Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13266557]First of all, I find it very revealing that you refer to my comments as only “Post #33”.

I’ll be happy to Pm with you about this, if you wish.

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?

If someone has no desire to accept what is said, lacks the willingness to listen, no amount of proof matters.

You will have to excuse my skepticism.

It isn’t a matter of excusing it.

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.

We’re not the ones who try to make men infallible. We accept the fallibility of men, including all bishops, and it doesn’t matter if the chair upon which he sits was the see founded by St. Peter.

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.

I understand that this is your opinion. I would feel the same if I were in communion with the Pope. Equally, I believe the claims that the Pope has universal jurisdiction, is infallible ex cathedra, and being in communion with him is in any way a determining factor fpr salvation is ridiculous, over the top, and completely unnecessary, all through history and now.
Of course the charge, based on the previously posted teachings, could change. Topper, when will the teachings change? One is directly linked to the other.

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.

Actually, that’s not what I said. I have said, countless times to you on this issue, that if our communions came to a mutually accepted understanding of the primacy of the pope, then the charge no longer applies. It’s moot, unneeded, done away with, thanks be to God.
The larger question is, is the Catholic Church willing or even able to dialogue on the issues addressed? I have heard many Catholics over my years here express the claim that Catholic teaching cannot be changed. If that’s the case, then it sounds like the “cannot change” shoe actually belongs on the Catholic foot.

As you know the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is very prominent in the writings of Early Church Fathers.

As you know, there are significant differences in the ECF’s understanding of papal primacy, and the supremacy/ universal jurisdiction/infallibility teachings that have arrived since.

Somehow Lutheranism seems to believe that the Catholic Church should alter its teachings such that they satisfy Lutheranism and only Lutheranism.

And Catholicism seems to think Lutheranism should alter its teachings such that they satisfy Catholicism and only Catholicism.

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.

As we have seen on other threads, your Catholic leadership has written, for centuries, indicating that there will be unity with the Lutheran Church ONLY when the Church changes its teachings. These statements leave open NO possibility that the Catholic Church is willing to adjust their doctrinal positions. It’s all very “Papal supremacy” in terms of approach.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13266564]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.

Your various Catholic statements, Topper, indicate that it is possible that there might be a change in Lutheran teaching, but does not mention even the remotest possibility that Catholic teaching can change. I see the attitude of papal supremacy in this position. Until recently, popes were 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.

Exactly! Neither side should be expected to provide a precursor! That’s what I’ve been telling you over and over, but your position seems to be that dialogue should start with the assumption that only Lutherans should change, and we shouldn’t expect the same in return. IOW, your position seems to be the old Breshnev doctrine of negotiation: what’s ours is ours, what’s yours is negotiable.

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.

Who, then is it that isn’t willing to dialogue here?

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?

Well, finally, you see the flaw in your approach to dialogue. It was the flaw in dialogue that handcuffed ecumenical efforts for 400 or more years. Thank God for Pope St. John XXIII, and his willingness to look past the polemical approach of both of our communions that had failed for so long.

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’?

You still don’t understand dialogue. And why would you put unity in quotes? Is the idea so detestable?

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.

Yes, I know this. Those things which have been proclaimed as dogmatic teachings are claimed to be infallible.

You tell us that yours are not, and yet you seem to expect us to deny our teachings.

You’v put words in my mouth, here. I’ve never said that. Look back at my posting history, Topper. I have always said that true unity (not in quotes) doesn’t come from one side or the other being expected to deny their teachings, but by dialogue in love, charity, and steadfastness.

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.

The problem is we don’t accept your teachings to be anymore infallible than ours, since they were determined by mere men and, regarding the ones we are talking about, outside of a truly ecumenical council.

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.

There it is again, the “cannot change” shoe is on the Catholic foot. You have accused Lutherans of being unwilling to change, yet here at least twice you have admitted that it is the Catholic Church that cannot change (I actually think that’s false, but that’s another thread).

As such, unity can be based on only individual conversions.

As I told another Catholic recently, I do not proselytize. I do not encourage Catholics to convert.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Originally posted by Topper17
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.

I do not. I believe Eucharistic unity comes from doctrinal unity. I agree with Pope Benedict, and his comments at the Lutheran church in Rome in 2010.

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, there you are. Both of us are offended. That really solves it, doesn’t it?

Here’s what I don’t understand Jon - we hold the decisions of the Council of Trent to be inspired/infallible.

This is an error, in our view. Trent was not a truly ecumenical council. There is no reason, offered from scripture or the early Church, to believe that the Council of Trent should in any way be held 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.

And yet, the idea that Catholics hold Trent inspired/infallible is, in itself, opinions of men.

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.

We first have to explore the fact that there is no scriptural or early Church reason to believe the Council of Trent, which was not ecumenical, was even authoritative, much less inspired/infallible. Remember, the very idea that the Pope is infallible ex cathedra is a recent innovation.

Topper, my only point in responding this was is because you, again, seem to be under the impression that I or any Lutheran will accept, as a starting point, the claims of infallibility of the pope* ex cathedra *, or a council upon which he presides, simply because he presides and approves.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

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.

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.

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

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

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

 

[Starwarsfan2]

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

Which is why the bishop of Rome is schismatic , that scriptures give him NO authority to save .

 

[SyroMalankara]

Which is why the bishop of Rome is schismatic , that scriptures give him NO authority to save .

Clearly, both you and Jon give a caricature of the actual teaching to suit the schism, since Catholicism never taught that interpretation of the teaching.

 

[JonNC]

Clearly, both you and Jon give a caricature of the actual teaching to suit the schism, since Catholicism never taught that interpretation of the teaching.

You’re right, Syro. At least in part, mine is a caricature. I know that what I’ve said about the teaching of Unam Sanctam is somewhat hyperbolic, but every time the issue comes up, some posters provide a caricature of Lutheran teaching, as well. Sauce for the goose, as Spock would say.

Jon

 

[chero23]

This probably has been said here, but Anti Christ was a big Ellen G. White scare tactic by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

But she said it was Vicarius Fili Dei

 

[MaryT777]

This probably has been said here, but Anti Christ was a big Ellen G. White scare tactic by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

But she said it was Vicarius Fili Dei

Yes. The Doctrine of the AntiChrist abounds here and there. It’s ludicrous and not supported by the Bible. It’s a man made or should I say women made as well doctrine supported by the likes of Ellen G White and Luther. Consider the source I say.

Mary.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Yes. The Doctrine of the AntiChrist abounds here and there. It’s ludicrous and not supported by the Bible. It’s a man made or should I say women made as well doctrine supported by the likes of Ellen G White and Luther. Consider the source I say.

Mary.

You do realize that a discussion is supposed to be on the points in support of a view , but not on slamming God s people in to the ground for their mistakes ( the reformation is not a mistake , however anti catholism on the Adventist side and on the other anti semitism were mistakes ) forgive them and move on .

 

[JonNC]

This probably has been said here, but Anti Christ was a big Ellen G. White scare tactic by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

But she said it was Vicarius Fili Dei

And the two positions, the Lutheran on the one hand, and that of SDA’s and some fundamentalists on the other, are markedly different.

** Is the LCMS Position the Same as the Fundamentalists?**

• Absolutely not!

• Fundamentalists and Evangelicals differ on many issues, particularly on their relationship to the Roman Catholic church. Fundamentalists are generally anti-papal; Evangelicals are generally more ecumenical. Some have even signed a statement on common moral issues “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” in the 1990s.

• Most fundamentalists are known as “dispensational premillenialists.” “Dispensational” refers to a historical periodization based on scriptural interpretation. “Premillenialism” is the belief that Jesus will return to establish a 1000 year reign on earth before the Final Judgment.

• The LCMS has always rejected “premillenialism,” as did the Lutheran church in its confessions, see Augsburg Confession 17.

• The fundamentalists position on the anti-christ is based on ideas developed in the Middle Ages about the meaning of the Book of Revelation, looking for a fulfillment of every detail in history. The Lutheran position was based II Thessalonians 2 and I John 2, and sees the anti-christ not as one historical figure, but as a type which many might fulfill, if they bear the marks.

issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm

It is the marks, the teachings, that we believe are opposed to Christ. That’s why I keep saying, because it is a fact, that Lutherans do not believe that Pope Francis, or any of those before him, are THE ANTICHRIST, as in an end-times beast. Lutherans are ammillennialists.
Catholics certainly don’t like our view of the term, either, not surprisingly. But one shouldn’t confuse the meanings.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

You do realize that a discussion is supposed to be on the points in support of a view , but not on slamming God s people in to the ground for their mistakes ( the reformation is not a mistake , however anti catholism on the Adventist side and on the other anti semitism were mistakes ) forgive them and move on .

I don’t understand your point. I am not the one slamming the Pope into the ground who is one of God’s people and calling him or his office AntiChrist. . How can you forgive that when it’s still doctrine?

I repeat and I realize that not all Lutherans hold to this article of Faith but some still do.

Lutheran:
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.)

Aw this is nice:
Martin Luther (Lutheran)
“We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist…personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull [official decree]): “I despise and attack it, as impious, false… It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein… I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself.” --D’Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.

SDA:
3.“The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast.” (Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.)
4.“The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church.” … “The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark.” (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page 281.

This again is a man made doctrine and should be rejected. I don’t assign culpability to those members of those churches that have sheep in wolves clothing teaching this but alas their Pastors could be held a accountable to God for false teaching unless of course they are invincibly ignorant. That is for God to decide.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t understand your point. I am not the one slamming the Pope into the ground who is one of God’s people and calling him or his office AntiChrist. . How can you forgive that when it’s still doctrine?

I repeat and I realize that not all Lutherans hold to this article of Faith but some still do.

Lutheran:
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.)

Aw this is nice:
Martin Luther (Lutheran)
“We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist…personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull [official decree]): “I despise and attack it, as impious, false… It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein… I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself.” --D’Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.

SDA:
3.“The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast.” (Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.)
4.“The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church.” … “The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark.” (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page 281.

This again is a man made doctrine and should be rejected. I don’t assign culpability to those members of those churches that have sheep in wolves clothing teaching this but alas their Pastors could be held a accountable to God for false teaching unless of course they are invincibly ignorant. That is for God to decide.

Mary.

Mary.

Lutherans worship on Sunday.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Mary.

Lutherans worship on Sunday.

Jon

You missed the point. The point is both teach the Pope is the Antichrist /in the seat of the anti Christ for different reasons. Of course they are not the same reasons for it’s a man made doctrine.

You must not be familiar with SDA theology. I am and know several SDA members. They blame Rome You are following Rome as a Lutheran in worshipping on Sunday like some mindless puppets in their eyes and not culpable for the big “Change in the Sabbath Day.” Seriously that’s how they put it up close and personal

 

[chero23]

And the two positions, the Lutheran on the one hand, and that of SDA’s and some fundamentalists on the other, are markedly different.

issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm

It is the marks, the teachings, that we believe are opposed to Christ. That’s why I keep saying, because it is a fact, that Lutherans do not believe that Pope Francis, or any of those before him, are THE ANTICHRIST, as in an end-times beast. Lutherans are ammillennialists.
Catholics certainly don’t like our view of the term, either, not surprisingly. But one shouldn’t confuse the meanings.

Jon

For the record I did state SDA with EGW never did I mention Luther

 

[JonNC]

For the record I did state SDA with EGW never did I mention Luther

Yes. I know. Thank you.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I don’t understand your point. I am not the one slamming the Pope into the ground who is one of God’s people and calling him or his office AntiChrist. . How can you forgive that when it’s still doctrine?

I repeat and I realize that not all Lutherans hold to this article of Faith but some still do.

Lutheran:
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.)

Aw this is nice:
Martin Luther (Lutheran)
“We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist…personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull [official decree]): “I despise and attack it, as impious, false… It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein… I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself.” --D’Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.

SDA:
3.“The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast.” (Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.)
4.“The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church.” … “The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark.” (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page 281.

This again is a man made doctrine and should be rejected. I don’t assign culpability to those members of those churches that have sheep in wolves clothing teaching this but alas their Pastors could be held a accountable to God for false teaching unless of course they are invincibly ignorant. That is for God to decide.

Mary.

But instead of forgiving Luther and Sda who are also part of Christ church , you INTENTIONALLY refuse and run them into the ground .

 

[MaryT777]

But instead of forgiving Luther and Sda who are also part of Christ church , you INTENTIONALLY refuse and run them into the ground .

This is ludicrous and misguided at best. I simply REJECT the teaching of Lutherans on the doctrine of the AntiChrist (the Pope sits in the seat of the antichrist) and the SDA’s as well and any other Church body that teaches as such.

I reject it not those that embrace and believe such nonsense. It is a doctrine of the devil who would love nothing less than denigrate the Pope the leader of the Church that Jesus Christ founded and stated was the Pillar and Foundation of truth.

Mary.

 

[chero23]

But instead of forgiving Luther and Sda who are also part of Christ church , you INTENTIONALLY refuse and run them into the ground .

But let’s be honest, the SDA church does not really see the Catholic Church in good eyes. Yes they ay, “well Catholics can be saved”, but guess what? They say that with a grain of salt. That grain of salt is become SDA

 

[jinglebelle]

But let’s be honest, the SDA church does not really see the Catholic Church in good eyes. Yes they ay, “well Catholics can be saved”, but guess what? They say that with a grain of salt. That grain of salt is become SDA

And Catholics have no grain of salt in saying ay