A Bit of Church History - A Response to Hyrum W. Smith's "Why 1820"

Christ Giving the Keys to St Peter 

Today's Mass readings (Is. 22:19-23; Rom. 11:33-36; Mt. 16:13-20)—most especially the Gospel reading—talk about the founding of God's Church which comes with a divine guarantee. Since there is such disparity between how Catholics and non-Catholics view this, I've done some research into the matter.

In short, Catholics believe that when Jesus founded His Church, He did so once and for all and that with His promise of divine guarantee (Mt. 16:18, "...the powers of death shall not prevail against [My Church]."), His Church will be preserved throughout all time and protected from teaching errors. Non-Catholics (at least those who believe in Jesus, The Bible, etc.) disagree with this for various reasons (because otherwise, they'd be Catholic).

The reason for Mormons is their belief in "the Great Apostasy," which claims that shortly after the time of Christ (often said to be with the death of the last apostle), Christ's Church fell into error and thus removed itself from the face of the earth until such time that a prophet could restore it. Recently, when researching how Mormons could believe such a claim that seems to make Jesus' divine guarantee null and void, I came across a talk by Hyrum W. Smith titled, "Why 1820."

The talk can be found here:
PDF Transcript
Audio Recording

It has come to my attention that for many Mormons, this talk is their main source of knowledge on The Catholic Faith and perhaps even Christian history in general. Since there are inaccuracies and flat-out errors in Smith's talk, I've taken it upon myself to write up a response with some corrections for those who may need it. Here it is:

Rome Apostatized

Smith says that the church in Rome had apostatized from what Peter established and to "Read the first chapter of Romans in the New Testament, understanding that that chapter was written upon Paul’s return from Rome and described what he found there."

Well, I read Romans 1, and a few chapters after that just to make sure I wasn't missing something. It doesn't seem to say what Smith says it says and, in fact, I've found it says the opposite of what Smith claims.

First, this is not written on Paul's return from Rome, but rather before Paul goes to Rome. I think this is pretty clear especially in verse 10, saying he prays he will be able to go to Rome, in verses 11-12, saying how excited he is to preach the Gospel in Rome, and in verses 13-14, saying how he's desired to go to Rome, but has other obligations.

Second, Paul lauds them for living their faith so well that it is proclaimed in all the world. This does not sound like the Romans apostatized.

Third, the terrible acts that Paul describes are not in reference to how the Romans are living. Instead they are in reference to "men who by their wickedness suppress the true" (verse 18). From what I can tell, "men" is just humans in general, not a specific populace. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of this text is Paul basically saying, "Since the creation of the world, people have done these wicked things." It does not at all sound like he is admonishing the Romans for doing these things or implying that they are doing them.

Smith claims there were two Linuses

Can anyone point me to sources or documentation on the two Linuses that Hyrum Smith mentions? One Linus is indeed the second Catholic Pope and is supposedly the one mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21, but trying to find info on the other Linus, I only find other transcripts of this talk and Catholics asking the same question. It kind of seems like Smith made this part up out of whole cloth, though I'm open to correction if sources can be provided. Since Smith's argument for the Great Apostasy hinges on this point, I'm hoping someone might have some good sources.

Where the Catholic Church got its name

"Catholic" does indeed mean "universal," but Linus had nothing to do with that. It was written in a letter sent by Ignatius of Antioch to Christians living in Smyrna in AD 110, during the pontificate of Pope Alexander, the 6th pope. That is the first known usage of "Catholic Church." The Roman Catholic Church is the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (this is the biggest rite in the US, so I don't blame Smith for confusing this point). There are also other rites that belong to the Catholic Church, such as the Byzantine rite—perhaps the second most well-known.

Apostasy took place in AD 101.

Obviously, I contest this point, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I do applaud him, though, because this is the first time I've heard a solid date. Usually I hear something like, "between AD 50 and AD 600."

Christians in the catacombs are from the apostate group.

See my first point about Romans.

The reasons behind the Nicene Council and the understanding of the Nicene Creed.

This is WAY over simplified and, while humorous how Smith says it, is inaccurate. I won't try to go into this too much because it would take too long, but I would, like Smith, recommend reading the Nicene Creed and doing research into it and the Council. People started coming up with heresies, so a council was called to clear them up (in this case the Nicene Council was called largely to combat Arianism, which claims Jesus is not divine). So the council came up with a profession of faith, a Credo, or Creed, ("Credo" = "I believe") to prevent Christians from falling into heresy.

To explain the Trinity would take forever. To simplify a bit, Jesus is God, The Father is God, The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is not The Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. The Father is not The Holy Spirit. They are a Tri-Unity; three persons in one nature. This is befuddling for humans to understand because there's nothing in our experience that matches this. It's often said that if you think you understand the Trinity, then you don't understand the Trinity. One of the best ways I've heard to describe it is like this. You are one "who" in one "what." What are you? Human. Who are you? Whatever your name is. Asking this to God would be like this: What are you? God. Who are you? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So yes, The Father, The Son (Jesus), and The Holy Spirit are one. No "but not really." No "but only sort of." No "they're kind of one." No "we think they should be, therefore they are." They are one. John 10:30 says, "I and the Father are one." The first verse of John 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." John 15:26 says, Jesus will send the Spirit from the Father, "the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father." If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and proceeds from the Father, it must be the Spirit of God, but since the Spirit cannot be separate from God, being the Spirit of God, the Spirit is, thus, God. Ergo, one God, three distinct persons. You may disagree and, almost assuredly, you do, but I'm not here to discuss Trinitarian theology; just trying to explain how Catholics see the Trinity since Smith did not do very well with that.

"Idol worship enters the Catholic Church."

This simple statement shows how little Smith actually knows about the Catholic Church. There are people who claim that Mormons worship Joseph Smith. Saying Catholics worship idols is kind of like that. Catholics do not worship statues, icons, or anything else that may be considered an idol. Catholics do not worship Mary nor the saints. Catholics worship God alone, most obviously and preeminently in The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Why do Catholics have statues and images of Mary and the saints then? Why do Catholics pray to Mary and the saints? ...Well, why do you have pictures of your family? Why do people put up statues of notable people in history? Why do you ask your friends and family to pray for you? Statues and images of saints are holy reminders of those who have lived heroic lives of faith and charity. Prayers to Mary and the saints are nothing more than asking them to intercede on one's behalf, just like you might ask your friends to pray for you. The only difference being is that the saints are united with God in Heaven and since the prayers of a righteous man avails much, the saints in Heaven are in the best possible position to pray for someone.

"There was a woman Pope"

The story of "Pope Joan" is a work of fiction and has been debunked multiple times. One interesting tidbit about her story which more or less proves it as fictional is that she gave birth on a horse in a public procession. A 9-months pregnant woman is obviously pregnant to those who see her, so 1) why would she be out in public for people to see her? And 2) why would she be riding a horse in a public procession, knowing she could give birth at any moment? There are a lot more things that can be brought up, but if you don't believe me that this story is fictional, research it.

"In 1100 A.D., there were three popes"

There were never three popes. There was one time where there were three claimants to be pope. This kind of thing has actually happened several times in the history of The Catholic Church and the false claimants are known as antipopes.

There was an antipope who died in AD 1100; I'm guessing Smith saw this date and just ran with it because what he is referring to is the Western Schism, which took place between 1378 and 1417. If interested, look into it; I don't know much more about the details. I will say this though, there is, at most, only 1 person occupying the papal office (I say "most" because sometimes it's zero, such as when one pope dies and his successor is yet to be chosen).

"I’m not here making fun of Catholic history. I’m here helping us understand."

I'm not so sure. If he wanted to help people understand, he should have done more research.

Imagine if someone did this little research on the Mormon church before trying to "help people understand" their beliefs. "In the 1800s, this kid, Joseph Smith, was out using occult magic trying to find buried treasure, when he stumbled upon some mushrooms and thought he saw Jesus and The Father. A few years later, he started his own cult and wanted lots of wives, so he commanded some of his followers to marry him because God told him they needed to. He claimed that when Jesus ascended to Heaven, he didn't actually ascend to Heaven, but instead flew to America to share His Gospel. The people He visited wrote down the Book of Mormon on gold plates in a language that was only used by them. So when Joseph Smith found the plates in the 1800s, he had to translate them by sticking his head in a hat. He said that blacks were cursed people so couldn't hold the priesthood. Then later, when Mormons were feeling like outcasts and being pressured by the government, God decided to change His mind about polygamy. Same with racism when the US stopped being so racist."

Now, imagine 8 pages of that; some of it's true, some of it's false, some of it's common rumours, but a lot of it needs clarification. It would be a very poor talk/paper for helping people understand Mormon beliefs and values. This is why I'm writing all this, to help people understand the things for which Hyrum Smith did little research.

"Sale of Indulgences"

This was a great scandal to the Catholic Church and should have never happened. Martin Luther and others had every right to be angry about this. However, the selling of indulgences was NOT the selling of forgiveness of sins.

In the Catholic Church there is what's called the Sacrament of Reconciliation (also known as Confession or Penance, though less apt names). This is when a Catholic (a penitent) visits a priest and confesses their sins. The priest then gives the penitent a penance and absolves them of their sins in persona Christi. (James 5:16 says "Confess your sins to one another" and John 20:23 says "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.")

Why confession to priest and not God? It's both and; if you'd like me to elaborate, let me know.

Anyway, absolution of sins is always free. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is always free. So what's with the selling of indulgences? The penance part. The penance the priest gives will vary by priest, sins confessed, time, etc. Forgiveness is not conditional on doing penance; once the priest absolves the penitent, then the penitent is absolved. Penance is remediation for the sins committed. For example, imagine you broke a neighbor's window when playing baseball. You tell your neighbor that you're sorry and they forgive you, but they still have a broken window. To remedy this, you might clean up the mess and pay for a new window. This remediation is like a penance.

A long time ago, during the time that indulgences were being sold (technically, they weren't sold; it was more like a donation and an indulgence was a gift in return), penances were more of a public thing and could often be something like having to sit in the back of the church for months or even years. Indulgences were introduced to help people with their penance, so instead of sitting in the back of the church for three months, one might do a certain pious or charitable act to gain an indulgence of two months. Now, they only have to sit in the back for one month. In the previous example, this would be akin to your neighbor helping you clean up the mess and/or deciding to pay for a portion of the window themselves; the neighbor is indulging you.

As a scandalous way to raise money for The Church, people started promoting donating money to the Church so that the penitent could gain an indulgence.

Martin Luther

Many books have been written on Luther and his dissent, so I'm not even going to bother much. Read "Exsurge Domine." He rejected some Church teachings and wanted to institute new heretical teachings, so rather than The Church saying "Back off with your questions or you’ll be excommunicated," it was more like "adhere to the teachings of the church or you’ll be excommunicated." Granted, The Catholic Church was kind of a mess and the popes of the time weren't that great; The Church needed a reformation, but Martin Luther wanted things his way, so he protested, modified the Bible, and started his own church.

As far as the "papal hit on Martin Luther" and the Catholic Church pronouncing it's okay to kill Martin Luther, I have found zero evidence to back that up. If anyone has a source, I'd love to see it. He very well may have feared for his life and people very well may have wanted to kill him, but those are people, not The Catholic Church.

Other Mistakes

These are only the mistakes I noticed immediately and bothered to respond to. Most of the other things in Smith's talk I didn't address because I don't know enough about them. However, judging by the lackadaisical approach he took to studying the Catholic Church and Christian antiquity, I would not doubt that there are also errors in the other portions of his talk.

Conclusion

All in all, while there have been bad popes and scandals, these were/are human faults. When there's only one church and everyone's a part of it, guess where all the sinners are. Despite people, even those in authority, acting contrary to the teachings of The Catholic Church, the fact remains that the teachings of The Church were left unaltered. I'll take that "papal hit on Luther" a step further...even IF the pope paid to have Martin Luther killed, that would have been the pope acting in his own interests and the sin would be on his soul. While the pope may abuse his position of power, this does not mean that the Catholic Church allows or condones such abuse; The Church does and will not allow nor condone abuse.

I think it's important that people know what The Catholic Church really teaches and what really happened. If anyone would like more clarification or resources on points I've talked about or the Catholic Church in general, let me know.