Patriarchite of Lutèce and the North

[Historyfan 92]

WI, at the council of Nicea after all of the OTL decisions, the council had decided to establish a Patriarch in the Roman city of Lutèce (modern Paris) to minister to the Christians of Northern Gaul and Britannia? How would this affect the later East-West devide in the church? What would happen during the Barbarian Invasions?

 

[a989chris]

To start, there were not that many christians in Roman Gaul around the year 300. Most of the frontier army was still pagan in some form, and much of the population was pagan also until the early 400's.

Most of the patriarchates were set up in the east due to a large christian population there, and therefore less opposition. However, one could be set up later in history in the west once the empire began to persecute pagans.

In the end though, I don't think that it would matter much. The barbarians who first attacked gaul were arian christian, and paris at the time was only a small city/town. If it survived until frankish times it may have become a rival to Rome.

 

[Ran Exilis]

A patriarchate of Lutèce might not make much of a difference.

During IIRC the late 4th century, a patriarchate was established in Aquileia in northern Italy, and even though there was a short-lived schism between the Aquileian Patriarchate and Rome, this patriarchate was soon re-absorbed by Rome.

IIRC the title of Patriarch of Aquileia still exists, but it is little more than an extra title that the bishop or archbishop of Aquileia has.

And as a989chris already pointed out; there weren't that many Christians in northern Gaul at the time (not quite as many as in the area of the Patriarchate of Aquileia), so, unless this patriarchate would somehow become isolated from Rome and the rest of the Church, this patriarchate is even more likely to disappear, with the extra title of patriarch for the archbishop of Paris as its only remnant.

 

[Philip]

WI, at the council of Nicea after all of the OTL decisions, the council had decided to establish a Patriarch in the Roman city of Lutèce (modern Paris) to minister to the Christians of Northern Gaul and Britannia?

As others have pointed out, there weren't enough Christians in the area to justify a patriarchate. Some other problems: (1) Such a patriarchate would not be apostolic. It would rank below all the other patriarchates. (2) Lutece, at the time, was a city with no significance to Christian history and very little significance to imperial history. Not a strong candidate for a patriarchate.

How would this affect the later East-West devide in the church?

Very little, if at all. Should it somehow remain semi-independent of Rome, there is the possibility that it could fall into iconoclasm and reject Nicaea II as the Franks did OTL.

 

[Rick Robinson]

A patriarchate of Lutèce might not make much of a difference.

During IIRC the late 4th century, a patriarchate was established in Aquileia in northern Italy, and even though there was a short-lived schism between the Aquileian Patriarchate and Rome, this patriarchate was soon re-absorbed by Rome.

IIRC the title of Patriarch of Aquileia still exists, but it is little more than an extra title that the bishop or archbishop of Aquileia has.

And as a989chris already pointed out; there weren't that many Christians in northern Gaul at the time (not quite as many as in the area of the Patriarchate of Aquileia), so, unless this patriarchate would somehow become isolated from Rome and the rest of the Church, this patriarchate is even more likely to disappear, with the extra title of patriarch for the archbishop of Paris as its only remnant.

Still ... broadening it out a bit, under what conditions might multiple patriarchates have developed in the west, in late Roman or early medieval times. With what consequences for the subsequent development of the Western church(s)?

-- Rick

 

[Philip]

Still ... broadening it out a bit, under what conditions might multiple patriarchates have developed in the west, in late Roman or early medieval times.

For them to have any chance at 'standing up to Rome', they would need to Apostolic -- established by one of the Apostles or under their authority. Further, the city needs to have some imperial importance. The See could not be established it late Roman or earlier Medieval times without Rome's permission.

The best chance is to have St Paul make his intended trip to Hispania. A church established by him at Tarraco/Tarragona would then make a good candidate. If the church at Lugdunum/Lyon had an Apostolic foundation, it would also make a good candidate.

With what consequences for the subsequent development of the Western church(s)?

Little, I think. Such churches would be brought into line as the churches of the British Isles were.