PC. Vatican City based in Jerusalem?
- Thread starter WILDGEESE
- Start date
Maybe the locations resemble those of the holy tomb in Jerusalem. Maybe the altairs of the Churches are pointed in Jerusalem´s directions ?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Simplest would be a lasting and enduring Crusader states,especially if they can secure Egypt too
Especially if Rome seems too hot a seat, wars between France, Spain,Austria etc
A friendly King of Jerusalem who can offer the Pope the Templars, vassal states all around including Egypt, a successful military and booming trade
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Especially if Rome seems too hot a seat, wars between France, Spain,Austria etc
A friendly King of Jerusalem who can offer the Pope the Templars, vassal states all around including Egypt, a successful military and booming trade
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Roman Catholicism is Roman. Such that moving the Pope from Rome caused a schism.
The Church in Rome was the heart of Western Christianity. Jerusalem was under the Greek sphere by the time it was established as a major institution.
The Church in Rome was the heart of Western Christianity. Jerusalem was under the Greek sphere by the time it was established as a major institution.
Grey Wolf
Donor
The Templars and the Hospitallers were orders under the Pope
Troops and leaders for Jerusalem came from England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria -i.e. the Catholic monarchies
If the Pope relocated to Jerusalem it would be as a Catholic monarch not an Orthodox one. Orthodoxy lost Jerusalem to the Muslims, Catholicism retook it
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Troops and leaders for Jerusalem came from England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria -i.e. the Catholic monarchies
If the Pope relocated to Jerusalem it would be as a Catholic monarch not an Orthodox one. Orthodoxy lost Jerusalem to the Muslims, Catholicism retook it
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Again, Rome is just too important to the Catholic Church. Jerusalem may be a holy place, but it is at the frontier of Christendom, geographically speaking.
France moved the Papal court, and it caused a decades-long schism. And that was still within the bounds of Western Christendom, indeed closer to the geographic center than Rome.
How much more chaos would bloom if the Papal court moves to a place farther removed from Western Europe than Constantinople?
Kvicerud
Banned
I'm confused...
Do we want the pope, as in, the Roman pope, to have his seat in Jerusalem?
Or are we looking at an entirely different Christianity where its center is in Jerusalem?
With the first one, I'm going to have to agree with Timaeus on it causing a schism. But if we're looking at a world in which Western Christianity is never centered in Rome, then we need to butterfly Islam, which is perfectly easy (Muhammad got kicked in the chest by a horse as a boy and died). That would be a very different world indeed, though.
Do we want the pope, as in, the Roman pope, to have his seat in Jerusalem?
Or are we looking at an entirely different Christianity where its center is in Jerusalem?
With the first one, I'm going to have to agree with Timaeus on it causing a schism. But if we're looking at a world in which Western Christianity is never centered in Rome, then we need to butterfly Islam, which is perfectly easy (Muhammad got kicked in the chest by a horse as a boy and died). That would be a very different world indeed, though.
Sorry, should have been more concise.
I was thinking of moving his seat entirely to Jerusalem, buildings, staff, the works etc.
Regards filers
I see that marginally viable after 1900 (but probably requiring an earlier POD). The scenario is like this: the Ottoman Empire collapses in a war similar to WWI, but the Powers go for International Palestine and Interconfessional Jerusalem. Then, something akin to Fascism takes power in Italy, except this ideology is rabidly anti-Christian (which would be consistent with much historical Fascism, were it even trying to be somewhat consistent). Somehow this regime manages to hold onto power in Italy notheless (that's here that probably a pre 1900 is needed, with an even more antagonistic relationship between the Italian state and the Papacy as the background). As a result, the Church is committedly in the anti-Fascist camp and when *WWII comes, it supports the *Allies from the start. Italy is neutral here, but makes gestures, and exiling the Papacy is one. The Pope decides to go to Jerusalem because of its international status and religious significance. Post-War the nasty regime in Italy remains there, Franco-style, owing to its neutrality, and/or some Pope decides that indeed Jerusalem is a better seat (the latter probably requires a Council and may cause a minor schism).
The pope is the pope because he is the Bishop of Rome. Even the cardinals are technically privileged to elect the pope because they are the (nominal) parsons of the various urban and suburban churches of Rome.
Moving the papcy somewhere else physically is possible, if a high degree of symbolic fiction is kept up, comparable to the way there are still appointed titular bishops of long lost episcopal sees in North Africa and the Levant.
The pope would be "The Bishop of Rome permanently residing in Jerusalem".
But formally decoupling the papacy from the bishopric of Rome and thus the Petrine tradition and all that jazz is impossible. The pope would basically declare that he no longer is the pope. It is not like moving the HQ of an international corporation. You cannot simply say "from now on, the Latin Archbishop of Jerusalem is the one with the Keys of Saint Peter and all papal powers". Cannot happen.
Moving the papcy somewhere else physically is possible, if a high degree of symbolic fiction is kept up, comparable to the way there are still appointed titular bishops of long lost episcopal sees in North Africa and the Levant.
The pope would be "The Bishop of Rome permanently residing in Jerusalem".
But formally decoupling the papacy from the bishopric of Rome and thus the Petrine tradition and all that jazz is impossible. The pope would basically declare that he no longer is the pope. It is not like moving the HQ of an international corporation. You cannot simply say "from now on, the Latin Archbishop of Jerusalem is the one with the Keys of Saint Peter and all papal powers". Cannot happen.
Well, it only woud work if this Vatican is located only in the Christian quarter. Can you imagine the Temple Mount as a Catholic site in a post-1900 TL? Also, I don't think that the other Christian denominations would be very keen to answer to the Pope when they want to access holy sites or relics...
1) Of course it would not be located on the Temple Mount.
2) Non Catholic Christians would keep doing their own thing. I was not positing a Papal State in Jerusalem (that would be borderline ASB).
GdwnsnHo
Banned
You may not be able to achieve this with the bishop of Rome, but you could have something similar to vatican city emerge.
Say that there is a successful crusade the establishes a stable, long lasting, Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem. It isn't impossible that a Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem could emerge, and whilst subservient to Rome, is granted sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem,be it the Catholic Quarter, or as part of a reorganisation of the city to allow the church to operate in its own palace. (This could be a bribe by the King of Jerusalem to encourage the Patriarch to petition the Pope for something, maybe reinforcements from Europe).
Whilst this isn't THE Vatican city, it could be something similar to OTL Vatican city, but created earlier in an ATL.
Say that there is a successful crusade the establishes a stable, long lasting, Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem. It isn't impossible that a Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem could emerge, and whilst subservient to Rome, is granted sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem,be it the Catholic Quarter, or as part of a reorganisation of the city to allow the church to operate in its own palace. (This could be a bribe by the King of Jerusalem to encourage the Patriarch to petition the Pope for something, maybe reinforcements from Europe).
Whilst this isn't THE Vatican city, it could be something similar to OTL Vatican city, but created earlier in an ATL.
Now this is more plausible.
---
Now seriously, Western Christendom is what it is because Rome was the largest and holiest city in the West. Transferring from it to Jerusalem undermines the Pope's authority, regardless of Jerusalem's holiness.
On that note, a Jerusalem Papacy akin to the Avignon one with Italy exiling the Papal court there instead of the prisoner in the Vatican situation we had IOTL... that sounds interesting.
It was tricky enough when the Papacy moved to Avignon[later part of France] and, even subtracting that this meant there were no fewer than FOUR rival Popes sprouting up, the simple logistics and communications with the rest of [Western] Christendom was somewhat sporadic during that 'exile'. Even when they returned to Rome, it would be centuries before ALL the dust settled to say nothing about the collections.
Jerusalem was even MORE remote to the rest of Europe and could have easily been cut off due to its mountainous location miles away from the nearest port. Furthermore, by the 1st Century AD, most adherants of Christianity considered themselves to the SUCCESSORS of Judaism NOT an outgrowth so they wouldn't have wanted to 'reverse' things due to a move back to Jerusalem. As long as Pilgrims could venture to/from Jerusalem unimpeded, they fine re leaving it in the past but keeping the focus on Rome/Constantinople.
Jerusalem was even MORE remote to the rest of Europe and could have easily been cut off due to its mountainous location miles away from the nearest port. Furthermore, by the 1st Century AD, most adherants of Christianity considered themselves to the SUCCESSORS of Judaism NOT an outgrowth so they wouldn't have wanted to 'reverse' things due to a move back to Jerusalem. As long as Pilgrims could venture to/from Jerusalem unimpeded, they fine re leaving it in the past but keeping the focus on Rome/Constantinople.
jahenders
Banned
Hard to see happening since Rome was the seat of power when the church was growing and getting broadly established.
That being said, the best bet is probably a different power dynamic during the time of the Pentarchy. At some points in time, the 5 patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were notionally equals, but imperial influence on church evolution influenced the consolidation of (church) power in Rome. If the East-West Roman dynamic had occurred at a different time, Constantinople's Patriarch might have been co-equal or might have even served as a balance such that the 5 remained notionally equal.
If that somehow happens and then Jerusalem is not only held, but flourishes during the crusades, it's possible the status of the Jerusalem patriarch could grow. It wouldn't likely grow to a papal level, but perhaps the patriarchs kind of take turns leading and do so from their home church.
That being said, the best bet is probably a different power dynamic during the time of the Pentarchy. At some points in time, the 5 patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were notionally equals, but imperial influence on church evolution influenced the consolidation of (church) power in Rome. If the East-West Roman dynamic had occurred at a different time, Constantinople's Patriarch might have been co-equal or might have even served as a balance such that the 5 remained notionally equal.
If that somehow happens and then Jerusalem is not only held, but flourishes during the crusades, it's possible the status of the Jerusalem patriarch could grow. It wouldn't likely grow to a papal level, but perhaps the patriarchs kind of take turns leading and do so from their home church.
Having the Patriarch of Jerusalem be the senior Patriarch of Christendom is theoretically possible.
Having the Papacy move out of Rome? Nope. No way. The Pope is, by definition, Bishop of Rome, as others have pointed out, and leaving Rome means losing authority.
Actually, even having the senior churchman be Patriarch of Jerusalem probably requires an entirely different evolution of Church and State in the East.
In particular, the Church within the Roman Empire must NOT be essentially a government department, which it was in the Byzantine Empire.
So....
If Rome and Alexandria stay within the Empire, and have their own power bases, Jerusalem might become the senior Patriarch by compromise. After all, Jerusalem was the home of the very early Church, and all the apostles started from there, even if they didn't end there.
Won't be a Vatican in Jerusalem, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the closest one could come realistically. IMO.
Having the Papacy move out of Rome? Nope. No way. The Pope is, by definition, Bishop of Rome, as others have pointed out, and leaving Rome means losing authority.
Actually, even having the senior churchman be Patriarch of Jerusalem probably requires an entirely different evolution of Church and State in the East.
In particular, the Church within the Roman Empire must NOT be essentially a government department, which it was in the Byzantine Empire.
So....
If Rome and Alexandria stay within the Empire, and have their own power bases, Jerusalem might become the senior Patriarch by compromise. After all, Jerusalem was the home of the very early Church, and all the apostles started from there, even if they didn't end there.
Won't be a Vatican in Jerusalem, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the closest one could come realistically. IMO.