Well Tom ... it must be an honor for you to be in the same catagory as the Pope !! I wonder if your name is going to be on the Anti- SDA sites that were quoted.??

There seems to be a repeated theme of referring to the use of 'Holy Father'. I don't like this title. I would not wish others to call me that. But this is the title HE uses.

Many people call him this like GWB ... but GWB does not believe he is the Holy Father. The use of it does not mean that you agree.

I've called Christian ministers Reverand so in so. This is there title and it is what they expect. Do I believe in the use of this title? No. But it is like calling someone Dr. so in so. That is their title that THEY use.

Personally .... I would not make a big deal out of it. I don't believe by use of this title that our church was doing or saying anything contrary to our beliefs.

I am just tired of all the Anti- SDA this and that. We don't need to nit-pick each and every minor action of our church.

Well said Dave. While giving a "medal" might not have been the "only idea of how to go about it", it certainly is a creative way of giving the pope something he will actualy look at. He would not read an EGW book or an exposition on the Sabbath written by anyone, but he will likely keep this small medal and maybe it will cause him to think.

Yes, that's a good point, Taylor. 'A picture is worth a thousand words.' One thing I wouldn't have done is refer to him as the 'holy father.' I think I understand the diplomatic considerations, its just that there are some lines I wouldn't cross. In the past, I have addressed Christian ministers as 'pastor,' rather than 'reverend' or 'father' (Episcopalians refer to the rector as 'father') I might have spoken of this individual as 'pope John Paul II or something similar, but not 'the holy father.' That seems to be supporting the claims of the papacy and could be perceived as a recognition of special status.

Dave

I can understand that and I can respect that. I sincerely see it as Mr. Beach using the pope's recognized "title" as a title, certainly not as a "worship" type of thing. However, I agree, it probably would have been better to refer to him as "Pope John Paul the II" as you say.

Did Beach have approval to call the Pope 'Holy Father' ? Was this a conspiracy from the Adventist Church? Or did Beach act on his own to address him as Holy Father?

Do CA members believe what Ellen White wrote below?

Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!

The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments.


Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the "church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err" (John L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century II, part 2, chapter 2, section 9, note 17), how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages?

The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution....


But Romanism as a system is no more in harmony with the gospel of Christ now than at any former period in her history. The Protestant churches are in great darkness, or they would discern the signs of the times. The Roman Church is far-reaching in her plans and modes of operation. She is employing every device to extend her influence and increase her power in preparation for a fierce and determined conflict to regain control of the world, to re-establish persecution, and to undo all that Protestantism has done. Catholicism is gaining ground upon every side. See the increasing number of her churches and chapels in Protestant countries. Look at the popularity of her colleges and seminaries in America, so widely patronized by Protestants. Look at the growth of ritualism in England and the frequent defections to the ranks of the Catholics. These things should awaken the anxiety of all who prize the pure principles of the gospel.

Protestants have tampered with and patronized popery; they have made compromises and concessions which papists themselves are surprised to see and fail to understand. Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy. The people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty.

Great Controversy, pp. 563-566

What evidence do we have BB Beach did what he did at the request or planning of the General Conference? Did they know ahead of time that He would be giving him a medal and calling him "The Holy Father"?

In any case, the Vatican certainly viewed B.B. Beach's actions and words as representing all SDAs.

Some here believe in EGW and some do not, I happen to believe in EGW's writings. However, I do not see giving a medal, which will show the pope in a pictoral form many of the truths of Adventism is somehow "joining hands with the papacy" or "failing to realize the prophecies" or anything of the sort.

I just think that when we are jumping to conclusions when we think that:
1. That giving the medal meant we are somehow lowering our standards or forgetting the past or forgetting prophecy or disagreeing with EGW's writings...
2. Or that the medal is somehow all purposfully "wrong" when the purpose for the medal was to give a gift and to give a visual of many of the elements of what SDA's believe.
3. Or that we are somehow paying homage by giving it....

What we need to realize that:
1. We had nothing to do with giving of the metal.
2. We didn't create the metal.
3. We do not personally know the person who gave the metal and even if we did we can not read his mind and know his motivations.
4. If we can only imagine or believe "evil" about the motivation, or the lowering of standards, or some consipacy as to why it was given, and we can't ever see that there might be another side we had never considered before....

....Then we have no business judging the motivation, intent, theology etc behind those who in good faith gave the metal.

Just my 2 cents.

What I do think is that often we spend lots of precious time debating such issues when there is a world that is dying without a knowledge of Jesus and that is where our time is better spent. Lets let God do the judging. God calls us to fish...but he cleans the fish.

(And BTW John, I think you are honestly concerned. I agree that we must be distinctively SDA not "linking up with any other "powers". But I think that maybe some also aren't considering that there might be a totally different reason behind all of it than what you are thinking. That is something to consider. One can't judge someone till they've walked in the person's shoes...and since none of us can read hearts or minds then we have no real idea as to all the reasons why it was given. However, from what I can see, it was given in good faith, as a medal that the pope will likely keep and that he will have a visual reminder of many key SDA doctrines. In some ways, a picture is worth a thousand words and thus it might have just been a very brilliant way to wittness to "The Pope" since the church will never get the chance to give him a Bible study on those key doctrines. I think we should reach out to leadership in every church and try to help them understand the truths in God's word.)

"The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments."

That's certainly true !