S
steido01
Guest
Thank you for this!steido01:![]()
I found an interesting quote on usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…al-primacy.cfmWhile the language is archaic and particularly abrasive to modern ears, it should not be removed. It should be better explained, and laypersons better catechized.
In considering the historic Lutheran position on the papacy, we have become very much aware that the early Reformers did not reject what we have called the “Petrine function,” but rather the concrete historical papacy as it confronted them in their day. In calling the pope the “antichrist,” the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century.7 Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the “antichrist” when they wished to castigate his abuse of power. What Lutherans understood as a papal claim to unlimited authority over everything and everyone reminded them of the apocalyptic imagery of Daniel 11, a passage that even prior to the Reformation had been applied to the pope as the antichrist of the last days. The pope’s willingness to derive advantage from doctrines and practices that seemed to them to contradict the gospel compelled them to resist such doctrines and practices as antichristian.8
It is good to see that the USCCB understands our old words with relative clarity. I wish laypersons on both sides of the Tiber could, as well.
I think the more Roman Catholics and Confessional Lutherans continue to dialogue, the more we will find that we are frustratingly close to agreement (or, in regards to the “antichrist” label, understanding).
