Catholic Orthodox Schism

Oh, Rome has to remain the seat of authority, and the leader (Pope, Patriarch, whatever) has to be fairly independant of any king or emperor.
 
A de facto schism was unavoidable.
Maybe what could be avided was the formal schism, if the two parts simply ignored each other, instead of having a Papacy claiming Universal Absolute Authority on every soul and a Constantinople Patriarchate clung on its own action space.
All in al, the only way to avoid the schism is an early crumbling of the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e., conquest by Avars, Sassanid Persians, Arabs or Bulgars).
 
Florence

Maybe an alternative is that the scism takes place but the reunion attempted at the Council of Florence succeeds. Perhaps the Filoque dispute never happens.
 
I'm feeling too lazy to come up with new topics, so I'm just gonna bump a few of my old threads.

Consider this one bumped.
 
I don't think you can avbouid the schism after 1000, when it is pretty much reality and the papacy begins to assert its power in all directions, soon to begin making an issue of the differences. It might have been bridged in the 14th or early 15th century, but only formally. I doubt after 1204 many Byzantines had much love for the Latins. After 1453, the Ottomans may have been too wary of a large group of their subjects suddenly swearing allegiance to the Pope...

But a much nicer way would be for the Western church to stop acting like babies insisting on 'running their own show' (I mean, where would *Rome* get authority over *Jerusalem* and *Antioch*?). If we could get Rome to accept the Eastern version of Christology at least as equally valid, or essentially the same thing (not that hard, really. Few people understood or understand what it is actually about, and barring some fool telling them their eternal salvation hangs on it, I doubt they care. Most doctrinal disputes are solved without street warfare.) that'd be a promising beginning. The next step would be to stop mandatory celibacy (voluntary celibacy, as existed up until the 12th century, is fine. It's the mandatory bit that is a problem, and that was instituted largely fpr monetary concerns). Then, the 'Pilatians' should lose out in the missionary dispute in the East, allowing liturgical languages other than Hebrew, Greek and Latin (there's nothing in Catholic dogma that actually forbids it, but it was a hugely divisive issue along the religious frontiers because it is so obvious). That might have the added positive effect of allowing the survival of vernacular literatures in Old Prussian, Finnish, and Wendish. That would take care of the issues that require large adjustments to iron out - married priests, masses in Slavonic - and the rest is esoteric doctrine.

Remember, the Catholic Church may have a very different look and feel to the Orthodox, but that is mostly cultural baggage. On Sardinia, Catholic clergy practice the Catholic Greek Rite, which is almost indistinguishable from Greek Orthodox. They don't marry, and of course they are lucky enough to have Greek as their liturgical language (it wouldn't work with Russian or Serb Orthodox communities), but all other issues have been settled without any trouble.
 
DominusNovus said:
Looks interesting, any idea on how they'd organize? Like, what would be the positions of the various patriarchs?

I'd assume that even without its Innocentian power trip (what *did* the 'reform popes' smoke, and where can I get some of it?), the bishops of Rome would settle for nothing less than the patriarchal authority over the entire West. Constantinople similarly claims the East, and gets to sort out matters with Moscow (or Kiev? damn butterflies...) whether its authority extends throughout Russia or not.

Carthage, Alexandria and Antioch, not to mention Jerusalem, in most timelines are 'in partibus infidelium' and hence not entitled to voice an opinion in the debate. Otherwise I'm fairly sure Carthage would have something to say about Roman supremacy. ("I match your Peter and raise you an Augustine" :)

If, for some reason, Antioch, Alexandria asnd Jerusalem are NOT in the Islamic sphere of influence that very likely means a much more powerful Byzantine Empire and thus a far weaker negotiating position for Rome. I'd still expect Constantinople to come out on top of the heap, with Antioch, Alexandria and Kiev/Moscow in subordinate positions. Rome either gets a similarly subordinate Carthage or (less likely, but possible) a partition between an independent Carthage and Rome. Jerusalem would hold 'non plus potestate, sed auctoritate' - a kind of nominal seniority purchased by noninvolvement in the politics of the various patriarchal sees.

Maybe:

Jerusalem: Patriarch of Christendom
Constantinople: Patriarch of Constantinople, Metropolite of the East
Rome: Patriarch of Rome, Metropolite of All Europe
Carthage: Patriarch of Carthage, Metropolite of All Africa
Antioch: Patriarch of Antioch, Metropolite of Syria
Kiev: Patriarch of Kiev, Metropolite of All Russians
Alexandria: Patriarch of Alexandria, Metropolite of Africa

And I'd expect the bishops of Carthage and Alexandria to be about as fond of each other as those of Canterbury and York...
 
Top