Why is the Pope still referred to as anti-Christ in Protestant confessions?
IGQ,
Post #33 holds some falsehoods that, regardless of how many times they have been proven wrong, seem to pop up every once in a while. So:
ISTM that Confessional Lutheranism is absolutely stuck with that horribly offensive language, and simply cannot change it, because, more than 400 years ago, it decided that the ‘antichrist language’ describing the Bishop of Rome, was, for all practical purposes - ‘infallible’. That silly and offensive language is still the official teaching of Lutheranism, a required belief.
Two points on this:
- No well-catechized Lutheran claims “infallibility” (or inerrancy) for the Confessions. The confessions themselves dispel that false understanding. Only scripture is considered “infallible” by confessional Lutherans.
Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
The confessions are subject to scripture. If they were “infallible”, they would be equal to scripture. Charles Porterfield Krauth puts the false charge to rest:
We do not claim that our Confessors were infallible. We do not say they could not fail. We only claim that they did not fail. (Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, p. 186)
- So, does that mean that Lutherans cannot change the confessions, as is suggested in the post? No, because the confessions themselves identify the specific reasons for the existence of the charge. Other Lutherans here have covered the reasons for the charge, but the confessions say:
The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.
While point 2 is clearly moot in this time, points 1 and 3 still exist in the form of the claim of universal jurisdiction of the Pope, and the claim that salvation is not possible outside communion with the Bishop of Rome (with some exceptions in recent times).
When a charge is historically conditional, the fact is that if the condition changes, so will the charge. The LCMS, in official
statements, states the following:
…we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.
In a footnote, the Commission adds:
To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.
So, does that mean that we think that a prerequisite of the change in language is a unilateral change by the Catholic Church? No more than we accept the stance that Lutherans should change the language as a prerequisite. AFAIK, neither Lutherans nor the CC established prerequisites for dialogue following Vatican II. Dialogue, no matter how slow and tedious, and sometimes frustrating it may be, is the way these things must be resolved. But when they are, pray that they are, then the charges and accusations on both sides will end. If our communions agree on the power and primacy of the pope, then the condemnations end.
To strike out the ‘antichrist language’ (among other offensive and anti-Catholic texts) would be to admit that those Confessional documents are not actually so ‘inspired’ after all. To strike out even one paragraph would be to call into question the validity of the WHOLE of the Confessions. That is NOT going to happen.
As has been shown above, the charge is historically conditional. Once the conditions change, the charge ends. It in no way would prove right or wrong the previous statements. Agreement on the role of the Pope, simply brings an end to the mutual condemnations.
My fear is that, contrary to the false charge made in post #33, it is the Catholic Church that will have a difficult time in dialogue regarding the primacy of the pope, since it believes the pope and magisterium cannot err regarding doctrine. One can hope, however, that “development of docrtine” can lead us in a positive direction. The “Ratzinger Proposal” is a hopeful example of the possibilities:
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium”
continued:
YES it is actually. The head of the congregation IS called “Vicar” in the UK.
