Holy Roman Emperor

The title of Holy Roman Emperor had major ramifications in the Middle Ages. The titled denoted a heritage to Roman Emperors, the Cesars but had Christianized elment of 'Holy.' In a practical sense, Emperor was greater than King, it was to be "King of Kings". The political and theological correlations connected to this title were complex. There were essentially three kinds of holy Roman Emperors: the German Holy Roman Emperors, The Popes in Italy, and The Eastern Holy Roman Emperor of Byzantium. Each  sought to assert supremacy, but all three types of Holy Roman Emperor were quite different.

The Holy Roman Emperor of Europe (Germania)

Charles the Great, Charlemagne

The restortation of the Western Empire was puzzlingly affair. The Western Roma, the Empire in the West had fallen to Visigoths in 476 A.D. All vistages of the empire's rule were destroyed, and all the kingdoms and nations once under Roman rule return to their tribal ways creating in essence the Middle Ages. In the dark times, rose one constancy, The Church, in particular, the Roman Catholic Church. This Church asserted a primacy, an unbroken line to the Apostle Peter and its leader was the Papa, or Pope whose throne in Rome was the last remaining ruin of the Western Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church adopted the Law of Rome (Canon Law) and in many rites, customns, and even the choice of the language of Latin paid homage to the former empire. For nearly four hundred years, the Pope asserted the only title close to Holy Roman Emperor, because the newly Christanize pagans were in no place to assume the mantle of emperor, until a man named Charles the Great, better known as Charlemagne came onto the scene of history. Charlemage became force for Catholicism after his baptism, he was stict adherent to the faith, and created universities, councils, and government harking back to the time of ancient Rome with Christian faith. Charlemagne at his cornation as King of Franks (Germans and French), was to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor, but the Pope blank got involved to crown him, so as to insure the Papacy still had greater powers than the Holy Roman Emperor. This singular act would create a feud that would last approximately one thousand years of human history. The Popes and Holy Roman Emperors of the West would constantly vie for power against one another, the most famous conflict being between Fredick II Holy Roman Emperor and Pope Gregory IX.

Fredrick II Holy Roman Emperor

Fredrick was not only a man born in wrong age of history, a man of reason from Age of Reason stuck in later Middle Ages, but Fredrick made friends with Muslims and actually accomplished what no crusade had done since the First under exccomuncation by the Pope, Fredick restored Jerusalem to the Christian Crusaders for ten years via truce, along with Nazareth and Bethlehem. Eventually as Nationalism became the next form of recognizing people groups, the Holy Roman Emperor title became more of a tradition, symbol, and for pomp and show than to assert really any authority. In time the role of Holy Roman Emperor in Germany lost its power when Barons in 17th Century adopted Protestantism, supported The Reformation and used their powers to check Holy Roman Emperor's supremacy.

The Popes of the Church of Rome

The Papal line claims to have been established by St. Peter himself. The Popes were Bishops of Rome who through the dark times of the Western Roma collapsing, had established rappor and reputation for being able to maintain peace, order, and constancy in the chaos. The Pope's power shifted dramatically throughout its history. It began more as baron who owned land, evolved into Spiritual leader of Roman Church of West, asserted such Power under Clement VII that it dominated most of European lives in every facet, then was diminished in power by Nationalism, asserted Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility at Vatican I (infallibility means the Pope declares himself infallible and so God thinks for him, and he becomes co-god), and finally after many military defeats, the See of Rome got isolated to what is called Vatican City and some islands. The Pope asserted spiritual power over people, but then claimed temporal powers (over people's lives), this was odd to the Eastern Roman Emperors, and caused conflict with the European Holy Roman Emperors. The Popes wanted supreme control and power, to be both Vicar of Christ and Holy Roman Emperor. To govern the souls of man and to protect them with swords. This lead it into major conflicts with Eastern Roma, Byzantium and the Holy Roman Emperors of Germania. A great example is Henry II and St. Thomas Beckett. Henry wanted clergy to be tried in secular courts for crimes, so that they could be punished according to the Laws of England, but Beckett asserted the Canon Law, which claimed that clergy could only be tried and punished in ecceslistiacal courts by their peers. This lead to a major feud between former friends Henry and Beckett and ended in Beckett's martyrdom. What Henry and Beckett became pawns of, was the ancient struggle between Holy Roman Emperor's authority and The Holy Vicar of Christ's authority; the temporal and the eternal.

The Holy Roman Emperors of the East

The Eastern Roma, Empire did not suffer the problems of the West. The kingdom was divided between two offices, Bishop and Holy Roman Emperor. The Bishop of Byzantium, in particular the Bishop of its capital Constantinople was charged with the care of the souls of Christians, while the Emperor was charged with care of their bodies, protecting them from pagan invasion. The Bishop did not assert power in secular matters, but had spiritual power over Emperor, just sas Emperor did not assert power in spiritual matters (save for appointing bishops, this eventually did decay into Emperor  controlling the office of bishop), but exerted temporal powers over the people's lives, such as arming them for war, feeding them, medicine, and Law. Under the best Emperors, this balance of powers created a utopia where the Bishop and Emperor acted as the two natures of Christ: God and Man, spiritual and flesh. But in time this collapsed into despot and nepotism where the emperors made the bishops like slaves and punished those they did not like by cutting out their eyes (Byzantine standard punishment). In time the Eastern Emperors became more like tyrannical Caesars of antiquity, and even committed the Massacre of the Latins which had Byzantines killing tens of thousands of Catholics and Venetians in Constantinople. A particularly interesting problem was the realization of a Western Holy Roman Emperor. The Byzantines did not recognize this as ligitament, and believed they were only viable and legal Holy Emperors, but when men with ambitions to be Holy Roman Empror like Bohemond of Toranto came during First Crusade, or Emperor Fredrick II who in one lifetime became Holy Roman Emperor, King of Jerusalem, and King of Sicily; ignoring the assertions of the Western Medieval Emperors and the Popes would prove determinatal in 1204 A.D. during the Fourth Crusade that saw the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders (who had justifications, see the The Crusades A History by Asbridge). Later the Eastern Roma, Byzantium was destroyed forever by the Ottoman Turks, the final blow the a civilization and culture that had lasten thousands of years.

Tsar Nicholas

The Holy Roman Emperor romanticism did not end with Middle Ages. It found resurgence in the history of Russia with the Tsars, which is Kazar or Cesar. These Tsars believed that after the fall of Constantinople and Byzantium to the Ottomans, that Russia was The Third Roma or Rome. It was now upon the Bishop of Kiev (later Moscow) to take the place of Bishop of Constantinople, and Tsar was to be the Emperor just as there had been Holy Roman Bishop and Holy Roman Emperor in Byzantium. The West did not forget either, the Popes actually sought greater power than ever in the council of Vatican I that awarded the Pappas complete powers of Primacy and Infallibility, putting Pope on level of God and even creating a cult of worshippers. The secular European nations would not forget either, a man named Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. Napoleon's ambitions were much like Emperor Julius Cesar of Anitquity, Alexander the Great of Greece, and Fredrick II of Germania roled into one. Thus the three Holy Roman Emperors were on scene once more: Tzar, Pope, and Holy Roman Emperor until Fall of Tzardom to Bolsheviks, the Pope's reduction of power in lands and later policy via Vatican II, and of course Napoleon Bonaparte inevitable decline and fall in power. Within the turn of 19th century, Holy Roman Emperor became more of a title without value, a boon and beautiful ceremony than any assertions to restore the Rome of antiquity.

Napoleon Bonaparte

Perhaps we shall one day see a return of the Holy Roman Emperors in their different forms. Putin of Russia is asserted powers similar to Tzars of old, and wants a Orthodox Christian Russia, and to rule like great empire again. The current Pope Francis I does not seem interested in returning to Vatican I or the Papacy of Middle Ages, but time will tell. In Europe there is no one asserted to be next Holy Roman Emperor since Adolf Hitler and Third Reich (The Reich has connection to Holy Roman Emperor reigns of history in Germania, The First Reich is said to have been connected to Charlemagne). It is possible The Man of Sin, the Antichrist will asserted the title of Holy Roman Emperor when he arrives, since he intends to rule all nations and proclaim himself God. The quest to restore Rome, the Empire has failed in every attempt, and in effect destroyed the last sanctuary of the empire Byzantium, Eastern Roma. It seems doubtful that Rome shall rise again, especially in  world that is ever evolving into more of an Asian and Middle Eastern culture. But that does not mean anyone will not rise to power and seek to be Cesar of this century, Napolean Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler are proof that people can come from the Age of Reason and isms and still try to bring back the Holy Roman Empire.

As Christians we may ask does Holy Roman Emperor conflict with our faith? The answer is complicated. One view is yes, that there is to be only one king, Jesus Christ, "On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords," (Revelation 19:16) and "His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." (Ephesians 1:20-23). It would seem to have a fallible ruler like man representing Christ in secular violates this, and the Pope even is unseated by the line, "And He (Father) have Him (Jesus) as head over all things of the Church, and "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.." (1 Timothy 2;5).

However, there are verses that indicate that saints can rule, "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church," (1 Corinthians 6:2-4), "Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel," (Matthew 19:28), and "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." (Revelation 3:21). The first verse definitely indicates we have right to rule and judge this earth, while second refers to the Apostles alone, and the third is to church Laodicea, though many end times experts (eschatologists) claim that any of promises of the Seven Churches in Revelation can be ours, and that Christ is not just addressing churches in the past, but churches in present and past. The question remains though if a Christian can proclaim themselves Holy Roman Emperor and rule as representative of Christ. The verses seem to indicate more of a eternal and spiritual judgement and rule, closer to Bishop than king, but Paul's words to the Corinthians does affirm we are to establish law both spiritually and over this life. It seems there will be two groups, the Mennonites who believe in only King Jesus, and the Papists who believe in a Christian Vicar, and the Monarchists who believe in Christian King or Emperor. While it seems wise to have Bishop like Peter or Paul, and King or Emperor to protect Christians from persecutors, the abuses that come with such authority have been listed. The truth is that the only perfect Holy Emperor will be Christ Jesus when He returns. Only He will perfectly reign over Rome and the rest of world for one thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6) prior to making a New Heaven and Earth. (Revelation 21:1-15). 

Jesus Christ Reigning, Alpha and Omega, King of Kings