DBWI: Make Christianity splinter or Schism.

[jackson3]

Christianity has been for centuries seen as one of the biggest religious blocks on the planet, this Is generally attributed to it’s obsession with achieving consensus with it’s great councils and the like.

For those who follow another faith, the church is governed by the Council of five Patriarchs or otherwise called the Pentarchy, the faith can therefore be divided into five blocks.

Rome who governs the world west of the Balkans to the Western Pacific rim.

Constantinople who governs the Greco-Anatolian region, the balkans, Scandinavia and the North of such that is not otherwise overseen by the Patriarch Antioch.

Antioch who oversees the East from greater Armenia to the eastern Pacific.

Alexandria who looks after Africa and the lands south of it

And of course finally there’s Jerusalem who nominally covers the levant and Arabia.

These five are considered the Administrative core of the church (spiritually all bishops and patriarchs are considered equal), but apparently it wasn’t always so and there are some who think the Christian faith could have splintered in the Middle Ages.

Is this true, what could have made Christianity splinter or schism in such a manner?

 

[DanMcCollum]

Maybe if you managed to hobble the Eastern Empire somehow? If you were able to knock it down a peg - maybe have the Sassanian conquests of Egypt and the Levant actually stick and for there be a real effort to convert the locals to Zoroastrianism - you could effectively knock the Patriarchies of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem out of the picture. This would leave only Rome and Constantinople standing - and even in OTL there has always been a bit of jockying between the two of them: especially as Constantinople was always the new kid on the block, if you will, yet was the center of the remnants of the Roman Empire, whereas Rome wasn't even the capital of the Gothic Kingdom of Italy but had all the prestige as the founding city of the Empire (plus, you know, Paul and Peter). If the other three patriarchs are taken out of play, I could easily see the rivalry between these two becoming so great as to cause some kind of schism. Though I suspect it would be short-lived: Christianity really does seem to have far too many reasons to stay united. I mean, the faith is founded on love and acceptance. Kinda hard seeing them turn on each other for TOO long.

 

[jackson3]

Maybe if you managed to hobble the Eastern Empire somehow? If you were able to knock it down a peg - maybe have the Sassanian conquests of Egypt and the Levant actually stick and for there be a real effort to convert the locals to Zoroastrianism - you could effectively knock the Patriarchies of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem out of the picture. This would leave only Rome and Constantinople standing - and even in OTL there has always been a bit of jockying between the two of them: especially as Constantinople was always the new kid on the block, if you will, yet was the center of the remnants of the Roman Empire, whereas Rome wasn't even the capital of the Gothic Kingdom of Italy but had all the prestige as the founding city of the Empire (plus, you know, Paul and Peter). If the other three patriarchs are taken out of play, I could easily see the rivalry between these two becoming so great as to cause some kind of schism. Though I suspect it would be short-lived: Christianity really does seem to have far too many reasons to stay united. I mean, the faith is founded on love and acceptance. Kinda hard seeing them turn on each other for TOO long.

True, in fact we’re still seeing remnants of Persian invasion to this day. The reason the Patriarch of Jerusalem is considered to be only nominally over seeing the Arabian Peninsula is because the majority of it is made up of Zoroastrian kingdoms. If it wasn’t for the Nameless Saint and his unifying of the Arab clans the Zoroastrians may have come to reconquer Jerusalem again independent of the Persian empire.

Looking back another group that could have schismed off might have been Alexandria, I recall there were some heavy debates on Christs nature back in the day and Aegyptus was a hotbed of controversy for it, especially after the raising of Constantinpole to the rank of of a Holy See. The Alexandrine Pope was furious if the history books are to be believed.

 

[DanMcCollum]

True, in fact we’re still seeing remnants of Persian invasion to this day. The reason the Patriarch of Jerusalem is considered to be only nominally over seeing the Arabian Peninsula is because the majority of it is made up of Zoroastrian kingdoms. If it wasn’t for the Nameless Saint and his unifying of the Arab clans the Zoroastrians may have come to reconquer Jerusalem again independent of the Persian empire.

Looking back another group that could have schismed off might have been Alexandria, I recall there were some heavy debates on Christs nature back in the day and Aegyptus was a hotbed of controversy for it, especially after the raising of Constantinpole to the rank of of a Holy See. The Alexandrine Pope was furious if the history books are to be believed.

The weakening of the Jerusalemite Patriarchy is really one of the great shames of Christian history, if you ask me. I'm of the Roman Rite myself, but there is just something so interesting and special about the Jerusalemite Rite too. I know it's been reformed a number of times throughout history, but there is this sense of great age and greater connections to proto-Christianity. But, I'm a Romantic like that.

I was just thinking, by the way. Early Christianity was very fractured at certain points in the years prior to Constantine and even after. There had been a few outbreaks of small sects and hetrodoxity since of course, but they either always seem to be reabsorbed after a few generations or simply peter out. Maybe there's a way to get a schism through one of these groups? Like, perhaps the Arians gain control of the Roman Patriarchy at some point either before or after the Goths established the Kingdom of Italy? Or, of course, you could have one of the Western Kingdoms like Germany or Scandinavia trying to establish their own national Church? That latter bit seems a bit out there, I admit, but maybe it could work?

 

[Goldensilver81]

Maybe if you managed to hobble the Eastern Empire somehow? If you were able to knock it down a peg - maybe have the Sassanian conquests of Egypt and the Levant actually stick and for there be a real effort to convert the locals to Zoroastrianism - you could effectively knock the Patriarchies of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem out of the picture. This would leave only Rome and Constantinople standing - and even in OTL there has always been a bit of jockying between the two of them: especially as Constantinople was always the new kid on the block, if you will, yet was the center of the remnants of the Roman Empire, whereas Rome wasn't even the capital of the Gothic Kingdom of Italy but had all the prestige as the founding city of the Empire (plus, you know, Paul and Peter). If the other three patriarchs are taken out of play, I could easily see the rivalry between these two becoming so great as to cause some kind of schism. Though I suspect it would be short-lived: Christianity really does seem to have far too many reasons to stay united. I mean, the faith is founded on love and acceptance. Kinda hard seeing them turn on each other for TOO long.

zoroastrianisim was never the convert them religion , it is stric to iran and heck some parts of the sassanids where not even zoroastrian , so a new other religion that is as has the zeal of chirstianity of converting the people has to appear
the only reason why it worked for arabia its beacuse it was more apelling than old pagan rituals and that even took a while , while armenia, caucasian iberia and more despite many years of occupation never converted

 

[Don Corleone]

There's no way for a schism to be sustainable. There are two possible causes, broadly speaking.

One is personality conflicts, and those wouldn't outlive the antagonists.

The other is doctrinal disputes. And what possible hook would anyone have to start a new church based on that? They'd be trying to convince people to leave the church founded by Jesus for one founded by some random guy centuries later.

They'd also have to convince their followers that the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to fall into heresy. Good luck with that. It would mean Jesus lied when He said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, and that in turn means you might as well abandon Christianity altogether.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Weird story but I swear it makes sense so bear with me for a minute.

In undergrad I dated a woman who's father was a professor of Arabic history at the school, specializing in the pre-Christianization era. I remember one Easter dinner at her place he was telling me about some religious figure in Arabia named Muhammad who claimed he was a prophet of God. This was sometime in the 600s he said. Not super unusual to have a guy claim he's a prophet, but this professor says that this guy heard some revelations and even attracted some followers. However, according to the professor, this Muhammad died in Mecca sometime in the 620s. He may have been killed as he wasn't super popular among the upper class in Mecca but we just don't know for sure. There's not really a ton of evidence about the man himself, but his followers at the time wrote that he was charismatic and was destined to form a whole new religion or something. Anyway, once this Muhammad died they sorta disbanded (again, not a ton of evidence survived) and that was that. As we know St. Basil helped convert Arabia to widespread Christianity in 976 and Arabia has been solidly Christian since.

Anyway, since this is an alternate history site I sometimes wonder what happens if Muhammad lives and is able to spread his new religion. Probably nothing but maybe it takes root and spreads? Of course, all we can do is speculate.

 

[jackson3]

The reason the Patriarch of Jerusalem is considered to be only nominally over seeing the Arabian Peninsula is because the majority of it is made up of Zoroastrian kingdoms.

As we know St. Basil helped convert Arabia to widespread Christianity in 976 and Arabia has been solidly Christian since.

OOC: Be careful when Posting that what you say doesn’t contradict what others have already written.

 

[Deathbringer96]

Weird story but I swear it makes sense so bear with me for a minute.

In undergrad I dated a woman who's father was a professor of Arabic history at the school, specializing in the pre-Christianization era. I remember one Easter dinner at her place he was telling me about some religious figure in Arabia named Muhammad who claimed he was a prophet of God. This was sometime in the 600s he said. Not super unusual to have a guy claim he's a prophet, but this professor says that this guy heard some revelations and even attracted some followers. However, according to the professor, this Muhammad died in Mecca sometime in the 620s. He may have been killed as he wasn't super popular among the upper class in Mecca but we just don't know for sure. There's not really a ton of evidence about the man himself, but his followers at the time wrote that he was charismatic and was destined to form a whole new religion or something. Anyway, once this Muhammad died they sorta disbanded (again, not a ton of evidence survived) and that was that. As we know St. Basil helped convert Arabia to widespread Christianity in 976 and Arabia has been solidly Christian since.

Anyway, since this is an alternate history site I sometimes wonder what happens if Muhammad lives and is able to spread his new religion. Probably nothing but maybe it takes root and spreads? Of course, all we can do is speculate.

It's depends really on what route this Muhammad guy would take, doesn't it? If he went for peaceful, well we already have Christianity for that. If he goes for conquest though, I could see him take off for a bit, till the inevitable overreach and him getting smacked down by the governor of Egypt or the Persians moving into the area. Either way, he had a limited shelf life.
Where I could possibly see schism though is a earlier hostile Zoroastrianism cutting off Mediterranean based Christians for their brothers in India or China, then have the far eastern christians syncretize with Hindu or Confucianism