When did the Roman Empire really end?

North Jersey Baptist · #1 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

"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? · #2 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 09:48 PM

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 · #3 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 09:51 PM

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.

North Jersey Baptist · #4 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernPuritan?

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? · #5 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernPuritan?

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.

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)

North Jersey Baptist · #6 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 10:08 PM

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? · #7 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 10:14 PM

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

Presbyterian Deacon · #8 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 · #9 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

"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?

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 · #10 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

"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?

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?

I thought it was a Starbucks.

Presbyterian Deacon · #11 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

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 · #12 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

"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?

No.

North Jersey Baptist · #13 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

"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?

No.

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

fredtgreco · #14 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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

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

No.

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

Yup.

North Jersey Baptist · #15 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:44 PM

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 · #16 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 11:54 PM

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."

North Jersey Baptist · #17 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 12:01 AM

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

etexas · #18 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

"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?

No.

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

Leslie · #19 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 06:33 PM

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 dispies 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.