Lutherans, Is This True?

[steve_b]

Yes. Though we have to be careful to distinguish between Catholics who presumably knew the truth and yet divided from the Church, i.e. the “reformers”, and those born into a faith tradition generations later, when reading these verses.

Re: Protestants, you’re no doubt referring to

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

However,

May ≠ will, May ≠ probably, May might only be remote. For example, if I say it may rain tomorrow, that’s not a strong prediction. It may rain tomorrow is saying there is only a possibility.

It’s also

Providing one who is in such a tradition, is innocently ignorant and remains innocently ignorant of their thradition’s schism and heresy from the Catholic Church

Once they know the truth, THEN they need to make a decision to return to the Catholic Church. If they don’t return to full unity, they are no longer innocently ignorant of their schism and heresy, and become guilty just like their ancestors.

iow,

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

That’s why the scriptures and the Church teach

846How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

 

[Peter_J]

My point is that excommunication was a big deal,

Well I can agree with that, just not that it necessarily puts someone outside of the Church.

And may I add (lest I give the impression that we disagree much more than we actually do) that it bothers me to no end the way some people nowadays treat breaking communion as though it’s no big deal.

 

[Peter_J]

As far as I can remember, and I’d be happy to be corrected, the Pope wasn’t excommunicated.

This is definitely getting off topic, but you are quite correct.

 

[SteveVH]

Re: Protestants, you’re no doubt referring to

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

However,

May ≠ will, May ≠ probably, May might only be remote. For example, if I say it may rain tomorrow, that’s not a strong prediction. It may rain tomorrow is saying there is only a possibility.

It’s also

Providing one who is in such a tradition, is innocently ignorant and remains innocently ignorant of their thradition’s schism and heresy from the Catholic Church

Once they know the truth, THEN they need to make a decision to return to the Catholic Church. If they don’t return to full unity, they are no longer innocently ignorant of their schism and heresy, and become guilty just like their ancestors.

iow,

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

That’s why the scriptures and the Church teach

846How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Yes.

 

[SteveVH]

As far as I can remember, and I’d be happy to be corrected, the Pope wasn’t excommunicated. This was (a) because the legates were excommunicated for their hostile behaviour towards and in the Constantinopolitan Church, and (b) because the Pope was dead, although Keroularios probably didn’t know this at the time.

The question of Keroualrios’s authority to do so would, however, make a brilliant thread topic. I don’t think I’d have liked either Keroularios or Humbert very much had I known them!

This, from wiki. Take it or leave it. I would have to research further to verify.

“The refusal of Michael to deal with the papal delegation drove them to extreme measures. On July 16, 1054, Cardinal Humbert placed a notice of excommunication on the altar of the Great Church of the Hagia Sophia that he had prepared, and then two days later the papal delegation fled to Rome. As Pope Leo died on April 16, the excommunication was not a ‘’bull’’ as it wasn’t signed by a pope, and Leo had not seen or signed it. However, in return for their actions Patriarch Michael excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the Pope, followed by removing the name of the pope from the diptychs, thus symbolicly creating the Great Schism.”

 

[ufamtobie]

By listening. By not hearing what has not been said.

My guess is that you find the word antichrist to be off-putting because of modern connotations. The modern, popular connotations from those stupid “Left Behind” books has nothing at all to do with the biblical terms. So instead of “hearing” revulsion at that meaning, instead try to “listen” to what Lutherans actually mean by the term. As I have explained in my previous post, the label “antichrist” can apply to anyone who obscures the Gospel of Christ. You’ll note that antichrist, in the Lutheran understanding, is a term that can apply to even misguided Lutherans!

Hope that helps.

On the flipside, how are Lutherans supposed to feel when Rome called those who professed our teachings of Grace Alone to be “anathema” - in other words, damned?

Steido, you are absolutely correct, it was a misguided Lutheran from the “LCMS website on their STATEMENT OF DOCTRINAL POSITIONS webpage:”

Steido, Anti-christ is antichrist, 666 is the mark of the beast, in any era, please don’t try to sugarcoat!

Ufam Tobie

 

[benjohnson]

Ufamtobie, please tell me where you found “666” on the LCMS website so I can go yell at them.

 

[ufamtobie]

Ufamtobie, please tell me where you found “666” on the LCMS website so I can go yell at them.

BenJohonson,

lol, I did not say I found 666 in their website. I was telling stiedo not to sugarcoat the word Antichrist that’s all.

So please don’t go and yell at them, lol You just come on HOME!

Ufam Tobie

 

[Peter_J]

Steido, you are absolutely correct, it was a misguided Lutheran …

There are misguided people in every denomination … heck, anyone who’s spent any significant amount of time on this forum should know that there are misguided (but enthusiastic) Roman Catholics.

Not to get off-topic.

 

[Peter_J]

I was just reading a post from a fellow Catholic about how “Protestantism should have never been” and what-not, which I guess got me thinking of this thread; and also about how much similarity there is between, on the one hand, anti-Catholic statements made by protestants and, on the other hand, anti-protestant statements made by Catholics.

Then I thought of something else that’s interesting (although it may seem pretty random): the Kathy Bates character in The Water Boy often says “Blank is the Devil!” (Not sure how often, I didn’t see the whole movie.) I’m wondering if that’s loosely connected with the switch from “Blank (e.g. the pope) is anti-Christ” to “Blank is the anti-Christ”?

 

[Novocastrian]

This, from wiki. Take it or leave it. I would have to research further to verify.

"The refusal of Michael to deal with the papal delegation drove them to extreme measures. On July 16, 1054, Cardinal Humbert placed a notice of excommunication on the altar of the Great Church of the Hagia Sophia that he had prepared, and then two days later the papal delegation fled to Rome. As Pope Leo died on April 16, the excommunication was not a ‘’bull’’ as it wasn’t signed by a pope, and Leo had not seen or signed it. However, in return for their actions Patriarch Michael excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the Pope, followed by removing the name of the pope from the diptychs, thus symbolicly creating the Great Schism."

Unfortunately all the information I have to hand at the minute is the following.

Runciman, The Eastern Schism: A study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the 11th and 12th Centuries, (Panther: 1970) pp. 62-3: On Sunday, 24th July, a synod was held [by the Constantinopolitan Church] to record the whole business. It declared that irresponsible men had come from the West and had excommunicated the Patriarch and everyone who refused to conform with their doctrine about the Holy Ghost and their practices of shaving and of priestly celibacy. The text of [Cardinal Humbert’s] Bull and the Emperor’s decree ordering it to be burnt were given in full. The letters that were brought by the legates were quoted and were pronounced to be the work of Argyrus. Humbert and his companions were then solemnly anathematized. The record was carefully drawn up so as not in any way to involve the papacy nor the Western Church in general. The scapegoats were the three legates and that worthy but unpopular official, Argyrus. The way was left open for any Pope who recognized that Humbert had acted ultra vires to resume friendly negotiations.

 

[steido01]

BenJohonson,

lol, I did not say I found 666 in their website. I was telling stiedo not to sugarcoat the word Antichrist that’s all.

So please don’t go and yell at them, lol You just come on HOME!

Ufam Tobie

I’ve “sugarcoated” nothing. I’ve tried to explain the historic, biblical meaning of the word and the Lutheran use of it - which is very different from the connotations of today.

Please don’t read more than is written.

 

[SteveVH]

Unfortunately all the information I have to hand at the minute is the following.

Runciman, The Eastern Schism: A study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the 11th and 12th Centuries, (Panther: 1970) pp. 62-3: On Sunday, 24th July, a synod was held [by the Constantinopolitan Church] to record the whole business. It declared that irresponsible men had come from the West and had excommunicated the Patriarch and everyone who refused to conform with their doctrine about the Holy Ghost and their practices of shaving and of priestly celibacy. The text of [Cardinal Humbert’s] Bull and the Emperor’s decree ordering it to be burnt were given in full. The letters that were brought by the legates were quoted and were pronounced to be the work of Argyrus. Humbert and his companions were then solemnly anathematized. The record was carefully drawn up so as not in any way to involve the papacy nor the Western Church in general. The scapegoats were the three legates and that worthy but unpopular official, Argyrus. The way was left open for any Pope who recognized that Humbert had acted ultra vires to resume friendly negotiations.

Thanks for this.

 

[ufamtobie]

I’ve “sugarcoated” nothing. I’ve tried to explain the historic, biblical meaning of the word and the Lutheran use of it - which is very different from the connotations of today.

Please don’t read more than is written.

Steido,

Sugracoat! Surgarcoat! Surgarcoat!

I don’t have to read more than is written, The word Antichrist, has the same meaning today, as it did from day one, again, don’t try to sugarcoat it.

Ufam Tobie

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Well, I’ll let Orthodox posters speak for themselves (assuming any post on this thread of course) but that has been my general experience from many years of conversing with Orthodox.

antiochian.org/node/17076

 

[JonNC]

Steido,

Sugracoat! Surgarcoat! Surgarcoat!

I don’t have to read more than is written, The word Antichrist, has the same meaning today, as it did from day one, again, don’t try to sugarcoat it.

Ufam Tobie

Ufam,
One thing the Lutheran posters here work very hard at, admittedly not always successfully, is not trying to tell others what they believe, including Catholics. We’d appreciate the same courtesy in return. If Don tells you that when Lutherans used the term anti-Christ, they were not speaking in the way of Dispensationalists about an end-times beast, the polite and respectful thing to do is to accept his explanation of Lutheran belief, particularly since he happens to be right.

Jon

 

[ufamtobie]

Ufam,
One thing the Lutheran posters here work very hard at, admittedly not always successfully, is not trying to tell others what they believe, including Catholics. We’d appreciate the same courtesy in return. If Don tells you that when Lutherans used the term anti-Christ, they were not speaking in the way of Dispensationalists about an end-times beast, the polite and respectful thing to do is to accept his explanation of Lutheran belief, particularly since he happens to be right.

Jon

JonNC,

“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”.

JonNC, the quote above are these your same thoughts / feelings, since you are defending it by sugarcoating Antichrist yourself?

Ufam Tobie

 

[JonNC]

JonNC,

“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”.

JonNC, the quote above are these your same thoughts / feelings, since you are defending it by sugarcoating Antichrist yourself?

Ufam Tobie

Are you saying that you are now a Dispensationalist? That you believe in end-times as portrayed in the Left Behind series? That seems to be your interpretation here.

Lutherans here have made it very clear what we believe, and what the Confessions say and mean. So, yes, I believe as every Lutheran does regarding this, that while we do not judge to hearts of individual popes, except to assume that they are good Christian men, we do believe that for the reasons stated at the beginning of the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, that the papacy is anti- or opposed to Christ.

But Ufam, I am much more concerned about your apparent drift away from Catholic teaching into Dispensationalism. I strongly encourage you to seek out the counsel of
your priest on this matter. :sad_yes:
And if you are doing so, please stop reading books by Tim LaHaye.



Jon

 

[AbideWithMe]

Are you saying that you are now a Dispensationalist? That you believe in end-times as portrayed in the Left Behind series? That seems to be your interpretation here.

Lutherans here have made it very clear what we believe, and what the Confessions say and mean. So, yes, I believe as every Lutheran does regarding this, that while we do not judge to hearts of individual popes, except to assume that they are good Christian men, we do believe that for the reasons stated at the beginning of the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, that the papacy is anti- or opposed to Christ.

But Ufam, I am much more concerned about your apparent drift away from Catholic teaching into Dispensationalism. I strongly encourage you to seek out the counsel of
your priest on this matter. :sad_yes:
And if you are doing so, please stop reading books by Tim LaHaye.



Jon

Jon–I appreciate your policy of trying to let people of other beliefs speak for themselves. I’m puzzled, though, why you would think some of the Catholic posters on this thread must have been influenced by Dispensationalist beliefs, particularly those of Tim LaHaye?

Looking at the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia entry online (www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm), it appears that the Catholic belief is that the AntiChrist is a single person, not a system such as the Papacy; a “signal enemy of Christ” who is prophecied to arise in the “Last Days.” Under the heading “In the Pauline epistles”: “St.John urged against the heretics of his time that those who denied the mystery of the Incarnation were faint images of the future great AntiChrist. The latter is described more fully in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, sqq., 7-10.” The LC-MS doctrinal statement that the OP quoted references those same verses. But, if I understand Lutherans correctly, in saying “the very AntiChrist” you are still not referring to a particular person but, as the Cath. Encyclopedia puts it (in describing Lutheran belief), “the system of the Papacy.”

The Encyclopedia appears to say, however, that the Catholic belief is not that the AntiChrist will be a system, but a single future great AntiChrist foreshadowed by lesser types of antichrists–please see all the paragraphs under “AntiChrist in ecclesial language.”

Even while being careful to avoid casting the Catholic Encyclopedia’s terms (such as “Last Days”) in a LaHaye-constructed Dispensationalist mold, I can still see why Catholics would be very troubled by the LC-MS doctrinal statement. I see no reason at all to attribute their concerns to Dispensationalist influence. I understand that you’re saying “the Antichrist” and “the very AntiChrist” to the Lutheran writers do not mean what Catholic posters here think it means; but I want to point out that their different understanding of the the term appears to date back far before any Dispensational or LaHaye influence.

 

[AbideWithMe]

–please see all the paragraphs under “AntiChrist in ecclesial language.”

Even while being careful to avoid casting the Catholic Encyclopedia’s terms (such as “Last Days”) in a LaHaye-constructed Dispensationalist mold, I can still see why Catholics would be very troubled by the LC-MS doctrinal statement.

Oops–That should be “Antichrist in ecclesiastical language” and “the last hour/Day of the Lord” not “Last Days”.