Are modern Lutherans teaching the Pope is the antichrist, mainline?

[Steven_Merten]

Hello All,

I was just over at www.Lutherquest.org.

The Lutherans there throw around the concept that the Catholic Church papacy is the anti-christ, past and present popes, like it was Lutheran dogma.

A poster at a Catholic forum told me that this is a Misouri Synod Lutheran web site and they are only a small radical group of Lutherans like SSPXers. I thought Misouri Synod Lutherans were one of the biggest Lutheran splinter group.

Some Protestant posters on other threads, Luther! Read Read! are trying to convince us to stop looking so closely at Luther’s theology because it is seen as “Luther bashing” and anti ecumenical. They claim that it was exclusively centuries ago that Luther called the Pope the antichrist. They claim that with the evil in the Catholic Church clergy at the time, Luther was justified in calling the Pope the antichrist. Yet I hear that often modern Lutheran preachers describe the Pope as the antichrist in modern day Lutheran services. One can just go to Lutherquest.org and type in the term anti-christ and they will find mostly Lutheran feelings on Catholic Popes of our era as the antichrist.

I think we can rest assured that looking at Luther’s evil distortion of scriptures to keep Catholics from his evil is not insensitive considering such brash insults on the Catholic papacy by modern day Lutherans. Is this a fair assessment? Or are large numbers of Protestants condemning these evil Lutheran Misouri Synod small radical group of antiecumenanists?

If you to Lutherquest, just put in a search for “antichrist” to find Lutheran information on the Pope.

Here is one example.

John -

Thanks. That’s true, however the marks of Antichrist are still alive and well in the papacy, and it appears that its errors have even worsened since Luther’s time. Consider that Rome teaches (among other things) :

• the Biblical doctrine of salvation through faith alone (sola fide) is wrong and teaches its own brand of works righteousness instead (penances, indulgences, etc.)
• that Mary was sinless from birth and throughout her life (the so-called “Immaculate Conception”, c.f. CCC 411)
• has expanded the cult of saints;…

So, the marks of Antichrist are alive and well even today in the papacy so we really have no need to look elsewhere.

That is not to say that if by some great miracle Rome were to repent of her ways and return to the authentic Gospel that Antichrist could not be manifest in some other form/institution.

Quoted from Lutherquest lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/discus.cgi

 

[TinaK]

I voted yes. I’m an LCMSer even though I don’t believe that the pope is the antichrist. Long story.

However, I mentioned in another thread and I’ll do it here that Lutherquest has been nicknamed “Rumorquest” amongst many lutherans and it cannot be taken too seriously. The pastor who started Lutherquest left the LCMS recently (or was kicked out, depending on who you talk to). It’s quite a story. That said, there are some pastors who preach brimstone and fire and antichrist, but it isn’t the entire synod. It’s a group within the group. I like to visit Lutherquest to give me reasons why not to be lutheran, and to see what mischief some of them are up to.

The LCMS is 2nd in size amongst lutherans. On the synod website it gives a membership of 2,488,936 for 2003 lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6359 ELCA runs at least double that, and WELS and ELS are less. There’s a few other smaller groups but I can’t think of them at the moment.

There are so many things going on in lutheran circles right now, besides the malarky in the LCMS, that it is difficult to know what end is up. Yes, the LCMS website says this about the pope as antichrist : lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2217
The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist…

but depending on who you talk to where you will find dissenting opinions. Is it any surprise without a visible head to lead the church? But then, the synod isn’t the church.

Tina

 

[Contarini]

Some Protestant posters on other threads, Luther! Read Read! are trying to convince us to stop looking so closely at Luther’s theology because it is seen as “Luther bashing” and anti ecumenical.

One or two well-meaning posters have made such appeals, but I had the impression that they were Catholics. At any rate, surely you are not seriously claiming that either I or “IsFatherWrong” have done any such thing? On the contrary, we are begging and pleading with tears and mighty supplications for you to look more closely at Luther’s theology. But alas, all we ever seem to get (with the laudable exception of CatholicDude) is the endless, unthinging repetition of two or three out-of-context quotations. Do you seriously call this “looking closely” at Luther’s theology?

You’re seriously distorting the truth here. I’m not objecting to Catholics condemning Luther. I’m objecting to Catholics misrepresenting Luther. Ecumenism is best served by the truth.

As for the LCMS, as a matter of fact most Protestants regard them as a weird bunch of kooks. They keep their distance from other Protestants, and other Protestants regard them with annoyed amusement.

I don’t mean that all Protestants think this way. I rather like them, myself. Of course I disagree with their belief that the Papacy is Antichrist. But I don’t think it’s hopelessly unreasonable, as they maintain it. (Actually I think that the Catholic Church is both the True Church and Antichrist in more or less equivalent ways, though I think it’s more the former than the latter and not entirely either.) They believe (and in this I think they are seriously wrong and guilty of a highly schismatic attitude) that sola fide as Luther taught it is the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. They condemn the Papacy because the Papacy teaches otherwise. Given their premises (which are seriously mistaken), this is a reasonable conclusion. Just as given Catholic premises, it’s a reasonable conclusion that Protestants are vile heretics and schismatics who have torn apart the Body of Christ (insofar as this is possible). I’m grateful that most Protestants and most Catholics don’t go to these extremes. But I can understand (though not agree with) those who do.

Edwin

 

[Steven_Merten]

Contarini:

One or two well-meaning posters have made such appeals, but I had the impression that they were Catholics. At any rate, surely you are not seriously claiming that either I or “IsFatherWrong” have done any such thing? On the contrary, we are begging and pleading with tears and mighty supplications for you to look more closely at Luther’s theology. But alas, all we ever seem to get (with the laudable exception of CatholicDude) is the endless, unthinging repetition of two or three out-of-context quotations. Do you seriously call this “looking closely” at Luther’s theology?

You’re seriously distorting the truth here. I’m not objecting to Catholics condemning Luther. I’m objecting to Catholics misrepresenting Luther. Ecumenism is best served by the truth.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

I appologise. I read through the the “Luther read” thread again and realized I posted the wrong link. It was on a different link Luther quotes scripture from Jesus as his “opponent” , that I am also actively engaged in, that the conflict occurred, not the “Luther read” thread.

After rereading all posts I realize my error. Again, I humbly appologise for my error.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten

 

[Chris_LaRock]

My Lutheran Pastors have had nothing but positive things to say about Catholics. I don’t see where this assumption is coming from that Lutherans are that hate filled.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Chris LaRock:

My Lutheran Pastors have had nothing but positive things to say about Catholics. I don’t see where this assumption is coming from that Lutherans are that hate filled.

Read the original post, he never did say or assume that all Lutherans were hate filled, in fact he says just the opposite but asks for a clarification. It’s no surprise that Luther had a bad taste for the papacy and probably considered the pope to be the antichrist. But, just because Luther was also anti-Semetic too, doesn’t mean every Lutheran today is.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Semper Fi:

Read the original post, he never did say or assume that all Lutherans were hate filled, in fact he says just the opposite but asks for a clarification. It’s no surprise that Luther had a bad taste for the papacy and probably considered the pope to be the antichrist. But, just because Luther was also anti-Semetic too, doesn’t mean every Lutheran today is.

I agree. I never meant to imply that this post was saying anything negative.

 

[kamz]

Chris LaRock:

My Lutheran Pastors have had nothing but positive things to say about Catholics. I don’t see where this assumption is coming from that Lutherans are that hate filled.

I know not all Lutherans have negative things to say but I’ve gone to my husbands church with him many times in the past (LCMS) and they have NOTHING good to say about Catholics, in fact my husband has stopped going all together and now is coming to mass with me, he is very disgusted with the pastor at his church and his total negative attitude over anyone who will not be LCMS, very sad, we live in a small rural town, it’s not like some big city with several LCMS churches to choose from, this is it, this is it unless he wants to drive one hour and hope that he can find a minister who doesn’t have this same attitude.
I know its not like this at all LCMS churches because we lived in a different town 7 yrs ago and his LCMS minister was so wonderful, he had the total opposite attitute about Catholics and always had wonderful things to say and always tried to talk about all the things we had in Common, so it is sad that you have your ones that go and mess up the whole thing

 

[Steven_Merten]

BruceDLimber:

Greetings, all!

I was a Lutheran for 23 years before becoming a Baha’i, and I can assure you that I never heard any such “anti-Christ” thing!

Indeed, on rare occasion we had some sort of joint activity with the local Catholics.

So I have no idea where this idea is coming from!

I will say, though, that I was in the (majority) Evangelical Lutheran Church. The Missouri Synod is a much smaller and more conservative group as I understand it, and I suppose it’s possible that they might hold such an extreme view. It’s certainly nothing mainstream Lutheran, though!

Regards,

Bruce

Hello Bruce,

I gave the thread a bump. What do you think?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

kamz:

I know not all Lutherans have negative things to say but I’ve gone to my husbands church with him many times in the past (LCMS) and they have NOTHING good to say about Catholics, in fact my husband has stopped going all together and now is coming to mass with me, he is very disgusted with the pastor at his church and his total negative attitude over anyone who will not be LCMS, very sad, we live in a small rural town, it’s not like some big city with several LCMS churches to choose from, this is it, this is it unless he wants to drive one hour and hope that he can find a minister who doesn’t have this same attitude.
I know its not like this at all LCMS churches because we lived in a different town 7 yrs ago and his LCMS minister was so wonderful, he had the total opposite attitute about Catholics and always had wonderful things to say and always tried to talk about all the things we had in Common, so it is sad that you have your ones that go and mess up the whole thing

I, for one, love and repect my catholic brethren. Even when they spit on me and treat me like trash.

 

[TinaK]

I want to point something out (and this is something I have been struggling with) that the Book of Concord is mainstream Lutheran belief. In order to be Lutheran one must subscribe to the BoC. This is not some little conservative radical group’s beliefs, it is fact. In the confirmation vows that one takes as a Lutheran (not just LCMS) the confirmand is asked “Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, and confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from them, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?” The small catechism is part of the BoC, check it out at bookofconcord.org/ In fact the point of the small catechism is to introduce Lutheran belief, the Large Catechism explains things in greater detail, and the confessions are the full explanations. That’s why no one should be surprised to see some of the stuff that shows up on Lutherquest. The office of the papacy as antichrist is mainstream belief. Some pastors admit it, many pastors don’t broadcast that they believe it, some will out right deny it, but it is part of their vows. (My question is, if you deny it (BoC & antichrist part), why do you take vows saying you uphold it? )

I know that someone is going to see me as hateful. But these are the ugly facts about Lutherans. I know, I am one and a lifer at that. My pastor doesn’t preach anti-Catholic sermons (in fact by many he is seen as a liberal), but ask him about Catholics privately and he will give you the whole Luther arguement from the Reformation. I know he wouldn’t run it on a Catholic, although I’m sure he did when his son became one. I heard his mother had to remind him that she was brought up Catholic and became Lutheran so she could marry his dad.

TinaK
Lifer Lutheran, 9+ generation German Lutheran at that

If only I could prove that my great-great grandma was Catholic…

 

[bapcathluth]

I was raised Lutheran–ALC–which has now been combined with the LCA and is called ELCA. This is the largest synod of Lutherans and the most liberal. We most definitely were never taught that the pope is the anti-Christ. We studied the catechism during confirmation, and we never read anything of that nature.

I am from Wisconsin. My small town had at least 10 Lutheran churches. The LCMS and the Wisconsin synod Lutherans used to feud and their ministers said entering one of the other Lutheran churches was like shaking hands with the devil. So, if they are saying it about other Lutherans, I guess the LCMS might say it about Catholics as well.

 

[Contarini]

Tina,

Bear in mind that many Protestants read the anathemas of the Council of Trent and conclude that it’s mainstream Catholicism to say that all Protestants are going to hell. No matter how often you explain that that’s not what anathema means (at least not today), they won’t listen. They can’t get past the word.

This is a somewhat similar case. Granted, it’s a bit different because of the specific identification of the papacy (Trent does not mention Luther by name, for instance). But the principle is the same. The papacy is condemned as “antichrist” because (in the minds of traditional Lutherans) the papacy obscured the Gospel. Most Lutherans have come to the conclusion that this was either a misunderstanding from the start or is no longer true. But they continue to hold to the doctrinal principle involved (well, I shouldn’t say that–many mainline folks get as far away from doctrinal principles of all kinds as possible–at least the more conservative ones do). That is to say, any person or institution who gets in the way of the Gospel of God’s forgiveness in Christ is doing the work of Antichrist.

I have to say that when I hear debates like this I’m very glad I’m not a Lutheran (or confessional Reformed). Anglican fuzziness has its problems, but at least we never drew up statements of faith naming specific institutions as Antichrist! (Even though probably most Anglicans in the 16th century thought the Pope was Antichrist.)

But the plain fact is that most Lutherans do not believe that the Papacy is antichrist, and those who do are not “mainline” as the term is normally used. The term “mainline” is problematic itself, because it’s come to be identified with the more liberal branches of most Protestant traditions (why, for instance, are Southern Baptists not mainline? They’re the largest Protestant denomination in the country?). “Mainline” may not always mean “mainstream” any more.

In the case of Lutherans, though, ELCA is still by far the largest Lutheran group. And it clearly does not hold, as a whole, that the papacy is antichrist. Perhaps it is being false to its own confessions. But that’s their problem, not yours or mine.

I’m sure you’ve encountered in anti-Catholic literature the tactic of using Trent or some other traditional Catholic source to argue that Vatican II is a hollow mockery and Catholics still want to persecute Protestants, or some such nonsense. I would like to suggest that applying the same tactics to Lutherans is not wise. Take Lutherans at face value as they are today. Let them worry about how to square their current position with their historic texts!

Edwin

P.S. Honesty compels me to admit that I’m not wholly consistent in this. When the historic texts are in favor of what I’d like Lutherans (or Reformed, or anyone else) to believe (as with regard to the Real Presence for instance), I’m liable to ignore what is actually being taught. Mea culpa!

 

[kidrome]

The Papacy Is The Anti Christ…study Ur Bible For Ur Self Instead Of Listening To What Others Tell U, U Will Learn A Lot More. Plus Yall Still Walk Around In Sin Cuz U Cant Have Ur Sins Forgiven By Man. John 14:6…i’am The Way The Truth And The Life,no Man May Cometh Unto The Father But By Me.

And He Wasnt Meaning The Pope.

 

[TinaK]

Edwin,

I should never post here while I’m in the midst of working on the family tree. It is more of a vine than a tree and scrambles my brain.:whacky:

You have valid points. “Mainline” is just a bad term to use with this. No, I have never in my life heard a pastor in a Lutheran church preach a sermon on the pope as antichrist. (Online is another story.) I remember hearing in confirmation class that Luther identified the office of the papacy as the antichrist, but never that the pope was the antichrist. However, even though it isn’t necessarily broadcast all over, it still is behind the doctrine. That’s what makes me say what I do. Whether or not it is being openly taught, that belief is still there and influencing people.

Most of my problem is that I come from a strong background of German Lutherans. The kind that lived by “Gerechtigkeit ist Gerechtigkeit!” There’s something to be said for people like my husband. He was baptized Catholic, then his parents quit going to church. He became Lutheran because of me but is very content to ignore what goes on around him. Unfortunately, I just can’t do that.

As for ELCA, it is a law unto itself anymore. I try to only look at what goes on there only when I need to because of something going on in Missouri.

Actually, “modern Lutheran” is a paradox. Everyone knows that Lutherans are a couple hundred years behind the times. (LCMS and WELS, anyway)

TinaK

 

[kamz]

this is a posting at lutherquest going on right now…

Michael,
I enjoy the fact that you have found Luther Quest. I am sorry that I swept you up with the Romasist crowd, and I apologize. As for the RC’s being Christians, I have no problem with that, but do you agree that they have many road blocks to their salvation in their belief system that could prevent them from being saved by our Lord. I especially am refering to the worship of Mary and the Saints, the notion they must buy their way into heaven with masses, good works, etc.
Michael , you must admit when they get to going it is is a little disquieting when Saint Rita, the Blessed Virgin Mother, etc are invoked more often than Jesus. Why not emphasize Our Lord who did all the the work to save us. The reason, Michel, they do not quote the Holy Scriptures is becasue they are of second importance to the “Traditions” which are the man made doctrines that Rome has created out of whole cloth. One especially galling contention the RC’s make is that the Bible was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church!!! That is not arrogance but damned arrogance.
Michael, you say that we should all get along in some many words. Fine. But what did you think of the Evangelical guy who was frozen out by a RC priest becasue he defended his position a little too strongly. In other words he didn’t back down. The RC church has done that for 1500 years, Michael. They either burn them or hide them in a monestery and shut them up. Things have not changed much since Jan Hus was burned at the Council of Constanz in the early 15th Century. They certainly have not changed since Luther’s time. He had to flee into hiding before the Pope could burn him.
While we are on Luther, Michael, The RC’s have a constant barage against Luther nearly every week. Remember the one in which Luther’s mother supposedly said to her son that she did not want to die in his new religion. That is a down right, bald faced lie, Michael. Do you how I know that. Because every Lutheran knows that the church was reformed by Martin Lauther. He did not set out to establish a new church like the Reformed did. He wanted to reform and purify the church back to the way it was in the first centruy when the Apostles were leading it under the directions of our Lord. We consider ourselves just as good catholics as Pope Benedict the XIV except we base our doctrine on the Holy Scripture that God wrote and compiled, not the bloody Romanist Church.
The RC’s on the Passion website are hypocites. One story that is my favorite is the Super-catholic woman who was the wife of a cop. She was pontificating that Luther taught Holy Communion was a symbol. Since I couldn’t get onto the website, I sent her an e-mail point out that Luther considered the elemnts of HC to be the real Body and Blood of Our Lord in,with and under the bread and wine. The priest does not have the power to change anything but his pants. It is becasue Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood. That is all we Lutheran Christians need to know and believe. What did Miss Super-catholic do. She dug into Luther’s life and tried to dig up as much dirt as she could. She was able becasue Luther was a sinner and not hiding behind the mask that he was a “Saint” to whom peop;le should worship and pray to. She zeroed into al aspects of his life and forgot the good he had done. But then the RC’s don’t see Luther did anything wrong because they are blind to the truth.
Stick around Michael. You will lern much from Lautherquest. And notice, Michael that the scripture flies like doves through our posts.

 

[Contarini]

Kamz,

The Reformed didn’t try to establish a new church either. In fact I’d argue that they paid a lot more attention to historical continuity and going back to the early Church than Luther did.

No one in their senses in the sixteenth century wanted to establish a new church. It was universally accepted that new was bad, at least when it came to religion!

Edwin