05.21.2024
In this one I'm gonna be talking about the myth that Western Rome morphed into the Catholic Church, and why its not exactly true.
In internet discourse often seen is the "enlightnened" concept that both Western and Eastern Rome never really left us, but instead gradually morphed into what is now the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, this is usually because of how deeply religion was intertwined with the Roman state and a desire to believe that a civilization such as the Romans could have never fell, and especially not in the often sad and pathetic ways that they did. Western Rome murdered in the night without so much as a scream, its government abolished in place of a 'foreign' King with little fanfare. Eastern Rome put down like a sick dog after centuries of atrophy, out-manned and out-gunned by a newer stronger empire that it had no hope of survival, only saved from the disgrace by one last romantic battle. These are the endings to millenia of civilization. The Empire of Caesar and Scipio and of Constantine and Justinian, the Empire that ruled from the Euphrates to Gibraltar, from the Nile to the Tyne, that all of this was ended in two mercy kills.
And they were. They were mercy-kills. That is how things are. But this has long been unacceptable to many, finding the several inheritors of Rome, the third, fourth, fifth romes, or declaring yourself "Emperor of the Romans" has had just a storied history. It was inevitable that people would eventually connect in the Church. Catholic Diocese and Orthodox Eparchies are both shared from their imperial provincial cousins, they are a shared administrative institution. Both churches were centered on Rome and on Constantinople, the centers of both of those Empires, they both deal in their home languages of Greek and Latin, &c. &c.
Things start to break down though when you look at the finer lines. The Byzantines stopped using Eparchies around the birth of Islam in the 7th century, 900 years before they eventually fell and "transitioned" to the spiritual religion buisness. Their provinces were Themata, which were a blend of feudalism and the old provincal system. The Orthodoxy is not centered on Constantinople anymore, largely because of Byzantine insistence on Caesaropapism made the church totally autocephalous, meaning the most powerful leaders are all focused in Moscow and not Istanbul, and likewise half of the Orthodoxy doesnt speak Greek either. Typically the case is made for Mt Athos alone, not Orthodoxy at large. And Mount Athos has yielded to whatever power it is that currently controls the area, whether it be Crusaders, Greek Emperors, Turkish Sultans, the modern Hellenic Republic, or Hitler. It is by no means independent or continuing Byzantine authority or governance in any real way. Sure the original charter was signed by an Emperor in Constantinople, but just because by business was established in "The Town of Brooklyn" doesnt mean I'm not in New York City.
The one I see much more legitimately said is with the Catholic church, and while they do share Latin and the Diocese, I do have quibbles here. Often its said the Pope has the title Pontifex Maximus, a title he directly borrows from the Emperors of Rome, a title that has been in use since the days of Numa Pompilius. This is however wrong, the correct title is Summus Pontifex, because Pontifex Maximus is associated with paganism. Pontifex Maximus is only used informally for vibes only, not offically - even though the two titles mean effectively the same thing. Still, a notable difference. Even then the timeline still doesnt sync.
Western Rome falls in 476, Belisarius reconquers Italy, and the Ravenna Exarchate falls in 751. The Patrimony of Saint Peter really begins 5 years later in 756, and in the interveneing 5 years Lazio falls in a sort of legal limbo where its effectively under control of the Papacy until the Lombards show up with an actual army, and then its under their control. Forever in a span of negotiation between the Lombards and the Popes until the Church can get the French down here to settle the deal. After the fall of the Exarchate Roman presence in Italy vanishes though, the Popes here are not taking their authority to rule from Rome, but rather through the authority of Saint Peter. This lapse in continuity means that even if they had a claim, which they wouldnt, they would have a claim to continue the Exarchate and the Eastern Empire, which they do not attempt to claim, it would be about as legitimate as the Holy Roman Empire. The Donation of Pepin creates the Papal State out of this dubious legal status and out of Frankish controlled territory, not Roman, and not a continuation of Rome.
I think this confusion comes from the integration of Church and State that the Romans had. In the modern world State institutions and Religious institutions are decidedly seperate in much of the world, they occupy different headspaces and authorities, so seeing in Roman history the Pope or Patriarch take such active roles in politics within the state or administer governance in the Empire, it can blur the lines to people. Religious institutions however are not derived or part of political institutions in most situations though, and though they can be molded by secular power they are not parts of it. Religions cannot be continuations of states.
Thats my big long rant though, The Papacy borrows heavily from Rome, but that doesnt mean it is Rome, and the Mt Athos thing only ever exists to compliment it. The timeline for the Papacy and its independence doesnt line up right and obviously just because the Popes existed during the Roman Empire doesnt mean that theyre somehow extensions of its government. Its a nice thought though.
Dont forget to bookmark so you dont lose me, thanks for reading! Stay golden.