No schism if West Roman Empire existed

No Schism if West Roman Empire existed

  • True

    Votes: 10 25.0%
  • False

    Votes: 30 75.0%

  • Total voters
    40
So... if the West Roman Empire existed, the bishop of Rome/pope would not claim to be supreme over other churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch...) like in OTL.

Do you agree? If not, explain it.
 
Last edited:
If the Western Empire exists as well as the Eastern Empire, then I suspect there will be, at some point, divergence in the ecclesiastical practices as the two empires naturally diverge.

A significant problem is the uneven geographic distribution of Pentarchs. With only one in the West, the Pope is naturally going to see itself more and more as unparalleled in authority throughout the WRE (and if in the West, why not everywhere) while the 4 in the East are always going to be more actively aware of and responsive to each other.
 
Depends on how powerful this WRE remains.If WRE is limited to Italy and a few other places,it will likely be quite dependent on the goodwill of the ERE,so a schism is unlikely to breakout.If the WRE becomes powerful however,it may want to reunify the Roman Empire,in which case the WRe might want to encourage the pope to claim supremacy over the Church.
 
Might a surviving WRE create more patriarchates (obviously depending on how much territory it has)? One each for Gaul, Hispania, Britannia and Africa (delete as appropriate)?
 
The number of patriarchs in the WRE is a good point. If it's just the Bishop of Rome then he'll naturally become head of the western church rather than first among equals.
 
Might a surviving WRE create more patriarchates (obviously depending on how much territory it has)? One each for Gaul, Hispania, Britannia and Africa (delete as appropriate)?

It would help a lot if let's say Iberia and Africa still fall to the Arab forces. Just scenario...

That seems like a good idea, having more patriarchates. It reduces the importance of Rome and strenghten the position of the emperor.
 
Might a surviving WRE create more patriarchates (obviously depending on how much territory it has)? One each for Gaul, Hispania, Britannia and Africa (delete as appropriate)?

It’s certainly doable. The Pentarchy was established under Justinian and solidified in Imperial law the structure of the church in the East so you’d need to change things before him, which if you’re going for a surviving WRE you’d likely need to as well. Before Justinian there were only three Nicene Patriarchates: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria - with Rome notionally as first among equals. Depending on when the POD occurs for the WRE, you maybe can butterfly the Pentarchy away and establish more Western Patriarchates alongside Constantinople and Jerusalem (Both of which have strong political/religious weight behind them and were always likely to end up as Patriachates)

As for western candidates, I suggest a Patriarch in Carthage, either Lugdunum or Massilia, maybe Tarraco, and if you really want to go for a Northern Patriarch then maybe Augusta Treverorum? Just ideas.
 
Certainly Carthage could have been one, and Massilia seems more likely than Lugdunum just because the south of Gaul was wealthier.

If weirder hijinks go down, say Foederati completely take over Gaul and Hispania early, then maybe each of those gets its own Patriarch? I don’t know...
 
Must be remember that for a city would become in the 'residence' of a patriarch/Patriarch city first must had been from an archbishop and/or must had a great prestige in the Church/Christendom.
Generaly the choosen cities had first prestige/importance how provincial capitals and/or for being the region most important city anothe reazon would be if his bishop/archbishop its/was a famous/prestigious teologist and/or has a large tradition of teologians or saints.
Given the above in OTL ,aside Rome, in the Western Empire only Carthage would fit the prerequisites for her Bishop would be become an Patriarch.
 
Depends on how powerful this WRE remains.If WRE is limited to Italy and a few other places,it will likely be quite dependent on the goodwill of the ERE,so a schism is unlikely to breakout.If the WRE becomes powerful however,it may want to reunify the Roman Empire,in which case the WRe might want to encourage the pope to claim supremacy over the Church.
On the other hand, the more powerful the western half of the empire is, the less likely any strict political divisions between east and west will be, as there were not two empires but one empire with two emperors. Anyway, to return to the thread topic...

There's always going to be some ecclesiastical difference, but I doubt a full blown schism would ever break out.
 
Given the above in OTL ,aside Rome, in the Western Empire only Carthage would fit the prerequisites for her Bishop would be become an Patriarch.
Ravenna could also be a potential candidate after Carthage due to it's status as Imperial Capital for the Western court. I say this because the Ravennate church actually was trying to become more independent from the Roman Patriarch during the time of the Exarchate of Ravenna (late 6th to early 8th century) in our timeline, but it failed because the Popes at the time were consolidating more power and central authority in Italy at the time was almost non-existent.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, the more powerful the western half of the empire is, the less likely any strict political divisions between east and west will be, as there were not two empires but one empire with two emperors. Anyway, to return to the thread topic...

There's always going to be some ecclesiastical difference, but I doubt a full blown schism would ever break out.
Once the situation in the West stabilises,you may find another Constantine-esque emperor who wants to be the sole emperor,but as we know with Anthemius,both parts of the empire started to see each other as different,with Anthemius being opposed for being from the East.So any attempt to re-unify may be harder than earlier periods and end in stalmate.
 
It's worth mentioning that most of the cultural/theological differences that came to a head in the Great Schism were already present before the fall of the Western Empire. The theological underpinnings of the filioque had already been articulated by Augustine. The liturgy was in Latin, not Greek, and iirc was celebrated with azyme rather than leavened bread. Popes like Damasus were already claiming a form of papal supremacy, and again you have statements from Augustine like "Roma locuta est, causa finita est."

A Western Roman Empire will have an interest in holding onto as much power as it can and to maintain its legitimacy in the face of Constantinople's growing supremacy. It will have an interest in protecting the Church of Rome's prerogatives as it sees them as a means of maintaining control over its own people and as leverage over the ERE should it need it.

However, the manner in which the Western Empire survives will have an enormous effect on the theological controversies which follow in the proceeding centuries (I think it's fair to say the Christological controversies would take a very different shape, and that Pelagianism may not be as successful if it arises at all). It would be difficult for me to forecast how the fault lines would develop/be exacerbated without more information. Who knows? Maybe the Western Emperor becomes an Arian to appease his Gothic allies and the Schism is both earlier and more dramatic.

There are a couple things that would help prevent a schism though. One is that a surviving WRE is much more likely to have continued access to Eastern writers and vice versa. A maintained theological dialogue might prevent some of the linguistic misunderstandings that only raised tensions. The other is that an emperor in the West, and in Rome herself, might not want the pope to be too powerful, otherwise he would run the risk of not being able to control the machinery of state.

These are just some of the issues as I see them. I'd be interested to see where others take it.
 
Once the situation in the West stabilises,you may find another Constantine-esque emperor who wants to be the sole emperor,but as we know with Anthemius,both parts of the empire started to see each other as different,with Anthemius being opposed for being from the East.So any attempt to re-unify may be harder than earlier periods and end in stalmate.
Presumably the POD isn't going to be as late as when the west was practically on its knees. Of course you're going to have emperors who want to rule over the whole empire, especially if both halves are stable, and civil wars will absolutely be a thing, but that was the case pre-Theodosius anyway.
 
Ravenna could also be a potential candidate after Carthage due to it's status as Imperial Capital for the Western court. I say this because the Ravennate church actually was trying to become more independent from the Roman Patriarch during the time of the Exarchate of Ravenna (late 6th to early 8th century) in our timeline, but it failed because the Popes at the time were consolidating more power and central authority in Italy at the time was almost non-existent.

While in an ATL where the Western Empire would remain united and stable the political importance of Ravenna or the one that could to be chosen as the imperial capital for the west would be very high and it's highly probable that would be pressures for 'raise' its category...
But given the prestige both political and mainly ecclesiastical/ theological of Rome its than great that would be highly improbable that in Italy would be two Patriarchates. At least if both cities remain in the same Empire.

Because if well political prestige it's a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition for that a city bishop would be chosen or raised to the 'Patriarch category'.

The Key factor, beside from his regional/provincial importance, would be its 'fame' or great prestige and/or theological tradition in the Christendom (at least in the Western).
The only exception, in OTL , was the 'Constantinople case', but was then rebuilt how the new Imperial capital and the nearer cities had not former or 'actual political importance neither these cities wasn't great nor prestigious Cristians centers.
 
While in an ATL where the Western Empire would remain united and stable the political importance of Ravenna or the one that could to be chosen as the imperial capital for the west would be very high and it's highly probable that would be pressures for 'raise' its category...
But given the prestige both political and mainly ecclesiastical/ theological of Rome its than great that would be highly improbable that in Italy would be two Patriarchates. At least if both cities remain in the same Empire.

Because if well political prestige it's a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition for that a city bishop would be chosen or raised to the 'Patriarch category'.

The Key factor, beside from his regional/provincial importance, would be its 'fame' or great prestige and/or theological tradition in the Christendom (at least in the Western).
The only exception, in OTL , was the 'Constantinople case', but was then rebuilt how the new Imperial capital and the nearer cities had not former or 'actual political importance neither these cities wasn't great nor prestigious Cristians centers.
Trier if the emperor stays there a lot?
 
While in an ATL where the Western Empire would remain united and stable the political importance of Ravenna or the one that could to be chosen as the imperial capital for the west would be very high and it's highly probable that would be pressures for 'raise' its category...
But given the prestige both political and mainly ecclesiastical/ theological of Rome its than great that would be highly improbable that in Italy would be two Patriarchates. At least if both cities remain in the same Empire.

Because if well political prestige it's a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition for that a city bishop would be chosen or raised to the 'Patriarch category'.

The Key factor, beside from his regional/provincial importance, would be its 'fame' or great prestige and/or theological tradition in the Christendom (at least in the Western).
The only exception, in OTL , was the 'Constantinople case', but was then rebuilt how the new Imperial capital and the nearer cities had not former or 'actual political importance neither these cities wasn't great nor prestigious Cristians centers.

Italy actually has two Patriarchates (Rome and Venice). But the Venetian (earlier, Aquileian) one emerged later and was always firmly subordinate to Rome.
 
Trier if the emperor stays there a lot?
While would be probable, if would be the imperial political will to do, that ATL Emperor's residence/capital city would be become an intellectual/theological center and those increases its prestige... the mentioned city was too near from the, OTL, imperial borders.
Italy actually has two Patriarchates (Rome and Venice). But the Venetian (earlier, Aquileian) one emerged later and was always firmly subordinate to Rome.

I know, but I was referring, in specific, to the situation in the Roman Empire both OTL or ATL.
 
Top