A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[bpbasilphx]

A Lutheran minister of my acquaintance once opined that while Leo X was certainly no shining example, and might well have been called “Antichrist” in the heat of polemics at the time, this cannot possibly be applied to John Paul II.

 

[JonNC]

A Lutheran minister of my acquaintance once opined that while Leo X was certainly no shining example, and might well have been called “Antichrist” in the heat of polemics at the time, this cannot possibly be applied to John Paul II.

I think he was right on target. And the key word here is “polemics”. I am willing to stand on the scriptural roots and even the tradition-based teachings of the confession, but this type of polemics has no place in the modern church. JP II was the finest Christian person of my lifetime (not a small consideration with folks like Billy Graham and Mother Theresa around), certainly not antichrist.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

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.

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,

I see a large problem with what you’re saying: the Lutheran documents you’re talking about don’t just the Pope “is anti-Christ” or “is an anti-Christ”. Rather, they the call him “the anti-Christ”, and even “the very anti-Christ”.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity,

I see a large problem with what you’re saying: the Lutheran documents you’re talking about don’t just the Pope “is anti-Christ” or “is an anti-Christ”. Rather, they the call him “the anti-Christ”, and even “the very anti-Christ”.

The documents do not, however, apply the term to the Pope personally. There are several time periods that are addressed here. The confessions Luther wrote refer to the papacy as the anti-Christ, as do the later documents written in the 1570s by Martin Chemnitz and others. Obviously, several Popes were in and out of office during this time period.

Clarification can be taken from the confessional document the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. The doctrine of the office of the papacy is anti-Christ.

 

[JonNC]

TU and Peter J have swerved into the very reason for my original post: the “term” anti-christ leads to misunderstanding and division. TU considers the term not a personal condemnation (at least not in this day and time), but rather a condemnation of the office of the papacy. Peter J sees it as a condemnation of any pope at any time, including Benedict XVI. (If I’m putting words in the mouth of either of you, please correct me)

The pursuit of unity (and therefore Lutheranism and Catholicism) would be better served if Lutherans were to say, “the office of the Papacy, in our view, is in heterodox for the following doctrinal reasons. Let’s allow the HS to guide us better understand each other.” And, of course, Catholics would say, “Lutherans are in heterdox …”)

Jon

 

[RAR]

The documents do not, however, apply the term to the Pope personally. There are several time periods that are addressed here. The confessions Luther wrote refer to the papacy as the anti-Christ, as do the later documents written in the 1570s by Martin Chemnitz and others. Obviously, several Popes were in and out of office during this time period.

Clarification can be taken from the confessional document the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. The doctrine of the office of the papacy is anti-Christ.

Hi Triune, Jon, and others.

I read the entire thread and it’s very interesting to me. I have many wonderful non-Catholic Christian friends, but I have never heard an explanation of why they reject the papacy and the Catholic Church as the church Christ founded. The other side of this is that I struggle sometimes with charity to these friends of mine (at least in thought) because of this.

Better understanding the reasons behind this rejection would help me better understand and respect my friends in this matter.

I’m happy to start a new thread on this if you think it is necessary. I don’t want to divert the current thread.

RAR

BTW… talk of the papacy as “a,” or “the,” or just “anti-Christ” has always come across to me as ignorant name-calling and just makes me think the person doesn’t want to acknowledge any kind of authority and live their own kind of Christianity. It does little to further communication. I hope by the simple fact of my post and the ignorance I have of the Lutheran position has made this clear.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hi Triune, Jon, and others.

I read the entire thread and it’s very interesting to me. I have many wonderful non-Catholic Christian friends, but I have never heard an explanation of why they reject the papacy and the Catholic Church as the church Christ founded. The other side of this is that I struggle sometimes with charity to these friends of mine (at least in thought) because of this.

Better understanding the reasons behind this rejection would help me better understand and respect my friends in this matter.

I’m happy to start a new thread on this if you think it is necessary. I don’t want to divert the current thread.

RAR

BTW… talk of the papacy as “a,” or “the,” or just “anti-Christ” has always come across to me as ignorant name-calling and just makes me think the person doesn’t want to acknowledge any kind of authority and live their own kind of Christianity. It does little to further communication. I hope by the simple fact of my post and the ignorance I have of the Lutheran position has made this clear.

What was it you were looking to discuss specifically about the papacy RAR?

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU and Peter J have swerved into the very reason for my original post: the “term” anti-christ leads to misunderstanding and division. TU considers the term not a personal condemnation (at least not in this day and time), but rather a condemnation of the office of the papacy. Peter J sees it as a condemnation of any pope at any time, including Benedict XVI. (If I’m putting words in the mouth of either of you, please correct me)

The pursuit of unity (and therefore Lutheranism and Catholicism) would be better served if Lutherans were to say, “the office of the Papacy, in our view, is in heterodox for the following doctrinal reasons. Let’s allow the HS to guide us better understand each other.” And, of course, Catholics would say, “Lutherans are in heterdox …”)

Jon

The problem Jon is that any doctrine that is heterodox is opposed to the teachings of Christ, and is therefore anti-Christ.

 

[RAR]

What was it you were looking to discuss specifically about the papacy RAR?

Thanks, I didn’t really pose a question, did I?

Why do you say that the office of the papacy is false? Some of your terminology is new to me, so please keep that in mind and be patient.

RAR

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thanks, I didn’t really pose a question, did I?

Why do you say that the office of the papacy is false? Some of your terminology is new to me, so please keep that in mind and be patient.

RAR

There’s nothing false about a bishop of Rome, per se. We would reject the claim that his episcopal authority applies to the entire Church. That he is infallible when proclaiming doctrine. That his authority is of the same authority as Peter, as a successor to him. That the title Vicar of Christ or Holy Father is applicable to him. That one must be in union with his see in order to be saved (which were the earlier declarations of the papacy, such as Unam Sanctam).

 

[JonNC]

There’s nothing false about a bishop of Rome, per se. We would reject the claim that his episcopal authority applies to the entire Church. That he is infallible when proclaiming doctrine. That his authority is of the same authority as Peter, as a successor to him. That the title Vicar of Christ or Holy Father is applicable to him. That one must be in union with his see in order to be saved (which were the earlier declarations of the papacy, such as Unam Sanctam).

And I believe that these are, essentially, the same complaints the EO would make. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The problem Jon is that any doctrine that is heterodox is opposed to the teachings of Christ, and is therefore anti-Christ.

And you know, TU, that I agree with that. But you see, others take the term with much more offense than what you and I intend.
Some think we mean some end-time beast.

Would you agree that a Calvinist, for example, would respond to the phrase “Calvin was antichrist” with much stronger emotion than “Calvin was heterodox”? And if so, which phrase is then at least the lesser impediment to Christian charity and dialogue?

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

And I believe that these are, essentially, the same complaints the EO would make. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I think they probably would. While I believe the EO are incorrect in their statement that ecumenical councils are infallible… I would otherwise have no problem accepting their idea of episcopal polity.

And you know, TU, that I agree with that. But you see, others take the term with much more offense than what you and I intend.
Some think we mean some end-time beast.

That’s probably the case and the statement in the Confessions cannot remain in vaccuum and must be explained with truth in love. Still, we cannot choose to not state it, simply because it causes offense.

Pope Benedict XVI caused a lot of offense, especially to the mainlines, when he made the statement that Protestant churches are not churches. I, on the other hand, applaud him for it. He speaks clearly and means what he says, and says what he means. He may be wrong, but it was a huge breath of fresh air after 30 years of ecumenical nonsense.

Would you agree that a Calvinist, for example, would respond to the phrase “Calvin was antichrist” with much stronger emotion than “Calvin was heterodox”? And if so, which phrase is then at least the lesser impediment to Christian charity and dialogue?

Jon

Do you really want to know what I think of Calvin?

Yes, they would react stronger I am sure. It wouldn’t make the statement less true, though.

 

[RAR]

There’s nothing false about a bishop of Rome, per se. We would reject the claim that his episcopal authority applies to the entire Church. That he is infallible when proclaiming doctrine. That his authority is of the same authority as Peter, as a successor to him. That the title Vicar of Christ or Holy Father is applicable to him. That one must be in union with his see in order to be saved (which were the earlier declarations of the papacy, such as Unam Sanctam).

Thank you.

Why do you reject these? I don’t see any problem with any of them. Can you explain? It seems only common sense to me that Christ would leave a “Peter” to make sure no distant churches would fall into error.

RAR

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thank you.

Why do you reject these? I don’t see any problem with any of them. Can you explain? It seems only common sense to me that Christ would leave a “Peter” to make sure no distant churches would fall into error.

RAR

Because Scripture knows nothing of these doctrines and on many of them is a medieval invention. While is true that Peter was the head of the apostles for much of the apostolic period the purpose of the entire ministry was to insure continued apostolic teaching and was not left in the hands of one particular office.

The doctrines that Rome teaches about the papacy is not damnable heresy, however, it goes beyond bounds when it binds the consciences of the entire Christian people and demands they adhere to them or suffer separation from the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Do you really want to know what I think of Calvin?

Other than in a PM, better not.

That’s probably the case and the statement in the Confessions cannot remain in vaccuum and must be explained with truth in love. Still, we cannot choose to not state it, simply because it causes offense.

Pope Benedict XVI caused a lot of offense, especially to the mainlines, when he made the statement that Protestant churches are not churches. I, on the other hand, applaud him for it. He speaks clearly and means what he says, and says what he means. He may be wrong, but it was a huge breath of fresh air after 30 years of ecumenical nonsense.

I understand what you’re saying, even if I don’t entirely agree. As for Pope Benedict, one could quote Spock’s Vulcan axiom: “It took Nixon to go to China”.

Jon

 

[RAR]

Because Scripture knows nothing of these doctrines and on many of them is a medieval invention. While is true that Peter was the head of the apostles for much of the apostolic period the purpose of the entire ministry was to insure continued apostolic teaching and was not left in the hands of one particular office.

The doctrines that Rome teaches about the papacy is not damnable heresy, however, it goes beyond bounds when it binds the consciences of the entire Christian people and demands they adhere to them or suffer separation from the Church.

But scripture was given to us by one of those infallible councils (guided by the Holy Spirit, of course).

What do you mean by “binds the consciences of the entire Christian people?”

I’m not pretending to be naive, I just don’t want to subscribe something to you that you do not intend.

RAR

 

[TriuneUnity]

But scripture was given to us by one of those infallible councils (guided by the Holy Spirit, of course).

It was given to us by God because God is its author. The Church always had Scripture prior to its canonization. Having said that, the Church did receive the text and place it in a “list.” This does not, however, require an infallible decision.

What do you mean by “binds the consciences of the entire Christian people?”

Requiring members of the Church to hold those doctrines as articles of faith which are neither scriptural nor historic.

I’m not pretending to be naive, I just don’t want to subscribe something to you that you do not intend.

RAR

Not a problem! I appreciate your patience.

 

[RAR]

It was given to us by God because God is its author. The Church always had Scripture prior to its canonization. Having said that, the Church did receive the text and place it in a “list.” This does not, however, require an infallible decision.

Requiring members of the Church to hold those doctrines as articles of faith which are neither scriptural nor historic.

Not a problem! I appreciate your patience.

I don’t know how to split up the quotes, but to the first part above… we agree that scripture came from God… but wasn’t one of your points that councils should not be thought of acting infallibly? If the council (Trent?) was not guided by God (HS) and infallible, then doesn’t that call into question the Bible we all hold so dear?

Which are not historic? I think it can all be found in tradition (unwritten, but understood, teachings of the early church) and the CC only derives teachings on modern issues from scripture and the tradition of the church.

Thanks,
RAR

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t know how to split up the quotes, but to the first part above… we agree that scripture came from God… but wasn’t one of your points that councils should not be thought of acting infallibly? If the council (Trent?) was not guided by God (HS) and infallible, then doesn’t that call into question the Bible we all hold so dear?

No; because the authority of the Scriptures and the canonicity of them are not dependent on the Church. They are dependent upon the authority and infallibility of its divine author.

Which are not historic? I think it can all be found in tradition (unwritten, but understood, teachings of the early church) and the CC only derives teachings on modern issues from scripture and the tradition of the church.

Thanks,
RAR

The doctrines of the papacy which we dispute are not historic. The list I gave in response to your first question.

 

[Peter_J]

The documents do not, however, apply the term to the Pope personally. There are several time periods that are addressed here. The confessions Luther wrote refer to the papacy as the anti-Christ, as do the later documents written in the 1570s by Martin Chemnitz and others. Obviously, several Popes were in and out of office during this time period.

Clarification can be taken from the confessional document the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. The doctrine of the office of the papacy is anti-Christ.

Ah … perhaps I said “Pope” when I should have said “Papacy”. But I think my essential point remains valid: that the Lutheran documents don’t simply say that the Papacy “is [an] anti-Christ”, but rather that it “is the anti-Christ”.