And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."True evangelicals should see this as a tragic slur on the completed and solitary work of Christ, yet Oden gushes to an embarrassing degree:
John Paul II will be John Paul the Great. He will be one of the great popes in history. He probably will be among the five or ten greatest [pontiffs], because he's had such an impact on world history, world Christianity, and world evangelization.Certainly he was a great man by human standards who had a great impact, but what was his true impact on world Christianity and evangelization? Dare we judge his teachings by the Bible? Is his gospel that of Paul's, or another gospel? Where exactly did Paul promote Marian veneration? That a so-called "Protestant" theologian could see a Roman Catholic pontiff in that light is troubling, but it gets more extreme. If Martin Luther knew what "Lutheran" theologian Uwe Siemon-Netto was claiming, he'd be apoplectic. In an article titled, He Was My Pope, Too, Siemon-Netto laments,
...the Holy Spirit has worked powerfully in John Paul II in a way that is almost unprecedented in the last century
Now that John Paul II is gone, I am even more of an orphan than the Christians in the Roman church.Global appeal and credibility among non-Christians carries more weight than theological correctness. Surely God is sparing Martin Luther the knowledge that Lutheran theologians are praising the pope more than many Roman Catholics who were troubled by his conservatism.
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?
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?
http://geezmagazine.org/articles.../wb-
papacy.html
This is a pretty interesting read, which is actually close to how I (and many protestants I know) view catholicism.
One other note, Martin Luther retained most of the Marian doctrines held by the 16th century church - a small issue that is really beside your point I'm sure, but worth noting.
Paul, it's somewhat ironic that your choose the "Geez" articel to quote. Will is a Mennonite writing from Winnipeg--I was born into a Mennonite family 40 miles south of Winnipeg, so I know his heritage well.
The sad thing to me is the article in no way touches on the primary reasons for the Reformation. Where is justification and the authority of Scripture? You'd never guess that there were critical doctrinal issues at stake when Menno Simons and others broke away from Rome.
As others have written, much of the Protestant longing for a Pope to call their own resembles Israel's call for a king in the days of Saul. God in heaven did not suffice; they wanted a man on earth. Is that how you feel, Paul?
As for Luther, I don't agree with all that he said or did (he supported executing some of my Anabaptist forefathers in faith), but I greatly respect him for the many lines of demarcation he drew between Rome and Biblical Christianity.
I'm guessing that he didn't feel the need to go into the history of the reformation, which has been extensively chronicled, and would take up far more space than he could devote. Plus, I'm sure he could count on the topic being adequately covered in blogworld. ;^)
I think he purposefully wanted to convey a different perspective. It would be hard to deny that the Pope is the most important spiritual leader in Christendom and probably the world, due to the sheer number of catholics worldwide. The papal selection affects all of us. I appreciate his reflection (although very brief) on the nature of the post-reformation splintering of Christendom.
I personally don't feel any "longing" for a protestant leader to have papal-like impact. I'm pretty anti-hierarchy orientated, and I'd be a terrible catholic in many ways. But I think it is worth discussing that many protestant denominations are at least as different from each other as they are from the modern RCC. I'm ok with it, because I can tolerate a difference of perspective on non-essential biblical matters (and for me, the only real essential is Christ). I consider Catholics to be my sisters and brothers in Christ, along with Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and even Calvinists ;^) But I know that many don't feel that way.
Paul, as always, I appreciate your contributions even when we disagree.
I'm wondering how you'd define "the essential is Christ" in more detail. Does the Mormon Christ qualify so that you'd call Mormons your brothers in Christ as our beloved senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, recently did, and as Fuller Seminary president Richard Mouw appears ready to do?
I am thankful that you included Calvinists, BTW. ;-) Personally, I believe I have Roman Catholic sisters and brothers in Christ, but not because they're RC. If that was the qualifier, they'd all be regenerate, and I don't believe that can be said of all Baptists, Methodists or any other group, either. However, if RC doctrine is correct, then you must accept them all, or more accurately, must be thankful if they accept you. I'm still anathema according to the never repudiated Council of Trent, so I'm pretty much out of luck.
Regarding the LDS, I think we can agree that their perception of God is very different than that of mainstream Christianity. I don't want to be misunderstood as arguing that all paths lead to the same place, or any of that. But I will usually argue that God cares more about the love we show each other and Him in striving to perceive Him than the specifics of who is ultimately right in their perception, and who is not. I don't know enough about the Mormon faith (very little outside of what I was taught in my own denomination). But I think the standard for Christianity is salvation through Christ. If salvation is found in Christ alone, we are speaking of Christianity. If salvation exists outside of the blood of Christ, we are speaking of something else.
Regarding Catholicism, it's been the trend to understand "catholic" as universal, and "the church" as all of Christianity, not just the RCC (I think this is part of the "broad" concept you originally blogged about). What I was told long ago by my Lutheran minister in confirmation was that the doctrines of the RCC are not meant to be digested and debated among the congregations. That's just not how they work. In the same way, Martin Luther's 95 theses were not meant to be public fodder for laymen, but to be debated within the structure of the church hierarchy. It's often said that he considered himself part of the church (Catholic) even on his deathbed.
In short, the church (any church) operates apart from its congregation's understanding. Technical doctrine is not even well understood by catholics, and worse by protestants. I know quite a few catholics, and I know of none who believe that there is no salvation outside the RCC, regardless of what the Council of Trent says. In the end, it's another system of perceiving God.
Regarding the LDS, I think we can agree that their perception of God
is very different than that of mainstream Christianity.
Yes. As is the Jehovah's Witnesses. My point is that it takes more info than "believing in Jesus" to determine if someone shares the same faith. I think Richard Mouw has completely lost it.
But I will usually argue that God cares more about the
love we show each other and Him in striving to perceive Him than the
specifics of who is ultimately right in their perception, and who is
not.
So do you agree or disagree with the other Paul when he makes a propositional statement that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith"? Or is your point that even though Christ must have been raised, it doesn't matter if we believe that or not? It sounds like you're moving in a Barthian direction where men are elect in Christ even if they don't know it--right belief is inconsequential. Am I reading you accurately?
If salvation
is found in Christ alone, we are speaking of Christianity. If
salvation exists outside of the blood of Christ, we are speaking of
something else.
But is it Christianity if it's Christ plus something else? Isn't that what Paul attacked in the Judaizers? My problem with the RC church is the mass--a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice that is not permanently efficacious, the addition of RC baptism and various rites and rituals supplementary to Christ's sacrifice. The rituals are believed to be meritorious in themselves. That's the rub for me.
Regarding Catholicism, it's been the trend to understand "catholic" as universal
Yes, that's the original meaning, but of course I'm dealing with the church of Rome in blogging about the pope. There are plenty of RC adherents who see no salvation outside of Mary, hence the move to name her co-redeemer. I see that as blasphemous. Pope John Paul II was "totally devoted to Mary" (in his words). That troubles me, since such devotion should be for deity alone.
What I was told long ago by my Lutheran minister in
confirmation was that the doctrines of the RCC are not meant to be
digested and debated among the congregations.
Rather elitist. No wonder the English translators like Wycliffe were so hated. Funny that the NT was written primarily in Koine Greek, the language of the common man.
It's often said that he considered
himself part of the church (Catholic) even on his deathbed.
Yes, but not part of the church Roman Catholic. Luther insisted that the RC hierarchy had departed from the the true Catholic (universal) church.
I know quite a few catholics, and I know of none who believe that there is no salvation outside the RCC, regardless of what the Council of Trent says
Of course. A lot of Catholics don't actually agree with what their church teaches. But isn't it more honest to see what an organization actually stands for if you are to proclaim allegiance to it? That's why I've said many times that there are true RC believers in spite of--not because of--their RC membership. Why be Catholic if you disagree when the Pope when being Roman Catholic means you see him as the representation of Christ on earth? It's okay to be Catholic and defy God? Makes no sense.
Agreed, Randy. The pope was a great man. He made an impact on history--no question. But he did not ultimately speak for me. I'm sorry, but he was not my pope. Our differences are clear. And as some have said better than I, if he is with Jesus today, it was because he was saved by grace through faith, not because of his position or his title.