The falling away

I am Italian by birth, and I love my native country and my culture. Therefore, admitting the idea of an apostasy was pretty hard for me
to accept, especially since almost all my relatives are Catholics. In Italy there is a common feeling that this country is the birthplace of
Christianity. Originally I too was a Catholic and thought the same way. From the time you are born you are constantly told this.
Whether it’s true or not doesn't make any difference because we always thought it was true. However, the Bible, clearly speaks about
an apostasy.

Recently I have received several letters from Catholics who’ve stated that even if there was an apostasy it was only a partial one.
However, when Paul made this prophecy in his letter to the Thessalonians he didn't mention that it was going to be a "partial" one.
The word apostasy means a falling away from the truth.

In Acts 3:20,21 it tells us, “And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until
the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” Here it is
clearly prophesied that there will be a restitution of ALL THINGS. But there is no need to restore ALL things if there is just a partial
apostasy.

What kind of teachings of Christ has the Catholic church fallen away from? We can point to the holy inquisition, the sale of
indulgences and the crusades as things which on March 13th of this year even the Pope admitted the church was wrong in doing. (see
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20000312_prayer-day-pardon_en.html

Today the Pope is against the death penalty which he defines as "cruel" and "heathen." But, at the time of the inquisition the Popes
held a very different view. Some Catholic apologetics say that the inquisition is misunderstood and there was a lot more to it than what
history tells us. But if that is true then why aren’t all the history books changed to reflect this?

On the subject of the inquisition, my Italian encyclopedia "Atlantica" says: "an investigation done by harsh means and trending to
provoke the truth of a charge.” This indicates a very rigid type of religious court.

The inquisition officially began in 1235 when Pope Gregory IX sought to destroy the teaching of heretics, similar to what the Jews did
to the early Christians because the Jews believe Jesus was a heretic.

On May 15, 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorized the use of torture during the investigation of heretics. The inquisitors first came from
the Dominican order of monks until 1246, but after that other orders of the priesthood could also serve as inquisitors. The inquisition
affected almost all of Europe, but it was especially strong in Spain, Italy, France and Germany. The Spanish inquisition was the most
infamous and feared under the direction of the Dominican monk Thomas de Torquemada.

The purpose of the inquisition was to be a barrier to save the Catholic church from all false teachings. And the way it did this was by
destroying every form of opposition. Under Pope Paul III any ideas or movements thought to be heretical were fought against
unmercifully.

On the topic of indulgences, it was Martin Luther, a Catholic monk who spoke out forcefully because of what he saw going on in his
own church. Rather than trying to start a new religion, he merely wanted to reform his own church. Instead, his own church
condemned him. From that time on, people began to leave the "mother church” in droves. Even in those countries with strong ties to
the Pope, it was becoming increasingly impossible to prevent this large loss of people by use of fear and intimidation.

In the past, the Pope always intervened in the international disputes of nations. For example, it was Pope Honorius III who sent King
Frederick II of Germany on a crusade to capture the holy city of Jerusalem. From the book “Jerusalem, eternal city” page 314 written
by David B. Galbrath D. Kelly Ogden Andrew C. Skinner, it says: “The Arab king, Ayyubid controlled Jerusalem lasted until 1229,
when the Latin Crusaders saw an opportunity to regain the territory they had lost at the hands of Saladin. In an unexpected turn of
events, Saladin's nephew, the Egyptian Sultan Kamil, ceded Jerusalem to a new Crusader leader. King Frederick II of Germany, in
return for Frederick's support against Kamil's nephew, Sultan Nasir of Damascus. Frederick entered the city and immediately crowned
himself King of Jerusalem in the nearly empty Church of the Holy sepulcher. This was a great victory, but the way it had been gained
outraged many in the Christian west. For Pope Honorius III the only way Christ's dignity could be regained was by shedding the blood
of the infidels who desecrated the Holy city as well the holy sites . To punish Frederick because he had not engaged the Muslims in
battle and therefore had not shed enough blood, the pope ordered a local crusade against the king's estates in Italy, EXCOMMUNICATE
Frederick, and placed Jerusalem under interdict.” (“Jerusalem blessed, Jerusalem cursed” p. 255.)

If there was no apostasy, then why has the Catholic church, under the direction of its head, the Pope, changed there mentality? The
answer is simple. For many centuries their authority was the most powerful on earth. Their authority extended even over kings. They
had the power to assemble armies and declare war, such as the crusades. Their influenced was over politics as well as over religious
matters. But today things are different, and so is the position which the Catholic church now takes. In the past, the Pope was despotic
and intolerant because he could afford to be that way. But today he must be careful in what he says or does.

For almost 1200 years, the Catholic church has not only been the ecclesiastic ruler of the world, but, like it is prophesied in the Book
of Revelation, it has also fornicated with the kings and rulers of the world. To see if there was an apostasy, let’s analyze the fruits of
the papacy between the years 321 and 1521. After that we will analyze the fruits of the Protestants. However, in this discussion I will
not talk about doctrinal beliefs, because every church has the right to profess whatever teaching they prefer. Instead, I will analyze only
the historical facts that go beyond the bounds of human decency, according to the light of the Gospel.

When Jesus lived in Palestine under the reviled, heathen Roman Empire, He never advocated revolting against them. According to His
teaching, man was to live in peace with one another. More than that, they were to love their enemies. Jesus was known as the king of
peace.

When the Roman Empire disappeared the Muslims succeeded in dominating the Mediterranean area, including the territory of
Palestine and the city of Jerusalem. In the year 1042 A.D. the Pope was a man from France named Pope Urbano II. One commentator
said this about him: “Urban was a strong, effective, and politically astute pope, but this is not what has earned him a place in this book.
The action for which Urban II is principally remembered occurred on November 27 1095. He had convoked a great church council,
held at the city of Clermont in France. There, before a crowd of thousands, Urban delivered what was perhaps the single most effective
speech in history, one that was to influence Europe for centuries to come. In his speech, Urban protested that the Seljuk Turks, who
were occupying the Holy Land, were defiling the Christian holy places and molesting Christian pilgrims. Urban urged that all
Christendom join together in a holy war, a great crusade to recapture the Holy Land for Christianity. But Urban was far too clever to
appeal to altruistic motives alone. he pointed out that THE HOLY LAND WAS FRUITFUL AND WEALTHY, far richer than the
overcrowded lands of Christian Europe. Finally, the Pope announced that participation in the crusade would take the place of all
penance’s and assure the crusader a remission of all his sins. Urban's brilliant speech, which appealed at the same time to his listeners'
highest motives and to their most selfish ones, aroused passionate enthusiasm in his audience. Before he had finished, the multitude
was shouting, "Deus le volt" (God wills it) which was soon to become the battle cry of the crusaders.......

“However, to start a general European movement, the leadership of SOME CENTRAL FIGURE WAS NEEDED. No national king
could have done it. (Had a German emperor, for example, declared a holy war against the Turks, and led his armies on a crusade, it is
doubtful that many English knights would have joined him). THERE WAS ONLY ONE FIGURE IN WESTERN EUROPE WHOSE
AUTHORITY TRANSCENDED NATIONAL BOUNDARIES. Only the Pope could propose a project for all western Christendom to
engage in.”

We can honestly ask ourselves the question: Would Christ inspire His followers to make war upon another nation for political,
religious, or economic gain? The answer is obvious. Of course he wouldn’t. Yet, according to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is the
“Vicker of Christ,” the representative of the Lord, the mouthpiece for God. But how can that be true if the Popes in the past advocated
a doctrine or practice different than what Christ taught and which modern Popes have admitted were wrong?

We have already mentioned the holy inquisition. Although there are many different examples we could cite, I’d like to point out just
one. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the Catholic church for being a heretic when she was 19 years. Yet, 500 years later she
was canonized as a saint by the same church. How can the Catholic church teach two contradicting beliefs and still maintain that
there wasn’t an apostasy? The only way they can do that is by ignoring history.

Now, let’s analyze the Protestant movement.

First, it should be noted that the Protestant movement didn't resolve the problem of apostasy, although it did help set the stage for
bringing about the restoration of all things.

Martin Luther was the man whose defiance of the Roman Catholic Church inaugurated the Protestant reform movement. He was born
in 1483 in Eisleben, Germany and in later years became an Augustinian monk. In 1512, he received his doctorate of Theology from the
University of Wittenberg. In 1510,while on a trip to Rome, had was shocked at the venality and worldliness of the Roman clergy there.
But what really bothered him was the church’s practice of selling indulgences. On October 31 1517, Luther posted on the door of the
church at Wittenberg his celebrated 95 Theses, in which he strongly denounced the church’s venality in general, and the practice of
selling indulgences in particular. However, the scope of Luther's protest against the church rapidly broadened, and he soon came to
deny the authority of the Pope and the general Church councils.

Not surprisingly, the church did not look kindly upon his views. In June 1520, Pope Leo X issued a Papal Bull entitle “Exsurge
Domine.” It declared 41 proposition in Luther's writings "Heretical". Asked to recant, Luther, accompanied by students, marched
outside Wittenberg's and cast the bull into a bonfire. In January 1521, he was excommunicated, and four months later, he was asked to
answer charges against him at the Diet of Worms. When he refused to recant his ideas, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V declared
Luther a political outlaw,

The normal outcome of such a verdict would usually have meant being burned at the stake, but because of some German friends with
high political influence he was saved this fate. In addition to that the emperor of Germany, who was considered the secular custodian
of the church, was busy fighting two wars, one against France and another against Turkey, which prevented him from crushing this
heresy. This allowed Luther time to preach his new belief and organized his own church. As a result, many of the priests within the
Catholic church accepted his teachings.

But this leads us to ask the question: If Luther lost his priesthood, at least as far as the Catholic church was concerned, by what
authority did he start another church? In other words, since the Catholic church strongly believes in the necessity of the priesthood to
perform the sacraments of salvation (i.e. baptism, communion, confession, etc.), and Luther never disputed this doctrine, and even
continued to teach it in his own church, then by what right did he have to ordain others to the priesthood when his had lost his own
authority?

The Protestants protested many things which the mother church taught, but did they practice the law of love as Christ and the Bible
teaches? In a book written by Michael H. Hart entitled "The 100," ranking the most influential persons in History (Hart publishing
Company, inc. New York city 1978) we read:

“Luther was not without his faults. Though himself a rebel against religious authority, he could be extremely intolerant of those who
disagreed with him on religious matters. Possibly, it was partly due to the example set by Luther's intolerance that the religious wars
were far fiercer and bloodier in Germany than they were, say, in England. In addition Luther was FEROCIOUSLY ANTI SEMITIC,
and the extraordinary viciousness of his writings about the Jews may have helped to pave the way for the Hitler era. Regardless of
Luther’s intentions, however, his statements seems to have led many German Protestants to accept absolutism in political matters. In
this way, too, Luther's writings may have helped prepare the way for the Hitler era” (page 152 and 153)

Another important person in the Protestant era was John Calvin. He was born in 1509 in France. He converted to the Protestants and in
the 1536 published the "Institutes of the Christian religion." and later became a ruler in Geneva. In the same book as just cited, we
read: "Calvin was an intolerant man, ant those whom he considered heretics received short shrift in Geneva. His most famous victim
(there were quite few) was Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician and theologian who didn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
When Servetus came to Geneva, he was arrested tried for heresy, AND BURNT AT THE STAKE (IN 1553). In addition, several
persons suspected of witchcraft were burnt at the stake during Calvin's administration.” (page 288)

So we see that the Protestants tended to follow the same path of intolerance as the Catholic church used. We can look at it this way:
was not the inquisition just as cruel and inhumane as what Hitler did with the Jews? And is there any difference between this and what
the Catholics and Protestants are doing to one another in Ireland? And what about those who killed the Mormon prophet, Joseph
Smith because they didn’t like what he taught, or used violence to drive the early Latter-day Saints away from their homes and off
their own lands? The people who have committed all these atrocities were not unbelievers, but professed followers of Christ. But is this
following the teachings of Jesus when he taught us to love our enemies? Is this following the teachings of Jesus to turn the other
cheek? And if it isn’t then we can honestly say they have fallen away from the teachings of Christ, which is the definition of an
apostasy.

But there is more to the apostasy than just this. As the fires of rebellion spread though Europe, the Reformation became not one
movement but many. God's word became subject to a wide variety of interpretation.

John Wesley, when reading Luther's preface to Paul’s epistle to the Romans, said he felt his "heart strangely warmed". This proved to
be the pivotal experience of his life Strangely enough, Protestant leaders today say that a “burning in your heart” is not the way to
determine whether something is from God or not. In other words, modern-day Protestants leaders have fallen away from the teachings
of their own past Protestant leaders. Wesley initially preached his new doctrine within the church of England organization, but as the
years passed those who were moved by his message congregated together and began their own separate church known as "The
Methodist church".

Ulrich Zwingly, a reformer from Zurich, Switzerland, who died in 1531, had his disputes with Martin Luther. Zwingli found it
impossible to believe that the eucharistic bread and wine truly embodied the physical body and blood of Christ. To him the Lord's
supper merely seemed to convey a spiritual presence. Also, Luther composed chorales, prescribed a liturgy and catechisms, and
retained the priest’s vestments. However, Zwingli's followers considered hymns and traditional clerical garb unscriptural.

Some Protestants took issue with Luther’s acceptance of infant baptism, claiming there was a biblical mandate only for adult baptism
upon a confession of faith. However, other reformers felt that the Bible did indeed teach the need for infants to be baptized. We need
to ask ourselves: Could the Holy Ghost inspire Martin Luther one way, Calvin a different way, and Zwingly still another way? Were
each of the many reformers inspired by the same Holy Ghost to teach a different concept of salvation? Paul declared that there was to
be one church with one faith (Ephesians 1:10, 4:4-5,13). Certainly the Protestant movement fell away from this teaching of the Bible.

In England, King Henry VIII was a Catholic, but the Pope refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry
Anne Boleyn. Therefore, in 1532, the king rejected the papal authority and took upon himself the title of the Supreme head of the
Church of England, thereby starting his own church, which was fashioned to conform to the exact teachings of the Catholic church
except in regards to the Pope. When John Wyclif provided his countrymen with an English translation of the Bible so they could read
it in their own language, the king immediately outlawed it’s publication. In 1539 his parliament passed the 6 articles Act, which
reasserted the principal points of Catholic doctrine. Yet faithful Catholics were persecuted just as much as were the English Protestants.

After Queen Elizabeth had ascended to the throne of England in 1558 the exiled English reformers returned and clamored for the
governance of their own local churches by lay elders (presbyters) rather than by a distant bishop. They demanded a Presbyterian
rather than an Episcopal organization. Later some reformers advocated separating completely from the Church of England and setting
up their own independent congregations. Frustrated with Queen Elizabeth's middle course and harried by King James for
nonconformity, many of the Puritan reformers sailed to the New World, likening themselves to the Israelites setting out for the
promised land.

But even in the new world, dissections arose and religious freedom was frequently denied to others who disagreed with them. Roger
Williams reminded puritan elders that "forced worship stinks in God's nostrils." Because of this and other statements which they
disagreed with, he was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He later founded the Rhode Island settlement and was the first
person to draw up America's document separating church and state. He also founded America's first Baptist church.

George Fox, founder of the Quakers wrote: "The people fell upon me and with their fists, books, and without compassion or mercy
beat me down in the steeple-house and almost smothered me...." Fiercely opposed by church and society in 17th century England, Fox
was unshakably convinced that God had called him to proclaim the message of repentance, and the doctrine of inward attitudes rather
than outwards rites.

The American experience transformed the Protestant churches that reached these shores even as the Protestant reformation had transformed the church of its time. Certainly the reforming spirit is not a Protestant invention. The burning desire to instill new spiritual vigor in the church is old like Christianity. The middle ages were full of men who called for reform; some wound up as saints, others as heretics. In the chatolic tradition reform tends to express itself in a non separatist way, in new organization, such as monastic orders, within the church. Protestants recognize no such identity; the reforming spirit among them tends to lead to new churches.

The early reformers believed they had a scriptural mandate to restore the original teachings of Christianity as found in the Bible.
Obviously, then, they must have felt that the Catholic church had departed from or fell away or apostatized from those teachings
found in the gospel. The problem is, which one of these many different Protestant churches was truly inspired to restore the correct
teachings of Christ?

Some fruits of this Christianity old and new
For the first thing they introduced slavery of the black people and subjugated the red people, they were the legal owners of this country, or not? leaving aside the last one because it is too complex to go deeper, let's go to analyze the slavery.
It is interesting because this is the country of "FREEDOM". They did fight for their liberty, they had a constitution by God in which is declared that every person is born free and so on. The slavery begun before of the independence's war, that is true was a fashion from European heritage, England, Portugal and so on, but what I am trying to point out here is that the Protestants came here to find relief in freedom and they didn't apply the same basic principle to their fellow man, not all sure! There were at least 50 percent against slavery but what about the rest 50%?

What I am trying to say is this, where were all the Protestant preachers in the south when this things were happening? There was a need for a war to redeem the slavery? there was because main people, named Christians, didn't want to give up on it.
Why they didn't want to give it up?
Simple, in the south the economy was based on farmers and these farmers needed manpower , I mean cheap manpower:slaves. 400.000 white people possessed 3.500.000 black slaves. In the northern part there was an industrial expansion, in the south was different. I'd say they were supporting slavery for economic interests and they were ready to fight for their business, they didn't care about the situation of the black people, they considered them just property, not human beings.
This graphic will help to see why there was the need for a restoration because aside all these things the protest didn't produce the unity of faith described in the Bible in Ephesians but.

What about the freedom of religion? Was the order of extermination constitutional? Only an hate fomented from the Devil could bring against the constitution, maybe if Abraham, the father of all believer, was living in Missouri and practicing polygamy, he would have received the same treatment.
Another terrible consequence of the protest was the rapid spreading of religious wars in Europe like the war for 30 years in Germany from 1618 until 1648 and the wars between Protestants and Catholics that we have until now in Ireland.

As we have seen, even from the beginning of the Protestant movement until now, they too have departed from
their own original doctrines. If it wasn’t for the true teachings of Jesus Christ being restored through the prophet Joseph Smith, the
world would still be in a complete state of apostasy to this day.
Ephesians 4:11-12 is clearly the best proof of this falling away and the need of the restoration of all things.

<

Sign My Guestbook View My Guestbook www.massimo.bigsmart.com