Hi Don,
It is this quote from Melanchthon that answers the question about lifting the charge of anti-Christ against the office of the papacy. It recognizes his role as leader of the bishops, and closes any doubt if confessional Lutherans could recognize the primacy of the pope. We could, indeed, if reconciliation were to occur.
Jon
Hi Jon,
I would say ‘nice try’, but your statement is wrong on numerous levels.
First of all, Melanchthon’s statement that he could accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome IF the Church would refute it’s 1500 year old teachings on several important subjects, is ridiculous on the face of it.
Secondly, that statement was made in 1530, and therefore was superseded by the text that I have posted which was written in 1537. Melanchthon could not possibly have contradicted something that was not yet written.
Thirdly, Melanchthon’s position in 1530 was his personal position. In no was he speaking for Lutheranism. That being said, if the Church actually HAD capitulated on everything that the Lutherans wanted doctrinally, THEN maybe Lutherans MIGHT have allowed for the authority of the Pope. Luther could still have been a stumbling block, which is not exactly hard to imagine.
Forth, Melancthon was actually the author and one of the 31 signatories of the treatise which I quoted before. Just to make sure everyone knows what this document says:
The Formula of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537
INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE
“39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.
57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist.
59] But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity…”
#39 makes it very clear that ‘all the marks of antichrist’ are on ‘Roman pontiffs, with their adherents’. #57 makes it very clear that the Pope – ‘him’ is antichrist. The ‘him’ is personal. There is absolutely NO mention of the ‘office’ in this document. #59 again mentions the Pope AND his ‘adherents’.
Just who, specifically and exactly, are we supposed to believe that these ‘adherents’ are, IF NOT Catholics loyal to the Church with the Bishop of Rome at It’s head? Is there some ‘creative way’ to interpret these statements other than referring to Catholics in general? Are we supposed to believe that ‘adherents’ refers to the Pope’s head lice or something?
The Catholic Church still teaches the same ‘Godless doctrines’ that it was teaching when Melanchthon wrote this ‘gem’. Somehow the Church managed to resist the temptation to succumb to this ‘opportunity’. (What could the leadership of the Church possibly have been thinking?)
The treatise that Melanchthon authored is STILLL an authoritative doctrinal statement of the Lutheran church which Lutherans are supposed to hold to.
Jon – I was done with the whole thing about the Pope and his adherents as being the marks of the antichrist. But I simply cannot allow a misrepresentation of the cold hard brutal facts go unchallenged. We can go over this matter as many times as you wish. There is a lot more information that has yet to be revealed. However, unless you disagree, I think that I have made my point in an exceedingly clear and compelling manner.
I very much appreciate the fact that you disagree with your church’s confessional statement on this matter, but these statements are STILL official Lutheran church doctrine. Your claim that Melanchthon’s personal opinion ‘lifts the charge of antichrist against the office of the papacy’ does not at all square with the facts. The text from the F of C does NOT refer to the ‘office’ at all, but is directed to both the Pope as a person, AND to his ‘adherents’ meaning to faithful Catholics.
Here’s what I would like to see. I would like to see the various Lutheran denominations come together and make a public statement about how they are officially removing those offensive statements from the F of C. Do you think that is reasonable? How about doable?
As to your statement that ‘It recognizes the role………” – I would like to explore that statement because it doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s really a chicken and egg thing. The issue of the authority of the Bishop of Rome would have to be accepted by Lutherans BEFORE a reconciliation could occur, not at some time after. I would suggest that this will be an insurmountable stumbling block for the Lutheran denominations. It goes back to our very undeveloped discussion about how the Lutherans would have 3 votes to the 50+ for the Catholics at a hypothetical Ecumenical Council. Lutherans would never attend such a council. As such, the only way to achieve reconciliation is – one person at a time. If you disagree, I would like to hear why. Also, if you have a potential list of doctrinal issues on which you think the Lutheran church should (or would) defer to Catholics on, I would appreciate knowing what they are.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
