AHC: No Primacy of Rome in the Western Church

Just like it says on the tin. How do we prevent Rome from dominating the West as totally as it did from 1054 to the 1500s? Perhaps the Byzantines manage to hold onto Rome for longer, causing a Frankish Empire that doesn't want to accept orders from a Greek puppet to create their own autocephalous church? Maybe if the Arabs conquer Rome, the Pope would be seen as a puppet, much like the Patriarch of Constantinople under Ottoman rule? maybe the Great Schism of the West persists until there are noticeable liturgical differences between nations loyal to Rome and nations loyal to Avignon?
Bonus points if you can get a Patriarch of Canteburry
 
If you keep Rome inside the Empire, then the split does not happen. Not because Charlemagne doesn't want to be crowned by a Greek puppet, but because Byzantium won't allow him to crown anyone else Roman Emperor.
 
How do we prevent Rome from dominating the West as totally as it did from 1054 to the 1500s?
It depends what you'd call a primacy.
If you meant a political and dogmatic supremacy over Latin Christianity and churches, that's fairly easy enough.
If you meant the bishop of Rome not being acknowledged with a moral and more or less symbolical supremacy, it's going to be harder.

Geneviève Bührer-Thierry said:
Western churches always acknwoledged a spiritual primacy to the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, but the pope only intervened rarily in the organisation of different churches, whom matters were decided by councils gathered under royal authority. This moral authority was first reinforced by the active role of Anglo-Saxons on the continent that, as Bonifacius, consult the pope and submit to his opinion on different demesnes.

It's as well the pope that preside the constitution of new churches in Germania, with the agreement of princes.

But it's critically ties made between Rome and Carolingians, that allow the pope to play an acknowledged role on all Christiendom. To a Church considered as a federation of national Churches succeed a more unitarian conception of a Church under the control and rule of the pope. Political problems met by different carolingians kings in the IXth century motivated popes to pose themselves as arbitles of conflicts and to exercice a real moral mandate on the whole Christiendom

Even with a maintained Roman presence in Italy, meaning the pope is essentially tied to imperial policies (you'd notice, tough, that he often clashed with imperial religious policies), his moral and spiritual primacy would still be a thing even if politically and structurally, he wouldn't lead Latin Churches (bishops and critically kings would).

A TL where Rome remains in charge of most of Italy and without Peppinid rise up (two more or less unrelated events) could prevent making the Pope the de jure leader of Latin Christiendom (de facto, tough, you didn't had an "independent" papacy before the Xth century*), but would likely make Latin Church a strong version of Orthodox organisation, with the Pope in the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople with more interventionism and power.

Would be that enough?


*1054 is merely a symbolical date : the process took longer from a spiritual supremacy from the Vth century at least, to a monopolising supremacy in the XIIth

causing a Frankish Empire that doesn't want to accept orders from a Greek puppet to create their own autocephalous church?
The situation is a bit more complex : Popes were relatively autonomous from Constantinople (Exarchate being already so, the Ducatus Romanus being even more) and it never caused a real problem of legitimacy in the West.
You'd certainly won't have the direct relationship (a dominant/dominee one) between Carolingians and Papacy, but this situation alone won't break the pontifical prestige.

Maybe if the Arabs conquer Rome, the Pope would be seen as a puppet, much like the Patriarch of Constantinople under Ottoman rule?
It poses the question of a likely Saracenic conquest of Rome : while more raiding is likely (it happened at least one time, after all), Italy would be harder to swallow with Romans in the way in a period where they were still able to kick asses on naval warfare in the West and Central Mediterranean.

The motive and possibilities to go directly for Rome and Central Italy are quite similar to the motives and possibilities to go for Southern Gaul : relative lack of manpower, Great Berber Revolt, not that weak opponents in the way, etc.

Assuming it's the case, however, it's likely to see the pope simply going elsewhere (It regularly happened, during Middle Ages, that the Pope simply didn't reigned from Rome, but from other Latium's cities/castles, or even elsewhere).
maybe the Great Schism of the West persists until there are noticeable liturgical differences between nations loyal to Rome and nations loyal to Avignon?
I'm not so sure : alliegances and conflicts were virtually entierly political, and with the idea of a pontifical spiritual/dogmatic/structural supremacy already being established (while most challenged by secular powers) it won't be going anywhere soon.

The situation was too much on balance, critically with general expectations (from peoples to kings) that unification would be made for that the division would last, IMO.

Bonus points if you can get a Patriarch of Canteburry
That's not exactly hard : you had, and still have, several patriarchs in Latin Christiendom : Aquilea, Aquitaine/Bourges, Grado, Lisbon
Still, Patriarchy doesn't imply systematically structural independence (and not dogmatic independence, of course), a bit like primacy.

In the aformentioned case of autonomous Latin Churches, you'd probably see an explosion of titles such as Patriarchs (while still pretty much tied to Papacy to get these) and Primates, so I don't see why Canturbery wouldn't get this with time.

but because Byzantium won't allow him to crown anyone else Roman Emperor.
As an aside, Charlemagne wasn't crowned as a Roman Emperor.
Now, while the Roman Emperor, in Constantinople, wouldn't even accept having a Barbarian being crowned Emperor (with all that it implies on ruling over Christiendom as a whole), it doesn't say much about the possibilities of the Pope going rogue : see Eleutherius' usurpation in 619.

I'll concede that it would be relatively unlikely to see it prosper too much, but giving the right political context, the wishes of the emperor in Constantinople could be countered by the harsh reality (a bit like the regular opposition from Roman popes on Imperial religious policies).
 
The Celtic branch of Catholicism

Ensure that the Celtic branch of Catholicism survive and achieve fit enough to beat the Roman version on the conversion of the Anglo Heptarchy.

Both versions at this point only differed in the way of calculating Easter rituals and minor differences result of Irish isolation apart from the principal that the primacy of Rome and recognition of its authority by other churches, as we know even It was established.

Accomplished, that OTL was not so far achieved, in northern Gaul already had a growing network of monasteries following the rule Celtic influence that gave prestige among the laity and the local Church.

The conversion of Germany and Friesland, in OTL was in the beginning the work of the Celts missionares or formed by them almost exclusively.
They would be disputed between the two versions of Catholicism with their respective centers of ecclesiastical authority.
 
Last edited:
I've a problem with "Celtic Christianity" as it keeps popping up from time to time, honestly.*

Not only we can't talk of an even remotly unified ensemble of rites, but these weren't really clashing with what existed on the continent (that can't really be called unified in matter of liturgy before Carolingians, each "national" church having its own, such as in Spain for exemple) : the existence of Irish-patroned monasteries in Francia, at Luxeuil for exemple, seem to have gone relatively smoothly and eventually ending up (and quickly so) on continental traditions (that were actually more prestigious than non-urban and not fitting the continental political and institutional structures).

(You had as well some sort of cohabitation, if somehow uneasy due to the huge ties between monasteries and Irish kings) between an episcopalian tradition (Patrick, for exemple) and abbatial ones.

The main difference is eventually coming down to structures : monasteries and abbatial-based, at the contrary of a more episcopal one.

In spite of differences between continental and insular rites, liturgies and structures (that I agree were more distinctive than equivalent differences between, say, Amborsian and Isidorian liturgies**), it was largely compatible enough to not pose a real problem (especially in the matter of acknowledging Roman spiritual primacy).

As for calling "Celtic", even disregarding the problems of using such expression, the missionaries in Frisia or Germany, I'd disagree particularly.
We know that a good part of it was made by Anglo-Saxons missions (would it be because it was put quite clearly that their languages were similar) on episcopalian traditions (basically, Frankish influence in southern Anglo-Saxon kingdoms*** helped greatly Roman missions among Germans) as it's quite clear with St. Boniface.

In fact, I'd be surprised that Anglo-Saxon kingdoms would have turned entierly to Brittonic Churches : while abiding by continental liturgy allowed to take part of the prestige that existed on the continent, doing so would have meant acknowledging some sort of political supremacy from Britto-Cambrian entities in a context where religion and politics aren't really separated.

Even by preventing Papacy to get a political and structural domination over Latin Churches, I don't think that insular traditions would really clash : there's too much exemple of cohabitations and mixing between the Vth and VIIIth for that, IMO. While you'd certainly end with several traditions whom insular may end as distinctive, trough acknowledgement of Roman spiritual primacy (that wasn't put in question) and sheer continental political influence...


* Would it be because of the political bias it implied at the creation of the expression, as in a "native Christiendom" opposed to "foreign Papacy".
** Keeping in mind that liturgic, rite and sometimes structural disparities among Latin churches was kind of normal before Peppinid/Carolingian domination on the continent; and while it took longer on British Islands, the whole process was already ongoing by the VIIIth century
*** Kent having been, at least tributary from Merovingians, maybe even acknowledging their suzerainty
 
I'm no expert on England History and could have misinterpreted my old readings, my source is A.Toynbe.

But from what I remember, as I do not have the book with me, it is that according to what recounted in one of the volumes of his work and interpreted it was crucial for future England OTL is that there was a council or great Synod of the Church British leaders attended by representatives Anglo-Saxons and Britons, Saxons, Irish and from Rome.
* Where both streams discussed both Christian traditions on the liturgical which were competing would belong to the Church of England recently formed a choice of undoubted long-term political consequences tradition.
 
Last edited:
But from what I remember, as I do not have the book with me, it is that according to what recounted in one of the volumes of his work and interpreted it was crucial for future England OTL is that there was a council or great Synod of the Church British leaders attended by representatives Anglo-Saxons and Britons, Saxons, Irish and from Rome.
I think you're talking of the Synod of Whitsby.
I agree entierly with you that it wasn't a non-event, if badly known (Bede is the more close source with Eddius, wirting several decades after the council, and it's dramatically absent from both AS and pontifical archives).

From what I have at hand myself, most of the differences at hand were quite minor and already on the path being resolved : an english-speaking historian apparently called the whole thing "a triumphant push against an open door", as Ionan traditions were challenged even in Ireland : Oswy, in order to replace Ionan clerics, used other Irish ones, not continental or Romans after all. (Bede mention an irish monk called Ronan, having studied in Gaul and Italy the continental uses, convincing many even before the synod.
Now Bede is more than harsh on Finan, so it's to be taken with a grain of salt)

On this part, the trend was by the VIIth century already going against Irish traditions (as it went against Aquitain or other regional computs as well, which had a less important historical posterity, mostly for ideological reasons).

Now, the historiographical point is less about some really minor points, than structure and organisation : basically about who would get to have the upper hand on ecclesiastical lead.
Ionan and Irish churches were more centered on monachial and abbatial structures (while episcopalian weren't absent, but secondary); while others (and specifically in southern Britain, trough continental influence) put the stress on bishops.

It's especially interesting in relation with their link with kingship, as in virtually all the continental kingdoms, you had a situation that evolved from Late Roman's : the king (inheriting imperium) more or less presiding over an episcopal assembly (of course it evolved from this : Councils of Toledo points how, but it didn't diverged radically at this point).

Having the king presiding over such synod, and getting to make the decision, was already (IMO) pointing how Ionian's positions didn't exactly began as the winning side (while Augustine had to battle with Britto-Romans waiting for a general assembly).
It's possible that Oswy's son, that expelled some monks out of Deira (that he ruled) was lead by some similar...not exactly political, but say ideological conceptions on who had a say on religious matters.

As well, I think it's interesting to point that queen Eanfeld was Kentish and a kentish priest at her side, with the aformentioned huge Frankish influence over the southern kingdom.
You likely had a struggle of...not exactly influences (while Ebroïn, majordomo of Neustria, seems to have took an interest on the question, in addition of Agilbert's presence) as it wasn't about interventionism, but close enough (I don't have the right word in english in mind, sorry).

For what matter the situation at hand, "Romans" (that had to be understood, IMO, in the most larger sense) were already present and influential, not only on southern Britain, but as well in this "encounter point" that was Northumbria, then at its apogee.

While not a world-shattering event (it had virtually zero consequences on the continent), I agree it was important for English history.

But less as a tip on the balance, than part of a wider process : after all, Bede points that most of the organisation left by Colman remained in place for years after his departure, and most of native liturgic and religious structures remained in place up to Norman conquest and well after (Davidian revolution, conquest of Wales, etc.)

Calling Whitbey "crucial" is, IMO, too much : it was important for the era, get for diverse reasons an historiographical importance (a bit like Battle of Tours was important, just that it get blown up out of proportions historiographically), but eventually even without it, Ionan decline would still have been a thing.

The Armenian Genocide articles aren't, for once, bad. Quite good actually, if you want to take a look.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Whitby
 
Top