WI: Bishop of Rome never acknowledged as Pope?

Regardless of the power of the bishop of Rome, are most of the events surrounding the decline of Rome and the rise of the successor kingdoms pretty much set to occur?

This is a question that could easily have a thread of its own, but how "inevitable" was the rise of Islam, or something fairly Islam-ish? How will the continued presence of three patriarchates change the dynamics of the situation?
 
Regardless of the power of the bishop of Rome, are most of the events surrounding the decline of Rome and the rise of the successor kingdoms pretty much set to occur?

This is a question that could easily have a thread of its own, but how "inevitable" was the rise of Islam, or something fairly Islam-ish? How will the continued presence of three patriarchates change the dynamics of the situation?

Unless you make Alexandria win, thus investing the Copts more in mantaining the status quo, not much. The relevance of the Pope on politics only starts in the VIII Century.
 
In the hope of trying to make sense of my murky suggestion of a POD, is there any specific event that would serve as our POD?

Could clerical celibacy in the West also be butterflied by the lack of a papacy?
 
Handwaving away the OP (as theologically the Papacy exists at least in the second century, see Irenaeus' letter to pope victor on the date of easter), let's speculate that the church in rome is totally destroyed, Peter himself dies in Jerusalem and this gets mentioned in a few of Paul's letters so there is not dispute as to where Peter died in the Christian world. Then, Jerusalem gets annhilated as per OTL and only ANtioch could claim to be a historical patriarchate (as Alexandria only became big as a legend of Peter sending Mark to Egypt made it a tangentially petrine patriarchate.)

Here's what I think happens.

First, as per 1 COr 11:3, Matthew 16:18, and other passages, the idea of a hierarchical Christian organization is theologically necessary. So, we are going to get a monarchic epsicopacy anyway.

Second, I personally believe (as an Orthodox believer) that Patriarchates are political evolutions. Securlarly speaking, it would be almost impossible to deny this. Canon 28 of Chalcedon offers this rationale, as well as the fact that Rome and Alexandria retroactively became Petrine as clearly they had Bishops BEFORE Peter was ever there (or his representative to Alexandria), as well as Antioch being Petrine. it seems to me that being a "Petrine" patriarchate is equivalent to having the word "Guards" thrown in front of your army in the USSR. It was in reality an honorific without a literal historical reality.

Third, accepting the previous 2 premises, we are still going to end up with similar patriarchates. Rome, as the seat of the empire, will be important. Constantinople will also be elevated. Perhaps Ephesus (Johnnine primacy) and Antioch may have a little more historical claims, but they will still be politically sidelined for Rome and COnstantinople (and lesser extent Alexandria, see Edict of Thessalonica 383). So, I honestly think we have schisms along the same lines we have today.

What does change is the rationale for Roman primacy. Ultimately, I think Roman Catholics would be making Orthodox arguments: "before the schism, we were recognized as the top patriarchate and until there is another council we still are." What Rome would lack is a metaphysical chrism that truly sets them apart. but, as we see with Constantinople and Ukraine today, a church with a few thousand of its own believers due to canonical precedent can make claims to jurisdictional supremacy. so, I think we have what we see today, with the argument phrased in much more canonical terms instead of "peter did this and that."
 
Most here are working off the assumption Islam will still appear, are there any who disagree (still trying to make up my mind)? It could be interesting to see what Islam would look like with less gnostic influence (mostly regarding Christ).
 
Beaking the power of the papacy is really simple- Have the Council of Chalcedon accept the formula of Alexandria and denounce Leo as a heretic. It keeps the Church united and puts the Bishop of Rome in his place- subordinate to the Council of Bishops. He would never be able to claim papal supremacy. He would just be a lone Bishop.
 
Beaking the power of the papacy is really simple- Have the Council of Chalcedon accept the formula of Alexandria and denounce Leo as a heretic. It keeps the Church united and puts the Bishop of Rome in his place- subordinate to the Council of Bishops. He would never be able to claim papal supremacy. He would just be a lone Bishop.
Is there a reason the Council would go that far? Maybe if Leo goes overboard ITTL, forcing the Council to denounce him as one, but I'm not sure why they would otherwise.
 

aenigma

Banned
As others have touched on, the issue is that there were five patriarchates in the early Christian church: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

Historicallu, three of these fell under Islamic rule, which limited their authority over lands that were still Christian-ruled. The remaining two were leading authorities, so much so that they managed to start their own branches of Christianity (Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).

That left the Patriarch of Rome essentially without competition in Western Europe, and so to the claim of papal supremacy.

So what's needed is an early sixth patriarchate within Western Europe. It can't be one which will even temporarily fall under Islamic rule, so (assuming the broad strokes of history remain similar) Spain is out, as is Sicily. Ideally it should t be too close to Rome geographically, so the rest of Italy and south-eastern France are also best avoided.

Somewhere in northern France is your best bet. Somewhere which has, or could develop a claim to, sufficient relics or association with saints etc to be made a patriarchate by late Western Roman Empire times.

having one of them in the flemish region or netherlands could have some very intresting butterfly's if it turns protestant
 
Top