Comments on: Turning a Page in History

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 23:55:20 +0000

I probably wont win an argument over Catholic doctrine since I haven't really studied. I'm recalling a lecture at the last Alpha Omega Conference in which (I belive it was Eric Svendson) showed that everyone was ultimately saved in Vatican II except for atheists. I'm not one to believe everything TV commentators say, but one said durng the funeral that John Paul II told Jews they did not need to convert to be saved. If that's the case, it would be odd if they included Jews and not Protestants.
That John Paul II received worship is directly tied to RCC views of the papacy, so when I say my doubts start there I'm speaking of that as an outward appearance of his doctrine. Had he had a Biblical understanding of his relationship to God he would not have accepted worship.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:59:05 +0000

“Vatican II basically stated that anyone who is good will be saved by Christ.””
I would have to read this as meaning that it is salvation by works, not a belief “in some vague notion of a God.” Then there is the problem of what is considered “good” by the RCC. Vatican I anathematizes anyone who rejects the infallibility of the papacy. Since, as a Christian, I reject the Pope's infallibility, I am no longer doing good and have been consigned to hell by the RCC. Vatican II does not relieve me of this kind of judgement from Vatican I because:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable”
(Vatican I, Session 4, Chap 4, Sec 9)
Seeing that the RCC still holds to Vatican I's doctrine of the Pope's teaching infallibility (making Vatican I also infallible when it anathematizes), the RCC would still have to anathematize all Christians. Frankly, Vatican II does not remedy the division since the RCC, in their eyes, defines what is good. Any change in their position of what is good is to destroy the authority of the Pope.
As for a starting point of doubt of the Pope's salvation, I wouldn't start from the point that he was receiving worship. Had he not received worship, would you still have doubts? My doubts start from the offical documents of the RCC and how they view the Pope. JP2 would have believed this of himself as a true Roman Catholic.
I agree with your statement that “idolatry of that nature seems incompatible with a regenerated believer”, but whereas you start to have your doubts based on other people worship him, I base mine on the idolizing of the self.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:26:20 +0000

“The RCC back at the time of the Reformation certainly thought the Protestants were an anathema, and I believe that the RCC has not official changed that stance.”
Vatican II basically stated that anyone who is good will be saved by Christ. Salvation is through Christ alone, but you only have to believe in some vague notion of a God to be saved by Him. Ultimately the only people left to evangelize are atheists (and God doesn't believe in atheists). This inclusive doctrine is horribly inconsistent with several RCC doctrines, but it is the reigning view nonetheless. Unless there's a caveat I'm not aware of (which is possbile), Protestants are saved too.
I think Mike (B.A.) made a good point about John Paul II receiving worship. Any doubts I have of his salvation begin there. Idolatry of that nature seems incompatible with a regenerated believer.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 06:54:31 +0000

That's interesting. The RCC back at the time of the Reformation certainly thought the Protestants were an anathema, and I believe that the RCC has not official changed that stance. To clarify, I speak of the RCC as an organization, not every individual in the church. (Many individuals are more Christian than Catholic, some quite surprised when you actually tell them the official stand of the RCC)
As for JP2 being in heaven, I have a hard time swallowing this, not because I don't think he had good fruits. He did have those, so I don't deny them. The problem I have is that as a true Roman Catholic, he had to believe that his teachings were infallible. That is the essence of the papacy in that the Pope (along with the RCC) had the authority equal to that of Scripture. To make such a claim is to make yourself equal to God, whether one denies it or not. The question is then posed: Could you or I go to heaven if we willfully commit this sin without repentance? Could someone who claims to be a faithful follower of Christ go to heaven if he goes and murders someone and will not repent of it?
The issues are deeper than just a serious theological disagreement. Heaven and hell do hang in the balance. If it didn't, I don't think the Protestants during the Reformation would have had such a hard time with the Catholics.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:23:45 +0000

I guess I'm one of those people who don't separate the Roman Catholic Church from Christianity. While I have some serious disagreements with that church's theology, I also respect it a great deal and don't think it is anathema. It's not my place to say whether John Paul II is in Heaven or not, but I assume he is. The fruits of his life seem to show that he had a very real and deep faith in Christ. I for one view him as something of a hero from whom I can learn a lot. Not a perfect or infallible person, but a faithful brother in Christ.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:27:15 +0000

I'm not familiar with anything that pope John Paul II did and I don't dought that he lived a life of works that were in the eyes of many, good. But ultimatley, sad to say, all pope John Paul built up was greater wrath in eternal punishment. What I just said might come as a shock to many, but I have valid reasons for stating what I just stated.
Didn't Jesus say “judge not lest ye be judged?” You are right. I am shocked.
Han

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:11:50 +0000

B.A. lived up to his name
I mostly agree, but we should be careful about saying when someone went to heaven. These days people have the tendency to believe any one who dies went to heaven, as long as they didn't rape or murder. We should mourn without making such claims, either way.
With that said, this time is a great opportunity for us to learn about what John Paul II did and appreciate the tremendous positive impact on the world. I've only seen a few of my regular reads even mention him, and only one emergent church blogger mention him. As believers we see history as God's providence; it has meaning because He ultimately orchestrates it together. We should be able to value what someone's done, whether they're Christian or not. This is especially true of John Paul II, since his name is one of the most important of the twentieth century. I'm rather dissapointed in the lack of reflection on him by most Christians.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:36:02 +0000

I think there is just a time and place to bring about those issues that separate the Christians from the Catholics, just like there is a time and place to bring about those issues that separate the Christians from the unbelievers. In light of the passing of anyone, it is best for the moment to let the mourning take its course.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:02:02 +0000

Read Albert Mohler's commentary for a good balance of respect for the great things John Paul II did while discerning the problematic elements of his theology.
I think there is as much a problem with Christians (Evangelical and post-Evangelical) accepting John Paul II as a Christian as there is not taking the time to appreciate the many good things he did.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 02:12:29 +0000

I meant Murdock…