A United Church:No East and West Schism

To weaken the Pope's power, one way is more Western patriarchs.

Perhaps, instead of one for the west, and a handful for the east, have each major region have a Patriarch.

Perhaps one for each diocese in this map?

Or, at the very least, have a few more, like this:
  • Patriarch of (North) Africa/Carthage
  • Patriarch of Gaul/Lyons
  • Patriarch of Hispania/Toledo
  • Patriarch of Britannia/London
 
True, but until then it was more or less a spat, by 1105 the Latin Church was screwing around with patriarchies that had never had anything to do with them, shafting centuries old Greek traditions in the process. If the Latins had not gone east then a pair of mutually conducive personalities could have ended the official schism, because there were no atrocities in the way. But after the crusades there were massive practical matters in the way of ending the schism.

To weaken the Pope's power, one way is more Western patriarchs.

Perhaps, instead of one for the west, and a handful for the east, have each major region have a Patriarch.

Perhaps one for each diocese in this map?



Or, at the very least, have a few more, like this:
  • Patriarch of (North) Africa/Carthage
  • Patriarch of Gaul/Lyons
  • Patriarch of Hispania/Toledo
  • Patriarch of Britannia/London

I quoted both of these because I feel that they both hit on aspects of what I think would be a great way to avoid the Schism. Lessons during the Crusades were learnt on how to re-establish multiple patriarchies within the Catholic Church that were, in practice, autonomous. The best example would be the Maronites, where they elect their own patriarch and make some symbolic gesture to Rome for confirmation. However, if communion is to be maintained such experiments cannot be practiced in the East where they will enflame tensions. In my opinion, the best way to do it would be to have a strong state develop in Hispania* or Gaul, one capable of coming over and stomping on Rome if its demands are not met, and a Pope who wishes to preserve his authority but knows he's screwed if he pushes for too much because his political allies all have their own problems and can't help him. So he sets up a similar situation to the Maronites, where a synod elects the patriarch and the Pope confirms it. When the papal authority issue comes up in the East, this model is repeated but with greater autonomy for the Eastern Patriarchs because they were never directly under papal jurisdiction.

This bypasses the papal authority issue. If the filioque isn't betterflied away then I think we either lose the new patriarchy or we increase theological dialogue, something which would probably happen if Constantinople had a strong Western ally with agendas that wouldn't come into conflict, a la whatever state just got itself a patriarch. Also, no Photius or Umbertus or anybody remotely like that. But there I think I'm just dreaming...

*I would prefer Hispania because I think it's got more of a chance of becoming a state than North Africa, less ambitions than anybody who could just cross the Alps, and close enough to Rome to actually project power unlike anybody in Britain.
 
Well, Church politics, which was generally considered a branch of theology, and due to the fact that separation of church and state didn't really exist back then it got mixed up in regular politics too. I'm not sure it was 90% political, but politics certainly fanned the flames. If by, "how Chirstian doctrine is hammered out," you mean, "whether the Church should object to using Western-Augustinian models and not simply the Eastern-Cappadocian ones," again, I'd agree that politics did enter into it, but when there are genuine theological differences they tend to remain that way unless dealt with. However, a lack of political differences will certainly help them get smoothed over.

Well, for purposes of this, I am using political to refer to the aspects of the Church that relate to quarrels in terms of how the Church is run, not in terms of the Word per se. And as for hammering it out - sort of, but more "Is this something where a council of all the Church should decide, or is the Pope entitled to define something as proper or not?" sort of thing - its not just the specific issues that are causing grief at this point, though there's enough differences there as well to cause trouble.

But the issue of whether (to pick another issue that caused grief for illustration of "not political" in the sense I'm using the term political) fourth marriages should be permitted, for example, seems to be playing less of a role at this point (1054).
 
Last edited:
Well, for purposes of this, I am using political to refer to the aspects of the Church that relate to quarrels in terms of how the Church is run, not in terms of the Word per se.

Well, that's the problem, the Church at this time saw that as part of the Word, in that they found Traditional and Scriptural basis for their ecclesiastical models. For the purposes of this thread that's a "potato, potahto" kind of thing, but for the purposes of the debates leading up to the Schism it added all the more gravitas to what they were doing.

And as for hammering it out - sort of, but more "Is this something where a council of all the Church should decide, or is the Pope entitled to define something as proper or not?" sort of thing - its not just the specific issues that are causing grief at this point, though there's enough differences there as well to cause trouble.

But the issue of whether (to pick another issue that caused grief for illustration of "not political" in the sense I'm using the term political) fourth marriages should be permitted, for example, seems to be playing less of a role at this point (1054).

This is certainly true, although I'm not sure the doctrine of Papal Infallibilty was so well developed at this point. BTW, what did you think of my solution? It may be a bit rosey, but I think it has potential.
 
I am thinking of a Norman sack of Rome as a POD, Avignon becomes the heart of the Western Church on this scenario causing slight split between the Roman pope and Avignon.
 
Well, that's the problem, the Church at this time saw that as part of the Word, in that they found Traditional and Scriptural basis for their ecclesiastical models. For the purposes of this thread that's a "potato, potahto" kind of thing, but for the purposes of the debates leading up to the Schism it added all the more gravitas to what they were doing.

True. But does my word choice make sense in the context of our discussion?

This is certainly true, although I'm not sure the doctrine of Papal Infallibilty was so well developed at this point. BTW, what did you think of my solution? It may be a bit rosey, but I think it has potential.
Not so much Papal Infalliblity as Rome as the head of the Church, at least that's what I meant.

I like the idea. It probably has its own problems, but they seem less likely to drive "East" and "West" apart and more just individual patriarchs (counting the pope as a patriarch for my convenience), which can be dealt with as such.

And anything that reduces the East-West divide is probably well worth it.

Not to mention anything encouraging the Pope to recognize his authority has limits and that compromise and mutually acceptable arrangements serve his interests.

There is enough actual stuff that will have no easy solution in the complex mess that is Christian theology without "politics".

Obey the Lord in all things, even the contradictions.

But that's another topic.
 
Last edited:
I am thinking of a Norman sack of Rome as a POD, Avignon becomes the heart of the Western Church on this scenario causing slight split between the Roman pope and Avignon.

Avignon wasn't a Papal fief until 1274, more than two centuries after the Schism. And if you did that you wouldn't really have a United Church, would you? More likely the Western Bishops break off when Rome condemns the Filioque as heresy (if the Byzantines keep a firm hold on the popes this will probably happen, plus I know how these reunion TLs usually go) and elect their own patriarchs/anti-popes to give their barbarian overlords some legitimacy. This communion would probably be far more volatile theologically and in my opinion would experience further Schisms down the line.

True. But does my word choice make sense in the context of our discussion?

It does, but I think that the difference between how the Church is run and matters of Faith would be seen as a false dichotomy at the time (and still is by hardcore Catholics and Orthodox). It would all be seen as part of the Deposit of Faith, and the only reason I'm being so nit-picky is any realistic way to avoid the Schism wouldn't have either side treating matters that way.

I like the idea. It probably has its own problems, but they seem less likely to drive "East" and "West" apart and more just individual patriarchs (counting the pope as a patriarch for my convenience), which can be dealt with as such.

So just like it was before the Schism?;) Well, the pope still was a patriarch until Benedict XVI dropped the title back in 2006, and even then he still functions as one for the Latin Church. In my opinion, we'd still see regional heresies and Schisms, but not ones that couldn't be dealt with. ATL theologians would probably fill reams griping about "Toletism", or "Gallicanism", or "Hibernianism" and how they were all out to corrupt the faithful:D.

Although, if the West can hold together, we may see antagonism develop along a North/South line, since most of the Christains in the Middle East, Egypt, and Ethiopia were Miaphysite. If Islam is butterflied away, then we could even see the Nestorians taking over the far East and all the alt-Albigenses running off to the New World once it's discovered to found a "Western" church.

Just think, a sect for every Cardinal direction!
 
It does, but I think that the difference between how the Church is run and matters of Faith would be seen as a false dichotomy at the time (and still is by hardcore Catholics and Orthodox). It would all be seen as part of the Deposit of Faith, and the only reason I'm being so nit-picky is any realistic way to avoid the Schism wouldn't have either side treating matters that way.

This is true.

Its probably why even after more reasonable-minded men took over in Constantinople and Rome Humpty Dumpty couldn't be put back together again. Compromise and doctrine are rarely bedfellows.

So just like it was before the Schism?;) Well, the pope still was a patriarch until Benedict XVI dropped the title back in 2006, and even then he still functions as one for the Latin Church. In my opinion, we'd still see regional heresies and Schisms, but not ones that couldn't be dealt with. ATL theologians would probably fill reams griping about "Toletism", or "Gallicanism", or "Hibernianism" and how they were all out to corrupt the faithful:D.

Yeah (to all of this). Theologians will always find something to gripe about - its what they do. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it seems pretty much impossible to have a situation where there are no controversies ever. If nothing else, theology is like secular law in that regard.

Although, if the West can hold together, we may see antagonism develop along a North/South line, since most of the Christains in the Middle East, Egypt, and Ethiopia were Miaphysite. If Islam is butterflied away, then we could even see the Nestorians taking over the far East and all the alt-Albigenses running off to the New World once it's discovered to found a "Western" church.

Just think, a sect for every Cardinal direction!

That's kind of cool actually, even if it is interesting in the Chinese sense at the same time.

TL material most definitely. You have spare time, right? :D
 
Top