# When did the Roman Empire really end?



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

Stanford Murrell writes, in his book, "A Glorious Institution: The Church in History" (copyright 1998, Chapel Libray)



> "One notable Frankish monarch was Clovis, who converted to Christianity in 496. Clovis was a strong and influential ruler. However, his descendants were not. This fact allowed Pepin III (Pepin the Short, c. 714-768), to rise to power. Pepin was the son of Charles Martel. He deposed Childeric III, the last of the Marovingian dynasty, to establish his own, the Carolingian dynasty. Pepin put Childeric in a monastery and then assumed the throne.
> 
> Looking for ecclesiastical approval for all his actions, Pepin received it when he was anointed by Archbishop Boniface in 752 and again by Pope Stephen II in 754. By reviving an Old Testament practice recorded of the Davidic monarchy (1 Samuel 16:13), Pepin symbolically placed the State beneath the authority of the Pope. The precedent was set to believe that the pope had the right to give kingdoms and to take them away. The State had become subservient to the Church.
> 
> Within this new religious and political context, Pope Zacharias (d. 752, the last of the Greek popes, 741-752) did not hesitate to ask Pepin to help bring stability to the Lombards, who were still perceived to be a threat to papal power and safety. Pepin agreed to help. He marched against the Lombards and forced them to relinquish much of their territory to the pope, *thereby beginning the States of the Church (also known as the Papal States). The pope now held not only ecclesiastical power, but secular power as well. He would do so until 1870, when the new Kingdom of Italy was established."*


Could a case be made that the Roman Empire existed until 1870, albeit in a ecclesiastical form of government?


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 18, 2008)

im sure that the pope could have a huge influence today if he wanted too. just officially excommunicate from the church large groups of people.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Apr 18, 2008)

Hmmmm.......

I wish I knew enough history to comment authoritatively. However, during the time frame cited the Roman church was as much, or more, of a political power as it ever was an ecclesiastical power. I don't think I'd be willing to fight anyone over the point, but it is interesting to consider.


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> im sure that the pope could have a huge influence today if he wanted too. just officially excommunicate from the church large groups of people.



That would be ecclesiastical power. The quote I provided revealed ecclesiastical _and_ political power.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 18, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > im sure that the pope could have a huge influence today if he wanted too. just officially excommunicate from the church large groups of people.
> ...



i mentioned that in refrence to what if the pope said after 2010, any catholic who holds any government office in the US well be excommunicated. (im speculating as to if he did this, would it have a political effect)


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

The papacy today does not have the power it once did. Vatican II did a good job at making it easier for Romanists to disobey the church with relative impunity.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 18, 2008)

ahh. me no very little bout VII. maybe papa rat will bring in VIII???


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 18, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> The papacy today does not have the power it once did. Vatican II did a good job at making it easier for Romanists to disobey the church with relative impunity.



Actually, it seems to me that Vatican II did very little. I've heard about these "big changes" supposedly accomplished by Vatican II for quite some time, but it seems that these are more cosmetic than anything.

The papacy does not have the power it once did, because as your OP points out, the Romish Empire has lost the power of the sword (1870). That power began to wane several years prior. 

In September 1851, The Rambler (a Roman Catholic publication) honestly confessed:

"Believe us not, Protestants of England and Ireland, when you hear us pouring forth our liberalisms--they mean nothing. Such a person is not talking Catholicism...If he (_the Pope_) were lord in the land, and you in the minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he do to you? If expedient he would imprison you, banish you, fine you, possibly he might hang you...but he would never tolerate you."

The watch word of the Roman Catholic Church is that it is _Semper Idem _(Always the Same).

Let's not be duped by their cosmetic changes. It is the same evil beast it was in Luther's time! If the time comes, that it is "fashionable" for Rome to wield it's full power, we'll have the same kind of abuses and bloodshed as we've seen in the past.

Vatican II calls Protestants "Ecclesiastical communities separated from us" (i.e.-- from Rome). This has led some wishful thinking Catholics to tell the Protestants of our day that we are only "separated brethren" and Rome no longer regards Protestantism as "heresy."

Pope John's opening statement at the Second Vatican Council clearly declares the true intent of Rome.



> The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity...



Note:
1. *"The Church has always opposed these errors..." *the Point is She still does!
2. *"Frequently, she has condemned them with the greatest of severity*..." She still condemns them!
3.*Nowadays, she prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy*. As though She still has some Authority to treat errors with severity, but she simply chooses not to.

_Evangelicals and Catholics Together_, and Pope Benny's _Rehabilitation of Luther_ are both driven by the same thing. We are "Ecclesiastical Communities separated from them." The way to peace, to eradicate discord, and promote unity is for the Protestants to resubmit ourselves to the Authority of Rome.

For Rome's declaration that in the papal system alone is salvation found is as clear in Vatican II as it was in Luther's days.

Vatican II:


> Whosoever therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her, or to remain in her _could not be saved_.



That's just a nice way of saying what the Council of Trent said: "Let him be anathema."


----------



## bookslover (Apr 18, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Stanford Murrell writes, in his book, "A Glorious Institution: The Church in History" (copyright 1998, Chapel Libray)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Roman Empire fell when the last Roman Emperor closed down the only remaining Krispy Kreme in downtown Rome (the one next to the used chariot lot). Don't you ever do any _serious reading_, Bill?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Apr 18, 2008)

bookslover said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Stanford Murrell writes, in his book, "A Glorious Institution: The Church in History" (copyright 1998, Chapel Libray)
> ...



I thought it was a Starbucks.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 18, 2008)

bookslover said:


> The Roman Empire fell when the last Roman Emperor closed down the only remaining Krispy Kreme in downtown Rome (the one next to the used chariot lot). Don't you ever do any _serious reading_, Bill?



Good one!


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 18, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Stanford Murrell writes, in his book, "A Glorious Institution: The Church in History" (copyright 1998, Chapel Libray)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Stanford Murrell writes, in his book, "A Glorious Institution: The Church in History" (copyright 1998, Chapel Libray)
> ...



Gee, Fred. Don't get so long winded in your answer.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 18, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > North Jersey Baptist said:
> ...



Yup.


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2008)

And lest anyone thinks my question is dispensational in nature, it's not. It was just an honest question based on what I read earlier today.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 18, 2008)

It was a good question, with a definitive answer. (And I could not resist being funny). I'm off to bed now, two baseball games to coach early.

But I would say quickly that the post-Fall of Rome political entities were not Roman by any means. That is, they were not Roman (or even composed of former _socii_) by nationality; they were not Roman in their political makeup (e.g. the Senate, the Imperium Romanum, etc.). They were what the Romans would call barbarian (e.g. foreign, mostly Germanic).

Note that the quote refers to post-Roman Frankish entities (Clovis, etc.) I don't think you can even argue that the post-Theodosian Empire is Roman (it is Byzantine), so I don't know how someone could argue that Frankish Kingdoms were Roman.

I hope that helps. Or to put it another way: "Nope."


----------



## Herald (Apr 19, 2008)

Fred, danke! Hey, it was worth asking. Now I know.


----------



## etexas (Apr 19, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Stanford Murrell writes, in his book, "A Glorious Institution: The Church in History" (copyright 1998, Chapel Libray)
> ...


Fred, my friend I do not care for your answer, it took way to long to read!!! Make things more succinct!


----------



## Leslie (Apr 19, 2008)

Hitler's regime was the third reich. This presupposes that the roman empire, which was the first reich did indeed cease in 1870. There was some other reich in between. Some Dispensationalists I know think that the end-times antichrist will be a rejuvenation of Hitler's regime--they interpret the subtle references to Rome in the latter chapters of Revelation in that way.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 19, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Hitler's regime was the third reich. This presupposes that the roman empire, which was the first reich did indeed cease in 1870. There was some other reich in between. Some Dispensationalists I know think that the end-times antichrist will be a rejuvenation of Hitler's regime--they interpret the subtle references to Rome in the latter chapters of Revelation in that way.



Actually, the reich refers to a _German_ empire, not a Roman one. The first was the Holy Roman Empire, starting in the 10th century, the Second was the German Empire begun under Bismarck and concluded at the end of WWI, and the third was Nazi Germany.


----------



## Herald (Apr 19, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > Hitler's regime was the third reich. This presupposes that the roman empire, which was the first reich did indeed cease in 1870. There was some other reich in between. Some Dispensationalists I know think that the end-times antichrist will be a rejuvenation of Hitler's regime--they interpret the subtle references to Rome in the latter chapters of Revelation in that way.
> ...



Fred, too long of an answer. Couldn't you have responded in three words or less?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 19, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Leslie said:
> ...



German, not Roman.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 19, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...





Just tell 'em to read their Reformation history. Charles V, grandson of Maximilian I, was the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (aka Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) at the time of Luther. And, no, it was neither "holy" nor "Roman."


----------



## etexas (Apr 19, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...


Still to long my Friend, just use symbols!


----------



## TimV (Apr 19, 2008)

> just use symbols


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 19, 2008)

History is complex. The _Roman_ Emperor moved to Byzantium. Which had the providential effect of deflating the Roman bishopric's aggrandizing ambition, relative to the rest of the church. No more Imperial copycat over the whole church, except for where Roman political hegemony was retained in some form.

Conflicts between halves of the Empire, and pressures from without caused cleavages. Barbarian incursions, followed by partial assimilations had their effects _in the West._ The east was another kettle of fish. Byzantium lasted nearly 10 centuries, no kidding.

As for the Roman/western side, to address the first post's question, I do not think any meaningful case can be made that some political "continuity" existed between the Roman Empire and the Romish Church down to 1870. Far, far too many adjustments to criteria, borders, succession arrangements, wars of conquest, The Great Schism (popes, anti-popes, Avignon as the New Rome), the list goes on and on.

Maybe in the mind of some Romish dreamer... "This is only a temporary setback!"


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 20, 2008)

My understanding from history is that there was first the Roman Empire (mostly all of Europe) that later became the Holy Roman Empire limited to Central Western Europe. The Holy Roman Empire was made up of territorial regions, not countries, like parts of modern day Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, etc. The Roman Catholic Church was found within these two empire trying to take control over the people either directly from the Pope or by the emperors. Francis II was the last Holy Roman emperor, ruling from 1792 to 1806.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 20, 2008)

The Roman Empire officially ended at Pentecost when the Apostles were empowered to preach the Gospel.


----------

