Roman Republic faces Christianity

The discussion of how a still Republican Rome would treat Christianity has been thrown around on occasion. Certainly room for more latitude, and more variation in treatment.

Regardless, lets flash forward a few centuries. The Republican forms are still going strong, and the population is becoming predominantly Christian. Giwever, the Senate and the still relevant positions of Pontifex Maximus, Censor, and other such religious political offices don't really mesh with the new religion. How might the government cope?

To clarify, this is more a discussion with how the Republic deals with a dwindling number of men that can be Pontifex Maximus, how they deal with citizen assemblies that refuse to acknowledge the traditional auspices, that sort of thing.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
A more intriguing question might be, how might adapting to a more Republican Rome modify early Christianity?
Christianity developed it's hierarchical but collegiate corporate structure modeled after the Roman EMPIRE. If Rome remained a Republic, might Christianity have developed into a number of more autonomous churches that democratically chose their pastors, more like todays Evangelical Protestant denominations?
Remember, the first Christians were city people, not peasants, not campesinos. The Reformation was in many ways a rediscovery of these old city archetypes buried in the Epistles for anyone literate to read when they read their Bibles rather than having the Bible interpreted for them by a priest. So it is easy to see how a Republican Christianity might have gone in some different directions and become far less hierarchical.
 
A more intriguing question might be, how might adapting to a more Republican Rome modify early Christianity?
Christianity developed it's hierarchical but collegiate corporate structure modeled after the Roman EMPIRE. If Rome remained a Republic, might Christianity have developed into a number of more autonomous churches that democratically chose their pastors, more like todays Evangelical Protestant denominations?
Remember, the first Christians were city people, not peasants, not campesinos. The Reformation was in many ways a rediscovery of these old city archetypes buried in the Epistles for anyone literate to read when they read their Bibles rather than having the Bible interpreted for them by a priest. So it is easy to see how a Republican Christianity might have gone in some different directions and become far less hierarchical.

Weren't many early bishops elected? As I see it, the limited franchises involved in choosing bishops and the heads of monasteries is not that different than how Roman cities were run. And, as I understand things, Roman cities were run, in general, as tiny little republics where the local senate/council controlled everything instead of the pesky masses and the demagogues. I would think that a Republican Christianity might not be that different. The really absolutist hierarchy didn't come about until the Middle Ages.

At the same time, Republican Rome had somewhat less success keeping down unpleasant religions. This might lead to anti-Christian activity either being lessened, because a praetor prorogued to deal with Christians would not have the resources of an imperial official, or more anti-Christian activity as the Senate decides to send magistrate after magistrate at a problem until it goes away, what seems to be their usual solution to every problem.

The biggest difference, assuming no serious butterflies, would be acceptance. Getting the one man who happens to be emperor to accept the religion: easy. Getting the Senate to do it? Much harder. OTL the Senate was very reluctant, at best, and somewhat hostile, at worst, to Christianity. I cannot see how any religion could replace the State Religion as long as their is a recognizable Senate that stands at the pinnacle of the system.
 
If Rome is still at war with Carthage. Couldn't that be pointed as evil incarnate, supposedly with child sacrifice. Hannibal could easily become the Anti-Christ. The Church becomes part of Rome earlier.
 
Christianity developed it's hierarchical but collegiate corporate structure modeled after the Roman EMPIRE.

I have never heard this claim before. I would love to see evidence because this does not match my understanding. Most of all, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church does not match the Roman Imperial system at all. I don't see any correspondence.

The hierarchy developed because it was a simple and efficient way to organize the burgeoning Church. Priests have their parish. Locally grouped parishes are organized under one bishop in a diocese, typically all those within one city. The bishops in turn report to an archbishop who provides oversight to other bishops in a geographic area. Some bishops are considered to be patriarchs and given more prestige and authority because of their important role in Church history. Matters of an important nature impinging on the doctrine of the faith are discussed and resolved by various ecumenical councils or agreement between the various Church Fathers.

None of this is unique or inspired by the Roman Imperial system. There is no Emperor analogue. There's no provincial governors, proconsuls, or all the other officers of the Roman system.

Hierarchy is a natural way that people organize. It is not unique to the Roman Empire. It is basic management, and all large organizations need it in some way.

The only thing we can say is that there will not be any doctrine of caesaropapism because there won't be an emperor to force it on the Orthodox Church.
 
The evidence of the influence of the Roman Empire on the Church hierarchy is all over the place, starting with the Papal title of Pontifex Maximus, the use of the terms diocese and bishop (both Roman administrative offices under Diocletian), and other examples besides. This isn't to say it hasn't changed or adapted over time but it would be a stretch to say there's no connection.
 
No ideas on how a Roman Republic might deal with its up and coming young men of Senatorial rank beacing a repigion that prohibits them from enforcing the morals of the Roman State Religion?
 
Weren't many early bishops elected? As I see it, the limited franchises involved in choosing bishops and the heads of monasteries is not that different than how Roman cities were run. And, as I understand things, Roman cities were run, in general, as tiny little republics where the local senate/council controlled everything instead of the pesky masses and the demagogues. I would think that a Republican Christianity might not be that different. The really absolutist hierarchy didn't come about until the Middle Ages.

Yes, many bishops were elected, after the deaths of the Apostles. Before the Apostles died it would appear that they or some representative sent by them were involved in the selection of bishops. If memory serves correctly evidence of this can be seen in the letters of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians: The Corinthian christians had cast out the bishop that had been placed by the Apostles and had placed a different man in his place, who had managed to gain popularity among that particular congregation.

The process might have been the Apostles selecting a bishop, and then a vote from the local congregation accepting or rejecting the new bishop. When the Apostles were killed, the voting structure was probably still in place in several areas. Christian history after the Apostles died and before Constantine is foggy, so it is hard to be sure of anything in that timeframe.

At the same time, Republican Rome had somewhat less success keeping down unpleasant religions. This might lead to anti-Christian activity either being lessened, because a praetor prorogued to deal with Christians would not have the resources of an imperial official, or more anti-Christian activity as the Senate decides to send magistrate after magistrate at a problem until it goes away, what seems to be their usual solution to every problem.

If the Roman Republic was less successful at getting rid of religions they didn't like, it might be possible for the Apostles to survive as an organization leading the church. This would mean that the various congregations would have remained more unified in regards to doctrine, making the doctrinal councils started in our time-line by Constantine unnecessary.

If the Apostles are still killed off by a Roman Republic, they you would probably have Christianity with as many different sets of beliefs and doctrines as Buddhism. The Senate probably wouldn't try to unify all of the sects of Christianity when Christianity becomes a widespread thing.

Now, if the Apostles lasted for a few generations and were then killed, you would probably have fewer sects popping up then did when they were being persecuted and killed in our time-line, but there would probably be very little efforts to reunify the Christian sects latter by the Roman Senate.

The biggest difference, assuming no serious butterflies, would be acceptance. Getting the one man who happens to be emperor to accept the religion: easy. Getting the Senate to do it? Much harder. OTL the Senate was very reluctant, at best, and somewhat hostile, at worst, to Christianity. I cannot see how any religion could replace the State Religion as long as their is a recognizable Senate that stands at the pinnacle of the system.

It is difficult to say how the Senate would react to a Christianity that is obviously becoming a major part of the population. Ether the Senate reacts in a manner unpleasant to Christians, or the Senate itself would change. A possible middle course would be soft persecution until enough Roman Politicians realize that this Christian thing just isn't going to go away.
 
I don't know that it's really possible to have this conversation without considering the implications of a surviving republic on Christianity. I mean right to its very foundation.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...? Jesus's life and death as well as Paul's life and death would've been significantly altered. Basic christological points of Christianity would likely be changed.

How the Republic would respond would depend in part on how fundamentally different the religion would be (if it would even come into existence at all).
 

katchen

Banned
I have never heard this claim before. I would love to see evidence because this does not match my understanding. Most of all, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church does not match the Roman Imperial system at all. I don't see any correspondence.

The hierarchy developed because it was a simple and efficient way to organize the burgeoning Church. Priests have their parish. Locally grouped parishes are organized under one bishop in a diocese, typically all those within one city. The bishops in turn report to an archbishop who provides oversight to other bishops in a geographic area. Some bishops are considered to be patriarchs and given more prestige and authority because of their important role in Church history. Matters of an important nature impinging on the doctrine of the faith are discussed and resolved by various ecumenical councils or agreement between the various Church Fathers.

None of this is unique or inspired by the Roman Imperial system. There is no Emperor analogue. There's no provincial governors, proconsuls, or all the other officers of the Roman system.

Hierarchy is a natural way that people organize. It is not unique to the Roman Empire. It is basic management, and all large organizations need it in some way.

The only thing we can say is that there will not be any doctrine of caesaropapism because there won't be an emperor to force it on the Orthodox Church.
Ceasaropapism is what I meant, basically.
What I wonder is this:
In a Roman Republic, would the Church be organized on a Republican basis, ie. with each parish having a council of notables functioning as a parish Senate, capable of hiring and firing the local parish priest?
Protestant denominations have this system. So do Jewish synagogues. Only they are con temporarily called "boards of directors".
And in protestant denominations, the diocese or synod sends out ministers or priests to be interviewed by the congregation or the Board, which votes on the candidate. This does not mean that the Synod is not an organization or that the Synod does not run the divinity schools and ordain ministers and priests. It does both. But the local congregation has the final say over who shall be it's minister and who shall continue to be it's minister.
Which was one of the issues that drove the Reformation. In the 16th and 17th Centuries, with the advent of printing and of literacy amongst the urban merchant classes, urbanites began to actually READ the Bible. When urbanites came to Paul's Epistles, they discovered, reading them cover to cover, a world very much like their own and congregations that basically governed themselves. And lest they think that none of this was possible, urban Christians could look across to their local Jewish ghetto and see their Jews doing exactly the same thing. Which led them to question why every little religious decision boiled down to the decision of a local, bishop appointed priest with guidance from Rome and no other recourse. Especially in the face of corruption within the Church that they could see around them. So they rebelled.
So this is why I believe that Christianity in a Roman Republic might well develop into an urban based faith that would look a lot like Protestantism or maybe even the way Pentecostalism does IOTL. And for that reason, in most places, Christianity's appeal to farmers at that early time in history might not be as great as it was IOTL when conversion by force was possible.
 
The stumbling block with these christians was, that they rejected to participate in the emperor cult and therefore often were treated as traitors. In the republic there were other ceremonies, but not that dominant and exclusive like the emperor cult. So the chances are good, that christianity can exist like every other religion in the roman pantheon.

A republic has not this one and only super-patron, the princeps. Every politician or clerk who was interested in a career tried to please the emperor. This became even worse in late empire with its strong centralism. In the republic you had multiple families competing about political power and the structures of governance was less centralistic. You could not "conquer" the republic from the top at one single point of attack.

The breakthru for christianity was not Constanines tolerance edict, it was the fact that he finally became a christian before he died. If i remember right, his sons and successors were christians, too. And so every sycophant had to become a christian.

In a republic I doubt, that christanity ever becomes the states one and only religion. The romans were pretty open to foreign religions if not dangerous for the state. Looking to all the upcoming other monotheistic religions, I expect the roman state religion will change by opening its pantheon to the most popular religions. Perhaps Christus, Mithras, Isis and Jupiter became equally treated by the pontifex maximus in his official ceremonies. In a republic with competing factions religious freedom is much more important, than in a centralistic monarchy.

I am convinced, that religion was important for the roman people. But looking to the aristocrats and politicians, it seems they often just instrumentalized religion. So the roman republic was de facto more secular than it looked like for the masses. For the ruling aristocrats, religion was nice to have and handy, as long as it did not disturb politics.

So I see a chance to have a more or less working coexistence of multiple polytheistic and monotheistic religions in the roman empire, balanced by the republic.

The more exciting question is: Is it possible to establish a republican system in ancient times, which is able to govern an empire and be stable enough to survive?
 
Last edited:
The breakthru for christianity was not Constanines tolerance edict, it was the fact that he finally became a christian before he died. If i remember right, his sons and successors were christians, too. And so every sycophant had to become a christian.

Constantine's mother was a Christian, and the Emperor was Christian from, at least, the time of his victory over his rival emperors, if not before. The story that Constantine was a less-than-loyal Christian comes from the fact that he did not accept baptism until he was on is deathbed. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, death-bed- baptisms were very common at the time; if baptism washed away all sin, and it could only be done once, it made sense to wait as long as you could until you underwent it. :)
 
Top