Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[MaryT777]

Hi Mary,

First of all, there is no way that any Lutheran here is going to touch my intra-Lutheran Council suggestion with a 10 foot pole. They are just as opposed to each other as they are to us, well - almost. The idea that they could ‘negotiate doctrine’ with those “other Lutherans” is ludicrous to each group. In fact, that Council is the only thing that could repair the self-inflicted damage that they have done to the unity of the Lutheran brand. Just watch, nobody is going to respond to that proposal. Better to simply complain about how the Catholic Church wont bend to their will. We really should jettison those ‘extra 5 Sacraments’ you know. That and a couple of dozen other meaningless issues and we could take the Holy Eucharist in an ELCA church. The LCMS still wouldn’t but we could.

The True Reformers of the Church actually STAYED in the Church and worked from within to improve it. Right from the very beginning, Luther was committed to bringing the Church down. The problem was that he had so little foresight that he didn’t realize that he was going to have to build some other kind of organization to put in its place. The result of that lack of planning ability is - yep you guessed it - Protestantism, in which nobody knows how many doctrinally competing and conflicting denominations there really are. (Its a LOT).

God Bless You Mary, Topper

I think the intra Lutheran council is a spot on idea. I just recently found out from StarWars poster that you don’t need to believe the Pope is in the seat of/is the antiChrist to be a confessional Lutheran so I am curious as to which Church “body” synod Star wars is in
or just a general list of which Lutheran reject this if this poster does not care to state what type of Lutheran he/she is. I can only think of the ELCA but the other posters here state they are not confessional in the real sense of the word . (If I understand correctly)

I would like to know the specific reasons they reject it. I do believe K who posted here as a Lutheran Pastor said his communion did not believe it. I wish I had asked him while the topic was there why he does not believe it but I might guess it’s simply because he rejects the standard answers form those that do where they list their grudges about the Pope

Maybe if there was an intra Lutheran Council they could uniformly reject such a preposterous notion regarding the Pope. That said I personally don’t think anyone would agree to any sort of final authority or agree to a majority vote but I could be wrong

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Topper , Since when do we not say he went to far with the course language, he made mistakes we know that , we know he wasn’t at the best of health , but for some reason you want to disqualify him from being a true reformer just because of his mistakes, that is the ridiculous claim, and really , questioning the intelligence of believers who view the pope as the antichrist , really , that view is not garbage , they take that view because of his usurping of power not given to him by God , and in their view , he’s taken so much power , the label of antichrist is the only one that fits , is it a legitimate view yes, is it the right view , no , not necessarily , and if we wish to debate it , debate it point by point .

Keep the faith , StarWarsfan .

The Catholic Church itself and not just Topper disqualify Luther as a reformer and instead excommunicated him as a heretic. We had hoped he would repent before his death but alas it does not seem as though he did.

Mary.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Consider the source! The Pope is the Vicar of Christ because Christ gave him authority on earth to teach and speak in his name by the power of the keys.

If I have a business, and give a person authority over it, that no more makes that person to have power over me, nor my business.

Where did the Pope ever tell people to address him as God when they pray, or claim to have power over God. Which is what you seem to be saying you were told.

The Pope has power from God to lead us, and teach us the truth. He has no power on his own, only power given to him by God to teach and preach in his name. He has never claimed to be in the place of God which would make him equal. He only claims to have the power of the Holy Spirit given to him by God until God returns to protect the Church of Christ.

His promise to God is to lead all men into truth that is revealed to him by God.

 

[pablope]

Topper , Since when do we not say he went to far with the course language, he made mistakes we know that , we know he wasn’t at the best of health , but for some reason you want to disqualify him from being a true reformer just because of his mistakes, that is the ridiculous claim, and really

I do not think it is a ridiculous claim at all, when compared to Catherine of Siena or Francis of Assisi. These reformers healed schisms within the Church, not cause a split in the Church and the splitting of altars…and they did not get excommunicated for telling the Pope to reform.

Look at really what your dear Reformation brought about:

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

But one key difference separated these Catholic voices from the Protestant Reformers: The Catholics believed that the Church had her teachings right. She just needed to actually live them. The Catholics believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and other sacraments, in the Scriptures, in the saints, and in the Church’s historic doctrines offered an authentic, all-encompassing Christian way of life sufficient to sanctify human existence—if it was actually embraced and shorn of its abuses.

The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism…The Reformers’ stress on sola scriptura sought to close the gap between Christian preaching and practice. But it failed at that, while opening a Pandora’s Box of new problems. Competing interpretations of Scripture actually intensified the confusion. Lutherans read Scripture one way, Calvinists another, with varieties of Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, and Quakers veering off into options beyond counting.

, questioning the intelligence of believers who view the pope as the antichrist , really , that view is not garbage , they take that view because of his usurping of power not given to him by God , and in their view , he’s taken so much power ,

 

[Topper17]

Sometimes, excessive. As were some of his opponents.
Is that the model of dialogue you think we should follow?

First of all, you suggest that Luther was sometimes excessive and that so were some of his opponents. I think that this statement will be misleading to people who don’t know the history as well as you and I do. Unsurprisingly your statement would tend to make Luther look better than he deserves to and his Catholic opponents look worse than they deserve to. It all has to do with the degree of magnitude Jon, a concept which seems ‘difficult’ for some reason.

As you know, in the past I have stated that Luther was the most hateful Christian Theologian in Christian history, with his ridiculous ‘pope as being the antichrist’ as being only one small portion of the total evidence. Along with that statement, I have in the past issued a challenge to anyone who wanted to offer up a different name along with a ‘selection’ of their competing texts. Nobody has ever taken me up on my offer, which I presume is because they don’t want to see their candidate’s much less hateful writings compared to Luther’s, which would of course grant him the ‘crown’.

It reminds me of how three or four times now you have ‘volunteered’ John Eck as being just as anti-Jewish or as anti-semitic as Luther. In fact, Luther was at least 100 times worse than Eck or anybody else for that matter, and yet you volunteer Eck up routinely, while refusing to offer up even a whole sentence of Eck’s offending writings. I have a problem with that. As you know from past encounters, I consider this to be smearing Eck while at the same time not being willing to put up any evidence.

As for the model of dialogue I think we should follow, it goes something like this:

I think we should openly and honestly ask and answer direct, important, questions and points and that we should do this in a charitable manner. As I mentioned in a recent post, you would be surprised at my ‘style’, when this kind of dialogue actually takes place. In fact, when I realized that you had actually answered one of my long standing questions, my ‘style’ (always an issue for you) changed completely.

I really want to dialogue openly and honestly Jon, but do get frustrated when I can’t get a direct answer to a direct question. You might have noticed that I tend to get a little testy when I feel like I am being jerked around. Of course, as you know, I am never really being jerked around, but sometimes I mistakenly believe that I am. The two recent posts where you will notice a ‘style’ that might be ‘acceptable’ were posts number 141 and 142. In these posts, I have respectfully offered up my thoughts about your comments about the Authority of your Confessions. If you would like, we can explore this issue and hopefully do it in a manner than we both find to be respectful but also honest.

If you believe that you have a compelling story to tell about why you personally hold to the Lutheran Confessions, I would think that you would welcome this opportunity. On the other hand, if you don’t think you can offer something that is persuasive or convincing, you will probably want to take a pass. Either way, the validity of those Confessional accusations regarding the papacy stand on the Authority of the Lutheran Confessions to make them. I realize that that is a LOT of chips on the table, but then, this is a search for the truth, and the truth is of maximal importance.

If you want to demonstrate the ‘model of dialogue’ that you referred to, I am game and will do my part.

Since you might seem to have missed posts 141 and 142, I am reposting them here:

I very much appreciate your response. Personally I believe that the whole ‘antichrist issue’ is wrapped up in the question of the actual authority of the Confession in which those accusations are found. Was that authority based on some kind of divine interaction with the Holy Spirit, or was it based merely on human opinion, or a human and therefore fallible interpretation of Scripture.

In fact, I did read your post number 53 and responded to it. Unfortunately I did not recognize it as being an actual answer as to the authority of your Confessions. Now that I know that you consider it to be an answer, I will address it in more detail. I will probably have to make some assumptions or fill in the gaps a little bit. If I do and you believe that I have misrepresented your position, please correct me specifically and exactly. [/OUOTE]

To be continued:

 

[Topper17]

First of all, you suggest that Luther was sometimes excessive and that so were some of his opponents. I think that this statement will be misleading to people who don’t know the history as well as you and I do. Unsurprisingly your statement would tend to make Luther look better than he deserves to and his Catholic opponents look worse than they deserve to. It all has to do with the degree of magnitude Jon, a concept which seems ‘difficult’ for some reason.

As you know, in the past I have stated that Luther was the most hateful Christian Theologian in Christian history, with his ridiculous ‘pope as being the antichrist’ as being only one small portion of the total evidence. Along with that statement, I have in the past issued a challenge to anyone who wanted to offer up a different name along with a ‘selection’ of their competing texts. Nobody has ever taken me up on my offer, which I presume is because they don’t want to see their candidate’s much less hateful writings compared to Luther’s, which would of course grant him the ‘crown’.

It reminds me of how three or four times now you have ‘volunteered’ John Eck as being just as anti-Jewish or as anti-semitic as Luther. In fact, Luther was at least 100 times worse than Eck or anybody else for that matter, and yet you volunteer Eck up routinely, while refusing to offer up even a whole sentence of Eck’s offending writings. I have a problem with that. As you know from past encounters, I consider this to be smearing Eck while at the same time not being willing to put up any evidence.

As for the model of dialogue I think we should follow, it goes something like this:

I think we should openly and honestly ask and answer direct, important, questions and points and that we should do this in a charitable manner. As I mentioned in a recent post, you would be surprised at my ‘style’, when this kind of dialogue actually takes place. In fact, when I realized that you had actually answered one of my long standing questions, my ‘style’ (always an issue for you) changed completely.

I really want to dialogue openly and honestly Jon, but do get frustrated when I can’t get a direct answer to a direct question. You might have noticed that I tend to get a little testy when I feel like I am being jerked around. Of course, as you know, I am never really being jerked around, but sometimes I mistakenly believe that I am. The two recent posts where you will notice a ‘style’ that might be ‘acceptable’ were posts number 141 and 142. In these posts, I have respectfully offered up my thoughts about your comments about the Authority of your Confessions. If you would like, we can explore this issue and hopefully do it in a manner than we both find to be respectful but also honest.

If you believe that you have a compelling story to tell about why you personally hold to the Lutheran Confessions, I would think that you would welcome this opportunity. On the other hand, if you don’t think you can offer something that is persuasive or convincing, you will probably want to take a pass. Either way, the validity of those Confessional accusations regarding the papacy stand on the Authority of the Lutheran Confessions to make them. I realize that that is a LOT of chips on the table, but then, this is a search for the truth, and the truth is of maximal importance.

If you want to demonstrate the ‘model of dialogue’ that you referred to, I am game and will do my part.

Since you might seem to have missed posts 141 and 142, I am reposting them here:
Topper17;13275393:

I very much appreciate your response. Personally I believe that the whole ‘antichrist issue’ is wrapped up in the question of the actual authority of the Confession in which those accusations are found. Was that authority based on some kind of divine interaction with the Holy Spirit, or was it based merely on human opinion, or a human and therefore fallible interpretation of Scripture.

In fact, I did read your post number 53 and responded to it. Unfortunately I did not recognize it as being an actual answer as to the authority of your Confessions. Now that I know that you consider it to be an answer, I will address it in more detail. I will probably have to make some assumptions or fill in the gaps a little bit. If I do and you believe that I have misrepresented your position, please correct me specifically and exactly.

To be continued:

 

[Topper17]

In post number 53, with regard to the authority of the Lutheran Confessions, you stated:

Jon: “The statement that ‘we believe’ tells me that this is based on a personal or corporate interpretation of Scripture. In other words, it is the opinion of Lutheranism that their confessions ‘rightly reflect scripture’.”

Topper again: “Here you state that your confessors COULD have been in error, BUT WERE NOT. You state that they were NOT with an amazing certainty. It appears that you have claimed that there is no question but that the writers of your confessions did not err. I guess the question then becomes the source of that assurance. Let’s use the Formula of Concord as an example of the Lutheran Confessions.

It appears to me that something like 1 – 2% of Christianity believes that the F of C represent Scripture ‘rightly reflected’. Of course Lutheranism also believes, at least generally, in the clarity of Scripture. If Scripture is ‘rightly reflected’ in the F of C, and Scripture is clear on the important doctrines, then it would follow that a LOT more than 1-2% of Christianity would find the F of C to be ‘correct’. If this were true, the F of C Lutheran communions would be attracting an increasing percentage of Christian laity, rather than decreasing as a percentage of the whole.

It seems that the statement of Krauth, that the confessors did not fail, as well as your explanation, are based ONLY on the corporate opinion of your F of C communions. What I don’t see Jon is any rational explanation that is any different than any of the other factions of Protestantism which believe that it is THEIR communions and confessions which ‘rightly reflect scripture’.

OK, with all that in place – by what explanation can you ‘distance yourselves’ from the claims of other Protestants. In other words, can you offer a rational which singles out your confessions and justifies your certainty – one that they CANNOT use by that weak tactic of using your exact words and substituting in THEIR words?

At the core, the question is directed at Lutherans as follows:

What is it, specifically and exactly that causes you to believe that your communion is any better at Scriptural exegesis than all of those Protestant communions which disagree with you doctrinally?

You have said that you don’t believe that the Lutheran Confessions are infallible. We should probably take a look and see how the LCMS addresses the matter. From the LCMS website:

The Lutheran Confessions

Drawn from God’s Word, the Lutheran Confessions are a true and binding exposition of Holy Scripture and serve as authoritative texts for all pastors, congregations and other rostered church workers of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

What are the Lutheran Confessions?

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod accepts the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and the LCMS subscribes unconditionally to all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God.

We accept the Lutheran Confessions as articulated in the Book of Concord of 1580 because they are drawn from the Word of God, and on that account we regard their doctrinal content as a true and binding exposition of Holy Scripture and as authoritative for all pastors, congregations and other rostered church workers of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.To be continued:

OK Jon, now we are getting somewhere. This is the official position of the LCMS. In the first underlined sentence, they state that they ‘subscribe unconditionally’ to the symbolical books, as ‘true and unadulterated’. This does not tell me WHY, specifically and exactly, they believe this.

Next we find that the Confessions, including the Book of Concord ‘are drawn from the word of God’. This of course is exactly the same justification that ALL of Protestantism use to defend their particular ‘confessions’ or teachings. The last sentence is the payoff though. Even though the authority of the Confessions has not been proven in any way whatsoever, they are ‘binding’ and ‘authoritative for all Lutherans. This doesn’t make any sense. There should be some solid reasoning as to why the Lutheran Confessions are authoritative and must be held to. The “WHY” they should be considered binding is the crucial issue. The LCMS teaches that the church determines doctrine, not the individual. Yet, there doesn’t seem to be any kind of solid reasoning that the teachings of the church should be considered superior to the beliefs of the individual.

This is where I think the Lutheran argument falls apart. If the ‘authority’ or validity of the Confessions are based on nothing more than a ‘belief’ that they are correct, then by what authority are or could Lutherans be bound to them.

Couldn’t ANY Lutheran who choses to disagree, claim the same ‘right to Private Interpretation’ that Luther used for the first 7 years or so of his Reformation and claim that they, as individuals, know better than the Church, exactly the way that Luther did?

In other words, there is absolutely nothing compelling about the Lutheran claims with regards to the authority of their Confessions. In fact, the explanation that you and Krauth and your LCMS website offer are internally inconsistent and illogical.

Personally, I think that all of this comes down to the ‘right to Private Judgment’, a Luther innovation.

Hopefully I have correctly understood your position. If I have not, please correct me specifically and exactly so that I will know where and how you feel your position has been misrepresented. When you do that I will be able to deal with a more accurate representation of your beliefs.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13275393]I very much appreciate your response. Personally I believe that the whole ‘antichrist issue’ is wrapped up in the question of the actual authority of the Confession in which those accusations are found. Was that authority based on some kind of divine interaction with the Holy Spirit, or was it based merely on human opinion, or a human and therefore fallible interpretation of Scripture.

But Topper. No Lutheran I know of cares what you believe to be the real issue. Or what you believe the authority behind the Confessions are.

In fact, I did read your post number 53 and responded to it. Unfortunately I did not recognize it as being an actual answer as to the authority of your Confessions.

That’s great, Topper. I’m happy you noticed it.

Here you state that your confessors COULD have been in error, BUT WERE NOT. You state that they were NOT with an amazing certainty. It appears that you have claimed that there is no question but that the writers of your confessions did not err. I guess the question then becomes the source of that assurance. Let’s use the Formula of Concord as an example of the Lutheran Confessions.

Its the same assurance you have about the Magisterium, except we don’t claim an infallibility of men.

It appears to me that something like 1 – 2% of Christianity believes that the F of C represent Scripture ‘rightly reflected’. Of course Lutheranism also believes, at least generally, in the clarity of Scripture. If Scripture is ‘rightly reflected’ in the F of C, and Scripture is clear on the important doctrines, then it would follow that a LOT more than 1-2% of Christianity would find the F of C to be ‘correct’. If this were true, the F of C Lutheran communions would be attracting an increasing percentage of Christian laity, rather than decreasing as a percentage of the whole.

The vast majority of the world doesn’t believe in our constitutional form of government.
Should we give it up due to a poll? Topper, Lutherans here are not trying to convince anyone to become Lutheran.

It seems that the statement of Krauth, that the confessors did not fail, as well as your explanation, are based ONLY on the corporate opinion of your F of C communions. What I don’t see Jon is any rational explanation that is any different than any of the other factions of Protestantism which believe that it is THEIR communions and confessions which ‘rightly reflect scripture’.

And I don’t see any rational explanation from the CC that is any different, except, again, we don’t claim infallibility for men. That doesn’t men I think Catholics should change their view, or their faith. I don’t. In the CC, members receive the grace of God through word and sacrament. I thank God for that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Star, if revealing the facts about Luther is ‘antagonizing’ to people, then wouldn’t Luther be at fault?

In addition, I am about 100 times more charitable to my opponents than Luther was to his. If revealing the Facts About Luther is antagonizing to people, then you should look to Luther as the source. After all, he is the one who said and did these things that I report. Furthermore, if you have negative feelings about how I conduct myself here, then you SHOULD hate Luther for his ‘polemical style’. The fact that you don’t, but rather defend him, while chiding me, I see as hypocritical. If you see it differently, and would like to support that view, please do so. We could make a list of my offenses and compare it to his and see how it looks side by side.

I will tell you this though -** I am not a big fan of Martin Luther but I have NEVER claimed that he was the antichrist. ** In addition, while I do criticize him routinely, I do so on the basis of the historical facts. I criticize him but nobody is at all confused as to why.

God Bless You Star, Topper

But you could, Topper. Do you believe his teachings (that don’t agree with Catholic teaching) are opposed to Christ? Are they anti Christ? How is calling someone a heretic much different? Sure, there are additional connotations to heretic, and the term anti-Christ is used in a different way be some premillenialist types, but the effect is the same. Both terms charge a lack of adherence to the faith.

Jon

 

[steido01]

But you could, Topper. Do you believe his teachings (that don’t agree with Catholic teaching) are opposed to Christ? Are they anti Christ? How is calling someone a heretic much different? Sure, there are additional connotations to heretic, and the term anti-Christ is used in a different way be some premillenialist types, but the effect is the same. Both terms charge a lack of adherence to the faith.

Jon

Precisely! Why is this such a hard concept for some people to grasp? Are they ‘feeling’ instead of ‘thinking?’

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13278123]
My wife and I once attended a Knights of Columbus celebration of our local chapter 100th anniversary. It was quite an event. My brother was in town and the next day I was driving him to the airport and describing this amazing event the night before.

He said” “At the church where I was saved, the preacher said from the pulpit, that the Knights of Columbus are…………………(long pause)”

I filled in the blank with: “Intrinsically Evil?” To which he said ‘Yes.’

I was so stunned that I didn’t know what to say and began to tell him about how the Knights donate more money and more member service hours than any other similar organization in the world.

This is tragic. I have a very good friend in Texas who is KofC. My wife and I, in the days we lived there, attending a couple of KofC events with them. He and his wife are still, from a distance, good friends. They are good Catholic Christians, and I admire them, and the KofC immensely.

What it really came down to, both with my brother, and also with Luther, is this: He (they) wanted that assurance of Salvation that the Church wanted to “steal from them” (exact words). They wanted an assurance today that would be ‘good’ for the rest of their lives. Of course we will hear that that is not what Lutherans believe, but it sure was what drove Luther to his Revolt.

Source. What may have driven Luther was the occamism that he was subjected to. And this was at the hands of Catholics. But you’re right, Lutherans by doctrine recognize that the loss of saving faith is possible.

Article XII: Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] **They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. **Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Precisely! Why is this such a hard concept for some people to grasp? Are they ‘feeling’ instead of ‘thinking?’

Or, they think we’re unfeeling, like some of the nasty things that are said sometimes by just a few don’t effect us. There are a few who seem to think that, “if we bash their beliefs long enough, tell them that since they are here, they have no ‘invincible ignorance’”, that somehow that will convince us.
There was a time there was very little of this at CAF. Its what drew me here, in a way that I was not drawn to some of the vile ugliness at some non-Catholic forums.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Or, they think we’re unfeeling, like some of the nasty things that are said sometimes by just a few don’t effect us. There are a few who seem to think that, “if we bash their beliefs long enough, tell them that since they are here, they have no ‘invincible ignorance’”, that somehow that will convince us.
There was a time there was very little of this at CAF. Its what drew me here, in a way that I was not drawn to some of the vile ugliness at some non-Catholic forums.

Jon

We have similar experiences, then. I don’t go to the forum that shall not be named because of what it’s become. I find there are periods when I spend less time here, too.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13279659]First of all, you suggest that Luther was sometimes excessive and that so were some of his opponents. I think that this statement will be misleading to people who don’t know the history as well as you and I do. Unsurprisingly your statement would tend to make Luther look better than he deserves to and his Catholic opponents look worse than they deserve to. It all has to do with the degree of magnitude Jon, a concept which seems ‘difficult’ for some reason.

Yes. I know you think that if you can convince yourself that Catholics of that era weren’t as bad as Luther, then you can give them a pass. Its okay with me. You can think that way if you choose.

It reminds me of how three or four times now you have ‘volunteered’ John Eck as being just as anti-Jewish or as anti-semitic as Luther. In fact, Luther was at least 100 times worse than Eck or anybody else for that matter, and yet you volunteer Eck up routinely, while refusing to offer up even a whole sentence of Eck’s offending writings. I have a problem with that. As you know from past encounters, I consider this to be smearing Eck while at the same time not being willing to put up any evidence.

Eck’s okie dokie because he wasn’t as bad as Luther. That’s great, Topper.

As for the model of dialogue I think we should follow, it goes something like this:

I think we should openly and honestly ask and answer direct, important, questions and points and that we should do this in a charitable manner. As I mentioned in a recent post, you would be surprised at my ‘style’, when this kind of dialogue actually takes place. In fact, when I realized that you had actually answered one of my long standing questions, my ‘style’ (always an issue for you) changed completely.

I’ll keep watching for it, Topper.

I really want to dialogue openly and honestly Jon, but do get frustrated when I can’t get a direct answer to a direct question.

Topper, you get frustrated because you don’t get the answer you want. You’re probably not going to, either. We see things differently. We don’t see being right as necessarily meaning being infallible. We don’t need to make that claim. We’re satisfied that the confessions, in doctrine, reflect scripture and the early Church well.

If you believe that you have a compelling story to tell about why you personally hold to the Lutheran Confessions, I would think that you would welcome this opportunity. On the other hand, if you don’t think you can offer something that is persuasive or convincing, you will probably want to take a pass. Either way, the validity of those Confessional accusations regarding the papacy stand on the Authority of the Lutheran Confessions to make them. I realize that that is a LOT of chips on the table, but then, this is a search for the truth, and the truth is of maximal importance.

Randy asked me what I own, regarding the confessions on this topic. Seek out that answer.

continued

 

[JonNC]

What’s interesting is the confessions do not tell us that the charges come from their own authority, but that of scripture. And they list the portions of scripture:

In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above [cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy whatever over] other bishops and pastors.

8] I. Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, He says: The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. The antithesis here shows [By holding these matters against one another, one sees] that lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.

II. Matt. 18:2. The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom places a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself.

9] III. John 20:21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other], when He says: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. [These words are clear and plain:] He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship above the rest.

10] IV. **Gal. 2:7f **St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed [and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right [if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] without consulting Peter. Also: Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man’s person). And: They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. Since Paul, then, clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that it was not from this one individual Peter that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this one person, Peter, alone].

11] V. In** 1 Cor. 3:6**, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: “Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this.” Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.

then the councils

VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Then the Fathers

VII. Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several. 14] The same was observed [for a long time, not only in the East, but] also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance and apostolic practice, you must diligently keep and practice what is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordination properly, whatsoever bishops of the same province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one, which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the episcopate was conferred and hands laid on him.
Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

Since, therefore, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

16] Such superiority is impossible. For it is impossible for one bishop to be the overseer of the churches of the whole world, or for churches situated in the most distant lands to seek ordination [for all their ministers] from one. For it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ is scattered throughout the whole world; and to-day there are many churches in the East which do not seek ordination or confirmation from the Roman bishop [which have ministers ordained neither by the Pope nor his bishops]. Therefore, since such superiority [which the Pope, contrary to all Scripture, arrogates to himself] is impossible, and the churches in the greater part of the world have not acknowledged [nor made use of] it, it is sufficiently apparent that it was not instituted [by Christ, and does not spring from divine law].

VIII. Many ancient synods have been proclaimed and held in which the bishop of Rome did not preside; as that of Nice and most others. This, too, testifies that the Church did not then acknowledge the primacy or superiority of the bishop of Rome.

18] IX. Jerome says: If the question is concerning authority, the world is greater than the city. Wherever there has been a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, he is of the same dignity and priesthood.

19] X. Gregory, writing to the patriarch at Alexandria, forbids that he be called universal bishop. And in the Records he says that in the Council of Chalcedon the primacy was offered to the bishop of Rome, but was not accepted.

No mention of the confessions.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

The fact that there have been bad popes has nothing to do with it. Bad popes were not the anti-Christ, anymore than good popes were. It is the teachings that determine the charge of being opposed to Christ. Catholics, if they choose can say the same about some protestant teachings. For example, I consider withholding baptism from infants and young children to be opposed to Christ.

First of all, the language of your Confessions do NOT speak of being ‘opposed to Christ’. I know you wish that that were the language of your Confessions, but it is not. The Confessions that you hold to be authoritative, for some reason, speak of the Pope as the antichrist. You can pretend that they don’t say that, but as you know, people who can read will not believe it. This “it is the teachings” that you speak of is NOT the language that your Confessions use.

You say that Catholics “if they chose can say the same about some protestant teachings”, but that ignores the facts from what I can tell.

It is the OFFICIAL teaching of your communion that the Pope is the antichrist. You say that Catholics, “if they chose”, but the fact is that there is NOTHING in the official teachings which depicts Luther, or Lutheranism, or Protestantism as the ‘antichrist’. The ‘if they chose’ statement is, again, like the statement that “Pigs can fly”. All things are possible, but since no pig has ever flown, the statement is meaningless. Again, we see that the official teachings of Lutheranism with regard to the Church are FAR more harsh than that of the Church on Lutheranism. This of course directly mirrors the harshness of the statements of the early Reformation where, Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism, was EXTREMELY harsh on EVERYONE who disagreed with him, which by the way, especially early on, was virtually everybody.

Lutheranism CHOOSES, STILL, to officially depict the Pope as the antichrist. OFFICIALLY. We chose to NOT officially return the ‘compliment’. As long as your Confessions remain as currently written, they will remain extremely offensive to Catholics and they will be a barrier to serious ecumenical efforts.

Martin Luther, the official ‘source’ of the antichrist charge, made no bones about his hatred for not only the Church, and its leadership, but also for many others also.

As you know Jon, Martin Luther was known for his ‘polemical style’. As you know Jon, there are a lot of people here are very concerned about the polemical style of ‘others’. In the Epilogue of Lutheran Professor/Lutheran College President Mark U. Edward’s excellent book “Luther’s Last Battles”, we find the following summary about Luther’s hatred and his polemical style, of which his accusations about the antichrist are only one more example.

“A study of the polemics of the older Luther may seem an inappropriate vantage point from which to suggest corrections to the traditional treatment of Luther……Every polemic dealt at least in passing with theological issues. Moreover, Luther’s apocalyptic vision of the struggle between the true and false church is crucial for understanding his later polemics. Awareness of his world view helps us to understand why Luther treated each of his opponents with similar harshness and abusiveness. Each was a manifestation of Satan, each a part of the false church. The pope was the antichrist, Protestant opponents were false prophets and apostles, the Turks were God and the “little horn of the beast,” the Jews were God’s rejected people. Each fit into Luther’s Augustinian vision of the struggle between the true and false church that began with Able and Cain and would continue until the End Time. This vision allowed Luther to identify the devil behind each of his opponents and to address this Satanic opponent rather than the human beings who were is mask. Heightening Luther’s sense of cosmic struggle was his conviction that the End Time was nearly at hand; that with the exposure of the papal antichrist seated within the Church, Satan had unleashed his minions for one, final battle. Luther’s own ill health and expectation of death, combined with his disappointment about the reception of the Gospel within Germany, fed his sense of the imminence of the Apocalypse and his desire to do final battle with the devil. Luther saw his polemics as salvoes in this greater war. He was obliged as a servant of God to launch the most ferocious attacks he could against the enemy of God manifested in all these opponents of the Reformation.

He was well equipped for the battle. He possessed extraordinary rhetorical skills, and he always had the ability to generate towering anger against his opponents.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 203 – 04

These are actual historical facts Jon and they are not assembled by some biased Catholic. These are the comments by an actual Lutheran Scholar who as the author of 4 books on Luther, is one of Lutheranism’s foremost Luther Scholars.

 

[MaryT777]

What’s interesting is the confessions do not tell us that the charges come from their own authority, but that of scripture. And they list the portions of scripture:

then the councils

continued

The problem boils down to the fact that any Sola Scriptura Church can twist the scriptures to mean most anything even the Pope is in the seat of the AntiChrist/is the anti Christ.
The Lutherans aren’t the only ones that profess a version of such… The scripture references given from the SDA are different; Pope changed the Sabbath day so he’s the beast, etc. That is also based on a vision from their prophetess Ellen White.

All give different scripture references and insist they are right. When you start with a man made doctrine such as Sola Scriptura you are bound to end up with incorrect doctrine.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Continued:

Edwards makes the following points, all of which I think SHOULD be incorporated into an understanding of the man who ‘gave’ Protestantism the accusation that the Pope is the Antichrist:

1. Not every one of Luther’s polemical efforts dealt with theology at leas to some degree. In other words, some of them were mostly just attacks.
2. He treated ALL of his opponents horribly and abusively, because, each was a manifestation of Satan. In other words, you automatically became a manifestation of Satan IF you opposed Luther.
3. The pope was the antichrist, but then others were also judged with excessive harshness.
4. Luther tended to not view his opponents as being even human, but addressed the Satan that he saw as their basis.
5. For Luther, the End Times were at hand, which is exactly the same belief as several well known “Religious leaders” have had in the last few centuries. It should be noted that that kind of thing never ‘turns out well’. There is usually a lot of bloodshed and death.
6. Luther was taking part in the Final Battle, one that had been unleashed, in part at least because of his work in identifying the papal antichrist.
7. As a loyal servant of God, at least in his perception, he was obliged to launch the most ferocious attacks that he could upon the enemies of God, who were, not coincidently, those who disagreed with his personal radical theological beliefs.
   Thankfully, the above quote is from Mark Edwards, one of Lutheranism’s best qualified Luther experts.

When we look at this summary from Edwards, it does give us a window into Luther’s thinking (and more). I would suggest that it is very revealing as to the reason for the antichrist accusation and also its validity. We learn a great deal here in our quest to learn how in the world this man could have concluded that the Pope was the antichrist and how in the world he believed that he had the authority to condemn the Bishop of Rome from nothing more than his tortured psyche and his private interpretations of Scripture.

As for his ‘authority’, Luther was very clear (sometimes) as to where this amazing degree of authority originated.

“Luther gladly used and emphasized his doctor’s title when insisting on his authority and competence to teach before his ecclesiastical superiors such as Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, Cardinal Cajetan, or even the pope……The doctor’s degree and his professorship were a binding commission and a sworn obligation for Luther. Between 1517 and 1521 [before he was excommunicated], as he was coming to public attention, Luther again and again appealed to the fact that he was a ‘sworn Doctor of the Holy Scripture.” This was what gave him his legitimacy.” Martin Brecht, (another reputable Lutheran Luther Scholar), Volume 1, pg. 127

It seems that the above is reflected in the authority of the Lutheran Confessions. It is extremely important to understand the True Authority of these Confessions as we attempt to determine the validity of the accusations that the pope is the antichrist.

The fact is Jon, that there is nothing in Luther’s early career that would justify him as being correct and so many of his better educated superiors wrong. There were a LOT of Scholars at the time who were vehemently opposed to Luther’s innovations, many of whom had much better educations than Luther had. He brushed them off in masse out of what can only be viewed as extreme arrogance. This man was NOT a Reformer who could work well with others to reform the Church. Very early in his career, even before he was excommunicated, he vowed to bring the Church down. It was THIS particular man who originated the Protestant accusation about the Pope being the antichrist. That accusation should be judged on, among other things, its source.

In battling the ridiculous and pathetic accusation that the Pope is the antichrist, or even in it’s supposedly less offensive spin, that it is ONLY the ‘office of the papacy’ that is the antichrist, it is only fair and inevitable that Martin Luther, the originator of that accusation be included in this discussion. Only when we get a better understanding of who he actually was will we be able to determine how in the world he could have been so arrogant as to make such a ridiculous accusation against the head of HIS Church.

BTW, that thing about the ‘office’ only, is not at all less offensive to faithful Catholics who view, correctly, the Bishop of Rome as being the successor to Peter.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

I am enjoying your posts.

Of course not, we should all post “exactly like you”

You suggest that we should all post in the manner that Jon does. That would make our forums more ‘peaceful’ and more ‘positive’. (or so we all thought) I will go you one better. I have a proposal that will improve ecumenical relations here at CA IMMENSELY.

I think we all should just go ahead and agree with Jon and stop asking questions and making various points.

There is only one very minor problem with this. Unfortunately this is a Catholic Apologetics Forum, and it was established for that reason. This complicates things somewhat it seems. I realize that if my suggestion is followed, there have to be a complete change in the mission of CA. However, I trust the leadership here to work out the small details.

BTW Mary, I think that the political maneuvering that goes on here is just as interesting as the actual apologetics.

God Bless You Mary, Topper