OK so writing my TL Apollinis et Dianae (shameless plug) and I've started thinking about the Anglican Church and its similarities with Rome. Is there any way, with a POD of James I's ascension in 1603, to bring about a reconciliation between the Roman church and England, with England restoring communion between the churches?
AHC/WI: Reconcliation between Rome and England
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
Possible. But not probable.
There are four things to consider.
1. The theology, dogma and canon law. What people actually believe. This is the easiest bit. The Anglican church of Hen VIII was this this respect nearly identical to the Church of Rome. The High Anglican church today (the Anglo-Catholics) is almost identical to Rome. In between, the CoE wandered a bit into Calvinist pastures (with some strange results - there were once High Church Calvinists ! Prince Rupert, if not actually one of them was nearly so.) So that part could be managed well enough. Some people would be bitterly opposed, some delighted, and the majority indifferent. The English are a very traditional people. The breach is quite recent in English terms (after all Paganism was still practiced then in Lancastershire, so whats a few hundred years). Remind squire that it was done thus in his great great great grandsire's day, and he will look no further. And the English, more than any other people love pomp and ceremony. Parson will delight in it.
2 . Ecclesiology and polity. How things are done and how the church is governed. Do you ring bells to summon the faithful, do you deck the church with palm fronds on Palm Sunday, who appoints the bishops and priests. This bit is harder because it involves power and money. Bishops are rich men. The Pope wants that patronage. So does the King. Advowsons are valuable too, squire wants that patronage. The English church was always bolshie and demanded autonomy, and the Kings always demanded control of the church ( remember Becket ). There is no way the the English are going to allow the Pope to appoint bishops or priests, or to accept foreigners . There will never be an English Canossa.
3. The personalities of the principle players -King and Pope. Much may be achieved by men of goodwill and good sense. Unfortunately, such men are rare. The King will be what you make him. But the Pope is probably Innocent III. I am no expert on the Papacy but what I know of Innocent suggests little hope of compromise. His feud with Louis over the Gallican church, the Cologne Controversy, his aggrandizing measures, these are not the indicators of a man who would take a long term or tolerant view . He would certainly be willing to accept England back into the fold. On his terms. And only on his terms. Which would be completely unacceptable to England.The country would accept much in the way of Catholicisation . But surrender to the Pope, never. I do not think any King at this time, even given all imaginable increase in power wealth or prestige could effect that. So the question is would a reconciliation be possible on terms such as those proposed by Louis for the French church . Terms which Innocent had already rejected.
4. The councils. Parliament and the Curia. Of the latter, I can say nothing. But Parliament, even the most compliant imaginable Stuart parliament, would never accept Popery. Roman Catholicism, yes. Popery, no. Remember the dissenters had a great influence in Parliament, even if they could not themselves sit there.
There are four things to consider.
1. The theology, dogma and canon law. What people actually believe. This is the easiest bit. The Anglican church of Hen VIII was this this respect nearly identical to the Church of Rome. The High Anglican church today (the Anglo-Catholics) is almost identical to Rome. In between, the CoE wandered a bit into Calvinist pastures (with some strange results - there were once High Church Calvinists ! Prince Rupert, if not actually one of them was nearly so.) So that part could be managed well enough. Some people would be bitterly opposed, some delighted, and the majority indifferent. The English are a very traditional people. The breach is quite recent in English terms (after all Paganism was still practiced then in Lancastershire, so whats a few hundred years). Remind squire that it was done thus in his great great great grandsire's day, and he will look no further. And the English, more than any other people love pomp and ceremony. Parson will delight in it.
2 . Ecclesiology and polity. How things are done and how the church is governed. Do you ring bells to summon the faithful, do you deck the church with palm fronds on Palm Sunday, who appoints the bishops and priests. This bit is harder because it involves power and money. Bishops are rich men. The Pope wants that patronage. So does the King. Advowsons are valuable too, squire wants that patronage. The English church was always bolshie and demanded autonomy, and the Kings always demanded control of the church ( remember Becket ). There is no way the the English are going to allow the Pope to appoint bishops or priests, or to accept foreigners . There will never be an English Canossa.
3. The personalities of the principle players -King and Pope. Much may be achieved by men of goodwill and good sense. Unfortunately, such men are rare. The King will be what you make him. But the Pope is probably Innocent III. I am no expert on the Papacy but what I know of Innocent suggests little hope of compromise. His feud with Louis over the Gallican church, the Cologne Controversy, his aggrandizing measures, these are not the indicators of a man who would take a long term or tolerant view . He would certainly be willing to accept England back into the fold. On his terms. And only on his terms. Which would be completely unacceptable to England.The country would accept much in the way of Catholicisation . But surrender to the Pope, never. I do not think any King at this time, even given all imaginable increase in power wealth or prestige could effect that. So the question is would a reconciliation be possible on terms such as those proposed by Louis for the French church . Terms which Innocent had already rejected.
4. The councils. Parliament and the Curia. Of the latter, I can say nothing. But Parliament, even the most compliant imaginable Stuart parliament, would never accept Popery. Roman Catholicism, yes. Popery, no. Remember the dissenters had a great influence in Parliament, even if they could not themselves sit there.
1. So from the commoner POV, dogma and canon won't really change if the church should return to the Roman fold.
2. What about an English version of Gallicanism? I can see the English accepting something like that. The King either appoints the bishops or sends a list of acceptable candidates to Rome.
3. I think you mean Innocent XI,but yeah not a good candidate. Basically I would need someone on the Papal throne who's willing to negotiate, not send a list of demands and say take it or leave it. This is my idea for a negotiated return: all the current bishops and priests remain on, whether married or not, but all new clergy after the reconciliation must be celibate. The King either names the Bishops or sends a list of acceptable candidates to Rome for approval (not sure how it worked in France but I think it would be the same). Don't now about the Supreme Governor title. It might be able to stay, with the idea that the King is representing the Pope but probably not. Basically it would be a copy of the French Church, with a few tweaks.
4. Well I guess the Curia wouldn't have much to do with England, as it mainly governed the Papal states, not the Church (one of the complaints in the Baroque era). As for Parliament, what would be the difference, definition wise, between Popery and Catholicism? How would we get a returned Roman Church without it being Popish?
1 Well, yes they will, but the laity don't really understand dogma or canon law anyway. So one ignored incomprehensible is exchanged by another ignored incomprehensibility.
2 Gallicism is not far from Anglicanism. I think any solution would be something like that. Given that the Kings of England insisted on appointing bishops without approval from Rome before the Reformation, I think a 'Pope chooses' would be a big ask. But, maybe not impossible. A problem though. What happens if the list of acceptable names is only one name? Or one vaguely acceptable, and a couple of totally impossibles. There is a legal aspect here , that could be relevant. In the period between the death of a bishop and the appointment of his successor , the King (personally) is entitled to the income from the see. OTL, after the reformation the time was so short that the King seldom bothered to claim it, but the legal right remains. So a Papal procrastination would be valuable to the King.
3 Yes, sorry, XI . Celibacy would be tricky, but not a show stopper. The early Anglican church was dubious about married priests, Elizabeth particularly detested it, so celibacy wouldn't be going against anything fundamental. A bigger problem would be services in English.Latin is 'Foreign stuff' to Hodge . Foreign stuff is always evil and bad. But, that is one where the English church might reasonably call on Rome to compromise. After all Vatican 2 made Roman services in the vernacular permissible, even required, so there is no real impediment.
4. Check out 'Old Catholics' for a modern example of Roman Catholics without the Pope. Or Bonaparte's Constitution of the Clergy for an 'almost without the Pope'. I think people would (eventually, reluctantly) accept Papal authority over theological matters. Not over presentations , uses and such like.
It would take a bold and very very cunning man to pull it off. But, why would such a one bother? What benefit is there to the King ?
2 Gallicism is not far from Anglicanism. I think any solution would be something like that. Given that the Kings of England insisted on appointing bishops without approval from Rome before the Reformation, I think a 'Pope chooses' would be a big ask. But, maybe not impossible. A problem though. What happens if the list of acceptable names is only one name? Or one vaguely acceptable, and a couple of totally impossibles. There is a legal aspect here , that could be relevant. In the period between the death of a bishop and the appointment of his successor , the King (personally) is entitled to the income from the see. OTL, after the reformation the time was so short that the King seldom bothered to claim it, but the legal right remains. So a Papal procrastination would be valuable to the King.
3 Yes, sorry, XI . Celibacy would be tricky, but not a show stopper. The early Anglican church was dubious about married priests, Elizabeth particularly detested it, so celibacy wouldn't be going against anything fundamental. A bigger problem would be services in English.Latin is 'Foreign stuff' to Hodge . Foreign stuff is always evil and bad. But, that is one where the English church might reasonably call on Rome to compromise. After all Vatican 2 made Roman services in the vernacular permissible, even required, so there is no real impediment.
4. Check out 'Old Catholics' for a modern example of Roman Catholics without the Pope. Or Bonaparte's Constitution of the Clergy for an 'almost without the Pope'. I think people would (eventually, reluctantly) accept Papal authority over theological matters. Not over presentations , uses and such like.
It would take a bold and very very cunning man to pull it off. But, why would such a one bother? What benefit is there to the King ?
1. So as long as the majority of commoners church services aren't really changing it won't matter.
2. That's pretty much what I was thinking as well. To naming Bishops, I'm honestly not sure how it worked with the French, so I put both. But I didn't know that about vacant sees. I can see a smart King purposefully sending impossible candidates to the Pope to keep the income.
3. Yeah I though that the married priests/bishops hadn't caught on by this point. I don't think many Anglican bishops were married during the Stuart era. It might be a problem for lower clergy but that's why I suggested the compromise. As for Latin vs. English, I think a Pope willing to negotiate would be either willing to give or try to have both accepted. After all at that point rejecting a reconciliation with the Anglican church over the language at services would be like shooting yourself in the foot. Painful and useless.
4. OK I'll have to check it out. But I think that both Parliament and the King would want legislation regulating Papal intervention in English affairs.
As for why,two reasons. 1, I had started thinking about this when I was doing research and was wondering if it was possible. And 2, I think a King who was truly convinced that the Roman Church was the true path to God would want to return his people to it as well. Basically a James II religiously but Charles II politically.
The differences between the High Church of England, and the Roman Church are matters of presentation and power, not matters of belief.
Squire uses the ownership of the advowson of the parish as a provision for his younger son (for which reason he might welcome clerical celibacy); King uses the appointment of bishops to provide for supporters and ensure pro-King support in the House of Lords. Both are mainly concerned to make sure that doesn't change.
Hodge wants a Sunday service that looks familiar. What does he know of transubstantiation ? Or care.
One issue though. Even before the split in Henry VIII's time, the Church of England differed in many ways from Rome. Pre Council of Trent, the Roman Church allowed a very wide local variation. So England had specific English breviaries and practices -The Uses of Sarum, York , Hereford etc. Sarum was the most common, and that was what the ritual of the Anglican Church was based on.(it is still sometimes used in Anglican services)
The Council of Trent made many significant changes to church practice and ritual, and clamped down on local variation.
So, the Anglican service is actually more traditional than that of Rome, and imposition of the Roman service would be something quite alien to England. Neither post reformation Church of England nor pre reformation Roman Catholic. This would require enormous tact and compromise.
Squire uses the ownership of the advowson of the parish as a provision for his younger son (for which reason he might welcome clerical celibacy); King uses the appointment of bishops to provide for supporters and ensure pro-King support in the House of Lords. Both are mainly concerned to make sure that doesn't change.
Hodge wants a Sunday service that looks familiar. What does he know of transubstantiation ? Or care.
One issue though. Even before the split in Henry VIII's time, the Church of England differed in many ways from Rome. Pre Council of Trent, the Roman Church allowed a very wide local variation. So England had specific English breviaries and practices -The Uses of Sarum, York , Hereford etc. Sarum was the most common, and that was what the ritual of the Anglican Church was based on.(it is still sometimes used in Anglican services)
The Council of Trent made many significant changes to church practice and ritual, and clamped down on local variation.
So, the Anglican service is actually more traditional than that of Rome, and imposition of the Roman service would be something quite alien to England. Neither post reformation Church of England nor pre reformation Roman Catholic. This would require enormous tact and compromise.
Reflecting on this, it seems very hard and improbable. Not impossible, I think there might be a way, but it would require great courage on the part of the writer .
Let us recapitulate.
For the King to personally be a Roman Catholic , recognising the authority of the Pope as defined by the latter at the end of the 17C. Hard, contentious, but not impossible for clever and determined king. James nearly managed it and he wasn't very clever.
For the Anglican church to move to a position where it de facto (but not de jure) accepts and implements the teachings and dogma of the Roman church, on purely spiritual matters? The Real Presence, justification, Scripture Sola, purgatory and so on. Quite possible provided it be taken slowly. No forcible change is needed, just appoint bishops who progress in the desired direction. The changes are not actually that great, and laymen do not understand them anyway.
For the Anglican church to implement changes in ecclesiology to align to Roman practice. Bells and smells, vestments. An Anglican church that LOOKS just like a Roman one. Easy. Laud almost managed, the nineteenth century did.
An Anglican Church that accepts Roman canon law on matters like celibacy of clergy, services in the vernacular, communion in two kinds.Patchy. Some easy (eg celibacy) some harder. But in almost all cases the Roman church, post Vatican 2 has actually adopted Anglican practice . The big exception is celibacy which the CoE then would have been fairly willing to accept. Other matters which are different today, divorce, homosexuality , female priests, were not at difference then, both sides condemned them. So, overall easy enough.
But. For the English church and the English people to accept the temporal authority of the Bishop of Rome, on any basis that a late 17C Pope would be willing to offer? Impossible. I do not think any king could survive such an attempt, or if he did it would be at the expense of civil war that would make 1648 look like a minor squabble, and hangings and burnings such that *Bloody Charles would make Bloody Mary appear positively benign.
The problem is that it is not possible simply to rewind the Church of England position back to pre Henry VIII and reattach it to Rome. Since the time of Henry VIII the Church of Rome has changed and moved on itself. The reformation removed the dissident elements which pre reformation had controlled the ambitions of the Popes. They (the dissidents) became Protestant. The result was great hardening up of the authority of the Pope ( in their opinion, anyway). Even the practice of the pre reformation english church would not now be acceptable to any feasible Pope.
The King would have to go to Rome and petition the Pope, "Please can the Church of England be readmitted". The Pope would reply "Yes, but here are the terms". And they would be such that the King would not long be King. I cannot conceive of anyone who might be elected Pope of the period who would accept terms acceptable to the english.
And , therein, perhaps lies the answer. The problem is the Pope. Remove him from the discussion and all becomes easy. That sounds ASB, but perhaps it is not.
Now, King Louis rather liked a lot of what he saw in the English church. Bishops appointed by the King. He liked that. Control of Papal officials, royal authority over church lands, Louis liked quite a lot of those things. The result was the establishment in France of Gallicanism. Not quite the Anglican church of Henry VIII , but close.
Let us look at some of the principles of the Gallican church .
Moreover in 1682 Louis had extended by Royal decree the droit regale to all French churches, which fave the King the right to appoint bishops.
All this would look very familiar to Anglicans. OTL the Pope stomped his feet and Louis by and large knuckled under.But, maybe, the influence of a friendly, cunning, Roman but not Papist King of England might encourage *Louis to stick stubbornly to his Gallican church.
And let us suppose that the Pope also pisses off the Emperor. Who already makes very similar claims, and remembers that the first Ecumenical Councils of the Church were summoned by the Emperors, not the Popes. Not hard to see that happening. The Cologne Controversy would be a good starting point.
Or perhaps the *Pope in a fit of hubris declares that if , as is expected, the royal line of Spain should fail, he, the Pope, would determine who should inherit the thrones of the Spains. Which would royally infuriate everyone . Popes had made claims as vainglorious within almost living memory.
So, the King of France (who OTL was around now pretty much at war with the Pope), the King of England and the Emperor decide jointly that the Pope has gotten too big for his red boots, and needs to be put in his place.
They convene a Council (let's avoid calling it an Ecumenical Council, that might be a bridge too far). They bring along their (royally appointed ) archbishops Amongst other things they resolve that the Church of England, so long regrettably sundered from the communion of the faithful should be readmitted. On terms which are fairly similar to those of Louis for the Gallican church (the Emperor might well decide that the Austrian and Hungarian churches could do with a bit of this also). The King of England will, over a defined period, implement some changes.The Roman Church will accept some local variations . The Pope will have no temporal power at all in England Scotland Ireland or France . Probably a "Me too" from the Emperor at this point. And if the Pope didn't like it, tough.
It would be essential though for England to retain the right of advowson. That would be a big big stumbling block for the Pope (since it totally destroys his temporal power in England) but it is absolutely essential.
That's a BIG change , a massive POD. Said it would require courage . But I can't think of a simpler way, other than pure hand-wavium.
Let us recapitulate.
For the King to personally be a Roman Catholic , recognising the authority of the Pope as defined by the latter at the end of the 17C. Hard, contentious, but not impossible for clever and determined king. James nearly managed it and he wasn't very clever.
For the Anglican church to move to a position where it de facto (but not de jure) accepts and implements the teachings and dogma of the Roman church, on purely spiritual matters? The Real Presence, justification, Scripture Sola, purgatory and so on. Quite possible provided it be taken slowly. No forcible change is needed, just appoint bishops who progress in the desired direction. The changes are not actually that great, and laymen do not understand them anyway.
For the Anglican church to implement changes in ecclesiology to align to Roman practice. Bells and smells, vestments. An Anglican church that LOOKS just like a Roman one. Easy. Laud almost managed, the nineteenth century did.
An Anglican Church that accepts Roman canon law on matters like celibacy of clergy, services in the vernacular, communion in two kinds.Patchy. Some easy (eg celibacy) some harder. But in almost all cases the Roman church, post Vatican 2 has actually adopted Anglican practice . The big exception is celibacy which the CoE then would have been fairly willing to accept. Other matters which are different today, divorce, homosexuality , female priests, were not at difference then, both sides condemned them. So, overall easy enough.
But. For the English church and the English people to accept the temporal authority of the Bishop of Rome, on any basis that a late 17C Pope would be willing to offer? Impossible. I do not think any king could survive such an attempt, or if he did it would be at the expense of civil war that would make 1648 look like a minor squabble, and hangings and burnings such that *Bloody Charles would make Bloody Mary appear positively benign.
The problem is that it is not possible simply to rewind the Church of England position back to pre Henry VIII and reattach it to Rome. Since the time of Henry VIII the Church of Rome has changed and moved on itself. The reformation removed the dissident elements which pre reformation had controlled the ambitions of the Popes. They (the dissidents) became Protestant. The result was great hardening up of the authority of the Pope ( in their opinion, anyway). Even the practice of the pre reformation english church would not now be acceptable to any feasible Pope.
The King would have to go to Rome and petition the Pope, "Please can the Church of England be readmitted". The Pope would reply "Yes, but here are the terms". And they would be such that the King would not long be King. I cannot conceive of anyone who might be elected Pope of the period who would accept terms acceptable to the english.
And , therein, perhaps lies the answer. The problem is the Pope. Remove him from the discussion and all becomes easy. That sounds ASB, but perhaps it is not.
Now, King Louis rather liked a lot of what he saw in the English church. Bishops appointed by the King. He liked that. Control of Papal officials, royal authority over church lands, Louis liked quite a lot of those things. The result was the establishment in France of Gallicanism. Not quite the Anglican church of Henry VIII , but close.
Let us look at some of the principles of the Gallican church .
Moreover in 1682 Louis had extended by Royal decree the droit regale to all French churches, which fave the King the right to appoint bishops.
All this would look very familiar to Anglicans. OTL the Pope stomped his feet and Louis by and large knuckled under.But, maybe, the influence of a friendly, cunning, Roman but not Papist King of England might encourage *Louis to stick stubbornly to his Gallican church.
And let us suppose that the Pope also pisses off the Emperor. Who already makes very similar claims, and remembers that the first Ecumenical Councils of the Church were summoned by the Emperors, not the Popes. Not hard to see that happening. The Cologne Controversy would be a good starting point.
Or perhaps the *Pope in a fit of hubris declares that if , as is expected, the royal line of Spain should fail, he, the Pope, would determine who should inherit the thrones of the Spains. Which would royally infuriate everyone . Popes had made claims as vainglorious within almost living memory.
So, the King of France (who OTL was around now pretty much at war with the Pope), the King of England and the Emperor decide jointly that the Pope has gotten too big for his red boots, and needs to be put in his place.
They convene a Council (let's avoid calling it an Ecumenical Council, that might be a bridge too far). They bring along their (royally appointed ) archbishops Amongst other things they resolve that the Church of England, so long regrettably sundered from the communion of the faithful should be readmitted. On terms which are fairly similar to those of Louis for the Gallican church (the Emperor might well decide that the Austrian and Hungarian churches could do with a bit of this also). The King of England will, over a defined period, implement some changes.The Roman Church will accept some local variations . The Pope will have no temporal power at all in England Scotland Ireland or France . Probably a "Me too" from the Emperor at this point. And if the Pope didn't like it, tough.
It would be essential though for England to retain the right of advowson. That would be a big big stumbling block for the Pope (since it totally destroys his temporal power in England) but it is absolutely essential.
That's a BIG change , a massive POD. Said it would require courage . But I can't think of a simpler way, other than pure hand-wavium.
Last edited:
Having said all that, I have thought of one other way, but it would require a Pope that I do not think is possible in that era.
Check out the Anglican Ordinariat, established by Pope-Emeritus Benedict XIV (yes, the modern one).
That is sort of a separate division of the Roman church for Anglicans who want to be Roman Catholic but sort of remain Anglicans. Massively simplified and misrepresented , but sort of.
However this would require a Pope who I do not think would be a possibility then. The only thought I had, was an English Pope! ( and I know there has only ever been one). Which on the face of it is pure ASB, but , I guess, with all those Roman Catholic English royals, are any of them likely to be as cunning as a fox overdosed on weasel pills and also have a yearn for a priestly career?
Check out the Anglican Ordinariat, established by Pope-Emeritus Benedict XIV (yes, the modern one).
That is sort of a separate division of the Roman church for Anglicans who want to be Roman Catholic but sort of remain Anglicans. Massively simplified and misrepresented , but sort of.
However this would require a Pope who I do not think would be a possibility then. The only thought I had, was an English Pope! ( and I know there has only ever been one). Which on the face of it is pure ASB, but , I guess, with all those Roman Catholic English royals, are any of them likely to be as cunning as a fox overdosed on weasel pills and also have a yearn for a priestly career?
OK so a King with say Charles II intelligence and cunning could pull off being a Catholic Monarch of England.
And, in matters of spirituality and dogma it wouldn't take much for a reconciliation it wouldn't take much, but it'll mainly come down to temporal power. And with a Catholic/Catholic adjacent King in England Louis XIV would be more willing to stand firm on his Church policies. He might even keep the Edict of Nantes, sense I read that he only repealed it to get in better with the Pope.
As for your idea, I think it has potential. After all, much of the Church's power was curtailed during the Enlightenment of the next century. And under Joseph II the Congress of Ems was very similar to the French Gallicanism. Not to mention the Civil constitution of the Clergy (though any TTL attempt would be much less democratic). So I'd be essentially bringing the actions of the Enlightenment in regards to the Church up a century.But I think the problem would be the Emperor. Leopold I was originally destined for the Church and was very Pro-Church and Pro-Pope during his reign. I think it would take A LOT to piss him off enough to convince him to work with his rival and a heretic against the Pope. I might be better off waiting until the reign of Joseph I. He seemed very similar to Joseph II, willing curtail the Church's temporal power and wanted to Centralize his realms. So Charles III, Louis XIV and Joseph I might be the best combination.
As for temporal power, by this point I think more and more Catholic monarchs would probably want to move toward something similar to what England has, with the Pope as spiritual Head. If the Pope pushes to hard he might just see an unexpectedly big push back.
Hmmm, I had thought about a British Royal Cardinal before. Henry Benedict became one so its certainly possible. Maybe Gloucester or a son of Charles III could have a religious calling....
1693 is the critical date, that's when Louis ordered the the edict of the clergy not be enforced and, in effect, wrote to the Pope and surrendered. PoD is that he gets his panties bunched at the instigation of Charles III and telsd the Pope to go jump. That works well with Joseph succeeding in 1690.
The problem is in 1690 Joseph I would be around 10, so he would be under the Regency of his ultra-Catholic mother, Eleanor Magdalene, who would be even more unlikely to go against the Pope then her husband. Maybe Louis XIV could go ahead with the support of Charles III and Pedro II of Portugal? The Portuguese had large problems with the Pope, so I can see them jumping in on the bandwagon. And maybe, maybe mind you, Spain. The Church had huge influence in Spain, only rivaled my their influence in Italy, so there could be some who would want to break that influence. Or maybe the Pope claims the right to appoint all clergy in the Empire, triggered by the Cologne affair? Such a direct intervention in Imperial affairs might just be enough to push Leopold I over the edge.
The easiest way for an Roman-Anglican reunion?
Make the British Royal family end up like the Romanovs, and make Britain Red (Syndicalist preferably) or at least Republican. With CoE headless, it would be easier for a re-unification, with some issues to fix such as:
- Issue of Celibacy and other dogmas.
- Centuries-old Papaphobia.
- And of course, the issue of Mary's virginity. While the Anglicans currently admits Mary's virginity, they were very well known for being the biggest doubter of it, rejecting Mary's virginity, something the Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Puritans and other Anglican-derived religions adopted.
Once these are fixed, integration will be as smooth as silk.
Make the British Royal family end up like the Romanovs, and make Britain Red (Syndicalist preferably) or at least Republican. With CoE headless, it would be easier for a re-unification, with some issues to fix such as:
- Issue of Celibacy and other dogmas.
- Centuries-old Papaphobia.
- And of course, the issue of Mary's virginity. While the Anglicans currently admits Mary's virginity, they were very well known for being the biggest doubter of it, rejecting Mary's virginity, something the Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Puritans and other Anglican-derived religions adopted.
Once these are fixed, integration will be as smooth as silk.
Bugger. My bad. I actually read Joseph's accession as King of the Germans in 1690 as the date of his succession as Emperor. 1705, when he actually succeeded is too late, by then Louis gad given up on Gallicanism.
Having the Emperor on board has big advantages, because historically the Emperors claimed the right to summon General Councils of the Church, which would give legitimacy to the whole thing.
Thinking cap on again.
OK what about this: With England as an ally Louis XIV stands firm, forcing the Pope to either back down or risk losing the French revenues and have France become like England. Historically Popes typically end up backing down when the French start talking about Henry VIII so I would guess the same would happen here. Meanwhile the Pope pisses of the Emperor by claiming to have the right to name the new Archbishop of Cologne. No doubt he'll be forced to back down but it will create a precedent for future Popes to try and regain some lost power.
Fast forward a while, say to the 1700s/1710s, and Joseph I is Emperor. The next Pope tries the same BS but unlike his father Joseph has no patience for the Pope and I bet neither will a lot of the German Princes and Bishops. The process of the Congress of Ems begins decades earlier, and is fully supported by the Kings of Great Britain and France. The Pope's temporal power is broken, the Empire gets a semi-independent Church like the French, and Britain returns to the fold. What do you think?
Fast forward a while, say to the 1700s/1710s, and Joseph I is Emperor. The next Pope tries the same BS but unlike his father Joseph has no patience for the Pope and I bet neither will a lot of the German Princes and Bishops. The process of the Congress of Ems begins decades earlier, and is fully supported by the Kings of Great Britain and France. The Pope's temporal power is broken, the Empire gets a semi-independent Church like the French, and Britain returns to the fold. What do you think?
Well the idea has merit but I think it would be to early to try something like that. The eastern Churches have a tradition of Patriarchs and autonomy from Rome. England had the later thanks to its location but not the former. Plus I'm not sure how established the Eastern rights were at this point. I imagine it was less then stellar because of the fact that the East was entirely controlled by the Ottoman Turks. But the idea is a good one and if anyone can tell me more info about the Eastern rights during this era would be a huge help, sense I can then assess how likely this idea is.
http://www.westernriteorthodoxuk.org.uk/who-are-we.html
Interesting stuff for you.
EDIT: Something more on it - in Russian but I hope it's readable via Google Translate as I have no time to translate it manually right now - I'm at work
http://www.sedmitza.ru/lib/text/436411/
Interesting stuff for you.
EDIT: Something more on it - in Russian but I hope it's readable via Google Translate as I have no time to translate it manually right now - I'm at work
http://www.sedmitza.ru/lib/text/436411/
Last edited:
katchen
Banned
An earlier POD might make this possible. John Cabot, in his second voyage, sails east looking for the Northeast Passage and basically accomplishes what Chancellor IOTL accomplished 56 years later IOTL. Cabot reaches the court of Ivan III and establishes a fur for woolens trade that turns the Russian Empire into one of England's most important trading partners. The "spare prince", Henry travels to Russia on one of those trading voyages, is presented at the Court of Grand Duke Ivan and learns Russian Orthodox theology. When he finds it necessary to break with the Pope, he turns to Orthodox Christianity and has a ready supply of Orthodox priests and monks who can travel to England to help orient the new Anglican Church to be the Anglican Orthodox Church. And on top of that, Henry weds a Russian Princess (Ivan IV has since, by 1533 proclaimed himself Tsar which makes his family princes and princesses not dukes and duchesses). In fact Henry is sorely tempted to proclaim himself Cesar of England. (Either way, England will not be concluding any dynastic marriages with any nation outside of Russia for the forseeable future.
Yes. I think that would work.
While waiting for Joseph the King would be stacking the bench of bishops with neo-Laudian high church prelates (caveat- this will piss off the dissenters, but they sort of seem to be pissed off with everything TTL). And the parish livings in the gift of the Crown. And fund Oxford divines to write suitable propaganda.
It does depend on Louis hanging tough and the Anglo-French alliance holding up.
What about Scotland though? And Ireland ? Scotland was never Catholic the way the CoE was. Even the Episcopal church was really sort of Presbyterianism with bishops. Does it matter what happens in Scotland, religiously?
And Ireland, the difficulty is the other way. The bulk of the populace (except in Ulster - another caveat) is already Roman Catholic. That could actually be a problem if the Pope gets stroppy. But the real problem is the Ascendancy. The only thing that holds them together and gives them an identity is the protestant Church of Ireland. Take that away and they are likely to 'go native' , blending into the native Irish world, until they become Irish. The same thing that happened to Strongbow's settlement, why Elizabeth had to reconquer the country. Mind you, that's going to take a few centuries, but then again great Kings should think in terms of centuries, is why Monarchy is best form of government.
The key will be the Pope denouncing it "It can't be Popery, because the Pope hates it "
Last edited:
Glad you agree!
So between the nonjurors remaining in the Church, new High Church bishops being appointed and propaganda from Oxford, the Anglican Church and indeed England will be prepared to return to communion with Rome. As for the dissenters, yeah they'll be pissed but there isn't much they can do. The attempted rebellion failed and they no longer have seats in Parliament. Yes the can still influence things, but by this point the dissenter support base has shrunk dramatically thanks to the failed revolt.
As to Louis and the alliance, I think both are possible. Though the English are partially dissatisfied with their French alliance, they have no real reason to break it (yet). And remember the situation Louis was in when he backed down OTL. He had no allies and was at war with nearly all Europe. Here he has a strong alliance with England, an assured ally. And the next war won't last Nine years so there will be less pressure to back down to the Pope. Plus it seems that the Declaration of 1682 had strong support in the French clergy, so it was by no means unpopular. So I don't think it would be to difficult to have Louis stick to his guns.
To Scotland, I think the idea of returning to Rome won't go over well. At best its a bitter pill to swallow, at worst the beginning of another rebellion. However, remember that Scotland's failed independence bid has severely damaged the country. Scotland is under military occupation, has had much of its autonomy curtailed and has seen large amounts of the Covenanters executed. I think at this point the Scots will have no choice but to bow down to the return. Plus by the time the return happens the English and Scottish churches will have been unified into one Church of Great Britain, in tandem with the Political union. So it gives the King an opportunity to pack Scotland with supportive Bishops and end any independence from London. Like I said earlier the Scots are certainly paying for their failure.
For Ireland, like I said before its a powderkeg. Though personally I think that having the English settlers "go native" would actually be a good think and would allow for less violence in the Emerald isle. But with England returned to Rome we might see a fair land settlement finally be created, which would be a huge help.
To be honest I don't understand your last comment. Could you expand in it please?
Finally, a thought: With Joseph I creating a National Church in the Empire and Louis creating one in France, we could potentially see it happen in other Catholic nations, like Spain and Portugal. I know that the Spanish, though highly devote Catholics, were getting pretty sick of the overgrown Church power and under the Bourbons would begin to reduce it. And the Portuguese Braganza Kings had been at odds with the Pope sense they regained their independence in 1640, so I doubt they'd need much encouragement. After all, during the enlightenment many Monarchs were moving in the direction of reducing or removing the Pope's temporal powers in their nations, and no doubt would have continued if not for the French revolution. So we could eventually see a system of National churches, with temporal power exercised by the Monarchs and the Pope as the Spiritual Head (read figurehead). Its ambitious but I think its possible. In a way it would be similar to the Shogunates of Japan. The Pope would be the Emperor, the technical head of the Church but most of his authority is exercised by the Monarchs or Shoguns, on his behalf. It would be a nice legal fiction that the Pope would still have some powers and could perhaps be called on to act as an arbiter, but not much more then that. Of course he'll still rule the Papal states, so the Pope won't lose all of his temporal authority.
What do you think?