DB> On 04-08-98 Frank Masingill wrote to Day Brown...
 FM> I don't think anybody really knows what kind of experience of order
 FM> permitted the Pontifex Maximus to continue to celebrate the official
 FM> Roman religious rites while as philosophers not subscribing to the
 FM> various religions of the "people."  It seems to be obvious, though, that
 FM> these rites had quite convenient points of merger with the dominant
 FM> sect.
 DB> Agreed that for him, or any particular emperor, at any particular time,
 DB> the judgements must be withheld; but as the pattern that we see over the
 DB> centuries remained, I can set myself as judge, and I see the
 DB> Machiavellian machines work even better with Christianity than they ever
 DB> did with paganism.
 DB> Paganism for one, never suggested that the emperor had the divine right
 DB> to rule as Paul did in Romans 13.  The claims of divinity a particular
 DB> emperor may have made, would have been seen as counter to the authority
 DB> of Zeus/Jupiter as defined by earlier traditions dating from republican
 DB> days.  Even afterwards, the Senate had the privilege of declaring, or
 DB> denying, divinity after the death of a particular emperor, and many of
 DB> the latter modified behavior, and operated with some restraint beleiving
 DB> the senate had that right; which on several occasions, it exercised by
 DB> condemning some to an afterlife in hell.
 DB> After Justinian, the Christian emperors operated with impunity as long
 DB> as they did not challenge the church, which was their friend in
 DB> supporting tyranny.
   None of this is disputed in general, Day, however, I must say that I think
you may give more emphasis to the writings attributed to Paul in fixing the
status of the Church than history strictly allows.  After all, the basis of
the Petrine Theory is associated with Peter, not Paul, and as far as I can 
ee
(and I don't claim to be a historical scholar of Church history) the Church
though its structure right up to the Roman Pontiff seems to be a derivative 
f
the Emperial rites reflecting the work of Constantine and Theodorus in
reversing the Diocletian laws and setting Christianity as the sole legal
religion of the empire.  Historically, it is only speculation, not even
bolstered by a great deal of tradition, that Paul expired in Rome while the
importance of Peter has a greater weight of tradition.  I would say that the
ease with which Charlemagne in 800 ACE accepts and seems to need the 
uthority
of the Roman Pontiff and the ease with which the Papacy bestowed the crown on
him is more than silent testimony that the Roman Empire was really being
continued in the Church.  
   The Pax Romana involved the quieting of revolts within the borders but the
Church had a more difficult time enforcing the same universal laws because of
the political divisions following the withdrawal of the Muslim danger and the
political struggles among Charlemagne's heirs.  As has often been said, the
Holy Roman Empire could at times menace Italy and the seat of the Church but
in fact it was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.  Whatever claims could 
e
laid to Empire were exercised by the Papacy and this is one reason it 
elcomed
the preaching of the Crusades as a means of bolstering its power and perhaps
even healing the Schism with Constantinople.  Of course, that did not happen.
In the wake of the voyages of discovery the emperor (Charles V(Ist of Spain)
ruled over the Panama Canal and probably as far as the Grand Canyon.  The
nation states and the Protestant Revolt finally dealt the old Church-Empire a
death blow which finally ended its life with a legal termination in 1806.
   I would also credit Augustine with furnishing a lot of the cement that 
eld
this mix together so strongly with his fusion of philosophy and Christianity
in a world view for the west.
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------