Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[JonNC]

Who are the ‘adherents’ in your Confessions?

Search and find the answer I’ve already given more than once. If you refused to read it then, why should I expect you to read it if I post it again?

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?

See above.

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?

Precisely. Again the difference is mine accusation isn’t sincere. I accept what Catholics say they believe.

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.

Then ask questions about what we say the meanings are, not what you reinterpret them to mean.

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,

If you don’t agree with the very clear -]“the Very Antichrist”/-] Unam Sanctam language, then just say that you reject that particular part of your -]Confession/-] infallible Church teaching.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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?

Of course, and its amazing how often I have answered this question as well. When the causes and teachings that precipitated to charge have been reconciled, through ecumenical dialogue, the charges will be eradicated.

It seems to me Topper, that if your communion was serious about progressing towards unity with the Lutheran Tradition within the Church Catholic, an excellent first step would be to eradicate, officially, those offensive portions of Unam Sanctam, and other places where it is claimed that communion with the Pope is necessary for salvation. Do you think that is possible?

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

Again, Topper, go back to one of the several places where this was answered.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Here, again, is what I as a confessional Lutheran believe regarding the teachings of the confessions on this subject, this time with references to the reasons I do so.

1. That the teaching of the papacy that the pope has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church on Earth is both opposed to scripture and opposed to the councils of the early Church.
2. That the teaching that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome (even “imperfectly” as stated in CCC 846) in order to be saved, or one must submit to the Pope, as Pope Boniface stated it (infallibly?), is also opposed to scripture and Tradition.
   For 1 and 2, from the confessions:
   The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

1. That one and two do not exclude Catholics, be they laity, priest, nun, bishop, cardinal, or pope, from being Christians, living under His grace, forgiven of sin through the sacraments. It is in this way, through Christ, that I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and all Catholics. And I thank God for that.
   “]From the LCMS**”…personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as “Christians” by the Synod—only God can look into a person’s heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues.

This explains why former Synod President A.L. Barry called members of the Roman Catholic Church “our fellow Christians” in his statement Toward True Reconciliation, which at the same time identifies and laments the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

The great danger is that believing things contrary to God’s Word can obscure and perhaps even completely destroy belief in Jesus Christ as one’s Savior. We pray this will not happen to those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior and yet belong to heterodox church bodies, including fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church."**

1. That no pope, not one of them, is now or ever was, THE anti-Christ. Pope Francis is not the anti-Christ. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was not then, and is not now, the anti-Christ.
   From the LCMS
   "** The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. "**
2. That the charge found in the confessions is NOT doctrine, but a historical judgement, conditional upon the abilities of our two communions, guided by the Spirit, to reconcile this sad division between us.
   From the LCMS:
   **To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma. **

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

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

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.

Sure I’d be interested but it seems to be useless if the Reformed have absolutely no interest in any sort of union with the Catholic Church.

1: “The degree to which it is held varies” Does this mean each individual Pastor can decide if he agrees with this. That sounds like a recipe for a non unified mess.
2. Disagreeing with doctrine is acceptable form of debate on this forum; I have posted the rule on a previous post.
3: Why should Catholic apologists be willing to discuss this when there is no desire for unity?
4. Well you contradict yourself you say in 4 for for “any sort of unity to commence the subjected should be discussed” and yet in
5: "absolutely no interest in any sort of union with the Catholic Church

Would you really want to discuss Catholic thoughts of your leader if we held your leader to the Charge of being anti Christ whilst saying at the same tie we have ABSOLUTELY no interest in union with the reformed,

Mary.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Sure I’d be interested but it seems to be useless if the Reformed have absolutely no interest in any sort of union with the Catholic Church.

1: “The degree to which it is held varies” Does this mean each individual Pastor can decide if he agrees with this. That sounds like a recipe for a non unified mess.
2. Disagreeing with doctrine is acceptable form of debate on this forum; I have posted the rule on a previous post.
3: Why should Catholic apologists be willing to discuss this when there is no desire for unity?
4. Well you contradict yourself you say in 4 for for “any sort of unity to commence the subjected should be discussed” and yet in
5: "absolutely no interest in any sort of union with the Catholic Church

Would you really want to discuss Catholic thoughts of your leader if we held your leader to the Charge of being anti Christ whilst saying at the same tie we have ABSOLUTELY no interest in union with the reformed,

Mary.

Depends on what strand of Calvinist / Reformed , some are more open to union then others.

 

[MaryT777]

I wonder why we are even talking about Unam Sanctam on this thread.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Depends on what strand of Calvinist / Reformed , some are more open to union then others.

As a Catholic it would be impossible for me to know what strand of Calvinist/Reformed would be open to union.

I hope if someone here is lurking or posting that is open to such a thing they will state as such. It was certainly the hope of Jesus we al be as one.

Working with the Pope IS/ IS IN The SEAT of the antichrist/has MARKINGS of the antichrist/Changed the Sabbath day so is the Beast (antichrist) hampers ecumenical dialogue.

It’s a dime a dozen doctrine sadly.

Mary.

 

[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.

I think that the best way to understand the actual INTENT of those ridiculous and offensive accusations in the Lutheran Confessions is to understand the ‘mood’ of Luther when he first invented those charges, and why he did. In the following we also learn how it was routine for Luther to fail to address the questions and points of his opponents, which I think proves how much of an influence he has upon those who follow him, even today.

With reference to the Leipzig Debate period, which was roughly 18 months before he was excommunicated, Arthur Cushman McGiffert comments from a section of his book, ‘The Controversialist’:

“The attacks upon him during these months were many and severe. Though he frequently expressed regret at being obliged to waste so much time in controversy and interrupt more important work, he really welcomed the attacks as invitations to let his views be known, and many a reply was rather a statement of his own doctrines than an answer to his antagonists. For the latter, he often contented himself with personal abuse instead of reasoned argument.

“Never,” he politely assured one of his assailants, “have I seen a more ignorant *** than you, though you particularly boast of having studied dialectics for many years. I greatly rejoice to be condemned by so obscure a head.”

**His treatment of opponents, which grew more bitter with the passing years, has always been a ground of offense to his enemies and of confusion to his friends.” **McGiffert, “Martin Luther, The Man and His Work”, pg. 150-1

Do we ever hear Luther’s “polemical style” criticized here by Protestants?

So, we learn here that Luther, when challenged, would simply make “many a reply [that] was rather a statement of his own doctrines rather than an answer to his antagonists,” and that he “often contented himself with personal abuse instead of reasoned argument.” I can identify with the frustration of his opponents.

You would think that Luther would have taken these opportunities to actually attempt to CONVINCE people that he was right. Maybe he realized, at least on some level, that his arguments were not all that convincing. So rather than argue his point and answer his opponents points and questions, he would just simply state his opinions over and over again, insisting that they were the Truth. Of course he would also make his opponents the subjects of his posts. What else could he do? Had he believed that he had a compelling argument, he would have posted them. But rather than answer them, respectfully or otherwise, he would normally vilify them and claim that they were liars. Not charatable! I don’t think that he and I would have gotten along all that well.

Lutheran Scholar, E. G. Schweibert, the Lutheran Professor who wrote the excellent 800 page tome: “Luther and His Times” echoes the comments of McGiffert - that Luther was prone to NOT explain his beliefs. He often just asserted that he was right and didn’t bother to explain why. The following was written in the context of the exact year that Luther accused the pope of being ‘The VERY Antichrist’ (1537)

“In 1537 he suffered a severe gall bladder attack. No doubt all of these factors contributed to a growing irascibility, increasingly evident as Luther grew older. This tendency was further aggravated by his disappointments in such men as Carlstadt and Meunzer and the seemingly slow progress of the Gospel.

**Adding to his growing shortness of temper was a gradual increase in his intolerance of the viewpoints and convictions of others which differed from his own. In the writings of his later years he revealed a growing tendency to assert that his contentions were right without bothering to show why he believed them to be right.” **Schweibert, pg. 580

Here we learn that Luther became even more intolerant of the views of others as he became older. Of course it was in the early 1520’s that he urged people to wash their hands in the blood of the papists. I’m not sure how you get much more intolerant than that. What do you do to surpass that intolerance as you get older? What do you do to surpass the written recommendation to slaughter the peasants in 1525? Maybe Schweibert believes that the Pope as “the VERY Antichrist” in 1537 surpasses those examples of Christian character. I believe that they are all cut from the same cloth and that the cloth didn’t change its basic nature with age.

The information above makes it all the more certain that when Luther said “The VERY Antichrist” he meant it literally. In addition, when we learn more about the actual nature of the man, we can only come to the conclusion that the second generation Lutherans who ‘Confessionalized’ that ugly charge - they meant it literally also.

To be continued

 

[Topper17]

I think that he didn’t bother to explain why he believed his positions to be right because, at least on some level, he knew that they could be defeated with Scripture, logic, reason, and the evidence from the Early Church Fathers. Luther had SO MUCH invested in Himself being right, especially on Salvation and on the nature of the Pope, ‘the VERY AntiChrist’ that he could not bear to hear those beliefs criticized in a compelling way. So all he did was repeat his beliefs over and over and over again, mostly I think, to continue to convince HIMSELF that he was right. It really had nothing to do with convincing the unconvinced. It had a lot to do with ‘reassuring’ those who followed him that he was right, and to a greater degree, those who followed him because it was in their best interests to do so. The accusation of ‘the VERY Antichrist’ was exactly how Luther saw it, but he was also very aware that it was very much in his best interests, politically, to have the populace believe that rubbish, because they, along with the Princes, were his protectors. Of course, after the Peasants War, he was so hated that he dared not venture into the countryside for fear of his life.

It wasn’t just the peasants who left him once they had gotten a better view of him. It was also the humanists, the very Scholars who had originally so intrigued by the man.
**
“Next to the defection of the laboring masses, the severest loss to the Evangelical party in these years was that of a large number of intellectuals, who, having hailed Luther as a deliverer from eccesiastical bondage, came to see in him another pope, no less tyranical than he of Rome…**
**
But a considerable number of humanists (who previously had supported Luther), and those the greatest, after having welcomed the Reformation in its first, most liberal and hopeful youth, deliberately turned their backs on it and cast their lot with the Roman communion. **The reason was that, whereas the old faith mothered many of the abuses, superstitions, and dogmatisms abominated by the humanists, it has also, at his early stage in the schism, within its close a large body of ripe, cultivated, fairly tolerant opinion. The struggling innovators, on the other hand, though they purged away much obsolete and offensive matter, were forced, partly by their position, partly by the temper of their leaders, to a raw self-assertiveness, a bald concentration on the points at issue, incompatible with winsome wisdom, or with judicial fairness. How the humanists would have chosen had they seen the Index and Loyola, is problematical; but while there was still hope of reshaping Rome to their liking they had little use for Wittenberg.
**
“I do not deny, that at the beginning all Luther’s acts did not seem to be in vain, since no good man could be pleased with all those errors and impostures that had accumulated gradually in Christianity. So, with others, I hoped that some remedy might have applied to such great evils, but I was cruelly deceived. For, before the former errors had been extirpated, far more intolerable ones crept in, compared to which the others seemed child’s play.” This quote from William Pirckheimer, the Greek scholar and historian of Nuremberg." ** Preserved Smith, “Age”, pg. 102-3

Will Durant echoes Smith:

**“The intolerant dogmatism of the Reformers, their violence of speech, their sectarian fragmentation and animosities, their destruction of religious art, their predestination theory, their indifference to secular learning, their renewed emphasis on demons and hell, and their concentration on personal salvation in a life beyond the grave – all these shared in alienating the humanists from the Reformation.” **Durant, “The Reformation”, pg. 425

**
“If Protestantism knew thoroughly how their religion was formed; with how many variations and with what inconsistency their confessions of faith were drawn up; how they first separated themselves from us (the Catholic Church), and afterwards from one another; by how many subtleties, evasions, and equivocations they labored to repair their divisions, and to re-unite the scattered members of their disjointed reformation; this reformation of which they boast would afford them but little satisfaction, or rather, to speak my mind for freely, it would excite in them only feelings of contempt.” **James Benign Bossuet, “The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches”, Preface, 1

All of this information provides some context in which to understand Luther’s gross insults to the Pope and Catholics. These facts are historical, but they are not part of the standard “Legend of Martin Luther”, and they are not included for good reason. Well – I don’t think actually that it is good – FAR from it. Let’s just say that it is understandable that these things were for the most part, scrubbed out of the simplified “Legend”.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Topper:

This is clipped from Post 301 because if I quote your whole post I can’t post my response due to word limits. I thought it was well said and right on target.

---

I think that he didn’t bother to explain why he believed his positions to be right because, at least on some level, he knew that they could be defeated with Scripture, logic, reason, and the evidence from the Early Church Fathers. Luther had SO MUCH invested in Himself being right, especially on Salvation and on the nature of the Pope, ‘the VERY AntiChrist’ that he could not bear to hear those beliefs criticized in a compelling way. So all he did was repeat his beliefs over and over and over again, mostly I think, to continue to convince HIMSELF that he was right. It really had nothing to do with convincing the unconvinced. It had a lot to do with ‘reassuring’ those who followed him that he was right, and to a greater degree, those who followed him because it was in their best interests to do so. (Topper Post 301/clipped for brevity)

You know what is interesting Topper is this, I’m beginning to think that Luther in his heart was conflicted about his teaching regarding the antichrist and my personal opinion is that he got in “too deep” to get out. The fact that not all Lutherans subscribe to the AntiChrist teachings show us that it’s not a big deal to most Lutherans, many of them ,because it would be "discipline"which is the word we use for priestly celibacy that could be changed and reflects the preference of the Church at the time and not doctrine.

I was doing a little research:

Martin Luther:
“Most Holy Father, before God and all his creation, I testify that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any way the authority of the Roman church and of Your Holiness or demolish it by any craftiness. On the contrary I confess the authority of this church to be supreme over all, and that nothing, be it in heaven or on earth, is to be preferred to it, save the one Jesus Christ who is Lord of all” (Martin Luther, Letter to Pope Leo X, 1519)

---

I might also add that in his heart he felt as such:

“That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St. Peter and St. Paul, forty-six popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman Church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the church we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome, on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil,** which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”** (Attributed to Luther with no citation in Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné, History of the great Reformation of the sixteenth century in Germany, 132)

It appears to me that at one point in time Luther was in sync with real reformation regarding the Papacy Then he developed a new heretical doctrine with the AntiChrist

What I have learned most from this thread is that

1. Most Lutherans don’t even subscribe to the AntiChrist teachings .
   2: That I wish the one Lutheran poster who says as such would define what synod they are in so we can learn more about it and why they reject it.’

That somehow there’s something missing between 1/ and 2 and in Catholic terms we would describe it as development of doctrine: From the pope is the antichrist to no Pope really is.

1: This:

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.)

To the new LCMS frequent asked questions response they have NEVER taught any SPECIFIC pope is the antichrist. (Sorry I can’t find it to quote it again but I have in previous posts; the site ha changed)

Which is contradictory.

The sad thing is for those Lutherans that do believe as such is that Luther himself was conflicted.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

I wonder why we are even talking about Unam Sanctam on this thread.

Mary.

Two reasons.

1. the claim therein is one of the things the reformers viewed as anti-to-Christ.
2. I am intentionally misrepresenting the modern Catholic understanding of it the way Topper is doing our teachings.

Jon

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Let’s get back to the OP please.

 

[JustaServant]

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

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
.

When I mixed (very briefly) with Reformed Baptists they had the Baptist Confession of 1689 which had essentially what you quote above. I DID notice however, that certain RBCs would remove that part of the Confession because they no longer adhered to it.
An historical document obviously cannot be changed, but the loose confederation of RBCs can decide whether or not they can accept it.
Now this gets into the subject of “Confessions” themselves. Are they infallible and unchangeable, or can they be more flexible? I realize this is going off track, but I’ve noticed modern Presbyterian confessions omit what was originally in their historical document.

 

[JonNC]

I have heard from preachers when I went to a fundamental Baptist church that since the Roman Pope is addressed as the Vicar of Christ, that means he is declaring himself to be in the place of Christ. So that means he is openly saying he is the anti-Christ.
Is this true? Why or why not.

He is not declaring himself to be the anti-Christ. That would be a ridiculous claim. The teaching of the Catholic Church, as I understand it, is that Christ placed on the shoulders of St. Peter and his successors as the Bishop of Rome, the universal leadership of the entire Church on Earth. He did this by giving to St. Peter alone, the power of the keys.
Matt 16

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rockb I will build my church, and the gates of hellc shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosedd in heaven.” 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Further, from New Advent:

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

So, to say that the pope is declaring himself the antiChrist makes no sense.

On the other hand, those Christians who believe, to one degree or another, that this is an unscriptural claim, that is also against the teachings of the early Church and councils, there is the appearance that this Catholic teaching regarding Bishop of Rome is placing him in a position of jurisdiction and power that he is not entitled to, placing him in opposition to Christ’s teachings.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

He is not declaring himself to be the anti-Christ. That would be a ridiculous claim. The teaching of the Catholic Church, as I understand it, is that Christ placed on the shoulders of St. Peter and his successors as the Bishop of Rome, the universal leadership of the entire Church on Earth. He did this by giving to St. Peter alone, the power of the keys.
Matt 16

Further, from New Advent:

So, to say that the pope is declaring himself the antiChrist makes no sense.

On the other hand, those Christians who believe, to one degree or another, that this is an unscriptural claim, that is also against the teachings of the early Church and councils, there is the appearance that this Catholic teaching regarding Bishop of Rome is placing him in a position of jurisdiction and power that he is not entitled to, placing him in opposition to Christ’s teachings.

Jon

It seems as if in those denominations that have an AntiChrist statement in their confessions fewer and fewer people are choosing to make it a current statement of Faith. We are headed in the right direction of eradication of the claim.

See post 186-188 for the Catholic Answers forums explanation regarding the antichrist and what the Early Church Fathers said about the subject as well.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

It seems as if in those denominations that have an AntiChrist statement in their confessions fewer and fewer people are choosing to make it a current statement of Faith. We are headed in the right direction of eradication of the claim.

See post 186-188 for the Catholic Answers forums explanation regarding the antichrist and what the Early Church Fathers said about the subject as well.

Mary.

Part of that is a directional change within the Catholic Church. Thank God that this is happening, from both sides. Men such as Pope JP II and Pope Benedict have moved us far closer to cordiality and friendship, if not unity.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Part of that is a directional change within the Catholic Church. Thank God that this is happening, from both sides. Men such as Pope JP II and Pope Benedict have moved us far closer to cordiality and friendship, if not unity.

Jon

The Catholic Church however, has not changed its doctrine on the Papacy.

Are you saying that the AntiChrist teaching, and how many Lutherans will embrace it, is dependent (from a Lutheran perspective) on how well the Lutherans “like” a pope?

Mary.

 

[Tomyris]

Part of that is a directional change within the Catholic Church. Thank God that this is happening, from both sides. Men such as Pope JP II and Pope Benedict have moved us far closer to cordiality and friendship, if not unity.

Jon

I see two groups holding the affirmative OP position: one is that the Pope is the AntiChrist because the shoe fits (descriptive), and the other is because it is intrinsic to the position. In the first case, those features of the papacy that cause it to be identified with the AC are because it fits something about the AC as described in the NT in terms of behavior. In the second case, it is because it is something that goes beyond that.

The popes immediately before the Reformation and into it possessed material and political wealth, they also combined secular and religious power. Some of the Borgia popes seemed to have fit the first condition, at a minimum. If someone holds that the Pope=AC on the first view, then by observation (“Popes don’t act like that, at least not anymore”) they view will be retracted.

The more serious charge is that revolving around the concern that the popes have historically gathered more power into the office. Now every Catholic is immediately subject to the Pope, the Pope cannot be charged with any crime - he is answerable to no one on the face of the earth -, and he is no longer the Western Patriarch in Catholic thought but the Universal Prelate.

I have met extremely bitter ex-Catholics who present another issue, and that is that the Church let them down, used them and betrayed them. In the recent scandals we found clergy who protected other clergy rather than the sheep, even sheep, especially sheep, it seemed, that other clergy had abused. Many Protestants nod their heads and say that what Rome is really interested in, all it is really interested in, is in preserving its own power and influence. Bishops protect priests and popes protect bishops from answering for the most horrible of crimes. The ongoing scandals and corruption, such as at the Vatican Bank, indicate that something is very, very seriously wrong. But it is something that some cite is an indication that the Pope is the anti-Christ as portrayed in the Book of Revelation, as he presides over a system of crime and corruption.

Then there are doctrinal issues that have been debated many times on these forums, such as the accusation that Catholics deny salvation by faith but insist on a salvation by human works, deny the Gospel, overemphasize Mary, etc. Some Reformed folks point to these as showing the Catholic Church does not believe or teach the Gospel.

The Revelations AC is a world-leader, from the text, highly visible, with religious overtones to his position. It is an easy identification for some Protestants to say that is clearly the Pope.

I think it is good that the present and recent popes have lowered the temperature of discussions between Catholics and Protestants. I have a lot of respect for Benedict in particular.

I, personally, am Anti-Christ whenever I sin. But I do not think I am the Big AC.

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic Church however, has not changed its doctrine on the Papacy.

Are you saying that the AntiChrist teaching, and how many Lutherans will embrace it, is dependent (from a Lutheran perspective) on how well the Lutherans “like” a pope?

Mary.

Are you saying the papacy still claims the power to rule secular governments?
No. What I am saying is that one has witnessed a change in approach from the Vatican, Benedict’s conciliatory words to the EO are an example. But certainly Christian fondness doesn’t hurt.
Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Are you saying the papacy still claims the power to rule secular governments?
No. What I am saying is that one has witnessed a change in approach from the Vatican, Benedict’s conciliatory words to the EO are an example. But certainly Christian fondness doesn’t hurt.
Jon

I myself can’t base teaching/doctrine on Christian fondness as there are not always a lot of “warm fuzzies” for our Pope and our Catholic Church. I rely on the truth as taught by Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium. It’s not always popular and is often persecuted.

Despite of the fondness for the Popes you quoted above, the LCMS does still teach their AntiChrist teachings so your warm fondness in reality did zilch for your LCMS Church regarding changing their teaching.

That said I am largely encourage by a Lutheran Poster stating the majority of Lutherans no long subscribe to such AC teachings and the other posters indicating that albeit such similar teachings may be in their original confessions that are not necessary embraced now by all in their own denomination.

I’m happy to hear you are fond of some recent Popes, and I share that with you.
Mary.