Is the Catholic Church a continuation of the Roman Empire?

[cally]

I was watching the a special on the History Channel last night and the host made a quick comment that the Roman Empire didn't die, it lives on in the Catholic Church. I found some sights discussing this, but the ones I found all come from very biased religious protestant fundamentalists and were not credible. I was wondering if anyone has heard this as a credible theory?

I do know that Christianity became the state religion of Rome by Constantine, he hosted the Nicene Council, and that the Popes named the Holy Roman Emperor until the mid 19th century. Is there more to this assertion than the basic church history? Can any of the Catholic rituals pertaining to the pope and what he wears tied back to the Romans?

This is not meant as anti-christian or anti-catholic. I'm just fascinated by the origins of modern day rituals, ceremonies, and religious practice.

[47of74]

1. In a way, yes

In a way the church did indeed replace the Empire through the formation of the Papal States, which made the Pope the dominant secular ruler in that part of Europe.

[cally]

13. a post below

points out that the papal states began much later. They were probably based on the Roman empire since that is what they knew.

[Glorfindel]

2. I think so...especially as concerns the title of Pontifex Maximus

Here's an interesting wikipedia article on the use of that title by Romans of the pre-imperial era, by the emperors and by the popes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus

Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, and Pope Benedict XVI all bear the title, and the meaning is little changed by time. (Interestingly, the literal translation is "great bridge-builder.")

[cally]

6. That entry is fascinating

It makes sense that when Christianity became the state religion that they then used the previous religious titles

[greenkal]

8. I don't understand what bridge building...

has to do with Xtians, but you could say the Holy Roman Empire was an extention of the Roman Empire and thus the OP is correct.

[Why Syzygy]

3. Yes.

It appears that this documents the facts without hysterics (There are others online. Keep looking.) >
http://bswett.com/1998-05Church300.html

[cally]

7. Thanks. I'd seen that website

I knew some of this history but had never heard the argument that the Catholic Church was a continuation of the Roman empire in a different form. I'm not sure I believe it, but it's intriguing.

[Why Syzygy]

15. Honestly.

It isn't something I've given a lot of study. I had never seen that site, but after looking around a bit further, it looks like much may be horse pucky. :shrug:

I still *feel* they are connected, but don't have enough research into that area to discuss it. I'll just listen for now ;)

[Warpy]

4. In another way, yes

because the Church took over a lot of the legal and bureaucratic functions of the defunct state. They had a ready supply of literate people and walked right into the administrative roles that had been in Imperial hands.

Until the aristocrats arouse and fought it out and some became monarchs and carved out states, it was an important function to fill.

As the kings gained power, they had to maintain a careful relationship with the Pope, who had great authority to interfere in temporal matters.

[cally]

9. Good point

about the defunct state bureaucrats transitioning into the church in the beginning. Thanks.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Not in any meaninful way.

There are survivals in language and other things -- a 'diocese' was once a sub-unit of the empire, for example, and the 'pontiff' title was that of a Roman pagan priest. Traditional priest's vestments can be traced back to what imperial bureaucrats wore in the fourth century, and a 'basilica' was originally a courthouse-cum-government center. Much of the paraphernalia of traditional, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism represents fossilized 4th or 5th century practice.

But the Roman empire was a polity, a state, a government, with all the appurtenances of a government. And the Church hasn't had that, except in an area smaller than the Mall of America, for a hundred years. Even before that, it was limited to central Italy, and then the Papal States were a joke, compared to other European powers, even third-rate ones.

Three hundred years before that the Reformation took half of Europe out of the Church's orbit. The Church's attempts to remove Protestant monarchs were mostly failures, and in the case of England, backfired with spectacular results -- Puritanism. Even before then, outside Italy, the Church's temporal power was limited. France's kings appointed French bishops, the Holy Roman Emperors warred routinely against the Popes, sometimes literally.

[cally]

10. I agree

that in recent times, the Catholic church does not continue the empire. I always thought that the early church had much power since it owned lands, had wealth, and early political leaders needed church support.

[struggle4progress]

11. If you look at the maps in the following link, you'll see that the so-called

"Holy Roman Empire" mostly comprised what is now Germany and that it usually did not even contain Rome: http://historymedren.about.com/library/atlas/blathredex.htm

The Ostragoth ouster of Romulus Augustus in 476 is usually taken to mark the collapse of the Roman empire; it is true that the eastern half of the empire, often called the Byzantine empire, was held together another thousand years but the Roman Catholic church had little influence there. The crowning of Otto by Pope John VII in 962 is usually taken tio mark the beginning of the "Holy Roman Empire"

So five hundred years separated the fall of the Roman empire from the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire: regarding the Holy Roman Empire as successor to the Roman empire is a bit like regarding the Soviet Union as successor to the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights, when discussing control of Konigsberg

[cally]

12. OK, that makes sense

From what various posters have pointed out, some the rituals and titles can be traced to the Roman empire. Your post about the date of the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire makes sense. During those 500 years, the church existed but not as an empire.

[humblebum]

22. Disagree-When the Eastern Roman Empire was no longer able to

to defend Rome from the barbarian tribes, Charlemagne became the new defender of the church in Rome and in effect assumed the status of the Roman emperor. A loose separation of powers existed between Charles the Great and the Pope, Charlemagne adopted many of the characteristics of the Roman Church and added many of the traditions we see today. This is one reason why Hitler was so drawn to domination of the Catholic Church- because he saw himself as the continuation of the 1st Reich, which was Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire.

[struggle4progress]

24. (1) Rome fell centuries before Charlemagne was crowned

(2) Nazi admiration of Charlemagne is likely to have revolved around his history of conquests, rather than Church issues

(3) The Nazis were not particularly sympathetic to Catholicism: on of the first things they did in power was to outlaw a number of organizations, some Catholic. A number of priests were sent to concentration camps. The official Nazi philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg, despised Catholicism; so did Hitler's personal secretary, Martin Bormann. It is unlikely that these men would have been appointed by the dictator if he did not share their views

[humblebum]

26. Even after Rome fell, the popes never relinquished loyalty to

the Eastern Roman emperor until Pepin. The seat of the Catholic church never left Rome except for brief periods when there were quarrels between pope and emperor. One of the attractions of the Roman church to Hitler was that Charlemagne had the power to appoint popes - not a college of cardinals. Charlemagne was the recognized emperor of Rome - the first Reich. The link between the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church has never ended.The balance of power between Pope and emperor shifted over time, but the Church has always been Roman in its orientation and those who controlled the Church wielded power over a large portion of humanity.

[struggle4progress]

27. I don't really believe that one can interpret history usefully, if one jumbles Charlemagne,

Constantine, and Hitler together in a few sentences. Constantine lived five hundred years before Charlemagne, Hitler a thousand years after. The collapse of the Western Roman empire was preceded by and followed by years of power struggles and invasions. If one wants to understand something about that, it would be much more productive to examine specific events in detail than to attempt sweeping generalizations stretching over centuries and centuries of time

The first Reich was not Rome but a loose confederation of Germanic states, and it was never called the "Holy Roman Empire" until hundreds of years after Charlemagne's death: to speak of Charlemagne and the "Holy Roman Empire" is the same breath is rather like discussing Ponce de Leon's adventures in the United States

[humblebum]

28. I never said that Rome was the first Reich. The general consolidation

of Europe under the Carolingian dynasty (Charlemagne)is considered the first Reich. This germanic grouping assumed the role of protector and defender of the Papal States(under Pepin) after the Eastern Roman Empire became too impotent to project power across the continent. Hitler was well aware of this part of German history and in order to emphasize the "glory" of the Germanic history and peoples he strongly identified with that history. The Roman Catholic church may very well not have survived as an entity without Charlemagne. The Holy Roman Empire is considered to have its beginning(if not the title) with the reign of Charlemagne.
Several cultures have claimed to be the heirs of the Roman Empire: the Byzantines (Eastern Empire), the Turks, and the Russians. But the Carolingians alone assumed control of Rome and the Church and brought it out of the Dark Ages and left their mark on its traditions.

[humblebum]

29. I need to correct myself . Looking back at the way I phrased

something caused confusion. I meant that Charlemagne becoming the new Emperor of Rome was, in effect, the 1st Reich. I did not mean that historical Rome was the first Reich.

[struggle4progress]

30. One problem is that "the First Reich" is not a terribly useful historical notion:

The "first Reich" existed as a German nationalist notion, taken over by the Nazis for the purpose of mythologizing a great German past that the Nazis promised to restore. For this purpose the Nazis had some interest in pretending there had been a great political state founded by Charlemagne and lasting a thousand years, and this explains the Nazi use of terms such as "Barbarossa" and promises of another "thousand year Reich"

But in reality it is difficult to support the notion that there was great political continuity here

Charlemagne inherited only part of the domain of his father, and his divided his domain among his own sons; the sons of his successor-son Louis subsequently fell into a civil war. Charlemagne may indeed have temporarily reunited portions of what had been the Roman empire three centuries earlier, and the crowning of Otto a hundred years later may indeed mark the beginning of an alliance between the German princes and the Holy See, marking a time when the Popes had substantial influence, but until Otto, there was no emperor for nearly a hundred years. The alliance between the German princes and the Pope was never called the "Holy Roman Empire" until the time of Frederick, two centuries after Otto. Thus, seven chaotic centuries lie between the sack of Rome and the first use of the name "Holy Roman Empire." The "emperor" of this "empire" was elected by German princes after the mid fourteenth century, and after another hundred years, the German princes were supporting Luther against the Pope. The "empire" dissolved in the early nineteenth century

[humblebum]

31. I think you underestimate the role of the Carolingians in the history of the

Catholic church. The normative christianity of earlier Rome was restored by Charlemagne and his father and grandfather. The Latin liturgy reintroduced, monasticism thrived again. Literally, the Frankish church looked to the traditions of ancient Rome to build up their church. Granted, the terms First Reich and Holy Roman Empire were never used during this time, but Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as Imperitor 1n 800 AD, replacing the Eastern Roman Emperor as protector of the Roman Church.

[Occam Bandage]

14. No. Greek Orthodoxy has a far better claim to that.

The Greek Orthodox church, after all, remained deeply integrated in the Eastern Roman Empire even as it finally collapsed in 1453 AD.

In the post-Roman West, there was a degree of separation of church and state, and there had been ever since Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by the Pope in 800 AD. The Pope was the Pope, and kings were kings, and each had their own spheres, though there was certainly a great degree of overlap at many times.

On the other hand, in the East, the church and the state were one and the same, and remained so for a full millennium after the Western Roman Empire fell. Imperial culture continued to develop for centuries after Rome fell, and the Greek Orthodox church was at the center of that culture: and from its art to its songs to its writings to its prayers, much of that culture survives today in a living body of the faithful. A Greek Orthodox service today is nearly indistinguishable from a service the last Roman Emperors would have witnessed.

I wouldn't say that either are a continuation of the Roman Empire, but if I had to give Caesar's crown to one church, it would be the Greek Orthodox.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. As you point out, the Empire had been split

Post #17 outlines how the Patriarch of Rome stepped in to the power vacuum left by the fall of the western Emperor and the centuries of war that followed, and how the Collegium Pontificum and the Senate effectively merged to create what would latter become the College of Cardinals and the various bureaucracies of the Church. But even by Constantine's time, when he reunited the Empire briefly, the divisions between the Latin west and the Greek east were significant; for all intents and purposes, there were two empires with a common heritage, not one.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Sure.

OP didn't say "a continuation of the Western half of the Roman Empire."

[happyslug]

16. The real issue is HOW did the Empire die (and if it really did).

Rome was last United under Theodosius The great (the ONLY Roman Emperor ever called "Great"). He re-united the Empire by defeating the Goths after the Roman Military Defeat at the Battle of Adrianople.

Theodosius I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

Battle of Adrianople"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople_(378)

Now, his method of defeating the Goths were unique for the Roman Army, he did NOT defeat them in any one pitch battle, instead defeated them piecemeal as he rebuilt the Roman Army after it was almost Completely wiped out at Adrianople. He then defeated the remaining Goths and incorporated them both into his Empire (Into what used to be Yugoslavia). He then completed the transformation of the Roman Empire into a Catholic Empire (Through paganism was NOT outlawed, it was tolerated and would be for another 200 years, except for the occasional sacking of Pagan Temples when Gold Coin became short, the Gold in the temples went the Emperor, the Temple to the Christians).

At the death of Theodosius I in 395, he divided his Empire between his two sons, and told them to work together, which they did. The problem was the Empire was heading in at least three different direction at that time. The West, Egypt and Syria (Egypt and Syria spoke a variation of modern Arabic) was going further into the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The East (i.e. Greek Speaking part of the Empire) was the last stronghold of small farmers. Theodosius continued Constantine plan of using Christianity and its network of churches to unite the Empire, both Rich and Poor, while minimizing the conflict between Rich and Poor. This worked to a degree, but in the West after about 420 (i.e. the time of Attila the Hun) the Rich ran out of money and turned to the Germans as troops to keep their own peasants in line. The problem was the Germans were peasants themselves and after a few years embraced the peasants against the Roman Elite and started land reforms (Which Romans had needed since the time of the Gracchi).

More on the Gracchi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

Anyway, as the Germans imposed land reform, the Romans Re-invaded under Justinian (who had also outlawed the last Pagans holdouts in the Empire). When the Germans Imposed their Land Reforms (Opposed by the Roman Elite) the Church is conspicuous by its absence in the official record BUT then is seen as allied with the Germans and Peasants, through also allied with the Eastern Empire under Justinian. The best explanation is the Church provided the background for the land reforms (i.e. did the actual division of the land) while the German occupiers ordered the Land Reforms while the Roman Elite opposed it (All Complaining to the Eastern Emperor after 450 AD).

Now, the Church had assumed most of the domestic functions of the Roman State as the Western Empire broke up. The Break up of the Roman Empire is a better way to view what is traditionally called the Fall of the Roman Empire. Except for the Vandals, ALL the Germanic tribes that invaded the Empire were defeated by the Roman State, but then permitted to live in areas where they had been extensive peasants revolts against the Roman Elite (One of my favorite is the Revolt of Armorica, Modern Brittany, where the Roman Sent troops, after the death of Attila, When Roman power was in an upswing, rather then the Goths and Franks who were closer, for the Armoricans were a peasant revolt that had been successful in taking land from the Roman Elite, while the Goths, Franks and other Germanic tribes had not yet done so and would NOT till the late 400s and the 500s). While Roman Military power was on the decline, most People still called themselves Romans. As Romans they were subject to Roman laws, while the Germanic Tribes were subject to Germanic Laws. This created a dual legal system that lasted till the Middle Ages, one for "Romans" and one for whatever Germanic Tribe one was a member of. The Peasants had been Romans and while they like the land Reform being done by the Germans, they viewed themselves as still being Romans. As the Military Power of Rome withdrew to Modern Greece and Turkey (The EAstern Empire would lose Syria and Egypt in the Mid 600s) people in the occupied areas still called themselves Romans. The only institution that survived the break up of the Roman Empire was the Catholic Church, thus the Romans who no long lived under the Roman Empire only had the Church to help them defined themselves as Romans. Keeping track of Births and Deaths, marriages and personal property, which had been done by the State as long as the Roman Empire Survived, had to be performed by someone and only the Catholic Church had the knowledge of Roman law, and writing to do so. Thus people embraced the Catholic Church as their Church and how they identified themselves as opposed to the Germanic Tribes who technically controlled all of the land and provided the military force for the area.

AS time went on, even the Germanic Tribes embraced the Catholic Church for their wanted to be one with their people, and their people were Romans and Catholic, so the Germanic Invaders slowly became Catholic and "Roman". This was NOT a quick change, even as late as the Renaissance certain groups claimed non-Roman Citizenship based on old Germanic tribal rights, but by that time did not last long.

Thus by the "dark ages" most of Europe still considered itself "Roman" (The Main exceptions were the Germans in present day Germany and the Slaves in Eastern Europe, but both groups came under pressure to join the rest of Educated Europe and become "Roman" in outlook as their embraced Catholicism). Furthermore Every Bishops had to make a trip to Rome to talk to the Pope (The big exceptions were the Bishops under the Orthodox Patriarchs, which included modern Greece, Turkey, Syria and Egypt as after its Conversion Russia). Thus the best way to get messages to each other was through the Catholic hierarchy. Furthermore this is the days before linen paper, so paper was expensive (Parchment was the paper used and it is animal skin). Thus if you wanted to get messages to everyone in your kingdom you had to send it through the bishops and the priest for there was no other way to get the messages to the people. Thus the Roman Church Survived based on its control of communications. As long as no one could challenge the Church's control of Communications it had power, and in most people's lives more power then the local king for all he controlled was his troops (and most of them could only be called up via the Church and its communication system).

The introduction of linen paper in the 1300s into Europe made paper cheaper, this actually enhanced the church by permitting more sending of letters then having to do many messages verbally. On the other hand, groups outside the Church could also afford the new linen paper and start to send messages to each other, but it was still quicker and cheaper to send messages via the Church then any other way till the mid 1800s when Pulp paper came into widespread use and with it what we would call "Newspapers" (Newspapers existed before that date, but their were more advertising rags then what we would call "Newspapers", Modern Newspapers did not spring up in the 1800s, many trace their roots to the 1700s, but till the 1800s, pulp paper, steam locomotives and high speed presses, modern newspapers were NOT possible). I go into this for the survival of the Roman Catholic Church is more a product of the need to get information to people then anything else. The Catholic Church, based on its hierarchy, which had been adopted in the 100s as a duplication of the Roman Imperial system, but extending it down to the peasants on the streets, was the best way to get information to people and thus was the best means of Communications. The Catholic Church maintained its Roman structure and even expanded it into Germany and the Eastern Slavic nations and as long as it was the SOLE means of Communication it survived and with it its Roman Traditions and background (yes it survived today, but with Modern Newspapers, Radio, Television, and now the Net not as strong as it was just 200 years ago).

Sorry about the rambling, it is pass my bedtime, but I felt the need to file some-sort of answer. The rambling is more the result of the reason the Catholic Church is the heir of the Roman State is because the Catholic Church (And I have to include the Orthodox when I use the term Catholic here) is the only institution that survived the breakup of the Roman Empire between 450 and 700 AD. Those 250 years, from the time the real ruler in the Western Empire was NOT the Emperor but his German head of his troops to the defeat of the Arab attack on Constantinople, saw the Empire go from a country speaking three different languages (Latin, Greek and Arabic, through the Romans would have called the last language Egyptian) to one that spoke only Greek. The empire went from an Empire of large estate owners, owning vast estates from Britain to Egypt, AND a mercenary army to a state made up of small farmers who in exchange for their land had to provide military service to the state (Yes the Byzantine Empire, after 600 AD, did NOT have the same number of wealthy elite that the Roman Empire and its successor states had till about 500 AD, no one knows where their went, most of the old Roman Families tend to just disappear through some held on till the 900s).

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. To some extent, yes

The Roman Empire was split into Western and Eastern portions in the late 3rd century, with the seat of power for the West being Rome and the seat of the East being Constantinople. The two halves were briefly reunified under Constantine I, but after that they were effectively two separate nations, linked only by history and tradition.

Starting in the mid 4th century, the Western empire was subjected to repeated invasions by Germanic peoples, most violently by the Visigoths and Ostrigoths. In 410, Rome was sacked by Alaric I, King of the Visigoths, and the Western empire was dismantled in 476 when a German mercenary, Odoacer, led an overthrow of Western emperor Romulus Augustus. For nearly two centuries after that, the Italian peninsula was a battlefield between Gothic, Byzantine and Italian forces.

Into the power vacuum stepped the Patriarch of Rome. It is around this time that the Pope assumed the title of Pontifex Maximum, a title held originally by the chief priest of Iupiter and latter held by the Emperors to represent their authority as the gods' divinely annointed representative on earth. It is also around this time that the College of Cardinals begins to take shape, when the now Christianized Collegium Pontificum (originally, an organization made up of the highest ranking priests and priestesses of pagan Rome) and the remnants of the Roman Senate merged and took responsibility over both religious practice and civil law. To this extent, the Catholic Church is, indeed, the inheritor of the Western Empire.

[steven johnson]

20. Pagan Origins of Christian Symbolism is Controversial

<<Can any of the Catholic rituals pertaining to the pope and what he wears tied back to the Romans?>>

The miter and vestments have been atributed to pagan origins.

In his 1878 Essay on the Development of the Christian Doctrine John H. Newman wrote:
"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church."

Some Pagan1 items adopted by Christians

[Marrah_G]

25. Symbols, rituals, holy days.... all taken from a mix of other beliefs.

It is easier to convert the masses if you do not change their holy days (feast days) and adopt local customs into the mythology.

Christ was not born on Winter Solstice and the Yule log- Christmas Tree- Mistletoe etc are not "Christian" in origin.

[K8-EEE]

21. yes n/t

[hedgehog]

23. I think in terms of attitude, the hierarchy is very much a

continuation of the Western Empire. I'm thinking of the notion that whatever happens in Rome, whatever is thought in Rome, is the gold standard for what it means to be Catholic. The theory that Catholics everywhere should be copies of Rome is a contradiction in terms, but there you are.