ΗΑΒΕΜΘΣ ΠΑΠΑΜ - effects of a continued Byzantine Papacy

Magnum

So, for a good 200 years, the Popes in Rome (mostly) toed the line set by Constantinople. A lot of them were either apocrisiarii (representatives of the Pope) in Constantinople for many years prior to their installment, or were born and raised in the eastern parts of the Empire, or both.

Eventually, shit hit the fan as the iconoclastic controversy caused a good deal of infighting among the Empire's subjects in Italy, which, combined with the Arabs diverting most of the Empire's resources, meant that the Lombards succeeded in taking over the Exarchate of Ravenna, thus leaving Rome independent.

However, what if things went the other way, and the Empire maintained its grip on (at least central) Italy? For one thing, the Pope would continue to oversee the eastern parts of the Balkans in such a scenario, and eastern influences in all things would continue to grow in Rome. What of Christendom though ? Might we see the emergence of 'national' churches in France, Germany, Britain and Scandinavia, as Kings solidify their grip on power and denounce the Pope as just a puppet of a faraway Emperor ?

Would Crusades into the Holy Land even develop under such circumstances? Would we see a much faster centralization of state power in the hands of European Kings, now that they have a greater control over local Church coffers ?

As to possible POD's, lets go with some of the latest ones possible, so either (1) Constans II succeeds in his Italian expedition and expels the Lombards from Benevento and Spoleto, (2) Iconoclasm never becomes Imperial policy or, for a really last-ditch effort, (3) the revolt of Tiberios Petasius in 730 A.D. is somehow successful (even thought about writing a mini-TL based this last POD).
 
Last edited:
Jonathan

Jonathan

I could see this making the pope weaker as he will be dictated by constantinopel, so no independant people bringing their own ideologies. Also wouln't the Eastern Pope not call more crusades, so that the western kingdoms can help attack the turks?

Although Western Christendom would most likely elect their own pope.
 
Tjakari

Tjakari

A weak Pope is a good Pope, no Pope is a great Pope.

Lack of church influence in the matters of Western Kings will be good, but the ultimately the push or pull in regards to theological support or dissent in these kingdoms will come from local clergy, much of what the Pope ever wielded was soft power in the form of spiritual punishment and lack of favour that's easily used upon ignorant and zealous Christian Kings, that doesn't change so long as you keep the Popes openly critical of the Ruling heads of Europe. That might actually be worse with the Emperor's protection if it was ever a problem to begin with.

National churches would probably be less likely given the amount of elbow room a Rhoman Papacy allows these kingdoms to have.

Now crusades are almost guaranteed to not happen; calls for support from Christendom is not entirely out of the question. When you're being invaded by heathens, the thought will come to mind at some point. Full blown Holy War is just not in the realm, doesn't fit the sort of Church that would arise in such a situation. Taking Jerusalem will always make the Clergy giddy but actually starting a war to retake the city doesn't fit Imperial ideology thus, does not fit Papal ideology. Profaning God with the barbarity of human war would be frowned upon by the Patriarchs and probably the Pope in this situation.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Alex Richards said:
I think it's meant to be a Greek equivalent of 'Habemus Papem'- the Latin for 'we have a Pope' when the results of an election are declared.
Click to expand...

Someone tried typing Latin letters on a greek keyboard, sigh!

Since Greek really is a language and was the liturgical language before Latin, there will be a proper greek verb, which I can't quite remember.

Edit:
ἔχομεν πάππαν
ekhomen pappan
 
Last edited:

Delvestius

Banned
I feel like with Christendom's center in Constantinople it would weaken efforts against the Germanic heathens, and Muslims in Spain and Italy.
 

Basileus Giorgios

This depends what the POD is, I suppose.

If we're going for a late antique one, say the classic no Muhammad, then the Papacy is going to quite quickly find itself coming under serious pressure from various Emperors, who were almost without exception from Zeno to Heraclius and beyond eager to find a doctrinal compromise that would satisfy the anti-Chalcedonian churches of Syria and Egypt. Such compromises rarely held much support in Italy, where after all there was no pressing need to accommodate Monophysite opinion.

But if the POD is later, say in the 690s or 700s, then it's somewhat easier, as the Empire no longer has to deal with the views of anti-Chalcedonians churches. That said, this probably requires the Byzantines to enjoy a long lasting lull in warfare with the Arabs, and the pattern tended to be IOTL that whenever Arab pressure was slackened, the Byzantines could and did go on the offensive: which doesn't exactly help with putting resources into Italy.
 

Circonflexe

έχουμε πάπα (erhoume papa - think of a Spanish jota for the χ)

would be more correct (in Modern Greek; I don't know the correct Byzantine form).
 
Lunarwolf

Lunarwolf

Banned
Wouldn't the orthodox system of autocephaly actually work in favor of retaining bonds between the Empire and the west. Given that in autocephaly they hold regular Synods, aas opposed to the papal declarations of the western church?

But the needed POD would be the empire stopping the lombards.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Circonflexe said:
I never learned Ancient Greek, but I'm quite surprised by the accusative you used. According to the Wiktionary, the Demotic form I gave is also correct in Ancient Greek. Could you source your 'παππαν' ? (I'm not doubting you, only willing to learn a bit more of Ancient Greek).
Click to expand...

πάππας, ου, ὁ, papa, child's word for father; mostly in voc., πάππᾰ φίλε Od.6.57; χαῖρε π. φίλτατε Philem.42: in acc., πάππαν καλεῖν Ar.Pax120, Ec.645:—nom. πάπας, Corn.ND25, PGiss.80.3 (ii A. D.); acc. πάπαν BMus.Inscr.918 (Halic.); dat. πάπᾳ Epicur. Herc.176p.49V. (Syracusan, acc. to Eust.565.17, but πᾶς (which should prob. be πᾶ, for Eust. adds ὥσπερ καὶ μᾶ μήτηρ) is Syrac. acc. to EM651.7).
Click to expand...
Bolding added.
From Liddell and Scott Online Dictionary
http://www.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1&context=lsj
Search for "father" in meanings.


Actually, at the time, I couldn't find "πάππας", but I did find another 1st declension masculine noun. The quote above is better, though.
 

Jord839

Tjakari said:
A weak Pope is a good Pope, no Pope is a great Pope.

Lack of church influence in the matters of Western Kings will be good, but the ultimately the push or pull in regards to theological support or dissent in these kingdoms will come from local clergy, much of what the Pope ever wielded was soft power in the form of spiritual punishment and lack of favour that's easily used upon ignorant and zealous Christian Kings, that doesn't change so long as you keep the Popes openly critical of the Ruling heads of Europe. That might actually be worse with the Emperor's protection if it was ever a problem to begin with.

National churches would probably be less likely given the amount of elbow room a Rhoman Papacy allows these kingdoms to have.

Now crusades are almost guaranteed to not happen; calls for support from Christendom is not entirely out of the question. When you're being invaded by heathens, the thought will come to mind at some point. Full blown Holy War is just not in the realm, doesn't fit the sort of Church that would arise in such a situation. Taking Jerusalem will always make the Clergy giddy but actually starting a war to retake the city doesn't fit Imperial ideology thus, does not fit Papal ideology. Profaning God with the barbarity of human war would be frowned upon by the Patriarchs and probably the Pope in this situation.
Click to expand...
That's all...enormously debatable and heavily reliant on a modern viewpoint.

Byzantophile fantasies aside, even without the Iconoclast chaos, there were definite and clear theological and ritualistic divides between Western Europe and the Empire. That's not even getting into the political issues where, as you might imagine, the Papacy generally put a strong emphasis on dealing with local (AKA Western European) issues that they needed to to keep themselves stable and safe which Byzantium often turned a blind eye to. There's a reason the Popes got involved in the Charlemagne and HRE business, it wasn't just because Byzantium was temporarily screwed up. To get this, you need a stronger Byzantium that conquers much of Italy and can legitimately protect (and/or threaten) Rome, otherwise, just not doable. Even then, Byzantium's got serious cultural and religious issues to deal with. Peaces at the end of the sword can last, but on average they generally don't.

To expand on that last point, part of the Papacy's power and spread relative to more native variants of Christianity such as Arianism, Celtic Christianity, etc. was due to their involvement and focus on western politics. A Byzantine Papacy requires earlier and sustained success of the Byzantines in Italy and a shift towards the East in Italian politics, which will require a shift away from the West and probably result in earlier division of Christianity.

What's more, part of the soft power of the Church was derived from the fact that they were independent of a clear backer. When it wasn't and had a clear backer/controller? That's when you got Antipopes showing up. So, really, the most likely result of a Byzantine controlled Rome, at least one after or near the 700s, is one or more Antipopes showing up.
 

Magnum

Basileus Giorgios said:
But if the POD is later, say in the 690s or 700s, then it's somewhat easier, as the Empire no longer has to deal with the views of anti-Chalcedonians churches. That said, this probably requires the Byzantines to enjoy a long lasting lull in warfare with the Arabs, and the pattern tended to be IOTL that whenever Arab pressure was slackened, the Byzantines could and did go on the offensive: which doesn't exactly help with putting resources into Italy.
Click to expand...

Well, as I said, they did try and make a sustained effort during the reign of Constans II, so it's not exactly implausible.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Someone tried typing Latin letters on a greek keyboard, sigh!
Click to expand...

What do you mean, tried?

Had I used the correct expression, nobody would have understood anything. This way, by using (I'd like to imagine clever) wordplay (which was also meant to showcase the blend of western latin and eastern greek cultures that was taking place in Rome at the time), I made the title attractive to potential viewers. It was in fact too good, because people seemed more interested in discussing the words instead of the actual content of the thread...

Regarding antipopes, I would be more skeptical. I'd suggest the possibility that the Franks (if and when they are united under a powerful king ala Charlemagne) might organise a synod which grants authority over local church matters to, say, the Bishop of Aachen, which then goes on, on a totally unrelated note, to grant legitimacy to the new Frankish overlord and place some crown on his head. Totally unrelated, obviously.

Maybe they'd still recognized the supremacy of the Pope in theory, although the actual practice would probably drift so far apart, that eventually they'll excommunicate each other and be done with the whole thing.

However, the realm of the Franks is unlikely to last united, meaning whichever parts wind up not getting their hands on our hypothetical plenipotentiary bishop will have a big incentive to get their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top