Dan
Dan, you might want to pick up a book called "Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice" by Philip Jenkins. I haven't read it, but have read another book of his (Hidden Gospels) which debunks the loony heresies of groups like the Jesus Seminar. I was impressed with Jenkins' scholarship and insights. I mention this because your comments seem to reflect an animosity toward the RCC bordering on prejudice. And prejudice is usually rooted in ignorance. This isn't meant as a slam at your intelligence - you're obviously a bright guy, but I'm skeptical about where you're getting your information about the Catholic church that causes you to show such disrespect toward such a brilliant and saintly person as John Paul II. Ronald Reagan wasn't a Catholic, but held the Pontiff in the highest regard. Ditto Margaret Thatcher. Do you think you know him better than they did?
One can certainly find plenty of fodder for despising the Catholic Church. It has LOTS of enemies in the world. Didn't Jesus say to his disciples that the world hated Him and would HATE them as well? Tellingly the world doesn't hate the left-leaning "mainstream" Protestant churches. Indeed the world praises the likes of Bishop Spong (oxymoron) and the Jesus Seminar scholars (ditto) and the National Council of Churches. Doesn't that tell us something?
Who does the world utterly and virulently hate most of all? I'd say it hates both the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical Christians. That suggests to me that Catholics and Evangelicals share something in common and that "each other" is not the real enemy of our shared faith.
Catholics believe the Pope is deserving of respect because he is the legitimate successor to Saint Peter, head of the universal (that's what catholic means) church established by Jesus Christ as recorded in Matthew 16:13-19. Jesus specifically entrusted Simon/Peter with the care and feeding of Christ's flock. John 21:15-17.
These passages are the Biblical basis for the primacy of Peter, the doctrine of apostolic succession and how Jesus envisioned the continuation of His work and teachings after His Ascension. Tellingly, Jesus didn't say to Simon, you are Peter (Petras in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic, which mean rock) and upon this rock I will write my Bible. Rather, He said upon this Rock I will build My Church. Which means the Church (with Peter as its head) and not the Bible that is the pillar and bulwark of the true faith. 1 Timothy 3:15. (Funny how Catholic Scripture begins to look when you look at the Church's actual teachings and writings of the Church Fathers instead of the Jack Chick comics strawmen.} While you might reasonably disagree with the Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture on the above points, you cannot reasonably contend that its interpretation has no basis in Scripture. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the two principal Protestant doctrines: sola scriptura and sola fide.
Sola scriptura is mentioned nowhere in sacred Scripture. It is therefore unscriptural and self-contradictory since the Bible never says 'follow the Bible only.' If you profess to follow the Bible only, then you aren't following the Bible because the Bible doesn't tell you to do that. Further, not one of the Church Fathers from the earliest days of the Church through the end of the Patristic era professed anything like sola scriptura. Rather, the doctrine originates from the time of the Reformation. So if sola Scriptura isn't one of those made-up doctrines you so deplore, please explain why we see no evidence that anyone from Jesus Christ Himself to the Apostles to the Church Fathers to the great doctors of the Church ever professed it.
Sola fide is even worse as it actually goes against the explicit teaching of sacred Scripture. James 2:18-26. Interestingly this passage is the only place in the New Testament where the relationship between faith and works is explicitly discussed and it says rather unequivocally that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (empasis mine). James 2:24. Then, in case we missed it, James reiterates two verses down: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." James 2:26. That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement for sola fide. Which raises the question, whose "made-up doctrines are damning nonsense" anyway? It wasn't any of the Popes who thought up this one. :-)
My point here isn't to claim we're right and you're wrong on issues that have divided Catholics and Protestants since the Reformation. My point is simply to show that the Catholic Church isn't as unbiblical as you might think and that Protestant doctrines may not be as biblical as you've heretofore assumed.
I believe it can be demonstrated to any fair-minded reader that the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church are consistent with what the Church has always taught for 2,000 years. The teachings of the Church aren't (and shouldn't be expected to be) static, but rather develop organically over time. That's because the enemies of the faith are constantly promulgating new false teachings that simply weren't issues when the books of the New Testament were being written. Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth about issues and disputes affecting that community. He didn't venture any thoughts on The DaVinci Code. As Chesterton famously explained, there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. The Bible doesn't enumerate, much less attempt to refute every conceivable wrong angle. As the written Word, it simply points to the living Word as the only place at which one stands. But where do we go from there?
I have a fondness for those admittedly tacky bracelets with the letters "WWJD". They are great because they remind us to ask the question and usually the answer will be self-evident. But there are times when I've asked the question but had no clue to the answer. Looking to the Bible doesn't always give the answer because the Bible alone does not and cannot supply unambiguous answers on a myriad number of questions and moral issues that its authors never faced. So if it ever becomes necessary for the Church to tackle the idiotic DaVinci Code heresy that Jesus and Mary Magdelene had a secret love child, a Bible only approach won't suffice. Clearly the Bible doesn't say that Jesus and Mary Magdalen were married, but it doesn't say they weren't married either.
If you study the history of what you call "made-up doctrines" promulgated by the Catholic Church, you'll find they were always in response to some new heresy or false teaching that threatened the lambs and sheep entrusted by Christ to Peter's and his successors care. And they weren't "made-up doctrines [that] are damning nonsense," but carefully and prayerfully and thoughtfully considered doctrines derived from sacred Tradition in union with sacred Scripture to refute some "damning nonsense" that attacks from a new angle in order to make us fall down.