Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[Michael68]

But the majority of Lutherans disagree with you now it seems. It boils down to not who is right but who has the authority to determine who is right.
How do you as saying “I” represent any authority?
The Catholic Church has the authority given by Christ; not Luther.

Mary.

This is not debatable.

 

[ffg]

I have heard from preachers when I went to a fundamental Baptist church that since the Roman Pope is addressed as the Vicar of Christ, that means he is declaring himself to be in the place of Christ. So that means he is openly saying he is the anti-Christ.
Is this true? Why or why not.

I just want to say, thank you for your questions.

Many of them get a lot of action and have been good reads.

Keep on thinking them up!

Take care,

Mike

 

[MaryT777]

And to make this teaching and position palatable…

It is a Jekyll and Hyde position…and this allows Lutherans to hold the view as explained by above.

To me to say the office is antichrist and the person not in it is ludicrous, I agree.
It’s al so in direct contrast to the Smalcald articles.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

The Concord book which LCMS Pastors swear to at their ordination still contain this:

This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. 11] This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2:4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians.

(Smalcald Article)

Somehow there is either a development of doctrine to the OFFICE of the Papacy is AntiChrist or a different standard for the lay people. They need only believe the office is / AntiChrist and not the Pope himself as the Concord book reads for the LCMS Lutheran Pastors.

The interesting part is the majority of Lutherans have apparently come to realize or never did believe any such nonsense by Luther and do not believe currently either the office of the Pope or the Pope himself is AntiChrist. It has come to my attention that those of the Lutheran World Federation which include the ELCA don’t believe as such, StarWars here does not, and Pastor Kiesnik (sp)
does not either.

Thus only a few die hards left.

It’s a man made doctrine which Catholics reject and sadly had to excommunicate Luther for these and other heretical views.

Obviously viewing the office of the Pope or the Pope himself as AntChrist today impedes ecumenical dialogue.

Mary

It only seems to impede dialogue here at CAF, mainly because there are a few who choose to not listen when Lutherans explain it.

I am not aware of any Lutheran synod that believes that the pope has universal jurisdiction, or salvation is dependent on being in communion with the pope. If they do, then unity is a foregone conclusion.
Now, if they do not, and they just choose to change the language that expresses that disagreement, something I have said for years that I personally do not oppose, that’s fine. But the charge is the same, that there is no support from scripture or the councils of the early Church regarding these teachings regarding the supremacy of the pope. Let me know which Lutheran synod or church accepts these teachings of the papacy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But the majority of Lutherans disagree with you now it seems. It boils down to not who is right but who has the authority to determine who is right.
How do you as saying “I” represent any authority?
The Catholic Church has the authority given by Christ; not Luther.

Mary.

I suspect that you are wrong, that the majority of Lutherans now accept the universal jurisdiction of the pope, and that all human creatures must be in unity with him in order to be saved.
But God did not give universal jurisdiction to one bishop, even the one who has primacy. God never said that we must be in communion with the pope in order to be saved.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I suspect that you are wrong, that the majority of Lutherans now accept the universal jurisdiction of the pope, and that all human creatures must be in unity with him in order to be saved.
But God did not give universal jurisdiction to one bishop, even the one who has primacy. God never said that we must be in communion with the pope in order to be saved.

Jon

Jon,

I am not talking about universal jurisdiction of the Pope etc and you know that.

I am speaking specifically to the AntiChrist proclamations.

Mary.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I suspect that you are wrong, that the majority of Lutherans now accept the universal jurisdiction of the pope, and that all human creatures must be in unity with him in order to be saved.
But God did not give universal jurisdiction to one bishop, even the one who has primacy. God never said that we must be in communion with the pope in order to be saved.

Jon

If the Pope is right and teaching the truth in it’s fullness, must all be in communion with him to be saved? Or can anyone be half or three-quarters true and be ok? Or is 25% true good enough? Or is everyone true and it’s ok to be not in communion?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

If the Pope is right and teaching the truth in it’s fullness, must all be in communion with him to be saved? Or can anyone be half or three-quarters true and be ok? Or is 25% true good enough? Or is everyone true and it’s ok to be not in communion?

God never gave the pope the ability to save anyone.

Now back to the topic .

 

[SyroMalankara]

God never gave the pope the ability to save anyone.

Now back to the topic .

Is that so? I assume you’ve read the Bible - did Peter “save” anyone? Did any of the Apostles or disciples? There’s your answer.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;13335392]And to make this teaching and position palatable…

When did a Lutheran on this thread or any other on CAF say it was a more palatable position? Just link the post.

It isn’t more palatable. But it is also not the same as the Revelation teachings of dispensationalists, which Lutherans are not.
It also isn’t more palatable than the Unam Sanctam teaching to which it is a response, or the Trent charges of heresy and anathemas.

It is a Jekyll and Hyde position…and this allows Lutherans to hold the view as explained by above.

Is it also a Jekyll and Hyde position that allows the Catholic Church to say, on the one hand, that I am condemned because I am not in communion with the Bishop or Rome, but on the other hand that this is okay as long as I am ignorant? Really? You want people to understand and explore the Catholic faith, but as soon as one does, if they don’t become Catholic they are automatically condemned?
How am I doing Pablope? Am I fairly representing the Catholic teaching? Isn’t this what it boils down to? To be saved while not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I have to ensure I remain “invincibly ignorant” of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Or would it be better that a good Catholic explains it? And if so, what’s good for the goose…
I’ll accept what a good Catholic tells me about their faith. I’ve done it for years here. Let me know when you’ll reciprocate.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

If the Pope is right and teaching the truth in it’s fullness, must all be in communion with him to be saved? Or can anyone be half or three-quarters true and be ok? Or is 25% true good enough? Or is everyone true and it’s ok to be not in communion?

If what the pope is teaching about salvation is true, and in many ways he does, I can believe that those in communion with him can be saved.
OTOH, I also believe if we differ on this one particular issue, regarding the pope supremacy over the Church Militant, that this is Church dividing, a sad state indeed, but not one that calls into question the salvation of believers, be they Catholic, Lutheran, or others.

Jon

 

[pablope]

To me to say the office is antichrist and the person not in it is ludicrous, I agree.
It’s al so in direct contrast to the Smalcald articles.

Mary.

Maybe the Bishop of Rome is indeed the Anti0-Christ:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08

Those who consider the Roman Church to be the Beast of the Apocalypse, and the Pope as Antichrist, find their answer in Newman. Giving an account of his intellectual attitude towards 1839, he explains how, from his Protestant infancy, this persuasion had remained as a stain on his imagination: "As regards my reason, "he continues, “I began in 1833 to form theories on the subject, which tended to obliterate it; yet by 1838 I had got no further than to consider Antichrist as not the Church of Rome, but the spirit of the old pagan city, the fourth monster of Daniel, which was still alive, and which had corrupted the Church which was planted there. Soon after this indeed, and before my attention was directed to the Monophysite controversy, I underwent a great change of opinion. I saw that, from the nature of the case, the true Vicar of Christ must ever to the world seem like Antichrist, and be stigmatized as such, because a resemblance must ever exist between an original and a forgery; and thus the fact of such a calumny was almost one of the notes of the Church” (Apologia Pro Vita Sua, ch. iii).

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I am not talking about universal jurisdiction of the Pope etc and you know that.

I am speaking specifically to the AntiChrist proclamations.

Mary.

The charge of antiChrist IS about the claim of universal jurisdiction. The charge is that
this papal claim is opposed to Christ’s teaching. So, if you are talking about the charge, you are talking about the claim. Without the claim, there is no charge.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Maybe the Bishop of Rome is indeed the Anti0-Christ:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08

Those who consider the Roman Church to be the Beast of the Apocalypse, and the Pope as Antichrist, find their answer in Newman. Giving an account of his intellectual attitude towards 1839, he explains how, from his Protestant infancy, this persuasion had remained as a stain on his imagination: "As regards my reason, "he continues, “I began in 1833 to form theories on the subject, which tended to obliterate it; yet by 1838 I had got no further than to consider Antichrist as not the Church of Rome, but the spirit of the old pagan city, the fourth monster of Daniel, which was still alive, and which had corrupted the Church which was planted there. Soon after this indeed, and before my attention was directed to the Monophysite controversy, I underwent a great change of opinion. I saw that, from the nature of the case, the true Vicar of Christ must ever to the world seem like Antichrist, and be stigmatized as such, because a resemblance must ever exist between an original and a forgery; and thus the fact of such a calumny was almost one of the notes of the Church” (Apologia Pro Vita Sua, ch. iii).

Which one? Pope Francis? Pope Emeritus Benedict? One of the popes who have since passed away? They can’t be the Antichrist. They’re dead. Can’t have two of them. Which one of the living ones?

Answer? From a Lutheran perspective, neither, because it isn’t a charge against a man, but the office regarding a specific teaching. Pope Francis is not THE Antichrist. Pope Emeritus Benedict is not THE Antichrist.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Which one? Pope Francis? Pope Emeritus Benedict? One of the popes who have since passed away? They can’t be the Antichrist. They’re dead. Can’t have two of them. Which one of the living ones?

Answer? From a Lutheran perspective, neither, because it isn’t a charge against a man, but the office regarding a specific teaching. Pope Francis is not THE Antichrist. Pope Emeritus Benedict is not THE Antichrist.

Jon

I’m confused on your position here , earlier on this thread you seemed to oppose the pope as the antichrist , now you seem to agree for a modified form of that idea , which is your view?

 

[pablope]

When did a Lutheran on this thread or any other on CAF say it was a more palatable position? Just link the post.

It is my personal observation, from your or other explanations and the actual Smalcald Article…re…“This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist,…” as compared to saying…“and not the individual men who have held…”

It also isn’t more palatable than the Unam Sanctam teaching to which it is a response, or the Trent charges of heresy and anathemas.

 

[JonNC]

I’m confused on your position here , earlier on this thread you seemed to oppose the pope as the antichrist , now you seem to agree for a modified form of that idea , which is your view?

Here’s the response you just replied to:

Which one? Pope Francis? Pope Emeritus Benedict? One of the popes who have since passed away? They can’t be the Antichrist. They’re dead. Can’t have two of them. Which one of the living ones?

Answer? From a Lutheran perspective, neither, because it isn’t a charge against a man, but the office regarding a specific teaching. Pope Francis is not THE Antichrist. Pope Emeritus Benedict is not THE Antichrist.

I’m pointing out the fallacy of the dispensationalists. It isn’t our claim. No pope, living or dead, is or was the Antichrist. That’s not the Lutheran teaching.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;13336168]

It is my personal observation, from your or other explanations and the actual Smalcald Article…re…“This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist,…” as compared to saying…“and not the individual men who have held…”

Have you seen the explanation for the LCMS website? If you have, then you know what the teaching is.

Yes, it seems the reformers focused on one line of the Bull…developed their understanding on that one line…without bothering to read the context of the whole bull.

How can you explain that one line, and by the way, many Catholic here believe that one line as I portray it, as meaning any other than what Pope Boniface wrote? No salvation outside the Church. Right?

I think the context has been explained adequately.

And I am willing to accept said explanation.

I do not think Catholic Church has condemned anyone to hell.

That’s not what Pope Boniface said. But see, Pablope, I believe you.

We pray for everyone’s salvation.

As do we.

I understand your explanation Jon…and why you hold onto it…and what the Smalcald actually says…hence my observations.

And my explanation is my synods understanding of it, and I feel no obligation to defend a false presentation of it, any more than you are obligated to defend a false presentation of your communion’s teachings. I know what the CC says now, and I can read what Unam sanctam actually says, but I’ll accept the CC’s modern explanation.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Which one? Pope Francis? Pope Emeritus Benedict? One of the popes who have since passed away? They can’t be the Antichrist. They’re dead. Can’t have two of them. Which one of the living ones?

Answer? From a Lutheran perspective, neither, because it isn’t a charge against a man, but the office regarding a specific teaching. Pope Francis is not THE Antichrist. Pope Emeritus Benedict is not THE Antichrist.

Jon

You should read the whole article, Jon:

In context, the preceeding paragraph says this, beginning at Paragraph 12:ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08

EXCURSUS VII: THE PRIMACY OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL
Paragraph 12:

“The perfect circle of the one universal Church requires a unique centre, not so much for its perfection as for its very existence. The Church upon earth, called to gather in the multitude of the nations, must, if she is to remain an active society, possess a definite universal authority to set against national divisions; if she is to enter the current of history and undergo continual change and adaptation in her external circumstances and relationships and yet preserve her identity, she requires an authority essentially conservative but nevertheless active, fundamentally unchangeable though outwardly adaptable; and finally, if she is set amidst the frailty of man to assert herself in reaction against all the powers of evil, she must be equipped with an absolutely firm and impregnable foundation, stronger than the gates of hell. … Christ’s words could not remain without their effect in Christian history; and the principal phenomenon in Christian history must have an adequate cause in the word of God. Where then have Christ’s words to Peter produced a corresponding effect except in the Chair of Peter? Where does the Chair find an adequate cause except in the promise made to Peter?” (Russia and the Universal Church, p. 107).

 

[Tomyris]

Beating a dead horse. All the flavor has gone out of the chewing gum, all the arguments have been presented on both sides, and it is repetitive.