I'm often late to contemplate the Happiest of Faults

That is so good and marvelous that all things are a loss

If they are not my Lord and God enthroned upon a Cross.

____

The agony so bitter sweet that caused our Lord to flood

With injury and misery in every drop of blood,

And as He contemplated every melancholic hour

He let Himself be crucified by all temporal power.

_____

When our Lord was tied to a pillar to be whipped and lashed,

His pain immense and body tense with every skin so slashed,

His bones were bruised and beaten by the broken hearts of man,

Which were deformed, disordered, dead when sin itself began.

_____

Now after having all His flesh reviled, ripped, and torn

They placed upon His head a crafted crown of twisted thorn,

That humbled all the minds of men like no man's ever done,

That burn our blurry eyes more brightly than the rising sun.

_____

And on that dreary, dreaded day, our King taught us the prayer

That if one hopes to be God's son, his cross he must so bare.

For God almighty carried it to Golgatha to die,

Because it was the Cross that crushed the serpant's wicked lie.

_____

Finally, on that day when the Christ drew final breath,

He shouted to the Heavens as His head sank deep in death.

For hour after hour, our Lord hung upon the tree

That would spring forth the living waters of eternity.

_____

And as our Lord was taken down the Cross for Holy Morrow,

He was placed peacefully into the Mother of all Sorrow,

And as she painfully reflected on this in her heart,

she bid farewell to consolation as they both depart.

_____

Remember this all nations and all peoples of the earth,

That none of us are greater than the Cross, which gave us worth.

For no sin is so meager that it did not cause Him pain,

And without Christ, your life shall be forever locked in chain.

___

If anyone dare asks of you, "How can the Cross be true?"

You say that when Christ cried "I thirst!" He truly thirsts for you.

As someone with a deep interest and love for the history of the Holy Roman Empire, it is saddening to see how often popular criticisms of the Empire thrive in both non-academic and academic settings. Many people mock the Holy Roman Empire by citing Voltaire’s famous quote that it was “neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.”1

The Socratic Method website claims that the Empire could not be Holy because it was “characterized by political power struggles, corruption, and overall moral ambiguity, contradicting its claim to holiness,” rashly assuming that the Empire’s holiness was defined by how personally moral an emperor was.2

Isabell Schimmel stated that the Empire was not Roman because it was “primarily Germanic and never matched the grandeur of ancient Rome”, interpreting the identity of “Romanness” as simply a concept of geography and political might.3

Addressing imperial identity, the Circa Project claims it was not an Empire because it was “a collection of states spread across western, central, and southern Europe under the (sometimes weak) control of an elected emperor,” indirectly asserting that an empire is a super-centralized government structure with an absolutist monarch (emperor).4

This essay will attempt to correct these misconceptions by proving that, from the golden years of 800 (Charlemagne’s coronation) through 1356 (the last Golden Bull), the Holy Roman Empire was truly Holy, Roman, and an Empire based on classical, medieval, theological, and historical interpretations of these terms.

These criticisms are usually based on faulty definitions of what it means to be Holy, Roman, and an Empire, and not on the actual historical definitions of these terms.

We will be examining these concepts through the lens of major historical figures like Charlemagne, Frederick Barbarossa, Charles IV, along with others. My primary sources include, but are not limited to, letters from important figures, ecclesiastical writings, and law codes, as well as biographical texts from this era.

I will also be pulling from a wide variety of modern academic literature, including essays, journals, biographies, and the works of authoritative scholars such as Peter H. Wilson (the leading scholar on the subject), James Bryce, Thomas Renna, and many others.

The validity of the Holy Roman Empire is not merely a niche subject for those who study medieval historiography but is vital from a theopolitical perspective.

The reason for this is that the Holy Roman Empire’s validity and legitimacy are absolutely dependent on the doctrinal claims of the Roman Catholic Church, primarily Papal temporal supremacy and the Doctrine of the Two Swords, as proclaimed, defended, and upheld by Popes, Doctors of the Church, and even some Holy Roman Emperors.5

From a historical perspective, the Holy Roman Empire was built on theological and historical ideas (Sacrum, Romanum, and Imperium) that established its legitimacy and solidified its place in history.

The Holy Roman Empire heavily shaped Western civilization and what it would eventually become, and so a proper examination of these terms is crucial to our understanding of Western history.

If our modern conceptions of the terms Sacrum, Romanum, and Imperium are proven to be inaccurate, then not only will our historical understanding of the Holy Roman Empire be inaccurate, but because of its significant impact on over 1000 years of European history, our historical understanding of Western civilization will be as well.

The ideas and concepts that stem from these terms affected how Western states and institutions in the medieval era, antiquity, and the modern era perceived themselves, established their legitimacy, developed their cultural identities, and much more.

Hence, the issue of the Holy Roman Empire’s legitimacy is of vital importance for Western theologians and historians, but it needs to be studied from a unique perspective to judge it as authentically Holy, Roman, and an Empire.

PART I: HOLY

In a survey conducted among students at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, as well as a small outlier of university students not affiliated with Franciscan, 21.1% did not think the Holy Roman Empire was holy for reasons such as “most of its leaders and popes were not holy” and "major corruption between the church and the Empire.”6

When taken as a whole, these students defined the “holiness” of the Holy Roman Empire as the moral virtue of individual leaders (primarily the Emperor and the Pope). While an individual’s moral standing is important, this is not how holiness was used in this context.

The Classical Latin word for holiness used here is Sacrum, which is the nominative, neuter form of the Latin word Sacer. In the positive meaning, the word is defined as “to set apart as sacred” or “consecrated” for service of the divine.7

This word, Sacrum, in the pre-Christian era, was primarily used to denote that a temple, building, or object was being “set apart” as property of the gods under the direct care of the priests and/or state.8

If the Empire’s concept of “holiness” was truly predicated on the individual moral holiness of its leaders, then the Latin word used in the Holy Roman Empire’s title would not be sacrum, but sanctitas, for this term is much closer to the concept of moral virtue and purity than the former.9

We even see these distinctions in Ecclesiastical Latin; in Leo F. Stelten’s Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, the word Sacer is defined as “sacred, consecrated, holy”.10 In contrast, the word for Sanctitudo-Sanctitas is “holiness, piety, sanctity.”11

Moving on to the historical-ideological basis of holiness, the Holy Roman Empire’s Catholic identity must be considered.

While many Catholic and non-Catholic readers may think it is unnecessary and ridiculous to use the Catholic Church’s theology to defend the Empire’s legitimacy from a historical perspective, it is important to remember that we are examining this institution through the history of ideas.

While today, many view this kind of theo-historical analysis as unhistorical, it would be even more unhistorical if we were to not take into account the institution that established the Holy Roman Empire, the Catholic Church.

In Catholicism, the holiness of an institution, or any object or role, is defined by its consecrated mission to serve the will of God as it is set apart for.12

This concept clearly applies to the Holy Roman Empire, as Peter H. Wilson states in his book, Heart of Europe, “The Empire’s primary purpose [was] providing a stable political order for all Christians and defending them against heretics and infidels;” and that “since this was considered a Divine mission, entrusted by God, it opened the possibility that the emperor and Empire were themselves Sacred.”13

This belief that the Roman Empire was molded into a sacred Christian institution (the Imperium Christianum) by the will of God is based on two theological concepts: the Duo Gladii (Two Swords Doctrine) and the Translatio Imperii.

The first doctrine finds its theological locus in Pope St. Gelasius’ letter to the Emperor Anastasius, Famuli Vestrae Pietatis, where he states that “there are two means, August Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled: the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power” and goes on to describe the sacred role of the emperor, given by divine dispensation for the service of the Church.14

All Christian states (Regnum) had a divine sanction to use their temporal authority in defense of and on behalf of the Church.15 The Roman Empire, however, was seen as the ideal embodiment of the Christian state (Imperium) and thus above all other dominions.16

While this letter was written to the Byzantine Emperor, the idea that the Christianized Roman Empire was the Primus Inter Pares or Dominium Mundi above all Christian states was retained when the Pope claimed the right to “transfer” the imperial throne from the Greeks to the Germans.17

This idea, known as the Translatio Imperii, is a medieval historiographical theory that, throughout history, there has been a natural succession of empires and that each declining empire is superseded by another empire.

Building off the Two Swords Doctrine, the Pope, being the wielder of the superior Auctoritas Sacrata (spiritual authority), has, when necessity demands it, the right to transfer the authority of one state to another.18

Analyzing these concepts as a whole, we see why it was fitting that the Holy Roman Emperors, up to Charles V, were the only ones directly confirmed and crowned by the Pope himself, showing his primacy amongst all monarchs by being crowned by the Vicar of Christ himself, rather than another Bishop.19

The idea that the Pope had the right to confirm the election of the King of the Romans (which was the title of the man elected to be emperor) was called the papal approbatio, which saw significant development and was not, despite modern claims, completely annulled by the Golden Bull of 1356.20

Thomas Renna presents good evidence that no Holy Roman Emperor actually wanted to remove the papal approbatio in the imperial election process. Although they certainly wanted to weaken it, removing it completely would have harmed their legitimacy as the authentic Roman Emperors.

The Holy Roman Emperors needed the Pope to assert the Translatio Imperii, because, without the Pope, they would not be the Roman Emperors.21 Embracing the Imperialist stance on the approbatio would have broken “venerable custom”, while embracing the Clementine interpretation would have aggravated the electors.

Charles IV drafted the Golden Bull of 1356 with intentionally vague language regarding the post-Aix coronation so that the Papal confirmation could still take place, proving it was a compromise between the Imperialists and the Papalists rather than an Imperialist masterpiece, as some argue.22

Going back to the Empire’s origins, it is obvious that Charlemagne, despite many moral failings, embodied the Catholic ideal of Christian Regnum better than anyone else at the time.

As James Bryce says in his book, Holy Roman Empire, “His service against Arian heretics... against the Saracen of Spain... had earned him the title of Champion of the Faith and Defender of the Holy See... was now unquestioned lord of Western Europe.”23

Charlemagne was crowned with the Roman diadem and anointed with Holy oil by the Pope as the Imperator Romanorum, charged to defend the Church and to govern Christendom.

Now, even if all this is true in theory, some still argue the Empire was not holy in practice, for it often failed to defend and even attacked the authority of the Papacy and Rome on numerous occasions.24

It should be noted, however, that the Empire’s failure to fulfill its mission does not negate its sacrosanct character, for as we already established, the holiness of an institution is distinct, although tied to, the holiness of its individual leaders at a given point in time.

In Christian history, most sacred institutions fall short of their missions, but it does not mean that their sacrosanct character is permanently removed.25 Even the offices of the individual leaders themselves remain “sacrosanct” despite their failings.26

Some would argue, however, that wicked emperors such as Henry IV, Frederick Barbarossa, and Frederick II, and many others, are clear signs that the Imperial office can, and has, in fact lost its Sacrum identity completely, for these Emperors were deposed by the same man who confirmed power upon them, the Bishop of Rome.

To answer this objection, we need to first examine the nature of these “de-consecrations” and determine the different forms and effects of them. There are three ways that an institution and/or person can be cut off from their Sacrum mission: temporarily, indefinitely, and permanently.

If an institution or person is temporarily “cut off” from their Sacrum mission, it is not truly cut off from their mission or its privileges, rights, blessings, etc., but the ability to actualize these powers is hindered or withheld for a period of time or indefinitely for the reason of punishing the person or institution for abusing the sacred in some manner.

We see examples of this throughout Church history, with King David being removed by God from his throne for a time due to his sin of adultery, with the Papacy (in a rather convoluted manner) being bound by the Haec Sancta of the Council of Constance, and even Canons 1333-1334 of the current Code of Canon Law.27

If an institution or person is indefinitely cut off, it means that it is truly cut off from its sacrum mission, and one does not have the “charism” of authority.

However, because the blessings and promises of God are irrevocable (particularly in the Catholic religion),28 The institution and/or person, while in a true sense cut off from the blessings, privileges, and rights of its Sacrum mission, is not cut off from it in a permanent or absolute sense.

For it is certainly possible that the institution and person can be restored to their mission as if they were never cut off to begin with.

Examples include the people of Israel being cut off for their idolatry as described in the Old Testament of the Bible, St. Peter after his denial being restored with the threefold “do you love me?”, and the repentant Henry IV after being deposed by Pope St. Gregory VII.29

If an institution is permanently cut off, it means its sacrum mission, and the blessings, promises, rights, and responsibilities that follow it are literally removed, never to be restored.

Examples include Judas Iscariot in the Gospels, the curse of Ham’s direct descendants, King Saul’s dynasty in the Kingdom of Israel, and, as the Catholic religion teaches, all the souls in Hell.30

To conclude the first part of the essay, when analyzing the original definition and context of the Latin word sacrum, and by reading it in light of theopolitical Catholic concepts such as the Duo Gladii and the Translatio Imperii, we see that the Holy Roman Empire not only fulfilled its holy mission as the ideal Christian state, but even maintained its sacred identity when its emperors failed to live lives of moral virtue or imperial loyalty to the Pope, thus proving that the Holy Roman Empire was indeed Holy.

PART II: ROMAN

The most popular attacks against the Holy Roman Empire are usually aimed at its Roman identity, with almost all criticisms falling into two categories: either a rejection of the empire’s domestic or imperial Roman identity.

The previously cited survey’s responses make many domestic arguments that the empire was not Roman because “the empire was not in Rome,” as well as another historical website stating that “Charlemagne was Frankish and his successor dynasties Germanic in origin” rather than Italian.31

The strongest argument, however, comes from an imperial perspective which holds that the Holy Roman Empire was not, and could not, be the successor of the Roman Empire because the Eastern half of the original Roman Empire was still intact and, supposedly, refused to recognize any legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire.

To address the domestic objections, we first must ask ourselves, how do we even define Roman identity?

Scholars from Ancient Rome to today have debated what truly constitutes Romanitas, and this essay cannot possibly discuss every Roman characteristic, but there are a few essential qualities that most scholars agree upon, and the Holy Roman Empire embodies these few qualities in ideal and practice.

The essential Roman concepts I am referring to are, as I call them, the Ius Civile, Pietas, and Urbs Aeterna.32

It is important to note that, when discussing anything relating to Romanitas, we must stress the distinction between the “ideal” vs the “practice” of establishing Roman concepts such as law, duty, etc.

The Romans often failed to practice what they proclaimed, and it was not so much the actualizing of the Roman characteristics which preserved the Roman Empire, but the ideals that kept their empires alive and legitimate, preserving them until the end.

In one sense, it is the ideals of a Roman that make the Roman what he is.

The ideal virtues are what Romans should aspire to, and if we are to judge the Holy Roman Empire as not domestically Roman because it did not fulfill the traits perfectly at every moment in its history, then no empire, including Byzantium, the Roman Republic, or the classical Roman Empire, can be labeled as truly Roman.

The most essential trait of Romanitas is the ideal of establishing a codified legal system.33 This hope of codifying Roman law was largely an ideal because, for a large portion of Roman history, the law was transmitted orally and, once written, was constantly expanded upon and edited.

The last Roman Codex was written in the 6th century, and as one academic website dedicated to the study of the Roman Empire states, “the codification of Roman law itself took place relatively late. It wasn’t until the turn of the second and third century CE that Roman tourists began writing comments.”34

With this information in mind, we see this ideal of codifying and implementing Roman law being put into practice at the very beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly in the Capitularies of Charlemagne.35

Although the Capitularies have Frankish-Germanic influence, it was still truly Roman because the blending of cultural laws is not contrary to Romanitas; for the Romans had to adapt their laws constantly for the integration of newly conquered provinces of foreign cultures, this being found primarily in the Roman Concept of Ius Gentium.36

Laury Sarti, in her essay Frankish Romanness and Charlemagne's Empire, argues that “Roman law remained applicable throughout the Frankish rule, alongside barbarian laws.”37

Another scholar, Amelia Sullivan, in addressing the Capitulary of Herstal, writes that “The use of Latin within the Capitulary means that the Frankish peoples integrated not only old Germanic custom into their society, but also some aspects of Roman culture as well.”

She also writes that an analysis of the Capitulary “further supports the adoption of aspects of Roman tradition into Frankish culture.”38

Probably the best examples of Ius Civile being integrated into the empire, alongside other culturally Roman characteristics, are during the reign of Frederick Barbarossa. Ruling in the 12th century, Barbarossa did more than any other emperor to form the Holy Roman Empire into a truly Roman institution.

One Medievalist, Thomas Renna, describes Barbarossa’s Roman exploits as being far beyond any emperor before him:

“He established de iure jurisdiction over lands outside the empire; the nomenclature, symbols (such as the Roman imperial eagle), art, architecture, studies, and literature at imperial courts and cities; the acquisition and rights of the titles of king of the Romans and emperor of the Romans, the authority to use the Roman law (from the Justinian Code).”39

It was under his reign that the Empire would implement Roman law to an even greater extent, primarily due to the rediscovery of the Corpus Juris Civilis.40

Frederick, during the 12th-century Renaissance, revived, endorsed, and legally protected the study of the Justinian Code and incorporated Roman law into his empire’s legal framework, tax codes, and claims of legitimacy, primarily at the Diet of Roncaglia.41

Other emperors, such as Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and Louis IV were either well-versed in Roman law or had legal advisors specialized in the study of Roman law, who helped interpret and adapt Roman legal texts like the Libri Legales and the Institutes to strengthen the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Emperors.42

Even influential imperial citizens, such as Matilda of Tuscany, petitioned one scholar, Irnerius, to teach Justinian’s code.43

Charles IV, in drafting authoritative documents such as his famous Golden Bull of 1356, not only used Roman legal precedent but also solidified the Roman reforms of the 12th century.

As one scholar, Heiner Luck, asserts, “Under Emperor Louis IV...and Charles IV, the concept of the emperor’s legislative power had finally established itself in the course of the reception of Roman and Canon law.”44

To close this matter, the Holy Roman Empire implemented, incorporated, and applied Roman Law into many different aspects of its institution.

This civil identity, when applied to the many diverse classes of the Holy Roman Empire, including the emperor, nobility, merchants, burgermeisters, clergy, and even peasants, unified them as Romans under the illustrious and preeminent title of imperial citizenship.

As Peter Wilson argues, “its inhabitants were unified through a web of legal rights.”45

Moving on to the Roman virtue of Pietas, our terms must once again be defined. Pietas was considered to be the foundation upon which all Roman virtues stood.

It does not have an exact English translation, but the definition generally agreed upon is that Pietas is respect, fidelity, attachment, and duty towards the gods, the state/country, and family.46

As Roman life evolved, different conceptions of Pietas were developed and more narrowly defined, and the term can be divided into three forms:

Religio, which is respect and duty to the divine, Humanitas, which is respect and duty towards all humanity (including oneself), and formal Pietas, which is respect and duty towards one’s familia and blood relatives (primarily elders and the paterfamilias).47

Another virtue that relates to Pietas is Iustitia, which means justice in accordance with sensible laws and good governance, and relates to the upholding of Pietas in civil society.48 These three concepts, Religio, Humanitas, and formal Pietas, being upheld by Iustitia, are the three fundamental virtues that make up the totality of Pietas.49

Unlike modern Western civil society, in ancient Rome and other ancient, as well as medieval, civilizations, the way you honored others, your family, your people, and your God, was not merely a concern of private conscience but a fundamental reality that kept society flourishing.

Recognizing this, Pietas was not, and could not, be left to private interpretation in Roman life, but had to be incorporated into all social realms, especially the law.50

At the very beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, we see many examples of social and legal Pietas being integrated into the whole of Christian society.

The Pietas of the Holy Roman Empire can be summarized in one of the oaths of loyalty found in the Capitulare Missorum Generale of Charlemagne:

“That no one shall presume... [to] do any injury to the holy churches of God [Religio], or to widows, orphans or strangers [Humanitas]; for the emperor himself... has been constituted their protector and defender [Iustisita].”51

Other sections of the Capitulary discuss honest court practices, punishing those who take to court those who are not skilled in speech, displaying Pietas by applying the virtue of just legal practice.52

Elsewhere in the Capitulary, we see examples of Pietas through the legal enforcement of Religio in the restrictions and commands on the clergy.

We see laws which ban sexual immorality, drunkenness, symbols of wealth, lukewarmness, and demands of proper ordination ceremonies, obedience to Bishops, and total obedience to the Dionysio-Hadriana canons.53

We see numerous examples of Humanitas being upheld and defended, for both neighbor and oneself.

Charlemagne, regarding individual self-virtue, declares that “every one of his own accord should strive...wholly to keep himself in the holy service of God according to the precept of God and to his own promise.”

When discussing treatment of neighbors, he demands that “throughout our whole realm no one shall dare to deny hospitality to the rich, or to the poor, or to pilgrims... or to any one travelling for the love of God and the safety of his soul.”

Charlemagne continues writing in defense of all widows, orphans, pilgrims, strangers, and the mentally “inept”.54

Finally, the Familia is upheld and defended in the strongest wording, for Charlemagne enforces virtue in the domestic society by criminalizing familial sins such as incest, patricide, matricide, fratricide, adultery, and all other sins committed against “any relation”.55

Addressing the Holy Roman Empire’s German, rather than Italian, political base and cultural setting, it is historically evident that, while the Holy Roman Empire’s capital was not in the city of Rome itself, its origins, authority, legitimacy, and identity depended almost entirely on the Urbs Aeterna.56

The Pope had been Rome’s political governor since at latest the donation of Pepin, thus displaying a pre-imperial recognition of the Pope’s legitimate Roman authority as not merely a spiritual leader, but as a political one.57

The Pope coronated and confirmed the Holy Roman Emperor in Rome, and on rare occasions in other Italian cities like Bologna, with traditional Roman regalia, and that he had the authority to rule with primacy of honor over Roman Christendom, and was chosen to be, “in the name of the Roman people, the office of consul and patrician.”58

Even when the Emperor ceased to be physically crowned in Rome, he would still be confirmed by Papal approbation through a dispensation given to the Imperial family and the Prince-Electors.59

The emperors recognized this necessary connection between their authority and the city of Rome under Papal rule, for they never sought to annul the Papal approbatio completely and went to great lengths to maintain it in some form or another.60

A brilliant example of the Emperor’s relationship to the eternal city is found in James Bryce’s book, The Holy Roman Empire.

Although modern historians heavily criticize its antiquated methodology and heavy 19th-century nationalist interpretations, it nonetheless is a helpful source when examining the Holy Roman Empire’s history, for this book engages deeply with the Holy Roman Empire as an idea, which is exactly what this essay is examining.61

Bryce describes the coronation of Charlemagne as follows:

“Peter the Apostle, Leo the Pope, with the consent of all the bishops and priests and of the senate of the Franks and likewise of the Romans, set a golden crown upon his head, the Roman people also shouting aloud. And when the people had made an end of chanting the Laudes, he was adored by the Pope after the manner of the emperors of old.”62

One cannot help but see the similarities in the public coronation of Charlemagne, as detailed by James Bryce, and the imperial proclamations of Augustus Caesar, as described in his Res Gestae.

Both Octavian and Charlemagne, after successfully conquering and bringing peace to their respective territories, handed over their domains (for Octavian, the Republic; for Charlemagne, the city of Rome) to the central authorities in Rome (For Octavian, the Senate; for Charlemagne, the Pope).

Octavian legitimately ruled the Empire by decree of the Imperial senators and by proclamation of the citizens of Rome and the army as Imperator.

Charlemagne and successive Emperors were given legitimate reign over Christendom by the decree of the “senates” of the Franks, Electors, and Ecclesiastics, and were confirmed by the Pope, who was governor of Rome, and by proclamation from the Roman urbanites, and their armies (in the earlier Empire), and recognized by the entire Holy Roman Empire.63

Even the Emperors who fought against the Pope of Rome did so in order to strengthen their legitimacy by replacing him with an anti-Pope who would affirm pro-imperial policies from the Urbs Aeterna.

Almost every emperor who attempted to assert dominance over the city of Rome by overthrowing the city’s rightful governor suffered, at best, weakened prestige and, at worst, loss of legitimacy and power, as shown in the cases of Henry IV, Frederick Barbarossa, Frederick II, and many others.64

The emperors depended so much on Rome for their legitimacy that even their very defiance displayed their inseparable connection between the Emperor’s legitimacy and the governor of Rome, the Pope’s, primacy.

While many critics of the Holy Roman Empire’s Romanitas argue that, although the Holy Roman Empire received its identity from the city of Rome, it was still German in culture, not Italian.

This idea that Roman identity is based primarily on Italian geography is argued from a nineteenth-century nationalist understanding of statecraft.

Some critics, retroactively interpreting history from a nationalist perspective, argue that political theorists like Machiavelli, albeit implicitly, prove their position.

In his political treatise, The Prince, he argues that “if one considers the first cause of the ruin of the Roman Empire, one will find it to have begun only with the hiring of Goths, because from that beginning the forces of the Roman Empire began to weaken, and all the virtue that was taken from it was given to them.”65

Some could interpret this short but crucial statement of Machiavelli’s as attributing the fall of Western Rome to the Germanization of the army and the decline of Italian primacy in the Roman Empire.

This line of thinking is quite popular, with many mocking the Holy Roman Empire as merely a German “agglomeration”, which somehow simultaneously tried to be both Rome’s successor and destroyer.

However, considering previous arguments, no Roman scholar from Antiquity, the Medieval era, or really any era up until the 18th century considered Italian geography, nationality, or culture as an essential characteristic of Romanitas.

Even if Italian geography had any essential importance in being considered authentically Roman, then the Holy Roman Empire was truly Roman all the way up until, at the earliest, 1648 and, at the latest, the French Revolution.66

For centuries, the “Kingdom of Italy” was always seen as an integral part of the empire, and included many Italian cities of Piedmont, Lombardy, Veneto, Brescia, Grosseto, Verona, Cremona, Pistoia, Ferrara, Mantua, Liguria, Tuscany, Spoleto, Milan, Florence, Parma, Padua, Medina, and the entire Emilia-Romagna region.67

While it is true that the emperor did eventually lose practical control of his Italian territories, most cities of Italy were de jure members of the empire until 1648, and Savoy and Milan were legally members till their annexation by France in 1801, no matter how autonomous they became.

Every empire in history loses crucial, even capital, territory at some point, and the Holy Roman Empire is no exception.68 So even if the critics who say that Roman identity is directly linked to Italian nationality are correct, the Holy Roman Empire was still Roman, at least for the entire duration that this paper covers.

What’s truly fascinating is that, while critics will use national and geographical arguments to attack the Holy Roman Empire’s domestic Romanitas, they rarely ever apply the same logic to the Eastern “Byzantine” Empire. Both had no capital in Rome but claimed to be successors of the Roman Empire.

Both relied on the Urbs Aeterna to bolster their claims to imperial authority (though the Holy Roman Empire relied on it more directly).69 Both had Italian territories that were subsequently lost over time, while also being ethnically non-Italian.

Although most critics in the non-academic world attribute Roman identity to national-geographical location, classical and medieval scholars have little issue in recognizing that the Holy Roman Empire had many domestic characteristics of Romanitas.70

However, in more professional settings, the issue of the Holy Roman Empire’s Romanitas has less to do with its domestic Romanitas but more with its imperial Romanitas.

Probably the most damning, and reasonable, critique of the Holy Roman Empire’s claim to being truly Roman is that the emperors claimed to be the true successors of the original Roman Emperors, while there was already another valid, and more recognized, successor to the Roman Empire.71

The Byzantine Empire, as it is called by modern scholarship, was the eastern half of the original Roman Empire, which was divided into two administrative regions for empire-wide stability.

It had its conception in Diocletian’s Tetrarchical reforms in 286 AD, its birth when Constantine moved the imperial capital to Constantinople, and its formation when Theodosius split the empire between his two sons upon his death.72

The Western Empire fell in 476, but the Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453. The Byzantine Empire claimed to be the only valid successor of the Roman Empire and the divinely appointed, universal authority over the whole world as Christ’s temporal regent.73

When Charlemagne and successive emperors were crowned Imperator Romanorum, this was seen as a direct attack against the legitimacy of the Byzantine Emperor, as there was now another individual claiming to be the true Roman, and therefore preeminent, monarch of the Christian world.

This “problem of two emperors” had always been a difficult situation in medieval politics and diplomacy. The Byzantine Emperors, who had the most historical claim to being the true Roman Empire, often refused to recognize their western counterpart as actual Roman emperors.

However, they too often failed to assert their claims due to a lack of power and due to their breaking with Papal (western) communion. The Holy Roman Emperors, although having prestige, power, and many aspects of Roman heritage, could not ignore the legitimate claims of the Byzantine Empire as the original Eastern half of the Empire.

To the Byzantines, the Holy Roman Empire was merely an Imitatio Imperii that surpassed them in power. To the Germans, the Byzantine Empire was a feminized and treacherous body that surpassed them in heritage.74

Although Byzantine Emperors argued that there could be only one true Roman Emperor to rule the Universum Regnum, it must be asked: why is this the case?75 It is not a direct contradiction, either in the pre-Christian or post-Christian eras, for there to be more than one valid Roman Emperor to exist at any given time.

Diocletian reformed the Roman Empire into a Tetrarchy, establishing two senior Augusti emperors and two junior Caesar emperors to govern the empire.

Also, there were two Christian Roman Emperors established after the death of Theodosius, so there is no historical contradiction in saying that there can be more than one Roman Emperor at a time (even if it leads to many practical issues).76

It is argued that the East and West halves of the original Roman Empire, while they were divided into two divisions with two emperors, were still united as one empire with a common cause, while the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire were two distinct entities attempting to dominate the other.

However, while de jure they were one empire working for a common cause, there were several occasions on which they fought as if, in practice, they were separate entities.

At the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine, the Eastern Roman Emperor, fought and defeated the Western Roman Emperor Maxentius, and Emperor Licinius at the Battle of Chrysopolis.77

At the Battle of Frigidus, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius fought and won against the Western Roman Emperor Eugenius, and against Emperor Maximus at the Battle of Poetovio.78

In these events, we see two or more legitimate Roman Emperors battling each other for power from their capitals of influence as if they were the rulers of separate kingdoms.

Compare these battles to those of the Byzantine and Holy Roman Emperors, both valid Roman Emperors, occasionally claiming the other as a usurper, warring against each other to establish dominance, both asserting claims of legitimacy through popular decree, military prowess, and an electoral process.

In some cases, as we shall see, both empires in theory recognized the importance of cooperation and mutual recognition of legitimacy, and in some instances, new theories were developed to defend the oneness of the Roman Empire while also having two emperors.79

We see that while Byzantine Emperors originally refused to legitimize their western counterpart, they eventually recognized the Holy Roman Emperor’s legitimacy. Empress Irene recognized Charlemagne as a legitimate ruler, given authority by Christ, and hoped to arrange a marriage alliance with him.80

Michael I and Leo V, in reaffirming the treaty made between Charlemagne and Nicephorus, acknowledged Charlemagne and Louis “the Pious”’ status as a Basileus (emperor) of the Western half of the one Imperium, and while short of calling him a Roman Emperor, he was recognized as a Christian emperor.81

This should not be read as purely semantic, for Charlemagne, in accepting this title, achieved what he originally wanted: to be the second emperor of one Christian empire.82

From Emperor Theodosius to the Middle Ages, the terms Roman and Christian Emperor were used synonymously, both tracing their origin to the Constantinian idea of an Imperium Christanorum, and while there could be more than one Roman Emperor, there could not be two Roman Empires in the Medieval and Classical worldview.83

Otto I was also called an emperor in 972 by Constantine VII and established a royal marriage with the Byzantine princess Theophanu for his son, with letters similar to the ones written between Pope Innocent II and Emperor John Komnenos II that discussed ending the schism.84

This shows that the hope that the two de facto separate empires would work together as one universal body did not die with Charlemagne’s failed attempt to secure a marriage with Empress Irene.

In 1189 AD, the Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelos began to refer to Frederick Barbarossa as “The Most Noble Emperor of Elder Rome.”85

Even more striking evidence of Byzantine recognition of the Holy Roman Empire’s claim to authority is that, after Henry VI threatened Byzantium because of his right to the throne (through his deceased wife’s lineage), he demanded that Emperor Alexios III Angelos pay the Alamanikon tribute tax, tribute being a sign of subjugation.86

Byzantine Emperors, including Alexios III Angelos and his successors, began calling themselves Romanorum Moderator letters to the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor, which is grammatically and intentionally vague as to leave room for other Roman Emperors to exist.87

Former Byzantine vassals such as Cyprus and Armenia even appealed to Henry VI to be vassals “of the Roman Empire,” thus displaying the international recognition of the Holy Roman Empire’s claim to being the authentic successor.88

Based on all the evidence presented, Roman identity was not based on Italian nationality, geography, or culture, but on an established structure of domestic ideals and imperial legitimacy.

The Holy Roman Empire, like the Byzantine Empire, possessed all the domestic characteristics of Romanitas, for they succeeded in ideal and practice the establishment of a codified legal code by adapting, implementing, and incorporating Roman law into the entire political structure.

The Holy Roman Empire instilled, upheld, and enforced Roman Pietas throughout the whole Empire, and its political origin, legitimacy, authority, and identity came from the eternal city of Rome, which was under the direct governance of the Pope.

The Holy Roman Empire also possessed imperial Romanitas, for the Holy Roman Emperors were elected by an imperial senate made up of Frankish, German, and Roman nobility (secular and ecclesiastical), and were proclaimed Imperator by the Roman urbanites and the imperial military.

They were crowned, confirmed, and approbated by the political governor of Rome (the Pope), and recognized by many Byzantine Emperors as authentic Roman and Christian Emperors of the West, explicitly and implicitly, on numerous occasions.

All of this proves that the Holy Roman Empire was indeed Roman.

PART III: EMPIRE

The third and final claim is that the Holy Roman Empire was truly an empire.

While there continues to be scholarly debate about which traits actually constitute an empire, the modern perception, as reflected in the student survey, defines an empire as “A power that has a lot of land,” or “A unified state with a strong central authority.”89

These definitions of empire seem to be designed to attack the Holy Roman Empire’s claim to imperialism.

It is argued that it did not have as much territory as other empires, and the territories it did have were largely German; also, that the Emperor, rather than being an absolute monarch, was a weakened figurehead who was often crippled by his nobility.90

These misconceptions of empires as centralized, absolutist superstates with more territory than all other states stem from an Enlightenment academic perspective that measures imperial identity or success by how much a state nationalized and centralized itself.91

However, these definitions are not only unhistorical but also unreasonable. Modern Canada has more territory and centralized power than the Ottoman Empire had at its zenith, but no scholar would argue that Canada is an empire.92

Also, the idea of a centralized nation-state with almost absolute, unquestionable authority is a modern concept, and most empires before the modern era do not match such a system.

We cannot define empires by these standards, for the majority of modern countries seem to fit these popular criteria, while the majority of pre-Westphalian empires do not.

When examining the actual historical criteria, the Holy Roman Empire does, in fact, meet the standard of what constitutes an empire. While there is ongoing debate on this matter, some essential characteristics of an empire are as follows:

It must rule over multiple ethnicities/nationalities, as well as provinces. It must have a metropole culture and city as its center. It must have a single leader recognized as the head of the empire (the emperor). Finally, it must have a form of hegemony.93

The Holy Roman Empire definitely fulfills the first criterion.

Peter H. Wilson, recognized as one of the most authoritative historians of the Holy Roman Empire, writes in his book Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire:

“In addition to present-day Germany, it included all or part of ten other modern countries: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and Switzerland... Hungary, Spain, and Sweden.”94

From Otto I to Charles IV, modern countries such as Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy, the “Low Countries”, and parts of modern France, such as Burgundy and Lorraine, were imperial territories. Under Charlemagne, all of France and parts of northern Spain were considered his imperial domains.95

Although this goes beyond the scope of this essay’s timeline, even after the Treaty of Westphalia, the Holy Roman Empire maintained territories outside of modern Germany, including the entirety or parts of modern Czechia, Savoy, Milan, and the Burgundian circle.96

It is difficult to assess the Holy Roman Empire’s metropole capital as it never had a permanent capital city, but fluctuated depending on the needs and prerogatives of its emperor.97

There is a lack of modern scholarship regarding the concept of fluctuating metropoles in relation to imperial identity, but scholars who do discuss it do not outright oppose the viewpoint that an Empire can have a fluctuating metropole.98

Even so, the Holy Roman Empire had many culturally significant capitals that held a permanent imperial presence. Aachen was the first capital and permanent site of imperial coronation.99

Frankfurt was the free city that hosted the election of German Kings, as established in the Golden Bull of 1356.100 Pavia was the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, and Vienna became the de facto capital under the last imperial dynasty, the Habsburgs.101

It should also be noted that while the Empire’s metropole culture was not uniform throughout history, it was not entirely static either.

The first dynasty of emperors was Frankish, which was a Germanic tribe. Most elected emperors and kings were of Germanic origin (ranging from Austria, Luxembourg, Styria, etc.), with only a handful of Emperors coming from countries such as Italy, Spain, France, and England.102

Even with these exceptions, the emperors almost always ruled in modern Germany or Austria, rather than their country of origin.

Nobody would question that the Holy Roman Empire had one leader, the Imperator Romanorum, who was recognized as the head of the Empire. Some critics, however, complain that the emperor had little to no actual power, and the little power he had was often hindered by the nobility, thus not fulfilling the third criterion.103

However, even if this were the case for the entirety of the Holy Roman Empire’s history, the idea that an emperor must have absolute, or even semi-absolute, power and authority is based more on works of fiction rather than history (with some rare historical exceptions).104

For most of history, emperors relied on their subordinate princes to govern, and those princes would frequently revolt if their authority was ignored.

The Ottoman Emperor, who in theory was supposed to be an absolute ruler over his “house,” relied heavily upon his bureaucrats to aid him in his imperial governance, who were also able to counter the emperor for going against the laws of the Kanunname.105

Fotini Kondyli, commenting on Tonia Kiousopoulou’s book on the Byzantine state, affirms with her that the later Byzantine emperors were, in practice, “more as managers and administrators than as absolute rulers, who had to adapt to the political and economic realities of their time and were forced to allocate to individuals and groups tasks that were previously the state’s responsibility.”106

Even the classical Roman Empire was no exception to this.

Frederick Hurlet notes in his book The Impact of Justice on the Roman Empire, “The Roman emperor was in theory the supreme judge...[but] imperial power strictly speaking could not exercise its occupation as full-fledged judge in a uniform way across the scale of an Empire numbering dozens of millions of inhabitants.”107

Many of the Roman Emperors were murdered when they went against their established aristocracy, and many were merely puppets of their senatorial or military factions, but they were nonetheless still emperors.

An emperor, with or without absolute power, is a unifying symbol of the empire and is by law the highest authority of the Empire, even if weaker than his subjects in practice.

Most empires have had powerful governing bodies that limited them; the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the British Empire, etc. The Holy Roman Empire was no exception.

Finally, addressing the concept of Hegemony, it must be noted that Hegemony is a debated concept, with some modern perspectives having their origin in the Marxist philosopher Gramsci, who believed that Hegemony was “based on the consent which is secured by the diffusion and popularization.”108

There are many theories as to what makes a country a hegemon, but I believe the Hegemonic Stability Theory, while flawed, is the best theory for analyzing pre-modern hegemonic entities.

The Hegemonic Stability Theory, to put it simply, is the belief that the global economic system of international relations is more prosperous when a single state (the hegemon) is the dominant international force that can enforce laws, open free markets, and protect free trade.

Basically, a hegemon is a state with superior economic power and authority over all other states.

If we broaden this theory to encompass more than economics, a country can be a hegemon in multiple ways: diplomatically, militarily, influentially (or culturally), and economically.109 It appears that the Holy Roman Empire was a hegemon by all four of these standards.

In diplomacy, we should look to none other than Frederick II, the Stupor mundi (The wonder of the world), as called by many of his contemporaries, who used his diplomatic skills to acquire the Holy Lands from the Sultan of Egypt in the Treaty of Jaffa, a feat considered impossible or dangerous by most of Christendom.110

Charles IV successfully maneuvered through geopolitical tensions, bringing the Holy Roman Empire more prestige, and successfully countered other countries’ interests, such as France at the Parisian Summit.111

Militarily, there are also many examples of hegemons in the Holy Roman Empire. Charlemagne successfully defeated the Lombards, the Saxons, the Saracens, the Bavarians, the Frisians, the Gauls, the Avars, the Wilzi, and the Moors, with very few being able to stand against his army.112

St. Henry II was a military genius, not only consolidating power by crushing the rebellious dukes of Germany, but also by successfully defeating the Greeks and Lombards in Italy, as well as the pagan Slavs in Poland.113

Until, at the earliest, the defeat of Henry IV in the Investiture Wars, the Holy Roman Empire was the dominant military power in Europe, and even beyond Henry the HRE maintained a military hegemon.114

Although the imperial economy was highly decentralized because it was a confederacy in the strict sense of the word, it was nonetheless an economic powerhouse in its time.

Under Frederick II, we see major economic development. Avi Chen Ming Friederich, who wrote his thesis on the European economy, states that “the empire possessed an economy that was roughly equal to that of England, France, and the Italian city-states, by employing its own unique financial tools to generate a significant income.”115

In the decades leading up to Frederick II’s election as king in 1152, there were only about a dozen mints. By the end of his reign and into the reign of his son Henry VI, there were 215 mints, an increase of almost 180 percent.116

The Holy Roman Empire became even more developed because of its Free Imperial Cities, which were under the direct authority of the Emperor.

By virtue of feudal tax exemption, the development of new roads so that the emperor could travel more efficiently to protect them, increased military defense spending, and the innovative freedom that merchants had in these cities compared to the more centralized economies of countries like France and England.

The Holy Roman Empire’s economy thrived as a proto-free market, and its decentralized nature became its economic advantage.117

Regarding influence, the Holy Roman Empire’s hegemony over Europe as a whole cannot be overstated.

This institution significantly shaped the entire history of the Western world and built modern Europe, for as Peter Wilson writes, “The Empire’s history is not merely part of numerous distinct national histories, but lies at the heart of the continent’s (i.e., Europe) general development.”118

James Bryce emphasizes the Empire’s unique influence, saying it exercised “over the minds of men an influence such as material strength could never have commanded... It is of this influence and of the causes that gave it power.”119

Many European advancements were led by the Holy Roman Empire, which included Western legal practice, the founding of universities, the advancement of Christianity as the Western religion, and much more.120 The Holy Roman Empire was not just another European country, but the Hegemon of the West in its golden years.

To summarize the arguments of this final portion, we see that the popular criticisms of the Holy Roman Empire’s claim to being an empire are based almost entirely on a modern, nationalist understanding of empires, and that most pre-Westphalian empires would not even be empires by these standards.

What makes a country an empire is not that it has more land than any other, nor that it is absolutely centralized, but that its dominion contains multiple nationalities/ethnicities, has a metropole culture and capital city, is governed by one man who represents the empire (an emperor), and is a recognized hegemon.

The Holy Roman Empire, from 800 AD to 1356 AD, encompassed all these qualities. Therefore, the Holy Roman Empire was indeed an Empire.

CONCLUSION

This essay covers the years that are considered to be the “golden centuries” of the Holy Roman Empire, when the empire’s prestige and power were at their height. The next two essays will address the time frames of 1356-1648 (Part II) and 1648-1806 (Part III).

The foundations of this defensive endeavor have been laid, and the legitimacy of the early Holy Roman Empire has been presented and protected. Although not every single emperor or event in the given time-frame could be addressed, the arguments made here can apply almost universally across the years presented.

It has been shown that most of the popular criticisms of the Holy Roman Empire are because of modern misconceptions that often lack a historical understanding of what it means to be Holy, Roman, and an Empire.

Peter H. Wilson is correct when stating that, while the title Holy Roman Empire is a later development, “all three terms formed core elements of the imperial ideal present from the Empire’s foundation.”121

This foundation began with the coronation of Charlemagne, and the Empire’s identity was maintained by the time of the promulgation of the Golden Bull of 1356, for as Thomas Renna asserts, “The Emperor who certainly embodies all three sides of the imperial title is Charles IV of Bohemia.”122

To conclude this essay, it has been proven that, based on classical, medieval, theological, and historical interpretations of the terms Sacrum, Romanum, and Imperium, the Holy Roman Empire from 800 AD to 1356 AD was truly Holy, Roman, and an Empire.

(For the sake of brevity, I could not add my whole bibliography, but only the direct citations. If this essay gets enough viewership and people desire it, I can post my full bibliography for more reading)

CITATIONS

Over the last few years I have sought to defend the Holy Roman Empire’s legitimacy in both personal and professional settings, attempting to prove that the Holy Roman Empire was indeed “Holy, Roman, and an Empire.” Many will argue that the Holy Roman Empire was not truly “Holy” based on faulty definitions of Holiness,1 and while theses attack can be, and have been, refuted several times, in this essay I want to answer what particular type of holiness the Empire claimed to possess. I will lay out the different categories of holiness found in Catholic theology and Latin terminology so that we can better understand how, in one sense, the Empire was indeed holy and, in other senses, how it was not.

When looking for the basic definition of holiness, it is more fitting to use another word in this essay, “sacredness”. The word holy comes from the Old English halignis, which means "state or character of being holy, perfect freedom from evil," or a state of "sanctity; sinlessness, purity."2 This word will not be very helpful, as it is not used very much in the official Latin terminology of the Roman Church, and when it is used it is often read in light of the Church’s Latin usage.3 So from now on, in this essay we will be using the term “sacred” rather than “holy” until the end of the essay, because of its strong Latin roots. The basic definition of sacred is “to be set apart for God”, or “belonging to God” as opposed to being “profane” or “used for secular purposes”.4 Sacredness is not a monolithic concept, as a chalice that is blessed for Catholic Mass and a person whom is declared to be a Saint in Heaven are both “set apart” and “belong to God”, but they are very different in their telos (purpose for existing). So what are the different categories of Sacredness? They are as follows:

Sanctus-Sanctam: This word, while often simply defined as “consecrated”, is more deeply understood as referring to the nature of the object being described as sacred. This word is used in the Catholic Mass before the Eucharistic prayer, when the Priest chants “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth” or “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts”. This proclamation comes from the Bible in Isaiah 6:3, where the Hebrew word used for holy is Kadosh. This word is used to describe God as completely and infinitely perfect in all things by nature of being God, and is also used to describe how God’s people (the Church) should be, unblemished, perfected, and completely set apart in a covenant communion with God, reflecting His Image in all that we do. It has an important feature of denoting moral perfection, being without blemish or imperfection, reflecting God in one’s entire being.5

Sanctitudo-Sanctitas: This word is merely the corresponding noun to Sanctus, which is an adjective, and it also denotes the state of being perfect. However, the reason I distinguish it hear is because this noun, more so than Sanctus, more heavily denotes a state or quality of being morally pure and without sin. This word, much more than sanctus, emphasizes moral purity, uprightness, and virtue.6

Sacrosanctus-Sacrosanct: This word, more than any other Latin word, denotes a concept of being “inviolable”, and being “superlatively holy”. Anyone or anything is that is given this title is seen as being protected by religious or divine sanction, and cannot be violated or attacked under any circumstances.7

Sacrum-Sacer: This word refers to the consecrating of an object or person to the service of the divine and for religious usage. In any Latin dictionary, when this word is used, it is more often than not used to describe a thing rather than a person, such as in Stelten’s Dictionary of Ecclesiatical Latin, Cassel Latin Dictionary, etc. The word has a connotation of being an object of use rather than a description of a user. This word denotes a holiness of use, purpose, or telos (end), rather than the intrinsic holiness of the thing in itself (although some scholars will argue that something that is sacrum is also sanctus, it seems that this was not how the Empire, nor the Church, interpreted its particular usage).8

Sometimes these words have been used interchangeably, but over time their contextual differences became more narrowly defined. Now that our terms are laid out, we can determine what form of sacredness the Empire possessed, and we will start by showing what the Empire is not.

The Empire cannot be considered sanctus, and the main reason for this is because there was only one institution on earth that could claim such a title, and that was the Roman Catholic Church. None of the Popes, Emperors, nor any Ghibelline theologians (such as Dante, Marsilius, with Ockham being the only exception) saw the Empire’s sacredness as identical or equal to that of the Catholic Church, as the Ghibellines believed that the Empire’s primary end was to promote earthly happiness and peace, while the Church’s primary purpose is to sanctify souls and bring them to Heaven.9 This is why Dante argued that the Emperor should view the Pope as God’s “first born son”, and constantly aid the Church in all Her temporal needs.10 Sanctus, as stated early, denotes a spiritual and moral purity free of any blemish, imperfection, or earthly corruption, and this is why the Church is called the Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam. She alone was promised indefectibility, imperishability, and inseparability from God’s Divine mission.11 The Empire, while definitely consecrated and set above all Christian polities, was still an earthly institution with an earthly mission, capable of being corrupted and stained by earthly cares and the pollution of sin. It was even believed that the Empire would be destroyed by the antichrist himself, while the Church and Her Faithful children would live eternally.12 This is why no one claimed that the Empire was a Sanctum Imperium, because only the Church (in her spiritual dimension as the mystical Body of Christ) was without stain, and the Empire, for all of its religious prestige, was still a purely human institution, not a Divine one.

It is also clear that the Empire, or more specifically the Emperor and his office, could not be considered a Sanctitudo-Sanctitas type of institution, because. simply put, this type of sacredness would harm the Emperor’s legitimacy more than it would help. The Emperors constantly had to deal with the fact that many of its leaders were wicked rulers They were able to depart from orthodox teaching (like Frederick II), were able to be excommunicated (like Henry IV), and prone to sinful vices (like Louis “the Pious”). The Empire was not sanctus, and therefore was not an institution that could dispense graces to its members so that they may be sanctitas. This is why emperors and imperial theologians chose to avoid this kind of terminology when describing the Empire’s divine mission, because the Empire needed to survive and outlive its emperors.13 Therefore, The Empire’s sacredness must be, in a certain sense, unattached from the emperor’s person, and the office of emperor must also remain sacred in spite of its holder. This is quite similar, but not identical, to the concept of the Papal office remaining sacred in spite of its holder, for the Church and Papal office are greater than its individual rulers, and the emperors wanted the Empire and the imperial office to remain sacred despite any individual rulers. I will reiterate, the office of emperor is NOT equal or identical in sacredness to that of the office of the Papacy, but in this manner alone they are similar.

Lastly, the Empire, along with the imperial office, cannot be considered sacrosanctus-sacrosanct, even though the emperors themselves would have preferred to be so. If a person is sacrosanct, then they are entirely inviolable and cannot be harmed, attacked, deposed, or repudiated in any conceivable way. The word was originally used to describe the Tribune of the Plebs in the Roman Republic, and if this tribune was attacked and killed, than the Plebs could enact civil war against the government.14 The emperor, although he was the Primus inter Pares of the Christian princes and temporal head of Christendom, was not ever considered completely inviolable. The emperor could not act freely in every part of the Empire as if he had universal jurisdiction, and the Imperial Diet under the Prince-Electors could legally depose the Emperor if he violated the Electoral Capitularies or failed in his duties.15 Not only that, but the Pope Himself could excommunicate and depose the emperor, as well as claim the title of Imperial Vicar for himself.16 The emperors themselves recognized this, and it is why Henry IV did penance at Canossa before Pope St. Gregory VII after being deposed.17 The only person at the time who could claim a sacrosanct protection in theory (even if not always in practice), was the Pope. The Supreme Pontiff claimed that he alone was judged by no one but God Himself, that he had immediate, universal, and unquestioned jurisdiction over the entire Church, including the Empire, and that he is made a “Saint” by the merits of St. Peter (some scholars argue that the term “Saint” is most likely being used to denote a sacrosanct identity rather than a moral purity).18 It is clear then, that the Emperor’s office was far from sacrosanct, as he was able to be deposed by the Imperial Diet, the Prince-Electors, and the sacrosanct Papacy.

Now that we know in what ways the Empire is not sacred, we will show in what way the Empire is sacred. The official, and finalized, title of the Holy Roman Empire is the Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae, so it is clear that the Empire professes itself to be a sacrum institution. The word sacrum was added by Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in 1157, with most scholars agreeing that his reasoning for adding it was to counter the Pope’s claim to authority over the emperor.19 Frederick promoted and upheld the belief that the Empire, along with the imperial office, was holy and valid apart from Papal approbation, and that the Pope’s coronation of the emperor only served a symbolic assurance from God, rather than an actual assurance. Although this interpretation of the word sacrum goes against Catholic theopolitical orthodoxy, Barbarossa’s personal intention for adding it to the Empire’s title does not disqualify the Empire as being authentically sacrum from an orthodox perspective. There are two reasons for this: First, because Barbarossa himself acknowledged the Pope’s authority in sanctioning his imperial power, and second, because the Empire was recognized as sacrum in its mission long before Barbarossa added and reinterpreted the word.

Frederick Barbarossa consistently attacked the Pope’s claim to authority over him whenever it was convenient to do so, but when he stood before the Byzantine imperial court, he willingly and proudly acknowledged the Pope’s authority to transmit the Empire and confirm the emperor. This is because, if he had not done so, he would have no ground to stand on to defend his legitimacy as the true Roman Emperor. Below is his own words on the subject:

“To all those who are of sound mind...there is only one Roman emperor, the sole ruler or monarchos, just as there is one universal father, namely the Pontiff of the Romans. I have held the sceptre of the Roman empire in peace for more than thirty years, with no contradiction from any king or prince, and I have been anointed and raised up by the imperial blessing by the supreme pontiff in the city of Rome, while my predecessors who have ruled as Roman emperors for more than four hundred years have gloriously transmitted their rule to me. This rule has been translated from the city of Constantinople back to Rome, the original seat of the empire, the capital of the world, to the acclamation of the Romans and the princes of the empire, and by the authority of the supreme pontiff and the holy Catholic Church…” (The Crusades of Frederick Barbarossa, pg. 78)20

Moving on, the Empire was always seen as a sacred institution with a sacred mission long before Barbarossa. Peter H. Wilson, perhaps the world’s most prominent, living scholar on the Holy Roman Empire, argues that, although the word sacrum didn’t enter into the official imperial title until Barbarossa, it was one of three terms that “formed core elements of the imperial ideal present from the Empire’s foundation”.21 The Empire was set apart as a sacred institution to defend the Church, primarily the Papacy, from heretics and infidels who sought to destroy Her, as well as to establish a stable, peaceful, and prosperous political order for all Christians. The Empire was seen as the “right arm” or “sword” of the Church, to be unsheathed at the command of the Pope in order to fight for the Church and protect Her, so that She might be free enough to focus on the dispensing of the Sacraments, preaching the Word of God, and bringing souls to Heaven.22 It is clear, then, why the Empire was considered sacrum, and not any other form of sacred, for as stated before the term sacrum was often used to denote an object that is set apart for a religious usage, and the Empire was, in one use of the word, an object that was set apart as a sacred institution to be used by the laity on behalf of the Clergy. We see this doctrine clearly laid out in Pope St. Gelasius’ letter to the Emperor Anastasius, Famuli Vestrae Pietatis, where he declares that God established two swords, the sacred authority of the Priests who must take account of all men before God, and the royal power that fights to preserve the Church’s freedom.23 It is important to note that this is the exact reason Charlemagne was crowned Imperator Romanorum by Pope St. Leo III, it was because he was the most capable and willing to defend the Papacy when no one else would nor could.

To close, we must avoid conflating the different definitions of holiness when defending the Holy Roman Empire. The Empire’s holiness did not originate from personal moral perfection or divine sanctification, and to argue so would be to commit imperial idolatry. The Holy Roman Empire and the imperial office were not Holy in the sense that they had a sanctus, sanctitudo, or sacrosanct character that was intrinsic in them, but they were sacrum by virtue of being set apart by the Supreme Pontiff for the service of the Church by defending Her from Her enemies and governing Christendom’s temporal affairs so that he may focus on matters pertaining to salvation. The Empire, being sacrum, was truly a consecrated object intended for religious use, and this use was to be the sword of the Church, unsheathed at the command of the clergy and wielded by the laity.

(NOTE: While this article is intended for a more Catholic audience, my religious convictions do not reflect the Monarchists of America's official stance on religion or politics as a whole.) - Ian Hoover/Thomas B. Brightsworth

About a week ago, my friend from university, Noah Bernemann, wrote an article titled “On American Catholic Monarchism: A Beginning Dialogue with American Catholics.”1 He had sent me a link to read, asking me to critique it, as well as giving me “his blessing” to write a response article. I recommend everyone who reads this response to go and read his article for themselves and subscribe to his Substack, for it is a good article, and he is an intelligent writer, even if we have some disagreements. Nonetheless, as the Head Ideologist of the Monarchists of America, I thought it best to write a response, for while I think his article has many truths, I do not believe that his arguments prove his conclusions, and that his conclusions would go far beyond what they were intended to entail.

Noah’s article has a two-fold argument:

1. Monarchy is not ontologically the best form of government.

2. Monarchy is not subjectively the best form of government for America.

I want to start with what he gets right in this article. He is correct that the Magisterium has never proclaimed that one form of government, i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, is truly the best, nor has the Magisterium ever bound a government to follow or maintain a specific form of government (except in exceptional cases like the Holy Roman Empire or France, where the changes of the political form in and of themselves harmed the Church). This is because the Church has always maintained that temporal authority, whether given authority directly by God alone or directly through the Church, ought to govern itself outside of ecclesial authority unless necessity demands it. He is also correct that nations have great freedom in choosing for themselves which forms of government are more suitable for their customs and laws, insofar as they uphold the Common Good and maintain the Catholic religion as the only true religion. Theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, Pope Ven. Pius XII, and even St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII, affirm this.2

Moving on to what I believe he gets wrong, his first argument is that monarchy is objectively not the best form of government, but ultimately concedes that it is objectively the best form of government when he states “Indeed monarchy, as some have claimed, I may concede, may be the ontologically best form of government as it can execute and propagate the most good.” and moves on to only truly critique monarchy subjectively. The whole article has two major premises: that Monarchy is not objectively or subjectively the best form of government in the US, but he has already conceded the first premise, therefore we only need to refute the second premise.

He likens monarchy’s objective superiority to modern democratic republicanism to that of the celibate life and married life. He argues that while Monarchy has the higher capacity to protect and propagate the common good compared to that of a republic or democracy, it also has the higher capacity for damaging the common good if corrupted, just as the celibate life has, objectively speaking, the higher capacity to love, but when corrupted, fails and falls into worse sin than if he had never chosen such a vocation.

This analogy falls short for several reasons. First, the two states in life cannot even be compared, given that the subject of Catholic government forms is based on the theopolitical principle that it is the job of the laity to sanctify the temporal order and to wield the temporal sword on behalf of the Church. Politics is almost entirely in the domain of the laity to sanctify rather than the clergy or the religious. While Noah is only comparing vocations and governments in their capacity for goodness and not in every quality, even their capacities are on entirely different scales. One measures eternal happiness, the other earthly. One is given directly by God, the other flows efficiently from the multitude, etc. So the analogy fails because the two cases cannot be considered fundamentally alike.

The second reason this analogy fails is that, unlike government forms, the Church needs both celibate and married vocations to thrive and survive fully. Our Lord elevated Marriage, established Holy Orders, and exemplified Religious Life to show us how the hierarchical Body of Christ ought to be administered and how the Faith ought to be lived out. Without marriage, we would have no new Catholics (and no humans). Without Holy Orders, we would have no worship of God. Without Religious Life, we would have no examples of the Heavenly realm, and no front-line soldiers to engage in spiritual warfare by purity and prayer. Simply put, all three vocations are necessary for a living, thriving Church; all three forms of government are not necessary for a living, thriving human race. If all countries were monarchies, then humanity would still survive and thrive, and if all the world were democracies (as democratic Catholics would happily admit), the human race would still survive and could very well thrive. The debate, then, is not based on an issue of the necessity of the different forms of government, but on which form of government is of the best quality and helps mankind (primarily America) achieve its temporal end.

To address his most important claim, he states that if a monarchy fails to propagate and uphold the common good, it becomes “pointless” to have such a government because its ontological superiority would make it the worst form of government (tyranny). This objection, however, also does not hold. For if Noah is correct that the potentially higher evils of tyranny render the potentially greater goods of monarchy pointless, then we must draw from this premise two conclusions: A. That all government forms that potentially lead to tyranny are rendered useless despite their potential goodness, and B. It seems to be more expedient for mankind to avoid higher goods because of the higher risk of evils.

To the first point, throughout history, we see that tyrannies tend to form more so under polyarchies (rule by more than one), rather than monarchies. Examples include the Roman Republic, the Athenian Democracy, the Weimar Republic, the French Republics, the Russian Federation, the failed English Puritan Republic, the Second Spanish Republic, etc. When we look at many of the European monarchs who lost their thrones, the last of the monarchs were not tyrants, but fell due to ineptness, circumstances largely beyond their control, or their unwillingness to reject their Faith in an era of “enlightened” revolutionaries or anti-Catholic political powers.3 St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this exact issue in his De Regno ad Regem Cypri, where he writes, “The strongest objection why monarchy, although it is “the best form of government”, is not agreeable to the people is that, in fact, it may deviate into tyranny. Yet tyranny is wont to occur not less but more frequently on the basis of a polyarchy than on the basis of a monarchy. It follows that it is, in any case, more expedient to live under one king than under the rule of several men.”4

Mankind naturally craves unity as much as we crave goodness, truth, and beauty, because unity is a transcendental, and this will always be the case no matter what form of government one follows, and if the government is designed to divide power and authority, then in times of crisis and struggle, humanity will naturally cling to political unity, primarily under the power or influence of one man as quickly as possible, just as in times of absolute evil men cling to some sort of objective goodness, or in times of ugliness to beauty, or in times of delusion to truth. Also, Noah’s argument of tyranny would not apply to most American monarchists, including Catholic political aspirations, for most American monarchists want a powerful constitutional monarchy that is limited by a Constitution and Congress.

To the second point, as Catholics, the only reason we should avoid a “higher good” is if the means of acquiring it, or our ability to acquire it in the moment, are ineffective or evil (the only other exception is whether God calls you to something else), so that by acquiring it we cause more harm than good because of our means and imprudence. But no credible monarchist is saying that we ought to overthrow the entire American system without a second thought, nor that we should place any individual on the throne right now. We are not even arguing that this system of monarchy should be foreign to American political identity. Most credible monarchists argue that before we even begin establishing a political structure, we must first convince the people that monarchy is a good, and even the best, form of government. To quote my colleague from the Monarchists of America, “we must build the throne before we find someone to sit in it.” What American monarchists are arguing for is to plant the seeds of monarchy slowly and prudently into the American mindset over time, so that eventually there can be a practical, just, and legal transition of government as outlined by the Doctors of the Church, like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, Vitoria, Cajetan, etc.

My final point against Noah is that his arguments against making the United States a Catholic monarchy go against his convictions of converting America into a Catholic country. He is correct that the U.S. political structure has little to no monarchical precedent, and that our country’s organic development is almost completely separated from monarchy, but the U.S. Political structure also has little to no Catholic precedent, and our country has developed almost completely separate from the Catholic religion. He said it himself that America was “born of Enlightenment philosophy and an opposition to monarchy”, and that same Enlightenment philosophy is antagonistic to the Catholic Faith. Even in the one state Catholics ruled, Maryland, they were eventually expelled from, and not only did most founding fathers want Catholics to take a loyalty oath denouncing Rome, but one of their “intolerable acts” complaints against the British crown was giving Canada the right to govern itself as a Catholic colony. While I love my country, it cannot be denied that America’s history is remarkably anti-Catholic from its origins. Now, the Church teaches that the government, whether it be a Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy, or Republic, ought to be an authentically Catholic state.5 Noah and I, as orthodox Catholics, agree that the state ought to recognize the Catholic religion as the only true religion and Christ as the Social King of all mankind. However, if we are to apply Noah’s arguments against monarchy to that of the Catholic Religion, we would have to accept only one of two conclusions: either America can become Catholic, and therefore can become a monarchy, or America cannot become a monarchy, and therefore cannot become Catholic.

In conclusion, all countries have an organic development that stems from the Divine Authority, natural law, and the people of each country, and this organic development is not hard and fast and unchanging, but can be prudently, organically, and beneficially altered in such a way that the best political and spiritual outcome can be actualized. America has a history of being both anti-monarchy and anti-Catholic, and while I greatly appreciate my friend’s article laying out well-formed critiques as a starting conversation, I do not believe that his arguments can withstand the teachings of the Doctors of the Church, philosophical deduction, political praxis, or historical scrutiny. For if the Roman Empire, a system built on pagan religion and pagan political philosophy, can become an authentically Catholic monarchy through organic conversion and development, then so too can the United States of America, as a country founded on enlightenment thought and enlightenment political philosophy, become an authentically Catholic monarchy through organic, not artificial, conversion and development. A Catholic monarchy will by no means be perfect, nor will it automatically instill virtue and holiness into America’s citizens, but it is a better form of government than our current American system, and if properly implemented, America can maintain the many political benefits it has while removing many defects, being implemented alongside the conversion of the United States.

Subscribe now