WI/AHC: Orthodox England after 1066

[Neala]

When you break with Rome, you don't just jump ship to the biggest "alternative" - that would be the perfect way to prove that your belief is insincere, since you have suddenly switched to a religion which bears few similarities to your culture or understanding of Christianity - if you're willing to compromise on your doctrinal beliefs just to break with Rome then you're clearly not a very good Christian. Perhaps if your state bordered an Orthodox country then you could as the cultures would be much closer and so points of doctrine would be closer to Orthodox (as some doctrinal beliefs tend to slowly change across geographical regions in the same way language changes as you travel further and further) but for England, there's no shared system of belief beyond the basic aspects of Christianity. It wouldn't be that far flung from England changing to Islam just to spite the Pope - and I know that supposedly Richard II did consider this, but seriously, does anyone actually believe that the rest of England wouldn't have instantly overthrown him and then horribly lynched and butchered him as a heretic for doing this?

No, if England were to break from Rome it would form its own Church based around English cultural mores and various church practises which existed in England and not in Rome.

Prior to 1066 the English Church already diverged from the Roman Church in matters such as Simony and Priests marrying. Papal support for the Norman invasion was in large part an attempt to rein in this far to independently minded Church and assert Papal supremacy. If the invasion had failed it's not that unlikely that England would throw it's weight behind Constantinople, this not being long after the Great Schism. This would be a political and diplomatic act, not theological. Only in the centuries to come would this mean that the English Church would be seen as 'Orthodox'.

Also remember that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches consider themselves to be The Catholic Orthodox Church

 

[M79]

What about the development of a semi-independent Celtic Orthodox church based on Irish/English traditions? Maybe William or one of his successors builds dedicated monasteries for the monks to promote learning and slight variations on other traditions and eventually evolves into a new Church?

 

[Elfwine]

Actually being captain of the Varangian Guard would be a big deal if the same emperor he was a captain under was still in power (which given the status of the empire at the time is unlikely), the Captain of the Guard and the emperor in the very least interact a lot and know each other fairly well given how his job was to act as a protector for the Emperor and his family (and occassionaly act as riot police of Constantinople and fight against invaders with the emperor). Of course as I said, the dude he worked for or anyone in his family being in power is unlikely.

There's a big difference between "I interacted with the Emperor in the function of being captain of an important mercenary unit." and "I have ties to Constantinople."

I mean, if Harald converted that would be something, but he didn't (apparently).

 

[yulzari]

Technically neither was, the legitimate king was Harold Godwinson as he was the man chosen by the Witan and they where the people who determine succession, Edgar is only the legitimate king in a Jacobite kind of way.

I was under the impression that Edgar II was chosen by the Witangemot?

Even if they did change their mind and chose William when he rolled up to London with an army.

 

[eliphas8]

I was under the impression that Edgar II was chosen by the Witangemot?

Even if they did change their mind and chose William when he rolled up to London with an army.

Only after the death of Harold, with him alive I'd say the Saxon chances are far better, and besides that he had a lot of issues with the papacy which this could calcify into support for the Patriarch of Constantinople in the face of their sponsoring an invasion into his territory, it would make more sense at the time given how the dominant ideological bent of the church was ecumenicism (the belief that there should be one undivided church of christ) he could argue he is supporting the real church of christ which has more precedent and would likely be less controversial to the clergy of england (who stand to gain far more autonomy in the long run).

 

[eliphas8]

There's a big difference between "I interacted with the Emperor in the function of being captain of an important mercenary unit." and "I have ties to Constantinople."

I mean, if Harald converted that would be something, but he didn't (apparently).

True, Harald wasn't even entirely reliable in his honesty at actually being christian, let alone what kind of christian.

 

[The Professor]

why do you say that?

If the English got annoyed enough at the Pope, why wouldnt they split off? Sure it would be a very different 'orthodox' church to the others, but all they would probably have to do is renounce the pope, which in this scenario they want to do already, and drop the filioque clause. Whoopee dingee. 'Sarum rite' probably becomes the basis for this 'western rite orthodoxy', equivalent to otls 'eastern rite catholics'(uniates).

When you break with Rome, you don't just jump ship to the biggest "alternative" - that would be the perfect way to prove that your belief is insincere, since you have suddenly switched to a religion which bears few similarities to your culture or understanding of Christianity - if you're willing to compromise on your doctrinal beliefs just to break with Rome then you're clearly not a very good Christian. Perhaps if your state bordered an Orthodox country then you could as the cultures would be much closer and so points of doctrine would be closer to Orthodox (as some doctrinal beliefs tend to slowly change across geographical regions in the same way language changes as you travel further and further) but for England, there's no shared system of belief beyond the basic aspects of Christianity. It wouldn't be that far flung from England changing to Islam just to spite the Pope - and I know that supposedly Richard II did consider this, but seriously, does anyone actually believe that the rest of England wouldn't have instantly overthrown him and then horribly lynched and butchered him as a heretic for doing this?

No, if England were to break from Rome it would form its own Church based around English cultural mores and various church practises which existed in England and not in Rome.

Indeed.

Also bear in mind that William I did not make England a fief of the Pope (IIRC it was only extending the Gregorian Reforms); it was John who did that for Church grants after Richard bled England dry for his ransom.

 

[eliphas8]

Indeed.

Also bear in mind that William I did not make England a fief of the Pope (IIRC it was only extending the Gregorian Reforms); it was John who did that for Church grants after Richard bled England dry for his ransom.

I would disagree, the entire backing of William grants Harold Casus beli to break with Rome as soon as possible, the break leading to England supporting the Patriarch in the Schism is just a more painless way of pulling it off than an actual official break (the philosophy of the time was heavily based on the unbreakable nature of the church and schismatics being bad), this way he can claim to most people that he is simply supporting the true church against a papacy that had driven others away as well. Besides which given the lack of differences between breaking with the catholic church altogether and supporting the Patriarch (the biggest change will be sermons performed in the vulgate, something which I suspect will be greated well) means that supporting the Patriarch is likely. It gives a shield domestically and gives essentially the exact same results in the short run. It would only be later when the split between the two halves of the church goes from being primarily political to having major doctrinal changes that England would be recognized as Orthodox (and England is an important enough nation that it will likely end up a key figure in how Orthodoxy develops and is viewed in the world).

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

I would disagree, the entire backing of William grants Harold Casus beli to break with Rome as soon as possible, the break leading to England supporting the Patriarch in the Schism is just a more painless way of pulling it off than an actual official break (the philosophy of the time was heavily based on the unbreakable nature of the church and schismatics being bad), this way he can claim to most people that he is simply supporting the true church against a papacy that had driven others away as well. Besides which given the lack of differences between breaking with the catholic church altogether and supporting the Patriarch (the biggest change will be sermons performed in the vulgate, something which I suspect will be greeted well) means that supporting the Patriarch is likely. It gives a shield domestically and gives essentially the exact same results in the short run. It would only be later when the split between the two halves of the church goes from being primarily political to having major doctrinal changes that England would be recognized as Orthodox (and England is an important enough nation that it will likely end up a key figure in how Orthodoxy develops and is viewed in the world).

I was thinking if that England remained in a personal union with Denmark, and Edward the Confessor never regained the throne for the House of Wessex, and doubly if the Investiture Controversy between the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII doesn't go quite in favour of the Papacy, perhaps the Anglo-Danes use their links with the Byzantines to switch to their confession to the eastern church. Eventually, you'll have the Autocephalus Churches of Denmark and England.

 

[Elfwine]

I was thinking if that England remained in a personal union with Denmark, and Edward the Confessor never regained the throne for the House of Wessex, and doubly if the Investiture Controversy between the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII doesn't go quite in favour of the Papacy, perhaps the Anglo-Danes use their links with the Byzantines to switch to their confession to the eastern church. Eventually, you'll have the Autocephalus Churches of Denmark and England.

What links are those again?

 

[yulzari]

I think we have a general consensus that the most likely route to an orthodox england is via an orthodox scandinavia.

Do we have anyone who can comment on what it would have taken for eastern orthodoxy to have taken off in scandinavia?

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

What links are those again?

The Scandinavians had trade-links with the Byzantines. But the incident of the Papal legation to Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople in 1054 wouldn't be so well-known among laity in either the east and west. Even forty-one years later, Pope Urban II still arranged for a crusade in response to Emperor Alexios I. And if the the Investiture Controversy were to take a different course, the bishoprics in Scandinavia just might take the opportunity to look elsewhere from Rome.

 

[Elfwine]

The Scandinavians had trade-links with the Byzantines. But the incident of the Papal legation to Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople in 1054 wouldn't be so well-known among laity in either the east and west. Even forty-one years later, Pope Urban II still arranged for a crusade in response to Emperor Alexios I. And if the the Investiture Controversy were to take a different course, the bishoprics in Scandinavia just might take the opportunity to look elsewhere from Rome.

Why? They're in the jurisdiction of Rome, and there's no gain to changing.