Don said that. I would qualify it by saying that, according to the confessions, the marks are to be found in scripture, not who specifically they refer to. Anyone who sets himself up in opposition to Christ is anti-Christ.
Jon
- Status
Jon
P
ptisme
Guest
My apologies, I was doing this on my phone and not paying attention to who I was responding well enough… My opinion is this: Is it possible a future pope could be evil? Could he be an anti-Christ? Of course, he’s human and could fall as any human could. But it won’t bring down the church (the gaits of hell shall not prevail). Just as some of the men appointed to lead by God himself didn’t bring down the faith with their actions (Solomon, David, Judas-appointed by Jesus)…
S
steido01
Guest
Right. I thought I made that part clear, but perhaps I bolded the wrong portion. Just a few sentences above what I bolded, the sentence reads plainly, “Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist.” The Confessional Lutheran use of the term is simply an historical and rather academic identification. Personally, I have a deep, deep respect for the past few men who have served as Bishop of Rome (particularly Benedict XVI), but because of the remaining claims of the office, like those expressed in the Treatise, my Synod maintains its historical stance.
And though I live in Illinoise, I was born in Green Bay. I’ll always cheer the right team.
K
KjetilK
Guest
This is the problem: You do not understand what you are criticising. Catholicity is a characteristic of particular churches. The Roman Catholic Church is a particular Church. The Church of Norway is a particular Church. The Church of England is a particular Church. ‘The Lutheran Church’ is not a particular Church. It doesn’t exist. What does exist, however, are particular churches who are often identified as Lutheran. These are mostly national, established, churches. Just as there are particular churches who are often identified as Anglican, yet it would now be improper to talk of ‘the Anglican Church.’
Just as I would’t ask the Roman Catholic Church* to answer for everything espoused by particular Churches identifying as Catholic – such as, for example, the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC)** – you shouldn’t ask me to answer for the official teaching of, say, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).
- AFAICR, pope Pius X used the name ‘Roman Catholic Church’ in one of his encyclicals as a name for the entire Catholic Church, including all the 23 rites.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
To an extent, yes, but the same criticism could be levelled by a Muslim or atheist against Christianity in general…
K
KjetilK
Guest
FathersKnowBest has a hard time distinguishing between Churches and ecclesial traditions.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is one of the aspects that separate Churches who have retained the Apostolic faith, and our Protestant brethren. The Apostles taught that the Church founded by Christ is “catholic” (universal), not particular, such that, throughout the whole world, the fatih was the same in each and every particular church.
It may not exist in the Lutheran communion, but it does exist!
The CC is also recognized by unity with the bishops
Around the year A.D. 107, Ignatius of Antioch, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna, he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2).
I agree with you, but the difference is that for Catholics there is a unity of documents and confession. You don’t accept some of the documents that other Lutherans do accept. For Catholics, if one rejects documents or confessions that have been promulgated by the Church, one has lost their Catholicity. Yet, I have not heard any Lutherans here say you have lost your Lutheran identity by rejecting certain “Lutheran” documents.
This lack of unity or lack of consensus if you will is one of the factors that causes (or perhaps reflects?) the disintegration that exists. Unity would be all of us having One Mind and One Faith, as Scripture demonstrates.
Yes, this has happened a number of times. I think it demonstrates a lack of respect for the non-Roman rites in the Catholic Church, but it also emphasizes that all are in unity with the Bishop of Rome, which cannot be said for your particular Church.
I am not sure this will help your arguement, since the PNCC is continuing to drift further and further from Catholicity. The PNCC is no longer in communion with any other body and no longer describes itself as Old Catholic (Utrecht). The Polish National Catholic Church began in the late 19th century over concerns about the ownership of church property and the domination of the U.S. church by Irish bishops (politics again!). The sacramental validity came from the Utrect Union, but iIn 2003 the church voted itself out of the Utrecht Union.
The best ground for unity exists within Peter’s boat!
G
guanophore
Guest
Perhaps you are right. Can you define these terms for us? Do you disagree with the four marks of the Church mentioned above? It seems that you apply these only to “particular” churches, instead of as a universal standard.
Are you saying that …never mind, I can’t actually ask that until I understand what you mean by the term “eccleisal tradition”.
K
KjetilK
Guest
It seems that you misunderstand my use of ‘particular.’ Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Church of Norway holds that catholicity exists in the abstract. It exists only in particular Churches, led by bishops. One such particular Church is the Roman Catholic Church. Another such particular Church is the Russian Orthodox Church. And another such particular Church is the Church of Norway.
And yes, I agree with the four marks, but neither of these marks exist in some abstract realm. They all exist in particular Churches, led by bishops.
I don’t think you understood my point at all. There is a unity of documents and confession in the Church of Norway, just as there is a unity of documents and confession in, say, the Roman Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church. ‘Lutheran’ is a tradition, not a Church.
By ‘ecclesial tradition’ I refer to the tradition that a certain Church adheres to. Maybe ‘rite’ would be a better term. Byzantine is such an ecclesial tradition. It exists mostly in Orthodox Churches, but you also find it in Churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Lutheran and Anglican are also such ecclesial traditions. They exist in different particular churches (even, in the case of Anglicanism, in the Roman Catholic Church through the Ordinariate/Anglican use), but some of these Churches differ in beliefs.
The essential Lutheran documents are the three ancient creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed), Luther’s Small Catechism, and Confessio Augustana. Some churches in the Lutheran tradition have, at a later stage, adopted other documents too, but that doesn’t mean that everyone has to.
To claim that Norwegian Lutherans have to accept a document written in 1577 (the Formula of Concord), 40 years after the Danish/Norwegian reformation, just because other adherents to the Lutheran tradition does so makes as much sense as claiming that Eastern Catholics in the Byzantine tradition has to adhere to the same view on the Roman Pontiff as their Orthodox equivalents, or that the members of the Ordinariate/Anglican use Catholics must hold to everything espoused by members of the Church of England. I would be very surprised if you thought so.
My basis point is this: We need to see each particular Church on its own terms.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Is that the same Jay Cutler that I am thinking of? A steroid abusing body-builder?Two words: Jay Cutler
If that is who he is, he should not be on any sports team let alone duh Bears.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Sorry, no. The Catholic Church is not a “particular” church; it is THE Church that Jesus began.
Again, no. They are ecclesial communities.
They may be a disjointed “part” of the Catholic Church, but they are not “particular churches.”
True, because all the “churches” in the Lutheran tradition are disunified.
Of course, we can’t answer for things in “churches” that self-identify as “Catholic” but are not.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
It seems that you don’t understand the definition of “catholic.”
“Churches,” in the plural, is antithetical to this definition.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
It was always my understanding that the Catholic Church used the term particular church to refer to either the local diocese headed by a bishop or to one of the 23 sui iuris churches that comprise the Catholic Church.
The Latin Church being one particular church, the Melkite Church being another, the Maronite Church, etc.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
That’s correct. But all of them are a part of the ONE, UNIVERSAL (Catholic) Church.
K
KjetilK
Guest
That may be. But my point is that the Church of Norway is a particular Church, and questions to me should be based upon what my Church teaches, not what is taught in, say, LCMS or WELS.
And saying, as FathersKnowBest, does, that the Church of Norway and/or the Church of England are ‘ecclesial communities’ is just good old begging of the question.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Correction: there are 23 churches in communion with Rome, not 23 rites. And I don’t think any of the recent popes (since Vatican II) have referred to the entire Roman Communion as “the Roman Chuch”.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I understand. But that statement shows that the Church of Norway is NOT Catholic.
If stated apart from all the conclusive evidence, perhaps. But the way you’re saying it is a misrepresentation.
P
pablope
Guest
So Jon, do you believe the pope or any pope has set himself up in opposition to Christ?
G
guanophore
Guest
Thanks! I think I learn something new from you everyday. I was not at all familiar with the Church of Norway before I met you here on CAF, so it has been a very interesting crash course.
Unfortunately, that is quite likely.
You are right that I have never thought of it like that.
How similar is your tradition/rite to the Roman Catholic?
No. I don’t even think it is right to force the filoque on the Eastern Church.
Thank you for your patience.
- Status