THE GREAT APOSTASY Chapt. 9 - INTERNAL CAUSES, CONTINUED. [Open]

1. Among the controlling causes leading to the general apostasy of the Church we have specified as third in the series: Unauthorized changes in Church organization and government.

2. A comparison between the plan of organization on which the Primitive Church was founded and the ecclesiastical system which took its place will afford valuable evidence as to the true or apostate condition of the modern Church. The Primitive Church was officered by apostles, pastors, high priests, seventies, elders, bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons.* We have no evidence that the presiding council of the Church, comprising the twelve apostles, was continued beyond the earthly ministry of those who had been ordained to that holy calling during the life of Christ or soon after His ascension. Nor is there record of any ordination of individuals to the apostleship, irrespective of membership in the council of twelve, beyond those whose calling and ministry are chronicled in the New Testament, which, as a historical record, ends with the first century.

*See Luke 6:13 and Mark 3:14; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 5:1-5; Luke 10:1-11; Acts 14:23; 15:6; 1 Peter 5:1; 1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7; Rev. 1:6; Acts 13:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-12.

3. Ecclesiastical history other than the holy scriptures informs us, however, that wherever a branch, or church, was organized, a bishop or an elder (presbyter) was placed in charge. There is no doubt that while the apostles lived, they were recognized and respected as the presiding authorities of the Church. As they established branches or churches, they selected the bishops, and submitted their nominations to the vote of the members. As already stated, the principle of self-government, or common consent, was respected in apostolic days with a care amounting to sacred duty. We read that the bishops were assisted in their local administration by presbyters and deacons.

4. After the apostles had gone, bishops and other officers were nominated by, or at the instance of, the existing authorities. The affairs of each church or branch were conducted and regulated by the local officers, so that a marked equality existed among the several churches, none exercising or claiming supremacy except as to the deference voluntarily paid to those churches that had been organized by the personal ministry of the apostles. Throughout the first and the greater part of the second century, "the Christian churches were independent on each other; nor were they joined together by association, confederacy, or other bonds but those of charity. Each Christian assembly was a little state, governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or, at least, approved by the society."*

5. As with the churches, so with their bishops, -- there was a recognized equality among them. Late in the second, and throughout the third century, however, marked distinctions and recognition of rank arose among the bishops, those of large and wealthy cities assuming authority and dignity above that accorded by them to the bishops of the country provinces. The bishops of the largest cities or provinces, took to themselves the distinguishing title of Metropolitans,* and assumed a power of presidency over the bishops of more limited jurisdiction.

*See Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. 2, Part 2, ch. 2:3; also Cent. 4, Part 2, ch. 2:3; and compare Cent. 1, Part 2, ch. 2:14.

6. The second century was marked by the custom of holding synods or church councils; the practice originated among the churches in Greece, and thence became general. These councils grew rapidly in power, so that in the third century we find them legislating for the churches, and directing by edict and command, in matters which formerly had been left to the vote of the people. Needless to say that with such assumptions of authority came arrogance and tyranny in the government of the Church. As the form of church government changed more and more, many minor orders of clergy or church officers arose; thus in the third century we read of sub-deacons, acolytes, ostiars, readers, exorcists, and copiates. As an instance of the pride of office, it is worthy of note that a sub-deacon was forbidden to sit in the presence of a deacon without the latter's express consent.

7. Rome, so long the "mistress of the world" in secular affairs, arrogated to herself a pre-eminence in church matters, and the bishop of Rome claimed supremacy. It is doubtless true that the church at Rome was organized by Peter and Paul. Tradition, founded on error, said that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome; and those who successively were acknowledged as bishops of the metropolis claimed to be, in fact, lineal successors of the presiding apostle. The high but none the less false claim is made by the Catholic Church in this day, that the present pope is the last lineal successor -- not alone to the bishopric but to the apostleship.

8. The rightful supremacy of the bishops of Rome, or Roman pontiffs as they came to be known, was early questioned; and when Constantine made Byzantium, or Constantinople, the capital of the empire, the bishop of Constantinople claimed equality. The dispute divided the Church, and for five hundred years the dissension increased, until in the ninth century (855 AD) it developed into a great disruption, in consequence of which the bishop of Constantinople, known distinctively as the patriarch, disavowed all further allegiance to the bishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Roman pontiff. The disruption is marked today by the distinction between Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics.

9. The election of pontiff, or bishop of Rome, was long left to the vote of the people and clergy; later the electoral function was vested in the clergy alone; and in the eleventh century the power was lodged in the college of cardinals where it remains vested today. The Roman pontiffs strove with unremitting zeal to acquire temporal as well as spiritual authority; and their influence had become so great that in the eleventh century we find them claiming the right to direct princes, kings, and emperors in the affairs of the several nations. It was at this, the early period of their greatest temporal power, that the pontiffs took the title of Pope, the word meaning literally papa, or father, and applied in the sense of universal parent. The power of the popes was increased during the twelfth century, and may be said to have reached its height in the thirteenth century.

10. Not content with assumed supremacy in all church affairs, the popes "carried their insolent pretensions so far as to give themselves out for lords of the universe, arbiters of the fate of kingdoms and empires, and supreme rulers over the kings and princes of the earth."* They claimed the right to authorize and direct in the internal affairs of nations, and to make lawful the rebellion, of subjects against their rulers if the latter failed to keep favor with the papal power.

11. Compare this arrogant and tyrannical church of the world with the Church of Christ. Unto Pilate our Lord declared, "My kingdom is not of this world ;"* and on all earlier occasion, when the people would have proclaimed Him king with earthly dominion,** He departed from them. Yet the Church that boasts of its divine origin as founded by the Christ, who would not be a king, lifts itself above all kings and rulers, and proclaims itself the supreme power in the affairs of nations.

12. In the fourth century the Church had promulgated what has been since designated as an infamy, viz: that "errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper admonition, were punishable with civil penalties, and corporeal tortures."* The effect of this unjust rule appeared as more and more atrocious with the passage of the years, so that in the eleventh century, and later, we find the Church imposing punishment of fine, imprisonment, bodily torture, and even death, as penalties for infraction of church regulations, and, more infamous still, providing for mitigation or annulment of such sentences on payment of money. This led to the shocking practice of selling indulgences or pardons, which custom was afterward carried to the awful extreme of issuing such before the commission of the specific offense, thus literally offering for sale licenses to sin, with assurance of temporal and promise of spiritual immunity.

13. The granting of indulgences as exemptions from temporal penalties was at first confined to the bishops and their agents, and the practice dates as an organized traffic from about the middle of the twelfth century. It remained for the popes, however, to go to the blasphemous extreme of assuming to remit the penalties of the hereafter on payment of the sums prescribed. Their pretended justification of the impious assumption was as horrible as the act itself, and constitutes the dreadful doctrine of supererogation.

14. As formulated in the thirteenth century, this doctrine was thus set forth: "That there actually existed an immense treasure of merit, composed of the pious deeds and virtuous actions which the saints had performed beyond what was necessary for their own salvation, and which were therefore applicable to the benefit of others; that the guardian and dispenser of this precious treasure was the Roman pontiff, and that of consequence he was empowered to assign to such as he thought proper a portion of this inexhaustible source of merit, suitable to their respective guilt, and sufficient to deliver them from the punishment due to their crimes."*

15. The doctrine of supererogation is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural and untrue. Man's individual responsibility for his acts is as surely a fact as is his agency to act for himself. He will be saved through the merits and by the atoning sacrifice of our Redeemer and Lord; and his claim upon the salvation provided is strictly dependent on his compliance with the principles and ordinances of the gospel as established by Jesus Christ. Remission, of sins and the eventual salvation of the human soul are provided for; but these gifts of God are not to be purchased with money. Compare the awful fallacies of supererogation and the blasphemous practice of assuming to remit the sins of one man in consideration of the merits of another, with the declaration of the one and only Savior of mankind: "But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment."* His inspired apostle, seeing in prophetic vision the day of awful certainty, solemnly testifies, "And I saw the dead, small and great stand before God; and the books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works."**

16. The scriptures proclaim the eternal fact of individual accountability;* the Church in the days of its degeneracy declares that the merit of one may be bought by another and paid for in worldly coin. Can such a Church be in any measure the Church of Christ?

*For a concise treatment of the doctrine of man's responsibility see the author's "Articles of Faith," Lecture 3.

17. In illustration of the indulgences as sold in Germany in the sixteenth century, we have the record of the doings of John Tetzel, agent of the pope, who traveled about selling forgiveness of sins. Says Milner: "Myconius assures us that he himself heard Tetzel declaim with incredible effrontery concerning the unlimited power of the pope and the efficacy of indulgences. The people believed that the moment any person had paid the money for the indulgence he became certain of his salvation: and that the souls for whom the indulgences were bought, were instantly released out of purgatory. ... John Tetzel boasted that he had saved more souls from hell by his indulgences than St. Peter had converted to Christianity by his preaching. He assured the purchasers of them, their crimes, however enormous, would be forgiven; whence it became almost needless for him to bid them dismiss all fears concerning their salvation. For, remission of sins being fully obtained, what doubt could there be of salvation?"*

*Milner, "History of the Church," Cent. 16, ch. 2. 18. A copy of an indulgence written by the hand of Tetzel, the vendor of popish pardons, has been preserved to us as follows: "May our Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy upon thee and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, that of his Apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they have been incurred; and then from all the sins, transgressions, and excess, how enormous soever they may be, even for such as are reserved for the cognizance of the holy see; and as far as the keys of the holy church extend, I remit to thee all the punishment which thou deservest in purgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which thou possessedst at baptism; so that when thou diest, the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened; and if thou shalt not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."*

19. By way of excuse or defense, it has been claimed for the Roman Catholic Church that a profession of contrition or repentance was required of every applicant for indulgence, and that the pardon was issued on the basis of such penitence, and not primarily for money or its equivalent; but that recipients of indulgences, at first voluntarily, and later in compliance with established custom, made a material offering or donation to the Church. It is reported, moreover, that some of the abuses with which the selling of indulgences had been associated were disapproved by the Council of Trent, about the middle of the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, the dread fact remains that for four hundred years the Church had claimed for its pope the power to remit all sins, and that the promise of remission had been sold and bought."*

20. The awful sin of blasphemy consists in taking to one's self the divine prerogatives and powers. Here we find the pope of Rome, the head of the only church recognized at the time, assuming to remit the punishments due in the hereafter for sins committed in mortality. A pope assuming to sit in judgment as God Himself! Is this not a fulfilment of the dread conditions of apostasy foreseen and foretold as antecedent to the second advent of Christ? Read for yourselves: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."*

21. Another abuse perpetrated by the councils through which assemblies the supreme pontiffs exercised their autocratic powers, is seen in the restrictions placed on the reading and interpretation of scripture. The same Council of Trent, which had disclaimed authority or blame for the acts of church officials regarding the scandalous traffic in indulgences, prescribed most rigid regulations forbidding the reading of the scriptures by the people. Thus: "A severe and intolerable law was enacted, with respect to all interpreters and expositors of the scriptures, by which they were forbidden to explain the sense of these divine books, in matters of faith and practice, in such a manner as to make them speak a different language from that of the church and the ancient doctors. The same law farther declared that the church alone (i.e., its ruler, the Roman pontiff) had the right of determining the true meaning and signification of scripture. To fill up the measure of these tyrannical and iniquitous proceedings, the church of Rome persisted obstinately in affirming, though not always with the same imprudence and plainness of speech, that the holy scriptures were not composed for the use of the multitude, but only for that of their spiritual teachers; and, of consequence, ordered these divine records to be taken from the people in all places where it was allowed to execute its Imperious demands."*

*Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. 16, Part 1, ch. 1:25. The italics are introduced by the present writer.

22. Is it possible that a church teaching such heresies can be the Church established by Jesus Christ? The Lord Jesus commanded all: "Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me."*

23. Surely a pall of darkness had fallen upon the earth. The Church of Christ had long since ceased to exist. In place of a priesthood conferred by divine authority, a man-created papacy ruled with the iron hand of tyranny and without regard to moral restraint. In a scholarly work Dr. J. W. Draper gives a list of pontiffs who had stood at the head of the Church from the middle of the eighth to the middle of the eleventh centuries, with biographical notes of each.* And what a picture is there outlined! To win the papal crown no crime was too great, and for a period of centuries the immoralities of many of the popes and their subordinates are too shocking for detailed description. It may be claimed that the author last cited, and whose words are given below, was an avowed opponent of the Roman Catholic Church, and that, therefore, his judgment is prejudiced; in reply let it be said that the attested facts of history support the dread arraignment. In commenting on the facts set forth, Dr. Draper says:

24. "More than a thousand years had elapsed since the birth of our Savior, and such was the condition of Rome. Well may the historian shut the annals of those times in disgust. Well may the heart of the Christian sink within him to such a catalogue of hideous crimes. Well may we ask, Were these the vicegerents of God upon earth -- these, who had truly reached the goal beyond which the last effort of human wickedness cannot pass? Not until several centuries after these events did public opinion come to the true and philosophical conclusion -- the total rejection of the divine claims of the papacy. For a time the evils were attributed to the manner of the pontifical election, as if that could by any possibility influence the descent of a power which claimed to be supernatural and under the immediate care of God. ... No one can study the development of the Italian ecclesiastical power without discovering how completely it depended on human agency, too often on human passion and intrigue; how completely wanting it was of any mark of the Divine construction and care -- the offspring of man, not of God, and therefore bearing upon it the lineaments of human passions, human virtues, and human sins."*

25. By increasing changes and unauthorized alterations in organization and government, the earthly establishment known as "the Church," with popes, cardinals, abbots, friars, monks, exorcists, acolytes, etc., lost all semblance to the Church as established by Christ and maintained by His apostles. The Catholic argument that there has been an uninterrupted succession of authority in the priesthood from the Apostle Peter to the present occupant of the papal throne, is untenable in the light of history, and unreasonable in the light of fact. Authority to speak and act in the name of God, power to officiate in the saving ordinances of the gospel of Christ, the high privilege of serving as a duly commissioned ambassador of the court of Heaven, -- these are not to be had as the gifts of princes, nor are they to be bought for money, nor can they be won as trophies of the bloody sword. The history of the papacy is the condemnation of the Church of Rome.

1. THE ROMAN CHURCH RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRAFFIC IN "INDULGENCES." In view of the claim asserted by some defenders of the Roman Church, to the effect that the shameful traffic in indulgences was not sanctioned by the church, and that the church cannot be held accountable for the excesses to which its subordinates may go in their alleged official acts, the following remarks by Milner, the judicious authority on Church History (Cent. 16, chap. 2), may be of interest: "It does not appear that the rulers of the hierarchy ever found the least fault with Tetzel as exceeding his commission, till an opposition was openly made to the practice of indulgences. Whence it is evident, that the Protestants have not unjustly censured the corruptions of the court of Rome in this respect. ... The indulgences were farmed to the highest bidders, and the undertakers employed such deputies to carry on the traffic as they thought most likely to promote their lucrative views. The inferior officers concerned in this commerce were daily seen in public houses enjoying themselves in riot and voluptuousness (Maimbourg, p. 11). In fine, whatever the greatest enemy of popery could have wished, was at that time exhibited with the most undisguised impudence and temerity, as if on purpose to render that wicked ecclesiastical system infamous before all mankind."

The author proceeds to comment on the graded prices by which these indulgences were placed within the pecuniary reach of all classes, and finds in the wholesale traffic proof of profound ignorance and dire superstition, and then points out the need of a new gospel dispensation as follows: "This, however, was the very situation of things which opened the way for the reception of the gospel. But who was to proclaim the gospel in its native beauty and simplicity? The princes, the bishops, and the learned men of the times saw all this scandalous traffic respecting the pardon of sins; but none was found who possessed the knowledge, the courage, and the honesty, necessary to detect the fraud, and to lay open to mankind the true doctrine of salvation by the remission of sins through Jesus Christ." Milner finds the inauguration of a new era in the "Reformation" during the sixteenth century. It is sufficient for our present purpose to know that he recognized the need of preparation whereby the way would be opened "for the reception of the gospel." (Milner, "Ch. Hist.," Cent. 16, ch. 2; italics introduced.)

2. THREE POPES AT ONE TIME. "One of the severest blows given both the temporal and the spiritual authority of the popes, was the removal, in 1309, through the influence of the French king, Philip the Fair, of the papal chair from Rome to Avignon, in Provence, near the frontier of France. Here it remained for a space of about seventy years, an era known in church history as the Babylonian Captivity. While it was established here, all the popes were French, and of course all their policies were shaped and controlled by the French kings. ... The discontent awakened among the Italians by the situation of the papal court at length led to an open rupture between them and the French party. In 1378 the opposing factions each elected a pope, and thus there were two heads of the church, one at Avignon and the other at Rome. The spectacle of two rival popes, each claiming to be the rightful successor of St. Peter, and the sole infallible head of the Church, very naturally led men to question the claims and infallibility of both. It gave the reverence which the world had so generally held for the Roman See a rude shock, and one from which it never recovered. Finally, in 1409, a general council of the church assembled at Pisa, for the purpose of composing the shameful quarrel. The council deposed both popes, and elected Alexander V as the supreme head of the church. But matters, instead of being mended hereby were only made worse; for neither of the deposed pontiffs would lay down his authority in obedience to the demands of the council, and consequently there were now three popes instead of two. In 1414 another council was called, at Constance, for the settlement of the growing dispute. Two of the claimants were deposed and one resigned. A new pope was then elected -- Pope Martin V. In his person the Catholic world was again united under a single spiritual head. The schism was outwardly healed, but the wound had been too deep not to leave permanent marks upon the church." (P. V. N. Meyers, "Gen. Hist.," pp. 457,458. Italics introduced.)

The rupture between the French and Italian factions, referred to by Myers in the quotation given above, is known in history as the Great Schism. It may be regarded as the decisive beginning of decline in the temporal power of the popes.

3. THE PAPACY CONDEMNS ITSELF. The line of succession in the papacy for a limited period as referred to in the text, is given by Draper as follows:

"To some it might seem, considering the interests of religion alone, desirable to omit all biographical reference to the popes; but this cannot be done with justice to the subject. The essential principle of the papacy, that the Roman pontiff is the vicar of Christ upon earth, necessarily obtrudes his personal relations upon us. How shall we understand his faith unless we see it illustrated in his life? Indeed, the unhappy character of those relations was the inciting cause of the movements in Germany, France, and England, ending in the extinction of the papacy as an actual political power, movements to be understood only through a sufficient knowledge of the private lives and opinions of the popes. It is well, as far as possible, to abstain from burdening systems with the imperfections of individuals. In this case they are inseparably interwoven. The signal peculiarity of the papacy is that, though its history may be imposing, its biography is infamous. I shall, however, forbear to speak of it in this latter respect more than the occasion seems necessarily to require; shall pass in silence some of those cases which would profoundly shock my religious reader, and therefore restrict myself to the ages between the middle of the eighth and the middle of the eleventh centuries, excusing myself to the impartial critic by the apology that these were the ages with which I have been chiefly concerned in this chapter.

"On the death of Pope Paul I, who had attained the pontificate AD 757, the Duke of Nepi compelled some bishops to consecrate Constantine, one of his brothers, as pope; but more legitimate electors subsequently, AD 768, choosing Stephen IV, the usurper and his adherents were severely punished; the eyes of Constantine were put out; the tongue of the Bishop Theodorus was amputated, and he was left in a dungeon to expire in the agonies of thirst. The nephews of Pope Adrian seized his successor, Pope Leo III, AD 795, in the street, and, forcing him into a neighboring church, attempted to put out his eyes and cut out his tongue; at a later period, this pontiff, trying to suppress a conspiracy to depose him, Rome became the scene of rebellion, murder and conflagration. His successor, Stephen V, AD 816, was ignominiously driven from the city; his successor, Paschal I, was accused of blinding and murdering two ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace; it was necessary that imperial commissioners should investigate the matter, but the pope died, after having exculpated himself by oath before thirty bishops. John VIII, AD 872, unable to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them tribute; the Bishop of Naples, maintaining a secret alliance with them, received his share of the plunder they collected. Him John excommunicated, nor would he give him absolution unless he would betray the chief Mohammedans and assassinate others himself. There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to murder the pope; some of the treasures of the church were seized; and the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys, to admit the Saracens into the city. Formosus, who had been engaged in these transactions, and excommunicated as a conspirator for the murder of John, was subsequently elected pope, AD 891; he was succeeded by Boniface VI, AD 896, who had been deposed from the diaconate, and again from the priesthood, for his immoral and lewd life. By Stephen VII, who followed, the dead body of Formosus was taken from the grave, clothed in the papal habilaments, propped up in a chair, tried before a council, and the preposterous and indecent scene completed by cutting off three of the fingers of the corpse and casting it into the Tiber; but Stephen himself was destined to exemplify how low the papacy had fallen: he was thrown into prison and strangled. In the course of five years, from AD 896 to AD 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V, who succeeded in AD 904, was in less than two months thrown into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains, who usurped his place, and who, in his turn, was shortly expelled from Rome by Sergius III, who, by the aid of a military force, seized the pontificate, AD 905. This man, according to the testimony of the times, lived in criminal intercourse with the celebrated prostitute Theodora, who, with her daughters Marozia and Theodora, also prostitutes, exercised an extraordinary control over him. The love of Theodora was also shared by John X: she gave him first the archbishopric of Ravenna, and then translated him to Rome, AD 915, as pope. John was not unsuited to the times; he organized a confederacy which perhaps prevented Rome from being captured by the Saracens, and the world was astonished and edified by the appearance of this warlike pontiff at the head of his troops. By the love of Theodora, as was said, he had maintained himself in the papacy for fourteen years; by the intrigues and hatred of her daughter Marozia he was overthrown. She surprised him in the Lateran Palace; killed his brother Peter before his face; threw him into prison, where he soon died, smothered, as was asserted, with a pillow. After a short interval Marozia made her own son pope as John XI, AD 931. Many affirmed that Pope Sergius was his father, but she herself inclined to attribute him to her husband Alberic, whose brother Guido she subsequently married. Another of her sons; Alberic, so called from his supposed father, jealous of his brother John, cast him and their mother Marozia into prison. After a time Alberic's son was elected pope AD 956; he assumed the title of John XII, the amorous Marozia thus having given a son and a grandson to the papacy. John was only nineteen years old when he thus became the head of Christendom. His reign was characterized by the most shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I was compelled by the German clergy to interfere. A synod was summoned for his trial in the Church of St. Peter, before which it appeared that John had received bribes for the consecration of bishops; that he had ordained one who was but ten years old, and had performed that ceremony over another in a stable; he was charged with incest with one of his father's concubines, and with so many adulteries that the Lateran Palace had become a brothel; he put out the eyes of one ecclesiastic, and castrated another, both dying in consequence of their injuries; he was given to drunkenness, gambling and the invocation of Jupiter and Venus. When cited to appear before the council, he sent word that `he had gone out hunting;' and to the fathers who remonstrated with him, he threateningly remarked `that Judas, as well as the other disciples, received from his Master the power of binding and loosing, but that as soon as he proved a traitor to the common cause, the only power he retained was that of binding his own neck.' Hereupon he was deposed, and Leo VIII elected in his stead, AD 963; but subsequently getting the upper hand, he seized his antagonists, cut off the hand of one, the nose, finger, tongue of others. His life was eventually brought to an end by the vengeance of a man whose wife he had seduced.

"After such details it is almost needless to allude to the annals of succeeding popes: to relate that John XIII was strangled in prison; that Boniface VII imprisoned Benedict VII and killed him by starvation; that John XIV was secretly put to death in the dungeons of the Castle of St. Angelo; that the corpse of Boniface was dragged by the populace through the streets. The sentiment of reverence for the sovereign pontiff, nay, even of respect, had become extinct in Rome; throughout Europe the clergy were so shocked at the state of things, that, in their indignation, they began to look with approbation on the intention of the Emperor Otho to take from the Italians their privilege of appointing the successor of St. Peter, and confine it to his own family. But his kinsman, Gregory V, whom he placed on the pontifical throne, was very soon compelled by the Romans to fly; his excommunications and religious thunders were turned into derision by them; they were too well acquainted with the true nature of those terrors; they were living behind the scenes. A terrible punishment awaited the Anti-pope John XVI. Otho returned into Italy, seized him, put out his eyes, cut off his nose and tongue, and sent him through the streets mounted on an ass, with his face to the tail, and a wine-bladder on his head. It seemed impossible that things could become worse: yet Rome had still to see Benedict IX, AD 1033, a boy of less than twelve years, raised to the apostolic throne. Of this pontiff, one of his successors, Victor III, declared that his life was so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to describe it. He ruled like a captain of banditti rather than a prelate. The people at last, unable to bear his adulteries, homicides, and abominations any longer, rose against him. In despair of maintaining his position, he put up the papacy at auction. It was bought by a presbyter named John, who became Gregory VI, AD 1045." (J. W. Draper, "Intellectual Development of Europe," Vol. 1, ch. 12, pp. 378-381.)

4. COMMENTARY ON THE PASSAGE FROM 2 THESS. 2:3, 4. It should be remembered that the application of Paul's declaration as to the apostasy made in the text, is the one generally made by theologians of Protestant denominations. It is in no way peculiar to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Let us read the passage again: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [the day of Christ's promised advent] shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

In his Bible Commentary, Dr. Adam Clarke says of this scripture: "The general run of Protestant writers understand the whole as referring to the popes and church of Rome, or the whole system of the papacy. ... Bishop Newton has examined the whole prophecy with his usual skill and judgment. ... The principal part of modern commentators follow his steps. He applies the Whole to the Romish church: the apostasy, its defection from the pure doctrines of Christianity; and the `man of sin,' etc., the general succession of the popes of Rome." An abridgment of Bishop Newton's interpretation is then added; this, in part, is as follows:

"For that day shall not come except, etc. -- The day of Christ shall not come except there come the apostasy first. The apostasy here described is plainly not of a civil, but of a religious nature; not a revolt from the government, but a defection from the true religion and Worship. ...

"So that he as God sitteth in the temple, etc. -- By the temple of God the apostle could not well mean the temple of Jerusalem, because that, he knew, would be destroyed within a few years. After the death of Christ, the temple of Jerusalem is never called the temple of God; and if, at any time, they make mention of the house or temple of God, they mean the church in general or every particular believer. Whoever will consult 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Rev. 3:12, will want no examples to prove that under the gospel dispensation, the temple of God is the Church of Christ; and the man of sin's sitting implies his ruling and presiding there. ... "Upon this survey, there appears little room to doubt of the general sense and meaning of the passage. The Thessalonians, (as we have seen from some expressions in the former epistle,) were alarmed as if the end of the world was at hand. The apostle, to correct their mistakes and dissipate their fears, assures them that a great apostasy or defection of the Christians from the true faith and worship must happen before the coming of Christ. This apostasy, all the concurrent marks and characters will justify us in charging upon the church of Rome. The true Christian worship is the worship of the only true God, through the one only Mediator, the man Christ Jesus, and from this worship the church of Rome has most notoriously departed, by substituting other mediators, and invoking and adoring saints and angels; nothing is apostasy if idolatry be not. ... If the apostasy be rightly charged upon the church of Rome, it follows, of consequence, that the `man of sin' is the pope, not meaning any pope in particular, but the pope in general, as the chief head and supporter of this apostasy."

The opinion of Dr. MacKnight is also cited with approval by Clarke. In his "Commentary and Notes," (vol. 3, p. 100, etc.) MacKnight says: "As it is said, the man of sin was to be revealed in his season, there can be little doubt that the dark ages, in which all learning was overturned by the irruption of the northern barbarians, were the season allotted to the man of sin for revealing himself. Accordingly we know, that in these ages, the corruptions of Christianity, and the usurpations of the clergy, were carried to the greatest height. In short, the annals of the world cannot produce persons and events to which the things written in this passage can be applied with so much fitness as to the bishops of Rome."

After the apostles had gone.... ***The Mormons teach that the Apostle John never died.
How could there have been an Apostasy if John the Apostle was still living? What was he doing?
Hiding in the HOLLOW EARTH with the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel?***

Why not address what was said instead of what you did, which may just as well have not been said? I'm absolutely against the LDS, but I don't think your response was necessary. Examine what was said and then make your remarks on what was said...wouldn't that be better?

Just a little thought for you...

To believe in the great apostasy as described by mormonism you need to believe that Jesus' ability to accurately predict future events was lacking.

For example, explain the Lord's claim that his Church would never be overcome, "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:19)? What about his promise that he would be with his Church until the end of time (Matt. 28:20)? What about his promise to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church (John 14:16, 26)? What about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13)?

Joseph Smithe was an ignorant, 14 yo farmboy, with no Bible knowledge, who was deceived by two 'personages' who match completely the Bible's description of Satanic messengers who pose as Angels of Light.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Galatians 1:6-9
6. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
7. which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
9. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (niv)

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
12. And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.
13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. (niv)

Ephesians 2:1-2

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

KJV 1 Corinthians 4:17
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

KJV 2 Timothy 1:13
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

KJV 2 Timothy 3:14-15
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

How long will it take to get THIS thread shut down today??

The article is a direct attack on the beliefs of others and does not qualify as an “ecumenic” thread. Making Mormon 'Spirit' Babies [Ecumenic]

The article does not have to be "ecumenic" - the discussion among Freepers must be "ecumenic" on a thread with that label.

This is an interesting test of how far the envelope can be pushed because both Catholics and Protestants would have cause to be offended by the article.

So far I've only pulled 5 posts: 6, 20, 23, 47 and 63.

(It's early yet!)

On the other hand, I am more inclined to lock such a thread than to change the title to "open."

(You are a prophet!)

If I end up locking it, you can repost it as an open thread yourself.

(Then it will be in FR twice!)

Sorry, this thread is locked. The Great Apostasy and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (Ecumenic)

It looks like I'll get a LOT of work done around the house today!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.