Could the Christian church, upon its foundation by the Apostles after the death of Christ and its gradual adoption as the state religion of the Roman Empire by 300 AD, have been developed in a manner not incorporating the OTL institutionalisation practices of the Catholic church ? Could the church have not adopted many unbiblical doctrines such as the emphasis on works (the Sacraments, Holy Communion, confession, payment of indulgences, etc) over faith, the veneration of Mary and unquestioning acceptance of the Pope as God's repesentative on earth, worship of saints, and praying for the dead ? How feasible was the church developing at its outset in a manner akin to the later Protestant churches during the Reformation, and what would've been the impact on religion, politics, and society as a whole ?
Less institutionalised Christian church ?
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Not all that unlikely. The early church was quite varied and heterogeneous. There were many many different sects. There were even different bibles. Perhaps some of the sects that died out in OTL become more powerful, so the Church has to compromise more to consider itself unified. With alot of compromises in its doctrine, its easier to consider that the doctrine isn't certainly perfect and absolute.Melvin Loh said:
If anything, the development of the papacy is the unlikely event. If I had to develop a 'probable outcome' for the church of the 400s and 500s, I'd come up with something a lot closer to the Anglican or Orthodox churches than Catholicism.
However, I don't think something like Protestantism (mainstream Protestantism, that is) would be likely to develop. For one thing, once the church was integrated into the Empire it developed increasingly autocratic structures of episcopal and metropolitan oversight which would not allow for such things as elected divines or the easy passage between one church and another. Also, the strong aversion in many Protestant communities to images and a magical understanding of the sacrament would have to wait for a different age - without printing, the majority of people will want to see and feel their God and Saviour. Mary, too, was far too popular throughout the ancient church to be relegated to the dustbin simply because she's not mentioned all that much in the New Testament.
What I'd expect is a church that is subject to the will of secular lords - strong kings pushing around weak bishops - and dominated by the upper classes, with a high regard for learning, but incorporating a powerful ascetic streak. Monasticism is likely to figure (it was riotously popular) and the core of the organisation would be the episcopal see, with its own structures of succession, clerical training, and tithing. Theology would allow a good deal more latitude, though the really big questions would be settled in councils or synods and enforced rigorously. The cult of Saints, Mary, the veneration of icons and relics, and the full range of sacraments, on the other hand, would need a bigger POD - nothing less than a different society - to remove.
However, I don't think something like Protestantism (mainstream Protestantism, that is) would be likely to develop. For one thing, once the church was integrated into the Empire it developed increasingly autocratic structures of episcopal and metropolitan oversight which would not allow for such things as elected divines or the easy passage between one church and another. Also, the strong aversion in many Protestant communities to images and a magical understanding of the sacrament would have to wait for a different age - without printing, the majority of people will want to see and feel their God and Saviour. Mary, too, was far too popular throughout the ancient church to be relegated to the dustbin simply because she's not mentioned all that much in the New Testament.
What I'd expect is a church that is subject to the will of secular lords - strong kings pushing around weak bishops - and dominated by the upper classes, with a high regard for learning, but incorporating a powerful ascetic streak. Monasticism is likely to figure (it was riotously popular) and the core of the organisation would be the episcopal see, with its own structures of succession, clerical training, and tithing. Theology would allow a good deal more latitude, though the really big questions would be settled in councils or synods and enforced rigorously. The cult of Saints, Mary, the veneration of icons and relics, and the full range of sacraments, on the other hand, would need a bigger POD - nothing less than a different society - to remove.
I agree pretty much with Dominus and Carlton. Protestants like to think they are a recreation of the primitive Church (except of course for the dispensationalists who endlessly fantasize about being OT Jews) but if they fell into a time warp I think they would be sorely disappointed. These seeds for a lot of what they don't like are already in place. I partially disagree with Carlton about the Papacy if the POD is post-Constantine--by then it is a question of how strong it would become. It is possible that a Papacy uneasily shares power with a permanent synod of bishops emerges and does not become as powerful as OTL.
One possible divergence to make the Church a little less Mary Crazy is no St. Jerome so we don't get the fanciful speculation of the Triple Virginity of Mary (ie. Mary was virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus) adopted as Catholic doctrine.
One possible divergence to make the Church a little less Mary Crazy is no St. Jerome so we don't get the fanciful speculation of the Triple Virginity of Mary (ie. Mary was virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus) adopted as Catholic doctrine.
"One possible divergence to make the Church a little less Mary Crazy is no St. Jerome so we don't get the fanciful speculation of the Triple Virginity of Mary (ie. Mary was virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus) adopted as Catholic doctrine."
That'd certainly work, but no St. Jerome means no Latin Vulgate either, which could have effects on the Western church (fewer converts? A great interest in the vernacular?). Hmm...perhaps we could simply have St. Jerome not come up with that doctrine, but that's too simple. Or, perhaps the passage where it discusses Christ's brothers and sisters (I think it's in Mark) is more well known, so the Triple Virginity doctrine never catches on; it's the one bad idea of an otherwise-brilliant man.
"Protestants like to think they are a recreation of the primitive Church (except of course for the dispensationalists who endlessly fantasize about being OT Jews) but if they fell into a time warp I think they would be sorely disappointed."
The early church met in peoples' houses, discussed theology over meals (I like debate and I like food, so that sounds pretty darn cool to me), and then everybody prayed together; their structure sounds more like the non-denominational churches and "cell groups" than the organized, ritualized services w/ sermons and the like that the modern church (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc). When did "services" as such start?
If the situation with the Pope, the Lombards, and Charlemagne is avoided, the Pope doesn't get political control of central Italy and THAT, in addition to setting off a bunch of other butterflies involving the continued existence of a Lombard state, would probably weaken the Papacy A LOT (nothing like State powers and tax-flows to really go to your head).
Or, to be even earlier, perhaps Pope Leo is killed by Attilla and is viewed simply as a martyr who died trying to defend his flock instead of the one who scared away the Huns. The Papacy would probably be taken down a peg or two at that point.
That'd certainly work, but no St. Jerome means no Latin Vulgate either, which could have effects on the Western church (fewer converts? A great interest in the vernacular?). Hmm...perhaps we could simply have St. Jerome not come up with that doctrine, but that's too simple. Or, perhaps the passage where it discusses Christ's brothers and sisters (I think it's in Mark) is more well known, so the Triple Virginity doctrine never catches on; it's the one bad idea of an otherwise-brilliant man.
"Protestants like to think they are a recreation of the primitive Church (except of course for the dispensationalists who endlessly fantasize about being OT Jews) but if they fell into a time warp I think they would be sorely disappointed."
The early church met in peoples' houses, discussed theology over meals (I like debate and I like food, so that sounds pretty darn cool to me), and then everybody prayed together; their structure sounds more like the non-denominational churches and "cell groups" than the organized, ritualized services w/ sermons and the like that the modern church (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc). When did "services" as such start?
If the situation with the Pope, the Lombards, and Charlemagne is avoided, the Pope doesn't get political control of central Italy and THAT, in addition to setting off a bunch of other butterflies involving the continued existence of a Lombard state, would probably weaken the Papacy A LOT (nothing like State powers and tax-flows to really go to your head).
Or, to be even earlier, perhaps Pope Leo is killed by Attilla and is viewed simply as a martyr who died trying to defend his flock instead of the one who scared away the Huns. The Papacy would probably be taken down a peg or two at that point.
Matt Quinn said:
Matt,
You apparently appreciate St. Jerome more than I do. He was dowright obsessive on the topic of virginity. Another example of it was insisting St. Joseph was completely virginal. If he had not done this he could've allowed for Joseph to be a widower and Jesus' siblings to be half-siblings (that is to the Nazareth public who are unware of the true Father of Jesus) and the word use in NT for brother could mean a half-brother but not cousin as the RC Church lamely tries to argue.
Actually it bothered St. Jesome a long time about how sex could be justified because it destroyed the perfect image of God in the virgin form. He eventually decided this loss of virginity could only be justified in that it generated more virgins through procreation.
As far as the Latin Vulgate there is the thorny issue of whether he took liberties when translating Matthew's Gospel, whose original form is now lost to us.
The RCC would be in a bit of a spot if more people read Josephus...he described in 61 or 62 AD the martyrdom of St. James: "James, brother of Jesus the so-called Messiah was killed today." I don't think there's a translation issue there. Plus there's that controversial box in Jerusalem that just got dug up.
"As far as the Latin Vulgate there is the thorny issue of whether he took liberties when translating Matthew's Gospel, whose original form is now lost to us."
I've never heard of that...what liberties did he supposedly take?
"You apparently appreciate St. Jerome more than I do. He was dowright obsessive on the topic of virginity. Another example of it was insisting St. Joseph was completely virginal. If he had not done this he could've allowed for Joseph to be a widower and Jesus' siblings to be half-siblings (that is to the Nazareth public who are unware of the true Father of Jesus) and the word use in NT for brother could mean a half-brother but not cousin as the RC Church lamely tries to argue.
Actually it bothered St. Jesome a long time about how sex could be justified because it destroyed the perfect image of God in the virgin form. He eventually decided this loss of virginity could only be justified in that it generated more virgins through procreation."
Oh dear. Was St. Jerome one of those "freaky saints" (like Origen, who I believe castrated himself)? Is he responsible for the pernicious doctrine that sex w/in marriage is for reproduction only and shouldn't be enjoyed?
"As far as the Latin Vulgate there is the thorny issue of whether he took liberties when translating Matthew's Gospel, whose original form is now lost to us."
I've never heard of that...what liberties did he supposedly take?
"You apparently appreciate St. Jerome more than I do. He was dowright obsessive on the topic of virginity. Another example of it was insisting St. Joseph was completely virginal. If he had not done this he could've allowed for Joseph to be a widower and Jesus' siblings to be half-siblings (that is to the Nazareth public who are unware of the true Father of Jesus) and the word use in NT for brother could mean a half-brother but not cousin as the RC Church lamely tries to argue.
Actually it bothered St. Jesome a long time about how sex could be justified because it destroyed the perfect image of God in the virgin form. He eventually decided this loss of virginity could only be justified in that it generated more virgins through procreation."
Oh dear. Was St. Jerome one of those "freaky saints" (like Origen, who I believe castrated himself)? Is he responsible for the pernicious doctrine that sex w/in marriage is for reproduction only and shouldn't be enjoyed?
I don't know much about Jerome other than the Vulgate...the "one bad idea of an otherwise-brilliant man" is how others would perceive him. I have no idea whether he was a genius or a very religious dunce.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
You could no more get rid of the sacraments and particularly the veneration of the pope than you could the 'Roman' in Roman Catholic. When you walk into a present day RC church the rituals you see, (particularly in Mel Gibson's) are pretty much the same rituals used by the Romans to worship the Emperor. (not in what it depicts, mind you, but in how it depicts it). It was Constantine's genius to see that the Empire could benefit greatly from using the Church, and his foolishness to think it wouldn't take it over.
Some of the other things you talk of are trends put off by the collapse of Rome and revived in Medieval times. The worship of Mary is part of the ongoing emancipation of women which always accelerates in times of population surplus and declines in times of population stress.
Some of the other things you talk of are trends put off by the collapse of Rome and revived in Medieval times. The worship of Mary is part of the ongoing emancipation of women which always accelerates in times of population surplus and declines in times of population stress.
Grey Wolf
Donor
A domineering European power, especially before the 1840s, could perhaps remakre religion as well as the map of Europe ? Didn't I read somewhere that Napoleon was planning something ? If each ethnic group had their own pope, like the E churches have their own patriarchs, that could do it
Also, isn't there a difference between vows of celibacy and of chastity ? Are all Catholic clercy really not allowed to have sex, or are some simply not allowed to marry anyone other than Jesus ?
Grey Wolf
Also, isn't there a difference between vows of celibacy and of chastity ? Are all Catholic clercy really not allowed to have sex, or are some simply not allowed to marry anyone other than Jesus ?
Grey Wolf
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Grey Wolf said:
Grey Wolf I'm shocked, are you actually suggesting sex without wedlock?! No Catholic (or Protestant either, I think) can have sex out of wedlock on pain of mortal sin, so its really no difference. There is no vow of celibacy btw, the three clergy take usually being poverty, chastity and obedience. Also, if you really believed yourself married to God, would you cheat? I mean these are the same people who tell 14 year olds they'll go to hell just for masturbation. Remember, none of us are supposed to enjoy sex in any case. Its a necessary evil.
Catholic clergy of the Eastern Rite, that is Roman Catholics who were Eastern Orthodox but from groups that did not break away in 1054 can marry, I think.
Last edited:
Leo Caesius
Banned
Matt Quinn said:
Fortunately for the RCC, that controversial box turned out, rather uncontroversially, to be a complete fraud. Most epigraphers (with the unfortunate exception of Lemaire) smelled a fraud a mile away when they started showcasing it, and when it was revealed that the dealer was actually running a forgery workshop... well, it was too good to be true. I understand that Lemaire is still insisting that it isn't a fraud, but then again, his reputation is at stake here.
"when it was revealed that the dealer was actually running a forgery workshop"
Huh? I'm reading some stuff on it now and the people claiming its a fraud are largely pointing out to characteristics of the box itself and its vague origins (Lemaire claims he bought it in the 1970s from an Arab antiques dealer and it was probably dug up illegally). I haven't found anything describe Lemaire as running a larger-scale forgery ring...though the fact that the writing is in Aramiac would require someone more educated than the usual grave-robber, so if anyone's forging, there's a good chance it's Lemaire himself.
We'll have to see.
Huh? I'm reading some stuff on it now and the people claiming its a fraud are largely pointing out to characteristics of the box itself and its vague origins (Lemaire claims he bought it in the 1970s from an Arab antiques dealer and it was probably dug up illegally). I haven't found anything describe Lemaire as running a larger-scale forgery ring...though the fact that the writing is in Aramiac would require someone more educated than the usual grave-robber, so if anyone's forging, there's a good chance it's Lemaire himself.
We'll have to see.