I have no knowledge of Vatican law but I also was surprised by Glen's move here - the idea of an anti-Pope was just so unexpected,
Actually, they are specifically not setting up an anti-pope, but rather claiming the Papacy vacant so they don't have to listen to anyone and can have the Catholic church in their nations under their control, at least de facto but not de jure.
I thought Rome's supremacy of the Catholic church would be undeniable by this point.
Not really. As recently as the 18th century Portugal ignored the pope's commands, and remember in this timeline a Pope was actually killed by a mob, so I wouldn't say it's undeniable.
I won't argue the point, however, though if the end result is a situation where Catholic Churches become national (i.e. not just one anti-Pope but many) I think I'll start to worry about the Catholic Church's hopes of remaining a significant denomination or whether we'll just see it fragment into a hundred little groups rather as Protestantism did...and I say that as a Protestant with no real reason to favour Catholicism.
That is one possible outcome, though I would point out that the Liberal nations are making no such move, and even some of the more Korsgaardian nations may not take as drastic of action as the Big Powers in this regard.
It just seems so...natural for their to be one Catholic Church spanning the world. Even if there is only intended to be one anti-Pope for now,
Isn't one anti-pope, and won't see one - you'll sooner see a more Korsgaardian palatable Pope elevated and the problem resolved than you would them setting up an anti-pope of their own, though now that I think about it....
well...the precedent has been set. What's to stop any other monarch now demanding his Catholic clergy submit to his personal rule? And what is to stop those groups then splitting under internal pressure, or over doctrinal dispute,
Self-same monarch.
or as the result of shifting borders, etc etc etc?
More possible.
I presume, however, citing Chekhov's Gun (tell me to shut up and stop ruining the suspension of disbelief if you want and I'll stop doing this, Glen
) that the picture of Stephansdom in Vienna there was as it is being mooted as a good location for Vatican II.
Naw, it's okay - I think I'm still managing to throw out some surprises, and your ideas are always stimulating as an alternate vision of the future to contrast my own against. A Vatican II type deal would be interesting, now that you mention it....
I wonder, if that does happen, what would become of Vienna city centre? Would the new anti-Pope press for his own extra-sovereign territory?
That DEFINITELY wouldn't happen.
And if does, surely he needs more than just one church to be in any way independent? But if that is the case then much of Vienna's core heartland districts must be ceded and lost to the Emperor of Austria-Hungary. Then again, am I perhaps contradicting my earlier opinions that the new Pope would likely be nothing more than an Austrian puppet with the Emperor as the actual and legal head of the church?
Wouldn't get independent land. Puppethood more likely.
Actually, I'll apologise now. That last paragraph was more than a little bit inspired by the fact that I was on holiday in Vienna this summer and instantly recognised the church, and its cleverly-disguised scaffolding with a canvas picture of the church covering it up (which is why part of the church looks so unnaturally grey). I kinda just wanted to show off
Sorry
No need, no need.
Ah good. I wasn't the only one who originally read Glen's post as assuming that the Prussia-Polish were not subjecting their clergy to Austria-Hungary but were establishing their own monarch as head of the church within his own borders. I now suspect Glen indeed meant the Polish clergy submitting to Vienna, but could you clarify which you meant please, Glen?
I did in a latter post, but I can understand the confusion.