The Pope and the Emperor

[mcteague]

This is really more of a history question. But, I couldn’t think of anywhere else to post it.
Other than the obvious ones, what are the similarities between the structure of Roman Catholic Church and the structure of either the Roman Empire or the Republic?

I suppose I really mean was the Roman Catholic Church built upon the structural foundations of the empire in a very specific way. Or if not exactly, to what degree was it?

I think a lot of people just assume Emperor out Pope in. I’d like to know with a little more specificity what the actual relationship was.

Thank You

 

[Victorious]

The relationship between the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire was, in the early centuries, inimical. The secular government viewed Christianity as a threat and persecuted Christians fiercely. Then the Emperor Constantine the Great converted to Christianity and put an end to the persecutions in A.D. 313. Constantine was never Pope, and the Popes did not take the place of the emperors.

The structure of the Catholic Church was instituted by Jesus Christ who founded her on the Apostles with Peter as their head.

 

[MarkThompson]

This is really more of a history question. But, I couldn’t think of anywhere else to post it.
Other than the obvious ones, what are the similarities between the structure of Roman Catholic Church and the structure of either the Roman Empire or the Republic?

I suppose I really mean was the Roman Catholic Church built upon the structural foundations of the empire in a very specific way. Or if not exactly, to what degree was it?

I think a lot of people just assume Emperor out Pope in. I’d like to know with a little more specificity what the actual relationship was.

Thank You

Other than being governed by a supreme monarch – the emperor in the case of Rome, until Diocletian elevated a co-emperor in 285; and God through his vicar the Pope in the case of the Church – I can’t think of very many similarities at all. As a historical matter, I certainly don’t think it is the case at all that the “structural foundations” of the Roman Empire got transmogrified into elements of Church governance. Our system of bishops and dioceses has nothing to do with Roman political subdivisions, and the College of Cardinals bears nothing in common with the Roman Senate, and only dates from about 1000 AD anyway.

Keep in mind that there was a period of quite a few centuries after Constantine when the Church and the Roman Empire existed side-by-side in harmony. The systems developed on separate bases.

 

[Katholish]

MarkThompson,

You do realize that the term diocese originally referred to a political subdivision within the empire, right?

The basilica was also originally a Roman judicial building, many of which were converted into Christian Churches, and after which point were used as an architectural basis for future church construction.

I understand you main point is that the Church was not somehow manufactured out of the empire which is of course correct, but that doesn’t mean that there were borrowed cultural elements which influenced the organic developement of the Church.

 

[Victorious]

I understand you main point is that the Church was not somehow manufactured out of the empire which is of course correct, but that doesn’t mean that there were borrowed cultural elements which influenced the organic developement of the Church.

That’s why it was providential that Peter went to Rome.

 

[MarkThompson]

You do realize that the term diocese originally referred to a political subdivision within the empire, right?

Actually I did not know that (most of my knowledge of Rome is Republican and early Empire) but sure enough, you are right.

According to Wikipedia:
Between the 4th and 6th centuries, as the older administrative structure began to crumble, the role of the bishops in the western lands of the Empire enabled those lands and their peoples to maintain a semblance of civilisation as the authority of Rome vanished. The senatorial aristocracy, especially in the provinces, continued in many places to serve as sources of local authority to complement the authority assumed by the Church. In Late Antiquity, political power often came to be vested in the spiritual offices of the bishops in each region. This transfer of authority from secular officials to ecclesiastical leaders was natural in that, because of the close integration of the secular and ecclesiastical leadership in the Empire, the areas of ecclesiastical administration always coincided with those of the Roman civil administration.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that, as the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches began to define their administrative structures, they relied on the older Roman terminology and methods to describe administrative units and hierarchy, which often caused the division between ecclesiastical and secular authority to disappear.

 

[mcteague]

Thank you for the replies. My knowledge of Roman history is actually pretty good. So of course I know about Constintine basic things like that. And I also knew that some of the oranizational structure of the empire passed to the Church
However, I really don’t know much about the specific structural organization of the Church. So I wondered to what degree that was true. Certainly this was very important for the establishment of the Church as a center of political power during the middle ages.

By the way, I promise not to start referring the Pope as the Emperor.

 

[Katholish]

Even though I am the one who brought up the fact that the term diocese was adopted by the church and came from the Roman political structure, I would also point out that that was just one small aspect. It is really just the word. A Roman diocese was very different from a Catholic diocese, and before the term diocese was used, the Church still had episcopal jurisdictions, they just didn’t use that term. The term “See” was in use for a long time, and in reality, a diocese was just a city, which is the same thing as a see, which existed from the very birth of the Church.

Thus, I wouldn’t say at all that the Church adopted the Roman political structure, rather, see adopted the Roman political language.

 

[Warrenton]

In a larger sense, we have to ask why the Roman empire did not end up like the Babylonian empire when it fell, or the Assyrian empire when it fell.

The answer is the Church.

As the Roman political empire began to totter under the stress of unabated civil war and barbarian invasions, the “smart money” began to retreat into their estates, which became small forts. Roman generals were no less intelligent than modern ones, and they well knew that their survival depended on their army remaining intact, not on holding territory.

Towns and cities were abandoned by the political authority, leaving the people in something of a bind. Into this void stepped the bishops, who had at their disposal some money, schools, hospitals, and administrative ability.

 

[mcteague]

In a larger sense, we have to ask why the Roman empire did not end up like the Babylonian empire when it fell, or the Assyrian empire when it fell.

The answer is the Church.

As the Roman political empire began to totter under the stress of unabated civil war and barbarian invasions, the “smart money” began to retreat into their estates, which became small forts. Roman generals were no less intelligent than modern ones, and they well knew that their survival depended on their army remaining intact, not on holding territory.

Towns and cities were abandoned by the political authority, leaving the people in something of a bind. Into this void stepped the bishops, who had at their disposal some money, schools, hospitals, and administrative ability.

If I remember my Roman history classes, didn’t Gibbon think the rise of Christianity was a major cause of the empires fall?
By the way, it did seem to end the practice of exposure.

 

[Warrenton]

If I remember my Roman history classes, didn’t Gibbon think the rise of Christianity was a major cause of the empires fall?
By the way, it did seem to end the practice of exposure.

Of course he did. But Gibbon was wrong. The problem with the Roman imperial system is that it never got a handle on the peaceful - or at least orderly-transfer of power from one emporer to the next. Consider how traumatizing the English Civil War was - not too mention the American Civil War.

The Romans had a civil war every ten or twenty years, and this went on for centuries.