There is something both Hopeful and Speratus have alluded to in their posts that I feel is the central issue in answering the question of whether or not Benedict XVI is really "nothing to worry about" and "good news for evangelicals," and whether we should "rejoice that 'this' pope is now leading the RCC faithful."


Quote
From Hopeful's article:

Year after year he [John Paul II] was the most
loved and admired man in the world...

Tragically the pope has had greater success in deceiving the
world since he died than during his 26 year pontificate. The
global media has become his mouthpiece and willing partner
in spreading his perverted theology. Through non-stop television coverage, the pope's church has become the world's stage...The magnificence and grandeur of this corrupt religion has bewitched much of the gullible world into believing this is what Christianity is all about.

Many are praising John Paul II for being a great spiritual leader.

Quote
From Uwe Siemon-Netto's article, He was my Pope Too, posted by Speratus:
In Europe some time ago, a debate occurred in Protestant churches: Should John Paul II be considered the world's spokesman for all of Christianity? This was an absurd question. Of course he spoke for all believers.


Whether we like it or not, whether it is good or right or not, the pope and Billy Graham are the spokemen of Christianity to the world (blame the world, blame the media, blame the church, blame whoever you like, but facts is facts). Billy Graham will die sometime in the near future (barring Rapture or Second Coming of Christ) and then there will just be the pope again (though I fear Rick Warren intends to try to fill Billy Graham's shoes). This is true regardless of who the pope is. Therefore, where the pope stands and what the pope says about doctinal, moral, and political matters is significant --- it matters (think fall of Communism, abortion, etc.).
The gospel of the Roman Catholic Church is a false gospel, and therefore, no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-7). It would be wonderful if the pope and the RCC embraced the true gospel of out Lord Jesus Christ; but, if they did I believe they would cease to exist altogether in their present mode (which is fine by me). But until a pope comes along with Martin Luther type aspirations or a Samson complex, we must not say that one pope is just as bad as another. There are degrees of badness, and the pope's badness must be compared and contrasted with that of other popes and leaders within the RCC, and his theology judged according to realistic and living options within the RCC.
I have no difficulty with anything in the article Hopeful posted, and I can rant about the corruption and deception of the RCC as long and as loudly as anyone. But of all the potential candidates for a new pope, I think Ratzinger was the best choice. What the media often refer to as "reformers" or "reform-minded" people in the RCC are not Protestant or evangelical reformers, they are liberal, modernist, anti-supernaturalist, New Age, pantheist, feminist, pro-homosexual Catholic reformers. There are no "Luthers" that I know of (if you say Hans Kung I'll shoot you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />) --- they just become Protestants these days. Again I ask, would a pope even slightly more sympathetic towards these "reformers" have been a better choice?

[Linked Image]