Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[JonNC]

It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with doctrine on this forum.

This is the first “sticky”

Eric Hilbert Eric Hilbert is offline
Moderator Join Date: September 30, 2009
Location: Non-Catholic Religions
Posts: 7,161
Religion: Catholic

Default A reminder on inter-faith dialogue

---

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Agreed. In spades. So, with this and Archbishop Sheen"s qute in mind, what should I debate, discuss, dialogue, and disagree with; Catholic teachings as Catholics explain them, or Catholic teachings as explained by a non-Catholic? I try, as best I can to rely on what Catholics tell me they teach, not what someone else says. I don’t go to Matt Slick to find out what Catholics believe. By the same token, the other way around.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What does that mean? I was also under the impression you called me a troll.

Justa was responding to your actions. A Lutheran recently (not here) told me I should stop talking like a Roman Catholic. He didn’t say I was a Roman Catholic.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Justa was responding to your actions. A Lutheran recently (not here) told me I should stop talking like a Roman Catholic. He didn’t say I was a Roman Catholic.

Jon

Maybe the best approach before accusing someone of trolling is to just notify the moderator and not pass judgment.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Maybe the best approach before accusing someone of trolling is to just notify the moderator and not pass judgment.

Mary.

Would that go for accusing of proselytizing, too?

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Would that go for accusing of proselytizing, too?

Jon

Ah, yes. I do owe you an apology for that. Sorry. I join in the sinners club. That said I don’t believe you are a troll given your post count. LOL

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Ah, yes. I do owe you an apology for that. Sorry. I join in the sinners club. That said I don’t believe you are a troll given your post count. LOL

Mary.

No apology was even necessary, Mary. Heat of the moment, and all that. I’ve been there too. I hope you noticed a , and not a .
That said, apology accepted.
I love your passion for your faith - our faith - and our Lord, Mary.

His peace,
Jon

PS Hey I noticed your post count is inching up there too.

 

[MaryT777]

No apology was even necessary, Mary. Heat of the moment, and all that. I’ve been there too. I hope you noticed a , and not a .
That said, apology accepted.
I love your passion for your faith - our faith - and our Lord, Mary.

His peace,
Jon

PS Hey I noticed your post count is inching up there too.

Yes, I did notice the
gracias.!

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

It doesn’t clear anything up. They are just shifting from the person to the office. Slick!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

I agree with this that it takes some sort of an anti Catholic mindset to begin with to believe a doctrine that was man made by those that hated the Church and the Pope.

First of all, it should be noted that SPREADING their hatred very much helped them to achieve their goals. That was just as true for the secular leaders who wanted to loot the Church as it was for the religious leaders who wanted popular support for their doctrinal revolt. Unfortunately it was extremely easy for these ‘reformers’ to foment rebellion among the disaffected and disenfranchised. The ‘VERY Antichrist was exactly what Luther believed, but the making the people believe that was true would damage the Church in the minds of the people, which was exactly what Luther wanted to do.

Richard Marius comments on Luther’s self-justified Authority and how badly his hatefulness damaged his reputation as a ‘Reformer’ with the people. With regard to Luther’s role in the Peasant’s War:

“Luther’s ugly language proved clearly enough to those who read his words that he was neither a saintly prophet able to lead Christians to a higher plane of spirituality nor a Moses able to save his people by appeals to God to do miracles.

His ravings about the wrath of God visited on the peasants for their uprising and the wrath of God to be visited on the nobles for their fury have something powerless and pathetic about them; they seem to signal a fiercely angry man screaming defiance with no one to listen or to heed and few beyond his own circle to care……His rage troubled his friends and stirred in his foes gleeful charges of hypocrisy. Luther would have taken all those consequences as part of the inscrutable will of God in the world ruled by Satan and the dark powers of the air. His theology by now could justify anything he felt he had to believe.” Marius, pg. 435

Luther’s ugly language and ridiculous accusations were the result of many things, but one of the most important was Luther’s fear that he wrong.

“It does not require much insight to infer that he countered this frustration with a barrage of vehement language, railing on and on for page after ugly page as if he could hold all his fears and doubts only by pouring liquid fire onto his foes, dissolving the and his doubts in one mighty holocaust of rhetoric.” Marius, pg. 285

Does anybody here think that this sounds like a description of a man who was being led by God to ‘reform’ the Church? Similarly, does anybody who learned about Martin Luther as a Protestant in Sunday School recognize THIS Martin Luther, at all? Why is THIS Martin Luther SO much different than the one we learned about as children?

When Luther was challenged, and when people did not back down and allow him to have his way, he accused them of being liars and MUCH worse.

The biggest thing that gets in the way of the reunification between Lutheranism and the Church is Martin Luther Himself.

“Luther levelled at his opponents his oft-repeated accusation that they actually acknowledged the correctness of his teachings and knew that their own doctrine could not be substantiated from Scriptures. In spite of this they insisted upon having their own way. Therefore they had no right to plead ignorance, but were acting contrary to Scripture and contrary to their own better knowledge and judgment.” (Then Lutheran) Jaroslav Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 57

Apparently, there was simply NO ROOM for honest disagreement. Luther simply COULD NOT DEAL with people who disagreed with him and who refused to be cowed by his abuse and his ridiculously outlandish and baseless accusations.

 

[Topper17]

Luther himself acknowledged that he was abusive, but admitted basically that his abuse was motivated by his desire to force his opponents to be silent.

“I cannot deny that I have been more vehement than is seemly. But since they knew this, they ought not to have stirred up the dog.” Martin Luther as recorded by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther”, pg. 153-4

In other words, Luther believed that his opponents should have decided to NOT oppose him BECAUSE he WAS abusive. To me that displays among other things, not only a lack of character, but a tremendous arrogance. That kind of bullying might cause some people to back off, but, thankfully, not all.

Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards makes exactly this same point, mentioning that the:

“parallels Luther saw between himself and Paul were reassuring to him…and that those “parallels between himself and Paul, and between his opponents and Paul’s, confirmed his doctrine as the true doctrine. His sense of certainty and righteousness was undoubtedly bolstered by these parallels.

Once Luther saw himself in the role Paul had occupied, he had an explicit model for his behavior toward opponents. He could explain and justify his polemics and his stubbornness on points of doctrine by pointing to the example set by Paul. When critics charged, as they frequently did, that Luther violated the requirements of charity and modesty in his polemics, there was no need to be disturbed, for he had a cogent rationalization for his behavior.

Finally, by equating his evangelical opponents with biblical false prophets and apostles and by linking them all to Satan, he justified his characterizations of them as vain, lying hypocrites who were wantonly violating their own consciences. Apparent differences between them were a deception, for the devil rode them all. Because they shared a common devilish spirit, the misdeeds of one were potentially the misdeeds of all.” Edwards, “Luther and the False Brethren”, pg. 125-6

Here we learn, again, that Luther was SO certain that he was right, and that the facts were SO CLEAR, that the only way people could claim to disagree with him would be if they were falsely representing their own opinions. Given that the facts were that clear, they MUST agree with him and could only be lying when they claimed not to.

He actually believed that he could use the model of an actual Apostle in determining how to treat his opponents. How arrogant is that?

Edwards also comments:

“The targets of Luther’s ire become under his pen the vilest of hypocrites, totally wicked and insincere, willing minions of the devil, deserving the most horrible fate.” “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 7

These things go directly to the issue of character. Mary, what do you think is the chance that God had ‘chosen’ this particular man to Reform the Church?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Starwarsfan2]

That’s because you’re not on that particular receiving end, and there you go trying to tell me what we believe.

Actually, the confessions say you disagree with scripture, and the early councils. But of course we disagree with you,and you with us. There is, however vast areas of agreement between us, and for this we should thank God.

Well, yeah, of course. What kind of sense would it make to say we disagree with you, and you’re right?

And every single one of them, every one, is the result of the failure of the western Church, under the leadership of the western see, to maintain unity. We’ve been through this before as well. The vast number of Lutheran synods, those within the Lutheran tradition, are in communion with the members of one of two groups, the LWF, or the ILC.
I’ve told you that before, linked to the websites, and you continue to misrepresent.

Of the two of us, only I have been willing to admit to the arrogance on Luther’s part.
And by the way, I am not Martin Luther! I am not obligated to defend things he said 500 years ago, if I disagree with them. So, please stop asking me to. Its uncharitable and frankly it has become annoying.

And the Catholic Church, too. Hence, back to the obvious, we disagree with each other, and it would be idiotic to say, we disagree, and I think you’re right.

I have no idea what “almost infallible” means, but again, we’re not the ones who claim infallibility for a bishop, ex cathedra.

And your popes have accused us of being heretics, incapable of salvation simply because we are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Here’s the point: you don’t get to interpret what confessions mean. We do. And every time you misrepresent what the confessions mean, after I and numerous other Lutherans here have tried over and over and over again to explain it, linking to what the LCMS has said, simply means you have no interest in understanding it, and no interest in dialogue.

I have posted and linked to a couple of articles that explains exactly what this means. Again, for reasons that are known to you alone, you have chosen to ignore that explanation. I frankly have no interest in going over it again.

Jon

Topper if we are going to drag this on , argue on these good points.

 

[MaryT777]

Agreed. In spades. So, with this and Archbishop Sheen"s qute in mind, what should I debate, discuss, dialogue, and disagree with; Catholic teachings as Catholics explain them, or Catholic teachings as explained by a non-Catholic? I try, as best I can to rely on what Catholics tell me they teach, not what someone else says. I don’t go to Matt Slick to find out what Catholics believe. By the same token, the other way around.

Jon

I personally like to work off of official websites when possible. When I wish to learn about Lutherans LCMS I look to the Concord book and the LCMS official website.

The problem with debating (dialoguing, disagreeing with) teachings as Catholics explain them or Lutherans explain them is they are not always correct or aware of a particular teaching we may be discussing on the forum.

A confessional Lutheran poster on another thread said she didn’t even believe/ had never heard of the Pope and the antichrist teachings and when she asked her Pastor he told her yes, and gave her the whole spiel of it.

It some ways it’s odd the Pastor knows such a teaching of the Pope and she did not albeit confirmed Lutheran LCMS> It makes one wonder if there are particular reasons the LCMS does not really want to “advertise” that teaching anymore.

Certainly not a “warm fuzzy” one.

Mary.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

I personally like to work off of official websites when possible. When I wish to learn about Lutherans LCMS I look to the Concord book and the LCMS official website.

The problem with debating (dialoguing, disagreeing with) teachings as Catholics explain them or Lutherans explain them is they are not always correct or aware of a particular teaching we may be discussing on the forum.

A confessional Lutheran poster on another thread said she didn’t even believe/ had never heard of the Pope and the antichrist teachings and when she asked her Pastor he told her yes, and gave her the whole spiel of it.

It some ways it’s odd the Pastor knows such a teaching of the Pope and she did not albeit confirmed Lutheran LCMS> It makes one wonder if there are particular reasons the LCMS does not really want to “advertise” that teaching anymore.

Certainly not a “warm fuzzy” one.

Mary.

Mary.

It’s not a doctrine Mary. As you’ve read here, no Lutherans salvation is based on anything that is not an article of faith. Like our disagreements with other communions, it is not the basis of our belief and catechesis. I suspect the reverse is the same.
Lutheran catechesis is almost always based on the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, as well as the creeds. It isn’t hidden, it just isn’t part of what one must believe to be saved.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

It was not a personal attack. Its a fact. It is the same thing in reverse. No Catholic should care how I interpret Catholic doctrine. It isn’t my place to do so, and it isn’t your place to interpret for us our doctrines.

I am NOT interpreting Lutheran doctrine Jon. What I am doing is pointing out that the actual text of your Confessions say something FAR more gross and insulting than what you represent them as saying. The actual text Jon, says ‘the VERY Antichrist’. I am not ‘interpreting’ anything because the text is very clear that it does NOT say what you say it means. But, if you want to have the last word, **then please explain what those actual words mean. ** The actual words, by actually referring to them. Until you are actually willing to deal with those ACTUAL WORDS IN YOUR Confession, I am going to accept their VERY clear meaning.

Further, it seems to me that the very foundational starting point of dialogue is a willingness to listen to and accept what one’s dialogue partner says.

That’s only part of it Jon. **An even MORE ‘foundational part of dialogue’ is actually answering direct questions directly. **For example, if I ask how many Sacraments the Church should be willing to give up in order to achieve doctrinal union with Lutheranism, what is the answer I get? I have asked it what, 8 or 9 times and to what end? If I ask who the ‘adherents’ are in your Confessions, what kind of answer do I get? At least a dozen times now………

See my post to Randy. I don’t particularly care for the Catholic teaching regarding “invincible ignorance”. It seems to assumes that salvation is connected to being in communion (“albeit imperfectly”) with the Bishop of Rome.

Ok Jon, so you don’t like ‘invincible ignorance’. What do you think the Church should teach in it’s place? Or do you think we could ‘adjust’ it such that it would be acceptable to you? Rather than just ‘protesting’ about it, why don’t you offer up a specific and exact alternative text or phrase or definition. Then we could discuss that. Don’t just “protest”, make an actual specific suggestion.

But I do not deny that that is the Catholic teaching. When I’ve thrown Unam Sanctam in, it is in direct response to your uncharitable attempts to claim to tell me and other Lutherans what we believe, which you have done in post and post after post since you have arrived at CAF.

Since you feel that you have the right to express your personal frustrations about me, personally, I am going to test the waters and see if I, also, have that right. My frustrations have to do with having such a difficult time getting straight answers to direct questions. The “Unam Sanctam” response seems to be an old standby for not having to answer difficult questions. As an example of these questions:

How many Sacraments should the Church trim off in order to make it possible to unify our beliefs on the number of Sacraments? I want an actual number.

Who are the ‘adherents’ in your Confessions?

There are many other questions that have gone completely unanswered, so please don’t contend that dialogue involves a ‘willingness to dialogue’, because I am MORE than willing to listen, but I am not hearing the answers to my actual questions. How about we start anew with you answering the question about who, specifically and exactly, the ‘adherents’ are?

I know full well that Catholic teaching as gone through a “positive reformulation” regarding the teaching. I’ve read enough of the CCC to know that. Randy called me on it, because he knows I know it.

Given that statement, then you must realize how it ‘looks’ when you constantly run to Unam Sanctam, especially when you admit, as you do now, that your portrayal of that situation is not exactly……well….complete?

I don’t believe that I have a ‘right’ to define Lutheran teaching, but I do believe that I have a right to question things in Lutheran teaching, especially where they impact the Catholic Church. That is EXACTLY what this forum is for. I also have a right to know who the ‘adherents’ are, because it seems to me that I am one of them. What is frustrating is that it is seemingly impossible to obtain those answers.

What is important to me about all of that ‘antichrist’ nonsense, is what kind of authority actually backs up that accusation, in other words, what kind of authority the FofC Lutheran communions claim that they have. After all, if they are only of human origin, as they appear from your point of view, **then the only reason for not eradicating those offensive statements is if your communion doesn’t really want to. **

If you don’t agree with the very clear “the Very Antichrist” language, then just say that you reject that particular part of your Confession, but you must understand what it looks like when you say that it doesn’t say what it so clearly says. As you know, a LOT of Catholics have weighed in on that language over the last few years here on CA, and I don’t remember one of them who has bought into that ‘super non-literal’ interpretation that you offer.

 

[Topper17]

The accusations about the “the VERY Antichrist” were formulated within a certain context, and that context, “The Smalcald Articles” were written by Martin Luther in 1537, so it is extremely important that we understand about his overall attitude towards the Catholic Church during that period. **In this way we can get a better feel for what was intended by Luther when he spoke of the Pope as being ‘the VERY Antichrist’, which would of course also offer a better understanding of what the ‘formulators’ of the FofC meant when they ‘confessionalized’ that very language as being binding on all FofC Lutherans. **

Our friend Professor Mark U. Edwards (Lutheran) offers us some interesting information about the state of Luther’s relationship with the Church during this period:

Luther’s Polemical ‘Last Testament

"As Luther entered the 1540’s he was more than ever convinced that **he was engaged in the climactic battle between the church of Christ and the ‘synagogue of Satan’ [the Catholic Church]. **Everywhere he reads signs of the approaching End Time. Before his death he felt that he must make his final testament against the **enemies of God: the ‘papal antichrist,’ the Jews, the Turks, and the ‘false brethren’ [the ‘other’ Protestants] within the Evangelical ranks.” ** Edwards, “Companion”, pg. 202

Here Edwards relates the fact that, in Luther’s mind, everyone who disagreed with him was an ‘enemy of God’. That is so incredibly OVER THE TOP. Why did he think he had to go to that kind of an extreme?

“He had to defend the Word against the devil’s frantic last attack, he had to repudiate the false brethren, and he had to condemn all those who misused his name to support their pernicious doctrines and behavior. Of these final polemical works the most notorious, and most need of explanation, are Luther’s attack on the ‘papists’ and on the ‘Jews.’

“Papists”
**
"In 1541 Luther published ‘Against Hansworst’ as his scatological contribution** to a gutter fight between the princely leaders of the League of Schmalkalden and the Catholic Duke Heinz of Wolfenbuttel. **Luther outdid even the virulence of ‘Against Hansworst in his 1545 “Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil.” On the heels of these treatises he published a series of scatological [fecal themed] and violent woodcuts that, in most graphic terms, suggested how good Christians should treat the papacy. In these and other treatises Luther bestialized his opponents, most frequently likening them to pigs or asses, or called them liars, murderers, and hypocrites. They were all minions of the devil. He directed the devil to his ***, he named the papal decretals ‘decraptals’ (Drecketalen), and the Farnese pope ‘Fart-Ass’ (fartz Esel) and ‘Her Sodomitical Hellishness Paula III,’ and he threw around words for excrement with great abandon. In the woodcuts by Lucas Cranach commissioned by Luther near the end of his life, he had the papal church depicted as being expelled from the anus of an enormous she-devil, had peasants shown defecating in the papal crown, and suggested, once again in picture, that the pope, cardinals, and bishops should be hung from gallows with their tongues nailed alongside. ** While extraordinarily nasty even for Luther, ‘Against Hanswurst’ and ‘Against the Papacy at Rome’ also contained reasoned Scripture, history, and doctrine. Luther could never just attack. He always had to confess and profess as well.” Edwards, “Companion”, pg. 202-3

This provides an important context from which to understand what Luther actually intended with his 1537 “the VERY Antichrist” accusation. There was NOTHING too harsh for him to use in his attacks. He made absolutely everything absolutely as foul, coarse, offensive, and abusive as he could manage. **What is astonishing is that anyone could have mistaken a man like this for someone who was ‘sent by God’ to reform the Church. **

Luther was not the kind of man who would ‘back off’ a little bit and portray that it was ONLY the office of the papacy that was against the teachings of Christ. When dealing with his opponents, he was often completely off the hook and unrestrained. I find it hard to believe that Luther’s companions misunderstood his level of hatred for the Church and for Catholics. They knew EXACTLY what he meant by the ‘VERY Antichrist’ and it fit their agenda’s also to repeat that exact charge and mean it in the exact same way. **They looked to him as their spiritual leader, (amazingly) and the second generation of Lutheran leaders ‘confessionalized’ that ‘very Antichrist’ accusation and made it binding for all succeeding FofC Lutherans. **

Again, the FofC was built upon a foundation of Luther’s personal and individual authority. When we look at his writings of the time of the Smalcald Articles, it does’t really seem as if he was exercising some kind of God given authority.

It seems to me Jon, that if your communion was serious about progressing towards unity with the Church, an excellent first step would be to eradicated, officially, those offensive portions of the FofC. Do you think that is possible?

And again Jon, who, specifically and exactly are the ‘adherents’?

 

[MaryT777]

It’s not a doctrine Mary. As you’ve read here, no Lutherans salvation is based on anything that is not an article of faith. Like our disagreements with other communions, it is not the basis of our belief and catechesis. I suspect the reverse is the same.
Lutheran catechesis is almost always based on the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, as well as the creeds. It isn’t hidden, it just isn’t part of what one must believe to be saved.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I am NOT interpreting Lutheran doctrine Jon. What I am doing is pointing out that the actual text of your Confessions say something FAR more gross and insulting than what you represent them as saying. The actual text Jon, says ‘the VERY Antichrist’. I am not ‘interpreting’ anything because the text is very clear that it does NOT say what you say it means. But, if you want to have the last word, **then please explain what those actual words mean. ** The actual words, by actually referring to them. Until you are actually willing to deal with those ACTUAL WORDS IN YOUR Confession, I am going to accept their VERY clear meaning.

That’s only part of it Jon. **An even MORE ‘foundational part of dialogue’ is actually answering direct questions directly. **For example, if I ask how many Sacraments the Church should be willing to give up in order to achieve doctrinal union with Lutheranism, what is the answer I get? I have asked it what, 8 or 9 times and to what end? If I ask who the ‘adherents’ are in your Confessions, what kind of answer do I get? At least a dozen times now………

Ok Jon, so you don’t like ‘invincible ignorance’. What do you think the Church should teach in it’s place? Or do you think we could ‘adjust’ it such that it would be acceptable to you? Rather than just ‘protesting’ about it, why don’t you offer up a specific and exact alternative text or phrase or definition. Then we could discuss that. Don’t just “protest”, make an actual specific suggestion.

Since you feel that you have the right to express your personal frustrations about me, personally, I am going to test the waters and see if I, also, have that right. My frustrations have to do with having such a difficult time getting straight answers to direct questions. The “Unam Sanctam” response seems to be an old standby for not having to answer difficult questions. As an example of these questions:

How many Sacraments should the Church trim off in order to make it possible to unify our beliefs on the number of Sacraments? I want an actual number.

Who are the ‘adherents’ in your Confessions?

There are many other questions that have gone completely unanswered, so please don’t contend that dialogue involves a ‘willingness to dialogue’, because I am MORE than willing to listen, but I am not hearing the answers to my actual questions. How about we start anew with you answering the question about who, specifically and exactly, the ‘adherents’ are?

Given that statement, then you must realize how it ‘looks’ when you constantly run to Unam Sanctam, especially when you admit, as you do now, that your portrayal of that situation is not exactly……well….complete?

I don’t believe that I have a ‘right’ to define Lutheran teaching, but I do believe that I have a right to question things in Lutheran teaching, especially where they impact the Catholic Church. That is EXACTLY what this forum is for. I also have a right to know who the ‘adherents’ are, because it seems to me that I am one of them. What is frustrating is that it is seemingly impossible to obtain those answers.

What is important to me about all of that ‘antichrist’ nonsense, is what kind of authority actually backs up that accusation, in other words, what kind of authority the FofC Lutheran communions claim that they have. After all, if they are only of human origin, as they appear from your point of view, **then the only reason for not eradicating those offensive statements is if your communion doesn’t really want to. **

If you don’t agree with the very clear “the Very Antichrist” language, then just say that you reject that particular part of your Confession, but you must understand what it looks like when you say that it doesn’t say what it so clearly says. As you know, a LOT of Catholics have weighed in on that language over the last few years here on CA, and I don’t remember one of them who has bought into that ‘super non-literal’ interpretation that you offer.

I believe the adherents in the confessions are Papist Asses. Luther has said that Papists and Asses are the same thing.

Martin Luther - “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”, from J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants quelle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 138.

It was the alone issue in Romans but the sentiment is throughout his writings about we Papists.

Now, On a more positive note:

“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Martin Luther, Sermon on the Gospel of St. John, 1537)

Compliments of the Holy Spirit, Luther. Glad you see it our way

 

[MaryT777]

Topper:
I wanted to address this part of your post:

if your communion was serious about progressing towards unity with the Church, an excellent first step would be to eradicated, officially, those offensive portions of the FofC. Do you think that is possible? (Topper/clipped from above post)

One poster here has said NO it’s not possible to change the antichrist teaching. That same poster has said that his brand of Lutheranism does not teach this and accepts 4 things that don’t include this.

It has also been stated one can still be considered a “Confessional” Lutheran and not subscribe to the AntiChrist teachings.

Thus,
It IS possible to reject that and not accept is as part of teachings and the reason it is not done is obvious. It’s still believed by some Lutherans that the Pope is in the seat of the antichrist as they now say.

to the developed LCMS official site,
No Pope specifically is the antichrist.

Those are obviously contradictory so it leads me to believe it has been “watered down” and “developed” to be less offensive because it’s so ridiculous.

Again for the references.

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.)

The above which is much different in meaning than the below. It really does not take theological rocket science to notice the glaring big difference.

LCMS website said:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist.

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2217

Mary.

 

[Tomyris]

Would anyone be interested in a rehearsal of Reformed views on this subject?

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereo**f; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. **

reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlThe bolded section was in the original (1646) and is still used in some circles but was removed in the American revision in the early 1900s**. **Let me make the following points

1. this is actual church teaching, to which ministers are held. The degree to which it is held varies.
2. It was not put in there merely to parrot Martin Luther, whom some think Protestants regard as some sort of prophet or pope. We don’t,. We had reasons to put that in there, some of which are probably worthy of debate here, in contrast to being dismissed out of hand as ridiculous. To my mind this easy dismissal I am seeing smacks of disrespect towards the Reformed. I can point you to a recent statement by the forum moderator on disrespecting the beliefs of others.
3. Catholic apologists should be willing to discuss why the Reformed came to this insane and ridiculous belief and hear out the reasons, for no other reason than maybe it is somewhat entertaining.
4. Some of the reasoning may tread on the boundaries of what is acceptable at CAF, but for any sort of unity to commence, the subject should be discussed.
5. In general the Reformed have absolutely no interest in any sort of union with the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13293588]I am NOT interpreting Lutheran doctrine Jon.

Yes, you are. You have tried to do so since you arrived at CAF.

What I am doing is pointing out that the actual text of your Confessions say something FAR more gross and insulting than what you represent them as saying. The actual text Jon, says ‘the VERY Antichrist’. I am not ‘interpreting’ anything because the text is very clear that it does NOT say what you say it means. But, if you want to have the last word, **then please explain what those actual words mean. ** The actual words, by actually referring to them. Until you are actually willing to deal with those ACTUAL WORDS IN YOUR Confession, I am going to accept their VERY clear meaning.

And the actual text of Unam Sanctam says: Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is ALTOGETHER NECESSARY to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
On the one hand, I am willing to accept modern Catholic statements which say that this is "positively reformulated. On the other, you have stridently refused to accept the explanations of our confessions that have been given over and over and over again by me, by Ben, by Don, and others, wherein we have all cited LCMS statements.This is rather clear evidence that you have no interest in charitable, thoughtful dialogue.

That’s only part of it Jon. An even MORE ‘foundational part of dialogue’ is actually answering direct questions directly.
Clearly not. Answering questions directly comes as a result of a foundation of trust and charity. Answering questions are important, and accepting the answers a dialogue partner gives as truthful is just as important. You have consistently refused to do so, to the point of calling the reformers “bald-faced liars”.

For example, if I ask how many Sacraments the Church should be willing to give up in order to achieve doctrinal union with Lutheranism, what is the answer I get? I have asked it what, 8 or 9 times and to what end? If I ask who the ‘adherents’ are in your Confessions, what kind of answer do I get? At least a dozen times now………

On the first question, that would be one that leadership would have to work out in ecumenical dialogue. If I asked you how many sacraments Lutherans would be forced to accept, that question would be as provocative as yours.
On the second, I have myself posted at least twice the answer to this question. I have linked more than once, in more than one thread, an article that explains it. As you have chosen to ignore more response to the question more than once, I see no reason to continue responding to it.

Ok Jon, so you don’t like ‘invincible ignorance’. What do you think the Church should teach in it’s place? Or do you think we could ‘adjust’ it such that it would be acceptable to you? Rather than just ‘protesting’ about it, why don’t you offer up a specific and exact alternative text or phrase or definition. Then we could discuss that. Don’t just “protest”, make an actual specific suggestion.

First, the only thing I am protesting currently is the HHS Mandate, and the funding of that murderous organization, Planned Parenthood. As for the question, that isn’t up to me to decide. I don’t set Catholic doctrine. The Pope and Magisterium do. And for there to be closer unity between us, that would have to be discussed in ecumenical dialogue.

Since you feel that you have the right to express your personal frustrations about me, personally, I am going to test the waters and see if I, also, have that right.

I, of course have a right to express my opinions, though here on this forum I recognize it as a privilege, as a guest here.

My frustrations have to do with having such a difficult time getting straight answers to direct questions. The “Unam Sanctam” response seems to be an old standby for not having to answer difficult questions.

I am amazed that someone as intelligent as you still don’t see it. I am using Unam Sanctam as a tool to show you, in reverse, exactly what you have done consistently. You refuse to discuss what the Lutherans here state they actually believe, and instead ask us to defend your personal reinterpretation of what we say we believe.

How many Sacraments should the Church trim off in order to make it possible to unify our beliefs on the number of Sacraments? I want an actual number.

How many Sacraments should the Lutheran Tradition within the Church Catholic be required to accept?

continued