VI. Antichrist Seen on Papal Throne

1. CHARGE MADE AT SYNOD OF RHEIMS

During the pontificate of John 15 (985-996), Arnulf, archbishop of Rheims, was charged with high treason toward King Hugh Capet of France. In 991 a council was called by the king, in the church of St. Basel, near Rheims, to decide his guilt. The king had notified the pope of the appointed council, but received no reply. A group of bishops and archbishops were present, and several abbots, with Siguin (Sequinus), archbishop of Sens, as chairman and the learned Gerbert as secretary. ^{86Abel Francois Villemain, Life of Gregory the Seventh, vol. 1, pp. 172 ff.; J. C. Robertson, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 32-34; Schaff, History, vol. 4, pp. 290-292; Gieseler, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 132, 133.} Fortunately the records of the council were preserved.PFF1 540.1

Arnulf was brought before the council and evidence adduced to prove his guilt. In his defense the Isidorian decretals were produced by certain distinguished clerics, to show that the synod had no right to judge a bishop; only the pope might do so. ^{87Landon, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 70; J. C. Robertson, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 32; Gieseler, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 133, note 21.} But despite the decretals, and without waiting for an answer from the pope, Arnulf, archbishop of Rheims, was deposed. In the prosecution another Arnulf, the learned bishop of Orleans, leading spirit of the council, spoke out with astonishing plainness against Roman claims to jurisdiction. He made a strong and eloquent argument, employing an array of council canons and papal writings to prove that for the decision of local matters a provincial council was sufficient. Standing as the advocate of ecclesiastical freedom, he denied that the Roman pontiff could reverse the ancient laws of the church. ^{88I. C. Robertson, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 33.}PFF1 540.2

2. BISHOP OF ORLEANS APPLIES “ANTICHRIST” TO POPE

Enlarging first upon the degradation and venality of the church in the ninth and tenth centuries, and especially the enormities of recent popes, the bishop of Orleans exclaims, “O wretched Rome! who after having enlightened our ancestors by the light of the holy fathers, hast spread over our times those clouds of darkness that will be a disgrace in after ages!” ^{89Villemain, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 174.} After listing the great papal lights of the past, he contrasts the dread miseries “under which we groan at this present.” He boldly protests these papal corruptions:PFF1 541.1

“Looking at the actual state of the papacy, what do we behold? John [XII.] called Octavian, wallowing in the sty of filthy concupiscence, conspiring against the sovereign whom he had himself recently crowned; then Leo [VIII.] the neophyte, chased from the city by this Octavian; and that monster himself, after the commission of many murders and cruelties, dying by the hand of an assassin.” ^{90Quoted in Schaff, History, vol. 4, p. 290.}PFF1 541.2

Deploring the fact that shining light had been superseded by darkness, Arnulf then asks whether the “priests of the Lord over all the world are to take their law from monsters of guilt like these (John XII and Boniface VII].” And, in the midst of the council, this bishop of Orleans makes the bold charge of prostitution of the papal office and applies the term Antichrist to the pope in these truly epochal words:PFF1 541.3

“What shall we say, revered fathers? To what blemish shall we attribute the fact that the first of the Churches of God, once so lifted up and crowned with glory and honour, should be brought down so low and tarnished with shame and infamy? If we severely expect gravity of manners, purity of life, joined to sacred and profane learning, in every man who is ordained to the Episcopate; what ought not to be exacted in the case of him who aspires to be the teacher of all bishops. How, then, is it that those have been put in possession of that most high See, who were not worthy to fill any place whatsoever in the priesthood? What, in your eyes, reverend fathers, is that Pontiff, seated on a throne, and clad in purple and gold? If he hath not charity, and be puffed up with his learning only, he is Antichrist sitting in the temple of God, and demeaning himself as a god; he is like unto a statue in that temple, like a dumb idol, and to ask of him a reply, is to appeal to a figure of stone.” ^{91This English translation is from Villemain, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 175, 176. Various translations are given by Schaff, History, vol. 4, pp. 290-292; Neander, op. cit, vol. 3, pp. 369, 370; and others. For the original text see Mansi, op. cit., vol. 19, anno 991, col. 132.}PFF1 541.4

Amazing statement from the lips of a Catholic bishop, ^{92According to Schaff, History, vol. 4, p. 292, Gerbert-afterward Pope Sylvester II- was possibly the framer of the speech. Baronius, unable* to decide, divides the responsibility, noting in the margin of his Annales (entry for the year 992, p. 877), “Horrible blasphemy of Gerbert or Arnulf.” But the consensus of evidence indicates Arnulf. (See T. C. Robertson. op. cit. vol. 4. p. 33. note)} uttered in solemn council assembly, concerning the absent pope of Rome! A new epoch of prophetic interpretation in the identification of the Papacy, with the pope as its head, was definitely under way. Antichrist, Beast, Babylon, Man of Sin, and finally, Little Horn were the terms employed by a growing chorus of voices.PFF1 542.1

3. DECLARES “MYSTERY OF INIQUITY IS BEGUN.”

Asserting that the church is “not subject to a wicked pope,” Bishop Arnulf continues:PFF1 542.2

“Let us imitate the great church of Africa, which, in reply to the pretensions of the Roman pontiff, deemed it inconceivable that the Lord should have invested any one person with his own plenary prerogative of judicature, and yet have denied it to the great congregations of his priests assembled in council in different parts of the world.” ^{93Quoted in Schaff, History, vol. 4, p. 291}PFF1 542.3

Then comes this astonishing declaration, citing Paul’s prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:PFF1 542.4

“There is, in the words of the apostle, division not only among the nations, but in the Churches, because the time of Anti-christ approaches; and, as the same apostle says, the mystery of iniquity is begun. It is manifest that in the decay of Roman power and the abasement of religion, the name of God is degraded with impunity by those who are perjured, and that the observance of His holy religion is despised by the sovereign pontiffs themselves.” ^{94Villemain, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 176.}PFF1 542.5

As a result of this revolutionary speech, Arnulf of Rheims confessed his guilt, and was required by council action to surrender the ensigns of his temporalities and those of his spiritual power, and compelled to read an act of abdication. ^{95Landon. op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 70, 71; J. C. Robertson, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 33, 34; Wilhelm Moller, History of the Christian Church, per. 2, chap. 2, vol. 2, p. 181.} The deposed archbishop was then sent to prison at Orleans, and Gerbert was chosen archbishop in his place. Pope John XV declared the decrees of the Rheims Synod null and void, but the French bishops held firm. His successor, Gregory V, threatened France with an interdict unless Arnulf was restored. Gerbert was compelled to yield, and Arnulf was finally reinstated in Rheims. ^{96Schaff, History, vol. 4, p. 292; Gicseler, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 133, 134; J. C. Robertson, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 39; Neander, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 371-374.} Thus the claims of the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore triumphed.PFF1 542.6

The significance of the Synod of Rheims, on prophetic interpretation, is that we find here the echo of Gregory’s cry against Antichristian pride, leveled now, however, at the overweening pride of the Papacy itself. And it is the forerunner of other voices, identifying the Papacy with the Antichrist, voices that will be seen to multiply until the chorus reaches a grand crescendo in the Reformation. For the present, having sketched thus far a phase of church development, we must return to examine the development and ultimate reversal of the Tichonian-Augustinian school of prophetic interpretation, with its churchly millennial concept.PFF1 543.1