Charlemagne DLC and Chalcedonian Christianity

[Jokolytic]

To say the schism of Catholic and Orthodox began at Charlemagne's coronation is both inaccurate and insulting to history and both churches alike. I really hope Paradox makes Christianity Chalcedonian for Catholic/Orthodox in the 769 A.D. start date, even 867 was pushing it.

(I mean even though Charlemagne advocated the Filioque clause, many Orthodox do revere him and don't see him as a schismatic, but that's not this topic's purpose.)

 

[Kljunas]

To say the schism of Catholic and Orthodox began at Charlemagne's coronation is both inaccurate and insulting to history and both churches alike.

+1. And even then he was coronated in 800 anyway. I'll be disappointed if there's no schism events or mechanics in the expansion.

 

[unmerged(99452)]

To say the schism of Catholic and Orthodox began at Charlemagne's coronation is both inaccurate and insulting to history and both churches alike. I really hope Paradox makes Christianity Chalcedonian for Catholic/Orthodox in the 769 A.D. start date, even 867 was pushing it.

(I mean even though Charlemagne advocated the Filioque clause, many Orthodox do revere him and don't see him as a schismatic, but that's not this topic's purpose.)

I agree, and if they have Chalcedonian Christianity then they need to implement Non-Chalcedonianism as well, like Arianism

 

[anomanderus]

And it would also be cool if there could be a "Celtic Christianity" schism event, for more ahistorical fun

 

[LumberKing]

And it would also be cool if there could be a "Celtic Christianity" schism event, for more ahistorical fun

Why would it be a schism?

 

[Fishman786]

Really there should be no Papacy either. The Pope at that time was merely the Bishop of Rome. A highly-exalted position to be sure, but not the leader of all Christendom.

 

[Spelf]

Really there should be no Papacy either. The Pope at that time was merely the Bishop of Rome. A highly-exalted position to be sure, but not the leader of all Christendom.

And this is where this thread heads into the "highly debatable" area

 

[Fishman786]

And this is where this thread heads into the "highly debatable" area

Yup. Probably my post is too broad. Perhaps I should have said 'not the undisputed leader of Christendom'.

Never the less, the Papacy was much less powerful in the eighth century than it was in the 11th. Bishops were invested by kings, obviously the Great Schism hadn't happened yet and the Popes were very corrupt at this time.

 

[OmegaInvictus]

I agree, and if they have Chalcedonian Christianity then they need to implement Non-Chalcedonianism as well, like Arianism

Please

 

[Jokolytic]

Yup. Probably my post is too broad. Perhaps I should have said 'not the undisputed leader of Christendom'.

Never the less, the Papacy was much less powerful in the eighth century than it was in the 11th. Bishops were invested by kings, obviously the Great Schism hadn't happened yet and the Popes were very corrupt at this time.

The pope in 769 AD was Pope Stephanus III, and looking at him and his predecessors, I wouldn't call them corrupt. They just seemed more concerned with the rapidly changing political landscape.

 

[Fishman786]

The pope in 769 AD was Pope Stephanus III, and looking at him and his predecessors, I wouldn't call them corrupt. They just seemed more concerned with the rapidly changing political landscape.

Hmm.

What I read was that the Papacy in the early middle ages eventually became quite weak, at the mercy of the mob in Rome, and also decadent in lifestyle. Was that phase later?

 

[Spelf]

Hmm.

What I read was that the Papacy in the early middle ages eventually became quite weak, at the mercy of the mob in Rome, and also decadent in lifestyle. Was that phase later?

There was a rough patch of the 10th century, I think appropriately called the "Dark Age of the Papacy", but that wasn't representative of the entire era.

 

[anomanderus]

Why would it be a schism?

I said an event. Meaning certain triggers would have to be met. Not that it would be a schism 100% of the time or even 25% of the time. Try to think outside the box here.

 

[Ashagar]

Really there should be no Papacy either. The Pope at that time was merely the Bishop of Rome. A highly-exalted position to be sure, but not the leader of all Christendom.

Well there were three major bishops referred to as Papa including the Bishop of Rome, the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria however the Bishop of Rome was the religious head of the church as established by both imperial law and two different Ecumenical councils but what that meant was and is a major source of debate between what became the catholic and orthodox churches. He was also Patriarch of the west which was basically western Europe plus western Greece which was later usurped by the Patriarch of Constantinople as part of the political disputes between the two patriarchs.

 

[EUTony]

Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

 

[Jak9090]

religion of new expansion

back in the age this new exp start wasn't catholic and orthodox not split? will this be adressed?

 

[Jokolytic]

Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

The original Greek of that inscription is debatable, and "on this rock I will build my Church" could refer to many things.

This isn't a religious debate forum though.

 

[Ashagar]

Indeed l'd leave it at that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church as established by the great church councils and imperial law but the western and eastern halves of the church had very different views on what that meant that was likely fueled by the already age old differences between the Latin west and Greek east.

 

[Cheesecakeczar]

Religion in 769

What exactly will the ideal religion map look like? Will there be any particular religions with more of a presence? What groups will still be pagan? How should Christianity be categorized? We've seen the somewhat controverial culture map. I'm rather excited to see what comes out as religion is concerned.

 

[LumberKing]

Well there were three major bishops referred to as Papa including the Bishop of Rome, the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria however the Bishop of Rome was the religious head of the church as established by both imperial law and two different Ecumenical councils but what that meant was and is a major source of debate between what became the catholic and orthodox churches. He was also Patriarch of the west which was basically western Europe plus western Greece which was later usurped by the Patriarch of Constantinople as part of the political disputes between the two patriarchs.

Antioch wasn't a "Papa", but it was part of the Petrine Sees. There were three sees which were considered to have extra-territorial jurisdiction since 325AD, they were: Papacy of Rome, Papacy of Alexandria, and the Patriarchate of Antioch. Of course, those titles came later (Alexandria claimed the title "Pope" first).

Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

The original Greek of that inscription is debatable, and "on this rock I will build my Church" could refer to many things.

This isn't a religious debate forum though.

Don't start a religious debate here.