Would western europe turn into stagnat, inward looking theocracy

As opposed to a splintered set of stagnant, inward looking monarchies with a stagnant, inward looking theocracy bossing them around?
Probably not, because it would splinter within half a century, and things would go on as they did in real life.

>>54402438
IDK about the splintering, would common soldiers want to rise against the holy father?

It would be pretty stable, if local dukes are kept on long enough leash.

>>54402542
>>54402438
Not really. There was plenty of heresy going around at all times and the time they had three popes was one of the calmer periods of church history.

>>54402625
Untill ultraquists, all heretics got wiped out quickly and completely.

One dominant pope wouldn’t allow anitpope in western europe. Through, there might be antipope in Poland or Sweden or some other catholic country that lies beyond roman borders.

>>54402347
>Stagnant inward looking

No, because there are still Moslam hoards to the east and south, and to the west, the unknowable infinite of the uncrossed Atlantic ocean

>>54402761
>Untill ultraquists, all heretics got wiped out quickly and completely.

The Albigensians held on for decades, the Featherblowers ultimately survived persecution and the Hussites only fell after Pope and Emperor managed to split the movement. That's not even talking about all the smaller movements that were pretty much heretic, but not really worth a crusade as they lacked a formal political power base to crusade against...

>>54402761
>Through, there might be antipope in Poland or Sweden or some other catholic country that lies beyond roman borders.
And since no powerful country lies within Italian borders pope can't do much about it.