No Pope

[Count Dearborn]

How would the Western Church have looked if there hadn't been a Pope? Would it have ended up acephalous like the Eastern Church?

A case for the Bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church was defeated, but the Office of Cardinal is created.

Here, as I see it, are some of the Churches of Europe:

1) The Celtic Church (Peligianic)
The Head: The Cardinal of Canterbury

2) The Church of Eire (Peligianic)
The Head: The Archbishop of Airmagh

3) The Frankish Orthodox Church (Cathar/Simonic)
The Head: The Cardinal of Avignon

4) The Holy Roman Church (Arinainsm)
The Head: The Cardinal of Cologne

Many of the so-called heresies were not rooted out and repressed.

[MerryPrankster]

Doctrine need not be significantly different in the separate churches; the Orthodox churches are all fairly similar doctrinally, right?

I was under the impression Pelagian Christianity (if it could be called that...I read that towards the end it got pretty extreme re: human need for Christ) got pasted due the Saxon obliteration of Romano-Celtic society in most of present-day England, not b/c of anything that the central Church did.

Also, without a centralized papacy, you might not have a lot of the corruption and sleaze that provided the kick for a lot of the heretical movements like the Cathars. Without the decadence of the Church to preach against and rally opposition to, OTL's Cathar leaders might simply be isolated individuals with bizarre opinions.

I think that the Celtic sort of Christianity (respect for nature and Mary, and with female clergy and more open to science and dissidence) would dominate the British Isles and probably get into Scandinavia via Norse contacts if there is no papacy. Probably St. Augustine (not THE St. Augustine, but a lesser man of the same name) would not be sent and wouldn't convert the southern Anglo-Saxons.

What happens with the rest of the Continent is beyond me. Carlton told me once about a lot of important Church people in Marseilles (sp?); perhaps that will be the dominant center of Christianity in France. He said there were other centers of Christian learning that could provide the "spark" for the evangelization of the barbarians that in OTL monks from Ireland provided.

[Kadyet]

You'd still have the bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the Latin Church, so things would be just as centralized as they are now, and look about the same. Part of the reason for the dominance of the Latin Church in the Catholic Church is that it was the Latin Church that converted the Americas.

[cow defender]

i've heard that for a while the irish monastaries on the continent were rivalling the roman missionary movements in the same areas for popularity.

[Condottiero]

I read once an essay by Amin Maaluf were he considered that the muslims had been unlucky of not having a figurehead as the Papacy. His thesis was that while slowing down changes it did not allow bigger divergences in christianity and that once a change is accepted there is no way back.

Accepting this idea I suppose we could have either a fanatic christendom similar to the Islam or a more divided one (with a Patriarchy even for the smallest territories). But I think that a more divided christianity would have, eventually been absorbed by Islam.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Condottiero

I read once an essay by Amin Maaluf were he considered that the muslims had been unlucky of not having a figurehead as the Papacy. His thesis was that while slowing down changes it did not allow bigger divergences in christianity and that once a change is accepted there is no way back.

Accepting this idea I suppose we could have either a fanatic christendom similar to the Islam or a more divided one (with a Patriarchy even for the smallest territories). But I think that a more divided christianity would have, eventually been absorbed by Islam.

I think Martel and other Carolignians were able to stem the tide of Islam in Western Europe without much help from the centralized, institutionalized Church. Now, when the Ottomans invaded Europe from the East, THAT was when the centralized Church came in handy to marshal resources to defeat them. However, a more decentralized Western Church might very well butterfly away the Ottomans (no 4th Crusade, for example, which will keep the Byzatines relatively strong for awhile).

[Condottiero]

It was a cultural matter. Without a strong church, probably (I say probably) they would have surrendered culturally to the superior Islam. Why following a disgregated and weak faith if you can follow stronger and monolythic Islam?

[Tom_B]

A Church without a Pope might not be as chaotic as some people are projecting. One scenario is for frequent Church Councils which would be considered binding on all dioceses. This eventually could lead to the creation of a permanent Synod to direct the CHurch.

Tom

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Condottiero

It was a cultural matter. Without a strong church, probably (I say probably) they would have surrendered culturally to the superior Islam. Why following a disgregated and weak faith if you can follow stronger and monolythic Islam?

"Stronger and monolithic" could be a selling point against Islam in Europe. Why give up the intellectual liberty of several distinct churches for a monolithic dictatorial Caliphate (and should John decided to chime in, I know that Islam is not one unified entity, but that is how it will look to Europeans in TTL)?

If there's no unified Christianity in Europe, how will the Christianization of the Baltics and Prussia go? In OTL, the Teutonic Knights conquered the territories and basically forced the populace to convert (either "convert or die" shenanigans or taxing the people to fund churches and other related educational programs). They did all that with the sponsorship of the Catholic Church.

Now what? As far as the POD seems to indicate, there is still a Patriarch of Constantinople and his association with the Eastern Emperor might make something resembling OTL's Orthodoxy appear in TTL. Perhaps Orthodoxy will be the one sending missionaries and (maybe) soldiers northward. This means probably Poland and the Baltics would be Orthodox, assuming the pagans don't turn their tribal, shamanistic faith into an "organized religion" to counter it.

Tom_B's idea about a synod to govern Christianity sounds interesting. Perhaps in the face of the rising power of Islam, the various Patriarchs, cardinals, etc. who lead the different churches decide to form some kind of arbitrating body to deal with dispute and avoid violence/distrust over issues (to present a united front).

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Kadyet

You'd still have the bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the Latin Church, so things would be just as centralized as they are now, and look about the same. Part of the reason for the dominance of the Latin Church in the Catholic Church is that it was the Latin Church that converted the Americas.

The POD would probably have to be in the 300-400s AD to avoid the Papacy. The Americas are irrelevant at this point, though if you'd like, we can move up the settlement of the New World (more Norse?).

[MerryPrankster]

I just had an idea about the Celtic Church, though. I believe that St. Patrick was sent to Ireland by the Pope sometime before the final collapse of Rome. No Papacy means that missionary work in Ireland would be drastically different, which means that OTL's Celtic Church may never arise. There would still be Irish Christians, and Ireland might become Christian more slowly than OTL, but one wonders about whether there would even BE a Celtic Rite of Christianity.

Hmm...the POD indicates that the church leadership decides that the Bishop of Rome isn't "the big boss." Perhaps the Bishop of Rome sends Patrick in his capacity as "a major Church leader in the West" instead of in his capacity as "Vicar of Christ."

[Kadyet]

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

The POD would probably have to be in the 300-400s AD to avoid the Papacy. The Americas are irrelevant at this point, though if you'd like, we can move up the settlement of the New World (more Norse?).

Doesn't matter. You'd still have the the bishop of Rome as the Patriarch of the Latin Church, even if he weren't the Pontiff of the Church Militant. The three original Patriarchates are Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

[The Lurker]

well, there were a number of patriarchates during the late roman/early byzantine period-- I think there were five around Justinian's time but I could be wrong. Four of them (antioch, jerusalem, alexandria, and constantinople) wound up in the Byzantine sphere and became part of the 'Orthodox' slice of things.... the odd one out, the bishop of Rome, wound up claiming supremacy over all christianity.

In the absence of a pope, at least in the modern understanding of the term, I think it's likely that different patriarchates or similar organs would have developed among the barbarians-- maybe an Arian one for the Visigoths in Spain, and so on.

A good POD for this would be Pope Gregory the Great (late 6th century). He was the guy who really started turning the office from one-among-five into one-above-all, though it was a very gradual process. FWIW, he also sent Augustine to convert the Anglo-Saxons.

[Susano]

Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch and Jeruslaem. Im pretty sue Jersualems patricarchate is odler than Rome's,a ndprobably Constantinople's, too... and AT LEAST since the "official " split 1054 the pope was the pope - not the Latin patriarch anymore, so the Americas had nothing to do with it.