While I am pleased that Mr. Wojtyla is opposed to immorality, I don't see how that makes him the ROCK, as you assert. In the area of morality and many other things, I would agree with him and with most other moral individuals. But morality does not equal being right with God, for there were many who were moral in Jesus' day who still lacked what was necessary for eternal life.

One such moral individual and influential religious leader was named Nicodemus (John 3). It seems that this man was a moral person, a worshipper of God, a teacher of religion, and one who expressed respect for Jesus. And yet Jesus said that it was necessary for him to be "born again" in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven. It was obvious from Nicodemus' response that he did not understand what Jesus was speaking of, and Jesus explained to him the need in Nicodemus' own life for a spiritual rebirth.

According to official Roman Catholic teaching, Mr. Wojtyla believes that he received this "new birth" when he was an infant, through the action of a man (a priest) performing the Roman rite of the "sacrament of baptism." Nicodemus had had his religious sacraments performed for him as an infant as well, and yet Jesus still told him "You must be born again." There seems to be a similarity here in these two men's lives and ultimate need, don't you think?

As to this "one world religion" that you speak of, I am not too sure where you are coming from. There is, of course, only one way, one truth, and one life... this being in and through the person Jesus Christ, and as Jesus said, no man may come to the Father except through Him. Thus, there is only one true religion, that of Jesus Christ the Son of God. There are indeed many religions in the world today - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Sacramentalism, Christianity - but only one which offers eternal life, for there is only one name given among men whereby we must be saved... that name is Jesus. Thus, according to Jesus, all other religions, regardless of how moral or sincere, are merely "groping in the darkness."

Mr. Wojtyla does say that the light of the world is Jesus Christ. I submit that in this he is right about this! The light of the world is Jesus, and those without Him do grope in darkness and deception. Jesus spoke of those who would one day be surprised to find that all their religious works, even in Jesus name, would not gain them entrance into Heaven. Accordingly then, many who think that they have the light are themselves in spiritual darkness and in need of the light of the Savior.

Susan, I pray the you will search and find the truth and the light in Jesus. Mr. Wojtyla can not give you this, for truth and light ultimately only come from Jesus Christ, not from any organization of men called a "church," and certainly not through any religious works performed by men. The true Church shines the light of Jesus Christ, not its own.

Assuming that you are referring to my "position" that the ECT is a betrayal of the Biblical Gospel as it has been historically interpreted and understood by evangelicals...

There are some RCC leaders who have made statements of disagreement with the ECT on the basis that they believe the document to be a betrayal of the gospel as it is officially interpreted by the RCC.

As I see it, this is where these particular RCC clerics agree with me and other evangelicals who oppose the ECT. We are both saying that the ECT agreement is a betrayal of what each group has historically believed and promoted. In this sense, we both agree that the ECT is a heretical document.

Both we who are evangelicals and they who are RCC clerics still do not agree on the biblical Gospel, but we do very much agree that the ECT is dishonest in saying the two gospels promoted by our different groups are one in the same... they are obviously not. For the endorsers of the ECT from both sides of this divide to purposefully use the same language to say opposite things, attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the undiscerning... well, this is unconscionable to any honest person whether he be a Roman Catholic or an evangelical.

Now, some argue here for motives of the various ECT endorsers, but when dealing with public statements which promote something totally dishonest, motives are another issue altogether. The public perception and the possibility of damage or loss to eternal souls is preeminent when considering public statements regarding the Gospel of Christ. It would shock many honest people to see the letter from Mr. Charles Colson in which he explains that he realized at the time they were drafting the ECT document that they were using the same words to say radically different things. This is, of course, an utter betrayal of honesty and integrity, and projected now into the public statements of the ECT, has created a absolute betrayal of the biblical Gospel. And as I said, many Roman clerics see the ECT as a betrayal of the gospel that they preach, as well.

Additionally, there are some RCC clerics who are disinterested in ecumenism as is being promoted by the Vatican today. These realize the dishonesty of saying that Roman Catholicism's gospel can coexist as an equal with the Gospel promoted by evangelicals. I applaud these Roman clerics for their honesty, even though I disagree with them in doctrine.

And last, but not least, one must take into consideration that the Roman Catholic leader, known to many as "Pope John Paul II," has expressed his personal encouragement of ecumenical efforts such as the ECT. One of the Vatican's chief ecumenical officers and overseers of world wide efforts toward ecumenism, Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, has personally been present and contributed to the ECT consortium's work. According to the last statement issued by this ECT group, their work is a continuing process.

I hope that this answers your question.