Yes very weirdA council, the other patriarchs(let´s say you have the French king and allies in the Holy Land and Egypt). Is it weird?
Yes very weirdA council, the other patriarchs(let´s say you have the French king and allies in the Holy Land and Egypt). Is it weird?
The french allying them isn't weird, a council getting togther a proclaiming a new patriarch isn't either but West acknowledging their authority is and raising said patriarch to be on the same footing as the Pope is beyond strange.History shows otherwise.
I mean small steps, you don´t need to remove the Pope but trying to undermine his power over you, during Avignon the French king tried to have its own Papacy, but you could have them use other ways. Same goes for England and Northern Europe.The french allying them isn't weird, a council getting togther a proclaiming a new patriarch isn't either but West acknowledging their authority is and raising said patriarch to be on the same footing as the Pope is beyond strange.
Good point! But isn´t there too much in it at this point? The problem for the Greeks as I understood wasn´t really the content itself, it´s how the Latin justfied it(Pope authority over the council).Get better translators
So the Greek speakers do not think the Latin speakers have added the et Filii and the Latin speakers do not think the Greek speakers have removed it....
I'd put Byzantine Rome as not possible anytime after Charlemagne, honestly. By that point, the west is both powerful enough to expel the Byzantines from Rome if they tried for it, and sufficiently invested in not being ruled by the Emperor to be willing to actively try for it. A Norman state is going to want to play Rome/HRE and the Byzantines off against each other, not support their power by removing the counterbalance.What is the latest date where it become easily possible?I wouldn´t go before 1070 or so though. Can you have the Norman be ally of Byzantine with some pseudo-ASB?
Thanks? Is it possible to have the Pope weak in this TL? Like avoiding infallibility(late concept, but the general meanign is the importance) and maybe boosting counciliarism and such?I'd put Byzantine Rome as not possible anytime after Charlemagne, honestly. By that point, the west is both powerful enough to expel the Byzantines from Rome if they tried for it, and sufficiently invested in not being ruled by the Emperor to be willing to actively try for it. A Norman state is going to want to play Rome/HRE and the Byzantines off against each other, not support their power by removing the counterbalance.
Which is ultimately one of the major problems: Orthodoxy is too strongly associated with the Byzantines; any attempt to push it further is going to see the big dog (or dogs) in the West oppose it, as they don't want to answer to Constantinople (the Emperor, not the Patriarch), and the Pope is the best tool for that. And central conversion runs into the problem that the Western states are too powerful, too diffuse (note that the Holy Roman Emperor was unable to even get his vassals to support his choice of pope, much less completely overhaul the church to a more Eastern rite) and too tied up in Catholicism (the Carolingians had used papal support to cement their legitimacy even before Charlemagne was born, and the HRE justified its existence as the Western Empire on papal decree, even as the emperor feuded with the actual popes).
Which is why your only real shot is to destroy the Byzantines earlier (before the Russians get too invested in being not-Catholic), at which point there is no reasonable Orthodox power to prop Orthodox up, and it becomes easier for the remaining Orthodox to drift into communion with Rome. Even there, you're running out of time; I'd put early 12th century as late as you could reasonably go.