WI: A Protestant Pope?

I'd argue it's more or less impossible to have a "Protestant" Pope, for the simple reason that if a radical reformer manages to make it into the Papacy, it has to be early enough before the split becomes final...

Which would likely mean, no Protestants. Not as we know them anyway.
 
I can see this happening only if the reformation seeks the return of Catholicism to its Orthodox roots. So massive organisational change for the Church, but little theological or doctrinal change. For example: the Pope remains head of the church as the primus inter pares and the Papal States removes all pretensions to temporal authority. Importantly as well, the Pope has no universal jurisdiction and the right to ex-communication of priests belongs to the episcopal Bishop/Archbishop, and the ability to ex-communicate Bishops/Archbishops decided by the College of Cardinals. Papal infallibility wasn't defined yet until the 19th century, so if the Protestant reformation took this form it likely won't come about (although I imagine the authority of the Magisterium will be preserved as the authority on interpretation).

What this means for Christendom in the long run will be interesting because what will basically happen is a whole heap of Catholic jurisdictions will suddenly become national and subject to the whims of the relevant secular ruler. This will serve the interests of the ruler very well and is unlikely to lead to such classic reformist positions as 'every man a priest' etc. Ostensibly every Christian will remain part of the 'Catholic' (or Universal if you prefer the translated Latin) Church, but de facto the Pope's ability to influence will be very limited. In time there will be the English Catholic Church, the French Catholic Church, the Italian Catholic Church etc etc. All pay lip service to the Pope, but it is increasingly seen as a figurehead only - particularly if the Habsburg retain their right to veto the Pope-elect. In time this will lead to very serious falling out in some jurisdictions if there is a major dispute in doctrine. Although in this regard the various Orthodox Churches of today seem to be mostly allied on doctrine, some jurisdictions don't recognise the validity of each other etc.
 
Last edited:
Luther and varius "companions" (Theodore Beza, John Calvin, Philipp Melanchthon, etc.), however, they WANTED to leave the Church to bring forward their ideas of "reform", they wanted to fight AGAINST the Church, transforming their religious sentiments into a mere political action, which was then exploited by a number of German princes as a tool to fight against the Emperor in order to guarantee themselves more freedom and autonomy with respect to the central imperial power.
]


I suggest you learn a bit more about the reformation and why it is called such. All the early reformers, including Luther, started by wanting to reform the Church from within. It was only after they got cast out that they started to work outside. I remind you that Luther was a catholic monk, as was Bucer.
 
I'd argue it's more or less impossible to have a "Protestant" Pope, for the simple reason that if a radical reformer manages to make it into the Papacy, it has to be early enough before the split becomes final...

Which would likely mean, no Protestants. Not as we know them anyway.

What about letting Pope Adrian VI live longer? He was a northerner - something the Italians despised him for, but the cardinals elected him AFAIK because of his friendship with HRE Karl V. He was rather reform minded, but his papacy was clipped short by his death.
 
What about letting Pope Adrian VI live longer? He was a northerner - something the Italians despised him for, but the cardinals elected him AFAIK because of his friendship with HRE Karl V. He was rather reform minded, but his papacy was clipped short by his death.

having Adrian VI living longer wouldn't be enough ... He should also be more savvy in the ways of the Curia, knowing how to handle Rome
 
I suggest you learn a bit more about the reformation and why it is called such.

a degree in history and a master's degree in theology you think are enough to give value to what I wrote?
the question is: what is actually written in the history books on which they study our kids?
 
This is a neat idea, but it seems rather far-fetched, given that Protestantism everywhere developed a pattern of decentralization or only national/state areas of focus or common jurisdiction. The Papacy, however, is in essence a centralized, universalist institution. If somehow thouh, there was a Protestant papacy, I'd suggest that it be based in Mainz.
 
But after, St. Francis has worked from the inside, Luther, perhaps because he put his self-centeredness in front of/prior to the ideas of reform, went outside.
So, Luther's actions have nothing to do with the fact that the Papacy didn't want to deal with the corruption? Simply that he was self centred?

There's no chance that you could be considered slightly partisan on this subject, is there?
 
So, Luther's actions have nothing to do with the fact that the Papacy didn't want to deal with the corruption? Simply that he was self centred?

There's no chance that you could be considered slightly partisan on this subject, is there?

Jesus f#ç$;=g Christ Geordie don't you get it:
Catholics = good
Protestants = bad ... it says so in the bible :rolleyes:

But on a more serious note:
Protestantism was very unappealing for the Papacy because it denies the supremacy of the Pope and because Luther was against Prince-Bishoprics and the like.
That means that the Pope would loose much of his power and the territory of the papacy would probably fall to some foreign king.
That made it on the hand very appealing for the small and medium sized states in the HRE (Brandenburg, Saxony, Hesse...) because they could expand their territory on expences of the church.
The Emperor was ofcourse not happy about that and that put him and the Pope and the same side of the conflict.

If you want to bring protestantism to Rome you first have to have a strong power backing it. The northern German states were alright when it came to defending their territory but expanding Protestantism over the Alps was nothing they could have done.

My scenario:
Habsburgs have a great 15th century in Germany. Brandenburg becomes part of their realm. Saxony and Bavaria fracture. The mightiest Princes of the empire are the Prince-Archbishops of Cologne, Mainz and Trier.
When the Reformation kicks in in the early 16th century it might seem more appealing for the emperor than it did IOTL.
With the centre of reformation in Vienna and not Wittenberg it might spread to Hungary, Venice and northern Italy.
An ATL Thirty Years War could take place earlier and around the Alps. The conflict changes from a regional religous war to a Europe-spanning political war as in OTL. After decades of war the cities around the mediterrean are little more than ruin's and ash, the corps of men, women and children cover the fields of Lombardy and a Protestant sits on the throne of Saint Peter, a mere puppet of Vienna.
:)
 
And how might the Habsburgs get hold of Brandenburg? Purchase or inheritance? Saxony and Bavaria were already fractured (Saxony going onto further fractures: Ernestine vs Albertine Saxony, Bavaria to unite as one state out of the union of Bavaria-Munich, Bavaria-Ingolstadt, Bavaria-Straubing etc).

And also, IMHO, it was only the Spanish crown/his upbringing that kept Karl V from converting, since two of his sisters developed Protestant tendencies during their time in the Netherlands. So much, that the House of Habsburg had to assure everyone that Isabella/Elisabeth (Karl's sister the queen of Denmark) had died a convinced Catholic. Mary of Hungary seemed to have likewise entertained an almost Elizabethan tendency as to her beliefs, but again, according to the Habsburgs she died a Catholic; and his bastard daughter, Margaret, likewise showed a certain sympathy towards the Protestants (whether out of conviction, or merely out of a reluctance to carry out Philip II's stringent orders, IDK).
 
And how might the Habsburgs get hold of Brandenburg? Purchase or inheritance? Saxony and Bavaria were already fractured (Saxony going onto further fractures: Ernestine vs Albertine Saxony, Bavaria to unite as one state out of the union of Bavaria-Munich, Bavaria-Ingolstadt, Bavaria-Straubing etc).

And also, IMHO, it was only the Spanish crown/his upbringing that kept Karl V from converting, since two of his sisters developed Protestant tendencies during their time in the Netherlands. So much, that the House of Habsburg had to assure everyone that Isabella/Elisabeth (Karl's sister the queen of Denmark) had died a convinced Catholic. Mary of Hungary seemed to have likewise entertained an almost Elizabethan tendency as to her beliefs, but again, according to the Habsburgs she died a Catholic; and his bastard daughter, Margaret, likewise showed a certain sympathy towards the Protestants (whether out of conviction, or merely out of a reluctance to carry out Philip II's stringent orders, IDK).
I chose 15th century POD because I was well aware that Brandenburg was not in the hands of the Emperor anymore as Luther began nailing stuff on church doors.
Brandenburg was given to the Hohenzollerns by the last Luxembourgian Emperor, that is the same guy who was succeded in all his lands by the Habsburgs. If he had kept Brandenburg it might have become Habsburgian as well.
Fragmentatiln was what weakened Saxony IOTL but the Albertinians still managed to become an important player in OTL because they played their cards right. I think it is no big stretch to see all of the Saxon lands fracture without a dominant state based in Dresden arising. I don't wanna go into details but Lusatia could stay with Silesia or Brandenburg, Leipzig could break free, the Electoral Circle could have gone to Saxony-Lauenburg or some Welf, the Elbe valley splits into Saxe-Dresden, Saxe-Torgau, Saxe-Eilenburg etc.
I think fracturing Saxony even farther is easy, same goes IMHO for Bavaria (even if I don't know as much about Bavaria because I am myself a Saxon).

My point was that you need a political reason for the Emperor to turn protestant. IOTL he had a reason to stay Catholic: mighty princes were using Lutheran ideas for their benefits... and that was ofcourse not for the Emperor's best.
ITTL with weaker princes and dukes the main contrahent of the Emperor in the HRE could become the Prince-Archbishoprics. The early POD I choose gives us ofcourse the freedom to build up some tension between Emperor and Pope before the Refprmation appears.
OTL Emperor vs Princes would be ATL Emperor vs Pope.
 
Jesus f#ç$;=g Christ Geordie don't you get it:
Catholics = good
Protestants = bad ... it says so in the bible :rolleyes:
Bold just to emphasise the irony. ;) Not in my bible. Then again, I'm a self centred protestant, so my copy is probably some sort of protestant anti-bible heretical text. :p

My scenario:
Habsburgs have a great 15th century in Germany. Brandenburg becomes part of their realm. Saxony and Bavaria fracture. The mightiest Princes of the empire are the Prince-Archbishops of Cologne, Mainz and Trier.
When the Reformation kicks in in the early 16th century it might seem more appealing for the emperor than it did IOTL.
With the centre of reformation in Vienna and not Wittenberg it might spread to Hungary, Venice and northern Italy.
An ATL Thirty Years War could take place earlier and around the Alps. The conflict changes from a regional religous war to a Europe-spanning political war as in OTL. After decades of war the cities around the mediterrean are little more than ruin's and ash, the corps of men, women and children cover the fields of Lombardy and a Protestant sits on the throne of Saint Peter, a mere puppet of Vienna.
:)
Even for the Habsburg family, that's a fantastically lucky inheritance, coupled with the opposition hitting the self destruct button at precisely the right time. On the other hand, it is possible.
 
Top