Does the ELCA Still Teach That the Pope Is the Antichrist?

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Is this anything like the Westminster confession? Assume they are different but cut from the same cloth.

(I am going off memory so may have the word wrong)

The pope being the biblical Antichrist was an uncontested belief among nearly all the Reformers. The original Westminster Confession of 1646 taught that the pope was the Antichrist. However, the American Presbyterians removed that from their version of the WCF in 1789. That was over two centuries ago. I think Lutherans have some catching up to do.

Mary, why the anger? The LCMS are fellow Christians. Charity goes further is bridging divisions than suspicion. all I’m saying is a typical group of Lutherans don’t sit around judging and condemning the pope or anyone else.

I don’t think Mary’s post sounds angry at all. First of all, Lutherans have judged definitively that the pope is the Antichrist. Secondly, it is a matter of fact that teaching the pope is the Antichrist is an obstacle to agreement since Catholics believe that the pope is not the Antichrist.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

Thanks for this Erich, because it support our contention that when we use the term, we only mean to say that the authority claimed by the Roman Pontiff is opposed to Christ.

Jon

The authority claimed by the Roman Pontiff comes from Matthew 16:18-19.

18 “And I tell you that you are Kaypha, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

[JonNC]

=QNDNNDQDCE;11587826]When I said that Lutherans teach the doctrine forcefully, what I meant primarily was that the Lutheran confessions teach it forcefully, and modern Lutherans, because they subscribe to these same confessions, at the very least implicitly (I have no idea what your average LCMS pastor preaches from the pulpit every Sunday) teach the doctrines that the confessions teach with identical force.

Understood. I interpreted “forcefully” as what we see in some of the modern-day anti-Catholic circles. Certainly, it remains part of the teaching of pan-Lutheranism, because the claims of the Roman Pontiff remain.

I don’t think your clarifications on the LCMS position do anything to put Catholics at ease.

Well, of course not. It was meant to clarify. We aren’t particularly comfortable with the anathamas of Trent, or the charges of heresy. ISTM for us to even think and speak of our Christian siblings in this way should make us very uncomfortable, and drive us to repentance before God, and fervent efforts toward reconciliation with each other.

What does it mean to say that “only the office of the pope is the Antichrist, not any individual pope?” To me, this seems to merely say that popes are not the Antichrist by virtue of their human identity, but by their office so all the popes have inhabited the office of the Antichrist. That might sound like a moderate thing to say to Lutheran ears, but is not very reassuring to a Catholic.

tat’s pretty much it. We are not in the position of judging the heart of any man, regarding their faith. The issue isn’t the faith of Pope Francis, but the teachings of the office as described in the Treatise. Honestly, it isn’t intended to be or not be moderate.

Thi

s means that all the popes for over a millennium have all been individually, in Luther’s words, the Antichrist. Although we do not think the biblical Antichrist necessarily has horns, cloven hooves etc., the Bible does speak about the Antichrist as Erich pointed out, and what does any of this have to do with the papacy?

That’s precisely NOT what we are saying.

Does the papacy deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh? Does the papacy deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh? Does the papacy deny the Father and the Son? Did the papacy go out from us? On the contrary, if anything, St. John must be speaking of the Lutherans, since they were the ones who went out from the Roman Catholics who were before them. Yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that Martin Luther was “the very Antichrist” even if there is a stronger biblical argument for teaching that. It is puzzling for a modern observer to see Lutherans insisting on this as the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. The three points from the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope are nowhere stated in the Bible.

But the CC does teach that we believe in heresy. It is pretty awful stuff for Christians to say about each other, isn’t it.

Finally, I do not think you have fully represented the confessional teaching on the Papacy. The confessions say some pretty extreme things about the pope, not the least of which being that he is “the very Antichrist,” which has no basis in Holy Writ, as Erich clearly established (it is interesting that the Smalcald Articles do not even bother to appeal to any verses mentioning the Antichrist to support such an outrageous claim). For example, Luther says,

For all his bulls and books are extant, in which he roars like a lion (as the angel in Rev. 12 depicts him, [crying out] that no Christian can be saved unless he obeys him and is subject to him in all things that he wishes, that he says, and that he does. All of which amounts to nothing less than saying: Although you believe in Christ, and have in Him [alone] everything that is necessary to salvation, yet it is nothing and all in vain unless you regard [have and worship] me as your god, and be subject and obedient to me. And yet it is manifest that the holy Church has been without the Pope for at least more than five hundred years, and that even to the present day the churches of the Greeks and of many other languages neither have been nor are yet under the Pope.
-Smalcald Articles 2.4.4

If we turn to Revelation 12 we will see that Dr. Luther is identifying the pope with “the great dragon… that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan.” So the pope (or his office?) is Satan himself according the “biblical” teaching of the Lutheran confessions. At the very least, this comes across as incredibly immature.

This is why I said that Erich’s post supports the understanding of “anti-Christ” that we teach. It isn’t that of an end-times beast that a dispensationalist might speak of. Popes who have died couldn’t have been that anyway. They’re dead. The teaching only relates to those things I quoted, and it goes away (just like the charges of heresy against us would go away) when we come to reconciliation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Oh, good grief, he specifically said: “Note that while the term pope is used,** it is in the generic**, and not referring to any one particular pope. It is the office (these beliefs about it) that we consider to be against the teachings of Christ.”

Hope it isn’t to late to say thank you for this.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Sounds reasonable for either synod.

Let’s be clear here. I was raised LCA/ELCA by a pastor. Beyond the superficial (but important) disagreements between the synods, and the further away one gets from St. Louis and Chicago, the more obvious our similarities and common confession becomes. Was it Churchill that said England and America were divided by a common language? A walk through the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Catechisms would reveal rather strong unanimity of belief.

Jon

We uphold Augustana with ‘From Conflict to Communion’ to become united Catholics. The ELCA is a sister Synod of the LWF. And would never speak of “Antichrist”.

 

[JonNC]

We uphold Augustana with ‘From Conflict to Communion’ to become united Catholics. The ELCA is a sister Synod of the LWF. And would never speak of “Antichrist”.

Hi EC,
Perhaps you have something more specific, but I found this on the ELCA website. The bolding is mine.

The Book of Concord includes seven writings composed by Luther and others. Lutheran churches around the world have affirmed these writings, and the ELCA affirms them in its governing documents. Lutherans most often use them in teaching — for example, when the Small Catechism is used in basic Christian instruction, or when the Augsburg Confession is used to teach women and men preparing for ministry. - See more at: elca.org/Faith/ELCA-Teaching/Scripture-Creeds-Confessions#sthash.HBGzh7as.dpuf

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi EC,
Perhaps you have something more specific, but I found this on the ELCA website. The bolding is mine.

Jon

So long as it is not contrary to Scripture. And I would add empathy for those actively involved in ecumenical work.

 

[gcnuss]

The first time I ever witnessed a Lutheran ordination was about 8 years ago in our LCMS parish. I never witnessed one in the LCA/ELCA, in part because I was raised in a parish whose pastor also happened to be my dad.

I would defer to Pastor Gary on how that proceeds.

Jon,

At ordination, the following questions are asked of the ordinand. The expected response to each is “I will, and I ask God to help me.”

Before almighty God, to whom you must give account, and in the presence of this congregation, I ask: Will you assume tis office, believing that the church’s call is God’s call to the ministry of Word and Sacrament?

The Church in which you are to be ordained confesses that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are the norm of its faith and life. We accept, teach, and confess the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds. We also acknowledge the Lutheran confessions as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures. Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and these creeds and confessions?

Will you be diligent in your study of the Holy Scriptures and in your use of the means of grace: Will you pray for God’s people, nourish them with the Word and Holy Sacraments, and lead them by your own example in faithful service and holy living?

Will you give faithful witness in the world, that God’s love may be known in all that you do?

These questions were asked of me when I was ordained.

There are further admonitions about what is expected.