Do all Lutherans view the Pope as the Anti-Christ?

[Mannyfit75]

You would have to debate that on the merits of the claim. To reiterate what Jon said, I do not see the Pope as an apocalyptic end times figure as portrayed in, say, the Left-Behind series. Nor would I say Pope Benedict XVI is the Anti-Christ. The papacy is the Anti-Christ and fits the biblical model of 2 Thessalonians.

No. It does not fit. The Papacy or the Office of the Papacy is founded in Matthew 16:18. It does not fit the role of the Anti-Christ. The Papacy itself Office of Peter. The Papacy itself is based on the Keys of the Kingdom that Jesus himself gave to Simon Peter.

The model of the 2 Thessalonians is the denial of the authority given to the Peter by Jesus Christ. If you had read the entire context of the Scripture, the passage of 2 Thessalonians is taken out of context.

If the interpretation by Lutheran is correct, which is not the writings of the Early Church Fathers would also conclude the same thing.

Here are some quotes of the Early Church Fathers,

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…" Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

“For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defense concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all.” Athanasius, Dionysius of Rome, 13 (A.D. 352).

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

“For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

“No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval.” Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], About Council at Arminum, Epistle 1 (A.D. 371).

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

“But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?” Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus, 1:47 (A.D. 378).

“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion.” Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

 

[Mannyfit75]

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

Not even the Eastern Orthodox Church believe the Office of the Papacy to be the Anti-Christ.

This belief of doctrine of the Papacy as the Anti-Christ was made up during the Reformation, which itself has Anti-Catholic beliefs.

No Early Church Fathers, Greek or Latin interpret the passage in Thess as being the Office of the Papacy.

 

[RC_Matt]

Again, the Lutheran church does NOT teach this - just because of a few extremists doesn’t mean lutherans are running around calling the Pope the antichrist.

After going back and reading the posts, I want to point out incase some catholics didn’t know, TriuneUnity is from the Wisconsin sect of Luteranism - there are 3 synods - the Wisconsin senate (strict - you practically can’t even enter into the church unless you belong to that senate), the Missouri Senate (which I am - this is between the 2 extremes) and the evangelical senate (which is liberal).

I am not attacking you triune - I am not meaning it to come off that way. Maybe the wisconsin senate does believe the Pope is the antichrist, but I just want the catholics and other religions out there to not lump the other two synods in with that belief.

I was really hoping you were right, but, unfortunately, your Lutheran Missouri Synod teaches the same thing: “As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones……. Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is the very Antichrist.” This is from the official lcms.org website, so it is the valid canon.

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579

As far as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is concerned, I was unable to find any definitive dogma on their website. They rationalize Luther’s teaching on the subject by putting it in the context of the time, but neither deny nor affirm it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I know you will correct me if I’m wrong and I hope you do. Here is how I understand what has been posted so far.

The papacy (the office, not the man) is the AntiChrist because there were bad popes in the past who blew it so now we can’t trust the office or its authority.

Correct, not correct?

Not correct. More along the lines that the popes introduced false teaching which was aided by bishops within the Magisterium. Bad conduct by individual Popes wouldn’t really rise to the level of condemning the office. It’s the doctrines OF the office that are the problem.

If correct, do Lutherans believe there should be no papal office at all and never should have been?

We recognize that the bishop of Rome is a perfectly valid office for the diocese of Rome and there have been fantastic Popes, such as Gregory the Great, whose feast day just passed.

Who then, is the successor to Peter?

Every Christian who confesses thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.

Has it become the AntiChrist? How does that fit in with the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church? Wouldn’t the AntiChrist heading the Church be Hell prevailing?

Since we don’t see any evidence of succession from Peter as a matter of apostolic authority beyond what any apostolic church confesses, this isn’t an issue. The Gates of Hell will never prevail against the universal Church. That the universal Church is specifically located within the Roman diocese doesnt follow from that, though

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Papacy

The Office of the Papacy is the office of Peter. It is implied in Matthew 16:18.

The Invocation of the saints

The invocation of the saints have been practiced since the beginning of Christianity and it deep in Christian history. The Eastern Orthodox Church venerate the saints as much as Catholics do.

Justification

The Lutheran concept of the justification based on “FAITH ALONE” is unheard of. Not even the Early Church Fathers believe in the concept. Martin Luther distorted the Bible by adding the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. No one has the right to add or remove anything in the Bible. He added alone to justify “faith alone” in Roman 3:28.

The doctrine of the Mass

The doctrine of the Mass or Divine Liturgy has been foretold in Old Testament and fulflled in the NT.

The Mass itself is Paschal on it’s origin.

The ancient Jews had a special ritual meal called the Todah (Hebrew: thanks) (pronounce: Taw-DAH). Although the Todah sacrificed an animal, it was greater than other animal sacrifices because it added the suffering of one’s own life. David wrote, Ps 40:6,8 “Burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not required. … I delight to do Thy will, O my God; Thy law is within my heart.” Again, David wrote, Ps 51:17 “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit.” And again, Ps 69:30 “I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This will please the Lord more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs.” Isaiah spoke the words of God, Is 1:11 “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams.” God called instead for a baptism: Is 1:16 “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from My eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good.”

The seventy elders who went up with Moses to see God offered the Todah: Ex 24:11 “They beheld God, and ate and drank.” Twelve centuries later, twelve apostles beheld God, and ate and drank as Jesus prepared to offer His Todah sacrifice: Lk 22:19 “He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it…” From the beginning, Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity has been called Holy Eucharist (Greek: eucharistia, thanksgiving).

The ancient rabbis believed that when the Messiah would come all sacrifices except the Todah would cease, but the Todah would continue for all eternity. In 70 AD the Temple fell to earth and all of the bloody animal sacrifices stopped. Only the Todah remains, the eucharistia, the Final Sacrifice at which the last words spoken are Todah l’Adonai, “Thanks be to God.”

Jesus was pre-figured in the original Passover, when God commanded that Moses tell the Israelites, Ex 12:5-6 “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male … the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening,” as Jesus the Lamb of God was crucified in dim light. Mt 27:45 God commanded, Ex 12:8 “They shall eat the flesh that night,” and told Moses, Ex 12:12 “I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt.” But He promised, Ex 12:13 “The blood shall be a sign for you … when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Most of us know that the original Passover pre-figured the Body and Blood of the crucified Lamb. But there is more to the Passover story.

Pharaoh commanded the death of every Hebrew male infant in Egypt, Ex 1:22 but death passed over Moses. Ex 2:5-10 Twelve centuries later, before Herod commanded the death of every Hebrew male infant in Bethlehem, Mt 2:13 death passed also over Jesus.

The Jewish celebration of Passover has from the beginning been an experience of exile and return, as its participants re-live the experience of the desert and encounter with God. After Jesus was crucified the apostles also experienced a sense of exile in the desert followed by a transforming encounter with God. In this way Jesus is spiritually present in the entire Seder.

The Seder table is different in many ways from the Jewish table setting on all other nights, as the ma nishtano acknowledges. God chose a young Jewish girl, a virgin who lived in Nazareth, to begin the rest of the story. Mary began her own Seder each year as Jews have since time immemorial, by lighting candles to give festive light to the table. Mary also gave us Jesus, the Jn 8:12 light of the world. Jesus has been at every Seder from the first one to this very day, spiritually present in the bread, wine, and lamb.

Melchizedek pre-figured Christ. When Abram returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer, Gn 14:18 “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High …” to bless Abram, pre-figuring the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Mass. The Book of Hebrews tells us, Heb 7:2 “[Melchizedek] is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem [shalom], that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.”

((continue))

These would be our main disagreements. There are other issues of course, but that would take a hundred years to type.

Luther had no right to to separate himself from the Body of Christ. who gave him gave him such authority? Besides, when there is any disagreements, the Bible says, “take it to the Church.” The Bible did not say, if you disagree, split and make your own Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."

-“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]

Lutheran doctrine is un-Biblical and it is not taught by ECF. It’s doctrine is a product of the Reformation of the 1500s. Besides, if their interpretation is correct, the Holy Spirit is playing mind games, by changing doctrines. However, we know from Scripture itself that God is unchanging. His ways is not our ways and our ways is not His ways. He is not the Spirit of contradictions.

 

[RC_Matt]

It may not sit well with you, RC, and really, I won’t debate you over it. It is what we teach and what we affirm. I cannot and will not change this belief in order to avoid offense. With the routine way in which Catholics here and elsewhere flippantly call us heretics and disobedient to Christ, my last concern is whether our statements on the papacy don’t sit well with Roman Catholicism. I believe it to be truth and must obey God rather than men. It isn’t intended for offense but to maintain the truth of the gospel.

Not to worry, no offense taken. I’ve listened to the same sort of material from Mormons all my life; I don’t debate them over it and I’m not interested in debating you either. I really don’t care what you believe. I’d always held the Lutheran tradition in very high regard; I just never realized that you teach the same sort of dogma they do regarding the Catholic Church. In all fairness, at least they’re trying to back off from it, while you’re reiterating it. Reading the Lutheran websites was a real eye-opener for me, thanks for the education.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Lutheran website only proves to show that Lutheran religion is man-made and not of God. After all, it was name by Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, who was just a priest not as bishop. He had no right to do what he did.