And again you're WRONG- Charlemagne's actually full title, he adopted himself was- 'Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.'
So, I'm wrong arguing that "August Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire" was used and not "Roman Emperor"? Try to read posts you disagree with last time.
So yes he was. I'm placing sources.
No. You're placing quotes for encyclopediae. Sources would be something like contemporary texts (Unless the Encyclopedia Britannica was made during Carolingian times, but somehow I doubt it)
The title the Pope declared when crowning Charlemagne was Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans"). (Encyclopedia Britannica)
It's not present in contemporary sources for exemple.
Where are yours? We deal with facts, not what we come up with from our own thinking.
Funny, it's what I was just thinking : did you even get a look at Carolingians authors?
First, the title was never used on coinage, which says a lot when it come to titles and "propaganda".
Then : Vita Karoli Magni
Karolus gratia dei rex Francorum et Langobardorum ac patricius Romanorum
Karoli Magni atque Orthodoxi Imperatoris
Suo tempore imperatoris et augusti nomen accepit.
mmm....No....No mention of Charlemagne being crowned Roman Emperor.
Heck the only mention of Roman Emperors is about how Byzantines Emperors were pissed.
Invidiam tamen suscepti nominis, Romanis imperatoribus super hoc indignantibus
Do you want some more?
Let's try the Vita Hludovici Imperatoris.
quem Stephanus Romanus pontifex consecravit et unxit in regem: Pippinus senior et rex genuit Karolum, quem Leo Romanus pontifex consecravit et unxit ad imperatorem in ecclesia
Nope. Still not. I don't mention all the imperial mentions NOT followed by Romans or with any other precision than August or Christian. You may as well search yourself.
I know! Liber Pontificalis! I mean, he was crowned by the pope, it got to be there, right? Granted this part of the text was made centuries after, but as there's not other and that you have a certain continuity...
Ouch...Doesn't even mention the crowning itself, and calls Carolingian "emperors" without precision, while it's really about calling "Roman pontiff" each time.
I won't even mention Annali, it would be a waste of time.
Maybe an official act, as Ordinatio Imperii?
Well, damn..."Imperator Augustus"...Not a mention of "Roman Emperor".
Oh well, Alcuin?
"Imperium Christianum". Damn.
Maybe I went back in time to write myself all these documents? I don't know, maybe I'm secretly a Time Lord that impersonated one of the specialist of the era, Roger Collins, in order to say "the motivation behind the acceptance of the imperial title was a romantic and antiquarian interest in reviving the Roman empire is highly unlikely."
But please, point me a
contemporary text with
Imperator Romanorum.
Please cite your source since FACTS show that papal supremacy (the Bishop of Rome as THE Pope) date to the 6th Century, 300 years earlier than Charlemagne. Popes Clement (1st century), Victor (2nd century), and Cornelius (3rd century) all made it clear through excommunications of other bishops over "heresies" (refusing to celebrate Easter on the "correct" date for example) or presiding over synods.
You're confusing there, among other things, "pontifical supremacy", meaning a political and religious overwatching and decisive power, and pontifical importance. A bit like the Patriarch of Constantinople have a preponderant voice, but not rule supremely (which means on the top, without rival) over Orthodox faith.
We're talking REAL political power there, the sort of that didn't existed before Carolingiens, and didn't even really get off the ground before Ottonians.
As for synods where the pope not being present were excommunicated, I can't help wondering if you heard of Toledo Councils (where the pope wasn't present and still seen as legits), or synods like in 650 at Rouen...
All of these didn't even systematically paied lip-service to the pope (not that they rivaled its position, but simply didn't saw the use doing so), while it was presided either by bishops or even kings directly (as in Malay).
Sources? Certainly :
Medieval Papacy, by Geoffrey Barraclough may be interesting, if an oldie.
Or, and I'd translating it quickly, so pardon me for improperties.
Geneviève Bührer-Thierry said:
Western churches always acknwoledged a spiritual primacy to the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, but the pope only intervened rarily in the organisation of different churches, whom matters were decided by councils gathered under royal authority. This moral authority was first reinforced by the active role of Anglo-Saxons on the continent that, as Bonifacius, consult the pope and submit to his opinion on different demesnes.
It's as well the pope that preside the constitution of new churches in Germania, with the agreement of princes.
But it's critically ties made between Rome and Carolingians, that allow the pope to play an acknowledged role on all Christiendom. To a Church considered as a federation of national Churches succeed a more unitarian conception of a Church under the control and rule of the pope. Political problems met by different carolingians kings in the IXth century motivated popes to pose themselves as arbitles of conflicts and to exercice a real moral mandate on the whole Christiendom
The fact of the matter is that Irene was "Empress" and head of state of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the Pope (and many contemporaries) saw that while she may be the de facto "Emperor" the fact that de jure there was NO Emperor on the throne.
Certainly, and I never said anything against : remember I was talking of Carolingians challenging the claim of imperium, over Christians, and this was a good excuse as any.
The Pope took this opportunity to declare that he, and only he, had the authority to fill a vacancy of the Emperor of the Roman Empire.
No, you're just making that up : please point me ONE exemple of the Pope having this sort of legitimazing power during the Byzantine Papacy, and I'd be convinced.
But meanwhile, without any clue about the Pope being acknowledged a role in the imperial coronations before Charlemagne...
I didn't know "opinionated" was spelled facts. You didn't provided ONE source for all of this, just your deep down belief.