FSTDT Forums
Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on August 31, 2018, 08:08:22 pm
-
I feared getting judged by God for leaving the Catholic Church again over discovering that the rightful line went through Harold Godwinson. However I did further research into English history and discovered who the actual true heir is so now I don’t have that problem anymore and converted back to Catholicism and will have to confess again for leaving Catholicism again and the masturbations I did.
During the Anglo Saxon period of England before the Vikings invaded, the dominant Kingdom was Mercia during the period known as the Mercian Supremacy. Much of Mercia was later conquered by the Danes and the last Mercian King Ceolwulf died in 879. However I traced the line of succession to the Mercian throne. It goes through the Kings of the Welsh Kingdom of Gwynedd and then later the Principality of Wales before it was conquered by the English.
I traced the rightful heirs to Wales and the furthest I got to was this guy. https://www.geni.com/people/Charles-Bassett/1945421?through=1945346 He died, but his heirs should be crowned Prince of Wales, King of Mercia, and Bretwalda(Overlord) of the English. The Kingdom of Wessex should be restored as a puppet Kingdom of Mercia. The rightful heir of Wessex should become King of Wessex.
I was also recently visited by my parallel self from a parallel universe and a wizard merged us into one causing me to have memories from the parallel universe so now I am going to write about what happened in that universe to promote the English monarchist legitimist cause and how the rightful heirs can be restored and to teach a lesson on extramarital sex. It often causes disasters, though it is rare that it causes a Kingdom to fall like it did in the parallel universe. There are probably parallel universes where Republics fell over a cuckold.
-
OK, I'm calling Poe.
-
Well.
(https://geni3-mhcache-com-myheritage.netdna-ssl.com/images/no_photo_m.gif?1374076986)
It shan't present a challenge for the Royal Mint at least.
-
Now I made the National anthem based on what it was in the parallel universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zLbknFG6Tg&feature=youtu.be
-
But if you go back even further, the Saxons were just invaders (pagan invaders, no less) with no legitimate claims to any of the British fiefs and simply took it by force. Took it by force from those who brought civilisation and Christianity to what is now England, no less. Therefore, shouldn't the true rightful ruler of not just Britannia but all of Europe, North Africa, Anatolia and the Levant be the Roman Empire? Makes sense, no.
In fact, it makes your life even easier as there was no hereditary rule below the Emperor himself. Governors were appointed based on merit (in theory). Therefore, you only need to find one True Heir, and you have not just England but pretty much the rest of Christendom and a good chunk of Islamdom (or whatever the fuck it's called) covered.
-
But if you go back even further, the Saxons were just invaders (pagan invaders, no less) with no legitimate claims to any of the British fiefs and simply took it by force. Took it by force from those who brought civilisation and Christianity to what is now England, no less. Therefore, shouldn't the true rightful ruler of not just Britannia but all of Europe, North Africa, Anatolia and the Levant be the Roman Empire? Makes sense, no.
In fact, it makes your life even easier as there was no hereditary rule below the Emperor himself. Governors were appointed based on merit (in theory). Therefore, you only need to find one True Heir, and you have not just England but pretty much the rest of Christendom and a good chunk of Islamdom (or whatever the fuck it's called) covered.
The Romans withdrew from Britain and then the Roman Empire fell, so the Anglo Saxons who settled after the withdrawal established their Kingdom’s legitimately.
-
But if you go back even further, the Saxons were just invaders (pagan invaders, no less) with no legitimate claims to any of the British fiefs and simply took it by force. Took it by force from those who brought civilisation and Christianity to what is now England, no less. Therefore, shouldn't the true rightful ruler of not just Britannia but all of Europe, North Africa, Anatolia and the Levant be the Roman Empire? Makes sense, no.
In fact, it makes your life even easier as there was no hereditary rule below the Emperor himself. Governors were appointed based on merit (in theory). Therefore, you only need to find one True Heir, and you have not just England but pretty much the rest of Christendom and a good chunk of Islamdom (or whatever the fuck it's called) covered.
The Romans withdrew from Britain and then the Roman Empire fell, so the Anglo Saxons who settled after the withdrawal established their Kingdom’s legitimately.
They withdrew because they didn't have the strength to both maintain their current empire and defend against the pagans from Germania. The very same pagans who would take advantage of the Roman withdrawal to establish control over the formally Christian lands in southern Britannia. If their rule is legitimate, then so is every usurper throughout history, up to and including the Windsors.
-
Now I made the National anthem based on what it was in the parallel universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zLbknFG6Tg&feature=youtu.be
Jacob, have you asked a single British person what they think of your "national anthem?"
There's possibly a descendent of Boudica working in a post office, a bar or teaching Primary somewhere. Gonna go and terrify them, Jakey?
-
I am now divided between who I consider to be more annoying.
Jake Harrison or Jake Paul. Who is the worst Jake?
-
But if you go back even further, the Saxons were just invaders (pagan invaders, no less) with no legitimate claims to any of the British fiefs and simply took it by force. Took it by force from those who brought civilisation and Christianity to what is now England, no less. Therefore, shouldn't the true rightful ruler of not just Britannia but all of Europe, North Africa, Anatolia and the Levant be the Roman Empire? Makes sense, no.
In fact, it makes your life even easier as there was no hereditary rule below the Emperor himself. Governors were appointed based on merit (in theory). Therefore, you only need to find one True Heir, and you have not just England but pretty much the rest of Christendom and a good chunk of Islamdom (or whatever the fuck it's called) covered.
The Romans withdrew from Britain and then the Roman Empire fell, so the Anglo Saxons who settled after the withdrawal established their Kingdom’s legitimately.
They withdrew because they didn't have the strength to both maintain their current empire and defend against the pagans from Germania. The very same pagans who would take advantage of the Roman withdrawal to establish control over the formally Christian lands in southern Britannia. If their rule is legitimate, then so is every usurper throughout history, up to and including the Windsors.
But since the Romans withdrew, they did not usurp any power they just filled in the power vacuum. Besides they later converted to Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church was the successor to the Roman Empire.
-
But since the Romans withdrew, they did not usurp any power they just filled in the power vacuum. Besides they later converted to Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church was the successor to the Roman Empire.
My point is that they withdrew because they were under attack from the very same pagans from Germania that went over to Britain and seized power. They may have attacked in Gaul rather than Britannia, but the end result is no different to if they had attacked Britannia directly. And yes, they converted generations later, but I really don't see how that retroactively makes their initial power grab legitimate. Consider the modern day. If the UK government were to completely collapse, would you be okay with some opportunistic Islamic militias moving in and Balkanising the country, or would you be if anything even more desperate to see your True Heir take power? After all, they're not directly usurping the old government, just filling a power vacuum, and there's a chance that they'll convert to Christianity a few generations later, so it's all perfectly legit, no?
-
But since the Romans withdrew, they did not usurp any power they just filled in the power vacuum. Besides they later converted to Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church was the successor to the Roman Empire.
My point is that they withdrew because they were under attack from the very same pagans from Germania that went over to Britain and seized power. They may have attacked in Gaul rather than Britannia, but the end result is no different to if they had attacked Britannia directly. And yes, they converted generations later, but I really don't see how that retroactively makes their initial power grab legitimate. Consider the modern day. If the UK government were to completely collapse, would you be okay with some opportunistic Islamic militias moving in and Balkanising the country, or would you be if anything even more desperate to see your True Heir take power? After all, they're not directly usurping the old government, just filling a power vacuum, and there's a chance that they'll convert to Christianity a few generations later, so it's all perfectly legit, no?
No because the Muslims are viscous persecutors of Christianity and have a lesser chance of converting to Christianity than pagans. And converting to the successor Church of the Roman Empire legitimizes any illegitimacy, a good example would be the Frankish King Clovis after his conversion to Christianity.
-
No because the Muslims are viscous persecutors of Christianity and have a lesser chance of converting to Christianity than pagans. And converting to the successor Church of the Roman Empire legitimizes any illegitimacy, a good example would be the Frankish King Clovis after his conversion to Christianity.
Might I remind you that Germanic pagans are the guys who not only destroyed the Western Roman Empire, but later built pretty much their entire economy around raiding Christian lands for both loot and slaves, and later on outright invasion. Sure, they lost in the end (by "lost", I mean their descendents eventually converted for the sake of political gain, not that their conquests were ever reclaimed by their rightful owners), but they were every bit as vicious as the Muslims, and arguably far more successful at what they did.
-
Well in the context of the time, slavery was common back then and was practiced under the Romans too. And as I said, converting legitimizes any previous illegitimacy as the Church was the successor to the Roman Empire.
-
Well in the context of the time, slavery was common back then and was practiced under the Romans too. And as I said, converting legitimizes any previous illegitimacy as the Church was the successor to the Roman Empire.
See this is where it gets baffling, Roman empire-stabs, scourges and impales Christ to wood, imprisons and tortures his followers turning some of them into live cat food. Constantine rocks up and suddenly it's all sweet and all is forgiven, how the fuck does that work?
-
Well in the context of the time, slavery was common back then and was practiced under the Romans too. And as I said, converting legitimizes any previous illegitimacy as the Church was the successor to the Roman Empire.
See this is where it gets baffling, Roman empire-stabs, scourges and impales Christ to wood, imprisons and tortures his followers turning some of them into live cat food. Constantine rocks up and suddenly it's all sweet and all is forgiven, how the fuck does that work?
The Roman Empire had both good Emperors who left Christians alone, and bad Emperor’s who persecuted them, but Constantine made the Empire a Holy Christian Empire.
-
Well in the context of the time, slavery was common back then and was practiced under the Romans too. And as I said, converting legitimizes any previous illegitimacy as the Church was the successor to the Roman Empire.
So, enslaving and conquering Christians is fine (even for the sake of human sacrifice), except when Muslims do it. Furthermore, the Church is not the successor to the Roman Empire, it's a remnant of it. It was the religious branch of the Western Roman government, and nowadays is all that's left of it. Furthermore, if the approval of the Church legitimises any ruler, then not only was William of Normandy's claim the gold standard of legitimacy, but every usurper up to King Henry VIII was just as legit. Or does Church approval only legitimise when it's a former pagan conqueror?
I have to say, for a Christian supremacist, you seem to grant a lot of exclusive privileges to non-Christians.
-
Well in the context of the time, slavery was common back then and was practiced under the Romans too. And as I said, converting legitimizes any previous illegitimacy as the Church was the successor to the Roman Empire.
So, enslaving and conquering Christians is fine (even for the sake of human sacrifice), except when Muslims do it. Furthermore, the Church is not the successor to the Roman Empire, it's a remnant of it. It was the religious branch of the Western Roman government, and nowadays is all that's left of it. Furthermore, if the approval of the Church legitimises any ruler, then not only was William of Normandy's claim the gold standard of legitimacy, but every usurper up to King Henry VIII was just as legit. Or does Church approval only legitimise when it's a former pagan conqueror?
I have to say, for a Christian supremacist, you seem to grant a lot of exclusive privileges to non-Christians.
The pagan conquerors still for the most part allowed Christians religious freedom and Christianity still flourished. Being a remnant of the Roman Empire made the Church the successor. And Church approval legitimizes mostly former pagan conquers because since they are legitimized, legitimacy is then based on who their legitimate successors are..
-
The pagan conquerors still for the most part allowed Christians religious freedom and Christianity still flourished. Being a remnant of the Roman Empire made the Church the successor. And Church approval legitimizes mostly former pagan conquers because since they are legitimized, legitimacy is then based on who their legitimate successors are..
Well then, if the approval of the church trumps lineage, then every king up to Henry VIII has been legitimate, as their coronations were presided over and therefore obviously approved by the church. If church approval is good enough to legitimise pagans, then surely it's more than enough to legitimise actual Catholics, right?
-
If you want to support the remnant of the Roman empire's religion then you should be Orthodox Christian. That's just a fact.
-
They're probably a little too sigil spammy with their nicely made icons for Jakey's tastes. ...Too festive for his type.
-
If you want to support the remnant of the Roman empire's religion then you should be Orthodox Christian. That's just a fact.
I thought he was farting around with Orthodox for a bit, was that religion number five...twelve...forget now. Doesn't matter.
-
The pagan conquerors still for the most part allowed Christians religious freedom and Christianity still flourished. Being a remnant of the Roman Empire made the Church the successor. And Church approval legitimizes mostly former pagan conquers because since they are legitimized, legitimacy is then based on who their legitimate successors are..
Well then, if the approval of the church trumps lineage, then every king up to Henry VIII has been legitimate, as their coronations were presided over and therefore obviously approved by the church. If church approval is good enough to legitimise pagans, then surely it's more than enough to legitimise actual Catholics, right?
I never said tha approval of the Church trumps lineage. I said that it legitimizes pagans and that further legitimacy comes from the lineage of the legitimized pagans.
-
If you want to support the remnant of the Roman empire's religion then you should be Orthodox Christian. That's just a fact.
The Orthodox Church is the remnant of the Eastern Roman Empire, while the Catholic Church is the remnant of the Western Roman Empire. The Roman Empire split into two soon before the Western Roman Empire fell.
-
I suspect everyone here already knows that O great and learned one!
-
And once again, Jakey-boy proves his sheer ignorance of one of the most basic tenets of political theory.
-
The pagan conquerors still for the most part allowed Christians religious freedom and Christianity still flourished. Being a remnant of the Roman Empire made the Church the successor. And Church approval legitimizes mostly former pagan conquers because since they are legitimized, legitimacy is then based on who their legitimate successors are..
Well then, if the approval of the church trumps lineage, then every king up to Henry VIII has been legitimate, as their coronations were presided over and therefore obviously approved by the church. If church approval is good enough to legitimise pagans, then surely it's more than enough to legitimise actual Catholics, right?
I never said tha approval of the Church trumps lineage. I said that it legitimizes pagans and that further legitimacy comes from the lineage of the legitimized pagans.
But it does Trump lineage because by your own admission it means that the current, formerly pagan rulers and not the descendants of the previous government are the "true rulers".
-
I still want to know what getting merged by the Wizard means and why he keeps doing it? Is it meant to be convincing? Or is it a euphemism for masturbating in front of a mirror?
-
It's probably an idea he stole from a Harry Potter fanfiction.
-
I think it might mean "a wizard combined me and alternate me".
So Jakob is literally hundreds of equally insane copies of himself floating around in one body. At least as far as he's convinced.
-
And here I thought the whole "headmate" fad was well and truly over.
-
Remember that one Tumblr girl who thought she shat out one of her headmates and wanted to get help finding it?
-
Damn, I almost spat chips all over my screen. Ah, that was truly ridiculous.
Come to think of it, maybe that's what all of this is really about. Every time Jake takes a shit, he curls out one of his parallel universe selves, and he can only get a new one when he finds another True Heir. So he has to keep digging them up in order to stay topped up. Recently, he probably got explosive diarrhoea from some bad Mexican food, which is why he's been going through so many True Heirs as of late.
-
If Jacob is really all about lineage then he should be Orthodox Christian. Western bits of the Roman empire fell and the Byzantine became the only successor to Rome.
And Tsarist Russia inherited the the throne of Rome next and being the last remnant of Tsarist Russia the autonomous Republic of Finland was the last remaining bastion of Rome.
-
If Jacob is really all about lineage then he should be Orthodox Christian. Western bits of the Roman empire fell and the Byzantine became the only successor to Rome.
And Tsarist Russia inherited the the throne of Rome next and being the last remnant of Tsarist Russia the autonomous Republic of Finland was the last remaining bastion of Rome.
The Byzantine Empire was only the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire since the Empire got divided. The Catholic Church was only the successor of the Western Empire.
-
The pagan conquerors still for the most part allowed Christians religious freedom and Christianity still flourished. Being a remnant of the Roman Empire made the Church the successor. And Church approval legitimizes mostly former pagan conquers because since they are legitimized, legitimacy is then based on who their legitimate successors are..
Well then, if the approval of the church trumps lineage, then every king up to Henry VIII has been legitimate, as their coronations were presided over and therefore obviously approved by the church. If church approval is good enough to legitimise pagans, then surely it's more than enough to legitimise actual Catholics, right?
I never said tha approval of the Church trumps lineage. I said that it legitimizes pagans and that further legitimacy comes from the lineage of the legitimized pagans.
But it does Trump lineage because by your own admission it means that the current, formerly pagan rulers and not the descendants of the previous government are the "true rulers".
The Catholic Church was the successor of the Western Roman Empire so the rulers were legitimized by the successors of the previous government.
-
If Jacob is really all about lineage then he should be Orthodox Christian. Western bits of the Roman empire fell and the Byzantine became the only successor to Rome.
And Tsarist Russia inherited the the throne of Rome next and being the last remnant of Tsarist Russia the autonomous Republic of Finland was the last remaining bastion of Rome.
The Byzantine Empire was only the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire since the Empire got divided. The Catholic Church was only the successor of the Western Empire.
The Byzantine Empire was the legitimate successor to the Roman Empire. By denying this you prove that you don't really care about succession or who is the rightful heir. The way you handle this situation is what my people refer as "the same way as the devil reads the bible."
-
If Jacob is really all about lineage then he should be Orthodox Christian. Western bits of the Roman empire fell and the Byzantine became the only successor to Rome.
And Tsarist Russia inherited the the throne of Rome next and being the last remnant of Tsarist Russia the autonomous Republic of Finland was the last remaining bastion of Rome.
The Byzantine Empire was only the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire since the Empire got divided. The Catholic Church was only the successor of the Western Empire.
The Byzantine Empire was the legitimate successor to the Roman Empire. By denying this you prove that you don't really care about succession or who is the rightful heir. The way you handle this situation is what my people refer as "the same way as the devil reads the bible."
As I said, the Empire got divided so it is the successor of the Eastern part not the Western part.
-
The western bits collapsed and Byzantine Empire became the sole rightful successor. By denying this you are simply proving that you don't care about the right of inheritance.
-
Jacob. Wanna know a secret? It's in the spoiler below to protect those that don't wanna know. Cause it's a secret.
-
If Jacob is really all about lineage then he should be Orthodox Christian. Western bits of the Roman empire fell and the Byzantine became the only successor to Rome.
And Tsarist Russia inherited the the throne of Rome next and being the last remnant of Tsarist Russia the autonomous Republic of Finland was the last remaining bastion of Rome.
The Byzantine Empire was only the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire since the Empire got divided. The Catholic Church was only the successor of the Western Empire.
The Byzantine Empire was the legitimate successor to the Roman Empire. By denying this you prove that you don't really care about succession or who is the rightful heir. The way you handle this situation is what my people refer as "the same way as the devil reads the bible."
As I said, the Empire got divided so it is the successor of the Eastern part not the Western part.
The 'western part' was splintered, looted and overtaken by invaders, so much so that later emperors abandoned Rome and set up shop in Ravenna. When the "last emperor" Romulus Augustulus, a guy entirely dependent on his foreign patron King Odoacer, was deposed in 476 there wasn't much of a "western empire" left to defend. The Goths ate it, and no I don't mean New Romantics who dress like vampires.
-
If Jacob is really all about lineage then he should be Orthodox Christian. Western bits of the Roman empire fell and the Byzantine became the only successor to Rome.
And Tsarist Russia inherited the the throne of Rome next and being the last remnant of Tsarist Russia the autonomous Republic of Finland was the last remaining bastion of Rome.
The Byzantine Empire was only the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire since the Empire got divided. The Catholic Church was only the successor of the Western Empire.
The Byzantine Empire was the legitimate successor to the Roman Empire. By denying this you prove that you don't really care about succession or who is the rightful heir. The way you handle this situation is what my people refer as "the same way as the devil reads the bible."
As I said, the Empire got divided so it is the successor of the Eastern part not the Western part.
The 'western part' was splintered, looted and overtaken by invaders, so much so that later emperors abandoned Rome and set up shop in Ravenna. When the "last emperor" Romulus Augustulus, a guy entirely dependent on his foreign patron King Odoacer, was deposed in 476 there wasn't much of a "western empire" left to defend. The Goths ate it, and no I don't mean New Romantics who dress like vampires.
And the Catholic Church was left as a remnant.
-
You are completely ignoring Askold's point, deliberately one presumes. Your fixation on lineages is dependent on familial lines, the RCC did not have a familial line of succession but the Byzantine empire did.
-
The pagan conquerors still for the most part allowed Christians religious freedom and Christianity still flourished. Being a remnant of the Roman Empire made the Church the successor. And Church approval legitimizes mostly former pagan conquers because since they are legitimized, legitimacy is then based on who their legitimate successors are..
Well then, if the approval of the church trumps lineage, then every king up to Henry VIII has been legitimate, as their coronations were presided over and therefore obviously approved by the church. If church approval is good enough to legitimise pagans, then surely it's more than enough to legitimise actual Catholics, right?
I never said tha approval of the Church trumps lineage. I said that it legitimizes pagans and that further legitimacy comes from the lineage of the legitimized pagans.
But it does Trump lineage because by your own admission it means that the current, formerly pagan rulers and not the descendants of the previous government are the "true rulers".
The Catholic Church was the successor of the Western Roman Empire so the rulers were legitimized by the successors of the previous government.
Remnant they may be, but that does not mean they have the authority to legitimise one dynasty over another. If they do, then your search for a True Heir is moot because the Church happily coronated kings of different lineages, and later on failed to even try to challenge the Anglican Church doing the exact same thing. So either the Church does have the authority to legitimise previously illegitimate rulers, in which case Elizabeth II is the True Monarch of England, or it does not, in which case the direct descendent of Flavius Honorius Augustus as per the relevant succession laws is the one and only True Heir to not only England, but the entire rest of the former Western Roman Empire.
You can't have it both ways, Jakington.
-
You are completely ignoring Askold's point, deliberately one presumes. Your fixation on lineages is dependent on familial lines, the RCC did not have a familial line of succession but the Byzantine empire did.
They were hereditary successors of those who were given the Eastern half of the Empire when it was divided, as they were not given the Western half. The Roman Empire has dynasties but wasn’t strictly hereditary as there were multiple dynasties. Therefore he RCC is the successor of the Western half.
-
The pagan conquerors still for the most part allowed Christians religious freedom and Christianity still flourished. Being a remnant of the Roman Empire made the Church the successor. And Church approval legitimizes mostly former pagan conquers because since they are legitimized, legitimacy is then based on who their legitimate successors are..
Well then, if the approval of the church trumps lineage, then every king up to Henry VIII has been legitimate, as their coronations were presided over and therefore obviously approved by the church. If church approval is good enough to legitimise pagans, then surely it's more than enough to legitimise actual Catholics, right?
I never said tha approval of the Church trumps lineage. I said that it legitimizes pagans and that further legitimacy comes from the lineage of the legitimized pagans.
But it does Trump lineage because by your own admission it means that the current, formerly pagan rulers and not the descendants of the previous government are the "true rulers".
The Catholic Church was the successor of the Western Roman Empire so the rulers were legitimized by the successors of the previous government.
Remnant they may be, but that does not mean they have the authority to legitimise one dynasty over another. If they do, then your search for a True Heir is moot because the Church happily coronated kings of different lineages, and later on failed to even try to challenge the Anglican Church doing the exact same thing. So either the Church does have the authority to legitimise previously illegitimate rulers, in which case Elizabeth II is the True Monarch of England, or it does not, in which case the direct descendent of Flavius Honorius Augustus as per the relevant succession laws is the one and only True Heir to not only England, but the entire rest of the former Western Roman Empire.
You can't have it both ways, Jakington.
It is not that hard to understand. The RCC legitimized rulers so they must have legitimate succession from them. Therefore the first legitimization is the most important and the coronations of monarchs of different lineages are illegitimate because they violate the previous coronations.
-
It is not that hard to understand. The RCC legitimized rulers so they must have legitimate succession from them. Therefore the first legitimization is the most important and the coronations of monarchs of different lineages are illegitimate because they violate the previous coronations.
And yet you're perfectly happy for your "first" legitimisation to permanently disinherit the heirs of the previous, Church backed ruler. Again, either the Church can legitimise new dynasties while disinheriting the previous, or it can't. Pick one.
-
It is not that hard to understand. The RCC legitimized rulers so they must have legitimate succession from them. Therefore the first legitimization is the most important and the coronations of monarchs of different lineages are illegitimate because they violate the previous coronations.
And yet you're perfectly happy for your "first" legitimisation to permanently disinherit the heirs of the previous, Church backed ruler. Again, either the Church can legitimise new dynasties while disinheriting the previous, or it can't. Pick one.
But the first legitimizations did not disinherit the heirs to previous rulers because the RCC were the successors to the previous rulers.
-
You are completely ignoring Askold's point, deliberately one presumes. Your fixation on lineages is dependent on familial lines, the RCC did not have a familial line of succession but the Byzantine empire did.
They were hereditary successors of those who were given the Eastern half of the Empire when it was divided, as they were not given the Western half. The Roman Empire has dynasties but wasn’t strictly hereditary as there were multiple dynasties. Therefore he RCC is the successor of the Western half.
By the time of the last Emperor the western Roman empire was being divvies up by Goths and Vandals, that last Emperor was the vassal of one. The Catholic church wasn't the arm of a state it was the remnant of one, power lay with those foreign kings. The church wasn't powerless but it toed the line for them, not the other way around.
-
You are completely ignoring Askold's point, deliberately one presumes. Your fixation on lineages is dependent on familial lines, the RCC did not have a familial line of succession but the Byzantine empire did.
They were hereditary successors of those who were given the Eastern half of the Empire when it was divided, as they were not given the Western half. The Roman Empire has dynasties but wasn’t strictly hereditary as there were multiple dynasties. Therefore he RCC is the successor of the Western half.
By the time of the last Emperor the western Roman empire was being divvies up by Goths and Vandals, that last Emperor was the vassal of one. The Catholic church wasn't the arm of a state it was the remnant of one, power lay with those foreign kings. The church wasn't powerless but it toed the line for them, not the other way around.
From the Wikipedia article on the Western Roman Empire
“In historiography, the Western Roman Empire refers to the western provinces of the Roman Empire at any time during which they were administered by a separate independent Imperial court, coequal with that administering the eastern provinces, referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire.” Therefore the Western Emperor’s power was equal to that of the Eastern Empire and the Catholic Church is it’s remnant.
-
But the first legitimizations did not disinherit the heirs to previous rulers because the RCC were the successors to the previous rulers.
As I said, it disinherited the rightful heirs of Flavius Honorius Augustus. If the Church had the authority to do that, then it had the authority to coronate future usurpers as it saw fit.
Both ways. You cannot have it.
-
But the first legitimizations did not disinherit the heirs to previous rulers because the RCC were the successors to the previous rulers.
As I said, it disinherited the rightful heirs of Flavius Honorius Augustus. If the Church had the authority to do that, then it had the authority to coronate future usurpers as it saw fit.
Both ways. You cannot have it.
The Roman Empire was not strictly hereditary, Flavius Honorius Augustus’ dynasty in the Western Empire was replaced before it’s fall, and he did not have known descendants by the time the pagan European rulers converted and were legitimized. The Catholic Church was therefore the rightful successors to Flavius Honorius Augustus.
-
The Roman Empire was not strictly hereditary, Flavius Honorius Augustus’ dynasty in the Western Empire was replaced before it’s fall
Yes, and the crown changed dynasties a number of times throughout England's history as well, as you are no doubt aware. Yet when the title changes families, as it often does in any feudal government, it's a heinous injustice which simply must be corrected at all costs, even if the Rightful Heir of this week himself doesn't give a shit. In fact, I believe your exact words were:
And have the rightful heirs continue to be deprived of what is rightfully theirs which they have been deprived of since 1189? Never!
So, I guess it was okay for the heirs to have what's rightfully theirs given taken away without their knowledge, much less consent, with the backing of the Church before 1189 (or 879 nowadays), but not after. Again, double standards.
and he did not have known descendants by the time the pagan European rulers converted and were legitimized. The Catholic Church was therefore the rightful successors to Flavius Honorius Augustus.
So, conspiracies to commit treason, start not just one but several blatant wars of aggression between nuclear powers and even kidnap and rape reluctant would-be monarchs are totally cool, but a bit of research is going to far? Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given your stance on the king's vassals. Double standards for the sake of blatant laziness. Yeah, you're a real inspiration to the cause, Jakey boy.
-
You are completely ignoring Askold's point, deliberately one presumes. Your fixation on lineages is dependent on familial lines, the RCC did not have a familial line of succession but the Byzantine empire did.
They were hereditary successors of those who were given the Eastern half of the Empire when it was divided, as they were not given the Western half. The Roman Empire has dynasties but wasn’t strictly hereditary as there were multiple dynasties. Therefore he RCC is the successor of the Western half.
By the time of the last Emperor the western Roman empire was being divvies up by Goths and Vandals, that last Emperor was the vassal of one. The Catholic church wasn't the arm of a state it was the remnant of one, power lay with those foreign kings. The church wasn't powerless but it toed the line for them, not the other way around.
From the Wikipedia article on the Western Roman Empire
“In historiography, the Western Roman Empire refers to the western provinces of the Roman Empire at any time during which they were administered by a separate independent Imperial court, coequal with that administering the eastern provinces, referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire.” Therefore the Western Emperor’s power was equal to that of the Eastern Empire and the Catholic Church is it’s remnant.
You are of course referring to the Western Empire that collapsed. Collapsed as in Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, yes?
-
The Roman Empire was not strictly hereditary, Flavius Honorius Augustus’ dynasty in the Western Empire was replaced before it’s fall
Yes, and the crown changed dynasties a number of times throughout England's history as well, as you are no doubt aware. Yet when the title changes families, as it often does in any feudal government, it's a heinous injustice which simply must be corrected at all costs, even if the Rightful Heir of this week himself doesn't give a shit. In fact, I believe your exact words were:
And have the rightful heirs continue to be deprived of what is rightfully theirs which they have been deprived of since 1189? Never!
So, I guess it was okay for the heirs to have what's rightfully theirs given taken away without their knowledge, much less consent, with the backing of the Church before 1189 (or 879 nowadays), but not after. Again, double standards.
and he did not have known descendants by the time the pagan European rulers converted and were legitimized. The Catholic Church was therefore the rightful successors to Flavius Honorius Augustus.
So, conspiracies to commit treason, start not just one but several blatant wars of aggression between nuclear powers and even kidnap and rape reluctant would-be monarchs are totally cool, but a bit of research is going to far? Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given your stance on the king's vassals. Double standards for the sake of blatant laziness. Yeah, you're a real inspiration to the cause, Jakey boy.
As I said, the Roman Empire was not strictly hereditary so succession to them is not solely based on descent.
-
And since the western parts of the Roman empire fell the Byzantine became the last remaining part of Rome.
Claiming that the Catholic church somehow embodies the Roman empire is like saying that India is the successor to British Empire.
-
As I said, the Roman Empire was not strictly hereditary so succession to them is not solely based on descent.
It was enough of a thing that the emperor's sons would have a legitimate claim on its lands. A claim that cannot be rightfully handed off to a pagan conqueror without their consent.
-
And since the western parts of the Roman empire fell the Byzantine became the last remaining part of Rome.
Claiming that the Catholic church somehow embodies the Roman empire is like saying that India is the successor to British Empire.
But since the Byzantine Emperors were the heirs to those who were given the Eastern part, they had no claim to the Western part. The fact that the Catholic Church is the successor of the Western part is shown when the Pope had the power to crown Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans, and later crowned Otto the Great and his successors as Holy Roman Emperor.
-
As I said, the Roman Empire was not strictly hereditary so succession to them is not solely based on descent.
It was enough of a thing that the emperor's sons would have a legitimate claim on its lands. A claim that cannot be rightfully handed off to a pagan conqueror without their consent.
From the Wikipedia article on the Roman Emperor. “The Romans considered the office of emperor to be distinct from that of a king. The first emperor, Augustus, resolutely refused recognition as a monarch.[1] Although Augustus could claim that his power was authentically republican, his successor, Tiberius, could not convincingly make the same claim.[2] Nonetheless, for the first three hundred years of Roman Emperors, from Augustus until Diocletian, a great effort was made to emphasize that the Emperors were the leaders of a Republic.
From Diocletian onwards, emperors ruled in an openly monarchic style[3] and did not preserve the nominal principle of a republic, but the contrast with "kings" was maintained: although the imperial succession was generally hereditary, it was only hereditary if there was a suitable candidate acceptable to the army and the bureaucracy,[4] so the principle of automatic inheritance was not adopted. Elements of the Republican institutional framework (senate, consuls, and magistrates) were preserved until the very end of the Western Empire.”
So the descendants of an Emperor would not have a claim based solely on descent.
-
Yet here you are, adopting the inherited kingship of Rome's Germanic barbarian invaders as holy writ and insisting that the people of Britain and Northern Ireland put up with some guy that you say should own the place because of Germanic non Roman inheritance traditions.
Which is it? Are you in favor of Roman republicanism or the inherited monarchies of the Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Goths and other people who jumped all over your beloved Rome?
-
Yet here you are, adopting the inherited kingship of Rome's Germanic barbarian invaders as holy writ and insisting that the people of Britain and Northern Ireland put up with some guy that you say should own the place because of Germanic non Roman inheritance traditions.
Which is it? Are you in favor of Roman republicanism or the inherited monarchies of the Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Goths and other people who jumped all over your beloved Rome?
I am in favor of both. I am in favor of Roman Republicanism during the era of the Roman Empire and inherited monarchies after the invaders converted to Catholicism.
-
Yet here you are, adopting the inherited kingship of Rome's Germanic barbarian invaders as holy writ and insisting that the people of Britain and Northern Ireland put up with some guy that you say should own the place because of Germanic non Roman inheritance traditions.
Which is it? Are you in favor of Roman republicanism or the inherited monarchies of the Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Goths and other people who jumped all over your beloved Rome?
I am in favor of both. I am in favor of Roman Republicanism during the era of the Roman Empire and inherited monarchies after the invaders converted to Catholicism.
You can't be in favor of both, not if you want a coherent ideology. You can't simultaneously be a republican and a monarchist. It doesn't work. You may as well be a Christian atheist, socialist capitalist or an anarchist authoritarian.
-
From the Wikipedia article on the Roman Emperor. “The Romans considered the office of emperor to be distinct from that of a king. The first emperor, Augustus, resolutely refused recognition as a monarch.[1] Although Augustus could claim that his power was authentically republican, his successor, Tiberius, could not convincingly make the same claim.[2] Nonetheless, for the first three hundred years of Roman Emperors, from Augustus until Diocletian, a great effort was made to emphasize that the Emperors were the leaders of a Republic.
From Diocletian onwards, emperors ruled in an openly monarchic style[3] and did not preserve the nominal principle of a republic, but the contrast with "kings" was maintained: although the imperial succession was generally hereditary, it was only hereditary if there was a suitable candidate acceptable to the army and the bureaucracy,[4] so the principle of automatic inheritance was not adopted. Elements of the Republican institutional framework (senate, consuls, and magistrates) were preserved until the very end of the Western Empire.”
So the descendants of an Emperor would not have a claim based solely on descent.
They have more of a claim than pagan invaders. Especially with no army or bureaucracy to turn them down.
-
Yet here you are, adopting the inherited kingship of Rome's Germanic barbarian invaders as holy writ and insisting that the people of Britain and Northern Ireland put up with some guy that you say should own the place because of Germanic non Roman inheritance traditions.
Which is it? Are you in favor of Roman republicanism or the inherited monarchies of the Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Goths and other people who jumped all over your beloved Rome?
I am in favor of both. I am in favor of Roman Republicanism during the era of the Roman Empire and inherited monarchies after the invaders converted to Catholicism.
You can't be in favor of both, not if you want a coherent ideology. You can't simultaneously be a republican and a monarchist. It doesn't work. You may as well be a Christian atheist, socialist capitalist or an anarchist authoritarian.
What I mean is that I liked the form of government the Roman Empire had, but am in favor of inherited monarchies after the fall of the Empire.
-
From the Wikipedia article on the Roman Emperor. “The Romans considered the office of emperor to be distinct from that of a king. The first emperor, Augustus, resolutely refused recognition as a monarch.[1] Although Augustus could claim that his power was authentically republican, his successor, Tiberius, could not convincingly make the same claim.[2] Nonetheless, for the first three hundred years of Roman Emperors, from Augustus until Diocletian, a great effort was made to emphasize that the Emperors were the leaders of a Republic.
From Diocletian onwards, emperors ruled in an openly monarchic style[3] and did not preserve the nominal principle of a republic, but the contrast with "kings" was maintained: although the imperial succession was generally hereditary, it was only hereditary if there was a suitable candidate acceptable to the army and the bureaucracy,[4] so the principle of automatic inheritance was not adopted. Elements of the Republican institutional framework (senate, consuls, and magistrates) were preserved until the very end of the Western Empire.”
So the descendants of an Emperor would not have a claim based solely on descent.
They have more of a claim than pagan invaders. Especially with no army or bureaucracy to turn them down.
They had no army or bureaucracy to legitimize them.
-
Why wasn't the Roman form of government unsuitable for people after the Western Roman Empire fell?
You can't simultaneously be a republican and a monarchist. It doesn't work.
Technically, that depends on your definition of "republican". One definition is that it means you favour a representative democracy (rather than a direct democracy), in which case you can absolutely be both a republican and a monarchist--as I am.
-
They had no army or bureaucracy to legitimize them.
Yes, meaning the hereditary aspect of legitimate rulership is all that was left. If one component of succession ceases to exist while another remains intact and still capable of producing a ruler, then that is the legitimate line of succession. It does not mean an institution that by your own admission does not have the right to legitimise illegitimate rulers can hand off those titles to pagan invaders.
-
Why wasn't the Roman form of government unsuitable for people after the Western Roman Empire fell?
You can't simultaneously be a republican and a monarchist. It doesn't work.
Technically, that depends on your definition of "republican". One definition is that it means you favour a representative democracy (rather than a direct democracy), in which case you can absolutely be both a republican and a monarchist--as I am.
Because the barbarian pagans had a different system so things had to adjust.
-
They had no army or bureaucracy to legitimize them.
Yes, meaning the hereditary aspect of legitimate rulership is all that was left. If one component of succession ceases to exist while another remains intact and still capable of producing a ruler, then that is the legitimate line of succession. It does not mean an institution that by your own admission does not have the right to legitimise illegitimate rulers can hand off those titles to pagan invaders.
The component of support of the army and bureaucracy was a necessary component of legitimacy, and without it, the descendants of the Emperors are not the legitimate successors.
-
Why wasn't the Roman form of government unsuitable for people after the Western Roman Empire fell?
You can't simultaneously be a republican and a monarchist. It doesn't work.
Technically, that depends on your definition of "republican". One definition is that it means you favour a representative democracy (rather than a direct democracy), in which case you can absolutely be both a republican and a monarchist--as I am.
Not in the specific way Jacob is using it anyway. Being both in favour of a system of inherited power and a system that specifically isn't that is just...weird.
But then it's Jacob innit, incoherence and weirdness should be expected by now.
-
The component of support of the army and bureaucracy was a necessary component of legitimacy, and without it, the descendants of the Emperors are not the legitimate successors.
It was the strongest claim that existed at the time, and if you do indeed believe that absolute inherited monarchies are the way to go from now on, it's all they should need in the first place. Indeed, it was stronger than the Church's supposed right to unilaterally disinherit them in favour of pagan conquerors.
-
The component of support of the army and bureaucracy was a necessary component of legitimacy, and without it, the descendants of the Emperors are not the legitimate successors.
It was the strongest claim that existed at the time, and if you do indeed believe that absolute inherited monarchies are the way to go from now on, it's all they should need in the first place. Indeed, it was stronger than the Church's supposed right to unilaterally disinherit them in favour of pagan conquerors.
I believe in automatic inheritance when it is part of a nation’s legal system, which it wasn’t in the Roman Empire. According to the legal system in the Roman Empire, they had no claim, since there was no army of bureaucracy to legitimize them.
-
I believe in automatic inheritance when it is part of a nation’s legal system, which it wasn’t in the Roman Empire. According to the legal system in the Roman Empire, they had no claim, since there was no army of bureaucracy to legitimize them.
Neither did the Germanic invaders. They certainly weren't descended from the previous emperor, nor were they supported by the army and state bureaucracy, nor is there any such law that states the Church has the authority to unilaterally give away provinces to invading pagans. Yet you're perfectly okay with that instance of blatantly unlawful succession. Once again, your double standards are showing.
-
I believe in automatic inheritance when it is part of a nation’s legal system, which it wasn’t in the Roman Empire. According to the legal system in the Roman Empire, they had no claim, since there was no army of bureaucracy to legitimize them.
Neither did the Germanic invaders. They certainly weren't descended from the previous emperor, nor were they supported by the army and state bureaucracy, nor is there any such law that states the Church has the authority to unilaterally give away provinces to invading pagans. Yet you're perfectly okay with that instance of blatantly unlawful succession. Once again, your double standards are showing.
But remember, might makes right, it's why the US can be a democracy after fighting a bloody war to kick out the British while the UK itself can't be since the whole transition from personal rule to Parliamentary rule was gradual and peaceful.
-
But remember, might makes right, it's why the US can be a democracy after fighting a bloody war to kick out the British while the UK itself can't be since the whole transition from personal rule to Parliamentary rule was gradual and peaceful.
Except for the the Hundred Years War and the English Civil War. The results of those wars don't count because reasons.
-
I'm still interested in finding out how or why should anyone care about the "TOTALLY TRUU KING!" anyway? Brits seem satisfied with figurehead monarchs that pay for their upkeep with tourism and though their democratic system is in serious need of an update I don't see much support for doing away with democracy.
Heck, even if some random goons would be happy to be rich after the country destroys itself (much like they financed the BREXIT and got rich by betting against UK) there seems to be no reason for the average citizen to support the crazy idea. Especially since one of the first stages is to start a losing war against former allies.
-
Seems to've worked for Trump...
-
I believe in automatic inheritance when it is part of a nation’s legal system, which it wasn’t in the Roman Empire. According to the legal system in the Roman Empire, they had no claim, since there was no army of bureaucracy to legitimize them.
Neither did the Germanic invaders. They certainly weren't descended from the previous emperor, nor were they supported by the army and state bureaucracy, nor is there any such law that states the Church has the authority to unilaterally give away provinces to invading pagans. Yet you're perfectly okay with that instance of blatantly unlawful succession. Once again, your double standards are showing.
While there wasn’t a law like that under the Roman Empire, the Church was a remnant of the Western Roman Empire so it had the authority to legitimize the invaders upon conversion.
-
I'm still interested in finding out how or why should anyone care about the "TOTALLY TRUU KING!" anyway? Brits seem satisfied with figurehead monarchs that pay for their upkeep with tourism and though their democratic system is in serious need of an update I don't see much support for doing away with democracy.
Heck, even if some random goons would be happy to be rich after the country destroys itself (much like they financed the BREXIT and got rich by betting against UK) there seems to be no reason for the average citizen to support the crazy idea. Especially since one of the first stages is to start a losing war against former allies.
Your correct in saying that the Brits don’t care about who the true King is. That is why an invasion is neccesary.
-
But why would anyone invade them and help some rando become a king? There's really no benefit for anyone in this plan.
Well, maybe some other countries would enjoy seeing UK turn into ruins but they seem to be doing that to themselves with BREXIT.
-
I'm still interested in finding out how or why should anyone care about the "TOTALLY TRUU KING!" anyway? Brits seem satisfied with figurehead monarchs that pay for their upkeep with tourism and though their democratic system is in serious need of an update I don't see much support for doing away with democracy.
Heck, even if some random goons would be happy to be rich after the country destroys itself (much like they financed the BREXIT and got rich by betting against UK) there seems to be no reason for the average citizen to support the crazy idea. Especially since one of the first stages is to start a losing war against former allies.
Your correct in saying that the Brits don’t care about who the true King is. That is why an invasion is neccesary.
But you're not even a Brit. You're a weird American kid with a denim fetish!
-
While there wasn’t a law like that under the Roman Empire, the Church was a remnant of the Western Roman Empire so it had the authority to legitimize the invaders upon conversion.
If the whole, fully intact government must abide by the succession laws, then a single institution that never had the authority to hand out titles in the first place is no different.
-
While there wasn’t a law like that under the Roman Empire, the Church was a remnant of the Western Roman Empire so it had the authority to legitimize the invaders upon conversion.
If the whole, fully intact government must abide by the succession laws, then a single institution that never had the authority to hand out titles in the first place is no different.
No because the Catholic Church is a remnant of the Roman Government while random descendants of an Emperor are not because they were never involved in the Roman government.
-
But why would anyone invade them and help some rando become a king? There's really no benefit for anyone in this plan.
Well, maybe some other countries would enjoy seeing UK turn into ruins but they seem to be doing that to themselves with BREXIT.
As I said, a secret organization will infiltrate the US government taking it over, and then the US will invade the UK.
-
But why would anyone do that? What incentive is there for
a) Anyone to join the secret society?
b) Anyone to follow orders from them?
-
No because the Catholic Church is a remnant of the Roman Government while random descendants of an Emperor are not because they were never involved in the Roman government.
Oh, you mean like those random descendants of a king who were never involved with the UK government, huh? Two standards for the price of one, eh?
-
No because the Catholic Church is a remnant of the Roman Government while random descendants of an Emperor are not because they were never involved in the Roman government.
Oh, you mean like those random descendants of a king who were never involved with the UK government, huh? Two standards for the price of one, eh?
Likewise, what has the Catholic church got to do with the government of Rome? The church may be influential but I don't think it was part of the official government.
-
No because the Catholic Church is a remnant of the Roman Government while random descendants of an Emperor are not because they were never involved in the Roman government.
Oh, you mean like those random descendants of a king who were never involved with the UK government, huh? Two standards for the price of one, eh?
As I said, having involvement with the Roman government was neccesary because the Roman Empire did not have absolute inheritance like the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms.
-
No because the Catholic Church is a remnant of the Roman Government while random descendants of an Emperor are not because they were never involved in the Roman government.
Oh, you mean like those random descendants of a king who were never involved with the UK government, huh? Two standards for the price of one, eh?
Likewise, what has the Catholic church got to do with the government of Rome? The church may be influential but I don't think it was part of the official government.
After Constantine, the Catholic Church became the state religion of the Empire.
-
But why would anyone do that? What incentive is there for
a) Anyone to join the secret society?
b) Anyone to follow orders from them?
I will found the secret society, and be an influential charismatic leader. Many people have started societies. When me and other members have children, the society will grow larger.
-
But why would anyone do that? What incentive is there for
a) Anyone to join the secret society?
b) Anyone to follow orders from them?
I will found the secret society, and be an influential charismatic leader. Many people have started societies. When me and other members have children, the society will grow larger.
Oh. My. Gawd. Please. Stop.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-portrait-hard-laughing-young-260nw-147912089.jpg)
-
At the moment he is only being thwarted by hussies in tight denim jeans and the waste of his seed through being merged by a wizard in front of a mirror.
-
As I said, having involvement with the Roman government was neccesary because the Roman Empire did not have absolute inheritance like the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms.
And as I said, handing off entire provinces to foreign invaders and allowing them to establish their own government was even more unlawful than a purely hereditary emperor.
-
As I said, having involvement with the Roman government was neccesary because the Roman Empire did not have absolute inheritance like the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms.
And as I said, handing off entire provinces to foreign invaders and allowing them to establish their own government was even more unlawful than a purely hereditary emperor.
And as I said, the Catholic Church was the legal remnant of the Western Roman Empire as it became it’s state religion after Constantine while the random descendants of an Emperor had no connection to the fallen government.
-
And as I said, the Catholic Church was the legal remnant of the Western Roman Empire as it became it’s state religion after Constantine while the random descendants of an Emperor had no connection to the fallen government.
Remnant or not, you can't have it both ways. Either succession laws are sacrosanct, and not even the governments that created and enforce them can change them, or they can be changed or in this case outright ignored as the situation demands it. Pick one. Double standards are no bueno.
-
And as I said, the Catholic Church was the legal remnant of the Western Roman Empire as it became it’s state religion after Constantine while the random descendants of an Emperor had no connection to the fallen government.
Remnant or not, you can't have it both ways. Either succession laws are sacrosanct, and not even the governments that created and enforce them can change them, or they can be changed or in this case outright ignored as the situation demands it. Pick one. Double standards are no bueno.
No succession laws are being ignored because the random descendants of the Emperor are not legal successors under the Roman succession laws.
-
No succession laws are being ignored because the random descendants of the Emperor are not legal successors under the Roman succession laws.
Neither are the Saxon conquerors. Nowhere in Roman law does it say that provinces may be handed out by the Church on condition of conversion. Once again, either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be ignored and changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
-
No succession laws are being ignored because the random descendants of the Emperor are not legal successors under the Roman succession laws.
Neither are the Saxon conquerors. Nowhere in Roman law does it say that provinces may be handed out by the Church on condition of conversion. Once again, either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be ignored and changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
True, but as the Church was the successor of the Western Roman Empire it legitimizing the Saxon conquerors is the same as if the Emperors did so.
-
True, but as the Church was the successor of the Western Roman Empire it legitimizing the Saxon conquerors is the same as if the Emperors did so.
No, because your whole argument for all of this neo-feudal bullshit in the first place is that old succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times and never ever changed or disregarded, even by the governments that came up with them in the first place. By your own logic, the correct course of action would be to restore the Roman Army and bureaucracy and have them pick an heir from the Emperor's descendants by any means necessary. In other words, pretty much what you're apparently trying to do already.
-
True, but as the Church was the successor of the Western Roman Empire it legitimizing the Saxon conquerors is the same as if the Emperors did so.
No, because your whole argument for all of this neo-feudal bullshit in the first place is that old succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times and never ever changed or disregarded, even by the governments that came up with them in the first place. By your own logic, the correct course of action would be to restore the Roman Army and bureaucracy and have them pick an heir from the Emperor's descendants by any means necessary. In other words, pretty much what you're apparently trying to do already.
But as the Western Roman Army and Bureaucracy was gone, there were no successors to the army and bureaucracy so the Catholic Church was the only remnant of the Western Empire.
-
But the roman army and bureucracy weren't gone, it still existed in the Byzantine Empire.
The western bits of the Roman empire collapsed. That's a fact.
Byzantine Empire was the remnant of the Roman empire. That's a fact.
The state church became the Orthodox church and claiming that the Catholic church somehow inherited the right to name the next Roman leader is about as silly as saying that Hindus get to choose the next kind of England because that's the main religion of India which used to be part of the British Empire.
-
But the roman army and bureucracy weren't gone, it still existed in the Byzantine Empire.
The western bits of the Roman empire collapsed. That's a fact.
Byzantine Empire was the remnant of the Roman empire. That's a fact.
The state church became the Orthodox church and claiming that the Catholic church somehow inherited the right to name the next Roman leader is about as silly as saying that Hindus get to choose the next kind of England because that's the main religion of India which used to be part of the British Empire.
The Roman Empire got divided into two. One in the West and one in the East. That’s a fact.
Byzantine Emperors were heirs of those who were given the Eastern part not the Western parts. That’s a fact.
The Catholic Church was the Church in the Western Empire. That’s a fact.
Therefore the Catholic Church is the remnant of the Western Roman Empire.
-
At no point did the Romans themselves consider the Empire to have been split into two separate Empires.
-
At no point did the Romans themselves consider the Empire to have been split into two separate Empires.
True which means that both the Byzantine Empire and the Catholic Church were remnants of the Roman Empire.
-
But the Catholic church had no authority because the Orthodox church was the church of the Byzantine Empire which was in every way the only true remnant of the Roman Empire.
-
But the Catholic church had no authority because the Orthodox church was the church of the Byzantine Empire which was in every way the only true remnant of the Roman Empire.
Before the fall of the Latin speaking Western part of the Empire, the Catholic Church was the state religion in the Western part, an example of this is Pope Saint Leo I. The Catholic Church was therefore the remnant of the Western half of the Empire, making it also a remnant of the Roman Empire.
-
But as the Western Roman Army and Bureaucracy was gone.
No shit, Sherlock. That's why I used the word "restore". Possibly by forming a secret society and infiltrating a foreign government in order to hijack it for that purpose. Sound familiar?
-
But as the Western Roman Army and Bureaucracy was gone.
No shit, Sherlock. That's why I used the word "restore". Possibly by forming a secret society and infiltrating a foreign government in order to hijack it for that purpose. Sound familiar?
But the restored army and bureaucracy wouldn’t be the legitimate successors of the old army and bureaucracy. The Church was truly the only remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire.
-
But the restored army and bureaucracy wouldn’t be the legitimate successors of the old army and bureaucracy. The Church was truly the only remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire.
Well then, I guess Europe in Jacob Harrisonsville is doomed to eternal anarchy, now isn't it? As I said, under Roman law (you know, that thing you're citing as the reason why the emperor's descendants are not and can never be the rightful heirs), the Church never had the authority to redraw the borders. If you think it has the right to change the rules for any reason, then you don't get to arbitrarily say that all future changes are wrong because reasons.
Pick a standard, any standard. But remember, you only get one.
-
But the restored army and bureaucracy wouldn’t be the legitimate successors of the old army and bureaucracy. The Church was truly the only remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire.
Well then, I guess Europe in Jacob Harrisonsville is doomed to eternal anarchy, now isn't it? As I said, under Roman law (you know, that thing you're citing as the reason why the emperor's descendants are not and can never be the rightful heirs), the Church never had the authority to redraw the borders. If you think it has the right to change the rules for any reason, then you don't get to arbitrarily say that all future changes are wrong because reasons.
Pick a standard, any standard. But remember, you only get one.
But as I said, the Church was the remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire, which is what gave it the authority to legitimize the conquerors.
-
But as I said, the Church was the remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire, which is what gave it the authority to legitimize the conquerors.
The laws of the land of which it is a remnant do not say that it can do that. Again, either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
-
But the restored army and bureaucracy wouldn’t be the legitimate successors of the old army and bureaucracy. The Church was truly the only remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire.
Well then, I guess Europe in Jacob Harrisonsville is doomed to eternal anarchy, now isn't it? As I said, under Roman law (you know, that thing you're citing as the reason why the emperor's descendants are not and can never be the rightful heirs), the Church never had the authority to redraw the borders. If you think it has the right to change the rules for any reason, then you don't get to arbitrarily say that all future changes are wrong because reasons.
Pick a standard, any standard. But remember, you only get one.
But as I said, the Church was the remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire, which is what gave it the authority to legitimize the conquerors.
This whole idea is bizzare, if one institution of a government survives that governments demise it has all the privileges of that government? Do the surviving institutions of the USSR have authority over all their former territories? I know the Russian Federation would desperately like that to be true but even they know it's not!
And we aren't even talking about the whole government as is the case with Russia, just one arm of the Roman Empire that has a limited portfolio.
-
But the restored army and bureaucracy wouldn’t be the legitimate successors of the old army and bureaucracy. The Church was truly the only remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire.
Well then, I guess Europe in Jacob Harrisonsville is doomed to eternal anarchy, now isn't it? As I said, under Roman law (you know, that thing you're citing as the reason why the emperor's descendants are not and can never be the rightful heirs), the Church never had the authority to redraw the borders. If you think it has the right to change the rules for any reason, then you don't get to arbitrarily say that all future changes are wrong because reasons.
Pick a standard, any standard. But remember, you only get one.
But as I said, the Church was the remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire, which is what gave it the authority to legitimize the conquerors.
This whole idea is bizzare, if one institution of a government survives that governments demise it has all the privileges of that government? Do the surviving institutions of the USSR have authority over all their former territories? I know the Russian Federation would desperately like that to be true but even they know it's not!
And we aren't even talking about the whole government as is the case with Russia, just one arm of the Roman Empire that has a limited portfolio.
The surviving institutions of the USSR are all the former Soviet Republics making them all have individual power over their own territories, just like the Byzantine Empire had authority over he East and the Catholic Church had authority in the West.
-
But as I said, the Church was the remnant of the Western half of the Roman Empire, which is what gave it the authority to legitimize the conquerors.
The laws of the land of which it is a remnant do not say that it can do that. Again, either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
But as it was a remnant, it legitimizing the conquerors is just as valid as if the Emperor’s did so. Being a remnant gives it an automatic right to do so.
-
But it's not even a remnant of the authority. An individual McDonald's burger joint that is sold to a different franchise does not inherit the authority of the McD corporation. Especially not when the McD corporation still exists even if they sell one of the former locations they had.
If being the state church gives some sort of authority, then that authority would have been with the Orthodox church as it remained the state church as it always had been. All this talk about "state church" completely ignores the historical fact that Edict of Thessalonica made Nicene Christianity the state religion and even though both Catholic and Orthodox church are part of that branch of Christianity the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople which means that the Orthodox church is the one that was the most powerful sub-branch of Christianity within Roman Empire.
-
But as it was a remnant, it legitimizing the conquerors is just as valid as if the Emperor’s did so. Being a remnant gives it an automatic right to do so.
Is there some ancient Roman law that we're all unaware of that states that in the event of pretty much everything except the Church collapsing, said Church is to receive all authorities previously afforded any and all former institutions? In fact, is there any circumstance whatsoever in which the Pope may also be crowned Emperor? Because if not, my previous statement remains. Either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
-
But it's not even a remnant of the authority. An individual McDonald's burger joint that is sold to a different franchise does not inherit the authority of the McD corporation. Especially not when the McD corporation still exists even if they sell one of the former locations they had.
If being the state church gives some sort of authority, then that authority would have been with the Orthodox church as it remained the state church as it always had been. All this talk about "state church" completely ignores the historical fact that Edict of Thessalonica made Nicene Christianity the state religion and even though both Catholic and Orthodox church are part of that branch of Christianity the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople which means that the Orthodox church is the one that was the most powerful sub-branch of Christianity within Roman Empire.
Constantinople was the capital of the Eastern half of the Empire. Rome was the capital of the Western half. They were therefore equal in power and influence.
-
But as it was a remnant, it legitimizing the conquerors is just as valid as if the Emperor’s did so. Being a remnant gives it an automatic right to do so.
Is there some ancient Roman law that we're all unaware of that states that in the event of pretty much everything except the Church collapsing, said Church is to receive all authorities previously afforded any and all former institutions? In fact, is there any circumstance whatsoever in which the Pope may also be crowned Emperor? Because if not, my previous statement remains. Either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
No but it’s common sense that the remnant of any fallen government inherited the powers of that government.
-
No it's not. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from that masses, not from some farcical religious ceremony.
-
But as it was a remnant, it legitimizing the conquerors is just as valid as if the Emperor’s did so. Being a remnant gives it an automatic right to do so.
Is there some ancient Roman law that we're all unaware of that states that in the event of pretty much everything except the Church collapsing, said Church is to receive all authorities previously afforded any and all former institutions? In fact, is there any circumstance whatsoever in which the Pope may also be crowned Emperor? Because if not, my previous statement remains. Either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
No but it’s common sense that the remnant of any fallen government inherited the powers of that government.
That's not common sense at all. In fact it's patently absurd on it's face.
-
Hey Jacob just wondering, if hypothetically it turns out that the true heir to the throne is me, will you have to obey any order I give you?
-
No it's not. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from that masses, not from some farcical religious ceremony.
In the Roman Empire, supreme executive power derived from the government not a "mandate from that masses," so as the Catholic Church was the state religion in the Western half of the Roman Empire, it was a remnant of that government making it have the powers of that government.
-
Hey Jacob just wondering, if hypothetically it turns out that the true heir to the throne is me, will you have to obey any order I give you?
Yes, I would. I would help you regain the your rightful throne.
-
I hope that, if that should be the case, Sky's only order to Jakey-boy is to fuck off and let the world get on without these crazy schemes.
-
If the Western bits of Roman empire truly were a separate empire then the vestiges of it had no power to give to anyone. The janitor of a corporation that closes down might be the last employee (because someone has to shut down the lights) but that doesn't mean that they are the new CEO who owns all the intellectual property etc.
The Catholic church only had whatever political power that was given to them by the state, the same as it is now in countries where it is the state church. IF the western Roman empire was a separate entity the authority ended when it collapsed. So even in your pseudohistory this doesn't really work the way you think it does.
Meanwhile in the real world, Catholic church, the way it exists now never held power in the Roman Empire. The Orthodox church has much stronger claim to that as they crowned the Emperors in Constantinople.
-
If the Western bits of Roman empire truly were a separate empire then the vestiges of it had no power to give to anyone. The janitor of a corporation that closes down might be the last employee (because someone has to shut down the lights) but that doesn't mean that they are the new CEO who owns all the intellectual property etc.
The Catholic church only had whatever political power that was given to them by the state, the same as it is now in countries where it is the state church. IF the western Roman empire was a separate entity the authority ended when it collapsed. So even in your pseudohistory this doesn't really work the way you think it does.
Meanwhile in the real world, Catholic church, the way it exists now never held power in the Roman Empire. The Orthodox church has much stronger claim to that as they crowned the Emperors in Constantinople.
As I said, before the Western part of the Empire fell, the Emperors in Rome and Constantinople we’re equal in power so I don’t see how the Orthodox Church would have a stronger claim. The power the Catholic Church was given by the state, made it a powerful remnant of the Western half, and is more analogous to a major bureaucracy within a corporation than a janitor.
-
Prove that the Catholic Church was in fact given government power and not just religious authority, because the two are very different things. You can't just assume that.
-
But it's not even a remnant of the authority. An individual McDonald's burger joint that is sold to a different franchise does not inherit the authority of the McD corporation. Especially not when the McD corporation still exists even if they sell one of the former locations they had.
If being the state church gives some sort of authority, then that authority would have been with the Orthodox church as it remained the state church as it always had been. All this talk about "state church" completely ignores the historical fact that Edict of Thessalonica made Nicene Christianity the state religion and even though both Catholic and Orthodox church are part of that branch of Christianity the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople which means that the Orthodox church is the one that was the most powerful sub-branch of Christianity within Roman Empire.
Constantinople was the capital of the Eastern half of the Empire. Rome was the capital of the Western half. They were therefore equal in power and influence.
Not equal in power and influence because the "western half" was invaded and subdivided by the invaders, the "Western Empire" wasn't at a time when the Eastern Empire still was. It doesn't matter if that bunch of petty kingdoms had a Roman church huddling in the centre of it, a Roman Empire it wasn't!
-
Also, if the Catholic Church could legitimize rulers of former parts of the Western Roman Empire, then William the Conqueror was a legitimate ruler of England.
-
But it's not even a remnant of the authority. An individual McDonald's burger joint that is sold to a different franchise does not inherit the authority of the McD corporation. Especially not when the McD corporation still exists even if they sell one of the former locations they had.
If being the state church gives some sort of authority, then that authority would have been with the Orthodox church as it remained the state church as it always had been. All this talk about "state church" completely ignores the historical fact that Edict of Thessalonica made Nicene Christianity the state religion and even though both Catholic and Orthodox church are part of that branch of Christianity the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople which means that the Orthodox church is the one that was the most powerful sub-branch of Christianity within Roman Empire.
Constantinople was the capital of the Eastern half of the Empire. Rome was the capital of the Western half. They were therefore equal in power and influence.
Not equal in power and influence because the "western half" was invaded and subdivided by the invaders, the "Western Empire" wasn't at a time when the Eastern Empire still was. It doesn't matter if that bunch of petty kingdoms had a Roman church huddling in the centre of it, a Roman Empire it wasn't!
They were equal in power and influence before the Western half fell, meaning that the Catholic Church rightfully inherited the power of the Western half and be equal in succession to the Roman Empire as the Byzantines were.
-
Also, if the Catholic Church could legitimize rulers of former parts of the Western Roman Empire, then William the Conqueror was a legitimate ruler of England.
But legitimization cannot contradict or go against the legitimacy of a royal line previously legitimized.
-
Except that Harold abdicated his legitimacy in an oath before God.
-
They were equal in power and influence before the Western half fell, meaning that the Catholic Church rightfully inherited the power of the Western half and be equal in succession to the Roman Empire as the Byzantines were.
The "western half" was taken by force by the Romans in the first place and wasn't there after it was invaded and collapsed, "rights" don't come into it. You don't get the "right" to own something that was stolen to begin with.
In any case, show us the specific Roman law that says the RCC gets to inherit the Roman empire! Where is it?
-
They were equal in power and influence before the Western half fell, meaning that the Catholic Church rightfully inherited the power of the Western half and be equal in succession to the Roman Empire as the Byzantines were.
The "western half" was taken by force by the Romans in the first place and wasn't there after it was invaded and collapsed, "rights" don't come into it. You don't get the "right" to own something that was stolen to begin with.
In any case, show us the specific Roman law that says the RCC gets to inherit the Roman empire! Where is it?
But the Romans were the first to bring civilization to much of the land of the Western half, where it was previously primitive barbarian tribes.
-
Did those tribes consent to being governed by the Roman Empire? No? Then fuck off.
-
But as it was a remnant, it legitimizing the conquerors is just as valid as if the Emperor’s did so. Being a remnant gives it an automatic right to do so.
Is there some ancient Roman law that we're all unaware of that states that in the event of pretty much everything except the Church collapsing, said Church is to receive all authorities previously afforded any and all former institutions? In fact, is there any circumstance whatsoever in which the Pope may also be crowned Emperor? Because if not, my previous statement remains. Either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
No but it’s common sense that the remnant of any fallen government inherited the powers of that government.
So you're going with succession laws can be changed as circumstances demand. Well, glad to see you've sided with reality over your stupid little "True Heir" hunt.
-
They were equal in power and influence before the Western half fell, meaning that the Catholic Church rightfully inherited the power of the Western half and be equal in succession to the Roman Empire as the Byzantines were.
The "western half" was taken by force by the Romans in the first place and wasn't there after it was invaded and collapsed, "rights" don't come into it. You don't get the "right" to own something that was stolen to begin with.
In any case, show us the specific Roman law that says the RCC gets to inherit the Roman empire! Where is it?
But the Romans were the first to bring civilization to much of the land of the Western half, where it was previously primitive barbarian tribes.
A pagan empire who called the people it subjugated barbarians because that's what conquerors always do, whose Roman pagan values led them to crucify Christ and feed his followers to the lions, or make human torches out of them to light parties.
In any case, Roman law that says the RCC gets to inherit the Roman Empire, direct question, where is it?
-
If you're really gonna go with "only civilized nations count, not barbarians" then I'm afraid we really do have to let India rule over UK.
After all, India had a rich and ancient civilization that had accepted things like LGBT minorities at a time when the British empire persecuted them and considered homosexual acts illegal. Which one of these are the barbarians in your mind?
And as Jacob seems to believe that uncivilized nations don't count, India clearly should be the one with legal power over the entire "British" empire.
-
Prove that the Catholic Church was in fact given government power and not just religious authority, because the two are very different things. You can't just assume that.
-
But as it was a remnant, it legitimizing the conquerors is just as valid as if the Emperor’s did so. Being a remnant gives it an automatic right to do so.
Is there some ancient Roman law that we're all unaware of that states that in the event of pretty much everything except the Church collapsing, said Church is to receive all authorities previously afforded any and all former institutions? In fact, is there any circumstance whatsoever in which the Pope may also be crowned Emperor? Because if not, my previous statement remains. Either succession laws must be followed to the letter at all times, or they can be changed as circumstances demand it. Pick one.
No but it’s common sense that the remnant of any fallen government inherited the powers of that government.
So you're going with succession laws can be changed as circumstances demand. Well, glad to see you've sided with reality over your stupid little "True Heir" hunt.
Succession laws can be changed when the succession isn’t strictly heretitary because it means that there are other forms of succession that can happen, but they can’t be changed in a heretitary monarchy.
-
They were equal in power and influence before the Western half fell, meaning that the Catholic Church rightfully inherited the power of the Western half and be equal in succession to the Roman Empire as the Byzantines were.
The "western half" was taken by force by the Romans in the first place and wasn't there after it was invaded and collapsed, "rights" don't come into it. You don't get the "right" to own something that was stolen to begin with.
In any case, show us the specific Roman law that says the RCC gets to inherit the Roman empire! Where is it?
But the Romans were the first to bring civilization to much of the land of the Western half, where it was previously primitive barbarian tribes.
A pagan empire who called the people it subjugated barbarians because that's what conquerors always do, whose Roman pagan values led them to crucify Christ and feed his followers to the lions, or make human torches out of them to light parties.
In any case, Roman law that says the RCC gets to inherit the Roman Empire, direct question, where is it?
But they were barbarians because they were primitive tribes who didn’t have a unified nation or civilization.
And while their isn’t a law about it, the Catholic Church automatically inherited the Western half of the Roman Empire due to being part of the Roman government due to being the state religion.
-
Prove that the Catholic Church was in fact given government power and not just religious authority, because the two are very different things. You can't just assume that.
While they were just given religious authority before the Western part of the Empire fell, they automatically got political power after it fell due to it being part of the Roman government as the state religion of he Western part.
-
If you're really gonna go with "only civilized nations count, not barbarians" then I'm afraid we really do have to let India rule over UK.
After all, India had a rich and ancient civilization that had accepted things like LGBT minorities at a time when the British empire persecuted them and considered homosexual acts illegal. Which one of these are the barbarians in your mind?
And as Jacob seems to believe that uncivilized nations don't count, India clearly should be the one with legal power over the entire "British" empire.
What I mean by barbarians is being primitive tribes without having a unified nation or civilization.
-
Succession laws can be changed when the succession isn’t strictly heretitary because it means that there are other forms of succession that can happen, but they can’t be changed in a heretitary monarchy.
So, what you're saying is hereditary rule is one giant fuckoff dead end in terms of progress and is to be avoided at all costs if one wishes to avoid eternal stagnation. Well, when you put it like that, I'm absolutely amazed more people don't take your pet cause seriously.
-
Yes, succession laws can be changed in hereditary monarchies, because the monarch only has legitimacy so long as the people over whom the monarch is ruling agree that they do, and that includes the determination of who will rule next.
But then we already knew that you hate democracy.
-
Prove that the Catholic Church was in fact given government power and not just religious authority, because the two are very different things. You can't just assume that.
While they were just given religious authority before the Western part of the Empire fell, they automatically got political power after it fell due to it being part of the Roman government as the state religion of he Western part.
No but it’s common sense that the remnant of any fallen government inherited the powers of that government.
That's not common sense at all. In fact it's patently absurd on it's face.
-
And while their isn’t a law about it, the Catholic Church automatically inherited the Western half of the Roman Empire due to being part of the Roman government due to being the state religion.
By extension Canada, Australia, India, Ireland, Pakistan and New Zealand are all part of the British Empire.
Go tell any Canadian, Aussie, Kiwi, Pakistani, Indian, Irish or Brit that and wait for the belly laughs!
-
And while their isn’t a law about it, the Catholic Church automatically inherited the Western half of the Roman Empire due to being part of the Roman government due to being the state religion.
By extension Canada, Australia, India, Ireland, Pakistan and New Zealand are all part of the British Empire.
Go tell any Canadian, Aussie, Kiwi, Pakistani, Indian, Irish or Brit that and wait for the belly laughs!
But Britain legally gave those countries independence.
-
Walk into any pub in Dublin and tell them the Brits "gave" them independence, I dare ya. See if your Catholicism saves you.
Britain gave independence in some cases, in others they had no choice but to cede it. Regardless one government department does not an entire government make. The head of the CSIRO doesn't get to become the Prime Minister in the event of an apocalypse, nor does the head of NASA become president when America finally implodes. That's stupid!
-
Walk into any pub in Dublin and tell them the Brits "gave" them independence, I dare ya. See if your Catholicism saves you.
Britain gave independence in some cases, in others they had no choice but to cede it. Regardless one government department does not an entire government make. The head of the CSIRO doesn't get to become the Prime Minister in the event of an apocalypse, nor does the head of NASA become president when America finally implodes. That's stupid!
Regardless of how the territories achieved independence, Britain eventually legally recognized them as independent nations. And in the event of government collapse, any surviving insutition does inherit the powers of the government because there are no other remnants left.
-
Walk into any pub in Dublin and tell them the Brits "gave" them independence, I dare ya. See if your Catholicism saves you.
Britain gave independence in some cases, in others they had no choice but to cede it. Regardless one government department does not an entire government make. The head of the CSIRO doesn't get to become the Prime Minister in the event of an apocalypse, nor does the head of NASA become president when America finally implodes. That's stupid!
Regardless of how the territories achieved independence, Britain eventually legally recognized them as independent nations. And in the event of government collapse, any surviving insutition does inherit the powers of the government because there are no other remnants left.
This assumes that any organ of government is the sum of the parts of the rest of the government, that the War Graves Commission has the requisite expertise and authority to run a Federal Bureau of Investigation or a Centre for Disease Control.
It doesn't, the official religion of the Roman Empire was not given explicit authority to command the military, to make laws or to govern regions. It's job was running a state religion, period.
-
Recognition of independence is not the same as a grant of independence.
The US, in particular, was not initially recognized as independent by anyone since nobody wanted to piss off Great Britain, until some of the First Nations (at the time recognized as fully sovereign) recognized the newly-formed United States as sovereign. (It's a precept of international law, by my understanding, that a country is sovereign when they are recognized as such by another sovereign country.) Only after that did other nations begin to recognize the US as independent.
(Which makes the mistreatment of the First Nations by the US as even more disgusting--they're why everyone recognizes you as independent, you ungrateful dipshits.)
-
Walk into any pub in Dublin and tell them the Brits "gave" them independence, I dare ya. See if your Catholicism saves you.
Britain gave independence in some cases, in others they had no choice but to cede it. Regardless one government department does not an entire government make. The head of the CSIRO doesn't get to become the Prime Minister in the event of an apocalypse, nor does the head of NASA become president when America finally implodes. That's stupid!
Regardless of how the territories achieved independence, Britain eventually legally recognized them as independent nations. And in the event of government collapse, any surviving insutition does inherit the powers of the government because there are no other remnants left.
This assumes that any organ of government is the sum of the parts of the rest of the government, that the War Graves Commission has the requisite expertise and authority to run a Federal Bureau of Investigation or a Centre for Disease Control.
It doesn't, the official religion of the Roman Empire was not given explicit authority to command the military, to make laws or to govern regions. It's job was running a state religion, period.
While it is not a sum of the parts before the government collapses, it becomes a sum after the collapse because it inherits the functions of the other parts when those other parts are gone because it’s the only remnant left and someone has to perform the other functions when the other parts are gone.
-
You are assuming something the church itself didn't, their core mission was always maintaining and spreading a religion, not assuming the functions of the Roman state. They obtained power by getting close to those in power, not by supplanting them and introducing a fully fledged theocracy. Indeed the fuedal system was premised on a balance between the power of the church and the noble class, it depended on both groups knowing their place in the system and sticking to it.
-
While it is not a sum of the parts before the government collapses, it becomes a sum after the collapse because it inherits the functions of the other parts when those other parts are gone because it’s the only remnant left and someone has to perform the other functions when the other parts are gone.
Let's use this logic for a minute. Let's say a man dies, as men are weirdly wont to do. His brain, liver, heart, and other vital organs are all unsaveable, but doctors are able to recover the man's spleen and use it in an organ transplant. Hooray! Now, obviously since the spleen has inherited the rights and responsibilities of the rest of the body, the doctors rule that everything that belonged to the dead man now belongs to the man who took his spleen. Common sense, right?
No, it's not common sense. As I said earlier, the very idea is absolutely absurd on its face.
-
Lets not forget that the church depended throughout it's existence on a bargain between it and whatever king, lord or Emperor it glommed onto. These guys didn't want would-be Pharoahs challenging their power, the church assumed certain functions but left temporal authority to their patrons. It couldn't take on the role of the Roman state, not if they wanted to keep their status.
Or their heads!
-
Lets not forget that the church depended throughout it's existence on a bargain between it and whatever king, lord or Emperor it glommed onto. These guys didn't want would-be Pharoahs challenging their power, the church assumed certain functions but left temporal authority to their patrons. It couldn't take on the role of the Roman state, not if they wanted to keep their status.
Or their heads!
They didn't take all the roles, but they had enough remnant power to crown Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans and later the Holy Roman Emperors.
-
And here's where you are wrong. If the state collapses there is no reason to assume or claim that the remnants hold the full authority. Of USA or UK collapsed today and the only remaining institution left was the postal office, it would not mean that the postal office has legal power over the former nation nor does it mean that they have some sort of mandate to take the powers of the institutions and government that collapsed.
The powers of a specific institution are always limited and derived from a different source. The Finnish military for example is specifically forbidden from taking part in politics and they have no authority over civilian government. If the government collapsed the military would not be able to claim that they have the legal right to control Finland.
The power is always based on something, in a democracy the mandate comes from the people. The voters in the country have voted for politicians to represent themselves and that is where their power ultimately comes from though always, for reasons of simplicity and to keep things functional, the politicians have been given several types of powers to decide things and write new laws without requiring a vote from the people over every single detail.
In a kingdom there is either a claim to power by the ruling family, some sort of deal from noble families or like in ancient Sweden the people voted for a king to rule them and have the power to vote for a different king later. In a military junta the power is derived from the barrel of a gun but even there there are laws that are written though it varies whether the laws are followed or not.
The Catholic church did not "inherit" anything from Rome. There was no law written that would say that the church or any other organization gets to take the powers of the state if the senate falls. Go read the laws of UK and I'm pretty sure that there's nothing similar there either or in any other country.
If you really want to move goalposts then I suppose we can argue that de-facto there are occasions where the government has collapsed and another institution has taken over, but I don't recall any where this was anything short of a coup. The military took over Eqypt when they determined that the president is unfit to rule but even they then told the politicians to make things right and organize a vote because they knew not only that military juntas never end well for anyone as well as that their rule would not be legitimate and the voters needed to have a say at who leads the country.
-
And here's where you are wrong. If the state collapses there is no reason to assume or claim that the remnants hold the full authority. Of USA or UK collapsed today and the only remaining institution left was the postal office, it would not mean that the postal office has legal power over the former nation nor does it mean that they have some sort of mandate to take the powers of the institutions and government that collapsed.
The powers of a specific institution are always limited and derived from a different source. The Finnish military for example is specifically forbidden from taking part in politics and they have no authority over civilian government. If the government collapsed the military would not be able to claim that they have the legal right to control Finland.
The power is always based on something, in a democracy the mandate comes from the people. The voters in the country have voted for politicians to represent themselves and that is where their power ultimately comes from though always, for reasons of simplicity and to keep things functional, the politicians have been given several types of powers to decide things and write new laws without requiring a vote from the people over every single detail.
In a kingdom there is either a claim to power by the ruling family, some sort of deal from noble families or like in ancient Sweden the people voted for a king to rule them and have the power to vote for a different king later. In a military junta the power is derived from the barrel of a gun but even there there are laws that are written though it varies whether the laws are followed or not.
The Catholic church did not "inherit" anything from Rome. There was no law written that would say that the church or any other organization gets to take the powers of the state if the senate falls. Go read the laws of UK and I'm pretty sure that there's nothing similar there either or in any other country.
If you really want to move goalposts then I suppose we can argue that de-facto there are occasions where the government has collapsed and another institution has taken over, but I don't recall any where this was anything short of a coup. The military took over Eqypt when they determined that the president is unfit to rule but even they then told the politicians to make things right and organize a vote because they knew not only that military juntas never end well for anyone as well as that their rule would not be legitimate and the voters needed to have a say at who leads the country.
When a government falls, any remnant of the government is supposed to fight back to restore the fallen government. When it does so. it becomes the successor to the fallen government, so even though institutions don't have certain powers before the government collapses, they can gain those powers after. The Catholic Church kept Europe unified after the fall of the Roman Empire, so it gained some of the powers of the former Roman Empire.
-
Interestingly the post before this was my 962nd post and it was about succession to the Roman Empire. 962 was the year Pope John XII crowned Otto the Great Holy Roman Empire.
-
That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.
Neither legally nor de-facto you don't inherit legal powers like that. The laws of succession exist for specific political positions (like, in case of sudden death of a king or president there are usually laws to decide who takes over the position though even then there may be an election needing to be called ASAP.) but not for organizations.
-
That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.
Neither legally nor de-facto you don't inherit legal powers like that. The laws of succession exist for specific political positions (like, in case of sudden death of a king or president there are usually laws to decide who takes over the position though even then there may be an election needing to be called ASAP.) but not for organizations.
But in the event of government collapse, those laws of succession don't work, so some remnant is going to have to fight back and succeed the fallen government so it is de-facto succession. Otherwise, who else will succeed?
-
That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.
Neither legally nor de-facto you don't inherit legal powers like that. The laws of succession exist for specific political positions (like, in case of sudden death of a king or president there are usually laws to decide who takes over the position though even then there may be an election needing to be called ASAP.) but not for organizations.
But in the event of government collapse, those laws of succession don't work, so some remnant is going to have to fight back and succeed the fallen government so it is de-facto succession. Otherwise, who else will succeed?
Maybe nobody, certainly the Roman Catholic Church never expressed any desire to recreate the Roman empire. Your desire to see that fallen state continue doesn't even appear to have been a concern of theirs.
As I said, both Catholic and Orthodox churches entered into arrangements with powerful patrons, they didn't seek to supplant them.
-
That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.
Neither legally nor de-facto you don't inherit legal powers like that. The laws of succession exist for specific political positions (like, in case of sudden death of a king or president there are usually laws to decide who takes over the position though even then there may be an election needing to be called ASAP.) but not for organizations.
But in the event of government collapse, those laws of succession don't work, so some remnant is going to have to fight back and succeed the fallen government so it is de-facto succession. Otherwise, who else will succeed?
Maybe nobody, certainly the Roman Catholic Church never expressed any desire to recreate the Roman empire. Your desire to see that fallen state continue doesn't even appear to have been a concern of theirs.
As I said, both Catholic and Orthodox churches entered into arrangements with powerful patrons, they didn't seek to supplant them.
"I am Caesar, I am the Emperor." Pope Boniface VIII
-
The Pope says a lot of things.
-
"I am Caesar, I am the Emperor." Pope Boniface VIII
"I am the walrus" John Lennon.
"I'm that star up in the sky, I'm that mountain peak up high" R. Kelly.
I'm Slim Shady, yes I'm the real Shady" Eminem.
"I'm Batman" Batman.
-
You chose the one pope who loudly declared that the vatican had both spiritual and temporal power over Christendom and got himself killed by King Philip IV of France for his fuckery! Really?
That's your example?
Correction, nearly got himself killed after being abducted by forces loyal to the French king, the official cause of death was fever but the picture below is a sobering depiction of what happened to the one pope who got it into his head that he was the heir to the Roman Empire.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Bonifac8_Boccaccio.jpg)
-
Here's the deal: Anyone can claim to have power. Whether legal, spiritual, physical or Jedi-power. Heck, Jacob here has claimed all kinds of things.
Sadly, this is not enough to make it legal. You still need to prove to a court or other higher power WHICH HAS THE LEGAL POWER TO RECOGNIZE YOUR CLAIM that you really are who you claim to be or that your organization has that power.
Like Jacob, Boniface made claims but had nothing to back them with. Some may have cared that he excommunicated anyone and everyone who annoyed him but it apparently had little effect on his claims and France (with which he had his main beef) never acknowledged him and instead declared him to be heretical. Which to me seems to have a good case as he tried to do stuff that is way out of line for the pope.
In fact, if we go back to the whole "others have to recognize and approve the power" we can discuss how countries are legally formed. Note that other countries have to accept your country in order for it to be able to do anything with them. If I declare that I am "the sovereign nation of silly but impressive hats" that doesn't really work unless other countries start to say "yeah, that's fine by us. Here's an embassy and a trade deal you silly little fellow." In fact, it may be that I get a visit from the Finnish police or mental health workers who explain to me why I am being a silly boy (and I may be asked to come see a doctor or forced to do so if this is deemed necessary for my well being or for the well being of others.)
And again, countries can die and disappear. People can die and disappear without a heir in which case the country takes whatever property they have and takes care of the burial. Similarly when a nation dies it is not necessarily any of the organizations it has that takes over the region. When USSSR collapsed it wasn't any of their organizations that took over, instead new countries were formed. Note that though many of the organizations still exist (sometimes under new name) none of them controls the regions of former USSSR and instead they are part of the countries within which they reside (and even then only if that country decided to take that organization rather than disband it.)
-
Here's the deal: Anyone can claim to have power. Whether legal, spiritual, physical or Jedi-power. Heck, Jacob here has claimed all kinds of things.
Sadly, this is not enough to make it legal. You still need to prove to a court or other higher power WHICH HAS THE LEGAL POWER TO RECOGNIZE YOUR CLAIM that you really are who you claim to be or that your organization has that power.
Like Jacob, Boniface made claims but had nothing to back them with. Some may have cared that he excommunicated anyone and everyone who annoyed him but it apparently had little effect on his claims and France (with which he had his main beef) never acknowledged him and instead declared him to be heretical. Which to me seems to have a good case as he tried to do stuff that is way out of line for the pope.
In fact, if we go back to the whole "others have to recognize and approve the power" we can discuss how countries are legally formed. Note that other countries have to accept your country in order for it to be able to do anything with them. If I declare that I am "the sovereign nation of silly but impressive hats" that doesn't really work unless other countries start to say "yeah, that's fine by us. Here's an embassy and a trade deal you silly little fellow." In fact, it may be that I get a visit from the Finnish police or mental health workers who explain to me why I am being a silly boy (and I may be asked to come see a doctor or forced to do so if this is deemed necessary for my well being or for the well being of others.)
And again, countries can die and disappear. People can die and disappear without a heir in which case the country takes whatever property they have and takes care of the burial. Similarly when a nation dies it is not necessarily any of the organizations it has that takes over the region. When USSSR collapsed it wasn't any of their organizations that took over, instead new countries were formed. Note that though many of the organizations still exist (sometimes under new name) none of them controls the regions of former USSSR and instead they are part of the countries within which they reside (and even then only if that country decided to take that organization rather than disband it.)
The new nations formed after the collapse of the USSR were the remnants and successors of the USSR as they are successors over their individual territories, much like the Byzantine Empire in the East and the Catholic Church in the West. More proof that the Catholic Church was the successor of the Western part was that the Byzantine Empire eventually recognized Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in Western Europe therefore recognizing that the Pope had the power to crown him with that title.
-
No it is not.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The countries that broke off were legally new entities. Many went back to recreating the nations they used to be before being taken over by USSSR but there is no legal precedent or even a law that would make "successor states" have some kind of legal ownership to the previous nation. If it did it would have meant that all those nations were property of USSSR-successor. Because that's what you are trying to claim, that faction somehow has legal ownership of everything that used to be part of a thing that the faction was previously part of.
Which makes it even stranger that you don't follow the logical route of claiming that the legal heir of Rome is the part of Rome that survived the longest.
-
No it is not.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The countries that broke off were legally new entities. Many went back to recreating the nations they used to be before being taken over by USSSR but there is no legal precedent or even a law that would make "successor states" have some kind of legal ownership to the previous nation. If it did it would have meant that all those nations were property of USSSR-successor. Because that's what you are trying to claim, that faction somehow has legal ownership of everything that used to be part of a thing that the faction was previously part of.
Which makes it even stranger that you don't follow the logical route of claiming that the legal heir of Rome is the part of Rome that survived the longest.
They have legal ownership over the territories that were part of the USSR. They were therefore successors to the individual Soviet Republics. Besides, the Russian Federation took the USSR's place on the UN Security Council.
-
Jacob, a piece of paper claiming ownership means nothing if it doesn't have any legal weight to support it and in the case of the Catholic Church somehow being the heirs of Rome, one pope who's reach exceeded his grasp notwithstanding, no piece of paper confirming ownership ever existed.
Yes, we know you love Rome and the idea of imperial conquerors enslaving the grubby little locals, doesn't make your argument valid.
-
Jacob, a piece of paper claiming ownership means nothing if it doesn't have any legal weight to support it and in the case of the Catholic Church somehow being the heirs of Rome, one pope who's reach exceeded his grasp notwithstanding, no piece of paper confirming ownership ever existed.
Yes, we know you love Rome and the idea of imperial conquerors enslaving the grubby little locals, doesn't make your argument valid.
Well isn’t the crowning of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors and their recognition by the Byzantine Emperor’s enough evidence that it inherited some powers from the Roman Emperors? If it can crown Roman Emperor’s it can legitimize all the pagan conquerors that established the European Kingdoms when they converted.
-
Hitler said that he's the ruler of the Third Reich, drawing a connection to the Holy Roman Empire.
This did not make it legally so, it was just part of their propaganda and what would later become standard Fascist method of trying to claim inheritance to an ancient (and usually highly idealistic version) nation because rather than doing something new for yourself that ideology is all about reliving the (misrepresented) glory days of the old.
-
A Frankish king given lofty titles in order to placate him, yeah-sounds legit!
Also, from your favourite source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne)
Collins points out "that the motivation behind the acceptance of the imperial title was a romantic and antiquarian interest in reviving the Roman empire is highly unlikely."[77] For one thing, such romance would not have appealed either to Franks or Roman Catholics at the turn of the ninth century, both of whom viewed the Classical heritage of the Roman Empire with distrust. The Franks took pride in having "fought against and thrown from their shoulders the heavy yoke of the Romans" and "from the knowledge gained in baptism, clothed in gold and precious stones the bodies of the holy martyrs whom the Romans had killed by fire, by the sword and by wild animals", as Pippin III described it in a law of 763 or 764.[78]
Furthermore, the new title—carrying with it the risk that the new emperor would "make drastic changes to the traditional styles and procedures of government" or "concentrate his attentions on Italy or on Mediterranean concerns more generally"—risked alienating the Frankish leadership.[79]
-
Hitler said that he's the ruler of the Third Reich, drawing a connection to the Holy Roman Empire.
This did not make it legally so, it was just part of their propaganda and what would later become standard Fascist method of trying to claim inheritance to an ancient (and usually highly idealistic version) nation because rather than doing something new for yourself that ideology is all about reliving the (misrepresented) glory days of the old.
You said that the Byzantine Empire was the successor to the Roman Empire. Well there were treaties where the Byzantine Emperor’s recognized Charlemagne and later the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the power of the Popes to crown Emperors was legally recognized by the legitimate successors of Rome.
-
A Frankish king given lofty titles in order to placate him, yeah-sounds legit!
Also, from your favourite source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne)
Collins points out "that the motivation behind the acceptance of the imperial title was a romantic and antiquarian interest in reviving the Roman empire is highly unlikely."[77] For one thing, such romance would not have appealed either to Franks or Roman Catholics at the turn of the ninth century, both of whom viewed the Classical heritage of the Roman Empire with distrust. The Franks took pride in having "fought against and thrown from their shoulders the heavy yoke of the Romans" and "from the knowledge gained in baptism, clothed in gold and precious stones the bodies of the holy martyrs whom the Romans had killed by fire, by the sword and by wild animals", as Pippin III described it in a law of 763 or 764.[78]
Furthermore, the new title—carrying with it the risk that the new emperor would "make drastic changes to the traditional styles and procedures of government" or "concentrate his attentions on Italy or on Mediterranean concerns more generally"—risked alienating the Frankish leadership.[79]
Charlemagne was crowned because Pope Leo III considered Empress Irene of the Byzantine Empire an illegitimate usurper. However Emperor Nikephoros I recognized Charlemagne’s title.
-
You said that the Byzantine Empire was the successor to the Roman Empire. Well there were treaties where the Byzantine Emperor’s recognized Charlemagne and later the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the power of the Popes to crown Emperors was legally recognized by the legitimate successors of Rome.
There are also plenty of laws and treaties and other official bits of paper recognising Lizzie as the rightful Queen of England, and Parliament as the rightful body to hold all of the actual power, yet those are all apparently illegitimate because reasons. It's almost as though you only care about the letter of the law when it happens to align with your pet causes.
-
You said that the Byzantine Empire was the successor to the Roman Empire. Well there were treaties where the Byzantine Emperor’s recognized Charlemagne and later the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the power of the Popes to crown Emperors was legally recognized by the legitimate successors of Rome.
There are also plenty of laws and treaties and other official bits of paper recognising Lizzie as the rightful Queen of England, and Parliament as the rightful body to hold all of the actual power, yet those are all apparently illegitimate because reasons. It's almost as though you only care about the letter of the law when it happens to align with your pet causes.
But those treaties were not done by the legitimate Kings of England while the treaties of the Byzantine Empire were done by the legitimate Byzantine Emperors.
-
But those treaties were not done by the legitimate Kings of England while the treaties of the Byzantine Empire were done by the legitimate Byzantine Emperors.
"Kings' legitimacy is based on treaties.
Treaties' legitimacy is based on kings."
Maybe it's just me, but I think I'm seeing a slight problem with your reasoning.
-
But those treaties were not done by the legitimate Kings of England while the treaties of the Byzantine Empire were done by the legitimate Byzantine Emperors.
"Kings' legitimacy is based on treaties.
Treaties' legitimacy is based on kings."
Maybe it's just me, but I think I'm seeing a slight problem with your reasoning.
I will clarify. A treaty is legitimate if it is done by a legitimate King. A treaty done by a legitimate King can legitimize other Kings.
The legitimate Kong’s of England never signed a treaty that handed the throne to other monarchs.
-
I will clarify. A treaty is legitimate if it is done by a legitimate King. A treaty done by a legitimate King can legitimize other Kings.
The legitimate Kong’s of England never signed a treaty that handed the throne to other monarchs.
Every government the world over recognises Lizzie as the rightful national human zoo exhibit queen of England, and parliament as the rightful government. Unless you're suggesting every country in the world has an illegitimate government, then that should do it, right?
Unless of course, foreign leaders get no say in who is and who isn't the legitimate ruler of a country, in which case your previous citation of Byzantium recognising the Holy Roman Empire and before that the Papacy crowning the Saxon and Frankish conquerors of western Europe is irrelevant by your own admission.
-
Of course, you could just ignore the rather arbitrary notion of legitimacy and realise that whoever has the most power is in charge, regardless of long irrelevant and abandoned feudal succession laws, but why let reality get in the way of one's favourite pet issue, am I right?
-
I will clarify. A treaty is legitimate if it is done by a legitimate King. A treaty done by a legitimate King can legitimize other Kings.
The legitimate Kong’s of England never signed a treaty that handed the throne to other monarchs.
Every government the world over recognises Lizzie as the rightful national human zoo exhibit queen of England, and parliament as the rightful government. Unless you're suggesting every country in the world has an illegitimate government, then that should do it, right?
Unless of course, foreign leaders get no say in who is and who isn't the legitimate ruler of a country, in which case your previous citation of Byzantium recognising the Holy Roman Empire and before that the Papacy crowning the Saxon and Frankish conquerors of western Europe is irrelevant by your own admission.
But the Byzantine Emperors were not mere foreign leaders. They were the successors of the Roman Emperors and they recognized Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperor’s as fellow Emperors.
-
A Frankish king given lofty titles in order to placate him, yeah-sounds legit!
Also, from your favourite source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne)
Collins points out "that the motivation behind the acceptance of the imperial title was a romantic and antiquarian interest in reviving the Roman empire is highly unlikely."[77] For one thing, such romance would not have appealed either to Franks or Roman Catholics at the turn of the ninth century, both of whom viewed the Classical heritage of the Roman Empire with distrust. The Franks took pride in having "fought against and thrown from their shoulders the heavy yoke of the Romans" and "from the knowledge gained in baptism, clothed in gold and precious stones the bodies of the holy martyrs whom the Romans had killed by fire, by the sword and by wild animals", as Pippin III described it in a law of 763 or 764.[78]
Furthermore, the new title—carrying with it the risk that the new emperor would "make drastic changes to the traditional styles and procedures of government" or "concentrate his attentions on Italy or on Mediterranean concerns more generally"—risked alienating the Frankish leadership.[79]
Charlemagne was crowned because Pope Leo III considered Empress Irene of the Byzantine Empire an illegitimate usurper. However Emperor Nikephoros I recognized Charlemagne’s title.
So, realpolitik and horsetrading.
"Legitimacy."
-
But the Byzantine Emperors were not mere foreign leaders. They were the successors of the Roman Emperors and they recognized Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperor’s as fellow Emperors.
Were they now? Here I thought you spent the last several pages arguing that the Papacy were the successors to Rome, and Byzantium's jurisdiction ends where Western Rome's former territory begins.
In any case, I get what you're saying. "Foreign recognition is unnecessary, unless it happens to agree with me, in which case it is a vital and unassailable source of legitimacy because reasons."
-
Recognizing HRE as an existing empire is just that and does not mean any of the other stuff you claimed.
But I'm getting tired of this and I think I'm gonna stay away from here now. There's a limit to how much stupidity I can deal with.
-
But the Byzantine Emperors were not mere foreign leaders. They were the successors of the Roman Emperors and they recognized Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperor’s as fellow Emperors.
Were they now? Here I thought you spent the last several pages arguing that the Papacy were the successors to Rome, and Byzantium's jurisdiction ends where Western Rome's former territory begins.
In any case, I get what you're saying. "Foreign recognition is unnecessary, unless it happens to agree with me, in which case it is a vital and unassailable source of legitimacy because reasons."
And I was saying that the Byzantine Emperors recognized the Pope as such because they recognized their power to crown Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the papacy being the successors to Rome has legal weight to support it.
-
Interesting.
The Roman Empire got divided into two. One in the West and one in the East. That’s a fact.
Byzantine Emperors were heirs of those who were given the Eastern part not the Western parts. That’s a fact.
The Catholic Church was the Church in the Western Empire. That’s a fact.
Therefore the Catholic Church is the remnant of the Western Roman Empire.
And I was saying that the Byzantine Emperors recognized the Pope as such because they recognized their power to crown Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the papacy being the successors to Rome has legal weight to support it.
So, let's summarise.
The Catholic Church are the True Successors to Western Rome because the the empire was split, and therefore Byzantium has zero claim to Western Rome's former territories. The reason the Catholic Church are indeed the True Successors to Western Rome is because they were recognised by Byzantium as such, and Byzantium are of course the successors to all of Rome.
Well, alright then.
-
Interesting.
The Roman Empire got divided into two. One in the West and one in the East. That’s a fact.
Byzantine Emperors were heirs of those who were given the Eastern part not the Western parts. That’s a fact.
The Catholic Church was the Church in the Western Empire. That’s a fact.
Therefore the Catholic Church is the remnant of the Western Roman Empire.
And I was saying that the Byzantine Emperors recognized the Pope as such because they recognized their power to crown Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the papacy being the successors to Rome has legal weight to support it.
So, let's summarise.
The Catholic Church are the True Successors to Western Rome because the the empire was split, and therefore Byzantium has zero claim to Western Rome's former territories. The reason the Catholic Church are indeed the True Successors to Western Rome is because they were recognised by Byzantium as such, and Byzantium are of course the successors to all of Rome.
Well, alright then.
I am saying that the Byzantine recognition shows that they knew that the Catholic Church already had legitimate claims as the successor of the Western part of the Roman Empire.
-
You did not say that.
And I was saying that the Byzantine Emperors recognized the Pope as such because they recognized their power to crown Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the papacy being the successors to Rome has legal weight to support it.
I.e. The Pope's legitimacy and therefore the rest of the Catholic world's legitimacy at least partially stems from Byzantiums recognition.
See, gaslighting is a rather ineffective tactic when we can simply scroll up and see for ourselves what you actually said.
-
You did not say that.
And I was saying that the Byzantine Emperors recognized the Pope as such because they recognized their power to crown Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the papacy being the successors to Rome has legal weight to support it.
I.e. The Pope's legitimacy and therefore the rest of the Catholic world's legitimacy at least partially stems from Byzantiums recognition.
See, gaslighting is a rather ineffective tactic when we can simply scroll up and see for ourselves what you actually said.
Ok I admit it partially stands from Byzantium recognition.
-
Quick, shift more goalposts. That always wins 'em over.
-
Hey, it's not a total loss. The Catholic fundie basically just said that the Church's power and relevancy stems from the approval of folks who aren't even Catholic. Wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't even realise what he just said.
In fact, quoting just to make sure he doesn't try any sneaky little edits.
You did not say that.
And I was saying that the Byzantine Emperors recognized the Pope as such because they recognized their power to crown Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the papacy being the successors to Rome has legal weight to support it.
I.e. The Pope's legitimacy and therefore the rest of the Catholic world's legitimacy at least partially stems from Byzantiums recognition.
See, gaslighting is a rather ineffective tactic when we can simply scroll up and see for ourselves what you actually said.
Ok I admit it partially stands from Byzantium recognition.