March 21, 2000 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - Pope John Paul II has been, above all, the Pope of ecumenical unity. His storied world travels have been done in the name of Christian unity. The chief goal of his papacy has been to inaugurate the ecumenical oneness predicted by the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. That Council opened the door for Rome to participate in the ecumenical movement, and in its "Decree on Ecumenism" it stated the object of that activity: "The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered together in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only church--the unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose."

Rome claims to be the one true church of Jesus Christ and it has no intention of giving up that claim. It’s goal in ecumenical relations is to bring all of the "separated brethren" into its fold. John Paul II has pursued this goal with great vigor and has been extremely successful. He was the first pope to travel to England and preach in an Anglican cathedral. Under John Paul II’s direction, ecumenical dialogue has entangled most denominations and has resulted in astounding success. Lutherans have agreed with Rome over the doctrine of justification. An Anglican commission has stated that the papacy is a gift to the churches. Evangelical leaders in America have called for "Evangelicals and Catholics Together." Under John Paul II’s direction, Catholics have infiltrated every sphere of ecumenical activity throughout the world. They work hand in hand with the Bible Societies at every level. They hold leadership positions in local and regional clergy associations and in national church councils. Pope John Paul II has also given close direction to the Catholic "renewal" movement and its far-reaching ecumenical alliances with Charismatics and Pentecostals.

Now, at the end of his life and papacy, John Paul II is leaving a final legacy to the cause of ecclesiastical unity, by attempting to remove a stubborn barrier to the same: Rome’s vicious centuries-long persecution against all who refused to accept her authority and doctrines.

On March 7, the Vatican Press Office released a document titled "Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past." It was made available to the world press in Italian, Spanish, French, and English. On March 12, the Pope presided over a ceremony called "The Day of Pardon" in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Both of these actions are in fulfillment of the papal "Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000," which was issued in November 1998. The papal bull called for "the purification of memory" to accelerate Christian unity.

VAGUE, MEANINGLESS APOLOGIES

All of this has the appearance of a genuine apology from Rome to those she has tormented and wronged, but it is not. In reality, it is a mere fa"ade.ade. There is nothing of real substance to these "apologies." Even by the Catholic Church’s own standards for confession of sin, these apologies are without substance. The Catholic sacrament of Confession requires that the sins be stated specifically. The authoritative Addis and Arnold Catholic Dictionary states that the Confession, to be authentic, must have four elements. The first of these is that it must be ENTIRE. The confession "must include the different kinds of mortal sin committed and the number of sins under each class, so far as it can be ascertained. ONE MORTAL SIN WILFULLY CONCEALED VITIATES THE WHOLE CONFESSION." We are further told that "there is an absolute obligation imposed, not only by the law of the Church, but also by divine institution, upon all Christians, of CONFESSING ALL MORTAL SINS committed after baptism, so far as the penitent is able to recall them by diligent examination of his conscience."

That there is no specificity whatsoever, though, to the papal "apologies" is even admitted in the document "Memory and Reconciliation." Note the following plain statement: "THE PURPOSE OF THE TEXT IS, THEREFORE, NOT TO EXAMINE PARTICULAR HISTORICAL CASES but rather to clarify the presuppositions that ground repentance for past faults." Even secular newspaper reporters saw through the Pope’s apology. The Associated Press report for March 13, titled "Pope Seeks Pardon for Catholics," observed the lack of specificity, noting that the Pope "SPOKE MOSTLY IN GENERAL TERMS, NOT MENTIONING THE HOLOCAUST, THE INQUISITION OR CRUSADES BY NAME and listing few specific groups."

While the Pope has uttered some regrets of sorts, referring to certain "weaknesses" and "mistakes" and "harmful acts" of the past, he has made no plain confession of sin and error even by the standards of his own "church."

THE POPE HAS NOT CONFESSED THE BLOODY AND HORRIBLE 600-YEAR INQUISITION AGAINST HUMBLE BIBLE-BELIEVING SAINTS, which was instigated formally by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) (though it existed more informally prior to that) and was conducted mercilessly by the popes who succeeded him, century after century, until finally Rome was no longer politically capable of sustaining it in the late 1700s. The Inquisition was established contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the example of the Apostles. Ignoring the apostolic principle that "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal," the Inquisition, set up in the name of Christ, resulted in the torment and murder of millions of Christ’s own humble servants, whose only crime was a rejection of Catholic heresy and a commitment to follow the Bible as their sole authority for faith and practice. The Inquisition covered much of Europe and England and other parts of the world in a great darkness of unspeakable fear which lasted for more than six centuries. THE INQUISITION WAS NOT A "MISTAKE" OR A MERE ERROR OF THE TIMES OR AN ISOLATED ERROR OR THE PROBLEM OF A MERE HANDFUL OF "BAD POPES." IT WAS THE FORMAL AND OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC AUTHORITY FOR CENTURIES ON END. No Pope has admitted this. John Paul II has not confessed the Inquisition; he has not labeled his fellow popes the murderers they were.

THE POPE HAS NOT CONFESSED ROME’S USURPATION OF THE PLACE OF ALMIGHTY GOD IN THE CHURCHES. This usurpation is found, among other ways, in the claims of the Catholic papacy and priesthood which usurp offices and titles which Jesus Christ and God the Father and the Holy Spirit alone can possess -- i.e., papal claims to be the Head of the church, the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Father, to be a priest ordained after the order of Melchisedec, to be able to forgive sin, to possess a treasury of grace which it can dispense through the sacraments.

Furthermore, THE POPE HAS NOT CONFESSED OR REPENTED OF ROME’S OUTLANDISH EXTRABIBLICAL FABLES, such as the claim that Roman priests can turn the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper into the very Christ, that they can accomplish the release of souls from a mythical purgatory, and that Mary is the immaculate Queen of Heaven.

THE POPE HAS NOT CONFESSED THE PAPACY’S USURPATION OF THE PLACE OF ALMIGHTY GOD EVEN OVER SOVEREIGN NATIONS. James A. Wylie, after diligently researching the history of the papacy, observed: "There exists a vast body of proof to the effect that the popes of the eleventh and succeeding centuries attempted to prostrate beneath their feet the temporal as well as the spiritual power, and that they succeeded in their attempt. The history of Europe from the era of Hildebrand to that of Luther must be blotted out before the condemnatory evidence--for condemnatory of the Papacy it certainly is, as irreconcileably hostile to the liberties of nations and the rights of princes--can be annihilated or got rid of." A proper papal confession which would even begin to deal with this great sin would involve the listing of the countless acts of gross papal usurpation, such as that of Pope Gregory VII [Hildebrand] in the 11th century who forced Emperor Henry IV to stand in the cold of winter for three days, "exposed to the rigours of the season, with his feet bare, his head uncovered, and a piece of coarse woollen cloth thrown over his person, and forming his only covering," before he was allowed to enter into the haughty pope’s presence to beg his favor. Or that of Pope Innocent III in the 12th century who deposed King John of England and put John’s entire nation under a papal interdict, absolving all of John’s subjects from the allegiance to their duly constituted king and declaring that neither John nor his posterity could ever reign in England. Or Pope Alexander III in the 12th century deposing and anathematizing Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, and encouraging his subjects to rebel against him, eventually forcing the emperor to bow before the pope and kiss his feet, then humbly lead the pope’s mule through Venice while the lordly "pontiff" sat enthroned thereupon.

What would the Bible require of the Pope if he were truly to repent of Rome’s error? Repentance means a change of mind which results in a change of action. When the Corinthians repented, the Apostle Paul said that he could SEE their repentance in the great change which occurred in their lives. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter" (2 Corinthians 7:10,11). This is not what we see in the Pope’s alleged repentance.

In the Pope’s case, a true godly repentance would involve a great many things. A repentant Pope would cast aside his blasphemous position and titles in fear and trembling. Instead of "holy father" he would desire to be called "lowly sinner." A repentant Pope would reject extrabiblical Roman Catholic dogmas such as the Mass, the Priesthood, the Sacraments, and the intercession of Mary and the Saints. He would admit that he and his predecessors have had no divine authority whatsoever for the doctrines and practices they have added to the "faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). A repentant Pope would reject the damnable sacramental gospel of Rome which has wickedly added works to God’s requirement of faith alone through grace alone (Galatians 1:6-9) and joyfully confess that salvation is the free gift of God to every one that believeth (Romans 1:16,17; 3:23-25; 10:9- 13) and that eternal life is the present possession of every child of God (1 John 5:11-13).

Rome’s vague "apology" is but sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. Her solemn ceremonies which have accompanied these apologies are a mere empty "form of godliness" which in actuality "deny the power thereof." Their chief purpose is to salve the guilty conscience of apostate Protestants and Baptists so they can feel comfortable in Rome’s embrace. When anyone now protests that Rome has bloody hands and a wicked heart and points to history as evidence, the ecumenists can smile knowingly and claim that Rome has apologized for all of that. This brilliant ecumenical maneuver also helps keep Catholics within the fold by appearing to rob Bible-believing apologists of a significant charge against Rome.

[For more about Rome’s history see the Way of Life Electronic Baptist History Library at the web site - http://www.wayoflife.org/. There are numerous histories which document Rome’s crimes. These include The History of the Papacy and the History of the Waldenses by J.A. Wylie, The History of the Inquisition by Andrew Miller, History of the Baptists by John Christian, Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs by John Foxe, and the History of the Christian Church by William Jones.]