On October 8 Pope Pius XII died, after a reign of more than 19 years. Now, as we go to press, arrangements are proceeding for the election of another pope. The College of Cardinals will meet and be locked in the Sistine Chapel until they reach a decision. This custom was initiated years ago to prevent considerable lapses of time when there was no pope because a decisive vote could not be reached.
According to present figures, the Pope reigns over 500,000,000 Catholics, and he also exerts a powerful influence in the world far beyond the pale of Romanism. He is a world political figure of great magnitude and receives ambassadors from many nations, even from atheistic, communistic powers. During the reign of Pope Pius XII, the stature and strength of the Romanist organization increased greatly; also, the non-Romanist world became much more tolerant of Rome, and many so-called Protestants suggested a rapprochement to the Papal See.
A careful reading of the Word of God should not fail to impress people with the great difference between the vast system of wealth and power whose head really reigns, and that of the early Church which was everywhere "spoken against," while individual Christians lost their possessions and often their lives simply because they belonged to Christ.
What we see today is but the fulfillment of the parable of the mustard seed—the "least of all seeds" has become "a tree so that the birds of the air" could lodge in its branches (Matt. 13:3232Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. (Matthew 13:32)). This is not confined to Romanism but also applies to Christendom at large.
Now the Pope has a many-tiered throne; did Christ have a throne? or did Peter have a throne? or Paul? Some may say, But times have changed. They surely have, but Christianity should have remained following a rejected Christ and waiting for Him to return. The Lord Jesus was cast out of the world.
Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom.
Did Peter amass a fortune of this world's goods? He could say, "Silver and gold hayed none." Acts 3:66Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. (Acts 3:6). And when money was offered to him as a lure, he said, "Thy money perish with thee." Acts 8:2020But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. (Acts 8:20). When Cornelius would worship him, "Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." Acts 10:2626But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. (Acts 10:26). From what Scripture records, it is evident that Peter would have abhorred the thought of a throne and would have indignantly reproved those who would suggest it. Would he have allowed his fellow believers to carry him on their shoulders, or kiss his slippered foot? or have received the thunderous acclaim of multitudes?
But Romanists base all on direct and continual descent from Peter. They speak of Peter's chair, but Peter had no chair to give them or anyone. He did not envisage successors to himself; nay, in his second epistle, written to Jewish believers, he wrote down for them (and us) the early facts of Christianity so that they might "have these things always in remembrance." He certainly gave no hint of apostolic succession, and that in sight of his martyrdom. A prominent thing in this epistle is the warning against apostates that would come. After his speaking of false prophets and false teachers coming, he says, "Many shall follow their pernicious ways."
Furthermore, Peter was the Apostle to the circumcision, the Jews. With so much of Judaism embodied in Roman Catholicism, perhaps this is significant. The priests, the holy orders, the rituals, all come from a Judaistic foundation.
But Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. To him were given the great truths of Christianity-the one body of all believers, united to their Head in heaven by the Holy Spirit (not a mortal head on earth, and a body cannot have two heads); the coming of the Lord; the changing of the bodies of the saints; the true order of remembering the Lord in death (not a mass, an unbloody sacrifice for sins); the heavenly calling of the saints. These are the basic truths of the true Church which did not begin until the descent of the Holy Spirit. Is it not clear that Romanism is Peterine, and not Pauline? And this in itself is a great mistake and productive of error.
And what did Paul foresee about successors to the apostles?
In view of his departure to be with Christ, he called the elders (or bishops) from Ephesus to meet him at Troas. (Note that there were many elders or bishops at that one place-they were simply overseers to help the saints.) This was the time for the greatest of the apostles to set forth in order what apostolic succession there was to be, but not a word is said. The Apostle did not commit the saints to any successor or successors, nor to any church or man, but to "God, and to the word of His grace." This is the true resource of believers at all times-God and His Word. God is wiser than men, and this is His inspired word. So-called human successors have only led the sheep astray. Paul foresaw this and told those overseers from Ephesus that Satan would be ever active and would use some of their own number to divide and scatter the flock; and grievous wolves would come in and do great damage to the sheep. (See Acts 20.)
And did Paul acknowledge Peter's supremacy (as they speak)? No, for when Peter came to Antioch and refused to eat with the Gentile believers, Paul rebuked him to his face "before all." That would be a serious thing to do if he were the supreme head. Furthermore, according to the very faulty traditions of Rome, Peter sat in command of the See at Rome for 25 years; but that is a ludicrous fable. Peter had not yet left Jerusalem, in Acts 15. Then we learn from Gal. 2 that later Peter went to Antioch, where, as we have noted, Paul rebuked him. If, as tradition claims, Peter was put to death by Nero, he could not have gone to Rome more than about 11 years before his martyrdom.
One responsible writer says, "The only thing certain is that Peter's sitting-still more his sitting twenty-five years at Rome -is a got-up fable, and a very poor and transparent one."
As for the tradition that Peter founded the church at Rome, that is simply untrue, for Paul's epistle to the Romans proves it. Who founded the church at Rome is not within the knowledge of men, but the gospel was carried there by someone or ones long before an apostle ever visited there. Even Paul did not get there until he was in chains. His epistle to them was written about A.D. 60; he was put to death about A.D. 68.
Pope Pius XII was, according to Papal sources, the 261st pope. But one must be very credible to accept that number, for the history of the succession of the popes for centuries is so clouded in uncertainty that no one can know anything definitely. Strict Catholic historians do not agree among themselves. If there were anything to a secure line of authority from Peter on down (which there is NONE), it would have been lost time and time again. On numerous occasions there were two, three, or even four popes at one time. True, the Church of Rome aims to cover up the whole sorry mess with giving a list of popes and of antipopes. But that is an arbitrary way to settle disputes that raged for years.
One of Rome's claims is that the sure line of succession is a guarantee of faith and grace; but read Baronius, Fleury, Dupin, Platina, et al. The line was broken many times, and if it were only broken once, where is succession? Further difficulties are encountered, even in the line of succession as approved by Rome, by which Pope Pius was numbered 261.
We cannot look at all the discrepancies in the lists of popes, nor begin to mention the unlawful deeds of many of them; but after the Roman emperors professed Christianity, some became Arians (the doctrine of Arius was a denial of the deity of Christ), and Jerome said that the world awoke and found itself Arian. The bishops (except a few who were banished) became Arians. Then Pope Liberius came on the scene; he was not at first an Arian, but later denied the faith, and signed the heretical creed; in the meanwhile the Arians consecrated Felix II, after banishing Liberius. This Felix acted in the full capacity of a pope, and ordained many presbyters and bishops. He is now omitted from the list, but Bellarmine says he must be considered pope, and gives his reasons. So for some years there were two popes.
Boniface I is listed as reigning from 418 to 422, but another, named Eulalius, was consecrated by the prelate who regularly consecrated the new pontiff; Boniface was consecrated by others. This caused the intervention of the Emperor, and a battle ensued when Boniface and his friends approached Rome armed. Boniface finally got the See, but what of true succession here?
Toward the end of that century, Symmachus and Laurentius were both elected popes the same day. The problem was then referred to Theodoric, king of the Goths, an Arian. Symmachus got the chair, but Laurentius subsequently was brought back, and he accused Symmachus of certain crimes. The king then referred it to a council, but when Symmachus was nearly assassinated on the way, he withdrew and stood on his privileges. He was never cleared of the charges, but Laurentius was given another See to satisfy him and recognize his consecration.
A writer we have already quoted, says that "The grossest outrages, even against nuns, and fighting and murders took place on this occasion.... In their strifes the clergy went so far as to spend all the church's goods to push their candidates."
Later, King Athelric appointed Boniface II to be pope, but the Romans chose Dioscurus; and it seems that the latter was chosen cannonically. The writer Baronius supports the point that Dioscurus was the choice of the Romans, but says that the strife happily ended by the death of Dioscurus a few months later. Then Boniface sat in the See of Rome, but if Dioscurus was correctly chosen, Boniface was not really a pope. However, he and not Dioscurus appears in the lists of popes today. Can anyone trace a direct line of apostolic succession in all this medley of voices, intrigues, and wars?
Silverius, who is in the approved list today, was not the choice of the clergy, but was forced upon them by the Emperor of Constantinople who was engaged in reconquering Rome. Then the empress at Constantinople sent Vigil to Rome; she also sent money to have him named pope. This was done, and Silverius lost out, eventually died of hunger, and Vigil remained pope. Silverius could scarcely claim to be Peter's successor, for he was not the choice of the clergy; and if he did, how could Vigil get in by graft and intrigue and oust him, and then be said to be Peter's successor? What would Peter think of such claims for succession to him? It seems that Peter aptly described some of these. Furthermore, Vigil was not consecrated after Silverius's death.
Pelagius I, the next pope, was accused of poisoning Vigil; Pelagius then became pope. Pope Honorius I, 625-638, was charged with heresy and was anathematized by later popes. There is confusion about Pope Sergius, for his epitaph speaks of a Pope Theodore, and another John, both of whom are not named in official papal lists.
A Pope Constantine was forced into the See by a Tuscan noble. This pope then had to flee, and a Pope Philip was consecrated. Constantine was then deposed, and a third pope, Stephen, got in. During all this upheaval, the eyes of Pope Constantine and his partisans were torn out, and they were otherwise tortured and put into monasteries. Can anyone trace any descending line of grace and truth as security for the Church in these things? All was utter confusion, and popes who consecrated the clergy were later thrown out. Where was there even any Roman authority for the consecrations?
There were again two popes after Pope Adrian, at which time the Emperor's son was sent to settle the matter.
We now quote from another: "It was at this time that the famous history of Pope Joan had its date, a history believed for centuries, not indeed doubted till the Reformation. A German woman, born however in England, went to Athens, and thence to Rome, and became so distinguished in her literary teachings, that she was at length, it is said, elected pope, and held the See two years; but, having given births to a child on the way to the Lateran church near the Coliseum, died, and was buried with disgrace." Rome claims this to be a fable, but there seems to be too much evidence of its truth to discredit it altogether. The excuse is that it was invented by Martinus Polonus, who was an eminent Roman Catholic writer. But why should one of their own writers invent such a story? Furthermore, great difficulties were encountered among Catholic writers over numbering of popes named John-the masculine form of the feminine name Joan. Reckoning Joan as a Pope John, reconciles some differing accounts. The existence of Pope Joan was not a Protestant invention and was believed centuries before Luther. And yet Rome continues to boast of true apostolic succession; and the late Pope, Pius XII, in the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950, reaffirmed Rome's contention that it is needful to belong to the "true church" to "gain salvation." Has Rome changed her beliefs, as some would tell us she has? The evidence is against it.
Formosus was chosen pope by transfer from another See. Is that the succession from Peter that the bishops of Rome claim? He later fled from Rome with the Pope's treasures; then he came back and was condemned before Pope John VIII, deprived of his priesthood, degraded, and anathematized.
The next pope, Martinus I, undid what John 8 did to Formosus, and restored him to his bishopric. Baronius (Catholic writer) calls John the ninth pope, but he could not have been ninth unless Pope Joan be counted as a John. This same writer says of popes who got the place by tyranny: "It was better to tolerate them, whatever they were, than have the church divided by schism.... That we should say this, evident necessity compels us, because the universal Catholic church honored them as legitimate pontiffs, obeyed them and recognized them as vicars of Christ, successors of Peter, and went to them with the respect due to a pontiff." What a way to maintain a holy channel of grace and faith! One who only has recourse "to God, and to the word of His grace" is assured of holiness and perfection in his foundation, and has not to apologize and make expediency better than truth and holiness.
Pope Marinus 1 is said by Platina to have gotten in by "evil arts." Then came Adrian III for two months; then Stephen V; then again Formosus (by bribery, says Platina); then Boniface VI for 15 days until he died. Stephen VI and Boniface VI contested the throne, the latter having been twice deposed before. The sudden death of Boniface left the throne to Stephen, who subsequently disinterred Formosus, after which he arrayed the corpse in pontifical robes, set it on the pontifical throne, and gave the dead Pope a mock trial. He then stripped him of the robes, cut off the fingers which had consecrated others, and threw his body into the Tiber. The consecrations he had made were held to be null and void. These deeds were later condemned, but they are facts of history.
During these hectic and corrupt times, a man by the name of Sergius was being consecrated pope when Formosus came with his party and drove him by force from the altar; Formosus thus became pope. It was bad enough that these supposed successors of Peter should war against each other and be guilty of vice and corruption. A still worse period came to the Roman church—a time when "the most worthless of women and her illegitimate children" disposed of the papal See as they pleased, putting in their paramours or illegitimate children. We would rather not mention this period, but inasmuch as Rome is becoming more and more aggressive in pressing her claim of being "the only true church" and of her unbroken line of descent from Peter, we deem we must briefly mention it.
Theodora was the woman, of Roman nobility; she lived in adultery with a presbyter by the name of John. She forced Pope Lando to consecrate this John to the See of Bologna, and then to a larger archbishopric. But Pope Lando did not live long (a list we have at hand shows his reign to be from 913 to 914). Theodora then brought John to Rome, and he was made Pope John 9
We shall simply quote from the Catholic writer Baronius about this period: "Such was the unhappy state then of the Roman church, that everything was set in motion by the will of the powerful harlot, Theodora, the mother. By her meretricious acts she had this power; but besides, the son of Adelbert, by his wife Wido, had married Marozia [one daughter of Theodora], the mistress of Sergius [a pope]. What then was the face of the holy Roman church! how filthy when most powerful and at the same time base harlots ruled Rome, by whose will Sees were changed, bishops given, and, what is horrible and unutterable to be heard, pseudo-pontiffs their paramours were intruded into the See of Peter who are not to be written save to mark the dates in the catalog of Roman pontiffs." And what of succession?
Baronius also says that the clergy chosen by them were of course like them. A count Hugo at Rheims made his five-year-old son archbishop, and he himself took the revenues. Soon there were two archbishops there, and a fight ensued.
According to Baronius, for about fifty years there could have been no legitimate pope at all. All the old customs were discarded, the ordinations invalidated by each other, so there could have been no true ordinations or sacraments; and a whole generation lived and died during such wickedness and confusion. Still we are urged by Rome to believe she is the true church and has an inalienable right to all truth and grace through a descending line. Surely Peter was right when he forewarned, "There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies... and many shall follow their
Pope John 10 was later put in prison by Marozia, where he died either from grief or a violent death, according to which historian one reads. Pope Leo VI succeeded him and was put in prison where he died after little more than a year's reign. Then a Pope Stephen reigned for two years, and Marozia put her son John (son of Pope Sergius) on the papal throne.
Shortly thereafter, Octavian, a boy of 18 years, or perhaps much less, made himself pope. He lived a life of unparalleled debauchery. But we must eliminate much of what lies ahead, for there is surely enough already to prove that Peter's so-called successors are no security for faith and grace, or even of moral uprightness before men or God. This is not to say that there have not been what are called good popes who were sincere and upright men, but history is history and cannot be discarded when succession is sought to be proved as a security for our souls.
Just a few brief points from here on: Leo VIII was pope a short time, but fled Rome, and was later killed by an enraged husband. The next popes present much confusion, as different writers cannot even agree on the order in which they reigned. Benedict VI was strangled to death by a man, Francon, called Boniface, who fled and then came back and put John 14 in prison and starved him to death. Thus Boniface VII took the papal throne. Sylvester II, Baronius declares, was a horrible blasphemer, heretic, and schismatic. Pope Benedict IX was a boy ten years old. His life was one of infamy, murder, and debauchery of every kind. He reigned about 12 years. There were again three consecrated popes at one time.
Through these years the state of the clergy was vile beyond description. Then Gregory VII enforced celibacy, and that made matters worse.
In the days of Innocent III, transubstantiation became a dogma of the Roman church, and the Inquisition was established -the former to force her communicants to accept the statement that the priest actually changed a wafer into the body, blood, soul, and spirit of the Lord Jesus; and the latter to force absolute compliance with Rome (whatever her condition) on the pain of death. Needless to say, transubstantiation is without a shred of scriptural warrant, and, if it were true, it would deny the shed blood of Christ; for it would put it back into what the priest, by using a little Latin, made His body.
Pope Celestine IV lived only about a month after bitter rivalry with another who was consecrated at the same time. About that time the See was vacant one year and six months. Then after Alexander IV there was another vacancy of about four months. Then there was Clement IV, after which there were intrigues and no pope for about three years. About this time it was decided that the cardinals should be shut up until a pope was elected. Then there were four popes within a year, then another, followed by six months' delay; two more popes followed and then another year's vacancy. Another writer says, "If ever there was a thing disproved, it is what is ridiculously called apostolic succession at Rome."
Urban VI and Clement VII were popes at the same time, but part of Europe followed one and the rest the other. Here was forty years of confusion, and a whole generation died in a state of being in or out of the grace of Rome, and not knowing which. We again quote another: "It is absurd, with two, and even three, popes at a time to keep up the fiction of apostolic succession."
Gregory XII and Alexander V were contending popes, and when the latter died the former was charged with poisoning him-also with incest, adultery, fornication, and another murder. Passing over more strife between contending popes, we mention Innocent VIII, who was mocked in Rome as "father" because of his many children; and Alexander VI, "whose infamies were past belief," was commonly said to sell "kings, altars, Christ; he first bought them and he had a good right to sell them." One daughter (illegitimate) kept the papal court when he was away, and opened the dispatches.
The Reformation was soon to force some changes on Rome, and who can doubt that they are needed? The reformers started out to reform the Roman church, not to abandon it, but a cleavage was forced by the high-handed and arbitrary manner in which they were met. Rome having the upper hand, slaughtered them by the thousands. But God was to bring about a return to His Word and its authority which had been swamped by years of enforced darkness-and how great was that darkness! Rome should hang her head in shame instead of boastfully asserting original and inalienable rights over the souls of men.
But the Roman church during the reign of Pope Pius XIIa period when communistic atheism was making great inroads -gained 108,109,000 members. Her growth in the Western world is great, and increasing. In the United States her advertising is seen in almost any secular periodical, setting forth enormous claims to her being the "true church." These will not stand scrutiny. She says that the United States is the foremost contributor to their "Peter's pence." Would Peter solicit money?
Present appraisals of the reign of the late pope generally list his pronouncement of the dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven as the most important act. This, needless to say, is absolutely without scriptural warrant, and that she reigns as queen there is a gratuitous addition, to say the least. And as it was spoken excathedra, it is supposed to be spoken with infallible authority. It is now binding on all Rome's communicants under fear of excommunication. Poor mortal man has added to God's Word, furthering the adoration of Mary, which is idolatry. It is sacrilegious, if not blasphemy, to call "Mary the mother of God." She was only the mother of the humanity of the Lord Jesus, and she herself needed Him as her Savior. She possesses no power of intercession with the Father or the Son.
We are not unmindful of God's ways in providence, even in the time of and selection of a new pope. We are nearing the end, and at the end of Christendom's sad, sad history, all will be headed up by an organization sitting upon the seven-hilled city of Rome. This organization, or its head, will dominate the coming revived Roman Empire. Perhaps this will require a different type of man than the internationally-minded, politically-oriented Pius XII. At any rate, God's word will be fulfilled. (Read Rev. 17 and 18.)
NOTE: We have drawn freely on the excellent work of Mr. J. N. Darby who examined Rome's claims from her own sources and then wrote on Apostolicity and Succession.