Actually, the issue is inherent in the discussion because of the reasons for the charge of anti-Chirst regarding the office of the pope.
I think that it is appropriate at this point to flesh out the historical background behind the ridiculous and pathetic Lutheran claims about the Bishop of Rome being the antichrist. These historical details, at least from my perspective, make your Lutheran Founders (including Martin Luther) appear to be MUCH different than the Lutheran Legend:
On the question as to whether the Catholic Church is or is not “the Church”
The Smalcald Articles are part of the (held to be Authoritative) Book of Concord. In the Smalcald Articles Luther wrote the following of the church:
"XII. Of the Church.
1] We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. 2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. 3] This holiness does not consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the Word of God and true faith." :bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#church
We constantly hear that Luther was simply one of a number of Theologians who contributed to Lutheran theology. That really isn’t completely accurate. In fact, as demonstrated by the inclusion of the Smalcald Articles, those who hold to the Book of Concord actually believe that what Luther wrote there is Authoritative and is binding upon Lutherans.
As if Luther was not clear about whether the Catholic Church was really a Church, he wrote in 1541:
“If they are not the church but the devil’s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.” (Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, 1541, LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)
Charming. So we are the ‘devil’s whore’! We should not possess Church property? I have actually had Lutheran posters claim that, EVEN today, the Catholic Church should not be allowed to possess property because it is NOT a valid Church. When I asked if it would be acceptable then to steal things from a Catholic Church, his answer in a round about way, was – yes. Luther’s call to steal the possessions of the Catholic Church were answered by – surprise – wholesale looting of Church properties.
This Jon, along with thousands of other ‘lesser known’ facts, points out the nature of the foundation of Protestantism overall and specifically, Lutheranism.
Luther here ‘authorized’, meaning, by his own personal ‘authority’, granted people the right to ‘help themselves’ to Church property. History informs us as to what happened of course.
Luther goes further though. He demands that the Catholic Church “prove” that it is the Church, and that if it cannot (to his personal satisfaction of course), then it is NOT the Church. He of course does not demand the same of his brand new tradition. It is PRESUMED to be right in the Eyes of God. Luther did NOT allow that presumption to be challenged.
“However, so that we may not completely waste our time with Harry’s devilish dirt, but may offer the reader something better and more useful—though not for the sake of Harry or those who incite him, for they are “self-condemned; they have ears, but hear not”—we will come to the point at issue, namely, why the papists, through their Harry, call us heretics. And the point is that they allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” Against Hanswurrst, Luther Works, Vol 41, p 193, (c) Fortress Press
In my experience, you cannot ‘prove’ anything to someone who has already come to the conclusion that they cannot be in error.
That being said, here I actually agree with Luther. It “all turns on proving which is the ‘true Church.”
The True Church cannot teach conflicting doctrines. Either Lutheran or Catholic teachings are True in God’s Eyes. It cannot be both. That of course is not to say that Lutherans are not ‘imperfectly connected’ to the Catholic Church.
We are called as Catholics to accept Protestants as our brother’s in Christ. That does NOT mean however that we are required to believe that their teachings are correct, or are ‘equal’ to those of the Church where they disagree. That is what it seems Lutherans here want. They seem to me to want the Church to agree that their beliefs are just as valid in God’s Eyes as the teachings of the Church.
Number of sacraments - that’s just an insignificant detail.
Whether or not the Pope is the Antichrist is absolutely inconsequential compared to somebody getting their ‘feelings hurt’.
Whether the Mass is evil or not should not be a matter of concern. What is the most important is that peoples beliefs not be questioned.
That was an easy question to answer.
