Is the Roman Catholic Church the last surviving remainder of the Roman Empire or no connection?

Rumopson said:

Is the only connection it started and headquartered in Rome?

weren’t the first popes the emperor’s or Caesars? or was it honorary ceremonial tittles after it became the official religion?

The Church called it self ‘Catholica’ or ‘great universal church’ based on expansion and conversion , (be it forced or voluntary) was r that copied from the Romans and their expanding empire?

In the early days of the ‘holy christian or Roman empire’ they had armies under their control, powers over kings and whole countries and had powers to punish or burn alive heretics, non believers etc

The calendar we use today and names of planets that the church made standard in christianity are all Roman in origin named after the pagan gods. why didn’t the new ‘christian’ church not seek to distance itself and believers from the old paganism ?

so could any nationalistic Catholic or Roman history enthusiasts say the empire did not die (was it after the fall of constantinople??)
it is still with us after 2000 years? we are not celebrating the birth of Christ but the Roman Empire?

Click to expand...

If the Catholic church was solely a creation of the Roman empire then why did the Romans often support or try to install anti-popes such as Felix II? Would it not be becaue the Romans would want a friendly ally that more favourable of the senate?

Britannica encyclopedia

Felix (II), (died Nov. 22, 365, Porto, near Rome), antipope from 355 to 365. Originally an archdeacon, Felix was irregularly installed as pope in 355 after the emperor Constantius banished the reigning pope, Liberius. In May 357

Click to expand...

If anything the Greek Orthadox church has a better claim!

Rumopson said:

Is the only connection it started and headquartered in Rome?

Click to expand...

Christianity didn't start in Rome. If the Romans down to about 303 CE had really had their way christianity wouldn't exist.

Rumopson said:

weren’t the first popes the emperor’s or Caesars? or was it honorary ceremonial tittles after it became the official religion?

Click to expand...

Lol, no. The first popes were bishops of Rome. Beginning around the late third century, the capital of the Empire was moved elsewhere and the city of Rome increasingly was left to the church. Essentially the popes filled a vacuum.

Rumopson said:

The Church called it self ‘Catholica’ or ‘great universal church’ based on expansion and conversion , (be it forced or voluntary) was r that copied from the Romans and their expanding empire?

Click to expand...

By the time the church amounted to much the Empire, especially in the west, was not expanding but disintegrating. Augustine's work The City of god argues that the christians made a big distinction between their views and the empire.

Rumopson said:

The calendar we use today and names of planets that the church made standard in christianity are all Roman in origin named after the pagan gods. why didn’t the new ‘christian’ church not seek to distance itself and believers from the old paganism ?

Click to expand...

Some things remained as they were probably just out of familiarity or convenience. But the Christians did replace the old dating system, which began with the legendary founding of Rome, with a new one beginning with the birth of Jesus.

Rumopson said:

so could any nationalistic Catholic or Roman history enthusiasts say the empire did not die (was it after the fall of constantinople??)
it is still with us after 2000 years? we are not celebrating the birth of Christ but the Roman Empire?

Click to expand...

Lol, the two are quite distinct. Unlike the church, the Empire was political in nature and focused on the real world.

Wouldn't one find "heirs" of Rome in legal codes? And what about in language (there is a group of languages called Latin)? Wasn't Moscow sometimes seen as the "Third Rome" (a concept that has continued)?

IMO there are (arguably) other remainders.

WITSEND said:

If anything the Greek Orthadox church has a better claim!

Click to expand...

.. before the Great Schism, during the first thousand years of the Christianity the Bishop of Rome was primus inter pares, first among the Patriarchs of the Pentarchy, because of Roma Invicta, the very centre of the known universe of the old and its past glory. This old Christian concept still lives in the east now the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the first among equals.

No, not exactly. The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox one) did start when Rome was around, but ultimately they weren't necessarily associated with the state itself and its government, they were a separate institution. It would be as if the USA disappeared but Macdonalds stayed around.

The monastaries on the Mount Athos peninsula still fly the Byzantine flag and point out that they were never conquered by foreign invaders. That makes them the most likely "actual" survivors of the Roman empire, in a sense.

Matthew

The bishops (ie: future popes) who controlled the city of Rome were already misbehaving in the late sixth century but they remained inside the empire until the communications breakdown and Lombard pressure forced them to look elsewhere for support. They retained strong eastern connections into the ninth century but increasing oriented themselves around themselves when they were nominally handed the lands of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Franks.

For the big picture: Noble, Thomas F.X. The Republic of St Peter: the Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.

For the communications breakdown with Constantinople: McMahon, Lucas. “Digital Perspectives on Overland Travel and Communications in the Exarchate of Ravenna (Sixth through Eighth Centuries).” Studies in Late Antiquity 6, no. 2 (2022): 284–334. Digital Perspectives on Overland Travel and Communications in the Exarchate of Ravenna (Sixth through Eighth Centuries).

Rumopson said:

Is the only connection it started and headquartered in Rome?

weren’t the first popes the emperor’s or Caesars? or was it honorary ceremonial tittles after it became the official religion?

The Church called it self ‘Catholica’ or ‘great universal church’ based on expansion and conversion , (be it forced or voluntary) was r that copied from the Romans and their expanding empire?

In the early days of the ‘holy christian or Roman empire’ they had armies under their control, powers over kings and whole countries and had powers to punish or burn alive heretics, non believers etc

The calendar we use today and names of planets that the church made standard in christianity are all Roman in origin named after the pagan gods. why didn’t the new ‘christian’ church not seek to distance itself and believers from the old paganism ?

so could any nationalistic Catholic or Roman history enthusiasts say the empire did not die (was it after the fall of Constantinople??)
it is still with us after 2000 years? we are not celebrating the birth of Christ but the Roman Empire?

Click to expand...

The "Roman" catholic church is called that because of the city of Rome; it has nothing to do with the 'empire' of Rome per se. Inside the empire, the church in the city of Rome was one of three (later five) co-equal patriarchates. Originally Rome, Antioch, an Alexandria, with Jerusalem and Constantinople added in the 4th and 5th centuries.

In fact, it wasn't until after the fall of the western half of the empire, when the city of Rome was no longer even part of the "Roman" ("Byzantine") empire that the Patriarchate of Rome started going it's own way distinct from the other four patriarchates that were still part of the empire, eventually becoming "Roman" Catholic as we would know it today. It was all about the city, not the empire.

EDIT: And all five of the churches that eventually made up the "tetrarchy" prior to the east/west split were originally established in the Apostolic era. Tradition has it that the church in Constanople was founded by the Apostle Andrew when the city was still called Byzantium, though that church didn't rise in prominence until the capitol was moved there.

Silesius Smithee said:

The "Roman" catholic church is called that because of the city of Rome;

Click to expand...

...

Silesius Smithee said:

eventually becoming "Roman" Catholic as we would know it today.

Click to expand...

Where "we" means "we non-Catholics". Catholics only call their Church Catholic, not "Roman". It's what we would call an exonym.

So no, the fact that non-Catholics sometimes call the Catholic Church "Roman" is no evidence whatsoever of a heritage handed over by the Roman Empire.

Yes, of course the Catholic lingua franca is Latin, because it was the language of the empire back in the day. Naturally, English is the lingua franca in Ghana, but it's hard to see present-day Ghana as a continuation of the English kingdom.
Yes, plenty of terms related with the Catholic Church, including curia, are of Latin origin and come from similar imperial concepts. Naturally, the US Senate is called that way because of the Latin word of the similar legislative body, but it's hard to say that for that reason, the USA are the successor state of the Roman empire. Etc.

Michele A said:

...


Where "we" means "we non-Catholics". Catholics only call their Church Catholic, not "Roman". It's what we would call an exonym.

So no, the fact that non-Catholics sometimes call the Catholic Church "Roman" is no evidence whatsoever of a heritage handed over by the Roman Empire.

Yes, of course the Catholic lingua franca is Latin, because it was the language of the empire back in the day. Naturally, English is the lingua franca in Ghana, but it's hard to see present-day Ghana as a continuation of the English kingdom.
Yes, plenty of terms related with the Catholic Church, including curia, are of Latin origin and come from similar imperial concepts. Naturally, the US Senate is called that way because of the Latin word of the similar legislative body, but it's hard to say that for that reason, the USA are the successor state of the Roman empire. Etc.

Click to expand...

The Roman Catholic Church had Rome as its seat, while the US Senate doesn't - that makes a very powerful difference and it makes the analogy inaccurate.

Not only were the people involved in the elaboration of the Nicene creed - the basis of Christian doctrine - all Roman citizens, which makes the religion itself very "Roman" in character, but the institution of the Catholic Church takes back to Theodosius I with his issued Edict of Thessalonica, which made Catholicism of the Nicene Creed as the official state institution of the Empire.
From then on, the Catholic Church was slowly formed, and executed, as a particular official institution of the Roman Empire, and became one of its main bodies of political power.

So, no, I disagree with most of the posts here. I don't see how can anyone not see the Catholic Church as a remainder, or a continuation, of the Roman Empire as a set of institutions - they were in all aspects an institution of the Roman Empire quite literally and incrementally.

Keep said:

No, not exactly. The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox one) did start when Rome was around, but ultimately they weren't necessarily associated with the state itself and its government, they were a separate institution. It would be as if the USA disappeared but Macdonalds stayed around.

Click to expand...

The Church as an institution after the Edict of Theassloinca was indeed associated with the "state" in the Roman Empire, it was further developed as one and legitimized as one.

First, we shouldn't talk about the Roman Empire as a "state" as we're referring to it as a modern state. Those are different polities, of different natures, and they should be judged by their own historically-specific standards.

The "state" in the late Roman Empire context, was a variety of institutions - either formal and informal; universal and local - which interacted with each other in the political and social arena, cooperated (sometimes competed) within a primus inter pares context, in order to create a complex and cohesive entity and an umbrella system of laws, customs, ideology that would be labeled as an "empire". The Church was one of those important institutions that glued all those entities into one sort of a single cohesive unit. The very organizational structure of the Church evolved and became what it is today as a consequence of the role it was ascribed to in the late Roman period by the other institutions of power in Rome - particularly by the Emperor himself.

Michele A said:

...


Where "we" means "we non-Catholics". Catholics only call their Church Catholic, not "Roman". It's what we would call an exonym.

Click to expand...

"We" also includes eastern catholics like myself. I am catholic but not Roman catholic.

robto said:

The Roman Catholic Church had Rome as its seat, while the US Senate doesn't - that makes a very powerful difference and it makes the analogy inaccurate.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church did not have as its seat Rome all the time. Heck, the Roman empire itself did not have Rome as its capital all the time. The identical location certainly had a powerful symbolical value back then, but not today. Catholics in Mexico or Indonesia don't spend much of a thought on where the Roman empire's capital was.

robto said:

Not only were the people involved in the elaboration of the Nicene creed - the basis of Christian doctrine - all Roman citizens, which makes the religion itself very "Roman" in character,

Click to expand...

It's pretty funny that you claim the Nicene Creed as the trait making the Catholic Church very Roman, considering that it is the same creed followed by a bunch of very anti-Roman Orthodox Christian Curches and by the very anti-Roman Anglican Communion.

robto said:

but the institution of the Catholic Church takes back to Theodosius I with his issued Edict of Thessalonica, which made Catholicism of the Nicene Creed as the official state institution of the Empire.

Click to expand...

And by the way, if geography seems so important in your first paragraph, have you measured the distance of Nicaea and Thessalonica from Rome?

robto said:

From then on, the Catholic Church was slowly formed, and executed, as a particular official institution of the Roman Empire, and became one of its main bodies of political power.

Click to expand...

Save for the detail that it happened to clash with the empire, say under Julian the Apostate (doh), but even much later (do you know what happened to the last pope to be martyred? Hint, he was not tortured and killed by barbarians, and that was in 655 AD).

robto said:

So, no, I disagree with most of the posts here. I don't see how can anyone not see the Catholic Church as a remainder, or a continuation, of the Roman Empire as a set of institutions - they were in all aspects an institution of the Roman Empire quite literally and incrementally.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that for some time the Catholic Church was closely linked with the Roman empire; the one supported the other. But we're talking about what it is today. Several Eastern Orthodox Churches also were closely linked with the empire later on, the Eastern Roman Empire, do you reckon that they also are a "continuation" of the Byzantines (say, the Orthodox Church of America is a remainder of Byzantium)? If so, doesn't it dilute the notion of the "Roman" Church being a continuation of the empire somewhat (a lot)? The Ummah was closely linked with the Caliphate, so the whole Muslim world is a continuation of the Caliphate? The Jewish religion was once closely linked with the Kingdom of Judah, so is any of the Jewish denominations a continuation of that kingdom? Which one(s), the Haredim? Or all of them? Is the fact that several Jewish denominations have a headquarters in Jerusalem all that important for deciding this?

The simple fact is that religions happened to last for millennia or at least centuries. Several centuries or one millennium or two ago, they existed at the same time as some worldly power, with which they made the usual power-sharing arrangements. Then the powers were turned into dust, other powers replaced them, and the religions soldiered on. Heck, there would be people who'd reckon that it's difficult to see much of a "continuation", in the present-day Catholic Church, of nothing else but the original Christian Churches of the first century, given how many changes took place in theology, doctrine, liturgy, social mores, political theories etc. Let alone a separate worldly power.

To remove the religious issue, consider something similar, a present-day organization having a creed, but not religious. The Communist Party USA. Communism and a local Communist Party were very, very closely linked with a no longer extant worldly power, the Soviet Union. Is the Communist Party USA a continuation, a remainder, or a successor of the Soviet Union? Mind you, many anti-Communists would say yes. But I really don't think so.

Silesius Smithee said:

"We" also includes eastern catholics like myself. I am catholic but not Roman catholic.

Click to expand...

The Eastern Catholic Churches are sui iuris churches in full communion with the, well, Roman Pope. They recognize the Papal primacy.

Michele A said:

The Catholic Church did not have as its seat Rome all the time. Heck, the Roman empire itself did not have Rome as its capital all the time. The identical location certainly had a powerful symbolical value back then, but not today. Catholics in Mexico or Indonesia don't spend much of a thought on where the Roman empire's capital was.

Click to expand...

The Church is the Church as we know it today because of its attachment to the high institutions of the Roman Empire and its very involvement, irrespective if it was in Rome or Byzantium. The Church is a product of the Empire, and many Roman Emperors were directly, and personally, involved in its development. That was my point. That makes the analogy with the US Senate inaccurate.

Michele A said:

It's pretty funny that you claim the Nicene Creed as the trait making the Catholic Church very Roman, considering that it is the same creed followed by a bunch of very anti-Roman Orthodox Christian Curches and by the very anti-Roman Anglican Communion.

Click to expand...

And that's not a contradiction as much as you believe it is.

Michele A said:

And by the way, if geography seems so important in your first paragraph, have you measured the distance of Nicaea and Thessalonica from Rome?

Click to expand...

They were part of the Roman Empire, that is my main point. The US Senate wasn't. Therefore mentioning the US Senate as an analogy, is again, inaccurate, both in its temporal, and geographic aspects.

Michele A said:

Save for the detail that it happened to clash with the empire, say under Julian the Apostate (doh), but even much later (do you know what happened to the last pope to be martyred? Hint, he was not tortured and killed by barbarians, and that was in 655 AD).

Click to expand...

I never claimed there was ever a clash, the entire relationship of the Christian community with the empire was rocky, but at the end of the day, it became a Roman institution, and paradoxically, wouldn't even exist as a religion without the Roman cultural world.

Michele A said:

Oh, I agree that for some time the Catholic Church was closely linked with the Roman empire; the one supported the other. But we're talking about what it is today. Several Eastern Orthodox Churches also were closely linked with the empire later on, the Eastern Roman Empire, do you reckon that they also are a "continuation" of the Byzantines (say, the Orthodox Church of America is a remainder of Byzantium)? If so, doesn't it dilute the notion of the "Roman" Church being a continuation of the empire somewhat (a lot)? The Ummah was closely linked with the Caliphate, so the whole Muslim world is a continuation of the Caliphate? The Jewish religion was once closely linked with the Kingdom of Judah, so is any of the Jewish denominations a continuation of that kingdom? Which one(s), the Haredim? Or all of them? Is the fact that several Jewish denominations have a headquarters in Jerusalem all that important for deciding this?

Click to expand...

Byzantine is the Roman Empire. Therefore the Orthodox Church is also a remainder of the Roman Empire, within the premise of the question asked in the OP.
The Muslim world doesn't have an institution like the Catholic Church, nor does Judaism. And the Haredim movement was created in early modern Europe. They are not good analogies.

Michele A said:

The simple fact is that religions happened to last for millennia or at least centuries. Several centuries or one millennium or two ago, they existed at the same time as some worldly power, with which they made the usual power-sharing arrangements. Then the powers were turned into dust, other powers replaced them, and the religions soldiered on. Heck, there would be people who'd reckon that it's difficult to see much of a "continuation", in the present-day Catholic Church, of nothing else but the original Christian Churches of the first century, given how many changes took place in theology, doctrine, liturgy, social mores, political theories etc. Let alone a separate worldly power.

To remove the religious issue, consider something similar, a present-day organization having a creed, but not religious. The Communist Party USA. Communism and a local Communist Party were very, very closely linked with a no longer extant worldly power, the Soviet Union. Is the Communist Party USA a continuation, a remainder, or a successor of the Soviet Union? Mind you, many anti-Communists would say yes. But I really don't think so.

Click to expand...

The CPUSA is certainly not a successor of the Soviet Union, and neither is the Catholic Church when related to the Roman Empire. But a remainder of the USSR? Yes, all Marxist-Leninist parties are somewhat a remainder of it historically speaking, because the Comintern was around at some time. The Comintern seized to exist in 1943, therefore plenty of Communist parties around the world seized to become too attached to the USSR unless you were right into its sphere of influence.

Bear in mind, we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, not particularly Christian doctrine, or theology in its entirety. The OP didn't ask that.
The organizational structure of the Catholic Church (it also extends to the Greek Orthodox church as well) was developed within the context of the Roman Empire, under Imperial Roman patronage, and as a political body of the late Roman Empire.
Therefore, it's not far-fetched to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is a remainder of the Roman Empire. I won't say it was a successor of it or it should be taken as a mere appendage of the Roman Empire. Ever since the Roman Empire officially ended, the Church got a life of its own, just as the CPUSA got a life of its own independent of the USSR after 1943.
I used the word "continuation" in my previous post wrongly, by the way.

Michele A said:

The Eastern Catholic Churches are sui iuris churches in full communion with the, well, Roman Pope. They recognize the Papal primacy.

Click to expand...

Yes, we are "in union" with Rome. But we are not "Roman". It's a distinction with a great deal of difference. An (albeit imperfect) analogy that i like to use is that it's similar (but not exact) to the way Canadians and Australians are members of the British Commonwealth and recognize the British monarch as the head of the commonwealth but yet aren't "British" per se.

robto said:

The Church is the Church as we know it today because of its attachment to the high institutions of the Roman Empire and its very involvement, irrespective if it was in Rome or Byzantium. The Church is a product of the Empire, and many Roman Emperors were directly, and personally, involved in its development. That was my point. That makes the analogy with the US Senate inaccurate.


And that's not a contradiction as much as you believe it is.


They were part of the Roman Empire, that is my main point. The US Senate wasn't. Therefore mentioning the US Senate as an analogy, is again, inaccurate, both in its temporal, and geographic aspects.


I never claimed there was ever a clash, the entire relationship of the Christian community with the empire was rocky, but at the end of the day, it became a Roman institution, and paradoxically, wouldn't even exist as a religion without the Roman cultural world.


Byzantine is the Roman Empire. Therefore the Orthodox Church is also a remainder of the Roman Empire, within the premise of the question asked in the OP.
The Muslim world doesn't have an institution like the Catholic Church, nor does Judaism. And the Haredim movement was created in early modern Europe. They are not good analogies.


The CPUSA is certainly not a successor of the Soviet Union, and neither is the Catholic Church when related to the Roman Empire. But a remainder of the USSR? Yes, all Marxist-Leninist parties are somewhat a remainder of it historically speaking, because the Comintern was around at some time. The Comintern seized to exist in 1943, therefore plenty of Communist parties around the world seized to become too attached to the USSR unless you were right into its sphere of influence.

Bear in mind, we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, not particularly Christian doctrine, or theology in its entirety. The OP didn't ask that.
The organizational structure of the Catholic Church (it also extends to the Greek Orthodox church as well) was developed within the context of the Roman Empire, under Imperial Roman patronage, and as a political body of the late Roman Empire.
Therefore, it's not far-fetched to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is a remainder of the Roman Empire. I won't say it was a successor of it or it should be taken as a mere appendage of the Roman Empire. Ever since the Roman Empire officially ended, the Church got a life of its own, just as the CPUSA got a life of its own independent of the USSR after 1943.
I used the word "continuation" in my previous post wrongly, by the way.

Click to expand...

I see your points, but I still disagree. Plenty of later organizations, states, entities mimicked, borrowed, copied etc. organizational features of the Roman Empire, or of the Roman Republic, or of the Greek democracies, or even of the earlier city-states. That does not make them remainders of anything; it's just that we all build on what has been built before us. Nihil sub sole novi etc.
Yes, the Ummah has no organization or institution. Fine, so let's take the Mustansiriya Madrasah. It's an organized institution, it was founded by an Abbasid Caliph, so is that a remainder of the Caliphate? The Berenberg Bank was founded under the Holy Roman Empire and it's an organization that still exists today, is that a remainder of the HRE?

In particular, I disagree that the Catholic Church only exists because of the Roman Empire adopting it. While the Roman Empire persecuted it very vigorously, the Church still existed. And before it became a staple of Roman life of the mind, it was already thriving within the late Hellenistic cultural world (yes, that was part of the Roman Empire, but it had a culture of its own). At the time when Christianity reached Edessa, this was not a Roman province (as later), it was an independent state outside the Empire; Christianity established itself in far-flung places like Persia or Armenia before Constantine allowed it in the Roman Empire. The first churches outside Palestine were in the Hellenistic part of the world, not in Rome (the city). For a very long while, the second Christian church was Alexandria, not Rome. Would it have been different? Yes (in particular, it would probably have resembled, organizationally, the Eastern Churches, rather than the later Catholic Church with its papal primacy feature). Would it have disappeared? No.