WI: The Great Schism of 1054 didn't happen?

What if the great schism of 1054AD didn't happen? Though the two "grew apart" rather than a decision being made, how would the world have developed? What would it look like today?

(Between the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church)
 
Last edited:
The Schism simply confirmed the "facts on the ground". The Eastern Christians had never accepted that the bishop of Rome should be the sole authority.
 
You would need very early POD avoiding split of East and West. They were growing apart from each others centuries so if it not happen on 1054, then bit later.
 
You would need very early POD avoiding split of East and West. They were growing apart from each others centuries so if it not happen on 1054, then bit later.
That or, as I said above, have the Byzantines make sure the Exarchate of Ravenna solidifies, smothering any uniqueness of the Western church.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Having the Byzantines basically smother the Papacy of Rome early on would work, but personally, I'd argue that's more of a "universal Orthodox victory" scenario than a "Great Schism is avoided" scenario. To me, the latter implies that some kind of balance is found, and that the unified Church isn't just "Orthodoxy writ large" or "Catholicism writ large". Others may see that differently, and I certainly don't know how @Mitchell Hundred views the matter, of course.

Sidestepping the exact POD for a moment - it would indeed have to be rather early in order to work - a scenario whereby a more "balanced" undivided Church is the end result is quite possible. What it would look like is even quite easy to answer: it would have looked very diverse. A decentralised Church of multiples rites. There would be Latin rite and Greek rite, to begin with (as is the case within the Catholic church in OTL, incidentally). There may well be a Slavonic Rite was well. Then there are other key matters, like the infamous issue of the work "filioque". I imagine that the only workable solution would be to allow different rites within the Church to either include the word or not. Regarding the Papacy, the main issue was whether the Pope was a "primus inter pares" when it came to the (other) Patriarchs, or whether the Pope was categorically above them in station. That's the toughest issue to crack, and I see two ways it can be solved: either going with the former position but ensuring that the "Patriarch of Rome" has a clear position of primacy, or going with the latter position but moving the Papacy to Constantinople.

Either way would face severe opposition and would almost certainly require temporal power to force the matter. Which brings us to a POD I have suggested before: have the OTL idea that Charlemagne and Irene marry each other and unite their empires go through. This certainly isn't easy, but could be done. For it to stick, he deal would have to include that Frankish succession law (which divides between all male heirs) is ditched in favour of primogeniture, and that specifically the oldest son produced by this imperial marriage is the one who inherits... everything. This POD, assuming it succeeds, would be well ahead of the OTL Schism, and gives us a reunion of the East and the West. This means the temporal power (i.e. the restored Emperor of undivided Rome) has a big stake in avoiding any religious shenanigans. Given Charlemagne's throne in Aachen and Irene's throne in Constantinople, and moreover given the historical position of Rome (which is nicely in the middle), it stands to reason that they'd conspire to sundue all of Italy and make Rome the restored capital.

...which in turn suggests that the eventual shape of a united Church would be a decentralised one, wherein the Pope is the primus inter pares of the Patriarchs.
 
Top