Charlemagne DLC and Chalcedonian Christianity

[Hawkeye1489]

Somewhat, it is generally agreed (almost universally) that the Pope of Rome had the Primacy of Honour, being not only the primus, but also the protos. How it is interpreted in terms of jurisdiction and authority is what is in contention. It will be nice if there could somehow implement a complex system of the Petrine Sees vs the Pentarchy, where Chalcedonian Christians fight over which jurisdictional system they want which along with a whole load of other clusterfucks (like the real important ones) will eventually lead to a grand schism

Yes, you are under the correct impression. When the various bishops of the East had disputes, they would often send requests to the Bishop of Rome to arbitrate on their behalf. The modern Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople does not really do this unless it is within their jurisdiction (which is incidentally actually quite small).

The thing about Chalcedonian Christianity is that, although both East and the West were often at odd with each other, it didn't get really bad until the Massacre of the Latins and the Sack of Constantinople, et cetera (Fourth Crusade stuff). I'll even go as far to say that the event of 1054 AD wasn't even a Great Schism in that it was just a verbal spat between Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Ceralius, the former having almost no authority on behalf of the Western Church, since the Pope had died when shit hit the fan. Even after the Fourth Crusade, there were still a sense of "unity" between the Catholics and the Orthodox (not really) in that the Pope even excommunicated the Emperor when he became involved in the Sicilian Vespers.

The latter two paragraphs where the thrust of my argument, tbh. More often than not, politics go in the way of unity as opposed to strictly doctrinal arguments. The only truly doctrinal issue is the Filioque, and in recent years, the Roman and Greek Churches have come to a certain understanding upon the matter (rather interestingly, when the Holy Father concelebrates Mass Ecumenically with a Patriarch or Metropolitan of the Greek Churches, the Nicene Creed is recited without the Filioque).

But, what I was getting at was precisely this idea of Petrine Supremacy, with the three Petrine Sees (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch), those Churches having been established by St Peter, or in the case of Alexandria, St. Mark, who was, as Peter writes in his first epistle, was like a son to him, should be looked on as having an extraordinary jurisdiction. And it was so for centuries in the Church, primarily for the Petrine See of Rome. As early as 95 AD, we have the Bishop of Rome acting outside his immediate jurisdiction. Likewise, when Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria was in dispute with Constantinople, he went to Rome for judgement. A contested jurisdictional primacy of Rome only truly began with Justinian and the elevation of Constantinople to a place of second importance behind Rome for non-Theological reasons. In actuality, Rome had never ascribed to the idea of the Pentarchy in the first place, the Pope having refused to recognize the Quinisext Council.

I guess, in along and roundabout manner, I am generally agreeing with your point about handling Chalcedonian Christianity

 

[Scotty the Scot]

Source please. In terms of what I have read, they have never broke communion with Rome. Just because a particular group of Christianity has a different ritual and what not, doesn't make them schismatic nor a lack of contact. Schisms are a result of Councils and Anathemas due to heresies or in case of the West, disobedience to the Pope, which the Celtics did not do since they venerated Roman authority. There were plenty of different rites in Western Christianity such as the various British ones, Gallic, Mozarabic, et cetera. However, in the end they all accepted Roman authority.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Celts-Uncovering-Historic-Origins/dp/0892814136

I'm not sure if the Celtic Christians broke communion with Rome, but they did defy them many times. Particularly on the issues of the Easter cycle, Monastic tonsure,the role of women in the Church, and the idea of mankind's free will opposed to divine predestination.

From what I've read, which was specific to Celtic Christianity, these issues were a subject of major division between the Western Church and the Celts, and a little more than a difference of ritual as when Rome directly ordered them many times to conform (Once by St.Augustine), the Celts refused. And that's part of the reason why the Anglo-Saxons were so successful against the Britons, because the Britons did not have Papal support.

Once Iona (which was essentially the Celtic Christians' religious center) was sacked, the sect declined and Roman rule took over.

 

[LumberKing]

The latter two paragraphs where the thrust of my argument, tbh. More often than not, politics go in the way of unity as opposed to strictly doctrinal arguments. The only truly doctrinal issue is the Filioque, and in recent years, the Roman and Greek Churches have come to a certain understanding upon the matter (rather interestingly, when the Holy Father concelebrates Mass Ecumenically with a Patriarch or Metropolitan of the Greek Churches, the Nicene Creed is recited without the Filioque).

Don't forget leavened bread vs unleavened bread, purgatory, et cetera. Some were minor or even trivial while others were a tad bit more serious. It should be noted that the filioque clause has been removed in the Eastern Catholic Churches, since when understood in a Greek context, it is heretical whereas Latin allows for other interpretation.

But, what I was getting at was precisely this idea of Petrine Supremacy, with the three Petrine Sees (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch), those Churches having been established by St Peter, or in the case of Alexandria, St. Mark, who was, as Peter writes in his first epistle, was like a son to him, should be looked on as having an extraordinary jurisdiction. And it was so for centuries in the Church, primarily for the Petrine See of Rome. As early as 95 AD, we have the Bishop of Rome acting outside his immediate jurisdiction. Likewise, when Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria was in dispute with Constantinople, he went to Rome for judgement. A contested jurisdictional primacy of Rome only truly began with Justinian and the elevation of Constantinople to a place of second importance behind Rome for non-Theological reasons. In actuality, Rome had never ascribed to the idea of the Pentarchy in the first place, the Pope having refused to recognize the Quinisext Council.

Going off topic, if we were to count all the Sees of Saint Peter including the proxy ones by Saint Mark, it will be five I think. They are; Antioch, Syracuse, Aquileia, Alexandria, and Rome. Just for trivia.

You are right, it can't be denied that Rome often acted outside the Metropolitan Area of Latium. In fact, I believe it was Saint Augustine of Hippo, who tried to prevent appeals going to Rome because Africa was not part of its jurisdiction. The elevation of Constantinople to second place was not done by Justinian however, it was actually done during the Council of Chalcedon, the same council which condemned Eutyches and his version of Monophysitism. I forget the name of the Pope, but the Pope actually protested this saying that it dishonoured the Petrine Sees of Alexandria and Antioch which is why that part of the canon is still not accepted by the Catholic Church today. The whole Justinian thing you're thinking of is much later where he convened the Council in Trull as a Quinisext Council where he wished to make the ecclesiastic aspect of the Church, very nice to administrate, putting a nice order on things by establishing the Pentarchy. That way, a convention of an Ecumenical Council wouldn't require the hassle of bringing every single bishops to one place which often causes a whole load of clusterfuck. Well, we all know what happened to that idea, it was nice from a bureaucratic point of view, but it failed to take the theological (and political for that matter) reality into account. Pentarchy is still not accepted in Catholicism, but then again neither is it recognised in Oriental Orthodoxy (Miaphysite), and the Church of the East (Nestorian), the only ones recognising (yet unable to practice it) being Eastern Orthodoxy. The Pope did recognise the Patriarchates in the end though, but only as a form of extra-judicial bishops with historical apostolic sees subordinate to Rome.

I guess, in along and roundabout manner, I am generally agreeing with your point about handling Chalcedonian Christianity

Lol.

 

[ejnomad07]

Kinda silly if something is not done about it, until Irene was crowned the West always viewed the East as the Roman Empire and the rightful defender of Rome. The Schism is real key on that.

 

[Chevaresqye]

Kinda silly if something is not done about it, until Irene was crowned the West always viewed the East as the Roman Empire and the rightful defender of Rome. The Schism is real key on that.

Nope, it does not work that way. No Western European gave a **** about the Patriarch in Constantinople, so there are practically no tie between two churches. The whole western Europe had escape from the influence of the Greek Church for many centuries, and Charlemagne were just basically grab Rome to increase the legitimacy of a de facto separated Western Church. The Pope in Rome might had been an Greek Orthodox Christian, but Charlemagne and his noble were clearly not.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Nope, it does not work that way. No Western European gave a **** about the Patriarch in Constantinople, so there are practically no tie between two churches. The whole western Europe had escape from the influence of the Greek Church for many centuries, and Charlemagne were just basically grab Rome to increase the legitimacy of a de facto separated Western Church. The Pope in Rome might had been an Greek Orthodox Christian, but Charlemagne and his noble were clearly not.

To be honest, few Western European kings and bishops outside of Italy (and some within) gave an equivalent **** about the Pope, unless they wanted something "special". It says something about the state of Christianity in the West, which was rather more disorganised than in the East, even if nominally the Pope was superior to everyone. If the Pope is basically treated like a rich uncle whose advice you ignore except near holiday times when you want extra pocket money, then I would go further (as some have) and state that the western patriarchate should be riven with tolerated heresies. (New mechanic, I know.)

 

[Talq]

To be honest, few Western European kings and bishops outside of Italy (and some within) gave an equivalent **** about the Pope, unless they wanted something "special". It says something about the state of Christianity in the West, which was rather more disorganised than in the East, even if nominally the Pope was superior to everyone. If the Pope is basically treated like a rich uncle whose advice you ignore except near holiday times when you want extra pocket money, then I would go further (as some have) and state that the western patriarchate should be riven with tolerated heresies. (New mechanic, I know.)

Ironically, missing one of the key differences between Catholocism and Orthodoxy. Or more precisely, the Patriarch had little to worry about outside of Constantinople, while the Catholic hierarchy had to deal with challenges everywhere. If that type of management had been tried there would have been heresies, schismatic sects and autocepheous churches all over the place. So much for 'mending the schism'

Kinda silly if something is not done about it, until Irene was crowned the West always viewed the East as the Roman Empire and the rightful defender of Rome. The Schism is real key on that.

Well the inhabitants of Rome didn't see the Byzantine empire as their defender by this point (more like at risk of being sacked in another theological squabble), and 'the west', well, what is 'the west' in your imagination? Because utterly nobody not bordering the ERE looked to them to do anything at this point.

I'm not sure if the Celtic Christians broke communion with Rome,

They didn't. Very simply, that far away from Rome and at that time, you could run all sorts of alternate theology and nobody was going to correct you.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Ironically, missing one of the key differences between Catholocism and Orthodoxy. Or more precisely, the Patriarch had little to worry about outside of Constantinople, while the Catholic hierarchy had to deal with challenges everywhere. If that type of management had been tried there would have been heresies, schismatic sects and autocepheous churches all over the place. So much for 'mending the schism'

I was not being ironic. I presume by your comments that there ought to be multiple schisms in Christianity?

Well the inhabitants of Rome didn't see the Byzantine empire as their defender by this point (more like at risk of being sacked in another theological squabble), and 'the west', well, what is 'the west' in your imagination? Because utterly nobody not bordering the ERE looked to them to do anything at this point.

Not even two decades had passed since the downfall of the Exarchate of Ravenna. A lifetime for some, perhaps, but not the Chruch nor the Empire. Also, no Irene, no new Emperor in the West (or at least greater contortions needed).

 

[Jokolytic]

They didn't. Very simply, that far away from Rome and at that time, you could run all sorts of alternate theology and nobody was going to correct you.

Except Celtic Christianity was the same as Chalcedonian just with culturally esoteric properties. It retained the mysticism of Orthodoxy well into the de iure Great Schism. There's a reason there's so many Celtic saints in the Orthodox Chirch, some of which venerated moreso than the Catholics do!

 

[RHKINC]

I'm hoping other branches of Christianity will be represented in their historically vibrant stages: Ethiopian, Assyrian, etc.

 

[LumberKing]

I'm hoping other branches of Christianity will be represented in their historically vibrant stages: Ethiopian, Assyrian, etc.

At this stage, Ethiopians were Miaphysites being under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Church while Assyrians were Nestorians.

 

[duhsveti]

Am I the only one who's excited to play a pre-Christianized Balkans? For some reason, leading a pagan Serbia to conquer the Byzantines sounds like fun.

Nope. I can't wait to paganize Croatia properly

 

[Ivashanko]

To be honest, few Western European kings and bishops outside of Italy (and some within) gave an equivalent **** about the Pope, unless they wanted something "special". It says something about the state of Christianity in the West, which was rather more disorganised than in the East, even if nominally the Pope was superior to everyone. If the Pope is basically treated like a rich uncle whose advice you ignore except near holiday times when you want extra pocket money, then I would go further (as some have) and state that the western patriarchate should be riven with tolerated heresies. (New mechanic, I know.)

While it depends greatly on the time period and geographical location, for most of this game the Popes were significant players on the European stage.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Celts-Uncovering-Historic-Origins/dp/0892814136

I'm not sure if the Celtic Christians broke communion with Rome, but they did defy them many times. Particularly on the issues of the Easter cycle, Monastic tonsure,the role of women in the Church, and the idea of mankind's free will opposed to divine predestination.

From what I've read, which was specific to Celtic Christianity, these issues were a subject of major division between the Western Church and the Celts, and a little more than a difference of ritual as when Rome directly ordered them many times to conform (Once by St.Augustine), the Celts refused. And that's part of the reason why the Anglo-Saxons were so successful against the Britons, because the Britons did not have Papal support.

Once Iona (which was essentially the Celtic Christians' religious center) was sacked, the sect declined and Roman rule took over.

The Easter cycle was quite frankly a mess at that point that Celtic Christianity was alive and vibrant. It was either dated by full moons after the equinox, or by the Sunday following the Jewish Passover. The first relies on the same problem that Islam has today with some of their festivals - you have to be able to see the moon to confirm it is full. Alternatively you use a calculated full moon, but that relies on having an accurate measure for the length between full moons, and you then need to take into account that a completely full moon in Jerusalem or Rome might not yet be a full moon in London...

Monastic tonsure - there were two accepted forms of tonsure (at least) the "crown of thorns" (Roman and surviving), and one where the front of the head was shaved. The supression wasn't of the tonsure per se, but of the Rite of the church which permitted the alternate tonsure.

Add to this that Britain had the claim to have had their form of Christianity brought by Joseph of Arimathea, and thus that their rite was at least as close to Christ as the rites of Rome were, with their additions based on pagan ceremonies that had been subsumed by the papacy, and the division becomes not so much theological, as a matter of form, rite, and public spectacle.

There wasn't a great deal that Papal Rome could have done to support the British Christians when the Saxons invaded, as it had been beyond the reach even of the Empire to do the same - the legions abandoning Britannia as undefendable, and the forces on the continent also not being in a position to send an organised force to stand with the much divided kingdoms of Britain. Even the British couldn't be guaranteed to stand together.


Once the Celtic Christians had had their centres sacked and their bishops put to the sword, then they appealed to Rome for new bishops. The ones they were sent, not surprisingly, taught the Roman rite, not the British one.

 

[Chevaresqye]

To be honest, few Western European kings and bishops outside of Italy (and some within) gave an equivalent **** about the Pope, unless they wanted something "special". It says something about the state of Christianity in the West, which was rather more disorganised than in the East, even if nominally the Pope was superior to everyone. If the Pope is basically treated like a rich uncle whose advice you ignore except near holiday times when you want extra pocket money, then I would go further (as some have) and state that the western patriarchate should be riven with tolerated heresies. (New mechanic, I know.)

Yupe, the Pope was basically Orthodox to the Western "primordial Catholic" Kings. Charlemagne just offered the Pope the chance to convert to Western Christianity and become the figural head of the Western Church. There wasn't need for such mechanics, there had always been Catholic and Orthodox as two separate entities since the day when the Franks converted to Christianity. The division between two Church was much more political than theological, so bring in misconception like tolerated heresies is very wrong.

 

[DominusNovus]

Yupe, the Pope was basically Orthodox to the Western "primordial Catholic" Kings. Charlemagne just offered the Pope the chance to convert to Western Christianity and become the figural head of the Western Church. There wasn't need for such mechanics, there had always been Catholic and Orthodox as two separate entities since the day when the Franks converted to Christianity. The division between two Church was much more political than theological, so bring in misconception like tolerated heresies is very wrong.

Thats... a very unusual interpretation.

 

[DominusNovus]

There wasn't a great deal that Papal Rome could have done to support the British Christians when the Saxons invaded, as it had been beyond the reach even of the Empire to do the same - the legions abandoning Britannia as undefendable, and the forces on the continent also not being in a position to send an organised force to stand with the much divided kingdoms of Britain.

Britain wasn't abandoned because it was indefensible. It was abandoned because the Emperor felt he needed the troops more elsewhere, and just never got around to sending them back.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Britain wasn't abandoned because it was indefensible. It was abandoned because the Emperor felt he needed the troops more elsewhere, and just never got around to sending them back.

Eh. Different interpretations of the same events.
Bear in mind he's hardly going to have recorded he felt he couldn't defend the citizens of even a far flung piece of the empire...

 

[Pro_Yankee]

So is this thread about the history of Christianity In Europe and The Roman Empire and European Paganism in Western Europe and the Roman Empire? Or about adding
Chalcedonian Christianity to the Charlemagne DLC? (I am surprised at how this thread didn't turn into a flame war, but instead is a logical, thoughtful, and meaningful conversation on the history of Christianity In Europe and The Roman Empire and European Paganism in Western Europe and the Roman Empire.)

 

[Legionary Guard]

So is this thread about the history of Christianity In Europe and The Roman Empire and European Paganism in Western Europe and the Roman Empire? Or about adding
Chalcedonian Christianity to the Charlemagne DLC? (I am surprised at how this thread didn't turn into a flame war, but instead is a logical, thoughtful, and meaningful conversation on the history of Christianity In Europe and The Roman Empire and European Paganism in Western Europe and the Roman Empire.)

Rise from your grave!