We are living in days of great changes. So enormous and rapid have been the changes that we somehow overlook the portents that are implicit in them. Men of God of a century ago who expounded Scripture prophecy (not from current events, but from understanding of the Word of God) gave us outlines of things to come at the end of the Church era. They were granted an insight into the dispensational dealings of God with this world that many at that time assumed to be novel and unrealistic; but for us who have passed the midtwentieth century, we can see rapid changes preparing the way for the time of the end. Strong winds of change are blowing in nearly all directions—religious, secular, international, national, racial, economic standards of values, and moral standards. Much is crumbling before the restless urge of man as led on by the god and prince of this world. Communism, atheism, humanism, materialism, and ritualism vie with each other for the loyalties of men as we begin what is now often referred to as the "post-Christian era."
Nowhere has change been more pronounced during the past century than in the Roman Catholic Church. Only 90 years ago the papal power was fighting for its very existence. The reformation swept large segments of Europe away from religious Rome; it had little or no hold on the growing giant of North America where Protestantism held sway. Large sections of Italy which had been under papal power in the papal states, were wrested from her as Garibaldi launched a war to take these states for the secular power of Italy. On July 2, 1871, the city of Rome fell to Garibaldi's forces; and the papal power was confined to the 109 acres of Vatican city and to the Latern palace. The church lost a 3,000,000-square-mile area extending from sea to sea, and inhabited then by more than 3,000,000 people. So great was the papal defeat that a New York newspaper commented that papacy had lived out its life and must die. This was the general picture that presented itself when "men of the
Book" were explaining from that Book that ecclesiastical Rome was destined to rise and again exercise sway over "the kings of the earth."
In recent years tremendous changes have overtaken the Roman Church. Pope Pius XII who died on October 9, 1958, had been an able administrator and a diplomat of considerable stature. He spoke of changes, but he was a prisoner of the past in the hidebound Roman Curia who ruled the church offices. Just before Pope Pius's death the Curia had forced him to give a great setback to the man who was very close to him. He was a man by the name of Montini who had been in the Secretariat of State for 30 years or more and was closest to Pius XII; he was demoted and sent to Milan, Italy, as the archbishop, but yet denied the rank of cardinal, usually attached to the great Catholic center of Milan. He had wanted changes made that would enhance the stature and favor of Catholicism in the world.
When a successor to Pope Pius XII had to be chosen, Montini's name was mentioned, although he was no cardinal. A conflict was then going on between right and left factions within the church, and after considerable balloting, Cardinal Roncalli was elected pope and took the name of John XXIII. This was evidently a maneuver to put an old man in who would do little and make no innovations, thus giving the Curia a chance to accomplish their purposes. But Pope John moved the Catholic Church more than any other modern pope. The first man to be made a cardinal by him was the exiled Montini of Milan. (We commented on some of the changes made by Pope John XXIII in our June editorial. And as we noted then many of the changes have helped to turn the Roman Church in the same direction as Protestantism has been going—to a modernist theology—this being the catalyst necessary to the uniting of the two systems of religion.)
In the less than 5 years of John's pontificate, he changed the image of the Catholic Church; he broke with the past and sought to make Rome the great focal point of Christendom; he enlarged the church's participation in world affairs; he made overtures to the communist powers; he sought ways to draw the Jews into favor toward the church; he made numerous bids for Protestant favor and showed favors to them where it was apt to do the most good. In fact, during that very short space of time he changed the church's image in the world. He broke with precedent and custom when it suited his purpose, and he by his Vatican Council II brought the bishops to Rome, and Rome to her communicants more than was ever before done. He did not live to conclude Vatican II, but he laid the groundwork for the liberal element in the hierarchy to take over. And when the time came for the election of his successor, it could have been done in one ballot; for Cardinal Montini was out in front with no real contender for the highest position in Christendom. He was a liberal (previously banished to Milan for his liberal views) and would not only continue the Vatican Council begun by John XXIII, but would press forward aggressively on his own. The conservative Curia has been circumvented from regaining control. Liberalism is to be accelerated. The new pope, called Paul VI, is a man in a hurry to get on; and almost at once he announced the continuation of Vatican II, to begin September 29, only three weeks later than John XXIII had planned—a short time indeed for the necessary change in management and direction.
After Giovanni Battista Cardinal Montini of Milan was elected pope on the sixth ballot, he chose the name of Paul VI; and so the reign of Paul VI began. When he was crowned in St. Peter's Square on Sunday evening, June 30, he wore the three-tiered, two-pound crown, and sat on a white silk throne against a red cushion. All the regal splendor surrounding the installation of the new reigning head of one half billion Catholics, sounds strangely incongruous with the blessed, lowly Lord Jesus Christ. The new "Vicar of Jesus Christ" (meaning, Christ's representative or vicegerent on earth) is indeed a contrast to the One he claims to represent! What a sharp line of demarcation! The Lord Jesus had no throne on earth; some would have made Him a king when He fed their poor with bread. That would have been convenient for them and a boon to man; but when He as the light exposed their sins, they would not have Him. "He was despised and rejected of men." This self-styled "vicar" is hailed and honored by men. Christ would not have regal honors from men. When He comes back to reign and subjects His enemies, He will have the kingdom of this world from the hand of God the Father. It will then be fulfilled, "Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession." Psalm 2:8.
And as for a crown, the only crown the Lord Jesus ever had here was a crown of thorns. That, which under God's judgment for man's sin spoke of the curse, was placed upon His holy head in galling mockery. He is now crowned in heaven at God's right hand, but He would be rejected on earth today, as He once was. The Apostle Paul chided the earthly minded Christians at Corinth for enjoying the world and its prosperity, forgetful that they were followers of the rejected Jesus. He said, "Ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." 1 Cor. 4:8. Paul had no crown here; he was beheaded here, not crowned. He viewed the world as that which crucified his Lord, and so he would reject it; they, on the other hand, viewed him as a follower of the man they crucified, and so would have none of him. He said, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." Gal. 6:14. Other titles given to the pope are, "Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City." Test each and all of these by Scripture and you will find each one is contradictory to the present place or portion of a follower of the rejected Lord.
And as for the pope's being the "Successor of St. Peter," you would suppose that Peter would have given some hint about that in his epistles. Peter rather warns the elders among the flock not to lord it over the sheep; surely that means something that is forgotten. In his second letter, he warns about false prophets coming in among them, but says not one word about a successor. He brings to the minds of those to whom he wrote that which they had received so that they could keep those things in remembrance. In all fairness, it can only be concluded that claims to Petrine succession are groundless and false.
Cardinal Montini, after his election, chose to be known by the name of Paul VI. That seems strange, for the Catholic Church has always doted on Peter rather than Paul. Peter was the Apostle to the Jews, while Paul's mission was "far hence to the Gentiles." And Roman Church practices bear far more resemblance to Judaism than to what Paul preached—not that Peter preached Judaism, but Paul preached the heavenly calling of the Church and that Christians were followers of a rejected Christ. Peter's God-given ministry dealt chiefly with the subject that while the converted Jews lost all here, they would inherit a kingdom.
True, there had been five other popes before this man, who chose the name of Paul, but one would scarcely like to seek to emulate all of them. Pope Paul I was pope from 757 to 767. Paul II was pope from 1464 to 1471 and (according to Life magazine) he is remembered for extravagant carnivals, horse races, and lavish banquets. Paul III, 1534 to 1549, was scarcely a man to follow. As a cardinal he fathered three sons and a daughter, and when pope, he made cardinals of two nephews at ages 14 and 16. He also called the Council of Trent which, after years of intrigue and dispute, assembled in December, 1545, and continued its sessions until 1563.
"The avowed object of this famous council was... the pacification of the church, the healing of her diseases, the restoring of her unity, and the blessing of her children; but its real object was the condemnation of the doctrines of the reformers, Luther, Zwingle, and Calvin, and the immediate persecution of all who would oppose its decrees. This was the secret arrangement between the pontiff and the Emperor, for they were well aware that the Protestants would never subject themselves to the council, or yield obedience to its canons."—Church History by Andrew Miller. (See it for the sources of his quotations.)
It was this council which put its official seal on the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. This was a plan to seal of Protestant debate and argument that they would accept only the Word of God as their rule. This action placed that which plainly was not the Word of God into their book by the decrees of the Council of Trent. These were binding on all Catholics. The next Paul was number IV (1555-1559) who according to Life was a fanatic inquisitor who sent hundreds of clergy, including a cardinal, to prison or the gallows for heresy. At his death mobs rioted in the streets as a celebration. The inquisition was a part of the war against Protestantism.
And from the same source we learn that Paul V (1605-1621) ruled harshly according to canon law. The history of Paul VI is yet to be written. He is reportedly a liberal and one who praised John XXIII for his leading the way.
The name Paul may have more appeal to Protestants than that of Peter, but to follow the Holy Scriptures which were written by the Apostle Paul would devastate the basic premises of Catholicism. John XXIII was a jovial man of a naturally warm nature, and he drew many leading Protestants to him. Paul VI may wish to follow John's beginnings, but he is a theologian and a man steeped in all the ruling mechanics of the Roman hierarchy.
John XXIII in his aim to bring Protestants back to Rome set up the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity under the liberal octogenarian, Cardinal Bea. And Life says that "Most of the Protestant observers assigned to the Secretariat... were openly jubilant when his [Montini's] election was announced, and one of them even brought a bottle of champagne over to the Secretariat headquarters to celebrate the event with his Catholic friends. Then, of course, the Pope's own words were reassuring to all denominations; 'We open our arms to all who glory in the name of Christ. We call them with the sweet name of brothers.' " "Brothers" sounds much better than the former epithet of "heretics," but "brothers" seems to include apostate Protestants also—men who speak of Christ but deny Him, His virgin birth, His deity, His sacrificial death, His glorious resurrection and ascension—would we call them "brothers"?