A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[JonNC]

…that the time has come to rid our Confession of the condemnations of the pope or papacy as antichrist. Above and beyond the fact that this condemnation was written and referred to a time when polemics and anger marred the church, this language now harms greatly charity between ourselves and our Catholic brothers and sisters, and casts a shadow of doubt over sincerity with which our leaders come to the table of ecumenical discussion.

In addition, I contend that it no longer applies to the current papacy, and offer two proofs.

Thus the Papacy also will be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it thus defends human services as justifying.

The Apology to the Augsburg Confession

The language and stance of the Catholic Church in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification now renders this charge moot.

10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.

As well, The language of Lumen Gentium renders this charge moot.

The fact is the Lutheran Church is not a new church, as one might consider other protestants, but instead we are reformationists, and our goal has always been and should always be unity with the Church through history.
The charge of antichrist is both inflamatory and, in light of recent times, unnecessary and, frankly no longer true.
My intention will be to contact my synod leaders, and petition them in this way. I hope you will do the same.

A await the comments of all CAF members, but especially Lutherans.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

…that the time has come to rid our Confession of the condemnations of the pope or papacy as antichrist. Above and beyond the fact that this condemnation was written and referred to a time when polemics and anger marred the church, this language now harms greatly charity between ourselves and our Catholic brothers and sisters, and casts a shadow of doubt over sincerity with which our leaders come to the table of ecumenical discussion.

The institution of the Papacy, while certainly inflammatory in today’s more genteel climate (and that certainly isn’t a bad thing compared to peasant revolts, disease out the wazoo and feudal lords lol) is still opposed to the true doctrine of the Church of Christ and can still be said to thus be anti-Christ. It must be borne in mind that the Pope himself is not THE anti-Christ, as in whatever mythical figure dispensationalists believe in.

In addition, I contend that it no longer applies to the current papacy, and offer two proofs.

1. The Apology to the Augsburg Confession

The language and stance of the Catholic Church in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification now renders this charge moot.

The language of the Joint Declaration from the Catholic perspective was for them to reaffirm Catholic teaching on justification. They cannot deny what they believe an infallible Council (Trent) taught. The Lutheran World Federation, a liberal body that no longer adheres to the Lutheran Confessions were the only ones who changed. The Roman side did NOT affirm we are justified through faith alone.

As well, The language of Lumen Gentium renders this charge moot.

The Pope, by the office of the Papacy, still claims universal jurisdiction over the entire Catholic Church. He still claims, by virtue of office to have the capacity to bind the consciences of Christians thousands of miles away, with doctrines that may or may not be according to the revelation of God. Therefore, until he relinquishes this claim to be the Vicar of Christ (who truly, is the Holy Spirit), the claim held by the Lutheran Confessions would still apply. Not to him personally (I dont question whether Benedict XVI is a Christian), but his office, represents this charge against it.

 

[JonNC]

Triune,
I am LCMS as you are, and I see nothing in the JDDJ that indicates that the ELCA “caved”. In fact, the term “faith alone” does appear in the document, but whatever. The idea that we are justified by grace through faith is confirmed throughout the document, in my mind, consistent with Augsburg. Besides, if the LCMS had wanted a greater say in the language, we could have been more aggresive in participating in the discussions. As it is, the LCMS usually sits on its hands.

What is more, we can have a strong disagreement with Rome on any number of issues, such as we do with many over our protestant brothers and sisters, and yet not invoke this scritpural reference as a condemnation of them.

The papacy is what it is now, not what it was in 1530.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune,
I am LCMS as you are, and I see nothing in the JDDJ that indicates that the ELCA “caved”. In fact, the term “faith alone” does appear in the document, but whatever. The idea that we are justified by grace through faith is confirmed throughout the document, in my mind, consistent with Augsburg. Besides, if the LCMS had wanted a greater say in the language, we could have been more aggresive in participating in the discussions. As it is, the LCMS usually sits on its hands.

Can you find in that document where Rome affirms justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone?

I agree with your critique of the LCMS. The LCMS should be much more aggressive in dialoguing with the Catholic side. We’ve always been an insular community.

What is more, we can have a strong disagreement with Rome on any number of issues, such as we do with many over our protestant brothers and sisters, and yet not invoke this scritpural reference as a condemnation of them.

The papacy is what it is now, not what it was in 1530.

Jon

Well, one must remember that half the sects that we disagree with today were not in existence then. I would have no problem saying that those Protestants who teach clearly false doctrine are just as heterodox as Rome’s positions.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity:

Well, one must remember that half the sects that we disagree with today were not in existence then. I would have no problem saying that those Protestants who teach clearly false doctrine are just as heterodox as Rome’s positions.

Also, if you want to see REALLY harsh language…brush up on what Luther himself had to say about the anabaptists and Zwinglians; He may have referred to the papacy as anti-Christ, but he said he’d rather receive communion with the Pope than Zwingli, what does that say about his view of him??

 

[JonNC]

Can you find in that document where Rome affirms justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone?

Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

Must we hear the word “alone” to hear the truth - Lutheran truth - in that statement?

I agree with your critique of the LCMS. The LCMS should be much more aggressive in dialoguing with the Catholic side. We’ve always been an insular community.

And completely contrary to our duty as a reformation movement within the church catholic.

Well, one must remember that half the sects that we disagree with today were not in existence then. I would have no problem saying that those Protestants who teach clearly false doctrine are just as heterodox as Rome’s positions.

If we as Lutherans were to say, that a certain teaching of Rome we consider to be heterodox, that leaves much more room open for charitible and sincere discussion, as compared to “your church is antichrist”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Also, if you want to see REALLY harsh language…brush up on what Luther himself had to say about the anabaptists and Zwinglians; He may have referred to the papacy as anti-Christ, but he said he’d rather receive communion with the Pope than Zwingli, what does that say about his view of him??

That’s true… and he was right.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Must we hear the word “alone” to hear the truth - Lutheran truth - in that statement?

Yes, because Catholic theology holds that “initial justification” is without merit. If that statement said we are justified by grace alone, through faith in Christ, without any merits on our own or infused into us, we are made acceptable to God solely on the basis of Christ’s work, or some variation of that, I would agree with the statement (as would the Lutheran Confessions), and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus might’ve been excommunicated

And completely contrary to our duty as a reformation movement within the church catholic.

Absolutely; this would warrant a change in the LCMS and WELS, though…not a change to the Confessions.

If we as Lutherans were to say, that a certain teaching of Rome we consider to be heterodox, that leaves much more room open for charitible and sincere discussion, as compared to “your church is antichrist”.

Jon

I agree with the polemical rhetoric not being necessary in conversation… But the Word calls those who teach false doctrine to be moved by the spirit of anti-Christ, and this is what the Confessions are affirming.

 

[TriuneUnity]

That’s true… and he was right.

haha! Indeed.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, because Catholic theology holds that “initial justification” is without merit. If that statement said we are justified by grace alone, through faith in Christ, without any merits on our own or infused into us, we are made acceptable to God solely on the basis of Christ’s work, or some variation of that, I would agree with the statement (as would the Lutheran Confessions

Without further comment about Fr. Neuhaus ( ), I’ll ask you the same question you asked me. Can you find a Catholic quote that says that initial justification is without merit?
While we differ with Catholics on the connection of justification and sanctification, in the end, there seems to be little difference.
We are justified by faith, but through that justification, comes the obligation to do good works, or our faith and therefore justification are called into question.

 

[JonNC]

Absolutely; this would warrant a change in the LCMS and WELS, though…not a change to the Confessions.

And the oddity is that we are better positioned than the ELCA to move further toward unity on a number of fronts, including our orders (not ordaining women), and our moral teachings.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Without further comment about Fr. Neuhaus ( ), I’ll ask you the same question you asked me. Can you find a Catholic quote that says that initial justification is without merit?
While we differ with Catholics on the connection of justification and sanctification, in the end, there seems to be little difference.
We are justified by faith, but through that justification, comes the obligation to do good works, or our faith and therefore justification are called into question.

“Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.” CCC 2010 Speaks of initial justification…this is what the JDDJ is affirming. Note how we cannot merit justification at conversion but later, we can.

“Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.” CCC 1991 Justification as infusion vs. imputation.

“Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent” CCC 1993 Justification as a synergistic work.

“Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.” CCC 2019 Confusion between justification and sanctification

The JDDJ did not do away with these statements of the Catechism; otherwise the Roman Catholic participants would’ve been condemned by the Church as schismatic. As long as Rome officially holds these views; in contradiction to the teaching of the Word, and the Lutheran Confessions, we must proclaim the doctrine false, thus, anti-Christ. Granted, we could pick a less inflammatory word, but it’s Biblical. We must fear God rather than men.

 

[TriuneUnity]

And the oddity is that we are better positioned than the ELCA to move further toward unity on a number of fronts, including our orders (not ordaining women), and our moral teachings.

We are, because the ELCA, as a denomination, is not functionally Lutheran.

 

[mark_a]

The institution of the Papacy,. . . . . is still opposed to the true doctrine of the Church of Christ and can still be said to thus be anti-Christ.

(I dont question whether Benedict XVI is a Christian), but his office, represents this charge against it.

You cannot reconcile these two statements. Either the man in the office is a Christian or he is not.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You cannot reconcile these two statements. Either the man in the office is a Christian or he is not.

The doctrine of the papacy is what is at question here.

 

[JonNC]

We are, because the ELCA, as a denomination, is not functionally Lutheran.

And yet we choose not to.

“Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.” CCC 2019 Confusion between justification and sanctification

37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.

38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the “meritorious” character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.

I would say that this is not a confusing of justification and sanctification, rather a closer blending, but not unacceptable under the confessions.

I believe both Catholics and Lutherans are understandibly caught in our semantic approaches to this issue. I believe that, under the semantics, reasonable unity of doctrine exists. The JDDJ s not perfect, but the HS can lead us to further understanding if, through charity, we are willing to talk and listen.

Certainly, a term like antichrist gets in the way.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

mark a;3862327]You cannot reconcile these two statements. Either the man in the office is a Christian or he is not

The doctrine of the papacy is what is at question here.

Do you see why the term is so unnecessarily inflamatory? We can, with only great difficulty, discuss with the Catholic Church the doctrine of the papacy, because of this condemnation. We can say,“the papacy is wrong on this or that issue”, and talks with our brothers and sisters continue in Christian love. It is more difficult with the term antichrist in place.
To this extent I agree with Mark; to some degree we cannot distinguish between the man and the office. He is either Christian or not, and therefore so is the office. My disagreements with Benedict XVI notwithstanding, he is a Christian, as is his office.

Jon

 

[mark_a]

The doctrine of the papacy is what is at question here.

Are you saying that the man in the office of the papacy, who has spent his life subject to the papacy and who believes in the doctrine of the papacy and is no way no how invincibly ignorant, is not an anti-Christ?

 

[mark_a]

We can say,“the papacy is wrong on this or that issue”, and talks with our brothers and sisters continue in Christian love. It is more difficult with the term antichrist in place.

I agree. Keep it positive.

 

[JonNC]

I agree. Keep it positive.

We can even debate whether or not the reformers were right to use the term, but that was 500 years ago!

Jon