- Status
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Would you say, then, that the Orthodox do not see the Roman Church as a real Church?
po18guy
Well-known member
Since the scriptures, specifically First John (2:22, 4:3) and Second John (1:7), all specify that the antichrist denies that Christ has come in the flesh, how can any Pope, even Leo X, be accused of such? Not one has ever dared make such a denial. Yet, this counter-scriptural accusation is more prevalent today than back then. To me, such parts of the “Confessions” seem to be a somewhat embarrassing, hyperbolic and emotional holdover from the very political, power-laden and tumultuous times of the 16th century rebellion. They reflect, in part, Luther’s well-documented visceral hatred of the Papacy and, I think, tend to personalize the faith that bears the man’s name.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Along with many of the claims of the mediaeval Papacy…
W
wmscott
Guest
Please do not lump all of us “protestants” together. I have been lurking for quite a while now and just had to jump in. I grew up LCMS Lutheran. Currently, I call myself non-denominational and have been studying the bible on my own with the help of all you people and numerous other internet sites. I still identify with Protestantism, however I would say the above is completely false. Myself and others that I know hold to the spirit of the gospel message and would call honest and true believers to be headed for salvation. These believers may not attend church at all (myself) or the catholic church, orthodox church etc…
As far as the stumbling blocks for me… Mary, oral contraception, confession etc… I don’t know any protestant churches that REQUIRE the belief in these doctrines for salvation. The catholic church still affirms that it is necessary for salvation to believe what the church teaches on these practices. In that case I know MANY catholics who are in trouble because of practices in the church that they don’t agree with.
Now for the “:bible” question. I have read many times on this site that the “bible” wasn’t put together for 100’s of years so why should we use it to guide us? Much of the NT is comprised of letters from the apostles, John, Peter and then Paul who wrote many letters to the churches that were forming. These letters guided the churches as far as core beliefs and practices. These letters were available in the 1st century and the use of scribes was very common so there may have been a limited number of copies made. The point is the guidance of these letters WAS given to the churches back then. At this point I agree with a moderate amount of “tradition”. It was common for jews to memorize the scriptures so they could teach it to others and I believe this is what may have happened.
Another thing I just wanted to add is that I find most liturgical church services not helpful.
- Who wants to sit in church for someone else to tell you 10 things that you aren’t doing good enough on. I don’t need to be reminded of my sins, I know they are plentiful.
- I don’t find it easy to have a good connection with GOD in these services that have you sitting, then standing then kneeling. Tiring. AND sometimes they have very stupid hymns. I understand fellowship is a good thing, however I find that alone time is the time where I can have a good “conversation” with GOD. “wherever 2 or more gather in my name, I will be there also” I prefer to study and worship with my family or a small group.
As someone else mentioned above, there are to be many ant-Christ’s in the world. the Catholic church of the middle ages does fit in with this “label” when one considers the abuses of/in the church at that time. I don’t know, but I don’t think I would state that the current pope/office of the pope is anti-Christ.
Thanks for listening to my rant…I just sometimes think these peripheral beliefs hold us from coming back to the simple message that Christ gave us.
Welcome Hockeygurl to CAF. keep lurking and learning. Please ask questions when things seem odd or unclear. there is always an explanation.
In the first part here you confirm the Lutheran understanding, that anti-Christ is used in the sense of “opposed to” teachings, and not the end-times beast interpretation.
In the second, I think it is reflective, in some ways, of the harsh tones and words that passed back and forth in that time, though I’m not sure I understand what you mean by
personalize the faith that bears the man’s name.
Jon
po18guy
Well-known member
Well, the part about dividing the Body of Christ seems to have been true. And, our Lord said that we would know them by their fruits.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
Almost a distinction without a difference, to my eyes. Is not accusing one of being the “antichrist” nearly the same as accusing someone of being “communist” back in the 1950s? It arouses emotion.
This is easier to see from outside, apparently, but Lutheranism will always bear the mark of Luther’s personality, since it is his baby, so to speak. His thoughts and emotions cannot be divorced from it - else it cease to be Lutheranism.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And the CoE?
A
Alizarin
Guest
Having three popes in Catherine of Siena’s day can’t have helped much with keeping the Body together.
And the problem with judging by their fruits is that every church, while producing some very good fruit, has also prroduced some that’s really rotten. We all live in houses made of glass…
N
Novocastrian
Guest
One could argue - and I am not myself saying that this could be the case - that schism was the fruit of ultramontane Papal hubris and, the dead end of late 14th century scholastic theology (c.f. Antony Levi’s work).
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Fortunately she makes relatively few polemical pronouncements. Bishop Jewel talks of the Papacy as Antichrist, but the English church has always recognised the Roman church as a true church, while rejecting its more extravagant claims.
po18guy
Well-known member
Relativism? What did those three popes have to do with the content of Doctrine, Scripture or Sacred Tradition?
Zero.
Rather, the Church had been united under the Bishop of Rome before, was mightily tested, and remained united after. How is that different, in principle, from Job being tested by the devil? Or Peter?
It is the very birth and content of another communion that is the subject of debate here, is it not?
And, so does “heretic” and, “let him be anathema”, etc. This is the problem with threads of this type; without background knowledge and information, it is all very emotion-packed polemics. The fact is that, more and more, Lutherans and Catholics are allies. More and more, we are thrust together by the secular world, as well as by many in the radical reformation groups.
Perhaps, but then it is a two-edged sword. From The Small Catechism to “A Mighty Fortress”, his great words shine through. It is notable that great Catholics like Cardinal Ratzinger can see the real Luther through the polemics.
Jon
A
Alizarin
Guest
It split the college of cardinals, it split the Catholic community as a whole; three factions supporting three “popes”. I was responding to a particular post in this thread about unity in the Body. Don’t know why you brought up doctrine etc.
po18guy
Well-known member
If the Papacy was so corrupt in its very nature, so unsupported by scripture, why was it not immediately challenged? Why did the Early Church Fathers believe and write in support of the successor of Peter? Why did it take 10 centuries for the geo-based Eastern Churches to officially reject it? And why only once since?
Did Peter forcibly rise to the Papacy by the sword, slaying all opponents? Did Linus organize a political cabal and craftily assume the office of Bishop of Rome? Did any of them? Many, if not most early Popes were unwilling, as it meant certain martyrdom.
People act like the Pope is a monolith who aspires to power and cannot be opposed. They seem to believe that he is a dictator - while failing to notice that no Pope has acted in a vacuum, and only extremely rarely makes an ex cathedra pronouncement.
It seems that the information age has only accelerated misinformation.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Indeed!
Frankly, Catholics and Lutherans can go on yelling at each other as long as we fighting the same trench. With what’s going on in the secular world, it makes our continued squabbles seem rather quaint.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Well, there are some who would argue that the substance of the Papacy did indeed change, and that things started to go seriously downhill during the 11th century Gregorian reforms, etc. Also, the Eastern Patriarchs could largely ignore Rome during the first millennium, and that it was the problem of Latin ecclesiastical policy within the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem which brought the issue of Roman claims to universal jurisdiction to the immediate attention of the Eastern hierarchy and faithful alike.
The fact is that there have been times when the Popes have acted like dictators.
- Status