Vol.15 No.6

John Paul II is Gone, Should Protestants Honor His Legacy?
By Colin D. Standish

More than half the world’s population can remember only one pope—John Paul II. As the second longest reigning pope in history, he reigned for twenty-six years, five months, and fifteen days.  Only Pius IX, pope from 1846-1878, has reigned longer.

Already, assessments of John Paul II’s impact on history have begun. Some have boldly claimed that he is among the top five most influential popes in history. Others have described him as the most influential man of the 20th century, ahead of scientists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, philosophers like Earl Bertrand Russell, politicians such as Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, and dictators such as Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, who all made enormous impact for good or evil. At least one leading Catholic cleric referred to him as the Great John Paul II, a title normally reserved for those soon to be “sainted”, and echoed by many mourners holding signs and chanting, “John Paul II, sainthood now.”

Time magazine described him as the geopolitician, the evangelist, the mystic believer, the doctrinal disciplinarian, the scourge of feminism, the champion of ecumenism, and the principal cantorian.¹

All were fit descriptions, except that he certainly was not the champion of ecumenism. While he spoke fervently of ecumenism, he held unwaveringly to traditional Roman Catholic dogma. Finding common ground with Protestants, the Orthodox, or even non-Christians was not his agenda. In an age of religious pluralism, most made a paradigm shift toward his absolutes.

Even in death, John Paul II’s influence was so great that Prince Charles postponed his wedding when it coincided with the Pope’s funeral. National monarchs (four kings and five queens), presidents, prime ministers, and governor generals hastened to rearrange their schedules to attend the service. Muslim leaders, including the leaders of Syria and Iran, attended his funeral. For the first time in history, a U.S. President attended a papal funeral along with two former U.S. Presidents. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England, also attended for the first time in history. Even Communist China issued its condolence.

Whether as a great agent of unity and peace, or as a cunning manipulator of kings, presidents, prime ministers, and ecclesiastical leaders, John Paul II has contributed greatly to the changed landscape of religious opinions and practices. When he has spoken, people of all religious backgrounds have listened.

His appearances have caused a hysteria of excitement, as I witnessed firsthand in 2001 at the Pope’s Youth Day of Prayer in Toronto, Canada. As he celebrated the mass before 800,000 people, many youth screamed in near delirium, “We have seen him! We have seen him!”

Protestants Praise the Pope

It is probable that no human being has received such an outpouring of accolades for his lifework than this Pope. Most remarkable are the praises of Evangelical Protestants whose forefathers shared an outspoken heritage that the pope was the Antichrist of Bible prophecy.

Despite this heritage, most prominent Evangelical leaders gave profound praise and adulation for the late Pope. Billy Graham, world famous American minister and revivalist, has been an outspoken admirer of John Paul II throughout his pontificate. After the Pope’s first visit to America in 1979, Graham stated that John Paul II had become “the moral leader of the world” and that the American people were looking for “a moral and spiritual leader that believes something. And the Pope does.…Thank God, I’ve got somebody to quote now with some real authority.”²

Graham’s relationship with John Paul II predated his pontificate. When the Pope was still Cardinal Wojtyla of Krakow, he invited Graham to preach in his pulpit, much to the displeasure of the Polish Catholic establishment.³

Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, commented on the late Pope’s death: “John Paul II has been the most beloved religious leader of our age, far surpassing in popular admiration the leader of any faith.”⁴

James Dobson, Chairman of Focus on the Family, commented, “While we grieve the profound loss of this remarkable man, we celebrate his life, his ministry and his undeniable impact on the world.…Pope John Paul II was an uncompromising voice on the sanctity of life, in fact, his was one of the greatest contributions of the 20th century to that cause. The ‘culture of life’ will forever be indebted to the man who championed the value of all human life, even to his last breath.”⁵

Robert H. Schuller, founder and senior pastor of the Crystal Cathedral, commented: “I considered it an honor and a privilege to have had several private times with His Holiness.…On each occasion I felt the compassionate spirit of Christ radiating from his soul.”⁶

In contrast with these Protestant accolades, the confessions of Protestants from earlier centuries sound alarmingly discordant and certainly anti-ecumenical.

The Westminster Confession of Faith of the Church of England, later used by the Presbyterians, is significant: “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God.”⁷

The Lutheran statement, contained in the Smalkald articles, refers to the pope as “the very antichrist who exalts himself and opposes Christ.”  The 1680 New England Confession of Faith states that “Jesus Christ is the head of the church, not the pope of Rome,” who is identified as the Antichrist and the son of perdition.

The identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist was the focal point of the Protestant Reformation. It became “the dynamic force which drove Luther [and other Reformers] on in his contest with the Papacy.”⁸ (See sidebar, “Here I Stand.”)

The contrast between these confessions and the outpouring of adulations for John Paul II is little short of amazing.  One fact is incontestable—Protestant evaluation of the Papacy under the leadership of John Paul II, is in stark contrast to that of the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century.

Who changed, Protestants or Catholics?

Before we rush to a conclusion on that question, let us review the one major issue, which led the young Martin Luther to nail his 95 Theses to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. It was the issue of indulgences.

Protestants may have forgotten that John Paul II made a major stand in favor of indulgences.

In the highest form of papal communication, a papal bull entitled Incarnationis Mysterium (The Mystery of the Incarnation), he broadened the ways believers can earn an indulgence beyond traditional Catholic rituals.⁹

In the 16th century, a John Paul II most assuredly would not have averted the Protestant Reformation. Yet, there was hardly a flutter of alarm or negative reaction to his papal bull on an issue which invoked a mighty religious earthquake 481 years before.

Many have stated that John Paul II brought great changes to the Church, changes that included reaching out to those who held widely differing beliefs, expressing regret for the past mistakes of Catholics, seeking to heal past differences, and spreading love and good will worldwide. A careful study of his apologies reveal that in no way did he ever admit that the Roman Church had made mistakes, only its misguided members.

It cannot be denied that John Paul II brought change to the Church, but there is scant evidence that he changed the Church’s most objectionable pagan and non-biblical teachings which brought repression, persecution, and cruel death to multitudes in centuries past. 

Has the Papacy changed from its attitude toward those who earnestly oppose its ungodly practices of past history?  This Pope’s communications to his worldwide membership demonstrate no such changes.  Indeed, these communications have reinforced the old adage, “Rome does not change.”

“Infallible” Pronouncements

Lost in the adulation and euphoria for the deceased Pope are the sober realities of some of his papal pronouncements.  The magnitude of the implications of these communications can be assessed more clearly when it is recognized that they were proclaimed with the authority of “infallibility.”  This is very sobering indeed. 

Note the following new canons he issued.  Both addressed punishment of dissenters. In his Apostolic letter entitled, Ad Tuendam Fidem (To Protect the Faith), dated March 28, 1998, John Paul II introduced two additional canon laws, Numbers 1371 and 1436. In Canon 1436 he stated:

1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition. 
   
2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.” (All emphasis added.)

The menacing force of these words has not been lost upon careful students of Church history. On July 18, 1870, during the First Vatican Council, the pope’s authority was clearly defined to include all Christian people, and a pre-eminence over all other Christian churches, whether or not they recognized his authority.¹⁰  Not only does the Papacy claim authority over all Christians, but it claims to be the spiritual leader of the world, a thought echoed by many Protestants on the occasion of the late Pope’s death.

Students of Medieval History know that there were Christian groups who never formally had been a part of the Roman Catholic Church and did not recognize her authority, but nevertheless were either coerced into accepting its authority, or were annihilated as heretics and apostates.

The Cathari of South Eastern France were among such, as was the Celtic Church of Britain. Because the Roman Catholic Church does not believe that salvation can be achieved outside its gates, it views these actions as inherently benevolent.

As to “punishment with an appropriate penalty,” one cannot but conjure up the frightful scenes of the torture of the rack and the burning at the stake of godly Christians who refused to deny their Lord by recanting their Bible-based beliefs and practices. While it is easy for us to say this could not happen in our day, the interpretation of “is to be punished with an appropriate penalty” could follow the interpretations of canon law as it was applied through history. 

Like civil law, canon law depends greatly upon precedence. History reveals what these precedents are. Currently, the separation of church and state does not allow the Catholic Church the ancient powers it once possessed. But, would the Church use this power again if it could return to the days when church and state were united?

Forced religious observance

In another Apostolic letter, Dies Domimini (The Lord’s Day), dated May 31, 1998,  John Paul II included these words when updating Pope Leo XIII’s (1878-1903) encyclical on Sunday observance:

“Therefore, in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy.” Make no mistake, this is a determined effort to destroy the separation of church and state.

Do these encyclicals support the claims that the Papacy has changed? Certainly not! Rather, they sadly reinforce the determination of this Pope. While speaking words that multitudes interpreted as kind and loving, he was laying the foundation for fearful persecution of dissenters in the near future.  No doubt, it will be done as it was done in history, by invoking the power of the state to carry out the punishment prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Conclusion

Protestantism once threatened the power and political ambitions of Roman Catholicism. But the euphoric adulations of leading Protestants previously detailed, reveal that no unified voice of dissent checks the Papacy’s goals for spiritual leadership of the world.

By contrast, the 20th century has demonstrated the resilience of the papal office. While many believed that Roman Catholicism would never recover from its deadly wound of the late 18th and 19th centuries, the Papacy has made a spectacular comeback, and John Paul II was a major force in bringing this about.

References

1. Time, April 11, 2005, “Pope John Paul II.”
2. Interview with Phil Donahue, 10/11/79, quoted in “Billy Graham’s Love Affair with the Pope,” www.cephaslibrary.com/evangelists/evangelists_graham_and_the_pope.html.
3. “How the Pope Turned Me Into An Evangelical,” Agnieszka Tennant, Christianity Today, April 4, 2005.
4. “Christian Leaders Remember John Paul II, Laud His Legacy,” Jenni Parker, Agape Press, April 4, 2005.
5. “Dobson Grieves Pope’s Passing,” April 2, 2005. A Statement by James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
6. “Los Angeles Area Reacts to Pope’s Death,” NBC News, April 2, 2005.
7. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 6, Chapter 25.
8. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1962 edition, Vol. 2, p. 61. 
9. The New York Times, November 29, 1998.
10. “Vicar of Christ,” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2004, 2000, Houghton Mifflin Co.

Editor’s Note: We believe that all of these developments were prophesied in the Books of Daniel and Revelation and invite you to take a closer look at these prophecies. Visit bibleuniverse.com or write to: Redemption Ministries, P.O. Box 1, Rapidan, VA, 22733.

For more in-depth study on these issues, read: The Pope’s Letter and Sunday Law; Two Beasts, Three Deadly Wounds, & Fourteen Popes; and The Perils of Ecumenism.To order, call 1-800-774-3566 or visit www.hartlandpublications.org.

* Colin D. Standish, Ph.D., is president of Hartland Institute in Rapidan, VA.