AHC/WI: Western Orthodox Church?

Yesterday, I learned that there was such a thing as Western Rite Orthodoxy, that is churches that are communion with the other Eastern Orthodox churches but which follow the Latin Rite (with modifications), similar to how Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Roman Catholic Church as a whole but follow their own rites and have their own episcopal structures rather than simply being another archbishopric or the like.

Now, unlike the Eastern Catholic Churches, these Western Rite churches historically only arose in the late 19th and early 20th century as the result of Roman Catholic and Protestant groups that wanted to convert to Orthodoxy but retain their liturgical traditions, and are therefore a rather minor element in Christianity as a whole. However, it did make me wonder whether there was any series of events which might have led to a much older "Western Rite" movement within the Orthodox communion, with autocephalous "Western" churches following the Latin Rite or some other "western" rite like the Ambrosian or Mozarabic standing alongside the "Eastern" churches following the Byzantine and other "eastern" rites.

One possibility that I thought of might be to avert the Norman conquest of Sicily and maintain Byzantine control over the area, at least for a time. From what I read, there were churches in the area that followed the Latin Rite but were in communion with Constantinople instead of Rome, and perhaps these could eventually become a properly organized autonomous part of the church in that area. If and when Constantinople loses control over the area, some might agree to follow Rome, but there would doubtlessly be some that disagreed with Roman theological positions (e.g., the infamous filioque...) and would organize to stay out (I am assuming that Sicily would be conquered by some Catholic country, obviously). Although it would surely not be a very large church, I could see an autocephalous or functionally autocephalous "Sicilian Latin Orthodox Church" surviving to the modern day, analogously to the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church. Perhaps this might lead to interest in joining the church during the later 19th century and a spread of the church into the Americas through migrations and conversions?

Are there are other possibilities to create a proper "Western Orthodox" church that is not in communion with Rome, but rather Constantinople? And what would the effects of having such a church, however modest in size, be in the longer run?
 
Celtic Christianity was very similar to Orthodox Christianity, as with English christianity in general. Knock Willy the Bastard and Hardråla back into the sea & smash the Sejkuks and you could get the Anglo-Saxons to throw their lot in with the Orthodox since the Pope pretty much threw the Anglos under a bus.

Really, it would mean that Constantinople was still kicking, and i could also see the O.C. spread across Europe as the kings take more power. Eventually you could even get an Orthodox army in Rome to reunify everybody.
 
Celtic Christianity was very similar to Orthodox Christianity, as with English christianity in general. Knock Willy the Bastard and Hardråla back into the sea & smash the Sejkuks and you could get the Anglo-Saxons to throw their lot in with the Orthodox since the Pope pretty much threw the Anglos under a bus.

Really, it would mean that Constantinople was still kicking, and i could also see the O.C. spread across Europe as the kings take more power. Eventually you could even get an Orthodox army in Rome to reunify everybody.
All of these tend to be exaggerated fairly heavily; England was fiercely Catholic (there's a famous passage in Bede where he attributes a pagan massacre of some Celtic clergy to their prior failure to defer to the Roman mission of St. Augustine). Other Catholics occasionally saw the Anglo-Saxons as a bit weird, but that had more to do with their tendency to declare tons of random people saints at the drop of a hat, not really to broader doctrinal issues. And Celtic Christianity, to the extent it was a thing, was well before the Schism really staked out the differences between East and West (and the Anglo-Saxons hated it anyway).

A lot of the "Latin" Rite is really Frankish/Carolingian in origin (e.g. the Filioque); before that time a Western Orthodox Church doesn't really make sense, while after that time the Byzantines aren't really in a good position to drive into Western Christendom (especially if you wait until 1054. at which point you might still see a reconquest of Sicily if things go extremely well for the Byzantines, but more likely they'll be dealing with bigger issues, and beyond that is far too far).
 
Celtic Christianity is largely the creation of romantic myth-making. Whilst the British Church did have its own distinctive peculiarities, the same could be said of the French, Spanish, etc., Churches as well, because the big distances and poor communications involved made complete homogeneity impossible. There's no evidence that the "Celtic Church" saw itself as any less Catholic, or was any more likely to go into schism, than the French Church, the Spanish Church, or any others.

As for an actual Western Orthodoxy, one promising POD would be the English Reformation, which IOTL owed more to Tudor dynastic politics than to actual religious conviction on Henry's part. IOTL there were those early in the process who wanted to unite with the Greek Churches rather than the German Protestants, so have their views become more prominent and hey presto, you have a Western Orthodox Church. If TTL's England ends up conquering an Empire like OTL's, it could spread throughout the world in the same way that OTL's Anglican Church has done.
 
The best way (As I see it), is for Constantinople to not recognise the Catholic Pope as the rightful Pope (which, AFAIK, they did IOTL) - instead have their own Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of Rome based in Roman Italy (or the Roman West) whenever possible.

This creates a single person that is identifiable as a rival to the Pope, which can have a lot of interesting potential, mostly around undermining the Popes power. It could also be a fantastic 'valve' for anti-Pope sentiment. After all, this would be a Bishop of Rome that would be subservient to the Roman Emperor(s), which includes the HRE in certain circumstances. What better a way to undermine a Hostile Pope than to have a coronation by the Bishop of Rome that is meant to be subservient to you? Not that any of these events are likely - but it is certainly an option, as the Rite hasn't changed, just the subservience of the Bishop of Rome.

If this is done early enough, it could get quite a lot of Berber and Italian support. The idea of a Bishop of Rome based in Carthage as a rival to the Bishop of Rome in... Rome, tickles me.

I'm actually curious as to why the Roman Emperors wouldn't have supported a rival earlier.
 
All of these tend to be exaggerated fairly heavily; England was fiercely Catholic (there's a famous passage in Bede where he attributes a pagan massacre of some Celtic clergy to their prior failure to defer to the Roman mission of St. Augustine).

But hr did not view themselves as Romanist as opposed to Orthodox, there was no schism at the time and he did not adhere to the filoque as far as I know.
 
I see a few unlikely ways, but not completely ASB--

-Butterfly Islam (not that hard, have a rock fall on Muhammad.) This leads to long Byzantine domination in the west, they may have the ability to continue choosing Bishops of Rome for a time, and this may butterfly away the Flioque controversy (which came from Germanic domination of Rome, Popes for some time did not affirm the Filoque, long after much of the West did.) Further, this maintains the use of Greek in diplomacy and allows for open communication with the west.
-More devout Protestants-IOTL Lutherans reached out to Jeremias II of Constantinople and their theological differences are less far off than one would think. Perhaps union there can work. Furthermore, perhaps make Henry VIII more of a RUssophile or something. Making his own church is kind of silly within the Christian paradigm. However, if he simply pushed his bishops to seek communion with the east and dumped the Filoque (no less "ASB" then dumping a Pope and ascribing to faith alone as they did IOTL), you can have the whole Anglican Church go Orthodox and have autocyphealy (sp?). Orthodoxy is very friendly to monarchy and independence, so it is not completely out of the question. This leads to Orthodox Africa, America, India--huge butterflies. Being that Orthodoxy is much more cohesive than Protestantism, the splintering of the Anglican Church into Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and etcetera goes away. Orthodoxy would outnumber Roman Catholicism and be much wealthier.
-Butterfly away Mongols (again, not impossible, a rock falls on Ghengis Khan). Perhaps this can be coupled with butterflying away Islam. Russia historically had lost of untapped potential. Without the Mongols, it was a matter of time RUssia would unify and pretty much clobber Europe (they were already clobbering the Byzantines for years.) Things brings Finland, Poland, and Hungary into the Orthodox fold. With the right leader, you can take Germany and turn them Orthodox.
 
Top