The Reformation and the Orthodox Churches

[MattyG]

I'd like to propose an element of the historical processes in our alternative history that we have neglected, which is the effect of the Reformation upon the orthodox/eastern rite churches which are far more widespread in Interregnum.

In the RW, the dominant part of the eastern rite churches not under Ottoman domination was the Russian Orthodox Church. Russia was fairly insulated from the ideas of the west generally, and certainly there was little or no influence felt of the Reformation and its ideas in Russian Orthodoxy (that I know of) or at least not much that would register on the grand strategic scale of a game like EU2.

However, our world is a bit different. Orthodoxy in the Balkans and Greece remains independent of Islam (well, not always, of course) and Finland is orthodox. Moreover, there is not necessarily an empire of the size and character of Russia that dominates the remainder of the eastern slavic and ruthenian peoples.

In both Finland and Byzantium we have countries with strong cultural and political connections with the west and it is reasonable that we postulate that the Orhtodox church in Finland is independent of that of Byzantium, Kiev or any of the other orthodox states (as is the 'tradition' in the eastern rite churches).

Now, if the normal Reformation takes places, we could expect that some of its core ideas would make their way into the orthodox world via Byzantium and Finland, or even Ruthenia if formed by Halych-Volhynia. Many aspects of the Reformation are not directly relevent - there were no indulgences being sold in the east - but two elements come to mind. The first is that of religious corruption generally, something that no organized religion is innocent of, and the second is the political power wielded by the church. The eastern rite churches, although lacking a leader with as much authority as the pope (there is no 'metropolitan perfection' in Byzantium) were nonetheless deeply woven into the fabric of political life.

The lack of a Pope-like figure means that the Orthodox Reformation would likely not be as strong. In addition, the eastern rite is not unified in the way the Catholic Church was at the time and schism isn't the dirty word it was for Catholicism. I see it is being a lot less liturgical than more about an attempt to oust the church from political life. The impetus could come from the bottom: priests and congregations feeling that church leadership is too concerned with national politics and power than with doing god's work; or from the top, meaning the king or other powerful elites.

I wouldn't want us to be getting into a lot of coding here, and any way, without any other religion tags open to us, there is no point. It could all be done via random events, in fact.

But I'd like to hear from others what ideas they could contribute to the direction of this.

 

[orimazd]

I know that in the early church there were 5 Patriarchates. One was in Rome, another in Constantinople, another in Alexandria. Unfortuinately I forgot where the other two were (I think there was one in Jerusalem as well, and good relations between the KoJ and the Roman Empire might allow for something like this...doesn't sound very likely, however). Also obviously, the patriarchate of alexandria is probably extinct, as well as the other (I believe it was also in the Muslim world, like Damascus or something like that).

EDIT: A little wikipediating has shown that the patriarchates were in rome (of the west), constantinopolis (ecumenical patriarch), alexandria (of all Africa), and jerusalem (I don't think they had a title like the others) as I said, but instead of being in Damascus it was Antioch (of all the east) which had the other patriarchate.

 

[MattyG]

We must imagine that additional patriarchates were established. In addition, most of the eastern rite churches were totally inependent of any of these patriarchs, especially after the 'nestorian' schism.

Any thoughts on what form the orthodox reformation might take?

 

[Sekenr]

First we have to figure out what will make it different from other various heresies that Orthodoxy faced and destroyed. And I mean not from historical perspective but from local's perspective, what makes it more important and powerful?

 

[MattyG]

First we have to figure out what will make it different from other various heresies that Orthodoxy faced and destroyed. And I mean not from historical perspective but from local's perspective, what makes it more important and powerful?

I confess to not knowing nearly enough about the orthodox churches to be able to do this one alone or very well.

Presumably the biggest issue will be the temporal power of the church, its influence over everything from the selection of local officials and judges to the appointment of national ministers.

However, I think we might also look at the issue of the wealth of the church.

In crafting the events I mentioned that they could easily be random events. They could trigger after a certain period and be based on a range of triggers, such as low stability (national crisis), very low innovative (representing strangling church control) or high innovative (representing enlightenment ideas flourishing).

Each random event could trigger only once for each orthodox state and deliver the initial option on how to respond to the challenge to church power. Different responses set different flags leading to subsequent random events, again all one-offs.

 

[Dairpo]

I decided to give it ago and try my hand at making a couple events. The tags are random and the innovative/aristocracy numbers are fairly arbitrary and can be adjusted to something more accurate/appropriate if need be. As can be the results. I just thought it'd be nice to see a province convert one way or the other as a result of the choice made.

(this is my first attempt at code)

event = {
id = 9999998
trigger = {
atwar = no
religion = orthodox
event = 101
domestic = { type = innovative value = 7
type = aristocracy value = 7}
NOT = { stability = 1
event = 9999999 }
}
random = yes
country = BYZ
name = "Reformers move East!"
desc = "Tides of religious dissent have over-flowed into the Roman Empire from the East. Our tradition of governing through the aristocracy and fostering learning in our provinces has provided ample ground for these new herseys to threaten our true faith! A party of these self-styled 'Reformers' are demanding more power and religious freedoms. There is also a delegation of the clergy rejecting these new ideas. Both parties demand an answer immediately! How shall we answer them?"
style = 1
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1550 }
offset = 60
death date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1570 }

action_a = {
name = "Humour the nobles and grant them their 'freedoms'and risk the wrath of the church"
command = { type = stability value = -2 } #Unhappy clergy
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 1} #Stronger nobility
command = { type = domestic which = centralisation value = -2} #Weaker central government
command = { type = heretic which = -1 } #Heresy is established
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 2 } #Discontent
}
action_b = {
name = "Rebuff the nobles and embrace the one true religion!"
command = { type = stability value = -2 } #Unhappy nobility
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = -2} #Weaker nobility
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -2} #stronger religious influence
command = { type = conversion which = -1 } #Increased power of clergy converts a province
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 2 } #Discontent
}
}



event = {
id = 9999999
trigger = {
atwar = no
religion = orthodox
event = 101
NOT = { domestic = { type = innovative value = 6
type = aristocracy value = 7}
stability = 1
event = 9999998 }
}
random = yes
country = BYZ
name = "Reformers move East!"
desc = "Tides of religious dissent have over-flowed into the Roman Empire from the East. Our tradition of governing through the aristocracy and fostering learning in our provinces has provided ample ground for these new herseys to threaten our true faith! A party of these self-styled 'Reformers' are demanding more power and religious freedoms. There is also a delegation of the clergy rejecting these new ideas. Both parties demand an answer immediately! How shall we answer them?"
style = 1
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1550 }
offset = 60
death date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1570 }

action_a = {
name = "Rebuff the nobles and embrace the one true religion!"
command = { type = stability value = -2 } #Unhappy nobility
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = -2} #Weaker nobility
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -2} #stronger religious influence
command = { type = conversion which = -1 } #Increased power of clergy converts a province
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 2 } #Discontent
}
action_b = {

name = "Humour the nobles and grant them their 'freedoms'risking the wrath of the church"
command = { type = stability value = -2 } #Unhappy clergy
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 1} #Stronger nobility
command = { type = domestic which = centralisation value = -2} #Weaker central government
command = { type = heretic which = -1 } #Heresy is established
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 2 } #Discontent

}
}

 

[MattyG]

This is a good start and I am really happy that you felt it was a good time for you to contribute some material to the mod. Congrats.

I have been meaning to respond for many days but have been too busy for more than quick chit-chat postings. When I get back to Uclulet I'll give this a more reasoned response.

I was thinking last night that maybe the answer (or an answer) for the orthodox countries is that there are a series of minor heresies, but nothing on the scale of the reformation. Each one is random and set to occur after a certain time period and can happen only once.

I guess we could also combine the two idas - one set piece reformation-influenced heresy and a series of minor ones.

Matty

 

[orimazd]

I don't know how relevant it may be to this subject, but back in EU2 times IIRC there was a civil war in some orthodox country (probably russia) over the correct way to cross one's self. Some people looked at the greeks and figured the Russians had been doing it wrong, and war ensued. But it turned out that the greeks had changed the way they crossed themselves.

The problem with a schism in the Eastern church is that, at least today, every mostly orthodox country has their own established orthodox church (IE, the Serbian orthodox church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian, the Ukrainian, the Albanian, ad infinitum but not to infinity). Obviously, this would be different in a world which didn't have a fall of the Byzantine Empire (though I for one did see the Roman Empire almost be eaten up by Teke recently).

It cannot be a split like the Protestant Reformation, or the Schism in 1000. Well, it could be the first, but that isn't any fun, because this is supposed to be alternate history. I am thinking something more along the lines of Mu'tazelism and Traditional Islam. The second is not really possible, as while there are other patriarchs than the one in Constantinopizzle, it would have to be the Constantinopolitan patriarch to make that kind of break. But the Roman one did it before (declaring that first among equals thing means the others are not particularily important...I know it did not happen that way, but its a summary), and something like that wouldn't happen again. So, time for a crash course in orthodox heresies.

For a start, http://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page
Yes, it is a wikipedia, but not just anyone can edit the articles.

Possible useful heresies:
For me, the most interesting Christian heresy is gnosticism. It is a heresy that could only become widespread if there was a Renaissance-type period for the East (actually, they are all kinda like that). For that to happen (IMO) Byzantium must be rather large, and a good chunk of Orthodoxy must be safe from Muslim invaders. Mu'tazelism doesn't occur in the game until Cordoba is under a good monarch and has most likely expanded, possibly over all Iberia. Last I checked, Wurttemburg was never threatened by a growing dar-ol-Eslam, and if it was, it was most certainly not in the early 1500s. In fact, the church felt rather safe, or else, I figure, Martin Luther would be writing something else while he was going to the outhouse. The thing about gnosticism is that it is remarkably similar to Catharism, and I made a few posts about that back when I just started making suggestions and doing nothing about it for Interregnum. So, if I find it relevant after I finish this post I'll repost what I wrote there here. This is my personal favorite. I especially like it combined with the next one. Why, you may ask? Because it involves more than just theological aspects than, say, Nestorianism or Monarchianism.

Hesychasm
However, this was ruled in the 1300s to not be a heresy by the Orthodox church. Strictly behavioral, Hesychasmes involves how people pray, which is similar to yoga (not the pilates kind...for us guys, it has nothing to do with failing at picking up women), and this, if it became widespread, could lead...to Gnosticism. Mwahaha.

I'm gonna go through that site I posted above, and this, and put more up later if I find more of serious interest. http://www.carm.org/heresy.htm

 

[Dairpo]

I don't know how relevant it may be to this subject, but back in EU2 times IIRC there was a civil war in some orthodox country (probably russia) over the correct way to cross one's self. Some people looked at the greeks and figured the Russians had been doing it wrong, and war ensued. But it turned out that the greeks had changed the way they crossed themselves.

I remembering reading something about this recently... by a sociologist I think, or historians basing their arguments in sociology.. Interdisciplinary in any respect and largely unimportant. One group wanted to use two fingers and the other three...

My favourite hersey was always the Arians. Jesus as fully human, no divine. Makes sense, but this is neither the time nor place for such a debate.

I do have some background knowledge of the gnostics, mostly from comparing their gospels to the more mainstream ones, though that was a few years ago. I also am familiar with Augustine's accounts of the Manichees of which he was a part of for a substantial portion of his youth. If that is useful I can try to draw up what I remember (it's also been a few years)..

 

[orimazd]

Please do.

I have the Nag Hammadi either here at home or in my apartment (probably the latter), but I remember quite a bit of general gnostic theology (it practically varied from person to person, however, but there were some basic ideas that most Christian gnostics had). I'll work on remembering (and finding) all the stuff I remember about the archons and the 11 aeons and all that other stuff.

 

[orimazd]

While this is a democratic mod, MattyG is the president or chancellor or whatever title he prefers.


So, where would you want the reformation to begin? I do not have much experience with the Orthodox countries in the game, and in my interregnum games Byzantium gets kicked out of Asia completely nearly every time (and Karaman in the most recent one owns Macedonia as well). I do not think I have ever seen the AI own with Byzantium; its like vanilla or something. Either Byzantium would have to be strengthened, or it would happen in Europe...which I would not prefer).

It is not likely to happen in a place like that, or in a place where there is a strong divide between Orthodox and Catholics, like the teutonic order. I am thinking possibly the Cossack Hetmanate-turned-Ruthenia or Halych-Volhynia (in the same game both exist and both are very large and both were allied to each other for a while...fascinating), but those might also have the problem with the Orthodox and Catholic divide. (I will actually do the work in this one, I swear...I never fully came up with the "history" in the Americas where I was "working," but that won't be a problem this time as there is a large body of information of the Orthodox Church and also on the heresies, unlike on, say, the Aymaran Kingdoms or Colla, and I was...somewhere else last semester).

 

[Sekenr]

Thanks for sharing your knowledge, but IMO the philosophical roots of this heresy aren't that important. There has to be a more "worldly" reason for reformation to have any serious impact. Otherwise it hardly seems more than a +1 or 2 RR here and there.

 

[MattyG]

Thanks for sharing your knowledge, but IMO the philosophical roots of this heresy aren't that important. There has to be a more "worldly" reason for reformation to have any serious impact. Otherwise it hardly seems more than a +1 or 2 RR here and there.

Agreed, which is why I feel that, whatever other heretical/theological issues there might be, the desire to wrest political power from the clergy has to be part of the motivation. That said, it would not be possible without the attendant theological disputes, its what helps to 'justify' it.

 

[orimazd]

Agreed, which is why I feel that, whatever other heretical/theological issues there might be, the desire to wrest political power from the clergy has to be part of the motivation. That said, it would not be possible without the attendant theological disputes, its what helps to 'justify' it.

I had more in mind for a small philosophical divide (IE, Hesychasm...lol, divide, Hesy-chasm...a match made in heaven) leading to a bigger philosophical divide, ie the return of gnosticism (brought about by thinking things through, not placing limits on your thinking, and placing more emphasis on what you can figure out rather than what you are told). Back in the days of the Cathar heresy, a lot of priests became Cathars themselves (btw, in researching for my capstone paper last week, I considered this topic, and discovered that Catharism had quite an underground following in Bohemia, along with Waldensianism, and maybe another pre-Hussite heresy).

That is more than a revolt risk increase, that is the province actually changing religion, and what I would have in mind is more like the deal with Catholicism (lol, Catholi-schism...I'm on a ROLL today, I wish that girl didn't have to work) and Catharism than the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, I do not know how the Cathar heresy began, only the details of its "end."

If you have an Orthodox version of the Protestant Reformation, you are doing what Harry Turtledove does, and not something original (in game terms). I like originality. Perhaps combine the protestant reformation and the Cathar heresy, it is an idea. Discussion == good.

EDIT: by the way, I'm a philosphy major, so the philosophical divide is the first thing that I would focus on. Can't stop this!

 

[Sekenr]

Ok, you being a philosophy major can handle the theological details. But the worldly component is a conflict between aristocracy and clergy? Or is it heretic clergy vs orthodox clergy? I'm confused. Anyway there has to be something about this situation that would make the heretics rally mass popular support, so the whole provinces would change religion. And I don't mean philosophical, since common men usually don't care very much about such things, even in Byzantium.

 

[orimazd]

Ok, you being a philosophy major can handle the theological details. But the worldly component is a conflict between aristocracy and clergy? Or is it heretic clergy vs orthodox clergy? I'm confused. Anyway there has to be something about this situation that would make the heretics rally mass popular support, so the whole provinces would change religion. And I don't mean philosophical, since common men usually don't care very much about such things, even in Byzantium.

Where's the worldly aspect in the Mu'tazelite heresy in Cordoba?

I had more in mind a slow conversion (in my mind it appears I have settled on it happening in East Europe, rather than Anatolia) caused by slight differences in the clergy in Constantinople and a rapidly-evolving common set of beliefs which somehow loses its anchor on the old hierarchy. I planned on this anchor being removed by the declaring that Hesychasm is a heresy--this is contrary to what happened in the real world, and everyone knows that when you forbid something it gains a certain appeal (and this applies to religion just as well as it applies to, say, drugs--regardless of the disapproval by the clergy in far-off Rome, heresy spread throughout Europe just as it would have otherwise, with the kicker being that the heretical sects had to move underground, giving the sects a romantic appeal). People do something forbidden to them, something along the lines of meditating (really, not just along the lines of), and they feel the desire to push it a little further than they would otherwise. I mean, really, what do you have to lose if you are thinking about doctrine while you are meditating when just the act of meditating will get you tossed in jail (I don't think there was an Orthodox Inquisition)?

Gnosticism (in my opinion) came about by people well-versed in their own Indo-European thought processes applying said preconcieved notions to the Semitic religions of Judaism and Christianity, or thinking about what the outsider Indo-Europeans believed and finding it fascinating enough to be perhaps believable. (Specifically, these IE folks were Greeks; you find evidence of this in the Old Testament, IIRC). This is why so much Gnostic terminology is Greek (for example, an Archon is not just something really powerful from Starcraft, it is a servant of the Demiurge. An Aeon is not an incredibly long period of time, it is a God which created the Demiurge (the world we live in today), and in turn was created by a greater Aeon, which was in turn created by an even greater Aeon, and I think the number went back to Eleven times. Of course, not all Gnostics believed this, and I think that if the Greeks and Hebrews back then who subscribed to this school of thought could pull somethign like this (it appears) out of their asses, I don't see why some others can do the same. Perhaps, to coincide with the sudden pervading-throughout-the-greek-orthodox-world-of-hesychasm can be the unearthing of strange ancient texts by the Mamluks (or Ayyubids or whatever) at a place called Nag Hammadi. Hey, it didn't have to happen in the 1940s; someone could have just as easily gone digging thereabouts in the 1440s (this is something I have decided on, should things go my way here).

 

[Sekenr]

Yes I know about gnosticism, thank you. Actually I find the idea of this preemptive uncovering of writings pretty insteresting. But still I think any new beleif has to coincide with some worldly crisys to be successful. Like for example pre-hussite Bohemia had one of the highest amounts of priests per capita in the world. Worldly component - clergy became too much of a burden.
I'm not sure if they were seen as a burden in such a theologically oriented society as Byzantium is usually described, but I know that holy hermits (usually without official rank in the church) were held in high esteem by the common people and even lower clergy.
What if there is a spark of this Heyachasm in Hungary and Byz both and they agreed to work together to crush it? Like Russia helped crush Hungarian revolts in RL. And part of the clergy would ask themselves if the god wills it for the emperor to help the latins kill those. And this part of clergy would visit the monastery of Pantocrator the cell of Gennadius, Georgios Scholarios by his worldly name, and ask what shall they do. Gennadius, having taken the vow of silence would write them a note, which says: "Oh pitiful Romans! Why did you stray from the right ways, alienated yourselves from faith in god and placed your faith in Frankish arms instead? Be merciful to me, o lord! I testify before you that I am innocent of this! Take note you pitiful citizens of what is happening? Together with an aposthate tribe did you forsake the teaching of the Father and started to follow the impurity. Voe to you, when cometh the judgement day!" And thus the monks and the nuns, who are considered by the people to be pure and devoted only to christianity and orthodoxy would start to cry anathema. And thus the disorderly and drunk mob would also cry anathema and drink to the icon of Theotakos asking her to save them.
This is an idea how it could start. Sorry for putting it in such a way, I just felt like it. Besides the part about the hermit is pretty much stolen by me from the History of Byzantium by Ducas.

 

[MattyG]

This is a valuable discussion.

I have stayed out of it for a couple of weeks hoping that more debate and ideas such as these would emerge.

There is a parallel, as Orimazd alluded to, with the Mutazelite 'heresy' in Islam that we have brought into Interregnum. As Ahmed wrote to me, this was a fairly elitist clique within Islam, an attempt to marry hellenic rationalism with Islam, eventually deemed a heresy, and now gone from the world. Instead, we have the Mutazili move to Cordoba when they grow and expand. And for an elitist philosophy to take root as a popular movement we must presume that it grew beyond its original limitations. We don't have the capacity to conceive of the details, but that must be our presumption.

This is true also of protestantism. Much of Luther's theological points would have been totally lost on all but those well-versed in theology, but there were clearly components of his protest that appealed to the high brow, the middle brow and the ignorant layperson.

Likewise, for the Cathars, there were theological minutia that few might have understood, others drawn to the moralistic high ground it occupied, others to the denial of self and the lack of sex, others to the genuine poverty and humility expected of the 'perfect'.

And so it must be with Mutazelism. And so it would need to be with a heresy in orthodoxy that would cause religious rifts that reached from the parish to the throne.

So, while the gnosticism of the greeks may have been to ascetic and obscure for widespread acceptance, we need to postulate that a new twist on it has emerged, one which touches different people in different ways and which has, as sekenr and others point out, a 'worldly' edge, meaning it challenges the social and political structures of the day.

So, everything I have read in the posts above can fit and can flesh out this challenge to traditional orthodoxy. Throw in iconoclasm as part of it and a challenge to the wealth, power and priviledge of the various patriarchies, and you have enough to give you hits to RR, stability and inno!

 

[unmerged(31994)]

This is a valuable discussion.

There is a parallel, as Orimazd alluded to, with the Mutazelite 'heresy' in Islam that we have brought into Interregnum. As Ahmed wrote to me, this was a fairly elitist clique within Islam, an attempt to marry hellenic rationalism with Islam, eventually deemed a heresy, and now gone from the world. Instead, we have the Mutazili move to Cordoba when they grow and expand. And for an elitist philosophy to take root as a popular movement we must presume that it grew beyond its original limitations. We don't have the capacity to conceive of the details, but that must be our presumption.

The Mutazelite sequence may need to be reviewed but I have something to add really...

Lately, some scholars from the University of Damascus have suggested that the Mutazelite heresy may have had wider appeal amongst the public than assumed. It really emerged under Caliph al-Mustansir, who formed an Inquisition that forced Imams and religious leaders to accept the Mutazelite concept that the Quran was indeed 'a Creation' of God - and not part of him. Anyway, although it was very popular amongst the elite, there is strong evidence suggesting that a wide spectrum of the public believed in it - books and texts with strong Mutazelie influence scattered throughout the !)th and !!th centuries, Mosques with Mutazeli inscriptions as well as a few Mutazeli traditions still practiced in Syria, Iraq and Ahwaz (the Julus Halqa). Some of the scholars have gone so far as to believe that the Shia tariqya doctrine stems directly from the Mutazelite philosophy of rationalism. Not strange really since more than one mullah has used Mutazelite texts when discussing faith and reason...

 

[MattyG]

Wow, that's so very cool.

Thanks for stopping by with that, Calipah. It certainly fleshes out the Mutazelite idea nicely and reinforces the concept that most heresies have appeal to different people in different ways.

I guess the distinction between the Qu'ran being part of God or being his creation was the critical issue that made it a heresy, right?