Papacy in Jerusalem?

Soon after the crusaders take it, a new pope is elected, being a hardcore pious bastard, he orders the papacy moved to Jerusalem. What is the effect of this?
 
I could see this being something of a problem as Jerusalem is on the outer edges of Christendom, so managing the Catholic Church centrally would be even harder than it was OTL. It might end up seriously weakening the powers of the Papacy, since local bishops are going to have far more autonomy if messages need to go all the way to Jerusalem instead of Rome. It would also totally change the nature of the Papal-Imperial conflicts, probably in the Emperor's favor. In the long term, the Pope is probably reduced to a figurehead unless he moves back to Rome or some other reasonably central location.

Some intriguing possible long-term implications:

1. The Holy Roman Empire becomes a reasonably centralized and functional state; conflicts with the Papacy were one of the main things weaking the HRE prior to the Reformation.

2. No Reformation. A decentralized church is likely to be much more open to reforms and under the control of local rulers, leading to...

3. Re-unification with the Orthodox. The biggest issue in the schism was the conflict between the Roman Emperor and the Pope for supremacy. If the Pope is reduced to a figurehead then the Emperor has no challenge to his control over the church within his state, which removes the biggest hurdle to a possible re-unification. There were efforts along these lines in OTL, with a solely ceremonial Papacy they might succeed.
 
Because its one of the Most Sacred Places in Christianity. What if he moved it to Nazareth?

I see a few things wrong with that.

1: Nazareth (and Jerusalem too, really) is a backwater. Nobody has the time to frequently traverse to and fro.

2: Most of Judea at the time lacked the infrastructure for such an institution to operate from. Nazareth was a patch of desert in more desert; not a great place to head a religion

3: Surrounded completely by Muslim powers, populated mostly by Muslims, recently taken from very angry Muslims, etc. The Muslims are pissed at losing Jerusalem (it's holy to them too) and would be even more pissed if Jerusalem was turned into the new papal location.

4: Ties into number three. Jerusalem, while backwater, is defendable. It's walls are famous and it's got a large population to draw on. Nazareth is a region sparse of resources and people, and would fall like a dropped pin if another war with the Saracens occured (which inevitably happen).
 
I'm Catholic and I would like the Holy See to be in Jerusalem; it's the obvious option. The decision of having the Pope in Rome has anything to do, besides the use of the imperial structure. Indeed, everything has to do something with power, the pope was just the bishop of Rome, coequal to those Patriarchs in Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem. I'm for the reunion of all Christians under one Church, even if not by a single head. That's just politics. Of course, I expect to have more conflicts with the head of the Church in Holy Land, but actually I would like it.
 
I'm Catholic and I would like the Holy See to be in Jerusalem; it's the obvious option. The decision of having the Pope in Rome has anything to do, besides the use of the imperial structure. Indeed, everything has to do something with power, the pope was just the bishop of Rome, coequal to those Patriarchs in Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem. I'm for the reunion of all Christians under one Church, even if not by a single head. That's just politics. Of course, I expect to have more conflicts with the head of the Church in Holy Land, but actually I would like it.

While I don't see why our opinions should decide a medieval event :)rolleyes:), would you like to see the Catholic papacy completely be destroyed by Saracens?
 
One thing that often gets lost in Christian theology amongst the non-or-infrequently observant is that the birth of Jesus isn't nearly as important as the death of Jesus. We just think the birth's a bigger deal because of the way Christmas is slowly devouring the calendar. My point is, if you've got the option of centering your church at the place of his birth or the place of his death, you're gonna go with the latter and set yourself up in Jerusalem.

But then there is that other problem of the specific geography of the Papacy. The Pope is specifically the Bishop of Rome, and Jerusalem is another city in need of another Bishop. Is he occupying both offices now? How does the Orthodox community react to this really quite staggering breech?

And was there in fact already a Bishop of Jerusalem at the time? Given the rather tolerant nature of the Muslims at the time, it wouldn't surprise me if they still had a Patriarch. This is just asking for trouble.
 
And was there in fact already a Bishop of Jerusalem at the time? Given the rather tolerant nature of the Muslims at the time, it wouldn't surprise me if they still had a Patriarch. This is just asking for trouble.
IIRC, the succession of Patriarchs of Jerusalem continued unbroken after the Muslim conquest and the seat was held by Greeks. After the crusaders took the city, I believe they replaced the Greek patriarch with a Latin one.
 
IIRC, the succession of Patriarchs of Jerusalem continued unbroken after the Muslim conquest and the seat was held by Greeks. After the crusaders took the city, I believe they replaced the Greek patriarch with a Latin one.

Well there you go. You couldn't just give one guy both positions. Form really meant something then. I mean they pretended the Roman Empire was in Germany for hundreds of years after all (I know they claimed Italy too, but you get the point.)

Maybe you could have a situation like this:

The Pope sets it up so that one of his favorites, a nephew (or "nephew" or whatever) becomes Patriarch of Jerusalem and then announces that he recognizes the supremacy of that seat over all other Bishoprics and Patriarchies in Christendom.
The case for Jerusalem is probably a bit stronger amongst the Orthodox than Rome ever was, and they have more influence over the new office, so that schism won't likely last long.
However Western Europe now operates with a much freer hand and starts to alter the church fundamentally region-by-region.

Basically just what Chengar said.

But another possibility is Italian trade is more encouraged in an effort to keep a firm hand on at least the Mediterranean basin.
This may lead to bigger and better galleys requiring more slaves. With the Pope no longer frightened of Norman power (but with Greece now potentially in communion with the Catholics again) maybe the raiding in North Africa picks up and they go full time into the slaving business. Permanent (or longer lasting) Norman inroads into the North African coast?

And what would it mean to the Reconquista? Is it weaker or independent of the church, or does the fight to take the peninsula act as a rallying point for Papal authority in an otherwise distant land?
 
Soon after the crusaders take it, a new pope is elected, being a hardcore pious bastard, he orders the papacy moved to Jerusalem. What is the effect of this?

Sorry, but this is just ASB.

The Pope replacing the Patriarch of Jerusalem (instead of just appointing a Catholic as Patriarch) is one thing, but no Pope would be foolish enough to move the papacy to Jerusalem as long as there's nothing but a weak Crusader state that's constantly short on manpower standing between Jerusalem and the various Muslim states in the region.

And keep in mind that moving the papacy to Jerusalem also means moving the papacy away from Western Europe - and does anyone here realize that there were various rather powerful antipopes during the period we're talking about?

Moving away from Western Europe would critically weaken the official Pope's position in Europe, and any antipope wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of that.
 
Soon after the crusaders take it, a new pope is elected, being a hardcore pious bastard, he orders the papacy moved to Jerusalem. What is the effect of this?
Big problem here: The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and there is a separate office of Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Now, what he could do, is make Jerusalem the "Summer Home" of the Papacy or something, rather than the official seat, which would, for lack of a better phrase, dick with things too much.

Form really meant something then. I mean they pretended the Roman Empire was in Germany for hundreds of years after all.
Definitely sig-worthy. :D
 
If Syria, Palestine, Egypt Mesopotamia, and Anatolia are "rich/developped" and have been in Christian hands for a few centuries, the Patriarch of Jerusalem(perhaps Alexandria) would certainly contest leadership of the Church and therefore the the Pope could change the definition of Pope from 'Bishop of Rome' to 'Bishop of Rome until the Holy Land is restored'. The Papacy would then move to Jerusalem.
 
If you have an "enduring Outremer" from some other POD, then I think that once the Schisms in the Western Church in the 14th century happen (I would argue that these schisms were probably going to happen regardless of the situation in the Frankish East), you could have the Outremer decide to go its own way. The population would be very orientalized (it was OTL), and not accepted by many in the West (in OTL records of Westerners shock at how the Outremer Franks lived are wide spread).

Furthermore, with the Papacy directly under Outremer control it would give the King of Jerusalem much more room for political manuevering in getting the various eastern heretical sects into the same church (the Armenians, Chaldeans, et al). The Papacy could serve as a conduit to distribute power and maintain the tenuous peace among the various confessions.
 
One interesting thought; getting the Papacy to move to Outremer might be ASB, but if the Kingdom of Jerusalem is relatively stable and secure I could see an antipope setting himself up there at some point. Jerusalem does have a location on the relative periphery of Europe, and the location's spiritual significance would make any claimant seem a bit more legitimate. It would be rather ironic if the presence of an antipope led to a crusade being launched against the original crusader state.
 
there was actually an attempt to make Jerusalem into a theocracy before Godfrey's coronation, making an archbishop or someone else into the head of state, subordinate only to the Pope. maybe that plan works, and eventually that archbishop is elected pope some time in the future, but still retains his position as [whatever] of Jerusalem, and like the Avignon papacy spends more time in Jerusalem rather than Rome, and his successors do likewise. but the Levant would have to be more stable for this to work, so maybe a more successful crusade as the initial POD?
 
there was actually an attempt to make Jerusalem into a theocracy before Godfrey's coronation, making an archbishop or someone else into the head of state, subordinate only to the Pope. maybe that plan works, and eventually that archbishop is elected pope some time in the future, but still retains his position as [whatever] of Jerusalem, and like the Avignon papacy spends more time in Jerusalem rather than Rome, and his successors do likewise. but the Levant would have to be more stable for this to work, so maybe a more successful crusade as the initial POD?

I would lean towards making the Second Crusade less of a disaster; the First Crusade did well enough that changing it much probably isn't neccessary. If the Second Crusade follows the original plan of reclaiming Edessa and defeating Nur-ad-Din before he can gain much momentum that would certainly help the Kingdom of Jerusalem much better than the failed attack launched by the Crusaders against Damascus, which was actually an ally of Jerusalem at the time.
 
Top