![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What If?
What if the Protestant Reformation had never happened?
Here’s the sequence, with historical notes in italics to give context.
Pope Leo X (pope 1513-1521) was a Medici. Even the Vatican admits that he “was not a competent ruler and not greatly interested in the advancement of the church.” He liked huge parties, elaborate banquets and hunts (and little boys); he was Raphael’s patron and continued rebuilding St. Peter’s. Thus the constant need for more cash, leading to selling indulgences, offices and appointments, and other massive corruption.
Luther, in 1517 when he posts his 95 theses, was still a devout Catholic and wanted to reform the church, not split from it. Assume that Leo X dies in an embarrassing and highly public fashion: during one of his extravagant hunts, while simultaneously negotiating the sale of several cardinal’s offices and cavorting with one of his favorite naked little boys, Leo is struck by lightning. This obvious sign of God’s displeasure leads the cardinals to elect Paul III as Pope, a reformer.
(Paul III was actually elected in 1534, after the hard-line Hadrian VI and Clement VII; he received quite a few votes both times. Clement VII underestimated the effects of the Lutheran split and made things worse. Paul III really was something of a reformer, who started the Counter-Reformation and favored reconciliation with the Protestants.)
So Paul III reforms the Church, pulling back its claim to temporal power in favor of re-establishing its primacy in the spiritual world. Paul summons Luther to Rome, but instead of excommunication, he appoints Luther a cardinal in charge of reform. When Paul III dies, Luther becomes Pope Paul IV. (Luther resolved his 1513 crisis of faith by reading the scriptures, especially the letters of Paul. Plus he’d be following in Paul III’s footsteps of reform.)
What impact would this have? The Church probably would not have taken the side of Francis I against Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (who won anyway, and sacked Rome); this would make Charles the (even more) pre-eminent political power in Europe, and making the Holy Roman Empire a more stable political unit.
The real Paul IV would not have been elected Pope in 1555. (Paul IV was a fanatic, using the Inquisition and torture with great ease. Paul IV also forced Jewish communities to live in ghettoes.)
Henry VIII would not have passed the Act of Supremacy, making him the head of the Church of England, because the precedent of splitting with Rome would not have been set; Katherine of Aragon would have stayed Queen (especially since she was also the aunt of Charles V). Mary would have been able to wed Philip II of Spain much earlier, and might have had children, forestalling the reigns of Elizabeth and James I…
If I was writing a novel, I’d start there. But I work in the financial industry, so I have no clue what comes next.
But it was fun even getting there.
no subject
The story's been done before, very much along the lines you've proposed. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy, forget the title and author, and haven't actually read it myself (only a review, and remarked to myself how much I'd like to read that thing).
I'll check some sources, and see what I can come up with.
no subject
The problem with Luther wasn't that he said anything patently wrong in this famous 95 Theses. That wasn't the basis for the excommunication and split; the Worms Summit (using modern terms) with CharlesV wasn't about trying Luther for heresy or excommunicating him; it wasn't even about getting him to completely recant the Theses. It was to get him to just SHUT UP in PUBLIC about it.
The interesting thing that Luther did was deny the Sacramental Nature of the Sacraments -- with the exception of Baptism and Eucharist. But these ideas came later, and were not part of the whole Diet of Worms rigmarole.
I *Seriously* doubt that he would have been elected to the papacy given his ideas about eliminating the sacraments. (Reconciliation, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, Extreme Unction,).
It's an interesting thought, though.
On a side-note; For about 10 months or so, I've been putting together some papers for a presentation at a future Collegium regarding heresy in the middle ages. I was told -- just yesterday in fact -- that a 2/3 inch stack of paper is too much for a collegium class or submission to TI.
Maybe I should limit it to a specific time period: "Remnants of Arianism and Pelagianism in the 12th Century", or a specific topic: "The Irrevocable Damnation of that Evil Luther and All Protestants Everywhere Forever and Ever Amen." (How's that for a topic? Do you think that would go over well? It *is* period, and not even controversial....)
{Notice the shit-stirring grin....}
no subject
My supposition with Luther elected to the papacy is assuming some compromises all around. Primarily, though, it's taking Luther before he broke with Rome; at the time of the 95 Theses he hadn't yet denied that the pope is the final interpreter of Scripture; nor had he rejected the sacraments. As I understand it, both these positions were publicly taken in works published in 1520. In this chronology, Leo dies right after Luther nails the Theses up in 1517. Luther reconciles with Rome quickly and he works for reform -- thus he never goes that far.
Maybe Luther still wouldn't been elected by the cardinals (too confrontational? not an Italian?) but it's a literary device to illustrate the major timeline change. Luther, instead of splitting from Catholicism, becomes a successor to Saint Peter.