https://firstthings.com/pope-francis-my-worst-protestant-nightmare/
https://wng.org/opinions/an-office-of-great-cultural-significance-1746424321
These articles left me baffled but they demonstrate how cultural and political motivations have taken over and now drive the thinking of most Christians. Trueman in particular surprises me as he once passionately argued for a kind of sober detachment but now is at the forefront of culture war battles even being promoted by and collaborating with the likes of Charles Colson protege John Stonestreet.
I once had a great deal of appreciation for Trueman but my opinion of him has dropped considerably in recent years. About five years ago I was sitting a few rows behind him while visiting an OPC in Grove City - we had stopped on our way to a funeral. At one time I would have been very eager to speak with him. I didn't bother.
Trueman is very concerned about Francis' leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. He should have done this or that. He should have picked this person or that for some doctrinal position. It's as if Aquinas was replaced by Tetzel he suggests regarding the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
First of all the Dicastery in question is what remains of the Inquisition, so I don't know why Trueman is concerned about this. And while Tetzel was charlatan, Aquinas was no less so when it comes to doctrine and epistemology. We need not celebrate Aquinas or Ratzinger. And I'm left somewhat speechless at the thought that Trueman might approve of someone in charge of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would think he'd rather see it all burn down, but apparently not.
It's as if Carl Trueman thinks the Roman Catholic Church is a true Church or that Francis or any pope is something other than antichrist.
He(in particular) makes much of creeds and confessions but then apparently he chooses to ignore Westminster's teaching on this point. Is this not a problem?
What difference does it make whether Francis or someone else is pope? The whole institution is antichrist and an abomination. Was Francis a liberal? He actually wasn't as liberal as some think, but so what if he was? How will a conservative pope further the cause of the gospel? The only thing it can do is bolster the cause of Traditionalist Catholics and turn Rome back to what? Does Trueman want a pre-Vatican II Catholicism? How will that help the gospel or the Kingdom? It's only if he's confused and is thinking in terms of Schaefferian co-belligerence can such a move help. It's only if he's placing culture war and political concerns over Kingdom and gospel testimony that any of this can even matter.
Actually a liberal pope will just lead to the further disintegration and decline of the Roman Catholic Church and we can continue to watch it (like the other mainline denominations) slip into irrelevance and insignificance. There's no redeeming Rome. There's no reforming it. To do so would mean its undoing. A Traditionalist pope would like lead even more conversions as Protestants are more likely to consider swimming across the Tiber as a viable option.
Trueman seems shocked that Rome's institutions are filled with a bunch of sodomites and perverts. Why? These are unregenerate people who have drunk from the Scriptural and theological well but to no avail. Their hearts and hardened. We see this all the time with Evangelicals and others who lose their way. One of the tragedies here is that since these are big long-standing institutions they just perpetuate and people float around on the fringes, keeping one foot in the faith (whatever that means) even while their minds and affections are directed elsewhere and with different goals. They have employment and in some cases live very well. We see the same thing with regard to mainline Protestant institutions, denominations, universities, and seminaries. And increasingly we're seeing this in the Evangelical world as well.
Is Trueman shocked by Catholic latitudinarianism? Why? He comes from the UK. He grew up with such in the context of Anglicanism and the monarchy. Establishment Christianity always degenerates into a joke. He teaches history. Has he not picked up on this? Roman Catholicism may not be 'established' in the United States but it has never ceased to function on a diocesan and national level even in the post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment context. Its claims are Catholic whether or not it is able in every instance to make this the reality. It always results in ethical nominalism, an acceptance of the lowest common denominator when it comes to social behaviour. This is why medieval Christendom was rotten and led Bible readers to nonconformity and dissent.
Francis taught all religions are paths to God. Is this new? Vatican II all but took a universalist stance. The nuance was that Romanism was the true or best way but Catholic teachers have long accepted that others will go to heaven. You're just not supposed to say it that way. It's all rubbish and rot. So Francis phrased it wrong or took the mask off. Good. Let people understand the nature of Catholicism and its post-Vatican II incarnation - the Tridentine formulas are functionally dead. To reject contemporary universalism and theological liberalism and to return to Roman Catholic exclusivity would be no victory for the truth. It's just exchanging one error for another.
Francis did betray underground Catholics in China. May they turn away from that false religion! But in the meantime once again we are reminded that these battles took place a thousand years ago in the context of the Investiture Controversy. Centuries of conflict ensued and eventually the Papacy triumphed in the eradication of the Hohenstauffen dynasty. Historians of all people should understand that Rome always take the long view.
As far as his capitulations with regard to divorce and sodomy - what of it? Should I care about what Muslims or Buddhists say about such things? Why would I care what this blasphemer who says he speaks for Christ says? Let his errors flourish that no one may doubt what he and the Roman Catholic institution really are - false Christianity.
Once again, only if I'm lost in the fog of culture war would I think differently. Only then would I think of Roman Catholicism as a potential ally in the path to power. Only then would I crave their potential cultural influence and the power of its vast wealth. Trueman needs to go back to square one and re-think these questions.
Trueman the man who once lambasted the FOX channel plays his hand when he takes issue with Francis' criticism of Trump. I'm far more upset about Trueman's descent into FOX-style Christianity than I am over the liberalism of Francis - who was not a Christian and was always an enemy of the Kingdom.
But Trueman is glad that Francis fought the Latin Mass because after all Protestantism believes in vernacular worship. Yes, when the blasphemy of the mass is conducted and a counterfeit priest proclaims himself to re-sacrifice the body of Christ - it's so much better if it's in English as opposed to Latin. It's much more God honouring that way and in keeping with Protestant values.
Has Trueman lost his mind?
In the World piece he argues that 'Protestantism benefits in several ways from strong and clear papal leadership.' He thinks a conservative Pope helps Protestants to think more clearly about differences in theology. On the contrary as most American Protestants confuse nationalism and conservative ideology with Christianity we have seen in recent years how more and more Evangelicals and Confessionalists are looking at Catholics, Mormons, and Jews as functional brethren. In their day to day concerns and even devotional life (often tinged by culture war and patriotism) these are the people they find common cause with. Why? Because their thinking is muddled and their loyalties are divided.
A liberal pope simply amplifies the unbiblical nature of Catholicism and reveals its fundamental problems with authority and the progressive nature of the magisterium and its understanding of orthodoxy. Trueman is completely wrong on this point.
If the world is confused about the nature and identity of Christianity then we can thank people like Carl Trueman who won't come out and call a spade a spade. The pope is antichrist. That's what his confession teaches. But if he does that, if he speaks that way in public, then he's not going to be writing for First Things or maybe even World Magazine. He's not going to command the respect he currently has. John Stonestreet isn't going to promote him, is he?
The effect of this thinking has been experienced by me while sitting in Evangelical churches and receiving a furrowed brow when speaking of Roman Catholicism as a false religion or stating that Catholics are not Christians. The same confusion is on display in a PCA I attended years ago in which an elder's wife referred to her good 'Catholic Christian' neighbours.
I do not hate Catholics. I enjoy interacting with them. I lived in Italy at one time and have visited countless numbers of their church buildings. I made numerous trips to Rome. I love Italy and would actually move there tomorrow if I could and never return to the United States. I am not daunted by the thought of living in a Roman Catholic context but there is no confusion or doubt regarding the fact that it is a false religion.
The papacy may be an office of cultural significance but since it is fundamentally opposed to the faith of the New Testament, a pope that seems friendly to the true faith is actually more dangerous and subversive than one who isn't. It should be pretty simple to understand - especially for one so historically and theologically grounded as Trueman.