What happened to the Christianity that gave us the Holy Roman Empire...

[Quid est Veritas?]

Oh do hush.

Charlemagne Crowned as Holy Roman Emperor

Holy Roman Empire - Coronation of Charlemagne as emperor

Look, you are both sort-of correct. Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Romans in 800 AD, while the Eastern Empire was under the Empress Irene; so the Pope could claim crowning a Roman Emperor, not just a restored Western one. This first iteration sort of petered out in the infighting with the crumbling Carolingian factions, so Otto then gained legitimacy by claiming that mantle, looking back to the Carolingians and thus founded the Holy Roman Empire that continued to exist in one form or another till 1806. So Otto claimed to restore the Carolingians that sort-of claimed to be Rome restored, too. The Carolingians claimed to be Rome itself as opposed to the claims of Constantinople, and only with the marriage of Otto II to a Byzantine princess, did the claim to be the Western Empire come to be.

Interestingly, the German Imperial forces were often called the Romans in the sources; as the Eastern Empire continued to call themselves Roman too - with Westerners calling them either Romans or Greeks (Byzantine is an exonym of historians from much later). The Empire only became the Holy Roman Empire under the Hohenstaufen, who claimed it as consecrated by God and therefore Holy, during their repeated tiffs with the papacy. Once elected, an Holy Roman Emperor was technically titled only King of the Romans, till crowned by the Pope as Emperor of the Romans. This political need lead to adopting an additional layer of consecration, as the Popes frequently did not crown the Emperors quickly or at all.

 

[1watchman]

...the Crusades, the Templars, and the Inquisition?

Where has it gone and why did it go, only to be replaced by a kind that seems ashamed of (and opposed to) this history?

All that bad experience was opposed to what the Holy Bible has been showing us from the beginning, so I would say: good riddance. It came in the world, was bad, and is thankfully gone. One can see some of biblical history presently on the current issue of Biblecounsel.net on the Internet, which gives a summary of man's regard for the Word of God.

 

[mindlight]

...the Crusades, the Templars, and the Inquisition?

Where has it gone and why did it go, only to be replaced by a kind that seems ashamed of (and opposed to) this history?

I think that the kind of tough unashamed Christianity you are talking about has been there from the very beginning of the church. Peters denunciation of Annas and Saphira made it clear that God was not to be messed with as was also the case with angelic executions of people like Herod Agrippa. But I would cite Constantine rather than Charlemagne and the HRE as the real source of a sort of faith that allied itself closely to secular power and saw the state and military might as a tool of the church. In the case of Constantine, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great , Aethelstan, Russian tsars that expanded the reach of Christianity across Asia or Spanish Conquistadors that spread it in the Americas there are some successful examples of this alliance. But in other cases that association soiled the name of God with massacres of Christians for booty by crusader Knights in some places. Personally I think the crusades in Spain and the First Crusade were the best examples of these while the Fourth Crusade for example was a total disaster that had dire consequences for Christians across the Middle East.
Arguably the idea that globalised might could be allied to the churches will was last seen with George Bush but not sure that turned out for the best even though getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein was not an evil in itself. But we appear to moving into an era where Americas global influence is in decline and many of the contending nations looking to replace it are mainly godless like China, or in which strong Christian instincts may be drowned out by nationalistic impulses as in case of Russia for instance.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

...the Crusades, the Templars, and the Inquisition?

Where has it gone and why did it go, only to be replaced by a kind that seems ashamed of (and opposed to) this history?

In a nutshell, because God turned His face from the corruption of the official Church and returned the sceptre to the so-called Jews via Protestantism, enlightenment humanism and that ol' black magic.

The Templars are still 'on the payroll', mainly Scottish families heavily into banking and media, courtesy of the usurious credit accounting system inherited from the money-changers. Inhabiting privileged eschelons of the 'pyramid', Satan's control apparatus.

Christians have unfortunately failed to throw these spiritual forces from the temple, instead falling for the devil's revolutionary scheme of schism, renaissance and modernity, founded on state-sponsored usury in the form of capitalism. Ah, the love of money, God's letting us find out what it buys: enslavement - spiritual, economic, mental, you name it. Sin and death.

Now for the good news:

A light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it. (Jn 1:5)

"I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you, And I will appoint you as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the dungeon And those who dwell in darkness from the prison. I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. (Isa 42:6-8)

 

[nolidad]

...the Crusades, the Templars, and the Inquisition?

Where has it gone and why did it go, only to be replaced by a kind that seems ashamed of (and opposed to) this history?

Well the varying iterations of the Roman Empire were never holy. God intervened and broke up Rome during the 13th -17th centuries in the REformation. The church that birthed the Roman church was a watered down filled with pagan and unsaved leaders.

While constantine did a favor to the church in ending the persecutions so it could finally solidify sound doctrine, He also did it a great disservice by marrying church and state and creating an abomination.

 

[tgg]

You are throwing away a heck of a lot of Church history there. Loving one another was about how Christians treat each other, not about how they treat unbelievers.

Believers or unbelievers - we *ALL* come from the same source. We all have the same coloured blood and tears.

We are ALL God's people, and it is neither through acts of war, hatred, or bloody deeds that His Kingdom will be manifest on Earth.

We must look within ourselves to find it through acts of Love, Charity and Humility.

 

[Tom 1]

...the Crusades, the Templars, and the Inquisition?

Where has it gone and why did it go, only to be replaced by a kind that seems ashamed of (and opposed to) this history?

Things like mass murder, torture and the suppression of knowledge have largely gone out of fashion in the West, at least when it comes to our own people.

 

[prodromos]

At the risk of oversimplifying, Constantine united the empire under the guise of Christianity.

Hardly. Christianity was still a minority in a largely pagan empire.

He effectively set the stage for the earthly representation of the kingdom of heaven with Emperor as Gods Viceroy.

What do you think King Hezekiah was, or King David?

This eventually led to the change from Bishops to Popes the "vicar of christ" .

Although the term was first used of Pope Gelasius in the 5th Century, it did not become a consistent title until the very end of the 12th Century.

 

[prodromos]

While constantine did a favor to the church in ending the persecutions so it could finally solidify sound doctrine, He also did it a great disservice by marrying church and state and creating an abomination.

So you would say that King Hezekiah, King David and King Solomon were involved in abomination?

 

[Inkfingers]

We are ALL God's people, and it is neither through acts of war, hatred, or bloody deeds that His Kingdom will be manifest on Earth.

You need to re-read your Bible. Not only are we not all God's people, at the end the Kingdom is established through dividing sheep from goats and an enormous army brought for battle.

Or would you prefer that St Michael had been a pacifist.

Your comments dishonour your ancestors who fought to build a church.

 

[nolidad]

Hardly. Christianity was still a minority in a largely pagan empire.

What do you think King Hezekiah was, or King David?

Although the term was first used of Pope Gelasius in the 5th Century, it did not become a consistent title until the very end of the 12th Century.

Every believer acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit is a "vicar" of Christ or one standing in the place of Jesus! There is no such thing as Apostolic Succession. If there was we should have 12 not one! James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Peter never led the church.

 

[nolidad]

So you would say that King Hezekiah, King David and King Solomon were involved in abomination?

Of course not! There were kings over Israel. The church is not a nation. We are a collection of the saved from all nations!

God never appoionted the church to have a king or land or rules to govern themselves as a nation, but rules tro govern us as individual believers!

 

[thecolorsblend]

...the Crusades, the Templars, and the Inquisition?

Where has it gone and why did it go, only to be replaced by a kind that seems ashamed of (and opposed to) this history?

Christianity is arguably the most propagandized movement in all of history. Christianity has propagandized in favor of itself, factions of Christians have propagandized against other factions of Christians, obviously the anti-Christian forces have had their say as well and so forth.

That's bad enough but these days teaching history is such a touchy subject that even telling the absolute plain truth can land you in hot water sometimes.

The end result of all these factors is that modern Christians tend to have a very warped understanding about what did or didn't happen in bygone eras. Their own biases certainly fuel the misconceptions to the degree that you could tell them the absolute 100% truth and if it conflicts too much with their sense of identity, they reject it as false even tho it isn't. "I've already made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts".

A sad state of affairs. But the true information and the real histories are out there to be found so I'm not worried about this stuff going extinct.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Every believer acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit is a "vicar" of Christ or one standing in the place of Jesus! There is no such thing as Apostolic Succession. If there was we should have 12 not one! James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Peter never led the church.

Peter was the first bishop of Rome, he and Paul are recognized as the first bishops of Antioch. James was the first bishop of Jerulalem.

Apostolic Succession isn't about the Pope being the successor of St. Peter and that's it. It's the fact that all bishops historically since antiquity traced themselves back to the apostles. For example Peter and Paul left Evodius in charge of Antioch, and like Peter and Paul Evodius was one of the victims of Nero's persecution against the Church. After the death of Evodius Ignatius succeeded as bishop--this is the same Ignatius who wrote the seven epistles that bear his name around 107 AD after he had been arrested and was being brought in chains to Rome to face his own martyrdom. The first bishop of Alexandria was Paul and Peter's missionary companion, John Mark, and the current successor to St. Mark is Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria (note that the bishop of Alexandria is also known as "Pope" but this does not carry the same connotations as it does with the Roman Papacy).

There's simply no real debate about whether there was Apostolic Succession in the ancient Church, because it is pretty clear from the writings of the ancient Church that this is the case.

This does not make the Pope "the vicar of Christ" of course, at least no more than any other pastor when that pastor serves the Faithful through the ministering of Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[nolidad]

Peter was the first bishop of Rome, he and Paul are recognized as the first bishops of Antioch. James was the first bishop of Jerulalem.

Apostolic Succession isn't about the Pope being the successor of St. Peter and that's it. It's the fact that all bishops historically since antiquity traced themselves back to the apostles. For example Peter and Paul left Evodius in charge of Antioch, and like Peter and Paul Evodius was one of the victims of Nero's persecution against the Church. After the death of Evodius Ignatius succeeded as bishop--this is the same Ignatius who wrote the seven epistles that bear his name around 107 AD after he had been arrested and was being brought in chains to Rome to face his own martyrdom. The first bishop of Alexandria was Paul and Peter's missionary companion, John Mark, and the current successor to St. Mark is Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria (note that the bishop of Alexandria is also known as "Pope" but this does not carry the same connotations as it does with the Roman Papacy).

There's simply no real debate about whether there was Apostolic Succession in the ancient Church, because it is pretty clear from the writings of the ancient Church that this is the case.

This does not make the Pope "the vicar of Christ" of course, at least no more than any other pastor when that pastor serves the Faithful through the ministering of Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

No He wasn't. He did go to Rome, but He was crucified upside down there.
Well this is not the place for a lengthy debate about apostoloc succession. But according to teh Roman church (which I was a part of) Teh succession always refers to Peter s successors. They also have finally admitted that the list of teh popes from Peter to Constantine was a forgery created by the Dominicans.

When Peter went to Rome the church there was a minscule thing in hiding due to Nero and his intense murderings of believers.

 

[Broken Fence]

Most things are big subjects. I would like to see people answer in their own words not just links if possible. Why has Christianity cease to be, and turned their back, on what they were?

Well unfortunately if your referring to the pope. Whom all the reformers called the antichrist. The office of the pope suffered a fatal headwound when Napoleon took the pope captive and he died in captivity. Then slowly but surely the office of the pope has been regaining political and religious power. Pope Francis has signed treaties with protestant churches, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others with a one world religion and government push.

 

[ViaCrucis]

popes from Peter to Constantine

Constantine was never a pope. You knew that right?

And, no, the list of bishops of Rome from Peter onward aren't a Dominican fabrication. Unless you think Dominican friars time-traveled and forged documents from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th (etc) centuries.

As I don't believe in time-traveling Dominicans, I'm going to go with the historical record.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[nolidad]

Peter was the first bishop of Rome, he and Paul are recognized as the first bishops of Antioch. James was the first bishop of Jerulalem.

Apostolic Succession isn't about the Pope being the successor of St. Peter and that's it. It's the fact that all bishops historically since antiquity traced themselves back to the apostles. For example Peter and Paul left Evodius in charge of Antioch, and like Peter and Paul Evodius was one of the victims of Nero's persecution against the Church. After the death of Evodius Ignatius succeeded as bishop--this is the same Ignatius who wrote the seven epistles that bear his name around 107 AD after he had been arrested and was being brought in chains to Rome to face his own martyrdom. The first bishop of Alexandria was Paul and Peter's missionary companion, John Mark, and the current successor to St. Mark is Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria (note that the bishop of Alexandria is also known as "Pope" but this does not carry the same connotations as it does with the Roman Papacy).

There's simply no real debate about whether there was Apostolic Succession in the ancient Church, because it is pretty clear from the writings of the ancient Church that this is the case.

This does not make the Pope "the vicar of Christ" of course, at least no more than any other pastor when that pastor serves the Faithful through the ministering of Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

Hate to break it to you, but Paul never stayed long enough to be a bishop/presbyter/pastor/shepherd ( different names for the same office, to show the different responsibilities).

The fact that all elders started from the original apostles i sonly a simple fact. Paul appointed Titus to go and appoint Bishops throughout Crete.

 

[tz620q]

No He wasn't. He did go to Rome, but He was crucified upside down there.
Well this is not the place for a lengthy debate about apostoloc succession. But according to teh Roman church (which I was a part of) Teh succession always refers to Peter s successors. They also have finally admitted that the list of teh popes from Peter to Constantine was a forgery created by the Dominicans.

When Peter went to Rome the church there was a minscule thing in hiding due to Nero and his intense murderings of believers.

This excerpt is from Irenaeus' Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 3, paragraphs 2 and 3. This writing has been dated to 174 to 189 A.D. St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominican order lived from 1170 to 1221A.D. So it seems rather impossible that the Dominican's somehow forged Irenaeus' list.

"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

 

[nolidad]

This excerpt is from Irenaeus' Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 3, paragraphs 2 and 3. This writing has been dated to 174 to 189 A.D. St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominican order lived from 1170 to 1221A.D. So it seems rather impossible that the Dominican's somehow forged Irenaeus' list.

"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

And my church was planted in the 1779's and I can bring a list of all the bishops our church had (or pastor which is the same office)

That does not mean Apostolic Succession the way Rome has taught it! The apotles laid down the doctrines! we do not have the same authority to add to the New Testament!