Peter Vere responds to my rant about Roman Law
My reply is this (read his remarks first):
"Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything else is from the evil one."
(neither American or Roman)
Rome is called the "eternal city" but hardly is, like I said the Roman Empire doesn't exist and hasn't for a long time.
While at first Peter's comments about the genius of Roman Law holding all the varied cultures and ideologies together may seem to be true--it isn't. The very reformations that he speaks about arose from Luther's inabilty to accept the hypocrisy of Roman Law and of course Henry VIII's marriage situation (and countless others since). So German Law and Anglo-Saxon Law did not fail Protestantism but Roman Law failed to keep them in the fold and could be said to be responsible for the fragmenting of Christianity in the first place.
It is the "Roman" church not because the Church because Peter was crucified in Rome. If Peter had been crucified in Byzantium we would be the Byzantine Church. Peter's death and burial in Rome have nothing to do with what philosophy the Church adopts. Jesus Christ was not a Roman, neither was Peter--so I hardly think that Roman Catholicism has anything to do with "having" to adopt roman law.