WI No Great Schism? (Orthodox Church never splits off)

41 years from now will be the thousandth anniversary of the Great (or East-West) Schism, specifically dating it from when the Catholic Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other. This was the first great split in Christianity, and it permanently cemented the divide between Western and Eastern Europe. But what if it had been averted?

The Schism was the culmination of centuries of cultural tension between east and west, which is difficult to change. Let's just say, for the purposes of the thought experiment, that cooler heads prevailed and the church managed to stay united, at least for significantly longer than OTL. How would this change the trajectory of history?

Some possibilities:
-Could the Byzantines have held out longer against the Turks with more Catholic support?
-How would this affect the eventual wave of reformers? The Lollards, the Hussites, and the Protestants all had nearly identical criticisms of the Church, so it's likely that even with butterflies there would still be very similar movements that spring up. Would the Church possibly change its direction enough that the same criticisms wouldn't be made? Or even if the Church developed the same, and movements sprung up with those criticisms, would the Catholicism of the East be relevant to that? Would such movements perhaps be more likely to spring up in the East?
 
41 years from now will be the thousandth anniversary of the Great (or East-West) Schism, specifically dating it from when the Catholic Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other. This was the first great split in Christianity, and it permanently cemented the divide between Western and Eastern Europe. But what if it had been averted?



The Schism was the culmination of centuries of cultural tension between east and west, which is difficult to change. Let's just say, for the purposes of the thought experiment, that cooler heads prevailed and the church managed to stay united, at least for significantly longer than OTL. How would this change the trajectory of history?



Some possibilities:

-Could the Byzantines have held out longer against the Turks with more Catholic support?

-How would this affect the eventual wave of reformers? The Lollards, the Hussites, and the Protestants all had nearly identical criticisms of the Church, so it's likely that even with butterflies there would still be very similar movements that spring up. Would the Church possibly change its direction enough that the same criticisms wouldn't be made? Or even if the Church developed the same, and movements sprung up with those criticisms, would the Catholicism of the East be relevant to that? Would such movements perhaps be more likely to spring up in the East?

I think that regardless of whether or not a schism between East and West had occurred, the Reformation or some variant would have happened. In every age, you have people who disagree with majority opinion and want change. Schisms had already occurred centuries earlier between mainstream Christianity and such groups as the varied Gnostic sects, the Arians and the Nestorians. Schism of some form would happen again, East/West Schism or no.
 
41 years from now will be the thousandth anniversary of the Great (or East-West) Schism, specifically dating it from when the Catholic Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other. This was the first great split in Christianity, and it permanently cemented the divide between Western and Eastern Europe. But what if it had been averted?

The Schism was the culmination of centuries of cultural tension between east and west, which is difficult to change. Let's just say, for the purposes of the thought experiment, that cooler heads prevailed and the church managed to stay united, at least for significantly longer than OTL. How would this change the trajectory of history?

Some possibilities:
-Could the Byzantines have held out longer against the Turks with more Catholic support?
-How would this affect the eventual wave of reformers? The Lollards, the Hussites, and the Protestants all had nearly identical criticisms of the Church, so it's likely that even with butterflies there would still be very similar movements that spring up. Would the Church possibly change its direction enough that the same criticisms wouldn't be made? Or even if the Church developed the same, and movements sprung up with those criticisms, would the Catholicism of the East be relevant to that? Would such movements perhaps be more likely to spring up in the East?

The easiest way to have cooler heads prevail is probably to have a Byzantine Empire which remains powerful in Italy, and, as a result, still influences the Papacy. Theological exchanges between East and West will have to become more frequent. If this is the case, the Filioque will probably not make it into the Creed, but a watered down version of its theology will be relevant even in the East. Unfortunately, Rome and Constantinople staying in communion may mean that a Schism still occurs, but with a separate Church being established in Gaul or Germany where a hard-line Augustinianism had become more entrenched, as opposed to the whole West. But I'm assuming that this could also be resolved with a little bit of handwavium and some Germanic chieftain being crowned Emperor of the West.

Since the Byzantines being stronger is a prerequisite for this scenario, I imagine they would be able to last a bit longer. Western help may come, but due to what will be an inevitably less centralized Christianity the Crusades will be butterflied away. What will be more likely is that individual rulers send forces to help out for purely political reasons. The butterflies for reform movements will also be enormous. I couldn't disagree more with the claim that Lollards, Hussites, etc. would still spring up. Increased Byzantine influence on the pope means there will be a lot of pressure on him not to claim total supremacy, and to spin off much of the West as separate patriarchates. This will completely alter the political position of the Church in Western Europe, and with a theology that has much stronger Eastern influences, reform movements will have a very different character. If anything, I think they'll look a lot more like the Bogomils, Cathars, or Old Believers than anything we're used to in the West.

Also, I should mention that this wasn't the first important split in Christianity, with most of the Christians in Egypt, Syria, and the Levant splitting off from the "Roman" Churches in 451. Now if you could resolve THAT schism, that would lend itself to some intriguing allohistory :cool:
 
The easiest way to have cooler heads prevail is probably to have a Byzantine Empire which remains powerful in Italy, and, as a result, still influences the Papacy. Theological exchanges between East and West will have to become more frequent. If this is the case, the Filioque will probably not make it into the Creed, but a watered down version of its theology will be relevant even in the East. Unfortunately, Rome and Constantinople staying in communion may mean that a Schism still occurs, but with a separate Church being established in Gaul or Germany where a hard-line Augustinianism had become more entrenched, as opposed to the whole West. But I'm assuming that this could also be resolved with a little bit of handwavium and some Germanic chieftain being crowned Emperor of the West.

Since the Byzantines being stronger is a prerequisite for this scenario, I imagine they would be able to last a bit longer. Western help may come, but due to what will be an inevitably less centralized Christianity the Crusades will be butterflied away. What will be more likely is that individual rulers send forces to help out for purely political reasons. The butterflies for reform movements will also be enormous. I couldn't disagree more with the claim that Lollards, Hussites, etc. would still spring up. Increased Byzantine influence on the pope means there will be a lot of pressure on him not to claim total supremacy, and to spin off much of the West as separate patriarchates. This will completely alter the political position of the Church in Western Europe, and with a theology that has much stronger Eastern influences, reform movements will have a very different character. If anything, I think they'll look a lot more like the Bogomils, Cathars, or Old Believers than anything we're used to in the West.

All excellent points, though a lot of what you're saying is more contingent upon the Byzantines having papal influence than the simple proposition that the Great Schism never occurs. I think what you're saying seems very plausible, though I take some exception to your arguing that I'm mistaken in my opinions on whether the Western reform groups will still spring up, because we're ultimately arguing two different POD's; it's just that my POD is a butterfly of yours, if that makes any sense. Bottom line: I agree with your post.

Also, I should mention that this wasn't the first important split in Christianity, with most of the Christians in Egypt, Syria, and the Levant splitting off from the "Roman" Churches in 451. Now if you could resolve THAT schism, that would lend itself to some intriguing allohistory :cool:

While there's merit to what you're saying, I'd argue that the East-West schism is the first politically important split, since the one you're describing happened before there was a real concept of "Christendom", and the non-Roman churches have been largely irrelevant ever since. Though, I heartily agree that a historical concept of Christendom that includes Egypt, Syria, and the Levant would be incredibly fascinating. It would almost certainly butterfly away Islam, possibly opening up Sub-Saharan Africa for total Christian conversion.
 
All excellent points, though a lot of what you're saying is more contingent upon the Byzantines having papal influence than the simple proposition that the Great Schism never occurs. I think what you're saying seems very plausible, though I take some exception to your arguing that I'm mistaken in my opinions on whether the Western reform groups will still spring up, because we're ultimately arguing two different POD's; it's just that my POD is a butterfly of yours, if that makes any sense. Bottom line: I agree with your post.
I understand, but I think in order to really be able to speculate what the effects of the Schism being avoided are, the issues which caused it have to be resolved, and the way that happens will shape both the Church and its influence on history. It isn't quite enough to say "the Schism is avoided", the POD has to be a bit more specific than that, and probably has to be centuries before 1054. I picked what I saw as the easiest way to avoid the Schism, are there others you have in mind?


While there's merit to what you're saying, I'd argue that the East-West schism is the first politically important split, since the one you're describing happened before there was a real concept of "Christendom", and the non-Roman churches have been largely irrelevant ever since. Though, I heartily agree that a historical concept of Christendom that includes Egypt, Syria, and the Levant would be incredibly fascinating. It would almost certainly butterfly away Islam, possibly opening up Sub-Saharan Africa for total Christian conversion.

I wouldn't say they've been irrelevant, bringing them back into the fold was a huge concern of many emperors and exacerbated tensions with the West. Arguably, the disunity among Middle Eastern Christians is what gave Islam such a strong foothold in the region. Another POD to avoid the Great Schism could focus on Constantinople's relationship with these Churches. For example, what if the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to endorse the Henotikon?
 
You do not have to have a PoD before 1054 to keep the church united. Probably best if you didn't.

All you need is to get everyone some time to mend bridges better. The whole mutual excommunication thing wasn't important, nobody saw that and went "and now our churches are different." No, it was more subtle than that. As the deterioration of relations between the east and west before 1054 was a gradual change, so too was 1054 just part of that gradual change, not the definitive moment in which the split occurred. The reason I think it's singled out is that it's a minor tiff that is easy to point to, and then never got resolved until very recently. But by then the damage was done.

If you look at what happened, after 1054 it was just one long series of wars and events that kept Byzantium angry at the Italies or west in general, with things like the war with Venice, the Fourth Crusade, The Latin Empire and then the collapse of the Latin Empire, and all the problems that came with that. After that you still got the Second Council of Lyon which went over like a lead balloon mostly due to politics. After that it's one thing after another, the plague hit Constantinople, the Avignon Papacy, the Western Schism, and then the Council of Florence, which despite being mired by problems was technically a success, though it did nothing because less than twenty years later Byzantium fell and that was it. The East is then under Muslim Rule and the West was about to get hit by the reformation.

None of this has to do with things like the Filoque. That thing is unimportant, with the Second Council of Lyon accepting it the Council of Florence managed to work through it too. It's just that for a long time you had great political animosity between east and west, political squabbles, disasters, and then no more chances. There was no time to work through any problems. Change anything to improve this situation, you can probably get a "mending," and the earlier it is the more likely it'll be seen as the church never splitting at all, just a momentary break in communion no different from all the previous other similar situations in the past, and thus no Great Schism.

The reason I say that it's probably best to avoid a pre-1054 PoD is that given all this, if there was no mutual excommunication nothing else changes. There's still issues, both political and religion, and the churches will continue to drift apart like they always did. Which means we'll just have a different supposed date for the schism. You need to get the churches together to definitively work out their problems, not just prevent one minor tiff that got out of hand in the grand scheme of things.

The other solution mentioned is a very early PoD that prevents any issues from getting started at all. I think that'd work (and be difficult), but then we get a Europe very different, very early. I'd consider that a different question altogether, less "No great schism" more "always united Christendom." Sans the Non-Chalcedonians anyway.
 
The biggest single problem was the papal assumption of supreme authority. The Orthodox were prepared to accept him as primus inter pares, first among equals, but not someone who could dictate to the whole church. Vicar of Peter, sure, he's Bishop of Rome, Peter's see, but Vicar of Christ? No.

So. A development in the western church away from papal ultimate authority, and toward a more concilar church, might help.
 
Top