What if before the final dogmatic manifestation of the celibacy in the Catholic Church, a Pope makes a deal and promises all clerical princes, bishops and cardinals to entail their titles,wealth and offices to their children,grandchildren etc. ? He also let his loyal subordinates reinterpret the dogmas of the church and the Bible, so his Dynastic claim fits. The Pope then fathers his own children (or legitimate the already existing ones) and entitles them to be his successors or papal princes. His sons automatically are entitled to become cardinals, abbots and bishops and canons. His daughters could become abbess.
Pope declares himself dynastic ruler
- Thread starter Byzantion
- Start date
The problem with this is when>? They would need to both be powerful enough to get all the people around them to agree to it, or at least ignore it, and weak enough to not be a threat to anyone. Let alone getting round changing dogmatic law and how people perceived the church quickly.
The best way i can see it is if you arrange things to allow cardinals, legally, to nominate their own familial successors (or make it a proviso when the pope appoints a new one), leading to them supporting the pope's own, but only if their of the church already. Basically closest to OTL, but made more hereditary.
That's simply not going to happen in any recognizable timeline.
Admitting that works for Roman elites, and really that alone is absurd giving the Roman political factions and their bitter inimities, Roman populus would be massively pissed (think Commune of Rome-scale) and even more secular princes in Italy, HRE and elsewhere in Europe.
I wouldn't give two weeks of survival to what would like as a political and eventually physical suicide, admitting the whole Roman nobility and clergy doesn't simply jail the guys up.
Admitting that works for Roman elites, and really that alone is absurd giving the Roman political factions and their bitter inimities, Roman populus would be massively pissed (think Commune of Rome-scale) and even more secular princes in Italy, HRE and elsewhere in Europe.
I wouldn't give two weeks of survival to what would like as a political and eventually physical suicide, admitting the whole Roman nobility and clergy doesn't simply jail the guys up.
"Yeah, no." - Europe's collective response
Europeans would tolerate a certain level of corruption in its religious institutions but such a blatant marrying of earthly and spiritual power in a way not at all supported in the Bible could lead to a massive purging of the Catholic Church with a reformed church springing up or national analogues to the Anglican Church replacing Catholicism.
Err... no. Not only would Europe laugh itself to death before beating up the Pope and taking his lunch money, it would entail such an incredible shift in Catholic theology that either it ceases to be the Roman Catholicism of OTL and becomes a different religion; or implies that literally no-one in the early Church during that period actually believes in the doctrines of the Church to begin with.
History is not a CK2 game.
The closest the Papacy came to this was the period known as the Pornocracy, when a single (pro-Byzantine) Italian noble family monopolized it, culminating in a succession of three heads of that noble house installing themselves as Pope.
Even then, it was an unstable and corrupt succession which tarnished the prestige and temporal power of the Church. It was followed by the Imperial papacy, which was the long climb of the Papacy to reassert its authority over the Western Church, alienating the Eastern Church and going into disputes with the Holy Roman Emperor.
So, no.
The closest the Papacy came to this was the period known as the Pornocracy, when a single (pro-Byzantine) Italian noble family monopolized it, culminating in a succession of three heads of that noble house installing themselves as Pope.
Even then, it was an unstable and corrupt succession which tarnished the prestige and temporal power of the Church. It was followed by the Imperial papacy, which was the long climb of the Papacy to reassert its authority over the Western Church, alienating the Eastern Church and going into disputes with the Holy Roman Emperor.
So, no.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
This is a bit more complex then I think people are giving it credit.
There are a number of titles (mostly to do with the church) that would directly be impossible to do this for without causing huge outrage.
The one that is most plausible to make dynastic? Sovereign of the Papal States.
Having a King of the Papal States, or Prince, choose whichever title is most politically expedient, wouldn't be impossible. After all, what else would you call the attempts to make Caesare Borgia Prince of the Romagna?
The repurcussions however are interesting. One of the reasons the Pope avoided doing this historically was independence - being independent of the HRE, or the rules of Naples, was a big deal. Having a military power that isn't directly Papal, in charge of defense means losing that independence.
Another repercussion could lead to almost the OP - the sovereign of Rome would inevitably have huge influence on Papal Elections - and may well often be elected himself (as you can apparently have non-cardinals become pope).
So either an anti-Pope sovereign is constantly obstructing the Papacy, or a pro-Pope sovereign has a puppet Pope, or is legitimately the Pope!
However, you couldn't do this de jure, it would only be de facto.
Would this have a great impact on the Papacy? If we assume that the Kingdom would have to provide a stipend to the Papacy, but was otherwise responsible for its own taxation, then there are less situations where the Papacy is denied funding due to the Pope not protecting the people against rampaging foreign powers (that'll happen to the King instead).
Would it have a great effect on Italy? Potentially - it would be expedient for the King to have a Pope excommunicate other Italian Princes, only to invade, force the territory into vassalage, and send a gift back to the Pope - it could lead to the emergence of a united Italy much sooner than IOTL.
Though I expect the Pope wouldn't be as popular for resolving Italian disputes, especially involving the Prince of Rome - Choosing between The Roman Kingdom, and a disputed ruler? I can see where that may go.
There are a number of titles (mostly to do with the church) that would directly be impossible to do this for without causing huge outrage.
The one that is most plausible to make dynastic? Sovereign of the Papal States.
Having a King of the Papal States, or Prince, choose whichever title is most politically expedient, wouldn't be impossible. After all, what else would you call the attempts to make Caesare Borgia Prince of the Romagna?
The repurcussions however are interesting. One of the reasons the Pope avoided doing this historically was independence - being independent of the HRE, or the rules of Naples, was a big deal. Having a military power that isn't directly Papal, in charge of defense means losing that independence.
Another repercussion could lead to almost the OP - the sovereign of Rome would inevitably have huge influence on Papal Elections - and may well often be elected himself (as you can apparently have non-cardinals become pope).
So either an anti-Pope sovereign is constantly obstructing the Papacy, or a pro-Pope sovereign has a puppet Pope, or is legitimately the Pope!
However, you couldn't do this de jure, it would only be de facto.
Would this have a great impact on the Papacy? If we assume that the Kingdom would have to provide a stipend to the Papacy, but was otherwise responsible for its own taxation, then there are less situations where the Papacy is denied funding due to the Pope not protecting the people against rampaging foreign powers (that'll happen to the King instead).
Would it have a great effect on Italy? Potentially - it would be expedient for the King to have a Pope excommunicate other Italian Princes, only to invade, force the territory into vassalage, and send a gift back to the Pope - it could lead to the emergence of a united Italy much sooner than IOTL.
Though I expect the Pope wouldn't be as popular for resolving Italian disputes, especially involving the Prince of Rome - Choosing between The Roman Kingdom, and a disputed ruler? I can see where that may go.
Marozia's descendants tried essentially to do this, and DonFitzcarraldo is completely right in hid prediction.
Since celibacy was founded about 400 (granted it wasent codified till the Gregorian Reforms, but it was pretty much dominant since Leo the Great) while papal supremacy dident really become dominate till about 700?, if a pope (were they called pope that early) tried that, they would be completely discredited as a big leader, Byzantine would wipe the idea away fast in all of the areas they controlled, they had no use for it and it most likely would be a problem for them in the future, but I'm not sure that it would be so dismissed in Western areas.
I do think the idea is being dismissed a little too fast, if you are looking at it as a medieval all powerful pope having a dynasty generation after generation then yes, the idea would never work. However, the first step, getting rid of priestly celibacy, would make such a figure very unlikely to come about. I personally think the celibacy was one of the main reasons that the Catholic Church got as powerful as it was, if you dont have to support tens of thousands of family members for hundreds of years, you are going to be able to consolidate a lot of wealth and power. If for some reason the idea of priestly celibacy never won out, which I think is very possible, (1 Cor 9:5 or 1 Timothy 3:2-4 both support priestly marriage, and in the 2nd and 3rd century, priestly marriage was pretty dominant.) then I think this idea isent ludicrous. Marriage would localize power,(you have a family and you're more integrated into the community, marriages will make someone more protecting of local power, plus you need wealth to insure your children have good lives) and if a Vatican came about, I think it would be less powerful then it was OTL. I could see on the local level a lot of dynasty, a father passes the priesthood down to his son and that family is the local priest for the town. I could also see it more along the lines of hereditary for bishops, with them getting more independence and less central control, like the Eastern Orthodox. But as a OTL powerful hereditary pope, no, I cant see that.
I do think the idea is being dismissed a little too fast, if you are looking at it as a medieval all powerful pope having a dynasty generation after generation then yes, the idea would never work. However, the first step, getting rid of priestly celibacy, would make such a figure very unlikely to come about. I personally think the celibacy was one of the main reasons that the Catholic Church got as powerful as it was, if you dont have to support tens of thousands of family members for hundreds of years, you are going to be able to consolidate a lot of wealth and power. If for some reason the idea of priestly celibacy never won out, which I think is very possible, (1 Cor 9:5 or 1 Timothy 3:2-4 both support priestly marriage, and in the 2nd and 3rd century, priestly marriage was pretty dominant.) then I think this idea isent ludicrous. Marriage would localize power,(you have a family and you're more integrated into the community, marriages will make someone more protecting of local power, plus you need wealth to insure your children have good lives) and if a Vatican came about, I think it would be less powerful then it was OTL. I could see on the local level a lot of dynasty, a father passes the priesthood down to his son and that family is the local priest for the town. I could also see it more along the lines of hereditary for bishops, with them getting more independence and less central control, like the Eastern Orthodox. But as a OTL powerful hereditary pope, no, I cant see that.
Early versions of my TL had him succeed, with Cesare unifying most of Italy under his rule. But it was a fraught rule and as soon as there was no strong heir in 1603, the papacy went to a weak compromise candidate and became elective again for posterity, while France and the HRE forced the new pope to dismember Italy.
(I changed it because the person who played Rodrigo Borgia in the LARP the TL is based on explained to me that in the dynamics that evolved out of the game, he'd have been hated even more than in OTL, and Cesare even more so. In contrast, Giovanni de' Medici came out strong in that LARP. So I rewrote that part without wanting to change the later 16c Italian history.)