“Apostles of Apostasy”: Caesar Baronius and the Saeculum Obscurum of the Papacy

“Apostles of Apostasy”: Caesar Baronius and the Saeculum Obscurum of the Papacy

J. Neil Daniels

Nota Bene: The following was inspired by a post on X (link here) by The Presbytery Inn (@PresbyInn)

Introduction

The Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession holds that the popes, as successors of Peter, are not only legitimate ecclesiastical leaders but also the divinely appointed guardians of orthodoxy and unity in the Church. This doctrine undergirds related teachings such as the indefectibility of the Church and, in more recent centuries, papal infallibility. However, the historical record contains numerous periods of crisis, corruption, and doctrinal ambiguity that challenge the unqualified continuity claimed by Rome. I have explored these difficulties at greater length in a previous essay, “The Historical Complexities (and Impossibilities) of Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession Claims,” which may be consulted for a broader survey of the issue. One of the most significant admissions of this problem comes not from a Protestant polemicist, but from a cardinal and Vatican librarian, Caesar Baronius (1538–1607), whose magisterial Annales Ecclesiastici offered a Catholic counter-narrative to Protestant historiography. Remarkably, in this defense of the Roman Church’s continuity and authority, Baronius included an unflinching condemnation of the papacy’s degeneration during the period now known as the Saeculum Obscurum (Latin for “the dark age”), a condemnation so severe that he declared the pontiffs of that time to be “apostles of apostasy."

The Original Latin Citation and Its Meaning

In his Annales Ecclesiastici, under the entry for the year 1049, Baronius writes:

“Per annos fere centum quinquaginta, quinquaginta circiter Pontifices, a Johanne VIII. usque ad Leonem IX., ita a maiorum suorum virtute degeneres extitere, ut apostasiae potius apostoli, quam apostolicae successionis exstiterint.”

Translated, this reads: “For nearly one hundred and fifty years, about fifty pontiffs, from John VIII to Leo IX, so degenerated from the virtue of their predecessors that they appeared rather apostles of apostasy than of apostolic succession.”

This statement is extraordinary in its severity. Baronius laments not simply the moral weakness of individual popes, but a pattern of near-total degeneration spanning over a century and a half. The contrast between “apostles of apostasy” (apostasiae potius apostoli) and “apostolic succession” (apostolicae successionis) is rhetorically forceful and theologically pointed. These men, according to Baronius, betrayed the very office they were said to embody. The admission is not framed as an isolated aberration but as a prolonged crisis within the Roman episcopate.

Historical Context: The Saeculum Obscurum and the Hijacking of the Papal Throne

The Saeculum Obscurum, or “dark age” of the papacy, refers to a period of deep moral and institutional decay in the Roman See from the late 9th to the mid-11th century. Baronius’s lamentation of the pontiffs as “apostles of apostasy” gains its gravity not merely from sporadic scandal, but from the sustained political subjugation of the papacy by competing aristocratic factions, particularly the Roman senatorial families of the Tusculani and the Crescentii. The papacy during this era ceased to function as a spiritual office and was instead treated as a hereditary possession to be bestowed on sons, nephews, and even illegitimate offspring of powerful Roman houses.

Following the disintegration of Carolingian central authority, Italy fragmented into localized feudal domains. Foreign kings, from the East Frankish Arnulf of Carinthia to the German Otto I, intermittently invaded the peninsula in attempts to restore order and assert control over the papacy. Yet their interventions only temporarily arrested the chaos. Within Rome itself, the Theophylact family—particularly Theophylact I of Tusculum and his wife Theodora—seized both temporal and ecclesiastical authority. Their daughter Marozia became the de facto ruler of Rome and orchestrated the elevation of several popes, including her own son, John XI (r. 931–935), widely believed to have been fathered by Pope Sergius III (r. 904–911). Her grandson, Pope John XII (r. 955–964), was a youth of scandalous reputation, known for his debauchery, violence, and open contempt for sacred office.

This era reached its most grotesque expression in the Cadaver Synod of 897, during which Pope Stephen VI, at the behest of the Spoleto faction, exhumed the corpse of his predecessor, Pope Formosus, dressed it in papal vestments, placed it on trial, and condemned it as unworthy of the pontificate. The cadaver's fingers were cut off, its vestments torn away, and the body thrown into the Tiber River. This macabre spectacle, intended to solidify factional dominance, instead symbolized the utter desecration of the Roman episcopate.

Moral Collapse and Institutional Subversion

The pontiffs of this era were not merely weak or scandalous; rather, they were frequently installed through bribery, coercion, or hereditary appointment. Benedict IX (r. 1032–1048), a member of the Tusculani, was thrice pope, once selling the papacy outright. St. Peter Damian denounced him as “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest,” while Pope Victor III catalogued his papacy as one of “rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts.” The Lateran Palace, under John XII and Benedict IX, was reputedly turned into a brothel. These were not isolated failings but formed a pattern that makes Baronius’s words tragically apt. His judgment that these men “appeared rather apostles of apostasy than of apostolic succession” was not rhetorical flourish but historical fact.

The sexual and political entanglements of Marozia and her family further entrenched the degradation. Between 904 and 964, at least five popes were either her lovers, her sons, or her political puppets. The office of vestararius, which controlled papal finances and appointments, was monopolized by the Theophylacti. Papal legitimacy no longer derived from spiritual calling but from senatorial patronage. Ecclesiastical consecration had become indistinguishable from secular coronation.

From Pornocracy to Reform

In retrospect, Baronius’s indictment of these popes as betrayers of apostolic office is not merely a Catholic historian’s lamentation but a tacit confession that undermines the theological foundation of the Roman episcopate’s claims. If the papacy could be occupied by adolescent libertines, manipulated by courtesans, and bought and sold like a fief, then its continuity is no sure sign of divine sanction. The historical office may have persisted, but its spiritual integrity was visibly shattered.

It is no surprise, then, that the same era saw mounting calls for reform. The Gregorian Reforms of the mid-11th century sought to sever these bonds of nepotism and simony. Pope Nicholas II’s election decree of 1059 restricted papal elections to the cardinal bishops, excluding lay influence. These reforms marked the official end of the noble-papacy and the beginning of a more clerically centered papal polity. Ironically, the eleventh-century reformers sought to recover spiritual ideals (e.g., moral integrity, ecclesiastical discipline, and doctrinal fidelity) that had been long undermined by Rome itself, but which would later be fully reclaimed and systematized by the Protestant Reformers.

Theological Implications for Apostolic Succession

Baronius’s own theological commitments required that he maintain the legitimacy and divine authority of the Roman See despite these moral catastrophes. His apologetic strategy was to distinguish between the person of the pope and the office of the papacy. According to this logic, the office retains its apostolic dignity even when held by scandalous men. Yet the very force of Baronius’s indictment strains this distinction. If popes can be described as "apostles of apostasy," then the mechanism of succession appears to be a hollow formality, lacking the spiritual and doctrinal substance it is supposed to guarantee.

For Protestant theologians, this passage is a potent illustration of the inadequacy of institutional continuity as a measure of fidelity. It affirms the need to evaluate the Church's legitimacy not on historical succession alone, but on doctrinal and moral integrity, these being criteria rooted in Scripture rather than mere lineage. Apostolic succession, if severed from apostolic truth, is no safeguard at all. The Reformers’ insistence on sola Scriptura emerges not from anti-historical sentiment, but from the recognition that even high ecclesiastical offices can be co-opted by corruption.

Catholic Responses and Counterclaims

Catholic theologians, both early and modern, have attempted to downplay the force of Baronius’s words by insisting on the preservation of doctrinal orthodoxy despite moral failure. They also argue that no pope during this period taught heresy ex cathedra, and thus the doctrine of papal infallibility—defined formally only in 1870—remains untouched. However, this line of defense is of limited value, since the core of the Protestant objection lies not merely in infallibility claims but in the assertion that the Church of Rome, by her own standards, failed to preserve the holiness, universality, and apostolicity she claims as marks of the true Church.

Moreover, the appeal to non-infallibility serves only to expose the weakness of Rome’s claim to divine guidance. If God’s hand is said to preserve the papal office from doctrinal error, it becomes difficult to explain why He would allow it to be so repeatedly occupied by men of manifest wickedness, whose actions, if not their teachings, led many into scandal and unbelief.

A Protestant Reappraisal

The testimony of Baronius assumes an ironic and unintended apologetic force in favor of Protestant critiques. In seeking to defend the Church of Rome against charges of historical rupture and ecclesiastical apostasy, Baronius instead preserved, in painstaking detail, the very evidence that Protestant historians had already laid bare—most notably in the Magdeburg Centuries (German: Magdeburger Zenturien), a monumental twelve-volume ecclesiastical history compiled by Lutheran scholars under the direction of Matthias Flacius Illyricus. The Reformers had documented the ecclesiastical corruption, moral degradation, and doctrinal confusion of the medieval papacy as symptomatic of a deeper spiritual sickness. Baronius, writing from within the fold, unwittingly corroborated these observations. What the Magdeburg centuriators had chronicled from a position of reforming protest, Baronius recounted with a penitential loyalty that nonetheless exposes the same rot at the core of Rome’s historic claims.

Although the Centuries were polemical in intent, they did not merely rehearse scandalous anecdotes but constructed a theologically grounded critique of the papacy. Their contention was that when the visible Church no longer proclaims the apostolic gospel, administers the sacraments according to Christ’s institution, or disciplines her ministers, she forfeits her right to be called apostolic, no matter her claim to succession. In this respect, the Protestant Reformers found their observations confirmed in Baronius’s own historical narrative, even if he drew contrary conclusions.

This concession is not a minor historical curiosity; it strikes at the heart of Roman ecclesiology. If nearly fifty popes, occupying the highest office in the Church, could be described by a cardinal and Vatican librarian as “apostles of apostasy,” then what becomes of the claim that the Roman See is the divinely guided and indefectible custodian of truth and holiness? The Protestant Reformers never denied that God preserves His Church. What they denied—rightly and necessarily—was that such preservation is guaranteed through the papal institution, irrespective of its fidelity to the gospel. The Word of God, not the continuity of office, is the anchor of the Church’s authority and the rule of its faith.

John Calvin, addressing Rome’s degeneration, wrote, “Rome, indeed, was once the mother of all the churches; but since she began to be the seat of Antichrist, she ceased to be what she was” (Institutes, IV.7.25). For Calvin, the presence of apostolic succession without apostolic doctrine was not merely a defect, but a betrayal of the faith once delivered to the saints. Martin Chemnitz echoed the same logic in his Examination of the Council of Trent: “It is not enough that they boast of the name and succession of the church; one must ask whether they have preserved the doctrine, the sacraments, and the discipline instituted by Christ” (Part I, ch. 1).

Indeed, the very survival of the papacy through such a nightmarish century, far from proving divine sanction, serves as a cautionary tale. Spiritual authority without accountability to Scripture devolves into tyranny or farce. The papacy did not merely falter; it became a byword for corruption, an office trafficked among senatorial dynasties, and a scandal to the nations. The spectacle of cadaver trials, papal concubinage, and liturgical sacrilege revealed how deeply the Church’s outward form could persist while its inward substance was eclipsed. In such an age, the forma ecclesiae—the true form of the Church—was preserved not in the Lateran, but in the faithful remnants who clung to the gospel amidst institutional decay.

Baronius’s intended apologetic was to show that the Catholic Church, though battered and compromised, endured by God’s providence. But in Protestant perspective, the lesson is more sobering: it is not enough to possess apostolic succession if one forfeits apostolic doctrine. The light of the Church is not housed in Rome’s episcopal lineage, but in the lamp of the prophetic Word, “more sure,” as Peter himself declared, “than even the voice from the mount” (2 Pet 1:19). When that light is eclipsed by sin, superstition, and simony, it is not the structure of the Church that must be preserved at all costs, but the gospel that must be recovered, no matter how radical the cost to institutional pretensions.

Conclusion

Caesar Baronius’s declaration that nearly fifty pontiffs “appeared rather apostles of apostasy than of apostolic succession” remains one of the most damning admissions ever penned by a Catholic ecclesiastical historian. In light of the events of the Saeculum Obscurum, his words are more than hyperbole, they are a sorrowful witness to the moral and institutional ruin of the papacy over more than a century. The continuity of office amid such degradation does not vindicate Rome’s claims to divine guidance; it indicts them. The Protestant Reformers, far from being historical revisionists, simply acknowledged what Catholic historians had already confessed: that the church must be judged not by succession alone, but by its fidelity to apostolic doctrine, spiritual integrity, and biblical truth.

Thus, the Reformation’s summons to return to the supreme authority of Scripture and to recognize the true church not in an unbroken institutional lineage, but in the faithful preaching of the gospel, the proper administration of the ordinances, and the exercise of biblical discipline, emerges as not only a historical necessity but a theological imperative (see Belgic Confession Art. 29; Westminster Confession of Faith 25.4; Second London Baptist Confession 26.5). These marks of the church, grounded in Scripture rather than Rome’s pretensions, offer the only sure safeguard against the very ecclesiastical decay Baronius so candidly described.

Appendix: The Magdeburg Centuries and Baronius’ Saeculum Obscurum: A Comparative Analysis of Papal Corruption Narratives

Historical Context and Objectives

The Magdeburg Centuries (1559–1574), compiled by Lutheran scholars under Matthias Flacius Illyricus, and Cardinal Caesar Baronius’ Annales Ecclesiastici (1588–1607), particularly its Saeculum Obscurum section, represent two contrasting historiographical endeavors concerning the papacy's history during periods of alleged corruption. The Centuries aimed to expose systemic papal depravity to challenge Catholic claims of authority, while Baronius sought to defend the papacy's legitimacy by reframing scandals as isolated incidents or exaggerations. This analysis compares their approaches, focusing on their treatment of controversial popes—John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI, and Boniface VIII—through their use of primary sources, interpretive strategies, and theological agendas.

Primary Sources and Methodologies

Both works utilized medieval chronicles, papal records, and reformist texts, but their selection and interpretation of these sources diverged significantly.

Magdeburg Centuries Sources

The Centuriators drew extensively from critical sources to construct their narrative. Liutprand of Cremona’s Antapodosis and Liber de rebus gestis Ottonis provided vivid accounts of papal corruption, particularly under John XII. Pope Gregory VII’s letters, including those to Hermann of Metz, condemned simony, reinforcing the Centuries’ argument that corruption was entrenched. Johann Burchard’s Diarium documented Alexander VI’s scandals, such as the Banquet of Chestnuts. Works like Marsilius of Padua’s Defensor Pacis and William of Ockham’s Dialogus criticized papal overreach and heresy, framing the papacy as a political institution prone to abuse. Dante Alighieri’s De Monarchia and the Council of Constance’s Haec Sancta supported the Centuries’ view that secular and conciliar authority could supersede corrupt popes. Trial documents against Boniface VIII bolstered claims of papal tyranny.

The Centuries prioritized sources highlighting moral and political failings, often quoting them verbatim to maximize rhetorical impact.

Baronius’ Sources

Baronius, defending the Catholic Church, selectively used overlapping sources while favoring pro-papal records. Flodoard of Reims’ Annales and Benedict of Soracte’s Chronicon offered less inflammatory accounts, enabling Baronius to temper accusations. Papal registers, such as the Liber Pontificalis and Gregory VII’s Register, emphasized papal legitimacy and reform efforts. Reformist texts like Peter Damian’s Liber Gomorrhianus and Humbert of Silva Candida’s Adversus Simoniacos allowed Baronius to highlight the Church’s self-correcting mechanisms. Chronicles of Cluny underscored monastic reforms as evidence of internal renewal during the Saeculum Obscurum.

Baronius cross-referenced critical sources with papal records to challenge their credibility or reframe their context, avoiding inflammatory sources like Burchard’s Diarium for Alexander VI.

Comparative Analysis of Key Popes

Pope John XII (955–964)

The Centuries leaned on Liutprand’s accounts, depicting John XII as morally depraved. They framed his deposition by Otto I as evidence of the papacy’s corruption. Baronius acknowledged John’s flaws but attributed them to his youth and the chaotic Roman political landscape, dismissing Liutprand as biased due to his allegiance to Otto I.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044)

The Centuries portrayed Benedict IX as a symbol of systemic corruption, citing his multiple depositions and reinstatements. Baronius admitted Benedict’s simony but blamed the powerful Tusculani family for installing him, emphasizing his alleged repentance to underscore the Catholic Church’s capacity for redemption.

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503)

The Centuries relied on Burchard’s Diarium to depict Alexander VI as the epitome of Renaissance decadence. Baronius avoided Burchard, focusing on Alexander’s diplomatic achievements and dismissing scandals as slanders, arguing that personal failings did not undermine the papal office’s doctrinal authority.

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303)

The Centuries accused Boniface of heresy and tyranny, particularly for Unam Sanctam, framing him as a power-hungry pontiff. Baronius defended Unam Sanctam as a legitimate assertion of spiritual authority, portraying Boniface as a martyr persecuted by Philip IV’s political aggression.

Broader Tactics and Theological Implications

The Magdeburg Centuries and Baronius employed distinct strategies to advance their agendas.

Source Selection

The Centuries prioritized anti-papal sources to highlight corruption, often quoting them in Latin for authenticity. Baronius favored pro-papal or neutral sources to emphasize legitimacy and reform, selectively using critical sources to reframe their context.

Interpretation

The Centuries argued that corruption was systemic, using scandals to challenge papal infallibility and supremacy. Baronius insisted that corruption was exceptional, highlighting the Gregorian Reform and conciliar efforts as evidence of the Catholic Church’s self-correction.

Theological Angle

The Centuries claimed that corrupt popes disproved papal infallibility, aligning with Protestant calls for reform. Baronius maintained that popes, as humans, could sin without invalidating the divine institution of the papacy, preserving Catholic doctrine.

Summary 

The Magdeburg Centuries and Baronius’ Saeculum Obscurum represent a clash of Reformation and Counter-Reformation historiography. The Centuries leveraged critical medieval sources to construct a narrative of systemic papal corruption, targeting figures like John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI, and Boniface VIII to undermine Catholic authority. Baronius, in contrast, used selective sourcing and contextual reframing to defend the papacy, emphasizing reforms and external pressures to preserve its legitimacy. Their conflicting interpretations reflect not only historiographical differences but also deep theological divides over the nature of ecclesiastical authority.

For Further Study 

Print Sources

Baronius, Caesar. Annales Ecclesiastici. Vol. 10. Lucca: Salvatoris Bertini, 1738.

Primary source, Latin. Consult under the year 1049.

Baronius, Caesar. The Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius. Translated by Edward Cardwell. Oxford: Oxford University, 1856.

Partial English translation, covering earlier volumes; not all volumes are available in English.

Bellarmine, Robert. On the Roman Pontiff. Translated by Ryan Grant. Vol. 1 of De Controversiis. Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015.

Catholic defense of the papacy by a near-contemporary of Baronius.

Chamberlin, Eric. The Bad Popes. New York: Dorset, 1969.

Collins, Roger. Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy. New York: Perseus, 2009.

Cushing, Kathleen. Reform and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century: Spirituality and Social Change. Manchester: Manchester University, 2005.

Duffy, Eamon. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. 4th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2015.

Kelly, J. N. D. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Revised by Michael Walsh. Oxford: Oxford University, 2010.

Mann, Horace K. The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages. Vol. 4–5. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1910.

Extensive papal biographies covering the era from John VIII to Leo IX.

Moore, Michael Edward. "The Attack on the Pope Formosus: Papal History in an Age of Resentment (875–897)." In Ecclesia et Violentia: Violence against the Church and Violence within the Church in the Middle Ages, edited by Radosław Kotecki and Jacek Maciejewski, 82–104. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014

O’Malley, John W. A History of the Popes: From Peter to the Present. Lanham, MD: Sheed & Ward, 2010.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 4: Mediaeval Christianity, A.D. 590–1073. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Squatriti, Paolo. "Pornocracy." In Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia, edited by Christopher Kleinhenz, Vol. 2, 926–27. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Wickham, Chris. Medieval Rome: Stability and Crisis of a City, 900–1150. Oxford: Oxford University, 2015.

Wood, Diana. The Papacy, 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999.

Online Sources

Baronius, Caesar. Annales Ecclesiastici. Vol. 10. Paris, 1864. Digitized by Internet Archive.

https://archive.org/details/annalesecclesias01barouoft

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Caesar Baronius.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last modified January 2024.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Caesar-Baronius

Budde, Paul. "Italy and the Papal Pornocracy 800–1100." Paul Budde History, Philosophy, Culture. Accessed May 29, 2025. https://paulbuddehistory.com/europe/italy-and-the-papal-pornocracy-800-1100/. 

Wikipedia. “Saeculum Obscurum.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Last modified May 2024.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

Use with extreme caution; helpful for general overview and links to scholarly resources.