In a scenario where amongst other things the Byzantines managed to expand their gains in Anatolia and West Asia (plus parts of Syria and northern Mesopotamia under either the Macedonian or Komnenoi dynasties) to the point of both achieving relative stability as well as avoided their OTL decline / collapse, what-if the ATL Orthodox Christian world (including both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity) later experienced their own equivalent of the Protestant Reformation?
WI - Orthodox Christian equivalent of the Protestant Reformation
- Thread starter Masked Grizzly
- Start date
I've commented on threads like this before, and rather than drag up my old posts about why the ideological/theological/political framework isn't really in place in the Orthodox East for Protestantism as it arose in the West, it might be more conducive to ask the OP: What, for the purposes of this scenario, do you see as an "equivalent" of the Protestant Reformation? Because barring significant changes in how the Orthodox run their Churches and do theology, you aren't getting any of the doctrines.
I would argue that groups like the Strigolniki were Orthodox early Radical Reformers. Such a radical movement could always develop more broadly, but I don't see it succeed on a political level, so it would ultimately be crushed. Probably the best chance to wank them is to link them up with the Hussites in the 1420s and 1430s, which would probably require a Hussite-friendly PLC as the bridge between both, both geographically and culturally (I did this in my A Different Chalice timeline, having Švitrigaila succeed in his struggle for the throne with Hussite help.).
A moderate, Magisterial Reformation like the one which succeeded IOTL in Northern Europe does not suit the social, cultural, theological, economic, political and military circumstances of Orthodoxy in this later period, i.e. in the 16th century. And certainly there is no possible link with a surviving Byzantine Empire.
A moderate, Magisterial Reformation like the one which succeeded IOTL in Northern Europe does not suit the social, cultural, theological, economic, political and military circumstances of Orthodoxy in this later period, i.e. in the 16th century. And certainly there is no possible link with a surviving Byzantine Empire.
What PLC in 1420s? 15th century Polish-Lithuanian union ranged from personal to dynastic, and occasionally was broken in practice with both states making different alliances and sometimes even being close to war against each other. Something hardly comparable to state created by Union of Lublin.
Returning to the topic-what about successful 'Judaising Sect' in Muscovy during late 15th century? Ivan III of Moscow could decide to side with 'Judaizers' to confiscate Orthodox Church's property.
To my knowledge, many of the things that led to OTL's Protestant Reformation aren't really there in the Orthodox lands of OTL.
First off, the increasing centralization of the Papacy in terms of temporal power that had been brewing from the Investiture Controversy. Since the Orthodox church isn't as centralized as the Catholic (after all, one of the reasons for the break was the position of Rome vis-a-vis the other Patriarchates), there's less of an impression of alienation.
Next you have the fact that around this time Muscovy had just completed uniting Russia, and the other major Orthodox lands in the Balkans were under Ottoman control. Contrast the heavily fragmented German and Italian states of this time,
Next, the chief secular ally of the Papacy (the Habsburgs) had their attention divided along multiple fronts (Spain, the Low Countries, Imperial Germany, Italy, the New World). Russia doesn't quite have an Elector John Frederick figure, unless I'm mistaken.
First off, the increasing centralization of the Papacy in terms of temporal power that had been brewing from the Investiture Controversy. Since the Orthodox church isn't as centralized as the Catholic (after all, one of the reasons for the break was the position of Rome vis-a-vis the other Patriarchates), there's less of an impression of alienation.
Next you have the fact that around this time Muscovy had just completed uniting Russia, and the other major Orthodox lands in the Balkans were under Ottoman control. Contrast the heavily fragmented German and Italian states of this time,
Next, the chief secular ally of the Papacy (the Habsburgs) had their attention divided along multiple fronts (Spain, the Low Countries, Imperial Germany, Italy, the New World). Russia doesn't quite have an Elector John Frederick figure, unless I'm mistaken.
Yes, that was inadequate terminology on my part.
The persistence of "Judaisers" as late as the late 15th century attests to Early/Radical Reformers having been a significant factor over a prolonged period of time.
Regarding Ivan III.: wasn't he majorly thriving on the whole "Third Rome" concept? That kind of continuity-seeking policy would not sit well with reformation. Also, in his centralization efforts, he relied very much on a military service nobility as well as the support of the church - autonomy-seeking town crafters-and-merchants and petty traditional nobility, who were probably the backbone of "Judaising" and other quasi-Reformationist sects, were their main political opponents, so I don't see how this idea can fly.
The main way I see it occuring is if you already have Greek Orthodox believers in lands that either were in areas that historically became Protestant or in areas where it could be likely reform could spread (i.e. a stronger spread of Greek culture and colonies, with or without the Byzantine Empire, in Italy, France, Spain, and Malta) or in lands ruled by outsiders who became Protestant (i.e. Finland). Finland here is actually interesting, not the least because the Swedish government actively persecuted Greek Orthodox believers who either fled to Russian Karelia, where it was safe to practice Orthodoxy, or took to remote areas where they could practice in secret. If Orthodox Finns and their church hierarchy were smart enough, they could have found ways to accommodate themselves to the Church of Sweden, though what you'd get instead would be a Protestant/Lutheran version of an Eastern Catholic (or Uniate) church, not a full-blown Reformation. In this case, Greek Orthodox doctrine, and more likely pre-Nikonian Russian Orthodox forms of worship and customs/traditions (i.e. what we now associate with the Old Believers), would remain but would adapt to a new environment even if in some cases in harmonizes with existing practice in the Orthodox world. Take the language of worship as an example - one of the things Protestants were big on were having the people know and understand what's going on in services, and this could be best done in the vernacular rather than in Latin - hence Luther's Bible and his hymnal, the KJV and the BCP, etc. Orthodoxy, too, has a tendency to adopting the local language wherever it goes, but since the liturgy had already been standardized ages ago, you could go into any Orthodox church and everything would still be familiar. You would know what to do and how to behave even if the language was unfamiliar. The same would be true here, even if the Finnish used in worship was heavily influenced by Church Slavonic. As for the doctrines and teachings - they would not change, but be reinterpreted to justify the new situation where Luther's Small Cathecism (among other founding documents of the Lutheran faith) now reign supreme. Yes, this would lead to the rest of the Orthodox world deeming the Finns as heretics and condemned as much as Cyril Lucaris was, but if that could stop Swedish persecution it could be a risk worth taking.
As for more fundamental changes in Greek Orthodoxy - Cyril Lucaris is your man, as long as the Empire gives him full support. While not as radical as his critics claim, if he had his way not only would there be a massive renewal/revival of Greek Orthodoxy in all aspects he even unsuccessfully attempted to bring the Church of England into the fold, in effect making Anglicanism a Western Rite of the Orthodox Church. That suggests to me that if Cyril Lucaris wanted to reform Orthodoxy along the lines of Protestant churches while keeping the soul and essence of Orthodoxy intact, it would be a more mild Anglican-esque version of the Reformation rather than, say, the comparatively more radical Calvinists (at the time). So there's one way of having the Greek Orthodox world own the Reformation for itself, though due to its decentralized nature not every place would accept it as the Protestant Reformation relies on concepts in Western Christianity which are fundamentally absent in Eastern Christianity. In that case, don't expect an Orthodox Reformation in Armenia, in Baghdad, in China, and in Africa, for example.
That doesn't quite fit the OP, which asks for a surviving Byzantine Empire. I don't think it fits the politics of the Ottomans either, who would probably not want to give Lucaris that much support because it would create unnecessary schisms. By that point the Ecumenical Patriarch was the "ethnarch" of Eastern Orthodox within the Ottoman Empire, and having one that's trying to push a foreign doctrine on top of asserting dominance over historically autonomous Churches in Antioch, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. is a great way to foment rebellion. His positions were already highly controversial and were condemned by councils called in his own city.
Also, what would the point be of an Anglican-style reformation? The Church is already subservient to the state. Would it be to seize the monasteries and use their wealth to fund the Empire? That's guaranteed to be highly unpopular among a hierarchy predominantly selected from among monks.
Az least in one aspect there were times when the orthodox church was quite calvinist, namely regarding the decoration of church interiors (or rather the lack thereof) during the first and second iconoclasm, which left us church interiors like the one pictured below:
