Before the Schism

[Abaddon55]

So, as many know, the actual divisions between the Latin Church and the Greek was only truly cemented after the fourth crusade. It seems unreasonable to have the patriarchs of the east being entirely disloyal to the pope which the all recognized, more or less, as the sole Vicar of Christ. This really should have been corrected in Holy Fury, and I dont know why it is such a long lasting problem.

 

[Nick_T]

Except they didn't recognise him as "sole Vicar of Christ" at all. In this time period I can think of only one moderately successful attempt by the Pope to exercise jurastiction in the Greek Church, the Photian affair, and even then the enforcement of Papal demands was entirely dependent on the will of the Emperor and had to be approved by a Constantinopolitain Synod before being accepted.

I agree that there should perhaps be a lesser opinion penalty between Orthodox and Catholics in the earlier start dates, but in terms of loyalty and jurastiction having them operate as separate hierarchies is the only accurate solution.

 

[Karlington]

So, as many know, the actual divisions between the Latin Church and the Greek was only truly cemented after the fourth crusade. It seems unreasonable to have the patriarchs of the east being entirely disloyal to the pope which the all recognized, more or less, as the sole Vicar of Christ. This really should have been corrected in Holy Fury, and I dont know why it is such a long lasting problem.

The big break between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox took place in 1054. This is commonly referred to as "the Great Schism" and is such an uncontested fact of history that I'm a bit surprised that you would claim anything different, heh.

And let's remember that this Great Schism was not something that just happened when a bunch of bishops woke up one day and said "The heck with this Christian communion thing!" but the culmination of a long line of disagreements over both theology and authority. Basically the Catholic Church considered the Pope to be the supreme episcopal authority of the Church, while the Orthodox considered the Pope to be primus inter pares (first among equals) much like the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is to the Orthodox after the split - a position that has been called supremacy of honor rather than supremacy of power or authority.

Now if you want to talk about the fact that we have separate Catholic and Orthodox religions before 1054, that's another matter altogether...

 

[Metanetwork]

The great church had sufficient religious differences before 1054 to warrant an opinion penalty, even in the Charlemagne start. In 769, the Byzantine emperor was iconoclast, so an heretic in-game. The iconoclast controversy did not affect the latin rite. From 800 onwards, the Pope and ecumenical patriarch recognized different Roman emperors (Emperor Charles in the west and Empress Irene in the east). The eastern Byzantine church viewed the Maronites as an heretical "monothelite" faction but Maronites remained in full communion with the western latin church before and after 1054. The east and west were also using different languages for liturgy and translating the Bible (Greek and syriac for the former, Latin for the latter), although that's not the main factor.

Same reason why miaphysite and nestorian are not heresies in-game: the council of Chalcedon recognized their baptism as valid and the disagreement remained theological. The catholic church tried to invite miaphysite and orthodox bishops at the council of Florence (1439!), despite not being in "full communion" with either. What CK2 would need if we were to be historically accurate at all, is ecumenism: religious heads in the same religion group meeting each other under certain circumstances (the only instance currently in the game is when the Byzantine emperor denounces iconoclasm).

 

[Abaddon55]

They should be counted as disloyal archbishops. The Patristic fathers, and many greek leaders, such as Chrysosthom, explicitly recognized the special authority given to Peter, as leader of the Apostles, and the nature of Apostolic succession in the Church. The Orthodox entered a period of deep revisionism after the 4th Crusade.

 

[Rubidium]

They should be counted as disloyal archbishops. The Patristic fathers, and many greek leaders, such as Chrysosthom, explicitly recognized the special authority given to Peter, as leader of the Apostles, and the nature of Apostolic succession in the Church. The Orthodox entered a period of deep revisionism after the 4th Crusade.

They recognized the Pope as "first among equals," not as "effective head of the church." For that matter, even most Catholics didn't really recognize the Pope as meaningfully the head of the church (rather than a nominal figurehead with real authority resting with the more local prelates) until well after the 1066 start date, as demonstrated by the various investiture crises.

And there were meaningful theological differences between them well before 1054, much less 1204; the filioque was standard in Frankish churches before Charlemagne (who played a major role in getting it adopted more broadly in western Christianity).

For that matter, your claim that it wasn't until after the 4th Crusade that the schism emerged runs into the issue that part of the pitch that convinced the 4th Crusade to divert was the promise of would-be emperor Alexios IV to bring Constantinople under papal authority (along with pledges to supply a large Byzantine army to help liberate the Holy Land, and to pay off their debts).

 

[SigurdStormhand]

The OP is referring to the fact that after 1204 many Orthodox clergy stopped seeing the Latin Church as a part of the Church at all. This was somewhat reciprocated in the Latin West. As I recall when the "Greeks" recaptured Constantinople the Doge of Venice tried to get a crusade organised to oppose them directly.

Doges, man...

1054 is the key moment though - that's when the two Archbishops excommunicate each other and it was only rescinded last century.

 

[Karlington]

They should be counted as disloyal archbishops. The Patristic fathers, and many greek leaders, such as Chrysosthom, explicitly recognized the special authority given to Peter, as leader of the Apostles, and the nature of Apostolic succession in the Church. The Orthodox entered a period of deep revisionism after the 4th Crusade.

Some of the finest theological minds of our history have spent close to two thousand years debating this topic. I'm not sure we should make such strong and definite statements here on this forum.

However, regardless of whether the Pope should be recognized as the supreme episcopal authority by all Christians, it's pretty clear from the historical record that he wasn't by the Byzantine Christian world.

 

[Poliut]

At least with the 769 start, seeing as Iconoclasm more often takes over mainstream Orthodoxy, you could just alt-history the Schism as that being the cause (bonus points if the HRE also gets formed at around the same time Iconoclasm loses it's heresy label)

 

[Abaddon55]

The language of first among equals was used in the roman empire, specifically for the leader of the Senate with the Princeps Senatus, and the Priceps Civitatis for the roman emperor. I don't know what a first among equals is other than a leader of the others. Thus, the first among equals is the leader of the Church. The orthodox argue, however, that he was limited to the right of breaking a debate between the four other patriarchs, but again, that implies that his vote is worth more than the rest.

In any case, we can all agree that the current representation of the Christian faith is inadequate, and anachronistic. The Churches should be far more connected in structure, especially since only the Catholics, in game, have a college of bishops represented.

 

[Karlington]

The language of first among equals was used in the roman empire, specifically for the leader of the Senate with the Princeps Senatus, and the Priceps Civitatis for the roman emperor. I don't know what a first among equals is other than a leader of the others. Thus, the first among equals is the leader of the Church. The orthodox argue, however, that he was limited to the right of breaking a debate between the four other patriarchs, but again, that implies that his vote is worth more than the rest.

If you "don't know what" it means, then I think that rather than make declarations on what it should mean, it might be good to read up on it - at least the basics.

In any case, we can all agree that the current representation of the Christian faith is inadequate, and anachronistic. The Churches should be far more connected in structure, especially since only the Catholics, in game, have a college of bishops represented.

I'm not sure at all that "we can all agree" with you here - based on the posts in this thread it seems that people generally disagree with you.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

The language of first among equals was used in the roman empire, specifically for the leader of the Senate with the Princeps Senatus, and the Priceps Civitatis for the roman emperor. I don't know what a first among equals is other than a leader of the others. Thus, the first among equals is the leader of the Church. The orthodox argue, however, that he was limited to the right of breaking a debate between the four other patriarchs, but again, that implies that his vote is worth more than the rest.

In any case, we can all agree that the current representation of the Christian faith is inadequate, and anachronistic. The Churches should be far more connected in structure, especially since only the Catholics, in game, have a college of bishops represented.

The Imperial Church, unlike the Empire it served, was never a dictatorship - likely because it served one.

Early Ecumenical Councils established the independence of the five original Pentrarchs within their on Patriarchates. The Pope later attempted to assert direct control over the other Patriarchates and this was the final cause of the Schism.

Ignoring whether or not the Pope was right to do this it is emphatically the case that his assertion of total dominance over the entire Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church runs counter to those early Councils.

 

[viola]

The language of first among equals was used in the roman empire, specifically for the leader of the Senate with the Princeps Senatus, and the Priceps Civitatis for the roman emperor. I don't know what a first among equals is other than a leader of the others. Thus, the first among equals is the leader of the Church. The orthodox argue, however, that he was limited to the right of breaking a debate between the four other patriarchs, but again, that implies that his vote is worth more than the rest.

In any case, we can all agree that the current representation of the Christian faith is inadequate, and anachronistic. The Churches should be far more connected in structure, especially since only the Catholics, in game, have a college of bishops represented.

"First among Equals" is a pretty easy concept to understand, it means having the most prestigious position in of a group of people even though every one in that group is not above the others. In Orthodox Christianity all patriarchs have equal authority and power, even though some titles are more prestigious than others due to historical reasons, and the Papacy's attempt to use its "first among equal" status to claim leadership over the whole church has always been rejected by Orthodox.

This is also why trying to portray Christianity as a unified Chalcedonian faith in the early start dates is a hard thing to do: a Chalcedonian faith is still going to need a religious head for game mechanics purposes but it would be absurd for the Byzantines to bow to Rome in 867 just like it would be absurd for the Karling kings to ignore the Pope's authority in favour of Constantinople. With these problems in mind I'd say that the Western and Eastern Churces were de facto politically independent from one another centuries before the official Schism, and the events in 1054 were merely a formality that recognized a division that went back centuries.

 

[Metanetwork]

Early Ecumenical Councils established the independence of the five original Pentrarchs within their on Patriarchates. The Pope later attempted to assert direct control over the other Patriarchates and this was the final cause of the Schism.

Ignoring whether or not the Pope was right to do this it is emphatically the case that his assertion of total dominance over the entire Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church runs counter to those early Councils.

Adding details: the patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria (after their delegates came back from those early councils) refused to give approval to some decisions made at those councils. Specifically, they both disagreed to let Constantinople rank before Alexandria. Furthermore, the patriarchs of Alexandria were miaphysite and rejected the Council of Chalcedon. The Byzantine and miaphysite churches feuded over the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem and recognized different holders for each title. The Pope did not take part in that conflict until he began to appoint latin patriarchs after 1054.

 

[Azhcristokos]

There are likely plenty of solutions the devs could have implemented to try and simulate the pre-Schism Church a bit more accurately. Ultimately, they decided leaving the two religions entirely separate was the easiest solution. And it is certainly isn't too historically accurate, but it works fine.

It's definitely way too late to change it now. The mod CK2Plus has a unified Chalcedonian religion that can either split through the Schism or be permanently united by a powerful Patriarch Supreme. The mod is wonky atm and is currently being recoded.

 

[Metanetwork]

There are likely plenty of solutions the devs could have implemented to try and simulate the pre-Schism Church a bit more accurately. Ultimately, they decided leaving the two religions entirely separate was the easiest solution. And it is certainly isn't too historically accurate, but it works fine.

It's definitely way too late to change it now. The mod CK2Plus has a unified Chalcedonian religion that can either split through the Schism or be permanently united by a powerful Patriarch Supreme. The mod is wonky atm and is currently being recoded.

In 1054, neither side disagreed per see that there should be a "supreme patriarch". They just strongly disagreed on whose patriarch (Rome or Constantinople) it was, and whether he had jurisdiction to intervene in "autocephalous" churches. In CK2+ jargon, catholics are those who consider that the "Patriarch Supreme" is the Pope in Rome.

But for "historical accuracy", vanilla at least got miaphysites right and did not split coptic miaphysites and Armenian apostolic miaphysites (ie. gave them autocephaly rather than made them separate religions).

 

[Azhcristokos]

In 1054, neither side disagreed per see that there should be a "supreme patriarch". They just strongly disagreed on whose patriarch (Rome or Constantinople) it was, and whether he had jurisdiction to intervene in "autocephalous" churches. In CK2+ jargon, catholics are those who consider that the "Patriarch Supreme" is the Pope in Rome.

The interesting thing about Chalcedonian in CK2+ IIRC is that the autocephaly question is always resolved in favor of the Orthodox model I believe: the Patriarch Supreme functions like the vanilla Ecumenical Patriarch even if the Latin Rite triumphs. A necessity driven by the game's mechanics I suppose. The only way to unite Christianity under the "Hierocratic" authority type is to let the Schism happen and then reunite it under the Catholics.