The Holy Roman Empire

[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.

[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.