoy of James I, the mission of Gage kept him in the Eternal City for fourteen months and returned to England in July 1622 to report on the progress of the negotiations.
He returned to Rome again in January 1623 with the same commission, but the discussions were interrupted and ended in March, when Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham visited Madrid in vain, after King Charles married Henriette Marie of France, ushering in a new era in world, relationship between London and Rome
in 1633 Sir Robert Douglas, a Roman Catholic Scot, arrived in Rome, although he was more an envoy of Queen Henrietta Maria than of Charles I, the king seems to have taken him to some extent into his confidence, and not he was against his plan to encourage Urban VIII to create a British cardinal ( he immediately proposed George Conn as cardinal ), Scottish, born to a noble Catholic family in 1598, Conn had studied in Douai, Paris, Rome and Bologna. In 1623 he entered the family of Cardinal Francesco Barberini. Bright, intelligent, ambitious and well-connected, it is clear why Conn appeared to the Queen and her entourage, and ultimately to the King, as the perfect candidate for the purple ) It was Douglas who later suggested to the Pope that he send an envoy to London, and His Holiness chose for this purpose the Oratorian Gregorio Panzani, who arrived in London on 15 December 1634.
Officially he was sent as the Queen's agent, but in reality his relations with the king were very close. Panzani was succeeded by the Scot George Conn, who remained in England from 1636 to 1639; while another Scotsman, Sir William Hamilton, was simultaneously acting as Queen Henrietta Maria's agent in Rome. In 1639, Count Carlo Rossetti arrived in England as an envoy of the Pope but, given the nature of the times, his stay was short and troubled. In retrospect, it is evident that the papal envoys would have been better advised if they had limited their activities in England to the general position of the Catholics, or to foreign policy matters, such as the Palatinate. However, they all made the mistake of seeking individual conversions, and in the process incurred the ire of both Puritans and High Church theologians
After 1640, the position of British Catholics deteriorated rapidly
The arrest, incarceration and in some cases execution of priests have begun again; papal agents left England; and diplomatic relations were completely severed for the time being
Among the various communications between the two branches there was also a first approach with Charles in 1636 followed by the subsequent project by Nicholas Fortescue in 1639 to explore the possibility of a revival of the Order of Malta in the land of Albion with consequent research among the main archives of Malta for a list of the Order's former branches in the British Isles. This list includes excerpts from the Liber Bullarum of the Order from 1526 until its dissolution in 1540 by order of Henry VIII
reign of Charles II
Charles II who was encouraged by the French ambassador to ask Cardinal Philip Thomas Howard ( a distant relative of his ) to step forward for the papal throne ( with the support of the French cardinals ) to prevent the election of Odeschalchi ( future Pope Innocent XI ) who had already had disagreements with Louis and then with James II
discussion of the formation of an English neighborhood in the City under royal control ( formally located near the English college, as well as the main headquarters of the embassy )
without forgetting the enormous mess that the appointment of Oliver Plunkett ( who was one of the main victims of the false Oates conspiracy, also had fled to Rome from Cromwell's persecutions, given that he was a descendant of the notoriously pro-monarchist Dukes of Fingal ) as archbishop of Armagh and primate of Ireland in 1669 ( a position he held for 12 years ) with the mission of renovating the church in Ireland by Clement IX caused, especially regarding the heated rivalry that arose with the archbishop of Dublin Peter Talbot, regarding the precedence of the archbishopric of Armagh over that of Dublin and who had the real authority in the local hierarchy, he as an envoy from Rome or Talbot who was was appointed by the King of England to head the Irish Catholic hierarchy in civil matters
James II
Innocent with his papist subjects, even if being able to separate what is reality from propaganda, especially in a highly politicized topic like this is very complicated ) he remembered that James had tried several times to make Edward Petre ( his personal confessor ) a cardinal without success , due to his numerous attempts at mediation in the Gallican question between Louis and Innocent, all seen / judged too partial by Rome ( if we also added the subsidies he received, things became more complicated for him )
p.s
this comment may be subject to future updates ( like, I'll answer myself to add new information on the matter ) but rest assured that the next topics will be more on topic with the discussion in general ( alias how changing the papacy can change history in general if possible )
Last edited:
I was doing some research online when I came across the list of eligible candidates ( a term that usually indicates the cardinal most likely to become the new pope, or the one most favored by the Catholic powers, usually whoever is nominated with this term also manages to become subsequently pope, even if his candidacy was rejected in a previous conclave ) but there are times where this does not happen, and it is precisely about these that I would like to talk to you today, revealing the names of some of these two failed popes
in the 19th century we have two very strong names, the first is that of Bartolomeo Pacca ( diplomatic expert under Pius VII, and secretary of state, fun fact, he was responsible for a regulation for the defense of works of art in the pontifical state ) was a candidate in two conclaves, both in 1823 but above all he became the favorite to win in 1829 ( but obtained a veto from France ), then to follow we find Emmanuele de Gregorio ( who in theory should have succeeded Leo XII and Pius VIII, but due to very strong opposition within the curia he never managed to become Pope ( curiosity about him, being the vice chancellor of the papal state during the years of the French Revolution, he was contacted by its exponents to explore the possibility of becoming an antipope against Pius VI, after the latter had strongly condemned the events in France in 1791 )
P.s
I would be very tempted to launch a challenge, that is, try to make your own list or ranking of the worst pontiffs in history, let's be clear, there needs to be a little explanation as to why those people are on this list eh ( to make a long story short, let's reduce it to a flop ten ) but I don't know if it would be to your liking, so tell me ? ok
in the 19th century we have two very strong names, the first is that of Bartolomeo Pacca ( diplomatic expert under Pius VII, and secretary of state, fun fact, he was responsible for a regulation for the defense of works of art in the pontifical state ) was a candidate in two conclaves, both in 1823 but above all he became the favorite to win in 1829 ( but obtained a veto from France ), then to follow we find Emmanuele de Gregorio ( who in theory should have succeeded Leo XII and Pius VIII, but due to very strong opposition within the curia he never managed to become Pope ( curiosity about him, being the vice chancellor of the papal state during the years of the French Revolution, he was contacted by its exponents to explore the possibility of becoming an antipope against Pius VI, after the latter had strongly condemned the events in France in 1791 )
P.s
I would be very tempted to launch a challenge, that is, try to make your own list or ranking of the worst pontiffs in history, let's be clear, there needs to be a little explanation as to why those people are on this list eh ( to make a long story short, let's reduce it to a flop ten ) but I don't know if it would be to your liking, so tell me ? ok
Last edited:
In the timeframe from Callistus III to Sixtus V (the period who I know better) my flop list of the Popes is this one
- Paul IV: ruined any chance to reunite the Church, sabotaged the Council of Trent, abused of his powers for going against his enemies with mostly allegations, responsible of the worst parts of the Counter Reform and big nepotist
- Clement VII: incompetent, responsible of sack of Rome, actuated an useless anti-Imperial policy, far too pro-French in the wrong moment, responsible of the English Reformation, favored far too much Alessandro, arranged Catherine de’ Medici‘s french wedding….
- Julius II: made a quantity of damages everywhere, unable to moderate himself, great in making everyone his enemy, loved too much luxuries, lived almost too long
- Sixtus IV: excessive nepotism, politically senseless, corrupted, made a mess everywhere
- Innocent VIII: corrupt, nepotist, politically dangerous, puppet and far too manipulable
- Paul II: nepotist, corrupted, lover of luxuries, dangerous, idiotic policies…
- Julius III: inept, lover of luxuries, far too scandalous
- Leo X: “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it” say everything about his attitude, the mess made with Urbino, favored far too much his nephew Lorenzo and created Cardinal his cousin Julius… basically the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong moment…
Last edited:
let's say that considering the period I quite agree even if personally I wouldn't include Leo in a similar list, but rather Paul II or it may seem strange but Hadrian VI, who from new research, seems that when it comes to nepotism he wasn't joking either ( in addition to have managed to antagonize the Roman nobility in record time, insulting them or not giving them the right weight they thought they deserved in the Papal government , basically good intentions but lacked the capacity to control the curia )
In the meantime, I also want to add the ranking of flops, which you, Isabella, more or less already know, but it is still interesting
in order from first to twelfth place there are John XII ( pope par excellence of the period of pornocracy, who rose to the throne at 18 thanks to his family ties, Alberico being count of Tusculum as his father and the infamous Marozia as his grandmother, it was said of him that he was so dissolute that he actually have outclassed Caligula , organized orgies in the Lateran, he celebrated elevations of ecclesiastical offices in a stable ( according to Liutprand, a source however not exactly interpartes with regard to him ) committed political murders, was deposed and chased away by the Romans themselves, then returned briefly to die perhaps of a stroke or due to the fury of a husband who had caught him at bed with his wife )
in second position we find Benedict IX ( who sold the papacy three times, then committed murders and other similar atrocities to allow his nephew to obtain his place, not satisfied with this he started a war against his successor Leo IX )
Clement VII ( sack of Rome I must add more ? )
at the edge of the podium we find in ex aequo Gregory XVI and Leo XII ( arch conservatives and ruthless with political rebels, in comparison Pius IX post Gaeta is nothing )
Paul IV ( creator of the index of forbidden books, master of using the inquisition to eliminate political enemies, creator of the new laws against the Jews of 1555, adverse to any possibility of reopening the Council of Trent, uselessly hostile to the imperial faction )
Sixtus IV ( so where do we start with him, extreme nepotism, warmonger, under him we have approval for the Pazzi conspiracy, consent to the creation of the Spanish-style inquisition, leave a big hole in the pontifical treasury )
Innocent VIII ( a clear puppet, initially used by the future Julius II, later by Rodrigo Borgia, all his foreign policies were shaky, he also supported the growth of the inquisition controlled by the monarchs, continued the policy of hostility against Naples begun under Sixtus , culminating in a war in 1489 - 1492 )
Julius III ( apart from nepotism and his very close relationship with his " adoptive nephew " / according to various witnesses he was actually a lover of hers ( who we remember was just 17 years old )
unfortunately I can't think of anything else about him for the moment )
Gregory VII ( another capable of causing a sack of the City )
John XIX ( nephew of Benedict, also a multiple murderer and who knows what else )
Stephen VI ( creator of the synod of corpses )
Last edited:
Hadrian lived too little for making serious damages, while I had forgotten Paul II who deserve a place in the list… Leo got the last place mostly for his bad attitudes… basically if he had tried seriously to make the Pope, not made that mess with Urbino and not named his cousin Cardinal he would not be in the list…
List updated with the inclusion of the one who I had forgotten earlier and the main reasons for their presence in the list
very unlikely dear Kellan, for the simple reason that starting from 1789 he had first supported the revolution and then in 1792 the civil constitution for the clergy, for this reason he was first demoted to the simple lay state then excommunicated, only on the verge of death was he reinstated de facto to the priestly-episcopal state ( even if unofficially he had been pardoned and released as a layman since 1815 ), furthermore, from what I know he wasn't even a cardinal
Last edited:
would be cool if one could contrive a chain of events to have him as pope. Or Murat or Fouché as pope- both were originally intended for a career in the clergy, after all
actually it would be very interesting to find a way to make Talleyrand first become a cardinal and then subsequently pontiff, just as the same goes for other figures such as Mazarin, Richelieu, Carlo Borromeo ( an important papabile in conclave ), Cardinal Tamás Bakócz ( a very strong candidate in the conclave of 1521 ) or even Ascanio Sforza ( the perpetually third wheel between Rodrigo and Giuliano ) to conclude with poor Bessarion ( considered by all to be the main favorite in 4 of the 5 conclaves in which he participated, but who did not become pontiff because he was a foreigner )
honestly I wouldn't be so sure, as much as Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev and Gregory III of Constantinople tried, most of the Orthodox clergy were quite in line with the ideologies of Mark of Ephesus, regarding union ( i.e. resistance to to the bitter end ) furthermore Constantinople itself had its days numbered ( even with the help of the Latins ), so it is much more likely that we will have seen strong support for the survival of the Morea, which being much closer to Italy would be easily more reachable ( furthermore the continuation of the Paleologos dynasty and a conspicuous presence among the clergy and the local population of pro-Latins, would make it the ideal place, also because it was the Greek / Rhomanoi region, where the frankokratia lasted the longest, 2 centuries ) to really try to resolve the Great Schism it would be necessary to go back at least to the 4th Crusade to avoid the outcome of OTL or avoid the dynastic chaos following the death of Manuel I in 1180, but this would open another huge can of worms
Last edited: