How may the Church have been damaged by becoming a Temporal Power...

[JRKH]

I looked and looked for the right forum to put this in, and thought I might get the best cross-section here.

Christianity began as an apolitical spiritual movement and remained primarily so for the first centuries. However, after the Fall of Rome and really up into the 19th century the Church excerized a considerable temporal power.
The Papal States, the power to make or break Kings, the “Holy Roman Empire” are all examples of areas where the Popes were forced to act as “political” rather than “spiritual” leaders. Obviously there were times when these two roles were contrary to each other.

What I started thinking about was, what if the western Roman Empire hadn’t collapsed so completely, or what if the Church had not chosen to step into the vacuum to the extent that it did. What if the church had remained a strictly apolitical, spiritual movement.

For one thing I see the reformation in a different light in that the power of the church, and the power of the nobles were at odds due to the relative wealth of each and the control excersized by the Church over temporal affairs. This is a factor when it comes to the backing that the reformers obtained from the temporal rulers. Quite frankly, some of them saw an oportunity to get gold from the church by simply taking it.

It’s all too complicated for me, and I am not a student of the history of these periods (either late rome of reformation).

I would be interested charitable opinions and insights from both Catholic and non-catholic history buffs.

I am mainly interested in thoughts as to how temporal history has effected our faith, how we view ourselves as catholics, and how others view the catholic church.

Peace
James

 

[Hisalone]

Im suprised there is no responce.
I would say that the points you brought up are major contributors to the breakups.

 

[JRKH]

Im suprised there is no responce.
I would say that the points you brought up are major contributors to the breakups.

I dunno

Maybe there just aren’t enough historians here, or—
Maybe no one feels they can be charitable? (snicker )

I sure would think some of the folks around here would have something to contribute.

Peace
James

 

[brotherhrolf]

I think you need to do some reading in history. First, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman. Its roots are in the 8th century with the Franks who were in France and Germany. Charlemagne was the first emperor and he was crowned in 800 AD. The Pope did not have any armies in 800 AD nor can I recall any action by the Papacy until the HF interfered in the dispute between William and Harold over the English succession after St. Edward the Confessor died. We all know what happened in 1066.

The Papacy wielded religious power over the next few centuries. Preaching the First Crusade - passage of such laws as the Peace of God and the Truce of God. Excommunicating Frederick Barbarosa (another Holy Roman Emperor) and the like.

It is a long and complex history and needs to be understood within the cultural context of the period. The Papal States as they existed during this period were not what they would become. The Pope did not and, indeed could not accept the Holy Roman Emperor as liege lord nor vice versa in a feudal relationship. So the issue of who was beholden to whom was confused to say the least. The Pope could not project the military power that the Holy Roman Emperors could but the Pope held tremendous religious power.

And then there was the Avignon Exile. A huge “can of worms”.

During the Renaissance, however, it’s a different story. Popes like Julius II did wield secular power. If you can get a hold of the DVD for The Agony and Ecstacy (or better yet the book) you can see/read how Julius carried himself and his interaction with Michaelangelo.

After the Renaissance, the Papal States are there but as Napoleon once quipped, “How many regiments does the Pope have?”.

History is a vast and complicated tapestry. The study of history is endlessly fascinating. JRKH - feel free to PM me and I’ll try to direct you to some good books. If I can’t suggest something, I know someone who can…I bought enough books from his bookstore before the evil corporate giant put him out of business. He is still a close friend of the family and teaches history at a local university.

PS. Happy is he who can count amongst his friends one who can make great recommendations on what to read.

 

[mathematician]

I looked and looked for the right forum to put this in, and thought I might get the best cross-section here.

Christianity began as an apolitical spiritual movement and remained primarily so for the first centuries. However, after the Fall of Rome and really up into the 19th century the Church excerized a considerable temporal power.
The Papal States, the power to make or break Kings, the “Holy Roman Empire” are all examples of areas where the Popes were forced to act as “political” rather than “spiritual” leaders. Obviously there were times when these two roles were contrary to each other.

What I started thinking about was, what if the western Roman Empire hadn’t collapsed so completely, or what if the Church had not chosen to step into the vacuum to the extent that it did. What if the church had remained a strictly apolitical, spiritual movement.

For one thing I see the reformation in a different light in that the power of the church, and the power of the nobles were at odds due to the relative wealth of each and the control excersized by the Church over temporal affairs. This is a factor when it comes to the backing that the reformers obtained from the temporal rulers. Quite frankly, some of them saw an oportunity to get gold from the church by simply taking it.

It’s all too complicated for me, and I am not a student of the history of these periods (either late rome of reformation).

I would be interested charitable opinions and insights from both Catholic and non-catholic history buffs.

I am mainly interested in thoughts as to how temporal history has effected our faith, how we view ourselves as catholics, and how others view the catholic church.

Peace
James

Well I wouldn’t exactly say that the Church is exempt from the dictum that power tends to corrupt, but many Roman Catholics seem to think it ought to be.

 

[JRKH]

I think you need to do some reading in history.

There is no doubt that I need to do some more reading in this realm, but there are two things working against that right now. First is I already have 2 books going, (one of which is the catechism) and I don’t want to get too spread out. Second is that my DW is ill with alzheimers and she keeps me somewhat occupied.:whacky:

First, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman. Its roots are in the 8th century with the Franks who were in France and Germany. Charlemagne was the first emperor and he was crowned in 800 AD. The Pope did not have any armies in 800 AD nor can I recall any action by the Papacy until the HF interfered in the dispute between William and Harold over the English succession after St. Edward the Confessor died. We all know what happened in 1066.

I am aware that the pope and the church acted as a backstop during and after the collapse of the Roman empire in the west. Perhaps not in the strict military sense, but certainly in the sense of trying to provide some order etc. IIRC wasn’t Charlemagne crowned by the pope?
Also you must admit that when the pope called for the first crusade the response was formidable.

The Papacy wielded religious power over the next few centuries. Preaching the First Crusade - passage of such laws as the Peace of God and the Truce of God. Excommunicating Frederick Barbarosa (another Holy Roman Emperor) and the like.

It is a long and complex history and needs to be understood within the cultural context of the period.

Certainly no argument here. I always try to understand history as history and don’t try to impose current morals on it.

The Papal States as they existed during this period were not what they would become. The Pope did not and, indeed could not accept the Holy Roman Emperor as liege lord nor vice versa in a feudal relationship. So the issue of who was beholden to whom was confused to say the least. The Pope could not project the military power that the Holy Roman Emperors could but the Pope held tremendous religious power.

And that tremendous religious power could be parleyed into great political power. The pope may not have “had armies” but are you saying that he could not aquire the help of other armies if the need arose? I do remember reading or hearing that one of the popes actually led armies in the field at some point.

And then there was the Avignon Exile. A huge “can of worms”.

During the Renaissance, however, it’s a different story. Popes like Julius II did wield secular power. If you can get a hold of the DVD for The Agony and Ecstacy (or better yet the book) you can see/read how Julius carried himself and his interaction with Michaelangelo.

After the Renaissance, the Papal States are there but as Napoleon once quipped, “How many regiments does the Pope have?”.

History is a vast and complicated tapestry. The study of history is endlessly fascinating. JRKH - feel free to PM me and I’ll try to direct you to some good books. If I can’t suggest something, I know someone who can…I bought enough books from his bookstore before the evil corporate giant put him out of business. He is still a close friend of the family and teaches history at a local university.

Yes, I guess my origional question does cover a rather long and wide open area. Perhaps that is why there have been so few responses.
Thanks for the offer and I may take you up on it.

PS. Happy is he who can count amongst his friends one who can make great recommendations on what to read.

Thanks Friend:thumbsup:
James

 

[Freshman88]

As Christians God is at the centre of everything, even temporal power. It is an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian stance to believe that God should not motivate all actions, even those which are political. Either Christ is King of all or He is not.