WI Western Orthodox Church

Morty Vicar

Banned
Plausibility check/WI: instead of the OTL Reformation, Martin Luther instead starts a Western branch of the Orthodox Church. Ignoring the mothras, what difference would this make to Europe and 'the west' as we know it?
 
You might need an event similar to the Union of Brest that could have resulted in various Catholics and Protestants who are willing to subordinate themselves to the Patriarchate of Moscow, a reverse Uniate Church if you will.
 
This would not have a lot of appeal because the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't have any relevance to the issues dividing the Latin Church in Germany.

1) It does nothing to address the issue of corruption in the Church

2) It means nothing to the rising class of literate bourgeosie who want to read the Bible in their vernacular

3) It would involve accepting "heresies" the Latin West has decisively rejected but which Orthodoxy maintains

4) It would tie the incipient Protestant movement to a declining Church with little power or influence in the heartland of Europe

5) It would have limited appeal to German nationalism since instead of founding a native German church, he is simply imposing Greek religion instead of Roman religion

6) It would not justify local German princes confiscating existing monastic land for their own uses.

Honestly, the doctrines of Protestantism in the beginning were simply Martin Lutheran's own opinions about the Bible. However, other people read the Bible had their own opinions, which is why future Protestants relying on sola scriptura created entirely different churches. It is hard to see him ignoring his own opinions and instead seek guidance in a "heretical" Church doctrine (which is alsmost the same as the Catholic Church except for a few matters). Even if he did, for the reasons above I don't think he'd get the support he needed to be as successful as he was IOTL.

I don't think it is very plausible POD.

What are you trying to get at? Is it a different Protestant Reformation? Establishment of a Western Orthodox Church at some point? Keeping the Church hierarchy and doctrine as is, but removing papal supremacy? Or simply seeing if any of the spaghetti sticks to the wall? It would help to know how to direct future comments.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
You might need an event similar to the Union of Brest that could have resulted in various Catholics and Protestants who are willing to subordinate themselves to the Patriarchate of Moscow, a reverse Uniate Church if you will.

Thanks. Yes the advantage there would be that at this time there was some degree of mutual tolerance between Orthodox and Catholic churches, and the threat of war from Moscow might give the new church a fighting chance. Of course the Protestants did survive, but at the time this would have seemed very unlikely given the power of Rome, particularly in the heart of the Holy Roman Empire.

This would not have a lot of appeal because the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't have any relevance to the issues dividing the Latin Church in Germany.
1) It does nothing to address the issue of corruption in the Church
2) It means nothing to the rising class of literate bourgeosie who want to read the Bible in their vernacular
3) It would involve accepting "heresies" the Latin West has decisively rejected but which Orthodoxy maintains
4) It would tie the incipient Protestant movement to a declining Church with little power or influence in the heartland of Europe
5) It would have limited appeal to German nationalism since instead of founding a native German church, he is simply imposing Greek religion instead of Roman religion
6) It would not justify local German princes confiscating existing monastic land for their own uses.
Honestly, the doctrines of Protestantism in the beginning were simply Martin Lutheran's own opinions about the Bible. However, other people read the Bible had their own opinions, which is why future Protestants relying on sola scriptura created entirely different churches. It is hard to see him ignoring his own opinions and instead seek guidance in a "heretical" Church doctrine (which is alsmost the same as the Catholic Church except for a few matters). Even if he did, for the reasons above I don't think he'd get the support he needed to be as successful as he was IOTL.
I don't think it is very plausible POD.
What are you trying to get at? Is it a different Protestant Reformation? Establishment of a Western Orthodox Church at some point? Keeping the Church hierarchy and doctrine as is, but removing papal supremacy? Or simply seeing if any of the spaghetti sticks to the wall? It would help to know how to direct future comments.

Very good points, thank you. You're right, on that basis it is unlikely. The reason I posted the question is because I was always curious as to why Martin Luther began a whole new schism, rather than simply joining one which already existed, and could arguably have afforded him and his movement some degree of protection, if not a legitimacy of sorts. However you've answered my questions, I understand the reasons for the Reformation a little better now. If we leave Martin Luther aside, is it possible to get a 'reversion' to Orthodoxy in Western Europe at any time? And, the crux of the question, what difference would a significant Orthodox population make to a current western Europe? For example (forgive my lack of religious education here) say the Orthodox Church is less progressive in terms of women's rights, does this make Europe more socially conservative, denying women the vote for longer, for example? For the sake of argument lets ignore the butterflies, just imagine a modern Europe with all else being equal.
 
I see an issue with a "western orthodox church" is that their patriarch is in fact rome. So it makes things kind of screwy for any sort of Western orthodoxy. In many ways you could say the Western Church "broke off" from the rest of the orthodox because the Patriarch of Rome thought too much of himself
 
Orthodoxy spreads via the Russian rivers by returning Varganian Guards, traveling home to Scandinavia in 9th-10th century and from there to the coastal areas of the Baltics and the British Isles with some of the later expeditions aiming more for conquest than raiding?
 
This would not have a lot of appeal because the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't have any relevance to the issues dividing the Latin Church in Germany.
Except that appealing to a valid, existing Church might be perceived as 'better' than creating a schism.
1) It does nothing to address the issue of corruption in the Church
Not directly. But Luther's main problems were with indulgences and money siphoned off to Rome. As a Western Orthodox Church, there would be no indulgences, and very little money would flow to Constantinople.

Besides, in setting up the new church, they could sweep away the vast majority of corruption - until, of course, a new generation came to power. Sigh.
2) It means nothing to the rising class of literate bourgeosie who want to read the Bible in their vernacular
Wrong. Orthodox churches have always used 'vernacular' - although 'Old Church Slavonic' isn't very vernacular by now. Constantinople would have no problem with liturgies in German, or a German Bible. Whether they'd be quite so happy about wide spread reading of a German Bible, I don't know, but they mightn't find out until they've agreed, and by then it'd be too late.
3) It would involve accepting "heresies" the Latin West has decisively rejected but which Orthodoxy maintains
That the Pope has undisputed power over the Church? That's one where Luther would agree with the Orthodox.
The Filioque? I don't think Luther would find that a sticking point. I could be wrong.
Which pagan philosopher was more correct in describing 'reality', as expressed in the 'reality' of 'transubstantiation'. (NB: by 'reality', I mean what 'really' happens when the bread and wine turn into body and blood. I'm not talking about if it really happens.) Given that Luther ended up with yet a third version of essentially the same thing, I think he'd necessarily find it THAT much of a sticking point.
What other 'heresies' did you have in mind?
4) It would tie the incipient Protestant movement to a declining Church with little power or influence in the heartland of Europe
Heh! that's a feature, not a bug. Constantinople has no say over the German church at all, once they agree to it. Orthodox churches are national autocephalous churches (independent national churches that follow the same basic doctrine).
5) It would have limited appeal to German nationalism since instead of founding a native German church, he is simply imposing Greek religion instead of Roman religion
Wrong, again. See the bit about National Autocephalous Churches.
6) It would not justify local German princes confiscating existing monastic land for their own uses.
Well, yes, that IS a point.
Honestly, the doctrines of Protestantism in the beginning were simply Martin Lutheran's own opinions about the Bible. However, other people read the Bible had their own opinions, which is why future Protestants relying on sola scriptura created entirely different churches. It is hard to see him ignoring his own opinions and instead seek guidance in a "heretical" Church doctrine (which is alsmost the same as the Catholic Church except for a few matters). Even if he did, for the reasons above I don't think he'd get the support he needed to be as successful as he was IOTL.
True.
I don't think it is very plausible POD.
True. But not for most of the reasons you cited.
What are you trying to get at? Is it a different Protestant Reformation? Establishment of a Western Orthodox Church at some point? Keeping the Church hierarchy and doctrine as is, but removing papal supremacy? Or simply seeing if any of the spaghetti sticks to the wall? It would help to know how to direct future comments.
 
There were attempts by Protestants to reach out and obtain recognition from the Orthodox, but there are a number of reasons why it fell through.

1) Sola Scriptura is a huge sticking point. Protestantism was founded based on how Protestants read the Bible, and even though they still didn't discount Sacred Tradition entirely, they weren't willing to give it equal standing with Scripture, something the Orthodox cannot tolerate. This also leads to

2) The many and various theological differences that the East would not accept. The Protestant position concerning the Orthodox was that "We're basically saying the same thing", but the Orthodox didn't see it that way at all. The Protestant rejection of relics and sacred imagery would not have sat well with anyone who refused to say the filioque, which was maintained by Protestants as well. Luther's articulation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist didn't sit well with the Orthodox either. The problem is that Luther was not a compromising figure when it came to doctrine, none of the Reformers were. They held their theological opinions very seriously, even the ones that were just based on pagan metaphysics.

3) Finally, there are the canonical issues. How will they be received into Orthodoxy? Baptism or Chrismation? Are the Holy Orders of the Church in Germany valid? Lacking an explicit epiclesis, is the Roman Liturgy even valid? Have they been receiving valid communion with azyme bread and without the wine? Whose duty is it to receive them into the Church? Is it Constantinople's, since they have a mandate to convert the barbarians, or Moscow's, since they see themselves as the Third Rome? No Church in the history of Orthodoxy has jumped straight to autocephaly, would the German princes be okay with slight autonomy? Some of these issues are things modern Orthodoxy has yet to resolve, and they're enough to ensure that for canonical reasons alone, the reception of so many Germans into Orthodoxy would be hugely problematic.
 
I think one might have a chance if a country tried to have an English style alt-reformation, as in, having a king who likes Catholic doctrine but not being subordinate to the pope in religious matters. Autocephalous churches are a big thing in Orthodoxy, and in recent years some Anglicans have even tried to argue that the purpose of their split was to form an autocephalous church, rather than a schismatic one. Have the King in charge of this split prefer Orthodoxy to Protestantism as a source of legitimacy and we're in business, and I can easily see the Orthodox accepting a new branch if it comes at the Pope's expense. You might even see the Papacy turn around and recognize it himself at some point if the doctrine doesn't change much.
 
Dathi, I appreciate your contributions, but think they are more relevant in a 21st Cetury discussion of the issues rather than how they'd be discussed in Renaissance Germany at the time.

Except that appealing to a valid, existing Church might be perceived as 'better' than creating a schism.

Would they really see the Orthodox Church as valid, or simply a degenerate Greek church? The Latin West did not have a very favorable opinion of the Orthodox Church. This is true in Germany as it was elsewhere.

Wrong. Orthodox churches have always used 'vernacular' - although 'Old Church Slavonic' isn't very vernacular by now.

I think you are mistaking theory for practice. In theory, the Catholic Church also did not have an issue with the bible in the vernacular and eventually there would be approved vernacular translations. Orthodoxy is the same way. Who exactly is translating the Bible into German, what Orthodox Bishop or Council will approve it, what happens if they insist on changes in order to maintain a better Orthodox interpretation? These kind of issues will not be decided by some German "defector" to Orthodoxy. They will be decided by existing, good and approved Orthodox priests from Greece, the Balkans, or Russia who will take German opinion into consideration as they craft a German bible they can approve.

What other 'heresies' did you have in mind?

I was thinking more in lines with the general attitude of the Latin West towards the Greek Orthodox Church that they've had since the time of the Crusades. The divergence became much more than Orthodox attitudes tot he Bishop of Rome. There are differences between rationality versus mysticism, the Trinity, Original Sin, and a whole host of other issues. I think you are greatly downplaying them. The Filoque was not a minor issue in the 15th-16th centuries.

The disputes seem unclear and even petty by today standards to many people, but so do many Protestant vs Catholic issues. They are very important back then. They aren't going to be glossed over. Every single issue of difference would be addressed, and as Luther (or whoever) gets bogged down on that, the greater issues that lead to the Reformation will fester.

Wrong, again. See the bit about National Autocephalous Churches.

In reality, a Western Orthodox church just won't appear out of nowhere and the rest of Orthodoxy accepts it. There will be concern from the Orthodox Church that this new German "western Orthodoxy" will just be a trojan horse to introduce Latin heresy into their Church. They will make sure the German church follows good Orthodox practice before making it autocephalous.

That implies a great deal of oversight and control by Orthodox bishops. The Germans won't like this, so what will happen? They will declare themselves autocephalous and Orthodox even though the rest of the Orthodox Church does not recognize them? It would be ridiculous.

Certainly, the whole ecclessiasical establishment of the Holy Roman Empire won't defect to Orthodoxy. There is plenty of support for Catholicism in the Empire that would act against wholesale defection. So we're left with individual bishops and parishes in individual duchies and counties who may have a reason to protect Luther and his strange idea of becoming Orthodox. How do they move the local Church over to Orthodoxy? They'd have to begin negotiations, and the Orthodox patriarch simply won't say "Call yourselves Orthodox, I'm fine with it." They are going to go over doctrine, send missionaries to make sure these new Westerners get the theology and liturgy right. Only after a very long time could these scattered Orthodox Churches in Germany possibly be granted autocephaly.

And that is entirely ignoring the other issues like would the German Emperor allow this, or how many German princes would even see the benefit of this.

I don't think you are giving enough consideration to the practical difficulties.
 
Last edited:
Dathi, I appreciate your contributions, but think they are more relevant in a 21st Cetury discussion of the issues rather than how they'd be discussed in Renaissance Germany at the time.



Would they really see the Orthodox Church as valid, or simply a degenerate Greek church? The Latin West did have a very favorable opinion of the Orthodox Church. This is true in Germany as it was elsewhere.



I think you are mistaking theory for practice. In theory, the Catholic Church also did not have an issue with the bible in the vernacular and eventually there would be approved vernacular translations. Orthodoxy is the same way. Who exactly is translating the Bible into German, what Orthodox Bishop or Council will approve it, what happens if they insist on changes in order to maintain a better Orthodox interpretation? These kind of issues will not be decided by some German "defector" to Orthodoxy. They will be decided by existing, good and approved Orthodox priests from Greece, the Balkans, or Russia who will take German opinion into consideration as they craft a German bible they can approve.



I was thinking more in lines with the general attitude of the Latin West towards the Greek Orthodox Church that they've had since the time of the Crusades. The divergence became much more than Orthodox attitudes tot he Bishop of Rome. There are differences between rationality versus mysticism, the Trinity, Original Sin, and a whole host of other issues. I think you are greatly downplaying them. The Filoque was not a minor issue in the 15th-16th centuries.

The disputes seem unclear and even petty by today standards to many people, but so do many Protestant vs Catholic issues. They are very important back then. They aren't going to be glossed over. Every single issue of difference would be addressed, and as Luther (or whoever) gets bogged down on that, the greater issues that lead to the Reformation will fester.



In reality, a Western Orthodox church just won't appear out of nowhere and the rest of Orthodoxy accepts it. There will be concern from the Orthodox Church that this new German "western Orthodoxy" will just be a trojan horse to introduce Latin heresy into their Church. They will make sure the German church follows good Orthodox practice before making it autocephalous.

That implies a great deal of oversight and control by Orthodox bishops. The Germans won't like this, so what will happen? They will declare themselves autocephalous and Orthodox even though the rest of the Orthodox Church does not recognize them? It would be ridiculous.

Certainly, the whole ecclessiasical establishment of the Holy Roman Empire won't defect to Orthodoxy. There is plenty of support for Catholicism in the Empire that would act against wholesale defection. So we're left with individual bishops and parishes in individual duchies and counties who may have a reason to protect Luther and his strange idea of becoming Orthodox. How do they move the local Church over to Orthodoxy? They'd have to begin negotiations, and the Orthodox patriarch simply won't say "Call yourselves Orthodox, I'm fine with it." They are going to go over doctrine, send missionaries to make sure these new Westerners get the theology and liturgy right. Only after a very long time could these scattered Orthodox Churches in Germany possibly be granted autocephaly.

And that is entirely ignoring the other issues like would the German Emperor allow this, or how many German princes would even see the benefit of this.

I don't think you are giving enough consideration to the practical difficulties.

This sums it up right here. The biggest problem will be the Liturgy, since it's the most basic, most common, most practical expression of Christian thought and practice at the time. The fact is that the Protestant conception of what the Liturgy should be is vastly different from what the Orthodox are used to, and the East will insist on byzantinizations which will horrify Luther et al. The theological differences will be real and scandalous to Orthodoxy as well. You have to keep in mind that the reformers were still very committed to the Filioque, and in most of where they disagreed with Rome they disagreed with the East as well.
 
Top