Conference yukon::christian_v7

>    Well the world has just moved a few steps closer to a 1 world religion
>    (to go with the 1 world government and currency system).  Not
>    suprisingly, the Catholic Church is part of the Great Compromise
>    (again!).  It's no big secret that the Pope has been consulting with the 
>    Dali Lama.  He even went as far to say that "...Christians can learn a lot 
>    from this great man."  
    
Oooo! The very idea that Christians can learn from a non-Christian! Such heresy!

Was Regan compromising capitalism by consulting with Gorbachev?

There is a world of difference between saying that we can learn something 
from someone else and that we should adopt their theology.  One can learn a lot
from Albert Einstein, even about God, without compromising their Christianity.
I can learn a lot from evangelical Protestants without compromising my
Catholicism.  So far I see no reason to accuse the Pope of syncretism.

>    The Parliament of World Religions will meet in Chicago this summer. 
>    Mother Theresa and Dali Lama will be there to represent 2 of the
>    world's 5 largest religions.  Top officials from the Moslems and 
>    Methodists will also be there. The goal is to put their "differences"
>    behind them and unite together in a common goal.

You haven't quoted from them as to their "common goal."  There common goal may
only be to help bring peace to the world, especially where religions are killing
one another. There are a lot of things that such a group of the five largest
religions can do without establishing one world religion to impose on everyone.

Personally I think that the one world religion will be established by the New
Agers, of whom the Pope has certainly not withheld his opposition.  I'd hardly
think that a man who wanted to establish one world religion would expel Fr.
Matthew Fox, a notorious New Age "Catholic" priest, from the priesthood, since
Fr. Fox is such a strong advocate of syncretism.

>    To top it off, they present a prize of $1M every year to what they
>    consider to be the largest contributor to religion for that year.  This
>    year's winner is Chuck Colson.  He will be awarded in a private
>    ceremony by Prince Philip (another New Ager) in May at Buckingham
>    Palace.  Chuck will publicly receive the prize at the Parliament
>    meeting in Chicago this summer.
    
What do you mean by "another New Ager"?  Surely you don't think Chuck Colson is
a New Ager?  And given the Pope's action against Matthew Fox, one of the most 
popular New Agers, because of his heresy, you can't call the Pope a New Ager?

maybe you should read some of Pope John Paul II's writings.

I think that the Pope, as a very public figure, a head of state, and 
(technically) the leader of 1/5th of the world's population, has to meet with
a lot of people simply for the sake of diplomacy and as a sign of goodwill.
If the Pope refused to meet with anyone who disagreed with him, he'd be all
alone.  He's met with Yasser Arafat, Kurt Walheim, U.S. presidents, Eastern
Orthodox leaders, Indian gurus, and a number of other folks, and simply because
he meets these people is no indication that he's in collusion with them.
Considering that he has repeatedly refused to establish communion prematurely
with even major Christian denominations due to doctrinal differences, I find it
rather doubtful that he would be behind one world religion.  If the Pope and
the Archbiship of Canturbury can't even agree on intercommunion, how do you
expect the Pope to combine Buddhism with Christianity?

So far from what you've described, I see little evidence to judge that JP2 is
behind a push for one world religion.

If the U.S. can permit the (former) U.S.S.R. in the U.N., why can't the Pope
participate in an organization with major world religions?  The issue is not
combining the religions anymore than the mission of the UN is to establish one
world government. 

Eric

    150.1  Thank you for responding Eric.  Reading your note helps me.  You
    see I am a Roman Catholic and I am a Christian!  Again, thank you for
    responding.  

Hi Eric,

� Oooo! The very idea that Christians can learn from a non-Christian! Such heresy!

Our authority is the Bible, which admits of no other way to God than 
through the LORD Jesus, as in 1 Timothy 2:5  "There is one God and one 
Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..."

Mike was expressing genuine concern that Christians should not look outside 
Christianity - the Bible, and the Creator God of the Bible - for a spiritual 
basis.  

A particular concern here is that there are others which claim to be
'gods', which are demons, out to subvert the basics and principles of 
Christianity, and we cannot have both God and demons sharing territory 
within us (1 Corinthians 10:21-22).

Sure, the Dalai Lama may well have much we can usefully learn about - but
not in the realm of God Himself, and the core of our faith.  That is why
consultation of a 'Christian leader' with someone who holds to a faith
which denies that Jesus is the only Son of God and the Saviour of the
world, is a compromise which makes us question the validity of the
'Christian leader'.

Certainly we learn from non-Christians!  But not about principles of the 
faith (even if we can sometimes learn how we are mis-applying them, by 
comparison with the behaviour of those who haven't even got the LoRD jesus 
in their hearts!).

� There is a world of difference between saying that we can learn something 
� from someone else and that we should adopt their theology.

Agreed, but you don't put them in the pulpit to teach you.  What the above
'Christian leader' does, reported as a 'Christian leader' is very different
from what he does as a private individual (even where this may be an
investigation connected with his official capacity).  When, as a 'Christian
leader' he is reported as consulting with a leader of another faith, the
implication is generally that they are consulting on the matters closest to
their 'job' of ministering in the faith.  This is where the 'Christian
leader' is stepping out of line. 

Example, I read some time ago of an evangelist who went to a sordid night 
club, because it was the only way he knew to reach a backslidden friend.  
Had the visit been publicised without the details of its reason, [ as the 
general press would possibly delight to do ], it could have looked like an 
excuse for weak Christians to fall.  He was careful to show it in its true 
light.


� > The Parliament of World Religions will meet ... this summer.....
� You haven't quoted from them as to their "common goal."  There common goal 
� may only be to help bring peace to the world, especially where religions 
� are killing one another. 
Do you see joining in 'world peace efforts' as a Christian goal?  
Certainly, as individuals, we seek for and promote peace as per 1 Timothy 
2:1-2, but this is not something to commit principle energies towards; we 
are not the world's peace experts!  Rich's pointer to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 
is relevant here.  The cost of yoking ourselves with people who have other 
principle aims is to dilute, undermine, and ultimately corrupt our own 
spiritual perception and position.

� What do you mean by "another New Ager"?  

If you re-read Mike's entry, it's Prince Philip who is a New Ager.  Not 
Chuck Coulsen.

� If the U.S. can permit the (former) U.S.S.R. in the U.N., why can't the Pope
� participate in an organization with major world religions?

Is the (former) U.S.S.R. committed to destroying the U.S.?

We are not talking about resolving differences amicably; 'religion' deals 
with eternal spiritual realities, where no compromise is acceptable.

						God bless
								Andrew

    RE:4
    Andrew, 
           are you saying that as Christians we should not have contact or
    dialog with others who are not Christian ? Why did Jesus eat with
    tax collectors and prostitutes ? 

    The leaders of these other religions are not out on a goal to convert
    Christians to their beliefs. In fact, this is a Christian concept to
    convert others, so perhaps they should be leery. 

    How can we expect to show others what it means to be a Christian if we
    don't dialog with them ? It sounds like the same condemnation Jehovah
    witnesses are given because they won't pray with people outside of
    their faith.

    This attitude seems to be very un-Christian and not close to the gospel
    message that Jesus gave us. Had the Apostles refused to sit down with
    pagans and dialog with them, the gospel of Jesus Christ would have
    had to be spread through other people.  The fact is that St. Peter, who
    evangelized in Rome, sat with Nero himself.

    As Eric said, just because he sits and dialogs with the Deli Lama,
    doesn't mean he's embracing Buddhism. 

    Jim

> Our authority is the Bible, which admits of no other way to God than 
> through the LORD Jesus, as in 1 Timothy 2:5  "There is one God and one 
> Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..."

personally I believe rather what Scripture teaches, that the pillar and 
foundation of the truth is the Church not the Bible, as Paul elsewhere tells 
Timothy (1 Tim 3:15). But that's another issue.

> Mike was expressing genuine concern that Christians should not look outside 
> Christianity - the Bible, and the Creator God of the Bible - for a spiritual 
> basis.  

Agreed, we should not look to the Dalai Lama for divinely revealed truth,
although even Scripture uses concepts from Greek philosophy to explain our
truths.  However the posted quote merely said "Christians can learn a lot from
this great man."  This doesn't necessarily refer to anything spiritual whatso-
ever.  I suspect, if I know JP2, that he was most likely referring to D.L.'s
efforts in establishing peace and resisting communist oppression.

> Sure, the Dalai Lama may well have much we can usefully learn about - but
> not in the realm of God Himself, and the core of our faith. . .  Certainly we
> learn from non-Christians!  But not about principles of the faith . . .

OK, convince me that JP2 was saying that we can learn from D.L. about the
realm of God Himself, or about the principles of the faith.

> When, as a 'Christian leader' he is reported as consulting with a leader of 
> another faith, the implication is generally that they are consulting on the 
> matters closest to their 'job' of ministering in the faith.  This is where the 
> 'Christian leader' is stepping out of line. 

I'd still point out that Reagan can consult with Gorbachev, or Clinton with
King Hussein, without giving the impression he's in collusion with an enemy
political system. Admittedly I'm not particularly happy about the signals JP2
is sending by praising pagan leaders, but we have to keep in mind that JP2 is
concerned more about secular and political matters when he meets with such
people, and not with doctrinal matters.  Let me let you in on a secret. The
media is not at all interested in reporting JP2's statements on the Christian
faith, doctrine, faith, or whatever except when it can meet their ends. They're
only interested in what he says as a world leader.

>� [Their] common goal may only be to help bring peace to the world, especially
>� where religions are killing one another. 

> Do you see joining in 'world peace efforts' as a Christian goal?

I guess I used a poor choice of words. I did not mean to imply that Christians
should join in New Ageish "world peace" illusions; what I meant however was that
in certain situations, for example Bosnia, where religious conflict and war
are mixed together, the responsible religions should work for an end to killing
one another.  "World peace" can _only_ be attained after the Second Coming of
Jesus Christ.  "World Peace" is an illusion misbegotten by pagans and Christians
should not be involved in such questionable movements to establish "world
peace."  However, there are a number of current conflicts which fall under
JP2's jurisdiction that he has a vested interest in.  Israelis and Catholics,
Catholics and Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics, and a number of other groups
are perpetrating violence upon one another, and this must stop.

>� What do you mean by "another New Ager"?  

> If you re-read Mike's entry, it's Prince Philip who is a New Ager.  Not 
> Chuck Coulsen.

He called Prince Philip "another New Ager."  I couldn't figure out who was
the first New Ager implied by "another."

> Is the (former) U.S.S.R. committed to destroying the U.S.?

Yes, it was.  Is the Dalai Lama committed to destroying Christianity? No.
Granted he is under demonic deception, as was the former USSR, and as are all
non-Christian faiths, and those demons are certainly dedicated to destroying
Christianity, but if the Pope avoided anyone whom he considered to be even
remotely under demonic influence, he'd have a handful of people he could talk
to.  He might not even be able to talk to himself ;-).

I'm not saying that what JP2 did is smart, just expressing doubt that he's part
of a conspiracy to impose one world religion.

> We are not talking about resolving differences amicably; 'religion' deals 
> with eternal spiritual realities, where no compromise is acceptable.

No, that's precisely the question.  What IS the scope of his talks with the
pagans?  Is it about resolving temporal differences (i.e. conflicts etc.)?
Or is it about establishing an even more "universal catechism" and one world
religion?

So far the quotes I've seen are rather ambiguous and I cannot conclude that
JP2 is talking about eternal spiritual realities per se.

Remember, again, JP2 is a _world_ leader, and not merely a religious leader.
He meets with a number of other _world_ leaders, including some pagans, to
discuss matters of interest to the world.  Not every meeting he has, even with
religious leaders, is about religious topics.  He also has to be diplomatic;
although he certainly believes this, it would not be intelligent for him to say
in such a meeting with a world leader that outside of the Catholic Church is 
found no salvation, and that anyone who is not in the ark will perish in the 
flood.�  (Not very compatible with syncretism, is it?) Often diplomacy means
withholding criticism that is deserved and even giving praises which are not
deserved.


Eric

�This is a long a complicated issue, but in short, this does not mean that only
formal members of the Catholic Church can be saved.

    The Pope's praise of the Deli Lama probably has to do with his
    attitude towards peace. If anyone has a right to be bitter in this
    world, its the Deli Lama. He has no bitterness or hatred towards the
    enemies which threw him and his monastery out of his country. He has
    spoken of forgiveness of his enemies, like  "Jesus taught," a statement
    I heard him use. He does know something about Jesus. Hopefully he will
    be able to see Christ in Christians themselves.

    Jim

!        <<< Note 150.6 by KALI::EWANCO "Eric James Ewanco, MLO LENaC" >>>
!                     -< But is he talking about religion? >-
    
    
    
!personally I believe rather what Scripture teaches, that the pillar and 
!foundation of the truth is the Church not the Bible, as Paul elsewhere tells 
!Timothy (1 Tim 3:15). But that's another issue.
	Eric, I will let others comment on the rest of what you have
    	written. I just wanted to inform you, you may wish to go back to
    	1 Tim 3:15 and re-examine the scripture in its FULL" context. In
    	particular, look at verse 1 Tim 3:5. Paul is only talking about
    	the church and how one is to conduct themselves within . Paul is
    	NOT saying that the church is above the Bible. The Bible is the
    	foundation upon which the Church is built. Eric, stop to think, if
    	there was no Bible, where would the church get its basis for
    	teaching? Paul and most assuredly God knew that the teachers of
    	the Law and gospel would not always be around. There had to be
    	something other than a church where the correct information could
    	be obtained.  Eric, the church changes because man changes. The
    	Bible is the same today, yesterday and tommorrow.  Please try not
    	to put the cart before the horse. Do you think God was pleased with
    	what the catholic church was doing before the Reformation? The
    	church Eric is flawed, all churches are flawed. The only truth and
    	life is the Word, the Bible.  Nowhere in 1 Tim 3:15 do you see Paul
    	say the Church is above the Bible, so please be careful not to
    	add something that is not there, or else you may find you are
    	violating what God wrote in Rev 22:18.
    
        In Christ's Love,
    	  PDM
    

I disagree.

I think that Chuck Colson should accept the award (as he has
already indicated that he will and have it go into the
ministry).  I see little here to do with a one world religion.
Honoring a person because of his work for God is supposed to
be bad if others who serve a different God could have been
chosen?  I think not.

Chuck and Prison Fellowship clearly teach that their God is a
different god than other religions.  Honoring Chuck for this
teaching and his work is hardly going to push us into a one
world religion.  In fact, the I expect the opposite will happen
as Prison Fellowship gains more credibility and the message of
Jesus is pronounced more loudly land more often.

BTW, the institutor of the award is a Christian (although I don't
know if he is involved in the judging of who gets the award).

Collis

    The Pope's quote, when put into context, is honoring the Dali Lama on a
    religious basis not a peace basis.  I'll try to bring it in on Monday.  
    I think he's walking on thin ice here and jeopardizing the Catholic
    church.  Eastern religions are clearly anti-Christ.
    
    When Paul wrote not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, yoked is
    meant to be a bond.  It is not associating with unbelievers (i.e.,
    witnessing) as Christ did to sinners.  Christ was not bonded in any way
    to unbelievers and neither should we.
    
    Mike

    RE:10

>    The Pope's quote, when put into context, is honoring the Dali Lama on a
>    religious basis not a peace basis.  I'll try to bring it in on Monday.  
>    I think he's walking on thin ice here and jeopardizing the Catholic
>    church.  Eastern religions are clearly anti-Christ.

    Which eastern religions are clearly anti-Christ ?
    
>    When Paul wrote not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, yoked is
>    meant to be a bond.  It is not associating with unbelievers (i.e.,
>    witnessing) as Christ did to sinners.  Christ was not bonded in any way
>    to unbelievers and neither should we.
    
     Neither is the Pope bonded to unbelievers. I don't see how you could
     come up with this. I'll wait to see the quote your talking about. 
     Hopefully it will have the full context of what he was saying !

    Jim
     

Paul spoke on Mars hill.  Does this qualify?

It's worth noting here that while we may debate over this particular instance
and whether or not this particular collaboration is compromising Christianity,
the point still stands that the world is full of people claiming the name of
Christ who will endorse and advocate any attempt to embrace other religious
traditions, beliefs, and practices.

Paul

    What about the concept of not eating food offered to idols?  I think
    Chuck Colson is great and I can see Collis' point; however, isn't he
    kind of doing the same thing as what I just mentioned by accepting
    money from cults?
    
    By the way, I agree that much of eastern religion is antichrist.  They 
    incorporate baal worship and are strong advocates of reincarnation.
    Nuff said.                                                 
    
    -Jack

    re:  .7  Jim
    
    >The Pope's praise of the Deli Lama probably has to do with his
                              ^^^^
    
    .....wonderful pastrami and swiss on light rye.  ;^)
    
    
    Steve

    RE:15
    I'm blushing !;);)

    DEC spell thinks deli is OK, too bad it can't check for usage or it
    would of order a Ruebin sandwich.

    No disrespect intended towards the Delai Lama.

    Jim

>    DEC spell thinks deli is OK, too bad it can't check for usage or it
>    would of order a Ruebin sandwich.

Too bad it doesn't have 'rueben' either.  :-)

Paul

 Re: .5 - Hey, Jim, you missed it there!
�    are you saying that as Christians we should not have contact or
�    dialog with others who are not Christian ? 

Not at all - that is so opposite to all that I've said in the past, I don't 
know how you can have really interpretted it that way...

What I said in .4 was that a recognised Christian leader has to be careful 
about what he does in his official capacity, and how he does it.  He can 
meet *anyone* as an ordinary person, but to have formal consultation with 
them puts it on a different footing.

I now see Mike's put it concisely in .10...


As Eric points out in .6:
� Admittedly I'm not particularly happy about the signals JP2 is sending by
� praising pagan leaders, but we have to keep in mind that JP2 is concerned
� more about secular and political matters when he meets with such people,
� and not with doctrinal matters.

That's one person's perspective on it.  Others will have a different bias,
for or against; some will even see the "praising pagan leaders" as a
positive step.  Eric, why are you unhappy about it?  I wonder if it's for
the same general reasons that I have expressed...? 

� He called Prince Philip "another New Ager."  I couldn't figure out who was
� the first New Ager implied by "another."
Ah!  I just thought he meant another, amongst so many around.  No 'first'
identified specifically.

Meanwhile, Steve, I appreciated .15 ..... ;-)

							Andrew

    re:18

> Re: .5 - Hey, Jim, you missed it there!
>>�    are you saying that as Christians we should not have contact or
>>�    dialog with others who are not Christian ? 

>Not at all - that is so opposite to all that I've said in the past, I don't 
>know how you can have really interpretted it that way...

    Well, that's why I asked.

>What I said in .4 was that a recognised Christian leader has to be careful 
>about what he does in his official capacity, and how he does it.  He can 
>meet *anyone* as an ordinary person, but to have formal consultation with 
>them puts it on a different footing.

    First off, we don't have the full context of what actually took place.
    Putting that aside however,  when the Pope meets with a Dalai Lama
    or other world figure, he is not meeting an ordinary person. Also,
    what is he consulting about ? World hunger ? World peace ?  Or
    religious faith ? I don't know, but what I know of Pope John Paul II, I
    can be sure he is not compromising on matters of Christian faith.

     Jim

> Paul is only talking about the church and how one is to conduct themselves 
> within . Paul is NOT saying that the church is above the Bible. 

No, the church isn't above the Bible.  The Bible is inerrant, inspired, and
infallible.

> The Bible is the foundation upon which the Church is built.

Wrong again, the church is founded on the Apostles and Prophets, Ephesians
2:20.  This is simply _unscriptural_! Nowhere does Scripture say the Church is
founded upon the Bible!

> Eric, stop to think, if there was no Bible, where would the church get its 
> basis for teaching?

Stop to think, if there was no church, where would you have gotten the Bible?
Which came first?  The canon of the New Testament we have did not arrive until
the fifth century.  Our teaching comes from the teaching of the Apostles.
This is the word preached to us, which will last forever, 1 Peter 1:25.  These
are the teachings received either by word of mouth or by letter, to both of
which we must hold fast (2 Thes 2:15).  The faith was once for all entrusted to
the saints (Jude 3).  Without the church, we would have no idea at all which
books to even call Scripture.  We wouldn't be able to tell whether the Gospel
of Peter was really written by Peter or not.  We wouldn't even be able to tell
which letters of Paul were inspired, for not all of them are in Scripture.

> Paul and most assuredly God knew that the teachers of the Law and gospel 
> would not always be around. There had to be something other than a church 
> where the correct information could be obtained. 

And there must be a means of determining which interpretations of Scripture
are correct.

Tertullian, The Fundamental Doctrines, 220-230 A.D., 1, Preface, 2:

Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings
of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their
predecessors.  The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through
an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to
the present time.  That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way
at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180-199, 4, 33, 8:

The true gnosis [knowledge] is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient 
organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of 
the body of Christ according to the successions of bishops, by which successions
the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere; and the very 
complete tradition of the Scriptures, which have come down to us by being 
guarded against falsification, and which are received without addition or 
deletion; and reading without falsification, and a legitimate and diligent
exposition according to the Scriptures, without danger and without blasphemy;
and the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more
glorious than prophecy, and more honored than all the other charismatic gifts.
-------

Scripture is insufficient for knowing orthodox doctrine from heterodox doctrine.
So many groups interpret Scripture in so many contradictory ways; even the
most devoted, prayerful, and Spirit-filled evangelical Protestants cannot agree
on basic doctrines of the faith by arguing from Scripture alone.

As for teaches of the gospel not being around, I do not agree with this.  Christ
promised his Holy Spirit to reveal _all truth_ to us (John 16:13), to teach us
all things and to bring all that he said to remembrance (John 14:26). The church
will not forget Christ's teaching.  For the Lord promises in Isaiah 59:21, that
the Spirit and word he puts into the mouths of the people of the New Covenant
will not depart from their mouths, from the mouths of their children, nor from
their descendants forever.  We are called to keep away from anyone who does not
live according to the teachings we received from the Apostles (2 Thes 3:6) and
reject those things contrary to the teaching we have learned (Rom 16:17).

> Do you think God was pleased with what the catholic church was doing before 
> the Reformation? 

Being pleased with deed and being pleased with doctrine are two separate things.
Israel did a number of terrible things and left the Lord many times. However,
it still possessed the truth, was still the chosen nation of God, and still
produced the Messiah.

> The church Eric is flawed, all churches are flawed. 

Churches are full of sinful people.  But Christ did not come down to teach all
things to us, and send his Spirit to reveal all truth to us, only to have it
forgotten and eternally lost in the mists of time.  He who started a good work
in the church will continue it -- the Word of God stands forever, this word
that was preached by the Apostles (1 Peter 1:25). The gates of Hades will not
prevail against the church (Matthew 16:19), and Christ is with it until the
end of the age (Matthew 28:20).

> Nowhere in 1 Tim 3:15 do you see Paul say the Church is above the Bible, so 
> please be careful not to add something that is not there, or else you may 
> find you are violating what God wrote in Rev 22:18.

The question is not whether the church is above the Bible -- the church is
submitted to the Bible, and to Apostolic Tradition.  However the question arises
as to the interpretion of the Bible, for modern Christianity has made a mockery
of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture by producing so many contrary
and contradictory interpretations of Scripture, and using Scripture to justify
all sorts of errors, that one would think that Scripture was virtually useless
for proving anything.  How is one to determine which interpretation of Scripture
is correct? It's impossible to do objectively and conclusively from Scripture 
alone, and misinterpreting Scripture is as grave an error as adding to it. The
fact that Scripture cannot be objectively and conclusively interpreted on its
own is demonstrated by the wide, varied, contradictory, and diverse doctrines
all claiming to be "biblically based" coming from the evangelical Protestant
churches.

The task of the church is to faithfully preserve, as Tertullian says, the 
teaching handed on by the Apostles, including the proper interpretation of
Scripture.  The church is not the source of truth, but rather its guardian, and
its task is to "contend for that faith once for all handed onto the saints"
(Jude 3).  The church does not add nor subtract from the teaching of the
Apostles, but rather discerns it.

> Eric, why are you unhappy about it?  I wonder if it's for
> the same general reasons that I have expressed...? 

I am unhappy about it, first of all, because we have enough problems with
heterodox, pagan "Catholics" in America without His Holiness unwittingly 
encouraging them by praising Eastern pagan leaders.  It is my opinion that
he probably is making an innocent mistake, or doesn't realize how what he is
doing is coming across over here.  I don't think he's intentionally trying to
compromise the Catholic Christian faith, which is where I would disagree with
you.  Examining JP2's teachings and what else he does leads me to believe that
he is an orthodox Catholic who is fighting to preserve the faith against the
tide of modernism and compromise.

Second of all, his behavior makes things much more difficult for me and other
orthodox Catholics, for fundamentalists pick up these dumb things he does and
use them as 2x4s to beat us up and to attack the Faith.

We have enough enemies as it is, both seen and unseen, without the Pope doing
dumb things to help them out.

Nevertheless, even if JP2 became apostate, God has not promised that Popes would
be perfect, or even in ordinary teaching orthodox.  Idiotic behavior by the
Pope does not prove that Catholicism is wrong, any more than Bakker's or
Swaggart's escapades proves Christianity, or fundamentalism or pentecostalism,
wrong.  My faith does not depend on the sanctity of the Pope, and even if the
Pope were to do something grievously wrong, it would not disprove the Catholic
Faith, nor would it prove it to be Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Prostitutes.

Eric