I know this is a very vague POD, but I've only just started delving into the history of Christianity. How would Christianity have developed had the office of Bishop of Rome never developed into the papacy? Can it be assumed that the events regarding the Edict of Milan and the Council of Nicea will go as OTL, just without the Pope as head of the Church?
WI: Bishop of Rome never acknowledged as Pope?
- Thread starter Old1812
- Start date
Assuming that Rome dissolves as OTL, there will likely end up being some religious authority in the West. In theory, it could be the bishop of Mediolanum or some other more centrally located city--or possibly the Bishop of Armagh or Iona if the Irish church plays a larger role than OTL (though in that case abbots might play a larger role than priests)--but Rome is quite central and has a major prestige advantage.
Rome was not central after fall of Roman Empire. How about Europe that has no central religious authority - regionally prominent archbishops like Archbishop of Toledo for Visigothic kingdom, Archbishop of Milan for Lombard Kingdom, Archbishop of Rheims for Frankish kingdom, Archbishop of Canterbury for Britain and Archbishop of Armagh for Ireland effectively act as independent peers, and Pope´s prestige only makes him first among equals, but gives him no ability to interfere in the provinces of other primates?
Deleted member 114175
The Holy Roman Empire would suddenly be a lot more feasible.
Well unless you really want to go off the rails with an ATL, the bishop of Rome is going to be an important figure in the church, its just a matter in what way.
Part of the reason he became so important us because he really didn't have any peers in the west. Fix that and it should reduce the power the pope accumulated
Part of the reason he became so important us because he really didn't have any peers in the west. Fix that and it should reduce the power the pope accumulated
Its possible, but having holy sites second only to Jerusalem, the prestige of being Caesar's city, and the geographically central location all give Rome a leg up. It would however be interesting to see a more Celtic, more Monastic church though.
Indeed. He was one of the acknowledged "patriarchs" and as such will retain his importance, perhaps even retaining position of "primus inter pares" (recognized in 325) but not a supreme leader of the Church. Area under his direct jurisdiction could vary with a passage of time.
Of course, situation would put secular rulers in a much better position vs. the Church allowing them, eventually, to have/appoint patriarchs of their own and by giving them some space for a maneuver which was generally absent in the Catholic Church (except for the periods when there were numerous Popes or the cases when the rulers had been strong enough to ignore or control the Papacy).
Deleted member 114175
Could new holy sites be created? Such as areas where Christianity was defended (such as Tours or Paris), cathedrals where multiple saints were buried or multiple especially pious kings are baptized over generations, or centers of monasticism?
Before the split the Bishop of Rome was considered the most senior among the patriarchs with Patriarch of Constantinople being 2nd. But being "senior" is a far cry from being "supreme".
The Bishop of Rome was "first among equals" until the fall of Antioch and Alexandria. That dramatically boosted the profile of Rome and Constantinople and lead to the Great Schism. If Antioch and Alexandria's patriarchs stay prominent then Rome never becomes so high profile as it's one of a multitude rather than one of two.
BBC's In Our Time podcast had a segment on Papal Infallibility recently that covered a lot on the slow elevation of the influence of Bishop of Rome into Pope.
BBC's In Our Time podcast had a segment on Papal Infallibility recently that covered a lot on the slow elevation of the influence of Bishop of Rome into Pope.
IIRC, the first time a Bishop of Rome asserted his authority as successor of Peter and head of the Church was when Stephen I urged the Carthaginian church to acknowledge his views on Christians who submitted to persecution. Perhaps Stephen doesn't become Bishop of Rome?
Speaking of the Carthaginian church (and Cyprian, by extension), is Carthage a candidate for one of the major churches?
Speaking of the Carthaginian church (and Cyprian, by extension), is Carthage a candidate for one of the major churches?
There was actually no need it that scenario. Look at how thing were developing in the Eastern Orthodox Church: when a state was getting strong enough, it was getting its own independent church. For example, after Bulagria won a war against Byzantine Empire in 927, Patriarchate of Constantinople (finally) recognized independent Bulgarian Patriarchate which lasted until Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans who transferred jurisdiction back to Constantinople. During the reign of Feodor I Tsardom of Moscow simply bought its own Patriarchy from Patriarch of Constantinople and when later Peter I decided that having a single head of his local church is not always convenient, he simply abolished Patriarchate and replaced it with a state-controlled Synod (pretty much "Reformation Russian style"
).I'd assume that with the similar arrangements being available, Louis XIV or even his father (with Richelieu's guidance) would get himself his own patriarch if this was not already done by his predecessors.
That is Waaaaay too late, and is just making a separate church, not getting rid of papal primacy/supremacy, which was well established church doctrine/dogma by then.
You did not quite get what I was saying: if the Papal supremacy does not exist then the powerful states will be sooner or later be establishing their own "Patriarchates".
As others have touched on, the issue is that there were five patriarchates in the early Christian church: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.
Historicallu, three of these fell under Islamic rule, which limited their authority over lands that were still Christian-ruled. The remaining two were leading authorities, so much so that they managed to start their own branches of Christianity (Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).
That left the Patriarch of Rome essentially without competition in Western Europe, and so to the claim of papal supremacy.
So what's needed is an early sixth patriarchate within Western Europe. It can't be one which will even temporarily fall under Islamic rule, so (assuming the broad strokes of history remain similar) Spain is out, as is Sicily. Ideally it should t be too close to Rome geographically, so the rest of Italy and south-eastern France are also best avoided.
Somewhere in northern France is your best bet. Somewhere which has, or could develop a claim to, sufficient relics or association with saints etc to be made a patriarchate by late Western Roman Empire times.
Historicallu, three of these fell under Islamic rule, which limited their authority over lands that were still Christian-ruled. The remaining two were leading authorities, so much so that they managed to start their own branches of Christianity (Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).
That left the Patriarch of Rome essentially without competition in Western Europe, and so to the claim of papal supremacy.
So what's needed is an early sixth patriarchate within Western Europe. It can't be one which will even temporarily fall under Islamic rule, so (assuming the broad strokes of history remain similar) Spain is out, as is Sicily. Ideally it should t be too close to Rome geographically, so the rest of Italy and south-eastern France are also best avoided.
Somewhere in northern France is your best bet. Somewhere which has, or could develop a claim to, sufficient relics or association with saints etc to be made a patriarchate by late Western Roman Empire times.
This is more of an AHC. The effects of the Roman bishopric not being that important are unpredictable.
The problem here is that at the time of the Council of Nicaea, the eastern half of the Roman empire was much more Christianized than the western half. Nearly all of the participating clergy came from the eastern half. The city of Rome itself was just important enough, and the western half just important enough, to get one of the five patriarchs but not Christianized enough for two.
So to keep the Patriarch of the West from being the Bishop of Rome, you really need to screw with the time line in ways that would produce massive butterflies:
1. You could have Christianity make so little progress in the west that there is no western patriarch, but now you have changed the history of early Christianity and you probably have gotten rid of either Constantine's conversion or his conquest of the Roman Empire. This also gets rid of the Council of Nicaea itself.
2. You can make the Western half much more Christian, but again this changes the early Christianity, and there is still the problem that the second western patriarch is much more likely to be in the areas taken over by Islam (North Africa or Spain) than in Gaul.
3. Most feasible is to have one western patriarch, but the location is a different city, most likely Milan. In this case history unfolds as IOTL, just with the Pope based in Milan and not Rome.
Now #3 is a realistic POD and while you still get one Pope in the Western Church, the history of the Papacy starts to diverge from the OTL history of the Papacy for several reasons. First, Rome after much of its sanitation infrastructure was destroyed in the sixth century, was malarial and you had lots of Popes dying at inopportune times that wouldn't happen if the Papacy was in Milan, or trying to leave Rome which again wouldn't happen. Second, the Byzantines were actually pretty successful in controlling the Popes in the sixth and seventh centuries and for geographical reasons it would have been harder to project power to Milan. Third, a completely different local aristocracy. So butterflies would accumulate but you still get one line of Popes in the Western Church, just different individual Popes.
The problem here is that at the time of the Council of Nicaea, the eastern half of the Roman empire was much more Christianized than the western half. Nearly all of the participating clergy came from the eastern half. The city of Rome itself was just important enough, and the western half just important enough, to get one of the five patriarchs but not Christianized enough for two.
So to keep the Patriarch of the West from being the Bishop of Rome, you really need to screw with the time line in ways that would produce massive butterflies:
1. You could have Christianity make so little progress in the west that there is no western patriarch, but now you have changed the history of early Christianity and you probably have gotten rid of either Constantine's conversion or his conquest of the Roman Empire. This also gets rid of the Council of Nicaea itself.
2. You can make the Western half much more Christian, but again this changes the early Christianity, and there is still the problem that the second western patriarch is much more likely to be in the areas taken over by Islam (North Africa or Spain) than in Gaul.
3. Most feasible is to have one western patriarch, but the location is a different city, most likely Milan. In this case history unfolds as IOTL, just with the Pope based in Milan and not Rome.
Now #3 is a realistic POD and while you still get one Pope in the Western Church, the history of the Papacy starts to diverge from the OTL history of the Papacy for several reasons. First, Rome after much of its sanitation infrastructure was destroyed in the sixth century, was malarial and you had lots of Popes dying at inopportune times that wouldn't happen if the Papacy was in Milan, or trying to leave Rome which again wouldn't happen. Second, the Byzantines were actually pretty successful in controlling the Popes in the sixth and seventh centuries and for geographical reasons it would have been harder to project power to Milan. Third, a completely different local aristocracy. So butterflies would accumulate but you still get one line of Popes in the Western Church, just different individual Popes.
Vuu
Banned
Nah, because the Pope developed out of the Patriarchate of Rome
What you actually want is to severely damage his position. There were plans to make the Jerusalem patriarchate the primary one instead. With Rome put in it's place and then having the rug of primacy tugged under it's feet, you pretty much butterflied away Catholicism.
What you actually want is to severely damage his position. There were plans to make the Jerusalem patriarchate the primary one instead. With Rome put in it's place and then having the rug of primacy tugged under it's feet, you pretty much butterflied away Catholicism.
Actually I can think of a couple of earlier examples: Clement I (c. 89-99) wrote to the Church at Corinth rebuking them for deposing some priests (though I don't think he imposed any penalties on them), and Victor I threatened to excommunicate the Church in Asia about a century later during the Quartodeciman controversy.
Actually that's quite a late (for the early Church) development: Constantinople post-dated Constantine (obviously), and Jerusalem didn't get its own patriarch until 451.
Digging around a bit, possibly there's a chance to make a second patriarchate out of Toul, in modern north-eastern France. It is one of France's oldest bishoprics, established in 365, and reportedly had some form of cathedral since the fifth century.
Obviously this would require some sort of divergence to make Christianity more prominent there - perhaps someone who Christianised the area there earlier became buried at Toul and becomes considered a saint.
Have Toul be declared a patriarchate sometime in the late Western Roman Empire, and it could develop into something which deflects the path to claims of papal supremacy.
Obviously this would require some sort of divergence to make Christianity more prominent there - perhaps someone who Christianised the area there earlier became buried at Toul and becomes considered a saint.
Have Toul be declared a patriarchate sometime in the late Western Roman Empire, and it could develop into something which deflects the path to claims of papal supremacy.