In our last issue of Straightway, we observed the radical changes that Pope Francis has brought to not only the façade but also the religious and governmental infrastructure of Roman Catholicism. We must acknowledge that Pope Francis is definitely the religious and ideological product of Vatican II (1962–1965). Unlike the First Vatican Council (1870), the Second Council provided the permissions this pope needed to craft a radical “face-lift” of Romanism and make crucial administrative changes.

The Surprise of Vatican II

When “Papal Infallibility” was defined in the First Vatican Council, it declared to the Roman Church that councils would no longer be needed. In the light of this, the world was surprised, perhaps even shocked, when Pope John XXIII declared in 1959 that there would be a “Second” Vatican Council. This announcement gave the details of four sessions that were to meet at St. Peter’s Basilica (1962–1965). Between 2,000 and 2,500 cardinals and bishops, with thousands of observers, auditors, sisters, laymen and laywomen, were invited to come for this momentous Council in Rome.

Coming out of Vatican II were sixteen key documents that to varying extents laid a new foundation for the Roman Church which we are witnessing today. A perusal of these documents shows a theme of “reconciliation” rising in its verbosity. But to what extent this reconciliation is to be found depends on who is pope at any given time. This council not only granted permission for Romanists to pray with other “Christian” denominations but also encouraged the building of friendships with all other religious faiths. Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council with his intention to bring, what he called, “fresh air” into the Church and for a “New Pentecost” to come upon the Roman Church.

Some of these major changes included the allowance of languages other than Latin to be used during the Mass; Rome’s exoneration of the Jewish people of collective guilt for the death of Jesus Christ; the designation now of the Orthodox Church and the Protestants as “separated brethren”; the opening of “fellowship” with non-Christians; the cessation of the necessity of women to wear veils in the church; the freedom of Rome’s parishioners to now eat meat on Fridays; the permission of nuns to live in apartments outside of convents; the sanction of inter-faith marriages as part of the Church; the concept of hearing confessions in more conversational settings; and even a decree (during the December 1965 session) canceling all excommunications that led to the break (back in 1054) between the Roman and Orthodox churches.

Two of the key men at the Second Vatican Council eventually became Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Both of these men believed that the Church had gone too far and perhaps too fast with innovations appearing within the Church. With the abandonment of the religious regalia and the acceptance of liberal ideas on sexual morality, etc., these two popes tried to slow down what they believed to be a giving-in to the “spiritual desertification” of secularism. It is interesting to note that since the Council in the early 1960s, the population of nuns in the United States has declined by more than seventy percent and the annual number of priestly ordinations by fifty percent. The controversy over the reason for this decline is strong and heated today between the traditionalists and the progressivists within Romanism. Is this decline because of a departure from the traditional legacy of Romanism as found in the Council of Trent (Tridentate Council of 1546) toward the contemporary mood and spirit of our times, or does this decline parallel the general decline of religion in the world?

Pope Francis and His Radical Changes

Pope Francis is the first pope to have received holy orders after Vatican II; thus, he is a “son of the Council.” Vatican II convened during his years of study in a Jesuit order in Argentina; he was ordained just four years after it ended. On the eve of the 2013 Conclave (that elected him pope), he voiced the belief that “the main threat to the church was not the encroachment of secular culture but a tendency among Catholics themselves, especially within church institutions, to retreat into ghettos of their own making.” He believed this thinking runs the risk of “theological narcissism.”

What has been this pope’s public persona? From the outset his “down-to-earth” manner and disregard for protocol in matters of dress and decorum have presented a pope who desires to be closer to the people. His shift in religious and moral priorities has certainly diminished Catholicism’s pressure on secular society and its political leaders around the world (including our own president). This pope has softened the Church’s voice in the so-called contentious issues of sexual and medical ethics that the world has despised about Catholicism. It is evident that he is forwarding with full authority the changes that he believes are needed for his church in the contemporary world. More and more he is pressing for a “poor church for the poor,” while strongly castigating the free-market ideologies. Recently he has openly declared greater mercy for the divorced and remarried Roman Catholics, who at this time are not permitted to receive the Mass. He has also shocked the traditionalists in ceremonially washing the feet of Muslims and women, and has recently received a “transsexual” at the Vatican. Note the recent observation of “Father” H. Miguel Yanez, a Jesuit counselor of the pope (and a fellow Argentine):

Pope Francis takes Vatican II for granted. Instead of arguing about the past . . . he proposes a new kind of evangelization that is so radical that we forget about different interpretations and move on. Francis is more concerned with having a dialogue with the contemporary world . . . than he is concerned with certain points of tradition that mattered to Benedict.

Even the pope’s silence on certain widely contested moral teachings of the Church has caused great concern among many at the Vatican. For instance, in the summer of 2013, Francis stated to an editor of a Jesuit journal, “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.” This truly is contrary to the strength and expressions of his predecessors. For a number of months after he became pope, Francis did not make any major statements concerning abortion. As Rhode Island Bishop Thomas J. Tobin stated in September 2013, “I’m a little bit disappointed in Pope Francis that he hasn’t . . . said much about unborn children, about abortion. Many people have noticed that.” The pope’s comment about the sodomite priests, “Who am I to judge?” has now made it difficult for the Church leaders to deal with this accelerated problem and especially the most recent uncovering of sodomy on a wholesale scale within the Vatican. Even Roman Catholic legislators in Illinois cited the pope’s words to explain their support for the same-sex marriage bill.

One prominent word Pope Francis has drawn from the Second Vatican Council is the term collegiality. Collegiality is a principle aimed to establish a new balance of shared authority between the pope and the bishops. Although the previous two popes were leery of such a collective authority, especially on crucial doctrines of the Church, the current pontiff has declared, “Excessive centralization rather than proving helpful complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.” Because of this perspective Pope Francis has established a new body of nine cardinals (representing the continents) to advise him on matters he believes to be major issues of Church government. He has great concern over the authoritative voice of those who are permanent fixtures at the Vatican and their view of the Church.

To take this concept of collegiality to a greater step the pope has increased the use of the “Synod of Bishops,” which was established by Pope Paul VI from the Second Vatican Council; this synod will address many topics of controversy that he hopes will bring about needed changes. This pope is publicly inviting the bishops to listen to their parishioners and bring their concerns to the Vatican in order for the leaders to re-appraise the Church’s relevancy for this generation.

When this first session of the Synod of Bishops met (nearly 200 members), some news media reported that it was one of the strongest expressions of feelings and emotions that the Vatican has witnessed since the Second Vatican Council. Strong accusations came from the traditionalists against the pope and the sympathetic bishops, declaring the proceedings were heresy and warning of potential schism. The document that was set forth midway in the session strongly implied sympathetic verbiage toward cohabiting couples, divorced and remarried Roman Catholics, and even same-gender unions. The outcry was intense, believing that the document would cause the Church to radically change.

Australian Cardinal George Pell, the pope’s finance chief, denounced the document by saying, “We’re not giving in to the secular agenda; we’re not collapsing in a heap” (as he told the Catholic News Service). It is also interesting to note that American Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke told the Spanish magazine Vida Nueva, “The church felt like a ship without a rudder.” He pled with the pope to lay aside the document for consideration, for it was attacking the traditional moral teachings of the Church, but the pope would not do so.

Francis believes that though the Church may have the revelation from God, it does not have the application of that revelation for all the times of history. He has been bold to declare that the Church does not know everything, and it has not had the answer perhaps for this generation. According to the Catholic News, the Synod is to reconvene in early October to resume the debate and provide recommendations for the future of Romanism, and to bring about what the evil heart of the Second Vatican Council intended to produce.

It is clear that many ecclesiastical and hierarchal changes are coming through this pope. Pope Francis may be the one to dismantle the “old” Romanism in order to reshape and remold a greater deceptive “new” Romanism. Early in his pontificate his actions and words revealed that he would be the pope to change his Church and make Romanism more palatable for the contemporary. However, it must always be remembered that throughout the centuries Roman Catholicism has been the Devil’s bride, and she has the ability to acclimate her religious cloak to maintain her public prominence within a given generation.

Pope Francis, who seems to have become Vatican II’s lovechild, may be the one who will unravel centuries of outward traditions that he believes are no longer relevant or advantageous to the survival of the Church in this postmodern age. Though perhaps not as outwardly arrogant and overtly evil as our American president, Francis may be the one to bring about the acclimatization of the Roman Church for its acceptance in the “new world order.”

The Mother of Harlots

In the United States of America, we have witnessed one man’s bold manipulation of a governmental system to bring about the corrupt, radical changes in laws and lifestyles that are aggressively hurling us into the vortex of Heaven’s judgment; there will never be a return to our nation’s days of glory. Apostasy has its changes as well; it must change according to the climate of its age. Romanism has been the chameleon within apostate Christianity that knows how to change according to the times and to maintain its religious and political authority in the world. With each change, Romanism, being the oldest and deepest apostasy of Christianity, will only go deeper through the gates of Hell. She has ridden the backs of many political beasts of history who have been forerunners to the coming Beast. One day she will ride the back of “the” Beast. Yet we read in Revelation 17:16, 17 of how the political powers near the end of the Tribulation Period will “hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” It is evident that Romanism will play a major role to bring about the final kingdom of the Man of Sin.

My earthly father, Dr. O. Talmadge Spence, gives a presentation worth reading in his commentary of The Book of Revelation (pp. 103–107). We give a few quotations from these pages to resolve this article.

There are actually two historical Babylons and two prophetical Babylons: historical under Nimrod, founder; Nebuchadnezzar, restorer; and Rome, religious Babylon; Babylon III in the Tribulation Period. Nimrod changed the name of his father from Cush to Bel. That was religious Babylon in the birth of all religious idolatry. That was a mixture of true religion and the demonic occult—apostasy. Forty names in the Bible flow out of this historic Babylon I. However, there was not only religious Babylon in apostasy; there was also commercial, secular Babylon which was particularly set forth by Nebuchadnezzar and seen through the world conquests of the empires. Of course, both Babylon I and II, historically, were idolatrous and immoral. But prophecy speaks of two prophetical Babylons: Babylon IV, religious and commercial, restored geographically, and “Mystery Babylon,” restored religiously through Romanism and 80 Caesars and 264 Popes, through Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church. Verses 1 & 2 [Revelation 17] have prepared us for the meaning of “Babylon” as we have known in history. We must now see the two prophetical Babylons in chapters 17 and 18. . . .

That “woman,” we believe, will be “Romanism,” as the imperial Caesars were finalized by Constantine into the accelerated apostasy of Roman Catholicism. At times since the Reformation, everything false in her has even been embraced by Protestants and their denominationalism. The historic Reformation was a work of God to reveal the distinct difference between the “man child” that was “caught up” to God and the “woman” left behind. But the criticism about the “woman” was still identified as she fled to the wilderness with God’s providence in her behalf, only to flee that same wilderness, making open concession to preserve herself (through her famous practice of casuistry), and to be finally destroyed by Antichrist. There have been “many antichrists” as popes, and we believe the final Antichrist’s False Prophet is a pope.

Let us notice the clear identity of her “Romanism.” (1) She rides upon the scarlet colored Beast—the Antichrist. (2) She is a part of blasphemy. (3) She is a part of the seven empires and the final ten kingdoms. (4) She is arrayed in her Romish vestments. (5) And decked with her jeweled vestments and crowns and crucifixes. (6) She is a party of Babylon’s filthy fornication and sacramental idolatry. (7) On her forehead, “Pontifex Maximus” and “Mother of harlots.” (8) The millions martyred by Romanists. Just as there was an apostasy rendered against the messianic line through Shem in the days of Nimrod, there has been an apostasy against the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, in the name of Jesus Christ in the days of the Christian Church. There have been “many antichrists,” and there is the final “Antichrist.” . . .

Chapter 17 sets forth the ecclesiastical and spiritual aspects of Babylon under the figure of “Mystery Babylon.” Chapter 18 sets forth the political and commercial aspects of Babylon under more the figure of a Neo-Babylon. Thus, we may conclude the four Babylons: (1) The Idolatrous Babylon of Nimrod (paganism and heathenism). (2) The Humanitarian Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar (governmentalism). (3) The “Mystery Babylon” of Christendom (Roman Catholicism: mixture of Paganism, Greek Philosophy, and Christianity). (4) The Neo-Babylon of the Antichrist (Daniel 11:36–39). Not the “God of his fathers” but “the God of forces.” . . .

Rome, like the harlot of history, just keeps coming back. Roman Catholicism is that harlot “Mystery Babylon.”

Conclusion

Throughout Church history a number of honorable remnant movements (though not formally identified with Protestantism) have taken their stand against Roman Catholicism. They desired to maintain their independence of identification and even placed themselves in history “before” the Protestant Reformation. But whatever our label or tag of distinction, we must remember that the term protestant, when strictly viewed in history, is simply a principle. It is not a church government or a specific system of theology, for a number of theological systems came out of the Protestant Reformation. The term protestant cannot be viewed as a denomination or a declared edict of a certain church. Again, it is a principle.

Yes, there was a historical event that took place at the Diet of Spires (Spiers) in 1529, when princes and dukes took their stand against a Romanist king and the Roman Church. The princes and dukes were of Lutheran persuasion. Nevertheless, protestantism was a principle, an attitude that was adopted in that meeting. It became a principle of protestation against Romanism, the old apostasy. It was a call for a freedom of conscience, of heart, and of the Word of God for an individual. It was the primary longing for the Church to be free from religious tyranny and the oppression of Christian apostasy. The protestant movement was the longing for a reviving of true Christianity. This spirit and principle must ever penetrate the heart of every believer calling for the liberty of Christ to control the life. God’s true saints will always be making their “protest” against Roman Catholicism and every declining system from the Christ of Scripture. No matter what label or tag with which one identifies himself, he must be protesting the apostasy and the evil age in which he lives.