Because the monasteries have grown extraordinarily wealthy.Also,way too many people were trying to become monks or nuns--who were exempt from taxation and were largely unproductive to the state.
Far more preferable to have a common faith that says to pay your taxes and to not commits crimes in thought or deed. Though they had different definitions of crime, the main ones would stay the same. If the Romans kept around and pushed for Christianity when the empire was united I imagine it would have been like how the Byzantines had things. Many seperate patriarchs working in a council with the Emperor acting as gracious host. Harder to organize things elsewhere with pagans (meaning non-Jewish or Christian back then), if they have to decide who represents each area.This may also have been a factor in the Christianisation of Rome. Iirc the Pagan Temples were seriously rich, and the Roman government was always short of money. A bit like Henry VIII and the Monasteries.
That never had a chance due to being female-only and secretive(it predates the terrorist organization by >1000 years, this even predates Islam itself). Christianity itself was obviously less secretive(and not "male only" except for the clergy, which was the norm until the 20th century), as were most serious rivals.What about the cult of Isis?
One, the Pope was just a random "Bishop of Rome" early on or even on occasion, just an important Christian figure retroactively called Pope centuries later. Two, Christianity had no monasteries or monastic class when the Romans adopted it(ascetics, who were desert hermits, came along a bit later and had no serious political power).Far more preferable to have a common faith that says to pay your taxes and to not commits crimes in thought or deed. Though they had different definitions of crime, the main ones would stay the same. If the Romans kept around and pushed for Christianity when the empire was united I imagine it would have been like how the Byzantines had things. Many seperate patriarchs working in a council with the Emperor acting as gracious host. Harder to organize things elsewhere with pagans (meaning non-Jewish or Christian back then), if they have to decide who represents each area.
I never mentioned anything about the Pope or monastic orders. I was talking about how the Romans (as a civilization, not just from being from Rome) would probably have liked the model of the Eastern Roman Empire with caesaropapism and have tried to do something like it themselves, while trying somthing with other religions would have trouble with deciding which leaders from what temples had precedence. Did you think I meant Pope when I talked about the Emperor playing the role of gracious host?One, the Pope was just a random "Bishop of Rome" early on or even on occasion, just an important Christian figure retroactively called Pope centuries later. Two, Christianity had no monasteries or monastic class when the Romans adopted it(ascetics, who were desert hermits, came along a bit later and had no serious political power).
I brought it up just to point out how Christianity at Nicea wasn't like it was in St. Francis's time. I can totally see that model having been popular if the WRE lasted longer(like to 600-700ish).I never mentioned anything about the Pope or monastic orders. I was talking about how the Romans (as a civilization, not just from being from Rome) would probably have liked the model of the Eastern Roman Empire with caesaropapism and have tried to do something like it themselves, while trying somthing with other religions would have trouble with deciding which leaders from what temples had precedence. Did you think I meant Pope when I talked about the Emperor playing the role of gracious host?