Get an Ottoman Italy

[Dan1988]

Treasonous to whom, and why?

The Ottomans. I'll leave Abdul to fill in the rest.

It could very well be seen as moving away from Rome.

Not really. Let's let Mr Wikipedia help you answer your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particular_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Rite

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Are we talking about the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople? In the 15th Century, that was a ceremonial title normally held by someone in Rome.

No, I mean if the Ottomans decided a new millet was necessary due to the large number of Catholics that would become part of the empire in the case of conquest of a portion of Italy, there would be a Patriarch established in Istanbul to be their head.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Treasonous to whom, and why?



It could very well be seen as moving away from Rome.

I think you're not getting the point of this discussion. We're talking about an Ottoman conquest of Southern Italy and Sicily. There is no chance the Ottomans are going to allow an ecclesiatical organization headed by the Pope in Rome. There will either be a Catholic Patriarch set up in Istanbul to be the head of the Catholic Millet, or they will place Italian Christians under the jusistiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. If the conquest is in the 15th c, I think the latter is more likely. I'm not sure if the 15th c is too late for Sicily and Southern Italy to be brought into the Eastern Church, but I suspect it is possible.

 

[Dan1988]

So, here's a challenge. Say the Ottoman-controlled areas in Italy are around in the 19th century. Now in Italian history much of the 19th century is dominated by the Risorgimento. For these purposes only I'm assuming that the Ottoman-controlled areas of Italy replace the OTL Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. This means that the modern-day OTL Italian regions of Campania, Apulia, Sicily, Abruzzo, Molise, Calabria, Basilicata, and parts of Umbria are part of Ottoman-controlled Italy. How would Ottoman control of these areas affect the Risorgimento?

 

[Keenir]

So, here's a challenge. Say the Ottoman-controlled areas in Italy are around in the 19th century. Now in Italian history much of the 19th century is dominated by the Risorgimento. For these purposes only I'm assuming that the Ottoman-controlled areas of Italy replace the OTL Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. This means that the modern-day OTL Italian regions of Campania, Apulia, Sicily, Abruzzo, Molise, Calabria, Basilicata, and parts of Umbria are part of Ottoman-controlled Italy. How would Ottoman control of these areas affect the Risorgimento?

the Pope In Exile commands all good and proper Catholics to resist the heresies of the infidel Papacy backing the Risorimento.

 

[Dan1988]

NB: Two Sicilies did not include the OTL modern-day Italian region of Lazio, of which Lazio includes Rome.

 

[Philip]

The Ottomans. I'll leave Abdul to fill in the rest.

This counters your next statement. If Latin Rite is perceived as treasonous by the Ottomans, and if Italians convert to Byzantine Rite, then those Italian who remain Latin could perceive those who change rites as being treasonous to Rome and supporting the Ottomans.

Not really. Let's let Mr Wikipedia help you answer your question.

Mistake 1: Using Wikipedia as source.
Mistake 2: Misunderstanding what is written in Wikipedia.

Note that the Eastern Catholic Church consist of people who practiced an Eastern Rite and then entered into communion with Rome. You do not see a section of Latin Rite practitioners breaking off and beginning an Eastern Rite. Further, note when the Churches you cited were formed. Any of them during the 15th Century? The ecumenicism that allowed for the Eastern Rites to coexist came about later.

 

[Philip]

No, I mean if the Ottomans decided a new millet was necessary due to the large number of Catholics that would become part of the empire in the case of conquest of a portion of Italy, there would be a Patriarch established in Istanbul to be their head.

Okay. I wonder how Rome would react to this. Would they remain in communion with Rome? How would the (Roman) Latin Patriarch of Constantinople react?

I think you're not getting the point of this discussion. We're talking about an Ottoman conquest of Southern Italy and Sicily.

I get that perfectly. What I don't get is why good Latin Rite Catholics would convert to Eastern Rite Catholicism as Dan suggests.

There is no chance the Ottomans are going to allow an ecclesiatical organization headed by the Pope in Rome.

I agree.

There will either be a Catholic Patriarch set up in Istanbul to be the head of the Catholic Millet,

Here is where I have a problem. Unless this 'Catholic' Patriarch is in communion with Rome, and subject to Rome, it is not Catholic. However, we just agreed that the Ottomans will not allow the new hierarchy to be headed by Rome.

or they will place Italian Christians under the jusistiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. If the conquest is in the 15th c, I think the latter is more likely.

Again, I agree.

I'm not sure if the 15th c is too late for Sicily and Southern Italy to be brought into the Eastern Church, but I suspect it is possible.

I think it is possible. Those bishops unwilling to cooperate would probably already have fled. If the EP allows the Italians to maintain a revised Latin Rite, a Western Orthodoxy, it becomes even more likely.

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

Kill Muhammed early on, get the Ottomans and other Turks to convert to Christianity before the schism and keep it from happening.

Could've happened. Hypothetically.

 

[Keenir]

Here is where I have a problem. Unless this 'Catholic' Patriarch is in communion with Rome, and subject to Rome, it is not Catholic.

there had been Catholic Churches in the Ottoman Empire for over two centuries when the Empire was brought to an end.
(the Jacobite Catholics, the Armenian Catholics, etc)

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Here is where I have a problem. Unless this 'Catholic' Patriarch is in communion with Rome, and subject to Rome, it is not Catholic.

Why isn't it? I said "not subject to", not "not in communion with". The Italians would just be "Eastern" Latin-rite Catholics. It's no weirder than the Ecumenical Patriarch being an Ottoman official.

 

[Philip]

Why isn't it? I said "not subject to", not "not in communion with". The Italians would just be "Eastern" Latin-rite Catholics. It's no weirder than the Ecumenical Patriarch being an Ottoman official.

The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope is a central aspect of Catholic theology. One can not be Catholic without being subject to the authority of the Pope. Any church organization not being subject to the Pope will be excommunicated by the Pope. One can not be in communion with the Pope without being subject to him. This is born out not only in Catholic theology (if you want references, I will be happy to post them for you), but also in history. The primary cause of the East-West Schism was the issue of papal authority. Henry VIII was excommunicated for refusing papal authority. Initially, he made no changes to theology, yet the pope cut him off. Even today, the bishops in China who have not submitted to the pope are considered to be in formal schism and excommunicated.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Thanks, I don't need references. I don't see how this is true. What in your opinion is an Eastern Catholic? These are autonomous. The Vatican had no practical control over any of them.

The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope is a central aspect of Catholic theology. One can not be Catholic without being subject to the authority of the Pope. Any church organization not being subject to the Pope will be excommunicated by the Pope. One can not be in communion with the Pope without being subject to him. This is born out not only in Catholic theology (if you want references, I will be happy to post them for you), but also in history. The primary cause of the East-West Schism was the issue of papal authority. Henry VIII was excommunicated for refusing papal authority. Initially, he made no changes to theology, yet the pope cut him off. Even today, the bishops in China who have not submitted to the pope are considered to be in formal schism and excommunicated.

 

[Dan1988]

Hmm, why does the Polish National Catholic Church keep popping up in my head regarding what you're saying, Phillip? Yes it's a Latin Rite church, but it provide some examination. One could also study the Catholic Church in Poland during the Communist era.

 

[Philip]

there had been Catholic Churches in the Ottoman Empire for over two centuries when the Empire was brought to an end.
(the Jacobite Catholics, the Armenian Catholics, etc)

Yes. All were subject to Rome. Here is a list of some of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Some were not subject to the Ottomans, but all were subject to Rome.

• Coptic Catholic Church: 1749. Benedict XIV appoint Amba Athanasius the Apostolic Vicar. In 1824, Leo XII raised it to a partiarchate.
• Ethiopian Catholic Church: Urban VIII appointed Mendez Patriarch of Ethiopia.
• Maronite Catholic Church: Affirmed Papal authority in 1181.
• Syriac Catholic Church: From the 1620s, Jesuit and Capuchin missionaries converted Syriac Orthodox to Catholicism. 1782, Jarweh submitted to Rome.
• Armenian Catholic Church: 1740, Abraham-Pierre I Ardzivian declared himself Catholic. Benedict XIV recognized him as Patriarch of Armenia and established the church.
• Melkite Greek-Catholic Church. Created when Cyril Tanus was recognized as Patriarch of Antioch by Benedict XIII in 1729.

Two patterns emerge here. First, that these churches are established by papal authority, usually by Orthodox converting to Catholicism. Second, most of these occur well after the 15th Century being discussed in this thread. What you don't see is the creation of a Catholic Church that is not subject to Rome.

 

[Philip]

Thanks, I don't need references. I don't see how this is true. What in your opinion is an Eastern Catholic? These are autonomous. The Vatican had no practical control over any of them.

They are completely subject to the pope with regards to doctrine. Further, their autonomy is at the pleasure of the pope and may be revoked at any time. For example, if they appoint bishops unacceptable to the Holy See, the pope will step in. In some sense, they can be seen as analogous to a tributary state.

This is vastly different from the situation in Orthodoxy. One a Church is granted autocephaly, it can not be revoked. The Chuch could be excommunicated, but the other patriarchs/primates/metropolitans could not step in and take over.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

They are completely subject to the pope with regards to doctrine. Further, their autonomy is at the pleasure of the pope and may be revoked at any time. For example, if they appoint bishops unacceptable to the Holy See, the pope will step in. In some sense, they can be seen as analogous to a tributary state.

This is vastly different from the situation in Orthodoxy. One a Church is granted autocephaly, it can not be revoked. The Chuch could be excommunicated, but the other patriarchs/primates/metropolitans could not step in and take over.

That may have become more true in recent times, but I can assure you the Pope's authority was purely nominal in the period we're talking about. And the Pope certainly seems willing to waive his doctrinal authority in the case of the Eastern Catholic churches, because they diverge. If he did assert himself, he would almost certainly cause schisms.

 

[Philip]

Hmm, why does the Polish National Catholic Church keep popping up in my head regarding what you're saying, Phillip?

Not in communion with Rome. If memory serves, they are one of the Old Catholic Churches that reject Vatican I.

Yes it's a Latin Rite church, but it provide some examination.

How so? Because they happen to use the name 'Catholic'? Calling oneself Catholic does not make it so. I could start calling my family the Catholic Church of Philip's House. That doesn't make us a legitimate Catholic Church.

 

[Philip]

That may have become more true in recent times, but I can assure you the Pope's authority was purely nominal in the period we're talking about. And the Pope certainly seems willing to waive his doctrinal authority in the case of the Eastern Catholic churches, because they diverge.

Can you provide an example?

If he did assert himself, he would almost certainly cause schisms.

My point exactly. They would cease to be in communion with Rome.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Can you provide an example?

Yes. In the mid-19th c the Armenian millets of the Ottoman Empire were granted constitutions and their patriarchates became elective positions, by the laity. That isn't very "Catholic". The millet leaders also had to be approved by the Sultan, again, being dependent upon the actual leader of the Islamic faith is not a very positive indicator of Papal supremacy.