Lutherans, Is This True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
steido01:
While the language is archaic and particularly abrasive to modern ears, it should not be removed. It should be better explained, and laypersons better catechized.
I found an interesting quote on usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…al-primacy.cfm
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
Thank you for this!

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).
 
Thank you for this!

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.
🙂

There should be some kind of rule like, for every 15 minutes someone spends on CAF, he/she has to spend an hour or more reading documents like the aforementioned.
 
For me, no. The confessions make a list a what makes a Pope (or any minister) an anti-christ. From a Lutheran standpoint that list is a valid list - the logic stands.
Well, thanks for answering. My respect for the Lutheran faith as just fallen more than a few notches. The confessions do not speak in general terms. They name the Pope as the anti-Christ, yet not one Pope has ever denied that Christ is come in the flesh, the true mark of the anti-Christ. I’m just really disappointed. I have felt a closeness to the Lutherans on this forum and have gained a lot of respect for most. But now, knowing that this is always in the background (we love you Catholics but you’re being led by the anti-Christ) makes this very difficult for me.
One of the exciting things about Catholic and Orthodox dialog, is that if the schism is resolved there’s a good chance that the remaining items on the list will no longer apply.
So Pope Francis, being the anti-Christ, will no longer be the anti-Christ if we can patch things up with our Eastern brothers and sisters. What you mean is that if the Pope rejects papal supremacy then he will no longer be the anti-Christ. Good to know. My only question is why would any faith tradition want dialogue with the anti-Christ?
We love the Pope, but pray that the office goes back to what we understand it should be. -just as “A Mighty Fortress” in in the Catholic hymnal even though it’s author Martin Luther is still excommunicated from a Catholic perspective.
Why would you love the anti-Christ?
 
Yes. The term “heterodox” would be sufficient, without the modern dispensationalist overtones, which weren’t the intent of the Reformers.

Jon
Hope is peaking its head over the horizon. Thanks, Jon.
 
Well, thanks for answering. My respect for the Lutheran faith as just fallen more than a few notches. The confessions do not speak in general terms. They name the Pope as the anti-Christ, yet not one Pope has ever denied that Christ is come in the flesh, the true mark of the anti-Christ. I’m just really disappointed. I have felt a closeness to the Lutherans on this forum and have gained a lot of respect for most. But now, knowing that this is always in the background (we love you Catholics but you’re being led by the anti-Christ) makes this very difficult for me.

So Pope Francis, being the anti-Christ, will no longer be the anti-Christ if we can patch things up with our Eastern brothers and sisters. What you mean is that if the Pope rejects papal supremacy then he will no longer be the anti-Christ. Good to know. My only question is why would any faith tradition want dialogue with the anti-Christ?

Why would you love the anti-Christ?
(emphasis added)

I know it would be more polite of me to allow a Lutheran poster to respond to this … so I will.
 
Well, thanks for answering. My respect for the Lutheran faith as just fallen more than a few notches. The confessions do not speak in general terms.
If we Lutherans can’t stand by the list of our biblical objections in the Confessions, we would be Catholic.

Please consider, this is the same document that Pope Benedict once mused if it could be considered a Catholic document.

Being Frank, I think some Catholics hear the word anti-Christ from Lutherans and are imagining that we’re referencing the worst Jack Chick tract caricature possible.

That simply isn’t the case.
Why would you love the anti-Christ?
We love the Pope because he’s 99.99% perfect. This isn’t the 16th century anymore with popes who aren’t even ordained.

We should also love even the bad Popes.

My church is filled with anti-Christs - we sin even though we should know better. Put me in the position of those Roman Soldiers and I would have killed Jesus too. So how can I not reflect the love and Grace that Christ has shown to all His creatures?
 
My church is filled with anti-Christs - we sin even though we should know better. Put me in the position of those Roman Soldiers and I would have killed Jesus too. So how can I not reflect the love and Grace that Christ has shown to all His creatures?
Amen. I’d be the first to admit that I’m anti-Christ half the time. Kyrie eleison!
 
:yup: My children are fortunate that you reminded me!
😃
If we Lutherans can’t stand by the list of our biblical objections in the Confessions, we would be Catholic.

Please consider, this is the same document that Pope Benedict once mused if it could be considered a Catholic document.

**Being Frank, I think some Catholics hear the word anti-Christ from Lutherans and are imagining that we’re referencing the worst Jack Chick tract caricature possible.
**
Yes, that’s probably the case for many Catholics – and even Catholics who aren’t familiar with Chick tracts can hardly help being influenced by the interpretations of “anti-Christ” during and since the Counter-Reformation.

On the other hand, I think statements like these distort the meaning of that term in the opposite direction:
My church is filled with anti-Christs - we sin even though we should know better.
Amen. I’d be the first to admit that I’m anti-Christ half the time. Kyrie eleison!
I don’t think “anti-Christ” was ever intended to mean simply “sinner”.
 
If we Lutherans can’t stand by the list of our biblical objections in the Confessions, we would be Catholic.
Stand by anything you want to stand by. Your decision to stand by it speaks for itself.
We love the Pope because he’s 99.99% perfect. This isn’t the 16th century anymore with popes who aren’t even ordained.
There is still no rule in canon law that one must be ordained in order to be Pope.
My church is filled with anti-Christs - we sin even though we should know better. Put me in the position of those Roman Soldiers and I would have killed Jesus too. So how can I not reflect the love and Grace that Christ has shown to all His creatures?
Sounds good, Ben, but I don’t buy it. The anti-Christ is not your run of the mill sinner. He is the one who will lead many away from Christ and our Pope has been identified by your faith tradition as that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top