The Holy Roman Empire

[CatherineM]

It's not trying to relive the good old days when we try to reclaim a part of our past that was good, or a good example to live up to. For example, when the Army first began helicopter divisions, they asked permission to name them Air Cavalry. Besides the fact that they would function in modern warfare the way that the mounted cavalry had in older warfare, it was a way of bringing that tradition into a new unit.

In case you haven't noticed, real Christianity is being ostracized, marginalized, and eventually may be practically ghettoized or branded a hate group. There are presently two orders of Chivalry recognized by the Vatican, the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Malta, and Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher. Think of the Knights of Columbus, but directly under Papal Protection. The first one is already a UN observer organization, I think. All we need to do is take them from the Equivalent of Boy Scouts, to Police Explorer Scouts.

[Nihil Obstat]

What about my point though;
as soon as something like this gets set up, I'll bet anything that first Islam will claim the same right, then some kind of humanist association. Soon enough it would turn into a sort of cold war, or at least would have the potential to.

[Aloysius]

I'm not sure that would happen; the islamicists have their terrorist organizations and the ordinary muslims have their muslim states, and the secular humanists have the governments of most of the Western World. the secular humanists have the UN itself, actually. they already have these structures; we'd just be establishing a structure which was a secular power for Christendom itself, which exists now as a sort of minority in its own homeland (or at least as a disenfranchised majority) of Europe and the rest of Western Civilization.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1783824' date='Feb 17 2009, 05:49 PM']I'm not sure that would happen; the islamicists have their terrorist organizations and the ordinary muslims have their muslim states, and the secular humanists have the governments of most of the Western World. the secular humanists have the UN itself, actually. they already have these structures; we'd just be establishing a structure which was a secular power for Christendom itself, which exists now as a sort of minority in its own homeland (or at least as a disenfranchised majority) of Europe and the rest of Western Civilization.[/quote]
Yea, we see it that way, but the atheists especially don't see themselves as having an authoritative secular organization. They still pretend to view themselves as a persecuted minority.
We see them as already having equivalents, but I don't think they'd be quite inclined to look at it our way.

[aalpha1989]

I don't think world governments would be too keen on Catholic "peace-keeping forces" in their countries. UN peace keeping forces are a joke. I think the creation of a "Catholic UN" would only give the Church a bad name. Bureaucracy would get in the way of any real decisions, and political correctness would infect it just as pcness infects the UN. The purpose of the Church is spiritual, and I really believe that it would be viewed more as a political entity if this were to happen. We are past the point when a Catholic political entity can have any real influence on an international level- we would only be vilified.

We need to work on a national basis before we can be effective on an international basis.

[Socrates]

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

While founded on the noble principle of the Holy Roman Emperor being under the authority of the Pope, the reality is that in practice the HRE was in reality simply another European monarchy (comprising roughly what would become modern Germany), not being really any more authoritative or holy or Catholic than the other Catholic European powers of the middle ages (France, England, Spain, etc.), and possessing less power, ruling over a collection of lesser feudal states. In fact, there were times when the HRE was at odds with the Pope and the Papal States (which were a later mixing of Church and temporal authority).

It was never really a transnational Church power like Aloysius proposes.

While I always find Al's quixotic proposals quaintly charming, I frankly see no way of it working in the real-life modern world.
Such a transnational body (presuming it could ever be instituted) would by necessity become heavily embroiled in worldly politics. Dragging the Church into worldly temporal affairs and politics has usually been to the detriment of the Church, and a distraction to Her primary spiritual mission.

[Nihil Obstat]

Maybe healthier to keep on being persecuted, ironically.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1783824' date='Feb 17 2009, 07:49 PM']I'm not sure that would happen; the islamicists have their terrorist organizations and the ordinary muslims have their muslim states, and the secular humanists have the governments of most of the Western World. the secular humanists have the UN itself, actually. they already have these structures; we'd just be establishing a structure which was a secular power for Christendom itself, which exists now as a sort of minority in its own homeland (or at least as a disenfranchised majority) of Europe and the rest of Western Civilization.[/quote]
Two other problems:

[list=1]
[*]As Nihil Obstat observes, if the Holy Roman Empire were reconstituted, what would stop Muslims from wanting to re-establish their Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia?
[*]At the time of the Holy Roman Empire, "Christendom" = Catholic Church. No such unity exists within the Christian world today.
[/list]

[Aloysius]

actually, such unity does exist... there are merely groups which have left that unity which are also Christian; but Christian Church = Catholic Church. protestant sects do not take away from the unity of Christ's Church, Christ's Church remains fully unified in all who are in union with Peter. the unity of the Church has not nor will it ever be breached.

this talk of Muslims doing something similar is pure nonsense, IMO. Muslims have a whole bunch of Muslim countries; Muslim extremists have a whole bunch of terrorist organizations.... the Muslims have "this" already, in general. I hate to break it to you, but Muslims ALREADY want to re-establish their Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia, man. But in any event so what? this is like an argument against Batman becoming Batman on the basis of escalation in criminals. and a poor one at that, because we've already got the Joker running around we just don't yet actually have a Batman.

to Socrates; yes, when I come up with things like this I don't tend to actually think they'll happen... this is a sort of "if I were in charge of the world" moment haha

[Justified Saint]

Ironically, the Holy Roman Empire was perhaps the single institution most responsible for the rise and spread of the Protestant Reformation (aside from the Catholic Church).

[Aloysius]

the single most responsible thing for the rise and spread of the Protestant Reformation was the reprobate heretics who have more to answer for on Judgement Day than nearly any one else in history. I wouldn't blame the Holy Roman Empire for it (or the Catholic Church for that matter) any more than I would blame a woman who dressed a bit immodestly sometimes for being raped.

[Justified Saint]

Well that is what happens when faith gets politicized and vice versa, regardless of who is to blame for the Protestant Reformation (and the finger could get pointed in many directions). That is a legacy that more or less leads to Protestantism and the concomitant rise of nationalism. Of course, with things today such a political arrangement would be completely different, and for that probably completely useless as well.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1784015' date='Feb 17 2009, 11:16 PM']The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

While founded on the noble principle of the Holy Roman Emperor being under the authority of the Pope, the reality is that in practice the HRE was in reality simply another European monarchy (comprising roughly what would become modern Germany), not being really any more authoritative or holy or Catholic than the other Catholic European powers of the middle ages (France, England, Spain, etc.), and possessing less power, ruling over a collection of lesser feudal states. In fact, there were times when the HRE was at odds with the Pope and the Papal States (which were a later mixing of Church and temporal authority).

It was never really a transnational Church power like Aloysius proposes.

While I always find Al's quixotic proposals quaintly charming, I frankly see no way of it working in the real-life modern world.
Such a transnational body (presuming it could ever be instituted) would by necessity become heavily embroiled in worldly politics. Dragging the Church into worldly temporal affairs and politics has usually been to the detriment of the Church, and a distraction to Her primary spiritual mission.[/quote]

I disagree with you on what the Holy Roman Empire was. It was everything Aloysius says it was, and held more power then you give us to believe.

I think there is a possibility of something akin to it being founded again, except it would have to be founded by someone that is not us... someone with the power and influence to do so. I don't think it could be exactly as the Holy Roman Empire was, but something akin to it could be established if the right person came along to make it happen. I see it as a great good if that were to happen.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1784453' date='Feb 18 2009, 02:17 PM']Ironically, the Holy Roman Empire was perhaps the single institution most responsible for the rise and spread of the Protestant Reformation (aside from the Catholic Church).[/quote]



Yes, pretty ridiculous claim.

Edited February 18, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[Aloysius]

I listed the three bishops who would be ecclesiastical electors of the "Emperor" (their sees still exist), using them would lend legitimacy; in addition, some of the remnants of Catholic royalty (Spain, Monaco, Luxemburg, et cetera) would have to be the secular electors of the "Emporer".. and the Pope would have to crown him. It's only such an arrangement which would lend such an organization any credence. I mean, if we wanted to be really stupid/crazy, I could just proclaim myself emperor and you could all pledge your loyalty to me... haha, but the only way such an organization (which would be a huge force for peace in the world) would work is if it was founded by people who already have money, influence, and power... ie at least those three bishops, some Catholic royalty, and the Pope himself would have to be involved in the founding of it.

and honestly, the blaming of the secular power of Christendom as it rested in the Holy Roman Empire for fragmentalizing and ultimate nationalism is a view of history that buys the argument that Christendom shouldn't be a seemless Christian (Catholic) homogenous society. And if our goal is to convert the world, then the ultimate goal (even if in these days we side with pluralism as a pragmatic position) would be a homogenous Catholic society. And what you're saying is that the fact that that ideal was in place (not always lived up to perfectly, but the culture was nearly fully homogenously Catholic) is a bad thing and was going to inevitably lead to the destruction of society. What would you have had those Catholic nations and Empires of old do? Not follow the social organization of Catholicism in the excercise of their secular power? Such an argument could only be accepted by those who support the Protestant Reformation, by those who support Protestantism or pluralistic secularism as an ideal... but not by a Catholic.