The pope is a heretic. Catholic theology is heretical. They deny the sufficiency of the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The Scriptures calls for this kind of heresy to be an anathema. Why do I feel the need to go to the defense of Pope Benedict XVI?
It is amazing, though not surprising, the extremely negative, though guarded, opinions set forth regarding the elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger to the papacy on the editorial pages of the elite American media. A survey of April 20 editorials alone was telling. The New York Times had five articles focused on Benedict XVI. Four had extremely negative headlines and bias. They called him “conservative” eighteen times. 18! The Los Angeles Times said of Ratzinger, “serving as the pope's doctrinal enforcer... he has been a largely polarizing force in the church, coming down hard on Catholic leaders who sought social justice in Latin America or dissented from the Vatican in their teachings.” How dare the man charged with defending Catholic orthodoxy actually defend Catholic orthodoxy! What a… a… CONSERVATIVE. As if they couldn’t come up with a worse term. The Washington Post said, “we hope he'll weigh the possible benefits of new medical technologies, and not dismiss them out of hand,” referring to Ratzinger's long held argument against reproductive technology, human cloning, and stem cell research. The Boston Globe lamented the fact the Benedict XVI would continue the hard line regarding priestly celibacy and ordination of women, hinting that these were the chief reasons for the decline of the faithful American Catholics. Maureen Dowd, the ever honest and fair columnist (Gag me!) made a concerted effort to point out Ratzinger’s involvement in the Hitler Youth organization as a young teenager in Bavaria, Germany. She conveniently failed, however, to mention that in Bavaria participation was compulsory and that Ratzinger deserted the Nazi Army after being drafted at age 16. But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of your bias, Maureen, that has never stopped you before!
Again, why am I rushing to the defense of a Catholic heretic? The elite, mainstream media will continue to disparage anyone with conviction. Anyone who has the audacity to claim to know a certain absolute truth will be marginalized and categorized as an extremist. Pope Benedict XVI is the not the first and will certainly not be the last to be called an extremist, anti-intellectual, right-wing, conservative, simply because he holds to the existence of absolute truth. Look at Rev. Jerry Falwell. He is frequently demonized for his public stance on conservative, biblical morality. Admittedly, his methods are often unnecessarily acerbic, however, his conviction of the absolute authority of the Word of God is what brings him the bulk of his criticism.
Scripture reminds us to preach the word in season and out of season, warning that people will not put up with sound doctrine, but rather gather teachers that feed their passions. Today the passions of Americans include promiscuity, the elevated role of women to leadership positions, denominational and even religious ecumenism and many others. Passions are what drive us. People gather unto themselves teachers that will tell them what they want to hear and make them feel good. Anyone who place authority outside of the individual passions of the people will be marginalized and demonized.
Any evangelical preacher worth his salt will understand what I am saying. If people have never been offended by the preaching of the word under your ministry, you are not unashamedly preaching the gospel. The cross and the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ alone offends the unbeliever, and many so-called believers as well.
Pope Benedict XVI will continue to be categorized as a polarizing figure. He will be cast as an un-enlightened old-school conservative. But remember, the “orthodoxy” that makes Benedict XVI such a polarizing figure is heresy. He holds that Mary is the Co-Repemptrix, the Church (meaning the papacy) is absolutely authoritative and the Priest, as a papal representative, can absolve the sin of the faithful who do proper penance.
We must continue to stand against the heresy of Romanism and guard our people from the wolves that present themselves in the sheep’s wool. However, we must be reminded from the elite media attention that Benedict is getting, we will be challenged, even demonized, when we stand for the absolute truth of God’s Word.
Stand firm my friends, the days are evil.
Grace to You!
2 comments:
Thanks for making me aware of a1m.org! I, as do you, appreciate Steve Camp. However, as I delineated via my comment to your April 14 "post", his, your, and/or anyone else's focus on "leaders" of "evangelicals" is misplaced.
Drs. Dobson and Mohler are not the problem (the latter is in NO way A
problem!)! Conclusions as to motives have been based on conjecture. "Love always protects, always trusts, ...." 1 Cor. 13:7 (NIV)
In no way is Dr. Mohler above reproach. If his motives are to be impugned, FACTS should be the basis thereof (not assumptions).
As you may have read, Steve Camp's "post" which immediately precedes his expression of his concerns regarding Dr. Mohler, et al., is an article by Dr. Rick Holland, College Pastor (inter alia) at Grace Community Church and faculty member at the Master's Seminary and the Master's College. The title of the article is one used by R.C. Sproul: What Ever Happened to the Reformation?
Dr. Sproul's observation that "we [may be] entering a new Dark Ages" is quoted therein.
Dr. Holland's assertion that "it is impossible to be a genuine believer and hold to what Rome teaches about salvation" is congruent with my assertion via my comment to April 14 "post". My primary point therein seems to be the larger point of Dr. Holland's article. As he puts it: "Evangelicalism has been crippled by the contamination of the world and paralyzed by its own ignorance of biblical truth.
* * *
'Christians' [sub-quotes mine]today are so gullible and pliable that they don't recognize their infection with and corruption from paganism".
Again, THAT is the problem upon which focus must be placed! As long as "'Christians' [sub-quotes mine] are lethargic and unenthused, confused and contaminated, compromising and tolerant" (as well-put by Dr. Holland), whether "leaders" write and/or say what we prefer them to write/say is beside the point.
Jim,
I appreciate your concern for biblically illiterate Christians. I too have a great concern the Christians everywhere, particulary here at the Church where I pastor, have a fully developed Biblical worldview. One that allows them to make discerning judgements regarding current events and new winds of so-called doctrine.
However, I maintain my concern that men like Dobson and Mohler are a large source of the problem. I still find it difficult to say those two names in the same sentence, but Mohler has forced my hand by his appearance and associateion with the undiscerning and dilluted Dobson.
The Bible places a large responsibility on those who assume leadership roles. It even gives firm warnings against seeking such roles. Consequences for misusing a leadership role are devastating. Even Jesus himself, upon looking over a crowd, lamented the problem by declaring them to be "harrassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Indeed the individual Christian will be help accountable to hos own beliefs and actions, but the Bible clearly lays onus on leadership.
When a man of Mohler's stature and influence appears with Dobson and a couple leading Catholics to praise the legacy of a heretic man who taught false doctrine and deceiving traditions, he (Mohler) must be called out for, at the very least, offering a confusing example to the evangelicals he purports to lead.
Post a Comment