How Old is Your Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter movwater
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AmbroseSJ said:
BTW, still waiting to hear how the LCMS can accuse an office (the Papacy) of being the Antichrist, rather than a person, as St. Paul says. Also, if a good Christian man is in the office of the Papacy (like Pope Francis) what are Lutherans to think? A good Christian can be functioning as the Antichrist merely because of his office? Also not Biblical.
Click to expand...
Are you sure the LCMS equates the expanded powers of the papal office as “THE Antichrist”?

Per the LCMS:

“We should forsake wicked teachers because they no longer function in the place of Christ, but are antichrists. Christ says (Matt. 7:15), ‘Beware of false prophets’; Paul says (Gal. 1:9), ‘If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed’”
 
benjohnson said:
Are you sure the LCMS equates the expanded powers of the papal office as “THE Antichrist”?

Per the LCMS:

“We should forsake wicked teachers because they no longer function in the place of Christ, but are antichrists. Christ says (Matt. 7:15), ‘Beware of false prophets’; Paul says (Gal. 1:9), ‘If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed’”
Click to expand...
LCMS position:
Here’s a quote from the LCMS website on their STATEMENT OF DOCTRINAL POSITIONS webpage:
Click to expand...
“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.)”
Click to expand...
But our poster JonNC has contradicted this statement by saying NO, it’s not the person, but rather the Papacy itself which is the Antichrist. How that works is very murky indeed, not to mention non-Biblical.
 
Can anyone tell me if the prohibition on Lutherans owning property, contained in Decet Romanum Pontificem, is still in force in the Roman Catholic Church?
 
AmbroseSJ said:
LCMS position:

But our poster JonNC has contradicted this statement by saying NO, it’s not the person, but rather the Papacy itself which is the Antichrist. How that works is very murky indeed, not to mention non-Biblical.
Click to expand...
Actually, I haven’t contradicted the statement. I put the statement in proper context. 😉

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Actually, I haven’t contradicted the statement. I put the statement in proper context. 😉

Jon
Click to expand...
I’m finding a contradiction. 1. The statement is made that the Pope is the anti-Christ. 2. The Pope is not the anti-Christ and there has been no such statement made.

Sorry that cannot be properly contextualized without having two faces.
 
Novocastrian said:
I find it hard to imagine that the Roman Church still claims the right, power or jurisdiction to deny the right of Lutherans to own property!
Click to expand...
I gather the section you refer to is the following
Our decrees which follow are passed against Martin and others who follow him in the obstinacy of his depraved and damnable purpose, as also against those who defend and protect him with a military bodyguard, and do not fear to support him with their own resources or in any other way, and have and do presume to offer and afford help, counsel and favour toward him. All their names, surnames and rank—however lofty and dazzling their dignity may be—we wish to be taken as included in these decrees with the same effect as if they were individually listed and could be so listed in their publication, which must be furthered with an energy to match their contents.
On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.
Click to expand...
Thinking outloud, I could be wrong on this, but I’m thinking this applies to all property that belongs to the Catholic Church. So for example, those who leave the Church and or excommunicated, and were over those properties in any fashion, have no ownership right to those properties, nor do their descendants. Those properties belong to and remain with the Church. We saw the taking of Church properties when for example, Henry VIII took Catholic Church property for his own purposes when he was excommunicated.

As I say, I’m just thinking outloud.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
You’re right. But as has been stated, the 95 Thesis were really a means of debate and discussion, not a threat. That said, if he were to be analyzed today, I’m sure he would be considered to have a diagnosable mental condition.

I’m not saying he was totally right, but he did have valid points which pushed against the power structure of the time.
Click to expand...
The Church since her beginning has always had reformers. And the Church has had ones like Luther leave the Church for not getting their way, or excommunicated for not abandoning their views. It’s not new. What’s new, his actions sparked Protestant division on steroids.

btw, Luther was given his chance to debate.
 
steve_b said:
btw, Luther was given his chance to debate.
Click to expand...
Debates in the sixteenth century were the equivalent of Stalinist show trials. All sides in the reformation were guilty of using them as a propaganda tactic. Luther, too, was justifiably afraid of suffering the same betrayal endured by Jan Hus.
steve_b said:
I gather the section you refer to is the following

Thinking outloud, I could be wrong on this, but I’m thinking this applies to all property that belongs to the Catholic Church. So for example, those who leave the Church and or excommunicated, and were over those properties in any fashion, have no ownership right to those properties, nor do their descendants. Those properties belong to and remain with the Church. We saw the taking of Church properties when for example, Henry VIII took Catholic Church property for his own purposes when he was excommunicated.

As I say, I’m just thinking outloud.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t seem to be the case. The stuff to do with surnames and rank is clearly a pointed reference at the support of many of the German princes and aristocratic families offered to Luther, which makes it fairly clear in my reading of the text that Decet Romanum Pontificem is talking about ordinary private property here. “[C]onfiscation of their goods” demonstrates that it is private and not ecclesiastical property that is being referred to.
 
Novocastrian said:
Debates in the sixteenth century were the equivalent of Stalinist show trials. All sides in the reformation were guilty of using them as a propaganda tactic. Luther, too, was justifiably afraid of suffering the same betrayal endured by Jan Hus.
Click to expand...
Just in case there was any funny business, Luther was promised safety. Beside, the issue was held in Germany, friendly territory for Luther, why would Luther be afraid?.
N:
That doesn’t seem to be the case. The stuff to do with surnames and rank is clearly a pointed reference at the support of many of the German princes and aristocratic families offered to Luther, which makes it fairly clear in my reading of the text that Decet Romanum Pontificem is talking about ordinary private property here. “[C]onfiscation of their goods” demonstrates that it is private and not ecclesiastical property that is being referred to.
Click to expand...
Again, thinking outloud, when something like this happens, it’s good to make sure in writing so all parties involved are clear, on where the lines of ownership of property between Church and state begin and end. Princes and aristocratic families, as well as Luther, might think they have claim to Church properties when they don’t.
 
steve_b said:
Just in case there was any funny business, Luther was promised safety. Beside, the issue was held in Germany, friendly territory for Luther, why would Luther be afraid?.
Click to expand...
Hus was burned alive despite assurances of his safety. That’s exactly what I mean. Besides, not all of Germany was pro-Luther. In fact, the majority was still loyal to Rome in the 1520s.
Again, thinking outloud, when something like this happens, it’s good to make sure in writing so all parties involved are clear, on where the lines of ownership of property between Church and state begin and end. Princes and aristocratic families, as well as Luther, might think they have claim to Church properties when they don’t.
Click to expand...
As I said, this has nothing to do with Church properties. It is saying that Lutherans are not fit to hold property, and their possessions are to be confiscated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top