Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[steido01]

This thread is specifically about the AntiChrist so it is on topic to discuss. This post is an overemotional comment regarding a real thought that both denominations cannot be right,

Plus I notice that people that post this are always referring to the “other posters” not themselves.

Mary.

I’ve offered a helpful prayer of caution. If you mistakenly view it as anything else, I kindly direct you to my previous posts - all of which are in favor of ecumenical dialogue and, Spirit willing, convergence. Convergence is a real option; dialogue needn’t degenerate into a polemical battle based on a faulty win/lose dichotomy.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes. That was an easy question to answer.

I have only myself to blame - I asked for that

 

[JonNC]

Hi Mary,

How strange and hypocritical that the people who teach, officially, that the Pope is the Antichrist, believe that they can turn around and lecture us on Christian charity and the need to be ‘inclusive’. Its ridiculous.

How strange and hypocritical that the people who teach, officially, that one must be in communion with the Pope in order to be saved, regardless of baptism, grace, Christ, the sacraments, faith and works, believe that they can turn around and lecture us on Christian charity and the need to be ‘inclusive’. Its ridiculous

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

How strange and hypocritical that the people who teach, officially, that one must be in communion with the Pope in order to be saved, regardless of baptism, grace, Christ, the sacraments, faith and works, believe that they can turn around and lecture us on Christian charity and the need to be ‘inclusive’. Its ridiculous

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But see, neither Toppers’s nor mine deserves a thumbs up. Instead of moving away from the mutual condemnations, this just circles us back to it.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

How strange and hypocritical that the people who teach, officially, that one must be in communion with the Pope in order to be saved, regardless of baptism, grace, Christ, the sacraments, faith and works, believe that they can turn around and lecture us on Christian charity and the need to be ‘inclusive’. Its ridiculous

Jon

Jon-

I realize that you’ve been arguing with Topper for quite a long time now and that your patience has worn thin. But this post doesn’t meet your usual standards of clarity and charity.

If one has been properly baptized, then one was, by definition, put into some communion (however imperfect) with the Pope, the visible head of the Church, who was entrusted with its care by Jesus.

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

I realize that you’ve been arguing with Topper for quite a long time now and that your patience has worn thin. But this post doesn’t meet your usual standards of clarity and charity.

If one has been properly baptized, then one was, by definition, put into some communion (however imperfect) with the Pope, the visible head of the Church, who was entrusted with its care by Jesus.

Please note, Randy, that my quote is precisely the same as his, with just a couple of changes. I understand, and accept as honest, the current Catholic understanding of the claim that the Lutheran reformers took umbrage with. One can disagree with, but still recognize a sincere point of view. I wish Topper would do the same, when we explain, as we have, over and over, the view of our synod. We do not consider Pope Francis, or any pope before him, as “The Anti-Christ”.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

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.

I agree. There are different levels of culpability with regards to the horrendously offensive accusation about the Pope being the antichrist, which by the way is the subject of the thread.

First of all, there are plenty of Lutherans who don’t believe that accusation in any of its forms. There are also whole communions who don’t hold to those more offensive Confessions in question. Then there are also those Lutherans who are in the communions which hold those accusations as being official teaching, but personally, have NEVER been exposed to the whole ‘antichrist’ issue. They cannot be held responsible.

Then there are those who are aware of those accusations and believe them, in ANY of their forms and ‘explanations’. This would include those who insist that their confession ONLY mean the ‘office’ of the papacy, when of course, there is NO HINT of the word ‘office’ or present in the text. At the next level are those who ‘transfer in’ to a communion which makes the antichrist charge official teaching, from one that does not. These people absolutely OWN that accusation personally, and of course, have no choice but to defend it. Ultimately, there are those who actually wrote the accusation and decided that all in their communions would be held to the belief.

As with most issues, there are a lot of different ‘levels’ of responsibility.

I think that the ‘non FofC’ Lutherans have a bone to pick with the Lutherans who teach the ‘antichrist’. As you have noted, there is a tendency to paint all Lutherans with the same brush, with that brush being the ‘pope is the antichrist’. But not all are guilty of the offense. The ‘Pope is the Antichrist’ Lutherans make the whole of Lutheranism look bad. Lutheran Professor James M. Kittleson makes this point about the non-FofC Lutherans, in this case referring to a ‘group of Finnish Scholars’ saying of them:

“All the while, they argue that the problem with the disagreements on this matter is the fault of later Lutheran developments at the hands of [Luther’s] colleague, Philip Melanchton, and of the [much later] Formula of Concord in particular.” Kittlelson, “Companion”, pg. 260.

I certainly understand and agree with Kittlesons point, but I don’t think that it goes far enough. The fact is that Luther’s hatred of the Pope and Catholics in general are the basis for those ‘authoritative’ accusations about the Pope contained in those Confessions. That hatred was ‘baked into the cake’ and made official teaching.

Personally, I would like to know how many communions and what percentage of Lutheranism holds to those accusations as official must believe teaching. The longer these discussions go on it seems that there are actually not a large percentage of Lutherans who hold to what you call “such nonsense”, and “a doctrine of the devil”.

I will tell you what really gets me though Mary. There are people here who scream bloody murder when ACTUAL FACTS about Martin Luther are revealed. Then they act as if we should just ‘chill out’ when it comes to the OFFICIAL teaching of their communion that the pope is the Antichrist. That is the same double standard that we see here ALL the time. The actual facts about Luther are the actual facts about Luther, and MUCH could be said about him on this thread with regard to the Lutheran accusation of ‘antichrist’. And should.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

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

I don’t actually. I prefer, as you know, that everything in a dialogue be available for ALL to see. If you have something to say about your speaking of my comments as only ‘post #33’, then please post them on this thread where everyone can see them.

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.

Actually Jon, you ARE the ones who are trying to make men infallible. The Catholic Church has a precedent regarding the infallibility of Councils, and it is one that you subscribe to, at least up until some poorly defined point in time when you have chosen to reject the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils. On the other hand, there is NO PRECIDENT, repeat NONE, in Christian history, for a rouge group breaking away from the Church and proclaiming their teachings to be authoritative in defiance of rightful authority. At least none who was not heretical that is.

It makes no sense whatsoever to believe that the Holy Spirit would have ceased to speak infallibly through Ecumenical Councils, just because some new heresy or schism breaks away from the True Church, although those who break away always claim the opposite. You don’t believe that the Holy Spirit stopped acting though the Ecumenical Councils when the Arians split the Church. So why, specifically and exactly, do you claim that the Church was not being led at Trent. After all, by your logic, First Nicea was not an ecumenical council either. You always make much about the Great Schism, but your selectivity is not consistent. There have ALWAYS been breakaway heresies and schisms. There have ALWAYS been groups who have not been included in the Councils because of the judgements made against them by the Church. So why, specifically and exactly, do you focus on the Great Schism?

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 for 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.

Jon, if your argumentation has sunk to the point where you are simply repeating my comments, practically word for word, while changing the placement of the words Catholic and Lutheran, then you have revealed a great deal about the validity of your position. It would be MUCH better if you would actually deal with the points I have made.
So, let me understand this correctly. You object that I would call the Lutheran claims about the papacy as being ridiculous, pathetic and over the top, and then to show how you occupy the moral high ground, you make the same accusation about Catholic teaching. You reveal a great deal here Jon.

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

OK Jon. Let’s put that to the test. The key here seems to be the Authority of the Lutheran Confessions. You claim that they are not infallible but you ALL certainly treat them as if they are. The idea of changing even ONE WORD or punctuation mark sends you into spin mode immediately. Not one word of a Lutheran Confession text has EVER been changed. Granted there have been efforts to spin away very clear texts, but nothing has ever been changed in the actual texts. Certainly you have an explanation as to why, specifically and exactly, your various communions treat the Confessions AS IF they are absolutely UNCHANGEABLE. The decisions of man can always be changed by men who follow them. So what makes your confessions different? Jon, this is an extremely important set of questions.

If you can explain this mystery to me then we will actually have something to discuss. If you continue to duck these kinds of questions I will only be able to conclude that you don’t have an answer that you are willing to expose to scrutiny or criticism. Your choice. If you want to show me how interfaith dialogue is supposed to take place, a good start would be to answer this very basic, straightforward, and important question. BTW, you would be shocked to find out how my ‘style’ changes once there as an ACTUAL dialogue taking place, one where honest, direct and specific questions are answered honestly, directly, and specifically.

 

[Topper17]

As for the ‘willingness to dialogue’, in post number 59 I made a proposal about a way that the process towards unity could actually begin. Please excuse me if I have missed your response, but since it seems that you missed my proposal, here it is again, for your response:

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’?

You might think, as I do, that it is completely hopeless to expect the various Lutheran Communions to agree doctrinally and form a unified, cohesive, and peaceful single Communion. However, if you do think that that is impossible, then how could you possibly believe that such a unity is possible with a Church whose leader is considered to be the antichrist and its laity is deemed ‘adherents’?

This proposal, at least on the surface appears to be both reasonable and achievable, that is if all the parties are really committed to an intra-Lutheran doctrinal unity. If they are not – if they ALL insist that THEIRS is the ‘best version’ of Lutheranism, then the effort would be pointless. And if that were to be pointless, then achieving unity with the Catholic Church, as Mary stated, would be impossible.

Lutheranism comprises about 6% of Christianity. It is shrinking dramatically and is broken down into an uncountable number of doctrinally competing and conflicting communions, some of which will are not even in Eucharistic communion with many others (as with the LCMS). Conversely the Catholic Church, based at Rome, is made up of slightly more than half of Christendom, with, by definition, ALL of us in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

From my perspective, it seems to me that the obstinate position that Lutheranism takes with the Catholic Church is exactly that which they take with the ‘other’ Lutherans. Luther’s intractable attitude lives on internally.

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

Quite possibly that ‘other Catholic’ was pretty frustrated too by the level of cooperation. actually though Jon, we have a reason as to why our dogmatic teachings cannot be changed, a reason which we could discuss (on another thread of course) I say this because you are always SO focused on keeping all of these conversations in line with the OP.

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.

Whatever it is that you are talking about didn’t exactly lead to any kind of doctrinal unity, OR Eucharistic unity. I would like to know more about this ‘thing’ that happened in 2010, to see if it really amounts or amounted to anything, but I know better than to ask.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Star,

You do realize that is was the truth that Peter professed ( the Gospel of Jesus) that is the foundation of his church not Peter , right ?

And , again most Lutherans do not accept that the pope is the antichrist . Martin Luther himself encouraged the bishop of Rome to be a better Christian leader.

The idea that Luther ‘encouraged the Bishop of Rome to be a better Christian leader’, might be part of the “Legend” that Lutheranism has created about the man, but it does NOT IN ANY WAY represent Luther’s interactions with the Popes.

God Bless You Star, Topper

 

[Topper17]

You realize that when you start this way, it shuts discussion down.
If you want to discuss this, fine. But I am frankly not going to participate when you start in this way.

Jon

Please explain this to me Jon. Your official teaching is that the Pope is the antichrist. What? Is that not SUPREMELY OFFENSIVE? I say what every unbiased Christian believes - that that charge is ridiculous and pathetic (which it is) and, when I say it, 'the discussion shuts down"? Why let Luther have a pass for this extreme language? Doesn’t it seem logical that we should hold HIM responsible for this aspect of our division?

Jon - the discussion started to shut down during the time that Luther made those initial charges, along with his other foul, gross and hateful comments. Maybe it would be ‘helpful’ if we were to review a smattering of Luther’s other ‘lesser known’ comments which truly reveal the nature of the man. This would allow us to place his horrendous and silly ‘antichrist’ accusations in the context of his other similar comments. This will also lay to rest any confusion that there might be about what was actually MEANT by the accusations in your confessions.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

I’d wager that St. Peter was a vastly different Bishop of Rome than Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici.

I will say though that I don’t have any idea how your comment is a response to my post. I said that NO Father ever accused the Pope of being the antichrist. By bringing up the name of Medici, and you suggesting that he was the antichrist.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

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.

Yes. Thank you for pointing out what I do believe the posters already knew before they posted.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

You do realize that is was the truth that Peter professed ( the Gospel of Jesus) that is the foundation of his church not Peter , right ?

And , again most Lutherans do not accept that the pope is the antichrist . Martin Luther himself encouraged the bishop of Rome to be a better Christian leader.

When you say MOST Lutherans do not accept that the Pope (Or his office which quite frankly is equally ludicrous) is the AntiChrist can you list the Lutherans that do not believe this and their synods or whatever their designation may be?
I highly doubt the ELCA does but then other Lutherans here don’t seem to feel they are confessional in nature?

If you don’t subscribe to this doctrine of the devil then why would you care that Catholics find it ridiculous and a man made doctrine? I imagine if you don’t believe this then perhaps you feel it’s ridiculous too? Let us know what you think about some Lutherans teaching the Pope (his office) is in the seat of the anti Christ.

What synod are you in or type of Lutheran are you if you care to share that does not believe in this AntiChrist nonsense?

Peter’s profession of Faith is good for another thread for it’s off topic on this one.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

He did not hate he viewed it correctly as needing reform. And reform it he did, I repeat he NEVER hated the church.

It appears to me he hated most of everything about the Catholic Church. That said Catholics realize he had mental issues of scrupulosity that may have made him less culpable for his foul mouth and heretical teachings. That is for God to sort out of course.

Are you truly kidding me that Luther reformed the Church when you yourself say not all Lutherans believe the Pope is/sits in the seat of the anti Christ?

Lutherans are divided into synods with no altar and pulpit fellowship.(Wels, LCMS, ELCA and apparently other variations, I can’t keep them all straight)

You have ELCA Lutherans defending abortion, women ordination and homosexual relations and it seems now bizarre to be even focused on “Rome.”

I agree with Topper when he said time to have an Ecumenical Council among you Lutherans and come to Rome with one unified view.

Hopefully if there is voting on issues you guys can vote the Antichrist stuff out and that will help ecumenical issues.

Mary.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

He did not hate he viewed it correctly as needing reform. And reform it he did, I repeat he NEVER hated the church.

That’s true. He did hate the late arriving medieval institutions of the Roman Church. But not the church itself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please note, Randy, that my quote is precisely the same as his, with just a couple of changes. I understand, and accept as honest, the current Catholic understanding of the claim that the Lutheran reformers took umbrage with. One can disagree with, but still recognize a sincere point of view. I wish Topper would do the same, when we explain, as we have, over and over, the view of our synod. We do not consider Pope Francis, or any pope before him, as “The Anti-Christ”.

Jon

I did note that.

As you know since you pointed it out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”

In this statement, the Church IS being “inclusive” and “charitable” - the very things you seemed to suggest that we are not being by standing by that position. If we were being exclusive and uncharitable, we would insist that only formal Catholics could be saved, wouldn’t we?

Conversely, as you know because it has been pointed out, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod specifically states:

OF THE ANTICHRIST

**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.) (Source.)

Now, in this statement, the LCMS is being anything but charitable and inclusive, and I reject all attempts to explain this away. If all that scripture teaches concerning the anti-Christ is fulfilled in the office of the papacy, then what does that say about the Church that maintains that office and follows the leadership of the man who holds that office?

You can’t spin this, Jon. Either own it or reject it.

Indeed, you may not even be a Confessional Lutheran if you do not hold that the papacy is the antichrist:

This teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist is not a fundamental article of faith. . . . It is not an article on which saving faith rests, with which Christianity stands or falls. We cannot and do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Yet it is an important article and should not be side-stepped or slighted. It is clearly revealed in the divine word, and there is nothing needless and useless in the Bible; God wants us to know about the Antichrist. . . . This article is clearly expressed in the Lutheran Confessions; whoever denies it does not stand in one faith with his fathers; he is not a confessional Lutheran. A Lutheran preacher should know, believe, and teach this article or frankly confess that he no longer subscribes to the Confessions of the Lutheran Church. If we value the saving doctrine of the vicarious atonement through the blood of Jesus Christ, the God-man, in these latter days of the world, we shall do well to keep the facts concerning the Antichrist well in mind (“The Scriptural Doctrine of the Antichrist,” Our Great Heritage, Vol. 3, pp. 601,602). (Source.)

But if you do reject it and you are no longer considered a Confessional Lutheran in good standing, then why would you want to continue being a member of the “church” that teaches this lie about your brothers and sisters in Christ?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Hi Star,

The idea that Luther ‘encouraged the Bishop of Rome to be a better Christian leader’, might be part of the “Legend” that Lutheranism has created about the man, but it does NOT IN ANY WAY represent Luther’s interactions with the Popes.

God Bless You Star, Topper

Try reading some of his early letters , it’s not a legend , and no he did not hate Catholics , he considered many of them true Christians , if you stop antagonizing people, we might be able to have a decent discussion, thanks .

 

[MaryT777]

Try reading some of his early letters , it’s not a legend , and no he did not hate Catholics , he considered many of them true Christians , if you stop antagonizing people, we might be able to have a decent discussion, thanks .

If you would read Luther’s 8th commandment I believe and put a good construction on everything this discussion would be fine.

Mary.