 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« TABOR: "Common Sense" Tax Reform for Tennessee | Main | Poll Shows Bryant Would Beat Hilleary, Corker - and Ford » April 5, 2005What About the Pope?You don't not have to accept papal authority or the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church's papal system - and I don't - in order to praise Pope John Paul II for his positive impact on world history and his consistency when it came to moral questions. In a world of post-modernism, where the secular press and politicians often wondered why Catholic doctrine on abortion, homosexuality and other issues wouldn't change with the times, John Paul II stood firm and insisted that church doctrine is rooted in timeless truth and not subject to the whims of the culture. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a very good and lengthy essay extolling John Paul II in part while also reminding Protestants why it it necessary to reject the papal system itself. We should be unembarrassed and unhesitant to declare our admiration for John Paul II's courageous stand against Communism, his bold defense of human dignity and human life, and his robust and substantial defense of truth in the face of postmodernism. In many of the great battles of our day, evangelicals found John Paul II to be a key ally. This was especially true with the crucial issues of abortion and euthanasia. With bold strokes and a clear voice, this pope defended human life from the moment of conception until natural death. In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (1995), he argued for an implacable opposition to what he called the "culture of death"--an age that would increasingly embrace death rather than life and forfeit human dignity on the altar of human autonomy and individual rights.Well said. Read Mohler's whole essay here. Posted in Religion
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
There is something very distressing about masses of people who go to great lengths to be part of the making of history and to pay homage to the symbols of the Church when these very same people by speaking out and confronting those who go against the teachings of Jesus could have prevented a blood bath not only in Iraq but Afganistan. Do they not know that belonging to the Church is more then symbols and ritcuals? Evidently not only the Pope is dead but the Chruch is dead as well. If these people geniunely Believe then what does it profit them to respond to inevetiable changes that come with time which signify very little but then fail to carry out the duties for which Christ's Chruch on Earth exists. The media flawlessly went from proclaiming that all efforts must be made to artifically keep a woman alive to reporting about a Pope who refused medical science support that could have prolonged his life without once bringing attention to the contradictions. One week the self proclaimed public saints are weeping passionately for a woman they didn't even know and the next finding no problem whatsoever with the Pope passing when he could have been kept alive. I think these people are brain dead and evidently those in the media and the rightwing propaganda machines think so too. WHERE WAS JEB AND GEORGE BUSH TO PROTEST THE LACK OF EFFORT TO KEEP THE POPE ALIVE? Why didn't Bush call Congress back to Washington to demand that the Pope be saved because he supports a CULTURE OF LIFE! Posted by: yeula at April 5, 2005 06:21 PMI find that I have as much in common with the RCC as I have in common with a lot of protestant denominations such as the SBC. I spent time going to a SBC church when I was first married, and the two things that struck me right off were: 1. Gluttony isn't considered a sin, even though it's responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths (through heart disease and diabetes) in the US each year. 2. Any drinking of alcohol is sinful, even though Jesus drank alcohol and commanded that we do the same (he didn't drink Welch's for communion). There's a lot of "extra-biblical" theology in most churches, the RCC has had 2000 years to create all of theirs. It frightens me to think of where the SBC might be given 1800 more years... Posted by: Michael Chaney at April 6, 2005 08:48 AMYeula misses the point completely. There is a huge difference in deliberately depriving a healthy body of food and water in order to hasten an unnatural physical death than there is in using machines such as respirators and dialysis machines to keep a body alive when it's organs are failing. Also, the Pope was competent to make his wishes known to his doctors and caretakers. He was able to express his own conscious thought regarding the treatment he wanted to receive. There was no such certainty regarding the express wishes of Terri Schiavo. Her husband didn't remember that she told him she wanted no such feeding applied to her until many years after she became dependent on a feeding tube. Some of us thought it was important to make this distinction a topic of discussion although the effort was futile. Posted by: jane m at April 6, 2005 01:33 PMThe topic of papal authority seems to come up frequently in Catholic-Protestant discussions. I suggest that all those who oppose papal authority read Matthew 16:18-19: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (King James version, sourced from http://www.bible.com) These verses give Peter authority over the Church on Earth, and state that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". (From this I challenge anyone who can suggest that the Church is in any way contrary to God's purpose in establishing it) For those who don't know, Peter was the first pope. If anyone can dispute the authority given to Peter, and through Peter to his successors (the popes since Peter), please let me know. I would be fascinated. In case anyone is wondering, yes, I am Catholic. Posted by: Chris C-D at April 28, 2005 06:27 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
