Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[MaryT777]

Most Lutherans hold to four Confessions ,
Necene Creed
Athanaisian Creed
Apostles Creed
Unaltered Augsburg Confession of 1530
Nones of these call the pope the antichrist , these creeds we believe are in line with the Scriptures, so why should they be changed( hint they can’t , it’s sorta like ecumenical councils ) .

Of the Antichrist
43.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, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Of the Antichrist
43.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, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Those articles are not accepted by all Lutherans , only the four creeds that I mentioned are as well as four ecumenical councils :
First council of Nicaea
First council of Euphesus
Council of Chalcedon

 

[JonNC]

I see my question is still unclear.

Can the Lutheran Confessions be changed? Is there a procedure in place whatever it is whereby a group of Pastors and whatever type of system you have could decide the Pope no longer sits in the seat of the AntiChrist?

Or

are you trying to state that UNLESS the Catholic church changes its position on the issue there will be no change in the Lutheran confessions?

How’s that. LOL…

Mary.

Ok.
Starwarsfan provided are good answer. Each synod or church within the Lutheran tradition determines for itself the documents it holds to. Father K says the Church of Norway holds to the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism. So, Smalcald and the Power and Primacy of the Pope, as well as the Formula of Concord do not apply to his communion. Others place differing weight on different documents.

So, let’s assume the LCMS determined that the term “antiChrist” no longer expressed our concerns about the reasons put forth in the confessions, or that the usage of it by other non-Catholic groups caused the Lutheran expression to be misconstrued. As a result, the LCMS could, I suppose, choose different language (heterodox, for example).
Or, if our communions came to terms with the CC regarding how we jointly perceive the primacy of the Pope, those sections of Smalcald, the FoC, and perhaps the entire Power and Power and Primacy of the Pope, could be done away with, since it would no longer be relevant.

Does that answer your question?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Those articles are not accepted by all Lutherans , only the four creeds that I mentioned are as well as four ecumenical councils :
First council of Nicaea
First council of Euphesus
Council of Chalcedon

Some Lutherans accept all 7 of the ecumenical councils.
Some, portions of a few of them.

Virtually all Lutherans accept The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, and the Small Catechism. Many to most the Apology of the Augsburg Confession and the Large Catechism.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

You’re right, Dorothy, but that understanding wasn’t the case at the time of the Reformation. But beyond that, the idea of "invincible ignorance " excludes all of us who have a reasonable knowledge of Catholic teaching. The fact is there is nothing in scripture or the early church that requires one to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in order to be saved.

Jon

I think you are right to be concerned Jon about the whole ‘invincible ignorance’ issue. After all, there have been a LOT of Lutheran Theologians whose ‘ignorance’ turned out to NOT be ‘invincible’, but rather, ‘vincible’ (according to the Catholic definition).

As you know, Lutheran Theologians and Scripture Scholars are FAR more likely than Lutheran laity to convert to Roman Catholicism. IOW, it is the better educated Lutherans who are the more likely to convert to the Church that Christ established for us all. This means that there is nothing inherently ‘invincible’ about the ‘ignorance’ (and I use the term technically and un-offensively) of Lutherans.

The fact that there are SO many conversions of those Lutherans who know the most, and possibly even ‘care the most’, indicates that it IS reasonable to expect conversion of those Lutherans who are better educated and understand the issues correctly. There does not seem to be anything inherent in Lutheranism which would support an overall or general denonimational ‘invincible ignorance’, which of course places the responsibility for that ‘ignorance’ upon the individual only, and more specifically, upon the better informed individual Lutheran. I bring this up only because you introduced the issue of invincible ignorance and appear to understand it well - thus the reason for your concern about the practical application of the doctrine. That you hold the Pope in (a very unofficial) honor, would seem to likely to exacerbate your apprehension.

As you know Jon, the list of recent Lutheran Theologian converts grows constantly.

Richard John Neuhaus (1990)
Robert Walkin (1994)
Paul Quist (2005)
Richard Ballard (2006)
Paul Abe (2006),
Dr. Michael Root (2010)
Thomas McMichael
Mickey Mattox
David Fagerberg
Bruce Marshall
Reinhard Hutter
Philip Max Johnson

One of the most interesting examples of this phenomenon is Dr. Michael Root, a Lutheran Theologian who represented Lutheranism at the Catholic/Lutheran Dialogue in 2009. Root converted in 2010 and is now a Professor at Catholic University. It appears that he was compelled to ‘swim’ after being introduced to Catholic theology in a way that forced him to actually think about it. I think that this phenomenon will continue as more people become familiar with what the Church actually teaches, rather than what they have heard or read from the its anti-Catholic opponents.

It seems reasonable to say that Lutheran Theologians know Scripture, Theology, Christian history, etc., etc., better than, in general, Lutheran lay people. It would also seem reasonable to also suggest that Christian doctrine is more important to Theologians than it is to the general population. Yet, rather than converting as a lower rate than lay people, which would be expected, Lutheran Theologians seem to convert to Catholicism at a much higher rate.

Rather than a reflexive criticizing, which we have seen, I think that Lutheran lay people should take notice of these conversions and consider the reasoning of so many of their (former) leaders, especially given the fact that they are having to turn their professional and likely their personal lives upside down in order to follow the Truth.

And for the record Jon, the last sentence of your statement is false. As you well know, there is a great deal of evidence from the Early Church Fathers as to the role of the Bishop of Rome and the necessity of being in communion with him and in obedience to him. In fact, that evidence from the ECFs leads to only one conclusion regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13263466]
I bring this up only because you introduced the issue of invincible ignorance and appear to understand it well - thus the reason for your concern about the practical application of the doctrine. That you hold the Pope in (a very unofficial) honor, would seem to likely to exacerbate your apprehension.

Actually, the issue is inherent in the discussion because of the reasons for the charge of anti-Chirst regarding the office of the pope.
That said, I have no particular apprehension regarding the teaching because I find it to be only an interesting and innovative way around the the claims made in Unam Sanctam and other places. Not that I don’t appreciate the attempt. I do. It signals a change in Catholic thinking.

As you know Jon, the list of recent Lutheran Theologian converts grows constantly.

Richard John Neuhaus (1990)
Robert Walkin (1994)
Paul Quist (2005)
Richard Ballard (2006)
Paul Abe (2006),
Dr. Michael Root (2010)
Thomas McMichael
Mickey Mattox
David Fagerberg
Bruce Marshall
Reinhard Hutter
Philip Max Johnson

Would you also consider Russ Saltzmann in that list?
An interesting thought would be how many of these came out of the liberal ELCA type synods, as opposed to more confessional ones.
I’ve read about Michael Root. I admire his POV, and the integrity with which he handled is membership transfer.

It seems reasonable to say that Lutheran Theologians know Scripture, Theology, Christian history, etc., etc., better than, in general, Lutheran lay people.

I find this to be a remarkable shift in tone. Much appreciated.

Rather than a reflexive criticizing, which we have seen, I think that Lutheran lay people should take notice of these conversions and consider the reasoning of so many of their (former) leaders, especially given the fact that they are having to turn their professional and likely their personal lives upside down in order to follow the Truth.

I think there is merit in what you have written here.

And for the record Jon, the last sentence of your statement is false. As you well know, there is a great deal of evidence from the Early Church Fathers as to the role of the Bishop of Rome and the necessity of being in communion with him and in obedience to him. In fact, that evidence from the ECFs leads to only one conclusion regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Obviously, I know a little of the Catholic side on this, and you know the Lutheran side. We also know the EO position which more closely aligns with ours.
The ECF’s, as I am reminded often by Catholics, do not set Church doctrine, though as Chemnitz reminds us, they are of such great value. The ECF’s also would have had no knowledge of the Schism that resulted in the church, primarily from this issue. But the early councils provide for no such supremacy, no universal jurisdiction. (Nicaea canon 6).

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Ok.
Starwarsfan provided are good answer. Each synod or church within the Lutheran tradition determines for itself the documents it holds to. Father K says the Church of Norway holds to the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism. So, Smalcald and the Power and Primacy of the Pope, as well as the Formula of Concord do not apply to his communion. Others place differing weight on different documents.

So, let’s assume the LCMS determined that the term “antiChrist” no longer expressed our concerns about the reasons put forth in the confessions, or that the usage of it by other non-Catholic groups caused the Lutheran expression to be misconstrued. As a result, the LCMS could, I suppose, choose different language (heterodox, for example).
Or, if our communions came to terms with the CC regarding how we jointly perceive the primacy of the Pope, those sections of Smalcald, the FoC, and perhaps the entire Power and Power and Primacy of the Pope, could be done away with, since it would no longer be relevant.

Does that answer your question?

Jon

Yes it does; thanks.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Yes it does; thanks.

Mary.

My pleasure.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

It was God that gave us scripture, To the entirety of the Church Catholic.
And it is the question of what the pope’s authority is that is the foundation of the question. It is the question of the Church Catholic for a thousand years. It is the question that must be resolved for unity to return to the Church

Jon

You say that God gave ‘us’ scripture, which goes to the question of who ‘us’ really is. Would you say Jon that God gave the JWs and the LDS Holy Scripture? Did He give it to the Anabaptists (whom Luther also hated) so that THEY could interpret it however they saw fit? Did he give it to those Lutheran communions who use it to justify those teachings that you (also) agree are an abomination in terms of Christian morality. I am speaking of Lutheran communions which have health plans which pay for the abortions of church employees, including pastors.

For the record Jon, God did not give Holy Scripture to an uncountable number of competing and doctrinally conflicting Protestant communions for them to interpret with whatever human understandings they can manage to inflict upon it. Holy Scripture was given to the Church which Christ intended for us ALL to be members of, and it was given to THAT Church to interpret.

You are correct though that God did give Scripture to the entirety of the Church Catholic (or Catholic Church). However, at the time the Catholic Church consisted of ONLY ONE organization. The heretical and schismatic groups of the time were rejected and battled by the very Church to which God gave Scripture. That Church, the Catholic Church, which is still headquartered in Rome as it was then, continues to battle the various heresies and schisms just as it did when God chose to give it Holy Scripture.

As we both know, Lutheranism does not permit people to break away from their church(s) and claim that THEY have the right to establish doctrine. That is the purview of the church. On this we agree, but what you disagree on is exactly who (or whom) is ‘included’ when we speak of the ‘church’ in this context.

As you know, Lutheranism would NEVER stand for the kind of Revolt against its authority that Luther committed against the Catholic Church. So…………….what is it, from a Lutheran perspective of course, that makes what Luther did acceptable? Personally, I don’t think that there is an answer to this that cannot be used (and has not been used) to destroy the ‘unity’ of Lutheranism. After all, there how many competing and conflicting Lutheran communions at this point? The last number I heard was 120, and of course you can argue that number if you like, which would be a lot easier than answering the question about Luther’s ‘authority’ to revolt.

It is quite logical that individuals and groups are simply not to be allowed to break away from the Mother Church, taking Holy Scripture with them, and then claim that THEY are the ones who are properly ‘endowed’ (or whatever) to correctly interpret it. If the Protestant Reformation (or Revolt) is proof of ANYTHING, it is proof that that would be (and very much has been) a theological disaster and a disaster to Christian unity.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Those articles are not accepted by all Lutherans , only the four creeds that I mentioned are as well as four ecumenical councils :
First council of Nicaea
First council of Euphesus
Council of Chalcedon

Oops , forgot to add the First Council of Constantinople

 

[pablope]

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:

Two points on this:

1. 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.

 

[Kliska]

Question (esp. to Lutherans);

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

How has any pope met those criteria? I’m a non-liturgical protestant and that is one thing that is confusing. We believe any single person can be antichrist, or even The Anti-Christ, but how is the office of the pope seen to fit the listed criteria from John?

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;13265122]

One point…the Scriptures are not infallible…the Scriptures do not act, are incapable of acting…thus are not infallible. Infallibility denotes actions.

Correct. That is why I put the word in quotes. Topper used the word that way, but I didn’t think the point he was making was effected by it. It is often the case here that infallible and inerrant are used interchangeably.

The act of subjecting to Scriptures requires human action…so who would do the subjecting? Who do you propose, Jon, would do the act of subjecting?

The CTCR in the LCMS, for example. The Magisterium in the CC, for another. Its the teaching role of the Church.

To make the claim the Lutheran confessions did not fail…what would be the basis for making this claim?

Krauth’s statement actually says the confessors did not fail. We believe the confessions rightly reflect scripture.

When making the claim they did not fail…is this not an act of making an infallible action? an infallible claim? Otherwise, why make the claim and why believe it?

No. infallibility implies an incapacity to fail. Scriptures are inerrant, the confessions are not. The writers (confessors) could have been in error, but were not.

So when Lutheran reformers confessed and affirmed the Lutheran charge of the pope being the Anti-Christ…that this did not fail…do you affirm then that this charge of the pope being the anti-Christ is not subject to failure?

Well, the charge is not that the pope is “the anti-Christ”. The charge is that the teachings of the office of the papacy, as mentioned in the Treatise on the Power and the Primacy of the Pope, are opposed to Christ’s teachings. So, the question is, do I believe that the teaching that the pope has universal jurisdiction over all of the Church on Earth is opposed to Christ’s teachings found in scripture? Yes. Do I believe that the teaching that one must be in communion with the Bishop or Rome in order to be saved is opposed to Christ’s teachings found in scripture? Yes.

Do you believe this charge was made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

I believe that scripture is inspired, and that the teachings I mentioned are contrary to scripture, and incidentally, the early Church. Its the main reason why there was a Great Schism, and palyed a significant role in the Reformation 500 years later.

So when Lutheran reformers confessed and affirmed the Lutheran charge of the pope being the Anti-Christ…that this did not fail…do you affirm then that this charge of the pope being the anti-Christ is not subject to failure?

Again, the charge has to do with the teaching. If there is a change in the teaching, or there is an expression of the meaning of the teachings that is accepted and affirmed mutually by our communions, then the charge no longer has any value, because there is reconciliation regarding the teaching.

Let me reiterate, the charge has to do with the teaching. Our synod is quite clear it is not about the man, but the office. I don’t believe that a Catholic would say the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is infallible ex cathedra, because he no longer holds the office. The teaching is not about the man, but the office. The same holds true for the charge made in the Lutheran confessions: Pope Emeritus Benedict is not now, nor was he when in office, “The Anti-Christ”. Pope Francis is not “The Anti-Christ”.

Jon
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Question (esp. to Lutherans);

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

How has any pope met those criteria? I’m a non-liturgical protestant and that is one thing that is confusing. We believe any single person can be antichrist, or even The Anti-Christ, but how is the office of the pope seen to fit the listed criteria from John?

The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope lists the various scriptural references regarding the specific charges which I posted earlier. There are a few of them. Prominent among them, however, is 2 Thess. 2.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13263939]You say that God gave ‘us’ scripture, which goes to the question of who ‘us’ really is. Would you say Jon that God gave the JWs and the LDS Holy Scripture? Did He give it to the Anabaptists (whom Luther also hated) so that THEY could interpret it however they saw fit? Did he give it to those Lutheran communions who use it to justify those teachings that you (also) agree are an abomination in terms of Christian morality. I am speaking of Lutheran communions which have health plans which pay for the abortions of church employees, including pastors.

Are you asking if scripture was given to all of these groups, or if all or any of them properly understand or obey them? Of course the scriptures are given by God to all of mankind.

For the record Jon, God did not give Holy Scripture to an uncountable number of competing and doctrinally conflicting Protestant communions for them to interpret with whatever human understandings they can manage to inflict upon it. Holy Scripture was given to the Church which Christ intended for us ALL to be members of, and it was given to THAT Church to interpret.

If your point is that there is division within the Church, and that was not His plan for us, I agree. The early undivided Church received the scripture, but divisions and schisms have happened since. So, THAT church is sadly divided.

You are correct though that God did give Scripture to the entirety of the Church Catholic (or Catholic Church). However, at the time the Catholic Church consisted of ONLY ONE organization. The heretical and schismatic groups of the time were rejected and battled by the very Church to which God gave Scripture. That Church, the Catholic Church, which is still headquartered in Rome as it was then, continues to battle the various heresies and schisms just as it did when God chose to give it Holy Scripture.

You assume, not surprisingly as you are Catholic, that the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is THAT one Church, only and exclusively. This is a point of disagreement, not only for Lutherans, but for Christians, eastern and western.

As you know, Lutheranism would NEVER stand for the kind of Revolt against its authority that Luther committed against the Catholic Church. So…………….what is it, from a Lutheran perspective of course, that makes what Luther did acceptable? Personally, I don’t think that there is an answer to this that cannot be used (and has not been used) to destroy the ‘unity’ of Lutheranism. After all, there how many competing and conflicting Lutheran communions at this point? The last number I heard was 120, and of course you can argue that number if you like, which would be a lot easier than answering the question about Luther’s ‘authority’ to revolt.

Since the thread is about the “Vicar of Christ”, I’ll frame my answer in that context. If the LCMS veers from the doctrines and canons of the Lutheran Church, and from those of the Church Catholic, then they should expect those who hold to those doctrines and canons to “protest”. The same is true of the Lutheran reformers, who saw clearly, as did all of the patriarchs of the Church 500 years before, that the Bishop of Rome, even though he was and is held in primacy, claimed power and authority not granted him in scripture or by the early Church. By doing so, from our view, and that of the EO, and others who claim to be and are Catholic in name and teaching, the See of Rome itself is the schismatic, the one creating disunity.

Now, none of this means that Catholics are not Christian. It does not mean, as some rather triumphalist groups might say, that Catholics cannot be saved. Of course they can. They have grace, the sacraments, the word, etc., all of those things that the Church gathers around.

It is quite logical that individuals and groups are simply not to be allowed to break away from the Mother Church, taking Holy Scripture with them, and then claim that THEY are the ones who are properly ‘endowed’ (or whatever) to correctly interpret it. If the Protestant Reformation (or Revolt) is proof of ANYTHING, it is proof that that would be (and very much has been) a theological disaster and a disaster to Christian unity.

Again, if we look at the history of the Church, the “revolt” could, be seen by many as that of the Bishop of Rome claiming power and supremacy not granted him in scripture or the early councils. Do I expect you to agree with this perspective? Of course not, any more than you should expect me to agree with yours.
The question now becomes, how is this difference between us reconciled?

Jon

 

[Topper17]

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:

First of all, I find it very revealing that you refer to my comments as only “Post #33”.

Next – if you or anyone else had actually ‘proven’ something, the issue would not still be open. IF something has been proven, I would have remembered it. Where is that proof?

Two points on this:
1.) 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.

You will have to excuse my skepticism. What I fail to understand is how Lutheranism can demand that its adherents believe in and hold to their Confessions while at the same time admitting that they are not ‘infallible’. If they are not infallible (and on this we agree), then they are nothing more than the interpretations of man. The ‘man’ in this case is actually a group of men, or groups of men who, non-infallibly decided what was the ‘best estimate’ of Christian doctrine. If this is just a game of semantics, then you should actually define the Lutheran understanding of the authority of your confessions and then we can discuss that.

If all that the Lutheran Confessions are is the ‘best attempt’ that a certain group of men could come up with at the time, then they shouldn’t be surprised that Lutherans have and will continue to rebel against them, preferring of course their own personal or group interpretations. Of course that has happened dozens and dozens of times within Lutheranism, to the point where it is difficult to come up with the actual number of competing and doctrinally conflicting Lutheran communions.

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:

That is one way of looking at it. The other would be that your confessions are subject to somebody’s individual or some individual group’s interpretation of Holy Scripture. Somehow you seem to claim that your Confessions have some kind of authority, but that the authority is not divine or infallible. How in the world can you expect people to, long term at least, accede to a Confession which is NOT claimed to be authoritative, at least not with anything more than human authority? That is exactly why the actual Authority of Martin Luther (or lack thereof) is such a crucial topic.

It seems to me that if the Lutheran Confessions are NOT considered to be divinely inspired, then they are based upon the foundation as built, in the very beginning of Protestantism, by Martin Luther, which of course makes understanding who he really was very important.

1. 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:

First of all, I think that the specific reasons for the charge of the Bishop of Rome being the antichrist are ridiculous, over the top, and completely unnecessary, both when they were made and also now. Furthermore, you seem to be saying that Lutheranism actually COULD change the Confessions and eliminate those ridiculous accusations.

To me it looks like saying that ‘pigs could fly’. Of course, with God, ALL things are possible, but the fact of the matter is that in all of recorded history NO PIG HAS EVER FLOWN. So to say that one COULD fly is completely meaningless, and in fact, misleading. From what I know, there is absolutely NO evidence that any Lutheran Communion has ever actually altered one word of the Confessions that they hold to. Can you name one, other than of course what you would call “positive reformulations” which do not actually alter the text of the Confessions themselves? As such, with absolutely NO evidence that in 500 years, ANY Lutheran communion has changed even one word of their confessions, the statement that Lutheranism ‘could’ change the text of their confessions, is meaningless and misleading.

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).

In other words, the Confessions can never be altered but will be moot ONLY when the Catholic Church changes its teachings and organizational structure such that it accommodates Lutheran beliefs. As you know the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is very prominent in the writings of Early Church Fathers.

Somehow Lutheranism seems to believe that the Catholic Church should alter its teachings such that they satisfy Lutheranism and only Lutheranism. As we have seen on other threads, your LCMS leadership has written, in recent years, indicating that there will be unity with the Catholic Church ONLY when the Church changes its teachings. These statements leave open NO possibility that the LCMS is willing to adjust their doctrinal positions. It’s all very ‘Martin Lutheran’ in terms of approach.

 

[Topper17]

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:

Your LCMS statement Jon indicates that it is possible that there might be a change in Catholic teaching, but does not mention even the remotest possibility that Lutheran teaching might change. I see the attitude of Martin Luther in this position. He was not known for his ‘ecumenical attitude’ as you know.

What Lutheranism demands as a precursor to unity is not possible for the Church to offer. Thus your accusations are ‘historical’, and ‘conditional, but since you know that the Church is not able to meeting your conditions, your ‘conditional’ means that they will stand until the end of time, or possibly until Lutheranism ceases to exist. You really can’t expect the Church to change dozens and dozens of its teachings to accommodate a relatively small slice of the whole Protestant pie. Why would we not be expected to do the exact same thing by all of those other Protestant groups and how in the world would that work?

This brings up another question that has also never been answered. How many sacraments should the Catholic Church trim from the 7 in order to satisfy the Lutheran demands prior to some supposed ‘unity’?

Remember Jon that the Catholic Church claims that its teachings are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which means that they cannot be changed. Those things which have been proclaimed as dogmatic teachings are infallible. You tell us that yours are not, and yet you seem to expect us to deny our teachings. It would seem to me that it would be a lot easier for you to change what you admit are only the teachings of man. Again, if you would like to offer a different way of viewing the authority of your Confessions, then please be specific and exact so that we can discuss what you actually believe.

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.

There it is again Jon. Lutheranism will never accept the Catholic understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome, and the Church is not able to change it. As such, unity can be based on only individual conversions.

This question has been answered numerous times, not with silence or a changing of the subject, but by a clear and concise message that there is a requirement for agreement between our communions regarding the power and primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Both sides require it. AFAIK, neither Pope Benedict nor Pope Francis have heeded the requests for Eucharistic hospitality during the 500th anniversary commemoration of the posting of the Ninety-five Theses made by some Lutheran leaders. Why? The reason is clear; we lack unity and agreement. The same applies to this topic.

Do you think that the Catholic Church should help you honor the Reformation that Luther fostered? Do you think that we should bend the rules and allow ‘Eucharistic hospitality’ for some period as a way of honoring Martin Luther? By the way, who was it, meaning which communion was it, that asked for this ‘hospitality’? Was the LCMS involved? I ask because I cannot imagine it.

It is true, that as long as we have a dispute regarding the pope’s jurisdiction and the necessity of being in communion with him, the harsh language, both ways, remains, sadly.

The language hurts the modern Christian ear: antiChrist, heretic, schismatic, etc. I believe what we consider an error in teaching regarding the primacy of the Pope could be called heterodox, but the difference in our views is still a difference.

The ‘language’ remains the same. The Early Church Fathers were not exactly bashful about calling a heretic a heretic. The official position of Catholic Answers is that Protestantism is simply one of a long line of heresies. Of course those heretics of old were offended and of course the Church has always had a duty to pass judgment on unorthodox beliefs and groups.

Well, Mary, if the question being asked in post #33 is simply, can lay Lutherans change the language in the confessions, the obvious answer is no, no more than a lay Catholic can change the Council of Trent.

Here’s what I don’t understand Jon - we hold the decisions of the Council of Trent to be inspired/infallible. You have claimed that Lutheranism does not consider its Confessions as such. IF Lutheranism doesn’t consider the Confessions to be divinely inspired, or infallible, then they cannot be anything more than the opinions of man, or a group of men. If that is really all you believe they are, then another group of men can easily alter or eliminate them. If they could be in error, then why do you absolutely INSIST that they are God’s Absolute Truth? If there is some shade of gray between ‘Inspired by God and Infallible and human opinions’, then we should explore that concept or definition – whatever it is. As with most issues, digging below the surface to reveal the foundation for various beliefs is very helpful in determining which are most likely the ones that are correct.

 

[MaryT777]

After reading the comments from the Confessional Lutherans (the Lutherans the profess the fact the Pope is in the seat of the AntiChrist) I personally believe there will be no unity between confessional Lutherans and Catholics on this side of heaven.

Personally I desire no unity with such a Church body teaching as such and see no possibility of it on a “corporate” level. We have made huge strides with the ELCA on the issue of justification with the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which the LCMS of course did not sign.

Time to shake the dust off and spend time dialoguing with Church bodies more open to ecumenism.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Ok.
Starwarsfan provided are good answer. Each synod or church within the Lutheran tradition determines for itself the documents it holds to. Father K says the Church of Norway holds to the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism. So, Smalcald and the Power and Primacy of the Pope, as well as the Formula of Concord do not apply to his communion. Others place differing weight on different documents.

It seems to me Jon that trying to achieve some sort of meaningful unity with Lutheranism overall is completely impossible. Lutheranism as a whole seems to be every bit as fractured doctrinally as is Protestantism overall. There have been sessions of the Dialogue which the LCMS wouldn’t even attend. You all don’t even all hold to the same Confessional documents. How can you possibly suggest, as the LCMS does, officially, that unity will be achieved ONLY when the Catholic Church changes its teachings?

Personally, I think that the most logical first step is for Lutheranism overall to get its own house in order and then attempt to reconcile with the Church that Christ established. You should all meet and have an Intra-Lutheran Council. Each competing Lutheran communion should agree going in to abide by the doctrinal decisions of the whole council. Once you have demonstrated that you have the capability to achieve unity on this seemingly easier stage, THEN you could come to the Church, and with some credibility, discuss unity with us. Until then, what would you suggest the Catholic Church do? Should we ‘negotiate’ with dozens and dozens of doctrinally conflicting, independent Lutheran communions, each of which probably have a different set of ‘drop dead demands’?

So, let’s assume the LCMS determined that the term “antiChrist” no longer expressed our concerns about the reasons put forth in the confessions, or that the usage of it by other non-Catholic groups caused the Lutheran expression to be misconstrued. As a result, the LCMS could, I suppose, choose different language (heterodox, for example).

First of all, the actual text of your Confessions regarding the antichrist and the ‘adherents’ leave little to the imagination. As you know, a clear reading of these extremely clear texts leads to an understanding of your official teachings about the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome which CANNOT be misconstrued.

You say that you ‘suppose’ that the LCMS could choose ‘different language’. I would suggest that that is another ‘pigs could fly’ kind of statement. It also appears to be potentially misleading. Please show me one example where the LCMS has officially changed the actual text of any of your Confessional documents.

As a matter of fact, the writings of your leadership and the videos of Pastor Fisk (LCMS), which we have discussed previously, leave me 100% convinced that the LCMS, officially, is in no ‘mood’ to change the language of ANYTHING in the Confessions it holds to, including the anti-Catholic texts.

Or, if our communions came to terms with the CC regarding how we jointly perceive the primacy of the Pope, those sections of Smalcald, the FoC, and perhaps the entire Power and Power and Primacy of the Pope, could be done away with, since it would no longer be relevant.

There we are again. The Church would be required to change its teachings on the role of the Pope FIRST, before Lutheranism would be willing to do anything. Again, this is exactly the approach of Martin Luther. He took a position, often accompanied by abusive language and accusation, presumed that he was right and that everybody who disagreed with him was also wrong in God’s Eyes, and then demanded that THEY yield. Then he abused them even further for not following his ‘advice’. This then formed the basis, the foundational approach for Lutheran ecumenical ‘style’.

We hear a lot here about how Lutherans honor the role of the Bishop of Rome within Christendom. That is not at all reflected in the official teachings as found in the Lutheran Confessions. It should be pointed out that the most offensive language is contained in Confessional documents that not all Lutherans hold to. In fact, it seems to me that while we disagree with groups like the ELCA on certain matters, they are nowhere near as officially anti-Catholic as those who hold to the Formula of Concord and the other documents that you referenced.

 

[JonNC]

After reading the comments from the Confessional Lutherans (the Lutherans the profess the fact the Pope is in the seat of the AntiChrist) I personally believe there will be no unity between confessional Lutherans and Catholics on this side of heaven.

Personally I desire no unity with such a Church body teaching as such and see no possibility of it on a “corporate” level. We have made huge strides with the ELCA on the issue of justification with the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which the LCMS of course did not sign.

Time to shake the dust off and spend time dialoguing with Church bodies more open to ecumenism.

Mary.

Hi Mary,
It seems, on the bolded, you are assuming something outside Catholic teachings. On this side of Heaven. Your Church teaches, as found in Unam Sanctam, that unless someone is in communion with the Bishop of Rome,they cannot be saved. None of the following matter if one is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome: grace, Christ, baptism, faith, good works. Nothing matters. It is, according to Unam Sanctam, unequivocal. So, apparently, we won’t see each other in Heaven, because the power of the Bishop of Rome is far greater than those other things mentioned. I can’t be saved. God cannot save me because the Bishop of Rome says I can’t be saved, because I am not in communion with him.

Do I have that right?

Jon