Protestant Theologian: He Was My Pope, Too

christianity today ^ | 04.04.05 | Uwe Siemon-Netto

[Coleus]

For the last quarter of a century, this non-Catholic has had a pope. Now that John Paul II is gone, I am even more of an orphan than the Christians in the Roman church. For they will surely have another pope, but that one may not be mine, since I haven't converted.

I am sure I am reflecting the views of many Protestants. Who else but John Paul II gave voice to my faith and my values in 130 countries? Who else posited personal holiness and theological clarity against postmodern self-deception and egotism? Who else preached the gospel as tirelessly as this man?

What other clergyman played any comparable role in bringing down communism, a godless system? What other world leader—spiritual or secular—understood so profoundly how hollow and bankrupt the Soviet empire was, so much so that this tireless writer never bothered to pen an encyclical against Marxism-Leninism because he knew it was moribund?

Has there been a more powerful defender of the sanctity of life than this Pole, in whose pontificate nearly 40 million unborn babies wound up in trashcans and furnaces in the United States alone? What more fitting insight than John Paul II's definition of our culture as a culture of death—an insight that is now clearly sinking in, to wit the declining abortion rates in the United States?

In Europe some time ago, a debate occurred in Protestant churches: Should John Paul II be considered the world's spokesman for all of Christianity? This was an absurd question. Of course he spoke for all believers. Who else had such global appeal and credibility, even to non-Christians and non-believers?

Of course, there was the inveterate Billy Graham. There were many faithful Orthodox and Protestant bishops, pastors and evangelists.

[Aquinasfan]

This is not a reference to the unbiblical Catholic view of a saint as being a special class of Christians that are better than others.

I didn't know that Catholics held that view.

Anyway, the passage that I cited from Revelation shows the prayers of the saints on earth being presented to Jesus by the saints in heaven. The saints in heaven are acting as intercessors for us. It's right there in your Bible.

Revelation 5:8

And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twentyfour elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

[Aquinasfan]

JPII declared her "Queen of the Universe"

So did God.

Revelation 12:1

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

[IrishRainy]

Thanks for the info. However, it has done nothing to "convince" me that your way is the only way. I will remain a proud Catholic until the day I die, thru the grace of God!

[Okies love Dubya 2]

"Count me another Protestant who loved and admired this Pope greatly. He was a Lion of the Faith. I owe my return to my Christian beliefs in large part to his example.
I am appalled at some of my fellow Protestants on this thread (and others) who are taking this man's death as an opportunity to belittle their fellow Christians. It is sickening."

Thank you very much for your kind words. I had to walk away from the computer last night after reading some of the ahem, stuff, I saw coming from so-called Christians last night. Some of the self-righteousness, smug 'thank goodness I'm a Christian and not Catholic (like it is a dirty word)', and ignorance displayed here makes me feel physically ill.

Like I said in post 109, if you can't give the stuff a rest until the man is buried, then you're hopeless. Are you a better Christian because you can attack a man right after his death and taunt the people who are in mourning for him? Why can't you say 'this isn't the time and place'? Do you have that much of an urge to prove yourself right that you have to act like this? Congratulations on making yourselves look so charitable and caring. I hope no one ever comes to the funeral of a loved one of yours and acts the way you have here. (This second paragraph wasn't directed at you cicero's son, just needed to vent)

Again, c_s, thank you very much for the nice comments. I think I need to get away from the computer again and go worship a statue or something (just kidding!)

[chs68]

"The saints in heaven are acting as intercessors for us. It's right there in your Bible.

Revelation 5:8

And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twentyfour elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."

Most of Paul's letters are addressed to "the saints" in a given city or region.

Couldn't the passage you cite from Revelation, therefore, be interpreted to mean the prayers of faithful followers, set aside by God, and still living on Earth?

Why is it necessary that the "saints" mentioned in Revelation 5:8 be "saints in heaven". The text of Revelation says "the prayers of the saints". You have added "in heaven" to that text.

Why is that necessary?

[chs68]

"JPII declared her "Queen of the Universe"

So did God.

Revelation 12:1

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."

Really?

My version of the Bible doesn't include the name "Mary" anywhere near Revelation 12.

You could be right about what God meant in Revelation 12:1. He very well may have meant Mary when John, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that verse of scripture.

But it seems to me, given the verse the follows Revelation 12:1, and given some of the text in Romans 8, and given that Revelation is replete with metaphors, that the "woman clothed with stars" could be something else.

Since the Biblical text does not mention Mary here, why is it necessary for my salvation and redemption to believe that Mary is who is God is mentioning in Revelation 12:1??

[walden]

Well, it used to be that Catholics spoke Latin and Protestants didn't-- now, I'm not sure there are any differences. After all, we are all still sinners, and we live in a fallen world.

He was a wonderful pope-- his shoes will be tough to fill.

[SoothingDave]

Please excuse me for saying this, Dave, but it rather seems to me that you are coming perilously close to what could be called "Church Worship".

Recognizing God's gift to us of His Church is hardly worship.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Bible is not God, and I would most assuredly agree.

Good.

But you seem to suggest that God "needs" the Church (or perhaps the Church plus Scriture) to explain Himself.

God doesn't "need" anything. God provides us with the Church to be the instrument of salvation. Scripture (and its proper interpretation) flows from the Church. God doesn't "need" to do this for us. But HE did.

If you want to be serious about it, God could have simply willed it to be and the world would be restored, we would all be made perfect and harmony would reign.

Or He could have willed that we never would have fallen in the first place.

But He did not. He chose another way. He didn't "need" to do any of this, including creation.

That said, God did indeed put forth a plan which included man falling and eventually providing the humanity that He would become Incarnate in, and thorugh His Sacrifice, provide redemption and restoration to the entire world.

God didn't need to do that.

But having done that Christ becomes our Way of salvation. Now Christ could have simply willed that salvation come to all of us immediately upon His Resurrection. But He chose to do something different. He chose to empower His followers to bring His news and His grace to others. He established a Church, in other words. And He gave it authority to teach and to impart His forgiveness and grace.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but you seem to suggest that my own belief that says that if I cannot find a fact clearly stated in Scripture then it must mean that it has no relevance for my salvation is flawed.

Yes, it is. Cause it has no room for a teaching authority, and from history we can see how reliance on one's own opinion leads to fracture in the body of believers.

But I think I here you saying that your belief that refusing to submit to the beliefs of your own church puts me in peril of my own salvation. And I think you would argue, therefore, that what the Roman Catholic church teaches is more important thaty what scripture itself instructs.

There is no placing the Church and Scripture at odds. The Church is the instrument of salvation. She wrote the books of the NT and she has the authority to interpret them. There can be no conflict.

For me, it is a question of authority. God has spoken to us through his Son (the true cornerstone of Protestantism -- at least my "flavor" of Prostestantism, and, I think, the true cornerstone of Roman Catholicism -- if I'm wrong about that, please correct me) and through the Scriptures -- both Old Testament and New.

On whose authority is it that my own salvation and redemption are in peril unless I submit to the teachings and authority of the Roman Catholic Church? How can you demonstrate that authority to me? And why is that authority any more or any less reliable than the authority of the Scriptures?

There is no "authority of the Scriptures." One either believes that Jesus left a Church to guide us or not. If not, then one believes that one can know all by personal inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But we know that different people come up with differing interpretations, though they all claim this inspiration. So either the Holy Spirit sows confusion or some (most) people are deluded or incapable of coming to truth by themselves.

So since it is illogical that God would sow confusion deliberately, we must accept that He intended to leave us a visible guide. It is then a matter of examining, throughout history, which Church with what consistent ideas could claim to be this original Church.

Then, you have two choices Catholic or Orthodox.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Dave, the whole time you're supposedly meditating on the Lord Jesus Christ, you are saying over and over again,

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

So even in theoretically meditating on God, you are overlaying it with verbal entreaties to Mary. You are thus sharing God's glory with another.

We are honoring those God Himself chose to honor. I see no sin in that.

stop acting like you couldn't possibly understand why a Protestant might see that as Mary worship.

"Saying anything nice about anyone other than God" seems to be the Protestant definition of "worship."

SD

[SoothingDave]

Only if you start asking for his dead body to pray for you, or start saying prayers to him, or start using any of the other trappings of worship.

Ah, yes. The "trappings of worship." We come now to a principle difference between our creeds. The definition of worship.

Protestant view singing songs, talking nice, teaching lessons about, or offering prayer as worship. Cause that's what they (generally) do at their services.

Catholics offer the One Perfect and Living Sacrifice to the Almighty Father as our worship. We don't see honoring the worthy saints, even singing about them or asking for their prayers as worship. Cause worship is sacrifice and none other than the Father is given sacrifice.

And, for that matter and has been discussed above, even prayers to saints are udnerstood to be requests for petitions to the Almighty. We simply don't see honoring God's greatest works as "taking glory" away from Him. On the contrary.

SD

[SoothingDave]

464:

You need to understand that we respect, but we do not, nor will we ever, worship Mary. It seems to be a stumblingblock for all concerned

Neither do we "worship" Mary.

501:

Do you really think Mary would want to be likened to Ishtar?

No, so why do you do it? Are you having difficulty keeping track of a pagan goddess on one hand, and the Mother of Jesus on the other?

Still, we cannot get past the scripture that abhors the "Queen of Heaven". the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. Perhaps you can begin to understand our aversion. It isn't Mary, it's the title

This is about as superficial as you can get. If we find out some pagan cult thought of their God as "father" do we need to avoid that, too? Unless we get confused.

This is scraping the barrel.

SD

[SoothingDave]

But you can plainly see why I have to regard the Rosary, the most oft-spoken prayer in all of Roman Catholicism, as completely inconsistant with Biblical Christianity. So long as it remains the centerpiece of the Catholic prayer life, I must in good concience regard the devotion to Mary in Roman Catholicism as meeting the criteria for worship, and her titles as usurping God's own.

The Rosary is neither the "most oft-spoken prayer" nor the "centerpiece of Catholic prayer life." The Mass is the centerpiece of Catholic prayer life. There is also the Liturgy of the Hours done throughout the day. Neither is Mary-centric.

Now, what is "the criteria for worship" that you mention? How do you define it?

SD

[SoothingDave]

If you pray for the lotto numbers to hit so you will become rich tonight, you probably won't get your wish fulfilled. But if you pray for the strength to work hard, or for the will to overcome your fears, or for the right decision about something, then you stand a better chance of it being granted. Otherwise I can convert to Catholicism and pray to Mary to get God to make my lotto numbers come up tonight and I will be rich tomorrow as "what she asks, she obtains" and she wouldn't deny my wish would she?

I hope you're being facetious and are not really this stupid.

First of all, we don't hold that Mary can grant anything outside of God's Will. As TT pointed out, if Mary held all the cards, why would we ask her to ask God? She is an advocate and a loving mother.

Secondly, you acknowledge that not all prayers are granted according to our foolish desires. I'm not sure why you turn that part of your brain off when examining Catholic texts. Things must be read in context, and usually people understand that. But bring up Mary or some esoteric Catholic subject and folks go diving into texts they have no background for looking for "proof" that we don't truly believe what we say we do.

SD

[SoothingDave]

TT:The Catholic Church condemns anyone who would pray to any being outside of God and His Christ as if to receive Grace and Glory apart from God.

in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.

FreedomCalls, has the word "through" ceased to mean something different than the word "from"? Doesn't "through" indicate some type of conduit, pipe or passageway? As opposed to a source? There is no contradiction here.

Water comes into my house through the pipes. That doesn't mean the pipes are the source of the water, nor that they may provide water apart from the water company. Words mean things.

SD

[Mr. Lucky]

It wouldn't surprise you in the least, I don't suppose, to know that Martin Luther professed the Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity of Mary; that he venerated and sought her intercession, in his prayers.

Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase, "the Mother of God". No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

[Mr. Lucky]

It wouldn't surprise you in the least, I don't suppose, to know that Martin Luther professed the Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity of Mary; that he venerated and sought her intercession, in his prayers.

Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase, "the Mother of God". No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

[SoothingDave]

It wouldn't surprise you in the least, I don't suppose, to know that Martin Luther professed the Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity of Mary; that he venerated and sought her intercession, in his prayers.

Not a surprise to me, but still good to know. Of course, he was still too close and too ingrained with popery to really be a good source for anything. ;-)

SD

[Diamond]

"I am more afraid of my own heart than of the Pope and all his Cardinals. I have within me the great Pope, Self. "

Which only shows what an egomaniac Luther was.

This sort of self-love shouldn't really be looked upon as a virtue.

The terms of Luther's explicit statement above controvert completely the accusation of his egomania and perverted self-love; "I am more afraid of my own heart..."

That first clause determines the meaning of what follows. Ignoring that clause transforms the meaning into the exact opposite of what was intended. Luther's statement is a jab at the depravity of the human heart, including his own. Nothing more.

Cordially,

[chs68]

"Scripture (and its proper interpretation) flows from the Church."

Why? Who says? Where is this written?

"Recognizing God's gift to us of His Church is hardly worship."

I suppose, then, that you would also say that recognizing God's gift to us of His God-breathed word is hardly worship.

"But having done that Christ becomes our Way of salvation."

Most assuredly so.

"Now Christ could have simply willed that salvation come to all of us immediately upon His Resurrection."

God is sovereign. God is omnipotent. So, of course you are correct.

But He chose to do something different. He chose to empower His followers to bring His news and His grace to others."

No disagreement here, either. I recall Jesus saying that He was sending a paraclete -- a Comforter -- who, according to Jesus, is "the Spirit of Truth". Jesus said that this Spirit of Truth lives "with you and in you".

"He established a Church, in other words."

He certainly established a church. But I fear you and I might need to define our terms a bit. I define "church" as a group of people called out by God according to His purpose and set aside to God to accomplish His will. Is this how you define "church"?

"And He gave it authority to teach and to impart His forgiveness and grace.."

Where did He do that?

"from history we can see how reliance on one's own opinion leads to fracture in the body of believers."

Jesus' heart must truly weep to see division within His followers. At the same time, I do think that unity among Jesus' believers -- if that unity comes at the expense of error -- is the highest good. And I would never suggest that one relies on His or her own "opinion". I might suggest that Jesus Himself said that He is giving to each one of us believers a Spirit of Truth -- the Holy Spirit -- who lives in us and with us. My "opinion copunts for nought. The Holy Spirit's leading and instruction is what matters.

"There is no placing the Church and Scripture at odds. The Church is the instrument of salvation."

"The Church" is the instrument of salvation? Where is this written down? Who says this? When did Jesus leave this instruction to His disciples?

" She wrote the books of the NT and she has the authority to interpret them."

She wrote the books of the New Testament? I thought individuals, -- not a collection of believers -- guided by God's own Holy Spirit, wrote the books of the Bible. I'm afraid I don't understand when you say that the Roman Catholic Church wrote the books of the New Testament.

"There is no "authority of the Scriptures.""

What are you saying here? Are you suggesting that Scripture has no authority whatsoever? That the books of the Bible are without authority? That Jesus' own words, as recorded in Scripture, are meaningless? What do you mean? I'm getting more confused.

then one believes that one can know all by personal inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

Well, there is another possibility.

And that is that one can know what is needed (as opposed to "all") by the inspiration of GOd's onw Holy Spirit, which comes as the result of prayer, reading the Bible, worship, and fellowship with other humble believers who recognize their own sinfulness, brokenness, and need for salvation.

I don't think God ever inteneded for me to know "all". But I do think that God intended for me to know "enough" for my own salvation and for me to be His agent of reconciliation -- both between human beings and God and among human beings -- in order to carry out His purpose for my life. And I think that God gave me scripture, my mind, the Holy Spirit, and other humble believers to aid me in discderning the Truth -- about myself, the world, and God.

You suggest that people who rely on the leadings of the Holy Spirit often get it wrong. I would suggest that people who rely on the Holy Spirit and Scripture will never, this side of the grave, achieve perfection and know perfect Truth. That is, I think, because we all still carry sin within us.

At the same time, it is my view that the Church can never achieve knowledge -- much less impart -- perfect "truth" (the "all" that I think you are referring to), because the Church comprises human beings whose minds, like my own, are stained with sin, and which, therefroe, can never know perfect Truth.

I do think that Pope John Paul II's acknowledgement of errors and his request for forgiveness on the part of those whom the Roman Catholic Church has hurt in the past is a very real acknowlegement of the short-comings of human beings.

"But we know that different people come up with differing interpretations, though they all claim this inspiration."

Very true.

"So either the Holy Spirit sows confusion"

Not possible, since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

"or some (most) people are deluded or incapable of coming to truth by themselves."

See above. All of us -- every single of one of us -- is tainted by sin. Only God can lead any one of us to Truth.

[Diamond]

...cause I can't find it taught in his Bible where it says that everything is taught explicitly in the Bible.

To a Catholic, it is simply bizarre to think that God reveals Himself sufficiently through His Written Word.

It may be bizarre to a Catholic, but it is a caricature of Sola Scriptura to say that the claim is that Scripture teaches everything. There is a difference between exhaustive and sufficient. The claim, which is taught explicitly in the Bible, is that the Scripture has the ability to thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work. Included in every good work are "doctrine", "reproof", "correction", and "instruction in righteousness"

Is believing in the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, for example, a "good work"? If it were, it would logically lead to the absurd conclusion that the Scripture is unable to thoroughly or sufficiently equip the man of God with regard to a true doctrine that is nowhere found or implied therein.

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right
Basil the Great
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312).

...we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.
Gregory of Nyssa
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).

Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures ... For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments.
Cyril of Jerusalem
(A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).

Cordially,