The argument that the Roman empire continued in the form of the Byzantine empire headquartered in Constantinople is valid. The Byzantine emperor had effective political control over a relatively large geographic area.
The argument that the Roman empire continued in the form of the papacy is pretty weak. The bishop of Rome effectively controlled only a very small area of Italy. To say that being head of state of the Lazio region of Italy is to be an emperor stretches the common understanding of the words emperor and empire. I guess you’re suggesting that the pope’s influence throughout western Europe was emperor-like, but that’s anachronistic. The medieval popes had far less control over the Catholic Church than the popes have had in the last 200 years. The pope’s authority beyond the borders of the papal states was limited for centuries to the role of settling theological disputes. They weren’t appointing bishops worldwide, nor were they exercising the sort of operational control of the Catholic Church that they’ve assumed in the period following the French Revolution. What happened is that the decline of the Catholic monarchies in Europe left a power vacuum that the papacy has stepped into.
The argument that the Roman empire continued in the form of the Byzantine empire headquartered in Constantinople is valid.I would say more than valid - the "Byzantines" called themselves Romans, they were called by their neighbors AND by the western Europeans as "Romans"
irishjuggler
The argument that the Roman empire continued in the form of the papacy is pretty weak.Correct, actually I'd say there is no argument - the bishop of Rome got the papal states only in the 8th century and was very weak until the collapse of central HRE power in the late middle ages or after.