The Holy Roman Empire

[Aloysius]

the Holy Roman Empire didn't turn completely particularly German until the 16th Century.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1786465' date='Feb 20 2009, 01:50 PM']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.[/quote]

Nobody is talking about excusing anything, just putting responsibility equally where it belongs. And there is no such thing as an "unbiased history of an occurence of rape," not because of its moral repugnance (which might be the case), but because to analogize anything as "rape" is already to qualify your interpretation as irreversibly biased. Needless to say, the analogy between rape and heresy is quite imperfect.

[Aloysius]

heresy ought to have moral repugnancy to us the same way rape does. there is no equal blame; there is blame for what was being done by some members of the Church the same way people have blame if they dress immodestly; heresy and schism are overreactions to that, absolutely always unjustified, morally wrong, and damnable.

formal heresy is a mortal sin. the reformers were not justified in their actions by ANY causes, the counter-reformers were justified (as well as those who came up during the reformation to condemn the wrong practices but uphold orthodoxy)

[Justified Saint]

Where the analogy between rape and heresy falls apart is in how the two are caused. Rape by definition is non-consensual. On the other hand, its the Church's iniative to declare anyone a heretic (without getting into the differences between formal and material heresy). Historically, this raises interesting questions, like how some people or groups are labeled heretics in one period, but not another. This is to suggest that the negotiating of religion and politics in the past (often wed together) do not always arise from the purist of motives. Thus, it is silly to say that the Catholic Church was a helpless vitcim of the reformers. Which is not to say the the Church is to blame or even principally to blame for the Reformation, only that its impact was significantly shaped by how the Church played its cards. To me, the rape analogy is just not intelligible on this level of historical analysis.

[Aloysius]

people can put themselves into positions where they are more likely to get raped; and putting themselves into those situations can indeed include things that are wrong and are their fault. but those are not causes for rape.

similarly, people in the Church put her in a position where she was more likely to get torn apart by damnable heresies of prideful arrogant and vicious men like Martin Luther. it was the fault of those in the Church for doing that, but it was not a just cause for heresy and schism and apostasy.

there is a correct response to both situations; one admonishes an immodestly dressed woman walking through a bad neighborhood with no protection that they should not dress immodestly or put themselves in such dangerous positions; one admonishes Church officials not to engage in simony and to be better models of the holiness they preach; one does not use either case as a justification to try to rape either the vulnerable woman or the vulnerable Spotless Bride of Christ. Martin Luther indeed attempted to rape the Spotless Bride of Christ with pride, arrogance, disobedience, and damnable damnable heresy.

The Church INDEED was the victim in this case, at least the true Mystical Spotless Bride of Christ was; and she did nothing wrong by having the secular realm be connected to the religious to keep European culture homogenously Christian.

[Justified Saint]

"damnable damnable heresy" -- that kind of has a nice ring to it.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1790769' date='Feb 24 2009, 08:27 PM']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.[/quote]
I think it's safe to say that the name "Holy Roman Empire" was aspirational rather than a statement of historical fact.

In addition, what constituted the western half of the Roman Empire is today at least nominally Christian, whereas most of the eastern half is now predominantly Muslim, with a religion and worldview antithetical to Christianity.

[Formosus]

Even though it wasn't "completely German till the 16th century", for most of its existence it lined up near perfectly with the borders of modern Germany, it only controlled Rome for a brief period, it didn't follow Roman Law but rather German laws, and by the late middle ages the "Emperors" were not even crowned such anymore but were simply Emperor Elects.


Western Europe's nominal Christianity is worse then Islam, IMO being that Islam is clearly seen as a heresy or false religion. Its far less clear cut with the nominal Christianity found in the former western Empire today. I doubt any restoration of the Roman Empire (east or west) is feasible in any sense. If one really wants restorations of monarchies , aiming for possible ones is much better (such as Austria-Hungary or Russia).

[Aloysius]

in my OP I was suggesting something which was not at all the same as what the Roman Empire once was, but rather a consulting body like the UN, except it would be run by an "Emperor" and his rule would be considered highly influential over all Catholics who pledged their allegience to him and prayed for him, and prayed and worked to make their leaders subject to him, or at least to his influence for the sake of peace.

In any event, it would seem that King Juan Carlos I of Spain is currently Emporer of the Romans, for whatever that's worth. The title was sold to King Ferdinand by Andreas Palaiologos and passed down through the Spanish line.

[Guest warning]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1783344' date='Feb 17 2009, 09:30 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]

Sounds like a very good plan to me. I'm new here. Just searching my favorite subject and found this site. I also hold similar views.

[url="http://romancatholicimperialist.blogspot.com/"]http://romancatholicimperialist.blogspot.com/[/url]

[Matthew91]

In my opinion, I don't like this idea at all. We are in this world but not of this world. We belong to a Kingdom that is not of this world, The Church and State should never come together, it will lead to members within the Church being corrupted by the state. I dont think the Church should be associated with running an secular government by any means. I am totally against this army raising for "peace keeping" purposes, first of all such causes should be evaluated on a case by case basis, and if there is a war going on in another country, that is their affair, we should not be telling them what to do and boss them around, and take over their country to keep the peace as we see fit.

I'd rather keep the rules of the Just war doctrine, no war is good, there are times when a war must be fought, but I do not agree with the notion of jumping in to any fight we see. There are other ways to deal with problems without blowing your enemy up. I think the practice of sending UN troops etc around the world (or any other troops for that matter) to act as police is such an imperialistic concept. and I hate imperialism, it is such a horrible ideology based in a superiority complex of the imperialist, believing that they are the just judge and have the right to dominate and subordinate others. It is borderline fascism in my opinion. perhaps you can tell Im rather passionate on this?

The Church does not need a secular arm government imo, we are the "secular" arm in the sense that we are like ambassadors to the world. And the world will hate us, imprison us, and even kill us. But hey, that is what comes along with being a servant of Christ. I think our strength as Catholics is not shown in how we can muster up a rival powerful secular state; Our strength is found in God, and how in the face of adversity we will persevere until the end, just like our predecessors did during the Roman persecution, and throughout the entire history of the Church.