WI a theocratic pope is successfully deposed ?

Irioth

Banned
A sideline issue that occurred to me while I was reviewing two of my best preferred timelines, Song of Roland and Prince of Peace, what if one of the most theocratic popes of the XI-XIV centuries (e.g. Gregory VII, Innocence III, Boniface VIII) makes his OTL bid for winning the Investiture Controversy and later outright supremacy on the secular kingdoms of Western Europe, but it is met by an ATL stronger power, such as an efficient, centralized Carolingian Franco-German-Italian-Spanish empire, Ottonian-Hohenzollern German-Italian HRE, Angevin-Plantagenet Anglo-French empire, as in Song of Roland and Prince of Peace, is thoroughly defeated and ousted by an ecumenical council for a pro-secular anti-pope, imprisoned for life or executed as an heretic, and the change sticks since all of his successors in the St. Peter's line are nominated from the pro-secular clergy ? So that the precedent and doctrine takes root in the Church that the Pope is not supreme, and can be judged and deposed by a council for abusing his power.

In OTL this outcome came somewhat close to fulfillment, but not quite, in the period between the near-capture of Boniface VIII at Anagni, and the end of the Great Schism. In this kind of ATL, the pro-king, pro-emperor antipope and the counciliar supremacy factions win out in the Church.

What would be the long-term, far-ranging consequences on the doctrine and structure of the Church ?
 

Irioth

Banned
The most obvious outcome: the doctine of Papal infallibility is butterflied away. Only the Ecumenic Council is empowered to make final rulings on matters of faith, doctrine, and the large-scale administrative struture of the Church.

Other possible likely outcomes: the Roman Curia is abolished or nipped in its bud, the Church gets reorganized as a federation of national episcopal synods, the doctrinal and organizational differences with the Eastern Orthodox are lessened, so there is lasting reconciliation in the XIII-XV centuries, the Pope is turned into a figurehead primus inter pares Patriarch of Rome, celibacy of the clergy is abolsihed or never takes root (even if their offspring is forbidden from inheriting church property). Reformation is never allowed to take root, once the secular powers have the clergy under control. Or it develops in the Anglican model, a series of nationalistic "soft" schisms (maybe an evolution of the synodal model) under direction of the state, in order to redistribute church property.
 
This is the Middle Ages

I think your term "pro-secular" is overly broad and includes some elements that does not reflect the medieval Church. I could see the conciliarist viewpoint dominating along with a "keep our nose out of politics" philosophy. But I don't see how this nixes priestly celibacy for instance. If anything this sharp shock from the political world could cause a retreat into still deeper otherworldliness,asceticism and monasticism. Regionality is not a given either. The ecumenical councils are still a centralist institution. There is no reason why they cannot be very conservative. Indeed they may insist that the curia is needed to enforce the council documents on the entire Church. There may be a protocol arising that councils must be called every 50 years.
 

Irioth

Banned
I think your term "pro-secular" is overly broad and includes some elements that does not reflect the medieval Church.

Yes, it is a loose use of the term, sorry, it was in the sense of the Church party that forsakes theocratic bids for power and is faithful to whatever strong monarchy manages to put its foot on the neck of uppity popes, be it Carolingians, Ottonians, Hohenzollerns, Angevins, Plantagenets. etc. Since I'm foreseeing this kind of scenario to develop in whatever TL creates a strong dominant fairly centralized Middle Age Empire in Western Europe, I tried to be generic. Maybe, "pro-imperial" would be better term.

But I don't see how this nixes priestly celibacy for instance.

Out of getting close to the Eastern Orthodoxes, for instance. Conciliar supremacy in the Church, non-intervention in politics, and loyalty to the monarch are strong Orthodox traditions. A crushing defeat of the Curia and the pro-papal Latin party might pave the way to healing the Great Schism. Ditto for regionalism. However, it depends on how dominant the state that defeats the pope is. If it encompasses most of Western Europe, as opposed to be the dominant state of the time, it might be interested in keeping the Church unitary but cowed, and forestalling detente with the Orthodox, if Byzantium is still a strong political rival, OTOH, if something like the Latin Empire occurred, reconciliation will be streamrolled.

If anything this sharp shock from the political world could cause a retreat into still deeper otherworldliness,asceticism and monasticism. Regionality is not a given either. The ecumenical councils are still a centralist institution. There is no reason why they cannot be very conservative. Indeed they may insist that the curia is needed to enforce the council documents on the entire Church. There may be a protocol arising that councils must be called every 50 years.

Sorry, I didn't mean secular in the modern sense. I meant Ghibelline.
 
Last edited:
Top