The Characteristics of the "Little Horn" in Daniel 7

[NumberOneSon]

This thread is a continuation of my conversation with Husky on why I feel that the papacy/RCC does not match the characteristics of the Little Horn in Daniel 7. Of course, anyone is free to chime in.

CHARACTERISTIC #1: The ten horns - the divisions of Rome. The ten horns are the 10 divisions of the Roman Empire as it fell apart. These were the Anglo Saxons (England), Alemanni (Germany), Heruli (x493AD), Vandals (x534AD), Ostrogoths (x538AD), Visigoths (Spain), Suevi (Portugal), Lombard’s (Italy), Burgundians (Swiss) and the Franks (France).

Well, I had responded by stating that equating modern European nations with the tribes you believe divided the Roman Empire in 476AD is anachronistic, and doing so ignores all of the many migrations and genealogical shifts that took place in Europe throughout the centuries. Even the political topography of Europe in 476AD bears very little resemblance to present-day Europe. I also pointed out that in 476AD, the Lombards were outside of the Roman Empire.

In 476AD, the Frankish kingdom only occupied maybe a sixth of what is modern-day France; almost half of France was ruled by the Visigoths, and the rest was divided up between the Burgundians, Alamanni, the Britons, and the kingdom of Syagrius. In 476AD, the Frankish kingdom was mostly concentrated in modern Belgium and Germany. And despite the fact that France’s name derives itself from the Franks, I’ve read that after generations of migrations, the French hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge.

The Alamanni occupied about a fourth of today’s German territory, while in contrast Alamanni land extended into France and half of Switzerland. Modern Germany descends from territory ruled by the Eastern Franks, Thuringi, Saxons and others, including the Alamanni. The German states of Saxony, Thuringia, and Bavaria still exist today, so why shouldn’t Germany be representative of those tribes?

The Burgundian territory extended into half of modern-day Switzerland, but a large portion of the kingdom also extended into southern France as well.

You equate Spain with the Visigothic tribe, despite the fact that the various migrations that took place over several hundred years makes the modern Spaniard the descendent of Iberians, Celts, Romans, Visigoths, Sueves, Franks, Berbers, and Moors among others.

The Suevian kingdom resided in the Northwestern corner of the Iberian Peninsula and also spilled into modern-day Spain. Today’s Portuguese would have hereditary ties to Celtics, Romans, Vandals, Visigoths, Sueves, Alans, Berbers, and Moors, etc.

The Lombards did not replace the Roman population after they invaded Italy in 568AD, so although there may be Italians with ancestral ties to the ancient Lombards in certain areas of the peninsula, the lineage of Italians is probably dominated the most by ancient Roman roots.Throughout the Middle Ages, Italy was occupied by the Byzantines, Normans, Swabians, Spanish, French, etc., so there are probably any number of bloodlines scattered throughout the region, not simply that of the Lombard.

So anyway, that’s how I see issue.

CHARACTERISTIC #2: Timing. After the ten were established (v.8) - the Papacy became a political power by decree of the Roman emperor Justinian in AD 538 which was after the emergence of the ten tribal divisions that emerged as the Roman Empire fell apart in AD 476.

The decree you are referring to (actually, just a letter) did not confer political power on the papacy. At most, it reaffirmed the papacy’s ecclesiastical primacy, something that had already been confirmed by the imperial edict of Emperor Valentinian III in 445AD; Pope John II brought up that fact in his response to Justinian in 534AD, declaring that the statutes of earlier emperors had already confirmed the Roman See’s headship, and that Justinian’s letter simply attested to what had already been previously recognized.

“That this seat is truly the head of all churches, is stated both by the regulations of the fathers, as well as by the statutes of emperors, and is attested by the reverend address of Your Piety.” (Justinian Code, Book 1, Title 1, Ch. 8, V.1)

I’ll give you a brief summary explaining the purpose behind Justinian’s 533AD letter to Pope John II. I can tell you that it had absolutely nothing to do with making the Bishop of Rome into a political power:

A few years after he took the throne, Justinian attempted to adapt the formula St. Cyril had used against Nestorius in 431AD (“one of the Trinity suffered in the Flesh&#8221 in order to bridge the divide between the Chalcedonic and Monophysite Churches. He reasoned that, since the Monophysites were fervent adherents of Cyril, if he could get the universal Church to accept the formula as an article of faith it would show that Chalcedonians and Cyril were of one accord, and that the Monophysite charge of Nestorianism against Chalcedonians would have no teeth. The path toward unity could begin.

Now a certain group of Eastern ecclesiastics called the "Sleepless Monks", men faithful to the Council of Chalcedon, claimed that the Theopaschite formula was problematic, and argued that Pope Hormisdas had already rejected it as a standard of the faith around 520AD. Justinian threatened them with heresy, and since Hormisdas had rejected the phrase a decade earlier, the monks sent a letter to Pope John II in 533AD, asking him to agree with his predecessor and to end the debate. Justinian found out about this, and sent a delegation of his own to Rome to convince the pope that the phrase was indeed orthodox and that the Sleepless Monks' opposition amounted to Nestorianism. The letter mentioning the pope as the “head of all churches” was sent with that delegation to argue in favor of Justinian’s new statement of faith. After about a year of indecision, Pope John II eventually responded by siding with Justinian and excommunicating the monks.

So Husky, the only reason why Justinian sent that letter was to curry favor with the papacy over the Theopaschite formula. And in a way it also served as a veiled warning that if the pope’s decision disagreed with that of the emperor’s he could very well have been labeled a Nestorian heretic like the monks and simply overruled by the imperial power. This means that Justinian’s 533AD “headship” letter ended up both reaffirming and denying the papacy’s authority all at the same time. It showed that Justinian was willing to pay outward homage toward the Roman bishop’s primacy while at the same time manipulating the papacy so that ultimately the emperor's will was accomplished over the decision of a previous pope. But the letter certainly said nothing at all about making the pope a political power in the West, and there’s nothing in the historical record about the letter going into effect in 538AD.

If you’re interested in reading the letters of Justinian and the pope in full, click here (pg. 9-14).

 

[NumberOneSon]

CHARACTERISTIC #3: Uprooted three of the ten horns (v.8) - As the Papacy came to prominence, it influenced Pagan Roman armies to destroy three of the tribes which opposed its Christian doctrines.

I have not found any contemporary sources stating that the papacy influenced the Roman armies to destroy those three Arian tribes? Husky, what sources do you have showing that?

CHARACTERISTIC #4: Identity of the three horns. These three were the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heruli. The last of these was destroyed in AD 538 when Justinian’s decree went into effect.

The Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538AD. Procopius’ fifth book of History of the Wars and Thomas Hodgkin’s 6th Volume of Italy and Her Invaders state that after the failed siege of Rome, the Ostrogoths’ forces in Italy numbered around 45,000 men; the Byzantine forces, on the other hand, never exceeded more than 22,000. How do 45,000 Gothic soldiers somehow equal “destroyed”?

The Heruli under King Odovacer may have been destroyed in 493AD, but the mercenaries under him did not constitute the Heruli tribe. The actual Heruli kingdom lay beyond the Danube River, and it was only destroyed after the insurrection of the Arian Lombards around 511AD. The remaining Heruli were granted a confederate kingdom by Emperor Anastasius a few years later, and the Heruli began to convert to Catholicism after their king, Gretes, was baptized in Constantinople under Justinian’s supervision around 527AD. So the Heruli were converted, not destroyed.

“Now Vittigis with the remainder of his army marched toward Ravenna; and he strengthened the fortified places with a great number of guards, leaving in Clusium, the city of Tuscany, one thousand men and Gibimer as commander, and in Urviventus an equal number, over whom he set Albilas, a Goth, as commander. And he left Uligisalus in Tudera with four hundred men. And in the land of Picenum he left in the fortress of Petra four hundred men who had lived there previously, and in Auximus, which is the largest of all the cities of that country, he left four thousand Goths selected for their valour and a very energetic commander, Visandus by name, and two thousand men with Moras in the city of Urbinus. There are also two other fortresses, Caesena and Monteferetran, in each of which he established a garrison of not less than five hundred men. Then he himself with the rest of the army moved straight for Ariminum with the purpose of laying siege to it.”
(The Gothic War, Procopius, Book V, ch.XI)

“The enemy, in his (Belisarius&#8217 view, were still essentially stronger than their own forces. By dexterity and good-luck the Goths had hitherto been successfully outgeneraled; but, let them only redeem their fortunes by one happy stroke, the opportunity for which might be offered them by the over-confidence of the Imperial officers, and, passing from despair to the enthusiasm of success, they would become dangerous, perhaps irresistible. To the mind of Belisarius the present aspect of the theatre of war brought grave anxiety. With Witigis and thirty or forty thousand Goths at Ravenna, with his nephew besieging Milan and dominating Liguria, with Osimo held by numerous and gallant Gothic garrison, with even Orviento, so near to Rome, still in the possession of the enemy, and with the Franks, of old so formidable to the Romans, hanging like a thunder-cloud upon the Alps, ready at any moment to sweep down on Upper Italy, there was danger the Imperial army might soon find itself surrounded by foes.”
(Italy and Her Invaders, Thomas Hodgkin, Vol. VI, pg. 321)

“Another new phenomenon in the sixth century is the arrival in Constantinople of individual barbarians, or of groups of barbarians, asking of their own accord to be baptized. A certain Gretes, king of the Germanic Heruls, came to the capital with his retinue and twelve kinsmen and asked to become a Christian. They were all welcomed by Justinian and were baptized.”
(Romans and Barbarians, E.A. Thompson, pg. 242)

“At about the same time (537AD), as the same Procopius records, the Heruls, who had already crossed the river Danube while Anastasius was steering the Roman realm, after receiving generous treatment from Justinian, who granted them large sums of money, became Christians en masse and changed to a milder lifestyle.”
(The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, Michael Whitby, pg. 220)

And the claim that Justinian’s “decree” went into effect in 538AD is completely devoid of any historical backing. Historicists believe that the papacy couldn’t exercise its headship over the Catholic churches because of the Arian Ostrogothic occupation, but the Ostrogoths were one of the few Germanic tribes that gave the Church freedom in ecclesiastical matters; King Theodoric, himself, recognized the Bishop of Rome’s authority over the Church.

If you want clear evidence of the papacy’s headship in effect during the Gothic occupation, look no further than the Theopaschite debate I mentioned earlier; there you had delegations from the Eastern Empire and the Imperial throne all traveling to Rome in 533AD to seek the papacy’s decision on a theological question pertaining to the universal church. That’s “headship” in action, and the Ostrogoths didn’t lift a finger to hinder the pope from doing his job.

CHARACTERISTIC #5: The 1260 “days”. The Papacy lasted in primary power from AD 538 to 1798 in which year Napoleon’s general Berthier marched into Rome, deposed the Pope, and carried him into exile where he died.

What historical sources have led you to believe that the papacy was in “primary power” in 538AD or at any other point during Justinian’s reign? All of the historians I have read confirm that Justinian’s re-conquest of Italy led to a direct reduction of papal power and authority in the West. A.C. Flick even stated that Justinian’s interference in the Western Church’s affairs brought the papal hierarchy to the “brink of ruin” (Rise of the Medieval Church, pg. 297). I’ll provide a few more examples:

“The papal authority reached its lowest point in the time of Vigilius…His subjection to Byzantium cost him the hard-won confidence of the Western Churches.”
(The Papacy, Gustav Kruger, pg. 38)

“The Vigilius affair dealt a series of shattering blows to the papacy. The prestige and leadership gained for Rome over the previous century had been frittered away, the papacy’s reputation dragged through the Mire. And the actions of Vigilius cast long shadows. His successor in Rome, Pelagius (556-61), was an elderly aristocrat, who had played a very creditable role in stiffening Vigilius’ theological resistance to imperial pressure over the Three Chapters…His action, however, was universally denounced in the West as self-seeking treachery. His acceptance of the condemnation of the Three Chapters confirmed the failure of Vigilius, and left papal prestige in the West in ruins, especially in northern Italy and the Adriatic provinces. The sees of Milan and Aquila, and all the bishops of Istria, broke off communion with Rome. It would be fifty years before communion was restored between Milan and Rome, and the Istrian schism was to persist for a century and a half.”
(Saints & Sinners, Eamon Duffy, pg. 57-58)

"The Papacy emerged from this long struggle cruelly humiliated. After Silverius, Vigilius had experienced in full measure the severity of the imperial absolutism. His successors, Pelagius (555) and John III (560), elected under pressure from Justinian’s officials, were nothing more than humble servants of the basileus, in spite of all their struggles. Their authority was discredited in the entire West by the affair of the Three Chapters, shaken in Italy by the schism, and still further lessened by the privileges that the imperial benevolence granted to the church of Ravenna, since that town was the capital of reconquered Italy."
(The Cambridge Medieval History, J.B. Bury pg. 48-49)

The historical record is quite clear that when the Ostrogothic war came to a close, and Justinian issued his Pragmatic Sanction in 554AD, he chose General Narses to govern the whole of Italy, not the papacy. This policy continued under the Exarchs of Ravenna. At no point did Justinian give the papacy the “primary power”.

“The Emperor’s governors, called Exarchs, ruled the whole peninsula from their capital, Ravenna. Narses, the conqueror of the Ostrogoths, was the first and greatest of the Exarchs, and ruled Italy from A.D. 554 to A.D. 568.”
(Library of Universal History, Israel Smith Clare, pg. 1538)

”Like those who had preceded him, he (Narses) made his abode at Ravenna, and besides this, gave a new form of the government of Italy; for he did not appoint governors of provinces, as the Goths had done, but in every city and town of importance placed a ruler whom he called a duke. Neither in this arrangement did he respect Rome more than the other cities; for having set aside the consuls and senate, names which up to this time had been preserved, he placed her under a duke who was sent every year from Ravenna, and called her the duchy of Rome; while to him who remained at Ravenna, and governed the whole of Italy for the emperor, was given the name of Exarch.”
(History of Florence, Niccolo Machiavelli, pg. 10)

“High over all, and practically supreme over Imperial Italy, was the ‘Most Excellent Exarch’…He seems to have uniformly borne the title of Patricius added to that of Exarchus, and he not unfrequently held high rank in the Imperial household, as Cubicularius (Grand Chamberlain) or Cartularius (Keeper of the Records). He was supreme judge in Italy; he made peace and war on his own responsibility, apparently without the necessity of consulting the Emperor; he nominated all the military officers below him, the dukes and tribunes and the like; perhaps also the civil governors, the prefects and the vicars, though of this there does not appear to be any direct proof.”
(Italy and Her Invaders, Hodgkin, Vol. VII, pg. 529)

"Vigilius...ascended the papal chair (538 A.D.) under the military protection of Belisarius." History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 327. Historical records reveal the papacy began its reign in 538 AD upon Emperor Justinian's decree, and under the military protection of Belisarius.

You have already admitted that Vigilius’ reign began in 537AD, and that’s good. Now, what historical sources tell you that Vigilius’ pontificate represented the start of “the papacy”?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Husky7]

I don't have time to respond to these posts until the Sabbath this Saturday...so i'll respond in full then.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Ok, sounds good.

 

[Husky7]

This thread is a continuation of my conversation with Husky on why I feel that the papacy/RCC does not match the characteristics of the Little Horn in Daniel 7. Of course, anyone is free to chime in.

Well, I had responded by stating that equating modern European nations with the tribes you believe divided the Roman Empire in 476AD is anachronistic, and doing so ignores all of the many migrations and genealogical shifts that took place in Europe throughout the centuries. Even the political topography of Europe in 476AD bears very little resemblance to present-day Europe. I also pointed out that in 476AD, the Lombards were outside of the Roman Empire.

In 476AD, the Frankish kingdom only occupied maybe a sixth of what is modern-day France; almost half of France was ruled by the Visigoths, and the rest was divided up between the Burgundians, Alamanni, the Britons, and the kingdom of Syagrius. In 476AD, the Frankish kingdom was mostly concentrated in modern Belgium and Germany. And despite the fact that France’s name derives itself from the Franks, I’ve read that after generations of migrations, the French hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge.

The Alamanni occupied about a fourth of today’s German territory, while in contrast Alamanni land extended into France and half of Switzerland. Modern Germany descends from territory ruled by the Eastern Franks, Thuringi, Saxons and others, including the Alamanni. The German states of Saxony, Thuringia, and Bavaria still exist today, so why shouldn’t Germany be representative of those tribes?

The Burgundian territory extended into half of modern-day Switzerland, but a large portion of the kingdom also extended into southern France as well.

You equate Spain with the Visigothic tribe, despite the fact that the various migrations that took place over several hundred years makes the modern Spaniard the descendent of Iberians, Celts, Romans, Visigoths, Sueves, Franks, Berbers, and Moors among others.

The Suevian kingdom resided in the Northwestern corner of the Iberian Peninsula and also spilled into modern-day Spain. Today’s Portuguese would have hereditary ties to Celtics, Romans, Vandals, Visigoths, Sueves, Alans, Berbers, and Moors, etc.

The Lombards did not replace the Roman population after they invaded Italy in 568AD, so although there may be Italians with ancestral ties to the ancient Lombards in certain areas of the peninsula, the lineage of Italians is probably dominated the most by ancient Roman roots.Throughout the Middle Ages, Italy was occupied by the Byzantines, Normans, Swabians, Spanish, French, etc., so there are probably any number of bloodlines scattered throughout the region, not simply that of the Lombard

.

Daniel 7:24, "And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings." The bible clearly states that the Little Horn power, or Antichrist, will "subdue three kings." If future generations of people could not use this characteristic to help identify the Antichrist, then why put it in here in the first place? It seems to me that you're making this claim that it is impossible to identify these 3 kings that were subdued. To be honest though, I don't think it really matters who the modern countries are...all that's important is that 3 groups of people were "subdued" by the Little Horn power. The Ostrogoths were subdued, the Vandals, and the Heruli's. History proves this fact.

The decree you are referring to (actually, just a letter) did not confer political power on the papacy. At most, it reaffirmed the papacy’s ecclesiastical primacy, something that had already been confirmed by the imperial edict of Emperor Valentinian III in 445AD; Pope John II brought up that fact in his response to Justinian in 534AD, declaring that the statutes of earlier emperors had already confirmed the Roman See’s headship, and that Justinian’s letter simply attested to what had already been previously recognized.

“That this seat is truly the head of all churches, is stated both by the regulations of the fathers, as well as by the statutes of emperors, and is attested by the reverend address of Your Piety.” (Justinian Code, Book 1, Title 1, Ch. 8, V.1)

I’ll give you a brief summary explaining the purpose behind Justinian’s 533AD letter to Pope John II. I can tell you that it had absolutely nothing to do with making the Bishop of Rome into a political power:

A few years after he took the throne, Justinian attempted to adapt the formula St. Cyril had used against Nestorius in 431AD (“one of the Trinity suffered in the Flesh”) in order to bridge the divide between the Chalcedonic and Monophysite Churches. He reasoned that, since the Monophysites were fervent adherents of Cyril, if he could get the universal Church to accept the formula as an article of faith it would show that Chalcedonians and Cyril were of one accord, and that the Monophysite charge of Nestorianism against Chalcedonians would have no teeth. The path toward unity could begin.

Now a certain group of Eastern ecclesiastics called the "Sleepless Monks", men faithful to the Council of Chalcedon, claimed that the Theopaschite formula was problematic, and argued that Pope Hormisdas had already rejected it as a standard of the faith around 520AD. Justinian threatened them with heresy, and since Hormisdas had rejected the phrase a decade earlier, the monks sent a letter to Pope John II in 533AD, asking him to agree with his predecessor and to end the debate. Justinian found out about this, and sent a delegation of his own to Rome to convince the pope that the phrase was indeed orthodox and that the Sleepless Monks' opposition amounted to Nestorianism. The letter mentioning the pope as the “head of all churches” was sent with that delegation to argue in favor of Justinian’s new statement of faith. After about a year of indecision, Pope John II eventually responded by siding with Justinian and excommunicating the monks.

So Husky, the only reason why Justinian sent that letter was to curry favor with the papacy over the Theopaschite formula. And in a way it also served as a veiled warning that if the pope’s decision disagreed with that of the emperor’s he could very well have been labeled a Nestorian heretic like the monks and simply overruled by the imperial power. This means that Justinian’s 533AD “headship” letter ended up both reaffirming and denying the papacy’s authority all at the same time. It showed that Justinian was willing to pay outward homage toward the Roman bishop’s primacy while at the same time manipulating the papacy so that ultimately the emperor's will was accomplished over the decision of a previous pope. But the letter certainly said nothing at all about making the pope a political power in the West, and there’s nothing in the historical record about the letter going into effect in 538AD.

If you’re interested in reading the letters of Justinian and the pope in full, click here (pg. 9-14).

I'm still looking into this, i'll let you know soon...

 

[Husky7]

I have not found any contemporary sources stating that the papacy influenced the Roman armies to destroy those three Arian tribes? Husky, what sources do you have showing that?

The Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538AD. Procopius’ fifth book of History of the Wars and Thomas Hodgkin’s 6th Volume of Italy and Her Invaders state that after the failed siege of Rome, the Ostrogoths’ forces in Italy numbered around 45,000 men; the Byzantine forces, on the other hand, never exceeded more than 20,000. How do 45,000 Gothic soldiers somehow equal “destroyed”?

The Heruli under King Odovacer may have been destroyed in 493AD, but the mercenaries under him did not constitute the Heruli tribe. The actual Heruli kingdom lay beyond the Danube River, and it was only destroyed after the insurrection of the Arian Lombards around 511AD. The remaining Heruli were granted a confederate kingdom by Emperor Anastasius a few years later, and the Heruli began to convert to Catholicism after their king, Gretes, was baptized in Constantinople under Justinian’s supervision around 527AD. So the Heruli were converted, not destroyed.

“Now Vittigis with the remainder of his army marched toward Ravenna; and he strengthened the fortified places with a great number of guards, leaving in Clusium, the city of Tuscany, one thousand men and Gibimer as commander, and in Urviventus an equal number, over whom he set Albilas, a Goth, as commander. And he left Uligisalus in Tudera with four hundred men. And in the land of Picenum he left in the fortress of Petra four hundred men who had lived there previously, and in Auximus, which is the largest of all the cities of that country, he left four thousand Goths selected for their valour and a very energetic commander, Visandus by name, and two thousand men with Moras in the city of Urbinus. There are also two other fortresses, Caesena and Monteferetran, in each of which he established a garrison of not less than five hundred men. Then he himself with the rest of the army moved straight for Ariminum with the purpose of laying siege to it.”
(The Gothic War, Procopius, Book V, ch.XI)

“The enemy, in his (Belisarius’) view, were still essentially stronger than their own forces. By dexterity and good-luck the Goths had hitherto been successfully outgeneraled; but, let them only redeem their fortunes by one happy stroke, the opportunity for which might be offered them by the over-confidence of the Imperial officers, and, passing from despair to the enthusiasm of success, they would become dangerous, perhaps irresistible. To the mind of Belisarius the present aspect of the theatre of war brought grave anxiety. With Witigis and thirty or forty thousand Goths at Ravenna, with his nephew besieging Milan and dominating Liguria, with Osimo held by numerous and gallant Gothic garrison, with even Orviento, so near to Rome, still in the possession of the enemy, and with the Franks, of old so formidable to the Romans, hanging like a thunder-cloud upon the Alps, ready at any moment to sweep down on Upper Italy, there was danger the Imperial army might soon find itself surrounded by foes.”
(Italy and Her Invaders, Thomas Hodgkin, Vol. VI, pg. 321)

“Another new phenomenon in the sixth century is the arrival in Constantinople of individual barbarians, or of groups of barbarians, asking of their own accord to be baptized. A certain Gretes, king of the Germanic Heruls, came to the capital with his retinue and twelve kinsmen and asked to become a Christian. They were all welcomed by Justinian and were baptized.”
(Romans and Barbarians, E.A. Thompson, pg. 242)

“At about the same time (537AD), as the same Procopius records, the Heruls, who had already crossed the river Danube while Anastasius was steering the Roman realm, after receiving generous treatment from Justinian, who granted them large sums of money, became Christians en masse and changed to a milder lifestyle.”
(The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, Michael Whitby, pg. 220)

And the claim that Justinian’s “decree” went into effect in 538AD is completely devoid of any historical backing. Historicists believe that the papacy couldn’t exercise its headship over the Catholic churches because of the Arian Ostrogothic occupation, but the Ostrogoths were one of the few Germanic tribes that gave the Church freedom in ecclesiastical matters; King Theodoric, himself, recognized the Bishop of Rome’s authority over the Church.

If you want clear evidence of the papacy’s headship in effect during the Gothic occupation, look no further than the Theopaschite debate I mentioned earlier; there you had delegations from the Eastern Empire and the Imperial throne all traveling to Rome in 533AD to seek the papacy’s decision on a theological question pertaining to the universal church. That’s “headship” in action, and the Ostrogoths didn’t lift a finger to hinder the pope from doing his job. Then in 534AD, Procopius mentions that another group of Eastern envoys traveled from Ephesus and Macedonia to Rome in order to confer with the Pope over a tenet of the faith that had been “a subject of disagreement and controversy among the Christians” (The Gothic War, Book V, ch. III). Again, here we have another group of ecclesiastics from the Byzantine Empire traveling to Rome specifically because they sought the pope’s counsel over a matter of the Chalcedonic faith, and the Arian Goths didn’t do a thing to stop it.



What historical sources have led you to believe that the papacy was in “primary power” in 538AD or at any other point during Justinian’s reign? All of the historians I have read confirm that Justinian’s re-conquest of Italy led to a direct reduction of papal power and authority in the West. A.C. Flick even stated that Justinian’s interference in the Western Church’s affairs brought the papal hierarchy to the “brink of ruin” (Rise of the Medieval Church, pg. 297). I’ll provide a few more examples:

“The papal authority reached its lowest point in the time of Vigilius…His subjection to Byzantium cost him the hard-won confidence of the Western Churches.”
(The Papacy, Gustav Kruger, pg. 38)

“The Vigilius affair dealt a series of shattering blows to the papacy. The prestige and leadership gained for Rome over the previous century had been frittered away, the papacy’s reputation dragged through the Mire. And the actions of Vigilius cast long shadows. His successor in Rome, Pelagius (556-61), was an elderly aristocrat, who had played a very creditable role in stiffening Vigilius’ theological resistance to imperial pressure over the Three Chapters…His action, however, was universally denounced in the West as self-seeking treachery. His acceptance of the condemnation of the Three Chapters confirmed the failure of Vigilius, and left papal prestige in the West in ruins, especially in northern Italy and the Adriatic provinces. The sees of Milan and Aquila, and all the bishops of Istria, broke off communion with Rome. It would be fifty years before communion was restored between Milan and Rome, and the Istrian schism was to persist for a century and a half.”
(Saints & Sinners, Eamon Duffy, pg. 57-58)

"The Papacy emerged from this long struggle cruelly humiliated. After Silverius, Vigilius had experienced in full measure the severity of the imperial absolutism. His successors, Pelagius (555) and John III (560), elected under pressure from Justinian’s officials, were nothing more than humble servants of the basileus, in spite of all their struggles. Their authority was discredited in the entire West by the affair of the Three Chapters, shaken in Italy by the schism, and still further lessened by the privileges that the imperial benevolence granted to the church of Ravenna, since that town was the capital of reconquered Italy."
(The Cambridge Medieval History, J.B. Bury pg. 48-49)

The historical record is quite clear that when the Ostrogothic war came to a close, and Justinian issued his Pragmatic Sanction in 554AD, he chose General Narses to govern the whole of Italy, not the papacy. This policy continued under the Exarchs of Ravenna. At no point did Justinian give the papacy the “primary power”.

“The Emperor’s governors, called Exarchs, ruled the whole peninsula from their capital, Ravenna. Narses, the conqueror of the Ostrogoths, was the first and greatest of the Exarchs, and ruled Italy from A.D. 554 to A.D. 568.”
(Library of Universal History, Israel Smith Clare, pg. 1538)

”Like those who had preceded him, he (Narses) made his abode at Ravenna, and besides this, gave a new form of the government of Italy; for he did not appoint governors of provinces, as the Goths had done, but in every city and town of importance placed a ruler whom he called a duke. Neither in this arrangement did he respect Rome more than the other cities; for having set aside the consuls and senate, names which up to this time had been preserved, he placed her under a duke who was sent every year from Ravenna, and called her the duchy of Rome; while to him who remained at Ravenna, and governed the whole of Italy for the emperor, was given the name of Exarch.”
(History of Florence, Niccolo Machiavelli, pg. 10)

“High over all, and practically supreme over Imperial Italy, was the ‘Most Excellent Exarch’…He seems to have uniformly borne the title of Patricius added to that of Exarchus, and he not unfrequently held high rank in the Imperial household, as Cubicularius (Grand Chamberlain) or Cartularius (Keeper of the Records). He was supreme judge in Italy; he made peace and war on his own responsibility, apparently without the necessity of consulting the Emperor; he nominated all the military officers below him, the dukes and tribunes and the like; perhaps also the civil governors, the prefects and the vicars, though of this there does not appear to be any direct proof.”
(Italy and Her Invaders, Hodgkin, Vol. VII, pg. 529)



You have already admitted that Vigilius’ reign began in 537AD, and that’s good. Now, what historical sources tell you that Vigilius’ pontificate represented the start of “the papacy”?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

The quotes that I used may not be entirely accurate, as you pointed out...however I have researched this period myself, and found that all three of those tribes, (Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths) were in fact "subdued." Obviously subdued, doesn't just mean destroyed, it can mean one of three things in this instance: (Definitions come from Free Online Dictionary)
1. To conquer and subjugate; vanquish.
2. To quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion; make tractable.
3. To make less intense or prominent; tone down.

• The Heruli fit either definition 2 or 3, because they were converted and partially destroyed.
• The Vandals fit 2, and 3.
• The Ostrogoths fit 1, and 3.

As far as the Papacy goes, I'm currently looking for the approx. date where Pagan Rome handed both temporal as well as religious power over to the Pope/Leader of the Western Empire...

 

[Husky7]

Out of curiosity, do you have a Major in History? Also, could you provide a list of books, pertaining to this period in history, (like those you quoted above) that could be found in my local library?

 

[NumberOneSon]

Daniel 7:24, "And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings." The bible clearly states that the Little Horn power, or Antichrist, will "subdue three kings." If future generations of people could not use this characteristic to help identify the Antichrist, then why put it in here in the first place? It seems to me that you're making this claim that it is impossible to identify these 3 kings that were subdued. To be honest though, I don't think it really matters who the modern countries are...all that's important is that 3 groups of people were "subdued" by the Little Horn power. The Ostrogoths were subdued, the Vandals, and the Heruli's. History proves this fact.

I’m simply stating that the papacy did not subdue any of the tribes you have identified as the 3 horns. If history proves that the papacy was responsible then provide the historical sources that validate this claim.

I'm still looking into this, i'll let you know soon...

Ok.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Husky7]

I’m simply stating that the papacy did not subdue any of the tribes you have identified as the 3 horns. If history proves that the papacy was responsible then provide the historical sources that validate this claim.


Ok.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Being a Preterist, did you know that historically, there has been general agreement that the first systematic Preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis De Alcasar during the Counter Reformation. The Futurist theory was also created by a Jesuit Priest named Francisco Ribera, and basically for the same goal, which was to combat the accuestations from the Protestants about the RCC being Spirtual Babylon. I'm not trying to draw attention away from the main topic, but I believe it's important that you explain how Preterism fits in with End Time Prophesy.

 

[NumberOneSon]

The quotes that I used may not be entirely accurate, as you pointed out...however I have researched this period myself, and found that all three of those tribes, (Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths) were in fact "subdued." Obviously subdued, doesn't just mean destroyed, it can mean one of three things in this instance: (Definitions come from Free Online Dictionary)

1. To conquer and subjugate; vanquish.
2. To quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion; make tractable.
3. To make less intense or prominent; tone down.

• The Heruli fit either definition 2 or 3, because they were converted and partially destroyed.
• The Vandals fit 2, and 3.
• The Ostrogoths fit 1, and 3.

Yep, some of the source material from your thread was definitely inaccurate. Don’t you think that we should be using the Hebrew definition of the word “subdue” to define what Daniel meant? It looks like the word kabash was used in Daniel 7:8, meaning “to force, keep under, bring into bondage (Qal) to bring into bondage, make subservient to subdue, force, violate to subdue, dominate, tread down.”

But regardless how you define the word, what you need to do is provide evidence that the papacy was responsible for the subjugation of those three tribes. There were numerous other tribes that were subdued in various ways early in the 6th Century (the Alammanis, Burgundians, Rugians), but no one has suggested that the papacy was responsible in those cases. Why was the papacy responsible for what happened to the Heruli in Italy, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths?

As far as the Papacy goes, I'm currently looking for the approx. date where Pagan Rome handed both temporal as well as religious power over to the Pope/Leader of the Western Empire...

”Pagan Rome” never did hand temporal or religious power over to the Pope, so you’re not going to find a date for that. What you will find is the date that the Carolingian monarchs awarded the papacy temporal power over the Papal States by right of conquest in the 8th/9th Centuries. The Eastern Roman emperors never willfully relinquished their rights over Italian territory.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[NumberOneSon]

Out of curiosity, do you have a Major in History?

No, I have a degree in a completely unrelated field.

Also, could you provide a list of books, pertaining to this period in history, (like those you quoted above) that could be found in my local library?

Sure, no problem. However, I doubt that most local, public libraries have many of the books I've read. You will probably have more luck locating them at university libraries or seminaries/bible colleges in your area. Your best bet is to go to WorldCat.org to see how close the books are to you. You can also check Googlebooks.com to determine how many of them are available online. Here’s a short list of some of my favorites:

Roman/Germanic History
Theodoric the Goth, Thomas Hodgkin
Italy and Her Invaders (multiple volumes), Thomas Hodgkin
The Rise of the Mediavel Church, Alexander Clarence Flick
The Story of the Goths, Henry Bradley
The Cambridge Medieval History, J.B. Bury
History of the Later Roman Empire, J.B. Bury
Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians, J.B. Bury
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon
The Age of Justinian, J.A.S. Evans
The Rise of Christianity, W.H.C. Frend
The Barbarian Invasion of Italy, P. Villari
History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff
Romans and Barbarians, E.A. Thompson
Justinian and Theodora,Robert Browning
The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Michael Maas (editor)

Papal History
Saints & Sinners, Eamon Duffy
The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, Jeffrey Richards
The Power of the Pope During the Middle Ages, J.E.A. Gosselin
The Papacy and World Affairs,Carl Eckhardt
The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes, Louis Duchesne
A Complete History of the Popes of Rome,Louis Marie DeCormenin

If there's something in particular that you are interested in researching just let me know and I'll try to steer you in the right direction.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[NumberOneSon]

Being a Preterist, did you know that historically, there has been general agreement that the first systematic Preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis De Alcasar during the Counter Reformation. The Futurist theory was also created by a Jesuit Priest named Francisco Ribera, and basically for the same goal, which was to combat the accuestations from the Protestants about the RCC being Spirtual Babylon. I'm not trying to draw attention away from the main topic, but I believe it's important that you explain how Preterism fits in with End Time Prophesy.

Yes, I'm familiar with that. I don’t believe that Alcazar’s book on the Apocalypse has been translated into English - and if it has it’s not widely available - so all we really have to go on is the chapter summaries of his book.

According to the Biblelight site;
Chapters 1-11 describe the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Nero is the antichrist and all of the seals, trumpets, and vials took place before the end of 70AD.

Chapters 12 - 19 describe the overthrow of Roman paganism which he identified as mystery babylon, the great harlot. He describes the conversion of the empire and sets up Rome as the head of the universal Christian faith.

Chapter 20 describes the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Cæsar Nero (54-68 A.D.), who sets in motion God's judgment on Jews and Jerusalem to be fulfilled in 70AD.

Chapters 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church as the preterist climax of the millennial kingdom that began in 70AD.

Now the thing is, Preterism does not currently teach that Rev. 12-22 identifies Roman paganism as mystery Babylon, nor does it teach that those chapters describe the overthrow of Roman paganism between the 1-6th Centuries, the conversion of the Roman Empire, the universal headship of Rome over the Christian faith, or the millennial kingdom culminating in the form of the Catholic Church; that’s almost half of Alcazar’s entire commentary right there. However, the parts of the commentary that Preterists do agree with (chapters 1-11, and 20), all contain interpretations that did not originate with Alcazar, but were shared by ECF’s like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius Pamphilius, Chrystostom, and Augustine.

So the point I’m trying to make is this; Preterists may agree with Alcazar that Nero was antichrist, and that the seals, trumpets, and vials took place before the end of 70AD, but those ideas were not new. The rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy had previously been expressed in the writings of a number of ECF’s. However, the interpretations in Alcazar’s book that may have originated out of the counter-Reformation are definitely not shared by Preterists. So although Alcazar's system was born out of the Counter-Reformation, his commentary served to reawaken the Church to some of the eschatological views of the Early Church, and those are the views that I have in common with him.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Husky7]

But regardless how you define the word, what you need to do is provide evidence that the papacy was responsible for the subjugation of those three tribes. There were numerous other tribes that were subdued in various ways early in the 6th Century (the Alammanis, Burgundians, Rugians), but no one has suggested that the papacy was responsible in those cases. Why was the papacy responsible for what happened to the Heruli in Italy, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths?

The papacy was responsible, because their Catholic religious faith was being persecuted against by the Arian Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heruli. The Ostrogoths, and Heruli weren't as hostile to the Papacy for the most part, however they were still Arian and their religion was different from the Universal faith(Catholic). All three of these tribes attacked the Roman Empire, and eventually were subdued. In the case of the Vandals, Hilderic one of their Kings was very tolerant towards the Catholic faith. However, he had little interest in war, and left it to a family member, Hoamer. When Hoamer suffered a defeat against the Moors, the Arian faction within the royal family led a revolt, and his cousin Gelimer became king. Hilderic, Hoamer and their relatives were thrown into prison. Hilderic was eventually deposed and murdered in 533. Justinian after hearing of the Rebellion declard war on the Vandals, with the intent of restoring Hilderic to the throne. All this was done, because he, (Hilderic) was tolerant towards Catholics/the Papacy. So as you can see, the Papacy indirectly influenced pagan roman armies, because they controlled the Western part of the Empire. Justinian needed stability in Rome, so he helped the Pope out by subdueing the Vandals. The Papacy also indirectly influenced Justinian during the Siege of Rome, (537-338 A.D.).
In 535, Mundus invaded Dalmatia, and Belisarius, with an army of 7,500 men, captured Sicily with ease. From there, in June next year, he crossed over to Italy at Rhegium. After a twenty-day siege, the Romans sacked Naples in early November. After the fall of Naples, the Goths, who were enraged with the inactivity of their king, Theodahad, gathered in council and elected Witigis as their new king. Theodahad, who fled from Rome to Ravenna, was murdered by an agent of Witigis on the way. In the meantime, Witigis held a council at Rome, where it was decided not to seek immediate confrontation with Belisarius, but to wait until the main army, stationed in the north, was assembled. Witigis then departed Rome for Ravenna, leaving a 4,000 strong garrison to secure the city.
Nevertheless, the citizens of Rome decisively supported Belisarius, and in the light of the sack of Naples, were unwilling to support the risks of a siege. So, a delegation on behalf of Pope Silverius and eminent citizens was sent to Belisarius. The Ostrogoth garrison quickly realized that, with the population hostile, their position was untenable. The Papacy again helped Belisarius destroy another tribe, in the Ostrogoths.

”Pagan Rome” never did hand temporal or religious power over to the Pope, so you’re not going to find a date for that. What you will find is the date that the Carolingian monarchs awarded the papacy temporal power over the Papal States by right of conquest in the 8th/9th Centuries. The Eastern Roman emperors never willfully relinquished their rights over Italian territory.

Well from what I've found, the decree which happened was the Justinian Code, or Corpus Juris Civilis. This was issued in 529...however it gave more power to the Papacy. The end of the Siege of Rome finally freed the Papacy to rule by itself, and this started in 538 A.D, when the Siege ended. Like you said though, Pope Vigilius became Pope in 537, however that doesn't neccessarly mean anything. Well, after the Siege of Rome, the Papacy was finally free to rule the Western Part of the Empire by itself. This was the start of the 1260 year reign, which ends in 1798. After the Siege, the Papacy never had any obstacles in its way, such as Arian nations occupying it, or persecuting against it's faith. From 538 onward, the Catholic Faith was undisbutably the offical religion of the two Empire's. The power of the RCC only grew from here...

 

[NumberOneSon]

The papacy was responsible, because their Catholic religious faith was being persecuted against by the Arian Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heruli.

How does that make the papacy responsible? The Heruli under Odovacer and the Ostrogoths did not persecute the Catholic faith. The Vandals were the only tribe out of the three who did.

The Ostrogoths, and Heruli weren't as hostile to the Papacy for the most part, however they were still Arian and their religion was different from the Universal faith(Catholic).

They weren’t hostile.

All three of these tribes attacked the Roman Empire, and eventually were subdued. In the case of the Vandals, Hilderic one of their Kings was very tolerant towards the Catholic faith. However, he had little interest in war, and left it to a family member, Hoamer. When Hoamer suffered a defeat against the Moors, the Arian faction within the royal family led a revolt, and his cousin Gelimer became king. Hilderic, Hoamer and their relatives were thrown into prison. Hilderic was eventually deposed and murdered in 533. Justinian after hearing of the Rebellion declard war on the Vandals, with the intent of restoring Hilderic to the throne.

Ok.

All this was done, because he, (Hilderic) was tolerant towards Catholics/the Papacy.

Catholics? Yes. Papacy? No. Hilderic’s decision had nothing to do with the papacy.

So as you can see, the Papacy indirectly influenced pagan roman armies, because they controlled the Western part of the Empire.

No, I don’t see that at all; the emperor’s desire to protect Catholics does not in any way make his actions the indirect responsibility of the papacy. And I cannot stress enough that the papacy was not in control of the Western part of the Empire; not then, not ever.

Justinian needed stability in Rome, so he helped the Pope out by subdueing the Vandals.

Really? Where is a source stating that Justinian “helped the Pope out by subduing the Vandals”? Where do you get the idea that Justinian was trying to help the Pope?

The Papacy also indirectly influenced Justinian during the Siege of Rome, (537-338 A.D.).In 535, Mundus invaded Dalmatia, and Belisarius, with an army of 7,500 men, captured Sicily with ease. From there, in June next year, he crossed over to Italy at Rhegium. After a twenty-day siege, the Romans sacked Naples in early November. After the fall of Naples, the Goths, who were enraged with the inactivity of their king, Theodahad, gathered in council and elected Witigis as their new king. Theodahad, who fled from Rome to Ravenna, was murdered by an agent of Witigis on the way. In the meantime, Witigis held a council at Rome, where it was decided not to seek immediate confrontation with Belisarius, but to wait until the main army, stationed in the north, was assembled. Witigis then departed Rome for Ravenna, leaving a 4,000 strong garrison to secure the city.

Correct.

Nevertheless, the citizens of Rome decisively supported Belisarius, and in the light of the sack of Naples, were unwilling to support the risks of a siege. So, a delegation on behalf of Pope Silverius and eminent citizens was sent to Belisarius. The Ostrogoth garrison quickly realized that, with the population hostile, their position was untenable. The Papacy again helped Belisarius destroy another tribe, in the Ostrogoths.

You’ve shown that Pope Silverius (and eminent Roman citizens) allowed Belisarius to occupy the city of Rome without bloodshed; how does this suddenly equate to Silverius helping to destroy the Ostrogoths? Even after the siege of Rome was over, the Goths still outnumbered the Byzantine troops at least 2 to 1, so the Goths may have lost that battle but they were not destroyed.

Well from what I've found, the decree which happened was the Justinian Code, or Corpus Juris Civilis. This was issued in 529...however it gave more power to the Papacy.

The Justinian Code itself did not empower the papacy; there’s very little in the Code that even references the Roman bishops, actually. Since you are referring to the 529AD publication (and not the 534AD version that incorporated Justinian’s “headship” letter)then tell me which of the laws gave more power to the papacy? If you can’t provide specifics then how can you possibly know if Justinian’s Code gave the papacy more power?

You said you’re basing this on “what you’ve found”; may I ask where you are finding your information about Justinian’s Code if not within the Code itself?

The end of the Siege of Rome finally freed the Papacy to rule by itself, and this started in 538 A.D, when the Siege ended.

The papacy was not ruling by itself after 538AD.

Like you said though, Pope Vigilius became Pope in 537, however that doesn't neccessarly mean anything. Well, after the Siege of Rome, the Papacy was finally free to rule the Western Part of the Empire by itself.

No, he wasn’t. Like I explained to you before, when the war with the Goths ended, Justinian and his successors gave General Narses and the Exarches of Ravenna complete control of the civil government of Italy, not the papacy. The Exarch was the direct representative of the emperor. The papacy’s temporal sovereignty over the Papal States in the 8th/9th Centuries had absolutely no connection with the failed siege of Rome in 538AD.

“High over all, and practically supreme over Imperial Italy, was the ‘Most Excellent Exarch’…He seems to have uniformly borne the title of Patricius added to that of Exarchus, and he not unfrequently held high rank in the Imperial household, as Cubicularius (Grand Chamberlain) or Cartularius (Keeper of the Records). He was supreme judge in Italy; he made peace and war on his own responsibility, apparently without the necessity of consulting the Emperor; he nominated all the military officers below him, the dukes and tribunes and the like; perhaps also the civil governors, the prefects and the vicars, though of this there does not appear to be any direct proof.”
(Italy and Her Invaders, Hodgkin, Vol. VII, pg. 529)

This was the start of the 1260 year reign, which ends in 1798. After the Siege, the Papacy never had any obstacles in its way, such as Arian nations occupying it, or persecuting against it's faith.

Incorrect. The Ostrogoths retook virtually all of Italy after they regrouped in 541AD, and King Totila besieged the city of Rome twice (in 545AD and 549AD), taking the city on both occasions. The Goths then held Rome for almost 3 years; during that time Totila recalled the Roman Senate, refurbished the Roman Library as well as the city, issued his own coinage, raised a 400 ship navy, and celebrated games at the Circus Maximus. That’s a clear example of Arian occupation.

Then about 13 years later, the Arian Lombards poured into Italy, and unlike the tolerant Ostrogoths, the Lombards heavily persecuted the Catholics throughout the peninsula. That’s a clear example of Arian persecution against the Catholic faith.

“Before the end of 540, however, the departure of Belisarius, the wrangling among his successors, the oppressions of Alexander the Logothete, the disaffection of the ruined soldiery had completely changed the face of affairs. An army of considerable size, consisting in great measure of deserters from the Imperial standard, obeyed the orders of Ildibad; he won a great pitched battle near Treviso over Vitalius, the best of the Imperial generals, and the whole of Italy north of the Po again owned the sway of the Gothic king.”
(Theodoric the Goth, Thomas Hodgkin, pg. 344)

"The year 550 was the high-water mark of the success of the Gothic arms. In Italy only four cities--all on the sea-coast--were left to the Emperor; these were Ravenna, Ancona, Otranto, and Crotona. In Sicily most of the cities were still Imperial, but Totila had moved freely hither and thither through the island, ravaging the villas and the farms, collecting great stores of grain and fruit, driving off horses and cattle, and generally visiting on the hapless Sicilians the treachery which in his view they had shown to the Ostrogothic dynasty by the eagerness with which, fifteen years before, they had welcomed the arms of Belisarius".
(Theodoric the Goth, Thomas Hodgkin, pg. 362)

“But the Lombards (taking exactly the opposite course to that adopted by the Ostrogoths) achieved this result by a practical extermination of the Roman race, slaughtering large numbers of them, sending many others to be sold as slaves in Gaul, driving many more to seek refuge in North Africa, and reducing those who remained to a position of absolutely grinding slavery under their Lombard masters, one so low that the very name of Roman makes no appearance in the Lombard records.”
(East and West through Fifteen Centuries, George Frederick Young, Vol. 2, pg. 305)

“Unlike the Goths, who had been partially civilised before their arrival in Italy, the bold and unscrupulous Lombards, without awe or reverence for religion, depopulated cities, burned churches, and destroyed monasteries in their progress promiscuously, everywhere diffusing the wildest terror, and regarded as the harbingers of the coming day of judgment.”
(The See of Rome in the Middle Ages, Oswald J. Reichel, pg.50)

“After the short reign of Cleph, the elected successor of Alboin, the kingdom was divided into dukedoms (573AD), and these martial independent princes continued to extend their ravages over the still retiring limits of the Roman dominion. They compelled the cultivators of the soil to pay a third part of their produce; they plundered churches and monasteries without scruple; massacred the clergy, destroyed the cities, and mowed down the people like corn.”
(History of Latin Christianity, Milman, Vol. 2, Chapt. 7, pg.74)

From 538 onward, the Catholic Faith was undisbutably the offical religion of the two Empire's. The power of the RCC only grew from here...

It is only undisputed if you completely discount the return of the Ostrogothic kingdom under Totila, or the Arian invasion of the Lombard tribe in 568AD.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[NumberOneSon]

So Husky, have you discovered any historical sources that credit the papacy with the destruction of the Heruli, Vandal, and Ostrogothic tribes, and have you found documentation showing that pagan Rome handed the papacy temporal power over the Western Empire? If not, then wouldn't you agree that that is a problem?

In Christ,

Acts6:5