The Catholic Church as the Beacon of Order and Stability, Even Peace After the Fall of the Roman Empire? The Church as The Light of the Brutal Dark Ages of Europe?

[LegateLivius]

Its a common thing echoed around religious universities and scholars, and not just Roman Catholics but even education centers by pre-American Protestant Denominations concede the same thing. Hell Islamic universities and colleges as well as those in the Arab World  often describe the Catholic Church as the Heathen Empire of the Frankish invaders and historical texts of the Ottoman Empire often states the conquest of Rome as the ultimate ambition because it will be the apocalypse when God's prophecy has finally been fulfilled. Even contemporary Jewish Medieval texts that speaks about anti-Semitism often blames the Church for all the crimes.

 

In Italy the Church is often treated as the successor to the Roman Empire in history texts and Poland emphasizes how without Catholicism Polish civilization would never come to be. Hell despite the brutal colonization, much of the Latin American population actually believes the Spain and Portugal coming in and colonizing the country was needed because it civilized people from backwards paganism by teaching them the true faith and some historians in Latin America at the time even points out the Iberian Empires show how the Vatican have far surpassed the Roman Emprie's territory and wealth and in turn is superior to Ancient Rome at its peak. What are your thoughts on this? It seems the fall of the Roman Empire is not taken as badly among the very conservative religious but proof of a great thing and in particular the Vatican sees it as the triumph of the true Church.

 

Hell I even seen some Church historians even say the Vatican succeeded where the Roman empire absolutely failed in, which is penetrating its influence deep into Northern Germany and beyond and civilizing entire warlike backward savage clans the Romans can never subdue like the Scots and the Saxons and even colonizing places the Romans never touched like Sweden and Poland thus clamoring that the Catholic Church by the Middle Ages have far surpassed the Roman Empire.

 

 

[caldrail]

The Vatican as an independent state has only existed since recognition by Mussolini's fascist government in 1929. Before that it was the capital of the Papal States and then only under the sole control of the Pope from the 8th century.

I did chuckle when you mentioned that church leaders claimed the Vatican succeeded where the Roman Empire failed. That's complete nonsense unless you mean persistence. Of course I'm aware of the influence the Pope has, but he does not rule an empire (I'm sure national leaders would have something to say about that if he tried). Further, Roman Catholicism has not prevailed entirely. Protestant and Orthodox churches still exist and are dominant in some countries around the world (including my own, where it is illegal for a Catholic to become monarch). Historically it was influence that the Catholic church sought to expand rather than actual power, and to be honest, they had reached the highest point in the late eleventh century. Pope Urban II was empire building outrageously, excommunicating monarchs when they didn't comply, but blew his project when he responded to a request from Emperor Alexius of the Byzantines for military assistance and ordered the First Crusade. So no, ROman Catholicism has failed to create an empire at all. Rome 1, Catholicism 0.

[LegateLivius]

17 hours ago, caldrail said:

The Vatican as an independent state has only existed since recognition by Mussolini's fascist government in 1929. Before that it was the capital of the Papal States and then only under the sole control of the Pope from the 8th century.

I did chuckle when you mentioned that church leaders claimed the Vatican succeeded where the Roman Empire failed. That's complete nonsense unless you mean persistence. Of course I'm aware of the influence the Pope has, but he does not rule an empire (I'm sure national leaders would have something to say about that if he tried). Further, Roman Catholicism has not prevailed entirely. Protestant and Orthodox churches still exist and are dominant in some countries around the world (including my own, where it is illegal for a Catholic to become monarch). Historically it was influence that the Catholic church sought to expand rather than actual power, and to be honest, they had reached the highest point in the late eleventh century. Pope Urban II was empire building outrageously, excommunicating monarchs when they didn't comply, but blew his project when he responded to a request from Emperor Alexius of the Byzantines for military assistance and ordered the First Crusade. So no, ROman Catholicism has failed to create an empire at all. Rome 1, Catholicism 0.

Well I have read stuff in Medieval Hagiography saying the Church had succeeded in civilizing warlike backward pagan savages like the Scots which is where the Roman Empire most definitely failed in. I'm not siding with the Church at all as I'm a heretic who personally has apostasized but I can see their point considering Germany started becoming civilized and the country began to develop real infrastructures like bridges, roads, farming communities, etc after the country was converted due to the efforts of various saints. Even in the uninhabitable  north full of wilderness.

 

I mean Church influenced converted Sweden and Northern Europe as well as Ireland and Poland and so many places the Romans never got conquered territory and the histories of those places esp Ireland and Poland credits the morals and social order the Church has created in those places as the whole reason they turned from mostly uninhabitable places into civilized kingdoms (I'm not talking about hagiography either but actual history written down and put in school textbooks by the now mostly secular governments of those places). 

 

As an example, Romans absolutely failed to spread their architecture, economic model, court system, etc into Scotland but the Church not only converted the whole region but Scottish culture basically became a Roman Catholic one using architecture and so on that was often originating in Italy (and based on some Roman concepts just as the Empire was falling) is what the Church historians and Medievalists meant when they claim the Church succeeded in many areas where the Roman Empire completely failed in. Even the Scandinavians failed to leave a touching mark on Scotland when they attempted colonization and raids and they even stopped going there out of fear due to Scots being so violent and savage even by VIking standards............. Yet the Church was able to convert the whole country and instill Catholic civilization in it and Scotland would be a Roman Catholic country at the core until the Protestant Reformation.

Lets not forget the Catholic influence has far expanded further than the Roman Empire ever did outside of Europe........... South America? Brazil alone is as large as the USA which is in the same ballpark as Europe's total landmass even discounting Russia and we are  not counting the rest of the world where every nation has a diocese as well as colonies elsewhere like Catholic majority countries today in Africa. But Latin America is proof of how further Church influence has surpassed Rome at its peak on the world.

 

I'm not pro-Church in fact I truly hate Catholic teachings But reading Hagiography that Medievalists have recommended seems to bring me into Saints and Church authority emphasizing how barbarians who Rome failed to civilized were converted into Catholicism and not even by invading armies but by missionaries who roamed far across Europe including famous Saints like Patrick of Ireland. They make a good argument about barbarians refusing to adopt Roman culture yet were successfully convinced to convert to Western Roman Christianity.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by LegateLivius

[caldrail]

Bear in mind that Irish and Roman churches were not in accord. Once Irish Christianity started popping up in western Europe the Roman church went into complete rivalry and won. People like Pelagius disappeared as well. But regarding Roman culture - that was never foisted on people. There's this common theme that conquered peoples were 'romanised' shortly after. There never was any such assimilation. The Romans offered their culture to those under their sway and rewarded those that adopted it, but if you wanted native clothes and customs that was fine. All they demanded was tribute and loyalty. In fact, the empire was a cosmopolitan spread of diverse cultures and peoples within its territories, quite unlike the single flavour Roman world that's normally described.

There's the difference between Empire and Faith. The Roman Empire was a cooperative whole. The Church demanded conformity - though admittedly that was because of Constantine the Great in the first instance who needed something to bind his shattered empire together and chose the various christian sects, who were brought together at the Council of Nicaea in 325 to unite the diverse beliefs that all the sects had promulgated beforehand. Something like fifty gospels were reduced to the four approved gospels we still have today.

Hadrian was an exception I suppose. He had this idea about creating a Graeco-Roman bubble of civilisation that excluded the barbarian. His policies were not that successful and sparked a war in Judaea when he reneged on his promise to rebuild Jerusalem and instead ordered a Roman city built on the same spot, to be called Colonia Aelia Capitolina. Too much for the Judaeans to accept. 

[Northern Neil]

It is debatable wether or not the Catholic church was a civilising influence at all, given that its eventual triumph over Paganism (and classical philosophy and science) heralded  a massive economic collapse, decline in technology , fall in population, drop in literacy and diminution of  a complex society in Western Europe. It may be currently unfashionable to call this a 'Dark Age', but it is somewhat telling that the rise of the other great monotheism coincided with a similar regression of society 200 years later in the Eastern Mediterranean. That society in both regions 'bounced back' (eventually) happened despite religious influences, not because of them. Classical science and philosophy was extinguished by Justinian once Christianity had full sway over the Roman Empire and its lost Western provinces. The 'Golden age of Islam' similarly came to an end when it became clear that mathemeticians and scientists started to discover things that ran contrary to the scriptures.

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Northern Neil