A Christianity WI:

Just had a thought that interested me. What POD is required for there to be a second Apostolic See in the West aside from Rome? That Rome was the only one in the West was a major reason Christian history developed the way it did. What happens if there's two or three of them? Which ones might they be? Perhaps Marseilles, Rome, and Hippo Regius? If Western Christianity has more than one See, how does that end up affecting the history of Christianity in the future?

Does it end up butterflying away entirely Papal Caesarism or would it trigger much earlier wars of religion and an even more Balkanized Christianity than the OTL? :eek:
 
Just had a thought that interested me. What POD is required for there to be a second Apostolic See in the West aside from Rome? That Rome was the only one in the West was a major reason Christian history developed the way it did. What happens if there's two or three of them? Which ones might they be? Perhaps Marseilles, Rome, and Hippo Regius? If Western Christianity has more than one See, how does that end up affecting the history of Christianity in the future?

Does it end up butterflying away entirely Papal Caesarism or would it trigger much earlier wars of religion and an even more Balkanized Christianity than the OTL? :eek:


How about Theodosius I leves three sons rather than two?

No 3 probably gets the Gallic Prefecture, ie Gaul, Britain and the Iberian Peninsula. If the three way split persists long enough, perhaps the "Gallic" Emperor wants his Church to be a separate jusrisdiction, and eventually gets it erected into a "Patriarchate of Arelatum" or the like. This would be ironic, since its seat would be very near to Avignion, which of course did house a separate Pope in the 14/15Cs.
 
And of course there's the political and religious ramifications for proto-Catholicism if there's a See located right near the site of the OTL Avignon Papacy. :D

On the other hand, to some extent having a see located directly on what became part of a Paris-Based France could mean it'd be a lot bloodier if France is unified or perhaps an independent Occitania.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The latest POD to butterfly away papal caesarism is the 10th-11th centuries; it's when the forgeries (donation of Constantine and the like) establishing the papacy's authoritiy were made; initially they were made to justify episcopal independence, because the bishop of Rome was effectively weak and had difficulty controlling his suffragans outside the duchy of Rome, but it came to bite the church back when there started to be smart political popes. However, the great schism might still be enough to break it after it's been formulated.

Another option, though, could effectively be to have more patriarchates I guess; since the East had 3 + Jerusalem, I figure Carthage-Lyon-Rome could provide an interesting dynamic. This is actually one of the problems with the whole deal; there were already two patriarchates in the west, a third one that remains majority christian, like Constantinople did IOTL, might help more, but the popes did a lot to make sure Carthage would not remain an independent patriarchate.
 
Last edited:
The easiest way would be to have some of the less well known apostles found churches in western cities, such as Hippo and Marseilles, then they would grow up right along side their eastern brothers.
 
The easiest way would be to have some of the less well known apostles found churches in western cities, such as Hippo and Marseilles, then they would grow up right along side their eastern brothers.

That would be a good bet.

OTL we had BOTH Peter and Paul in Rome, which is a bit of a waste:) If Paul managed to finally get to Spain, you could have an Apostolic See there, too.

Hmm... St. James in Santiago da Compostella? a Jesus-slept-here see in Glastonbury ('and did those feet/in ancient times/...').

A SaintGraal/SangReal widely supported legend for e.g. Marseilles (e.g. Mary Magdalene showing up there with, or without, a child...)

Part of the problem was that most early Christian communities (in the first generation) grew out of a Jewish nucleus, and there just weren't a whole lot of Jews in Londinium or Lutetia or .... So, the probability of an Apostle ending up in inland continental Europe is slight.




Once Constantinople was made a Patriarchate (with no Apostolic rationale), you could have multiple Patriarchates in the West, which functionally boils down to what you want, even if it isn't technically so.


Or you could pick up major saints, and attempt to Apostolize them - St. Patrick, and St. Martin spring to mind, both being before Europe was fully Christianized.

What's with the 3 Kings cult in northwest Germany? Is there actually belief they got that far? if so, you could do something with that. OK, looking at Wiki it's Köln, and it's relics. But still, its relics....
 

archaeogeek

Banned
You don't need an apostle to have gone there IRL, you just need a hagiography and a bunch of stories saying it. As most of the saints foundations were to begin with.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Prince-Archbishop Valdemar of Bremen tried to set up Bremen as the Patriciachy of the North, if he deal with his Danish relatives (Valdemar was royal Danish bastard), he may become powerful enough to force the Pope to recognise him as Patriach of the North rather than risk splitting the Church, especially if he get the Danish crown.
 
Prince-Archbishop Valdemar of Bremen tried to set up Bremen as the Patriciachy of the North, if he deal with his Danish relatives (Valdemar was royal Danish bastard), he may become powerful enough to force the Pope to recognise him as Patriach of the North rather than risk splitting the Church, especially if he get the Danish crown.

So what happens if there ends up being a Northern See? Would this help Christian infighting or worsen it unimaginably?

You don't need an apostle to have gone there IRL, you just need a hagiography and a bunch of stories saying it. As most of the saints foundations were to begin with.

A good point. What would have to change to get said hagiography to start with?

That would be a good bet.

OTL we had BOTH Peter and Paul in Rome, which is a bit of a waste:) If Paul managed to finally get to Spain, you could have an Apostolic See there, too.

Hmm... St. James in Santiago da Compostella? a Jesus-slept-here see in Glastonbury ('and did those feet/in ancient times/...').

A SaintGraal/SangReal widely supported legend for e.g. Marseilles (e.g. Mary Magdalene showing up there with, or without, a child...)

Part of the problem was that most early Christian communities (in the first generation) grew out of a Jewish nucleus, and there just weren't a whole lot of Jews in Londinium or Lutetia or .... So, the probability of an Apostle ending up in inland continental Europe is slight.




Once Constantinople was made a Patriarchate (with no Apostolic rationale), you could have multiple Patriarchates in the West, which functionally boils down to what you want, even if it isn't technically so.


Or you could pick up major saints, and attempt to Apostolize them - St. Patrick, and St. Martin spring to mind, both being before Europe was fully Christianized.

What's with the 3 Kings cult in northwest Germany? Is there actually belief they got that far? if so, you could do something with that. OK, looking at Wiki it's Köln, and it's relics. But still, its relics....

The consequences of more Patriarchates is what I'm curious about. There was never a real potential for trouble with the Eastern Patriarchates given that all save Constantinople/Istanbul were under Muslim rule for well over a millennium. If there are more in the West given the intensely fratricidal nature of said civilization with only one of them......:eek:

The easiest way would be to have some of the less well known apostles found churches in western cities, such as Hippo and Marseilles, then they would grow up right along side their eastern brothers.

Which leads to what for Western Christianity, exactly? What happens if and when Western and Eastern Christianity start to schism? Would some Patriarchates in the scenario not go along with it?

The latest POD to butterfly away papal caesarism is the 10th-11th centuries; it's when the forgeries (donation of Constantine and the like) establishing the papacy's authoritiy were made; initially they were made to justify episcopal independence, because the bishop of Rome was effectively weak and had difficulty controlling his suffragans outside the duchy of Rome, but it came to bite the church back when there started to be smart political popes. However, the great schism might still be enough to break it after it's been formulated.

Another option, though, could effectively be to have more patriarchates I guess; since the East had 3 + Jerusalem, I figure Carthage-Lyon-Rome could provide an interesting dynamic. This is actually one of the problems with the whole deal; there were already two patriarchates in the west, a third one that remains majority christian, like Constantinople did IOTL, might help more, but the popes did a lot to make sure Carthage would not remain an independent patriarchate.

So without Papal Caesarism, what happens? Do the kings end up pushing for more secular bases of power earlier?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
So what happens if there ends up being a Northern See? Would this help Christian infighting or worsen it unimaginably?

I would imagine it would help, simply because the Pope would be in a weaker position and the Emperor could play the two against each other. This Northen See would b in a extreme strong position, if Valdemar succed in gaining control over Denmark, he's in a extremely strong position, mix this with the Teutonic Orden States having to answer to him, and the Northen See would likely be strong enough to more or less throw the Pope out Germany and with the Emperor having enourmous influence on Northen See, the French and English kings would likely push for getting their own Patriachs too, slowly reducing the Pope to Patriach of Italy and first among equals.
 
A good point. What would have to change to get said hagiography to start with?
Oh, it's easy to get legends started. There are lots of Englishmen (well, not so many now, but many a hundred years ago) who truly believed that Joseph of Arimathea brought young Jesus on a tin trading trip to Britain.

Conflation of saints works, too. Our local church was founded by St. John. Which St. John? Oooo it must have been the apostle one.

And pacè Flocc, but how likely is it that St. Thomas (in person, rather than his disciples) set foot in Kerala? (I'm certainly not saying it's impossible, or anything, but why would he?)

And certainly God could have actually sent some of the more minor guys (quick, how many of the 12 can YOU name off the top of your head), to places like Marseilles or Carthage (easy), or Paris or London (a bit harder).


Since Paul would have sufficed, wherever he ended up (had he ended up somewhere other than Rome), and Mark sufficed (being the OTL justification for Alexandria being a Patriarchate), you could have gotten a few other people who weren't in the 12 to count.

wiki said:
The four Gospels give varying names of the twelve (see also the Gospel according to the Hebrews). According to the list occurring in each of the three Synoptic Gospels, [Mk 3:13-19] [Mt 10:1-4] [Lk 6:12-16] the Twelve some of whom chose to follow Jesus , and some who were called by Jesus, near the beginning of his ministry, those "whom he also named apostles", were, according to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew:

  1. Peter: Renamed by Jesus to Peter (meaning rock), his original name was Simon bar Jonah;[Mk 3:16] was a fisherman from the Bethsaida "of Galilee"[Jn 1:44], cf. Jn 12:21. Also known as Simon bar Jochanan (Aram.), Cephas (Aram.), and Simon Peter.
  2. Andrew: The brother of Simon/Peter, a Bethsaida fisherman, and a former disciple of John the Baptist.
  3. James, son of Zebedee: The brother of John.
  4. John: The brother of James. Jesus named both of them Bo-aner'ges, which means "sons of thunder'.'"[Mk 3:17]
  5. Philip: From the Bethsaida of Galilee[Jn 1:44] [12:21]
  6. Bartholomew, son of Talemai; usually identified with Nathanael, who is mentioned in Jn 1:45-51.[15]
  7. Matthew: The tax collector. The similarity between Mt 9:9-10, Mk 2:14-15 and Lu 5:27-29 may indicate that Matthew was also known as Levi.[citation needed]
  8. Thomas: Judas Thomas Didymus - Aramaic T'oma' = twin, and Greek Didymos = twin. Doubting Thomas.
  9. James, son of Alphaeus: Generally identified with "James the Less", and also identified by Roman Catholics with "James the Just".[16]
  10. Thaddeus: In some manuscripts of Matthew, the name "Lebbaeus" occurs in this place. Thaddeus is traditionally identified with Jude; see below.
  11. Simon the Zealot: Some have identified him with Simeon of Jerusalem.[17]
  12. Judas Iscariot: The disciple who later betrayed Jesus.[Mk 3:19] The name Iscariot may refer to the Judaean towns of Kerioth or to the sicarii (Jewish nationalist insurrectionists), or to Issachar. Also referred to as "Judas, the son of Simon."[Jn 6:71] [13:26] He was replaced by Matthias as an apostle shortly after Jesus' resurrection.
The list in the Gospel of Luke differs from Matthew and Mark at two points:

  • It lists "Judas, son of James" instead of "Thaddeus." In order to harmonize the accounts, some traditions have said that Luke's "Judas, son of James" refers to the same person as Mark and Matthew's "Thaddeus," though it is not clear whether this has a good basis. (For more information see Jude the Apostle).
  • In the Authorized Version of the Bible Luke 6:16 refers to the first Judas (not Judas Iscariot) as the brother of James, not the son of James, but the words "the brother" are in italics in that Bible translation and thus the translators indicated there are no corresponding Greek words for "the brother" in that verse.
  • The wording in Luke may be translated "Simon the Cananean" instead of "Simon the Zealot". These are generally thought to be the same person. (See Simon the Zealot).




The consequences of more Patriarchates is what I'm curious about. There was never a real potential for trouble with the Eastern Patriarchates given that all save Constantinople/Istanbul were under Muslim rule for well over a millennium. If there are more in the West given the intensely fratricidal nature of said civilization with only one of them......:eek:



Which leads to what for Western Christianity, exactly? What happens if and when Western and Eastern Christianity start to schism? Would some Patriarchates in the scenario not go along with it?



So without Papal Caesarism, what happens? Do the kings end up pushing for more secular bases of power earlier?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
So without Papal Caesarism, what happens? Do the kings end up pushing for more secular bases of power earlier?

Either that or a slew of Catholic metropolitans pronouncing themselves autocephalous, with maybe an enterprising king or two trying to have one of the lot proclaimed Patriarch: for France it would be Lyon or Bordeaux, so not until the conquest of either city later during the middle ages. For Spain it would be Tarragona, which at the time is still moorish and would be Aragonese; unless it weakens Aragon I don't see Leon (still nominal "Emperor of Spain") and later Castille being all too happy about the lesser eastern kingdom getting a patriarchate. The german patriarchate would be Mainz, the primatial seat IOTL, if seniority wins over convenience. A weak Rome might well end up seeing Italy divided between two patriarchates indefinitely instead of Aquilea (later moved to Venice) returning into the fold.

Some areas would be messy thanks to conflicting archiepiscopal claims and princes wanting their own archdioceses. Of course, a weak pope means the archbishop of Tours can't petition many people over the bretons setting Dol to an archdiocese, and the scottish archbishops might well be another cause of internal and external conflict (Dunkeld was supposedly the original archdiocese north of the Antonine wall, which then has a conflicting history, with York claiming authority over it, but the bishops not paying much attention; then they finally founded Saint-Albans as an archdiocese; Glasgow got the hangers on, dioceses that would nominally have been part of Armagh or York (mostly a leftover of roman administration). Ecclesiastical borders in this situation might very well shift even more than IOTL with politics ITTL (as well as issues of administration).

If Patriarchates aren't set up before and the kings reject the donation of Constantine (the forgery was found out early enough that I suspect it could have been found out at the time if the author had been unlucky), you might well end up with patriarchates following the lines of the great schism IOTL. Assuming it doesn't butterfly away the Constitution Civile in France, you might well end up with a constitutional patriarch of Avignon removing one of the coalition's casus belli at the time, but the distance is too far to predict the flight of the butterflies.
 

Skokie

Banned
The easiest way would be to have some of the less well known apostles found churches in western cities, such as Hippo and Marseilles, then they would grow up right along side their eastern brothers.

Those stories are mythic. (Really, who believes that St. Andrew founded the Constantinopolitan patriarchate?) But that's neither here nor there. ;)

btw, there are other Western patriarchates. You've got the Patriarch of Venice, the Patriarch of Lisbon, the (Roman/Latin) Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Patriarch of the East Indies in Goa and Patriarch of the West Indies in Santo Domingo. But, of course, there was never any sense of their being equal to the Patriarch of Rome.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Those stories are mythic. (Really, who believes that St. Andrew founded the Constantinopolitan patriarchate?) But that's neither here nor there. ;)

btw, there are other Western patriarchates. You've got the Patriarch of Venice, the Patriarch of Lisbon, the (Roman/Latin) Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Patriarch of the East Indies in Goa and Patriarch of the West Indies in Santo Domingo. But, of course, there was never any sense of their being equal to the Patriarch of Rome.

Venice was formerly Aquilea: it formed from a short schism in Italy and was initially believed so. The problem with all the other Latin patriarchates is that they were all founded well after papal power was strongly established; in fact they were founded after the reformation. The only exception is Jerusalem, which was merely the taking over of one of the original five. There's also, iirc, a latin patriarch of Antioche as well, for similar reasons. There is a maronite patriarch too, but the circumstances are similar.
 

Skokie

Banned
Last edited:
Top