The Holy Roman Empire

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1784848' date='Feb 18 2009, 08:58 PM']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.[/quote]

It sounds great... if only Catholic royalty saw their duties as they were once seen by their ancestors...

[Justified Saint]

Did I say the ideal was bad? No, rather I am saying I don't think the ideal ever existed, or if it did, its practice was quite far from perfect. The so-called Catholic unity you speak of in the history of Western Europe is quite illusory. I am simply skeptical that a political arrangement like the HRE was, is the best ideal considering how flawed that ideal was in history. We are talking about an institution that at one point at the behest of its emperor sacked the city of Rome and imprisoned the pope. And to say that the HRE or the Catholic Church played no role in the Protestant Reformation is about as ignorant as saying that Lincoln played no role in the American Civil War.

Now, things are obviously different today which probably leads you to be more optimistic about your nostalgic enterprise. And who knows, it might have great merit to it. For me, the history of Western Europe shows that the conditions that gave rise to Christendom as a political reality are irreversible whose reintroduction might not only be impossible, but morally problematic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1784831' date='Feb 18 2009, 07:45 PM']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.[/quote]
I studied history under a very Catholic professor. I'd like to see your historical source that it was a transnational body holding authority over the rest of Christendom.
The HRE was essentially medieval Germany. There were good and bad emperors, some who followed the Pope, and some who didn't. Really no different than any other Catholic monarchy.
I'm not saying the HRE was bad, just that it was really nothing exceptional as a world power.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1784494' date='Feb 18 2009, 02:00 PM']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.[/quote]
Not sure if the HRE was to blame, and I would agree that the heretics themselves must be first blamed, but honestly you have to admit that the decadence and corruption rampant in the Church at that time made the Protestant revolt successful. There have been many heretics in the history of Christendom, yet not until the time of Luther were they able to completely tear apart Christendom.

Catholic historian Warren Carroll described the Church at the time as a "pile of dry timber, waiting for a spark to set if aflame" or something like that (sorry, couldn't find the source).

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1783344' date='Feb 17 2009, 10:30 AM']Okay, so I believe that the Holy Roman Empire ought to be re-established as a type of super-national body akin to the UN, except as a specifically Catholic body... the secular arm of Christendom. It would not claim borders, simply claim influence over the whole world's Catholics in secular matters; it could even raise armies akin to the UN peacekeeper force and maybe even lend itself to such causes of peacekeeping done by the international community as it sees fit.

As I understand it, the only electors left for the Holy Roman Emporer are the three ecclesiastical electors (I could not find even any pretenders to the four secular electors): The Bishop of Mainz, The Archbishop of Cologne, and the Bishop of Trier. These three could be the ecclesiastical electors... perhaps a new order of Catholic royalty could be established as the new secular electors.

I believe such a body could be a major force for peace in the world. Moreover, it would establish in the secular order a power with influence over the whole world (though it would not directly rule the world, simply be a secular influence) which directly acknowledges the Reign of Christ the King. Christendom would exist again as a sort of international policy consulting body; they should have ambassadors and diplomats, a seat at the UN (not just an observer, perhaps) et cetera; and seeing as the secular states are getting more and more bold in their attacks against the Church, having a secular right arm for the Church to defend herself if, say, the International Criminal Court wants again to try the Pope for crimes against human rights in teachings on homosexuality and abortion and this time won't take no for an answer, he could be defended. Not that it'd be going to war all the time, but the threat that Catholics COULD be organized into a military power of Christendom if necessary against oppressors might stave them off a little bit.

what say you?[/quote]
Must be nice. I agree with you, Catholic World Order sounds great but I don't see it happening.



Hey I have military training, can I Join your militia?

[Aloysius]

I stand by my analogy, the human elements of the Church and the Holy Roman Empire were like a woman who dressed immodestly, and the Reformers were the rapists.

[Justified Saint]

In that case you are making an apologetic analogy, not a historical one.

[Aloysius]

yes, that is my view of history, that the reformers were absolutely unjustified in what they did. I'm not presenting an unbiased view of history... honestly, the analogy perfectly works here: to present an unbiased history of an occurence of rape, one would have to include the factors that instigated the rapist to do what he did; which may indeed include some things that the woman was doing which were wrong. obviously we know you cannot excuse the act of rape by citing those things (such as immodest dress, or maybe being a prostitute if a prostitute were raped), though an objective unbiased historical analysis says "these are the factors that led to the rapist choosing to rape this woman"

same here, as Christians we cannot say that anything that was being done by the human elements of the Church can excuse schism or heresy... an objective historical analysis labels these things as contributing factors...but Martin Luther committed damnable actions in response to those factors. there were plenty of people during his own time (and then later in the Counter-Reformation) who responded appropriately... ie, those who did not attempt to rape the Bride of Christ.

[tionif]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1783344' date='Feb 17 2009, 10:30 AM']Okay, so I believe that the Holy Roman Empire ought to be re-established as a type of super-national body akin to the UN, except as a specifically Catholic body... the secular arm of Christendom. It would not claim borders, simply claim influence over the whole world's Catholics in secular matters; it could even raise armies akin to the UN peacekeeper force and maybe even lend itself to such causes of peacekeeping done by the international community as it sees fit.

As I understand it, the only electors left for the Holy Roman Emporer are the three ecclesiastical electors (I could not find even any pretenders to the four secular electors): The Bishop of Mainz, The Archbishop of Cologne, and the Bishop of Trier. These three could be the ecclesiastical electors... perhaps a new order of Catholic royalty could be established as the new secular electors.

I believe such a body could be a major force for peace in the world. Moreover, it would establish in the secular order a power with influence over the whole world (though it would not directly rule the world, simply be a secular influence) which directly acknowledges the Reign of Christ the King. Christendom would exist again as a sort of international policy consulting body; they should have ambassadors and diplomats, a seat at the UN (not just an observer, perhaps) et cetera; and seeing as the secular states are getting more and more bold in their attacks against the Church, having a secular right arm for the Church to defend herself if, say, the International Criminal Court wants again to try the Pope for crimes against human rights in teachings on homosexuality and abortion and this time won't take no for an answer, he could be defended. Not that it'd be going to war all the time, but the threat that Catholics COULD be organized into a military power of Christendom if necessary against oppressors might stave them off a little bit.

what say you?[/quote]

Yes, another person who gets to tell us poor, stupid, and totally irresponsible human beings what we have to do.

[Aloysius]

are you an anarchist, then? good secular authorities are great forces for peace and security and the advancement of mankind.

[Guest]

I think the antichrist coming at the 6th trump is going to happen before there is time for this.

Although the antichrist does come through a huge church sytem. Although since the gates of hell wont previal agaisnt the catholic church it can't be through the catholic church.

I imagine it will be through some typoe of "christian" mega church and churches with super preachers.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CLMtXSlL-I&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CLMtXSlL-I...feature=related[/url]

[Formosus]

Why the Holy Roman (German) Empire? The true Roman Empire was in the east. The idea of bringing back the Holy Roman(German) Empire is not very likely. Rather focusing on the restoration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire is much more feasible and likely. Or the restoration of the Russian Empire... its a pipe dream to suggest something so long dead as the HRE could ever be re established, and I would much prefer the real Roman Empire's return to represent Christendom as the ideal christian monarch, ruling of course from Constantinople, rather then a selection of German princedoms calling themselves an Empire. Just my two cents of course.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1789625' date='Feb 23 2009, 08:09 PM']Why the Holy Roman (German) Empire? The true Roman Empire was in the east. The idea of bringing back the Holy Roman(German) Empire is not very likely. Rather focusing on the restoration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire is much more feasible and likely. Or the restoration of the Russian Empire... its a pipe dream to suggest something so long dead as the HRE could ever be re established, and I would much prefer the real Roman Empire's return to represent Christendom as the ideal christian monarch, ruling of course from Constantinople, rather then a selection of German princedoms calling themselves an Empire. Just my two cents of course.[/quote]
Why do you say that the "true" Roman Empire was in the east? The Roman Empire was split into two administrative sections, in the west based in Rome / Ravenna, and in the east, in Byzantium. It was only after the fall of the western half of the empire that the eastern half became a "rump" section, or continuation of the empire. Wouldn't re-establishment of the Roman Empire as a whole be preferable, especially with a view to re-establishing Christendom in the Mideast and North Africa?

[Formosus]

Perhaps it would be, but the so called "Holy Roman Empire" was never the Roman Empire. The eastern Roman Empire was indeed the Roman Empire. It would be near impossible to re establish the original Roman Empire , but the Eastern Empire has only been gone 600ish years in comparison. Not to mention that it was the longest continually existing Christian state in history so far.