Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[spina1953]

When I said that I was glad that the post was off topic it wasn’t a stab at you. I was just sad about what I read and am glad to move on. And you are right. I didn’t look up Lev. Until this morning and I didn’t see any reference to gang rape there either.

Annie

Hi Annie 39: I understood that it was not a stab at me. it made me sad too that morals are going down hill. it is not a sin to be gay but practicing it is so far as I understand it. There was no reference to gang rape but just the same rape in any form is wrong.

 

[Contarini]

Oh gracious Spina. How sad I am right now. Do you see any gang rape in “Rom 1:25-32
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

Not gang rape, granted. But ancient Greco-Roman concepts of sexuality depended on inequality. Same-sex relations were assumed to be between a superior and an inferior (a boy or a slave).

The irony is that I disagree with liberal Christians here. I accept the Church’s teaching that same-sex desire is intrinsically disordered. I’m defending the point that Catholics are usually quick to make, which is that Scripture is not self-interpreting. This is not an exception–it’s a fine example.

Some people give away TMI regarding themselves.

Annie

Some people have trouble engaging in substantive conversation without resorting to personal insult.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, of course you think my methods are misguided. Lutherans think the exact same thing. They begin with the presumption that Luther was right to challenge the Church on ALL of those doctrines. They also presume that they are a valid continuation of the Church that Christ established at Pentecost. They seem to expect to be treated as such and seem to be surprised when people object to the pope (or the papacy) being described as the antichrist. This might be an example of what you call the ‘smugness’ of the LCMS.

Given that you have described yourself as a ‘friend’ of Martin Luther, I would not expect that you would be a ‘fan’ of my ‘methods’. Rather than viewing Luther as a friend, I see him as a relatively poor Theologian who had an intense hatred for whole groups of people. I also see him as having had a huge impact on the doctrinal disunity and confusion from which Protestantism suffers. As such, it appears to me that you are misguided in your choice of ‘friends’.

I made that remark jokingly, to make the point that I’m not theologically committed to defending Luther but rather have personal empathy for him and want to see him fairly treated. You have twisted it and misused it repeatedly.

I don’t think Luther was right to challenge the Church on basic doctrinal issues that had been consistently taught throughout the Tradition (such as the role of good works in final justification and the value of good works done in a state of grace, or the value of the monastic life as a state of life committed to following the “counsels of perfection,” and so on). So you’re just lumping me in with Lutherans in order to discredit me when I call you on your bias and unfairness.

I repeat: my problem with your methods is that you seem to think that if you just rub Protestants’ noses in the nasty stuff about their tradition they will see the light. This makes no sense. It’s not only an unpleasant and degrading method, damaging to your own soul and that of those who read you, but it’s pointless. I understand that you are engaging in this misguided approach out of the best motives. But you’re really having trouble engaging with Lutherans in particular (I don’t know what you have against Lutherans:shrug in a respectful and substantive way. You keep looking for “Gotcha!” moments.

It is my understanding that the LCMS has not signed off on the joint declaration

Very true.

which is bandied about here as if it came down from the mountain with Moses

It’s an important ecumenical document and points the way forward, I think.

In my experience, Lutherans are not especially prone to considering that their doctrinal beliefs might be wrong. That proposition simply does ‘not compute’. If you want to make an argument to that effect, you should NOT start with criticizing their beliefs on Salvation. Because of the ‘importance’ of the matter to Luther, which he ‘built in’ to Lutheranism, he also built in a rather arrogant attitude towards questioning that version of Salvation.

If you’re talking about LCMS folks, then sure, a well-catechized and confident LCMS person is pretty hard to convince of anything. But you’re certainly not any more likely to get somewhere by throwing dirt than by substantive argument, and if you do you don’t deserve to

For all other Protestants, however, the likelihood of their being brought to question some of their assumptions about salvation is much greater. And even with regard to the LCMS, in my experience teaching in Indiana there are a lot of young LCMS folks who are disillusioned with the rigidity of the LCMS. Many of them drift toward non-denominational evangelicalism. I don’t know if your focus on Lutheranism is due to your personal context or to a (mistaken, in my opinion) belief that if you can refute Lutheranism you will have refuted Protestantism and so the methods are the same either way.

I should say that we do differ inasmuch as I don’t think it’s a good idea to go around trying to convert people by refuting their basic beliefs. Rather, I want to help people think critically about church history, and naturally there are certain directions I’d like to see that thinking go–toward questioning the bases for schism and toward an openness to reunion with the Catholic Church. I mostly leave the very difficult task of getting LCMS people to do this to people (like Mickey Mattox, a Steinmetz student and convert to Catholicism) who grew up LCMS and know the ropes. (I’m more likely to be in the situation of explaining to a former student who is ex-LCMS why his church used to stand up for the Gospel reading and not for other parts of Scripture!)

I’m sure that you could make the case that Luther was wrong on Salvation, and in fact I think you are eminently qualified to do so, if you wanted to do so. If you believe that the issue is important, maybe you should.

My posts tend to be in response to others. I do need to do more writing that sets out my views systematically instead of just playing devil’s advocate. I’m sure I could point you to posts where I’ve responded to Lutherans and other Protestants and made criticisms of Luther’s doctrine of salvation.

My approach is very much that of Fr. Louis Bouyer–Luther was right in what he was trying to affirm, but he fell into false dichotomies and thus denied important parts of the Tradition.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

If you’re talking about LCMS folks, then sure, a well-catechized and confident LCMS person is pretty hard to convince of anything. But you’re certainly not any more likely to get somewhere by throwing dirt than by substantive argument, and if you do you don’t deserve to.

Topper, you should defiantly consider this post by Edwin if you want to be effective. You’re not going to pry LCMS (and other Lutherans) by coming at us head first - in fact, such tactics will only strengthen our resolve as we begin to equate ‘Catholic’ with ‘strident’.

Frankly, If you’re going to convince us Lutherans to drop our church, you’re going to have to do it by providing something worthy of moving toward - there’s much to love about the Catholic church. Highlighting those aspects in contrast to the Lutheran model would not only help us (either convert, or appreciate Catholicism more) but also would help your fellow Catholics.

 

[steido01]

Others have demonstrated remarkable charitably toward Topper’s rather inflammatory comments. I do not mean to pile on, but I would like to make a few points clear:

As a matter of fact, even LCMS Lutherans don’t seem to know what their own doctrinal position is on the issue of the pope as the antichrist. In 1932, the LCMS (then only about half as ‘mature’ as they are today), issued the following statement:

Firstly, I’d like to say that the only thing worse than lying is not telling the whole truth. To imply that the LCMS holds new beliefs is, frankly, garbage. The LCMS claims to trace its roots to Pentecost, just as any other catholic body. Many Roman Catholics would claim that the beliefs found within Lutheranism had no root until the Reformation, and there may be truth to that. But it takes someone truly ignorant of history to say that the Lutheranism of the LCMS is some neophyte movement (I won’t speculate as to whether this was intentional or not). Let’s consider the situation in the ‘Wild West’ of the 13 Colonies. One of the oldest churches in the LCMS received its charter in 1664 (this means the church which sent it was already in existence!). Meanwhile, the oldest Roman Catholic diocese in the 13 Colonies wasn’t established until 1789. Are we then to conclude that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until 125 years after Lutherans had been established in the US? Of course not! The truth is that both of our communions existed before this country was founded, even if we worshiped and spoke in different languages or even we recognized by different names.

Secondly, what’s wrong about a group of people asking their teaching authority for clarification? When you feel brave, please Google these two words: “Vatican clarifies”

The fact is that the Lutherans who are most vocal about achieving unity would very much like us to just forget about all of those ‘pesky old fashioned poorly worded outdated language charges’.

“The fact” or your opinion? Without overstating my devotion or comparing it to others, few Lutherans desire unity more than me. I pray for corporate unity of the church militant daily. I pray that someday my Roman Catholic wife and I may commune, together, at each other’s altars. But that cannot happen, not yet. But those of us Lutherans who consider the Office of the Papacy to either remain Anti-Christ or heterodox are not somehow disingenuous to our Confessions. As has been stated over and over and over, the Lutheran objections to the Office of the Papacy are conditional. Yes, this means that one day our objections may very well be outdated (indeed, some of our objections already are!) – and this ought to be cause for rejoicing!

 

[steido01]

Continued…

Kittelson is speaking of the history of Martin Luther being ‘falsified, distorted, or minimized’, by Lutherans. Over the years I have seen this on a regular basis. Kittelson could just as easily be speaking of the ‘interpretations’ of their Confessions by those Lutherans who are the most interested in some sort of reunification with Rome. In other words, it all must be taken with a grain of salt.

In a limited respect, I can agree with Kittelson. I have not shied away from rebuking those who call themselves ‘Lutheran’ when they use our Confessions to support the very opposite of what was intended by them. There are posters here who can attest to this. Similarly, you have demonstrated that the [mal]practice of misquoting Luther and the Lutheran Confessions is not limited to poorly-catechized Lutherans; non-Lutherans conveniently do the same to serve their purposes.

Rather than viewing Luther as a friend, I see him as a relatively poor Theologian who had an intense hatred for whole groups of people.

Speck and plank, speck and plank.

May God bless you Topper, and soften your heart toward your fellow Christian.

 

[Annie39]

Continued…

In a limited respect, I can agree with Kittelson. I have not shied away from rebuking those who call themselves ‘Lutheran’ when they use our Confessions to support the very opposite of what was intended by them. There are posters here who can attest to this. Similarly, you have demonstrated that the [mal]practice of misquoting Luther and the Lutheran Confessions is not limited to poorly-catechized Lutherans; non-Lutherans conveniently do the same to serve their purposes.

Speck and plank, speck and plank.

May God bless you Topper, and soften your heart toward your fellow Christian.

Isn’t that interesting. All of my friends and most of my family are not Catholic. I have a soft spot for them all. it grieves me that they aren’t Catholic. When it comes to my family and closest friends, sometimes I cry. Some are actually Lutherans and I think Topper is doing a marvelous job. If telling it like it was about Luther would not get you to rethink your Lutheranism it probably will others. The Holy Spirit uses many different methods to call folks home. I mentioned that I know why the Lutheran pastors of my past didn’t have us read Confessions because I’m thinking, that many people would leave. I would number among those folks.

Annie

 

[EvangelCatholic]

And it is not the official word of the Church either.

Really? Can you specify how the Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification isn’t the official word of the Catholic Church?

I often refer you to the Holy See site hoping you will actually read the position of the Catholic Church. Your choice, but you appear uninformed until you actually speak for Catholic teaching, if that matters.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There’s much to like about the Joint Declaration - but, as written, it comes at a price of watering down both Catholic and Lutheran doctrine.

Can you identify exactly where both the Catholic and Lutheran doctrines are “watered down” in JDDJ?

 

[josie_L]

My approach is very much that of Fr. Louis Bouyer–Luther was right in what he was trying to affirm, but he fell into false dichotomies and thus denied important parts of the Tradition.

Edwin

He didn’t just deny important parts of Tradition, he was rather derogatory about his denunciation (thinking of his debate with Eck and other writings).

P.S. I do not like Luther but neither do I like some of the popes of that period.

 

[benjohnson]

Can you identify exactly where both the Catholic and Lutheran doctrines are “watered down” in JDDJ?

I do like the JDDJ, but it’s not quite there. I’m hopeful that more exploring of the topic will lead to consensus, but if not, then understanding each others viewpoints is also a good goal.

I’ll give you the Catholic side to digest:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

The ‘clarifications’ sections withdraws some of the language that makes it looks like the Catholics have come to the Lutheran understanding.

Of course, my communion has objections: lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=339

 

[benjohnson]

Some are actually Lutherans and I think Topper is doing a marvelous job. If telling it like it was about Luther would not get you to rethink your Lutheranism it probably will others.

Topper is doing a great job disparaging Martin Luther.

Bringing the Holy Spirit as contained in the Catholic Church to the world is a different task.

 

[joe371]

He didn’t just deny important parts of Tradition, he was rather derogatory about his denunciation (thinking of his debate with Eck and other writings).

P.S. I do not like Luther but neither do I like some of the popes of that period.

Dislike the sin, not the sinner - right?

 

[joe371]

Isn’t that interesting. All of my friends and most of my family are not Catholic. I have a soft spot for them all. it grieves me that they aren’t Catholic. When it comes to my family and closest friends, sometimes I cry. Some are actually Lutherans and I think Topper is doing a marvelous job. If telling it like it was about Luther would not get you to rethink your Lutheranism it probably will others. The Holy Spirit uses many different methods to call folks home. I mentioned that I know why the Lutheran pastors of my past didn’t have us read Confessions because I’m thinking, that many people would leave. I would number among those folks.

Annie

Same here with my family and friends; I can relate. One of my favorite quotes from the catechism of the Catholic Church:

Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[spina1953]

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, Adopted 1932 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)

“43. 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.)” (emphasis mine)

That seems to be pretty ‘personal’ to me, especially given that I have never seen Scripture describe the antichrist as anything other than an individual being.

Now of course, I will be accused of mistaken interpretation, but then I am not exactly alone. Members of the LCMS who of course cannot be accused of bias AGAINST Lutheranism are ‘confused’ about who the LCMS thinks is the antichrist.

In an article in the LCMS online magazine “Reporter Online” titled, “Pacific Southwest re-elects Stoterau president” we find evidence of that ‘confusion’:

“Another resolution adopted by Pacific Southwest delegates calls for the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations to review and clarify Article 43 (on the Antichrist) of “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod,” which was adopted in 1932.

That resolution states that some readers of the article on the Synod’s Web site about the “Brief Statement” have been confused over what it says about the pope being the Antichrist. The action states that a CTCR study is needed to better explain the “historical and theological context” of Article 43.”

It seems to me that there are three possibilities here. The accusation of ‘antichrist’ means absolutely nothing today, and not even the most ‘ecumenical’ of Lutherans make that claim. The other two possibilities is that section 43 refers to either the ‘office’ or to the pope personally. It seems that some Lutherans believe in the one definition and some believe in the other. That being the case, I cannot be accused of taking a position that at least some Lutherans take.

The fact is that the Lutherans who are most vocal about achieving unity would very much like us to just forget about all of those ‘pesky old fashioned poorly worded outdated language charges’.

“Just move alone – nothing to see here!”

As you saw in the Kittelson quote, he comments on the “all too tempting impetus to ascribe to Luther everything in contemporary Christianity of which the author (or poster) approves……This tendency is most obvious in the pictures of Luther that derive from German Protestants and Lutherans in particular……At present, there is also a subset of the first tendency mentioned above – that is, an urge to find praise or at least support in Luther for whatever the reader currently regards as most praiseworthy or desirable in his or her own time. …….among them….(those) who seek reunification……and carry the label “Lutheran” are particularly prone to seek in him elements that might be used in service to their agenda of contemporary institutional ecumenicism.” Kittelson, “Luther and Modern Church history”,

Apparently, Kittelson, a Lutheran is questioning the forthrightness of these Lutherans who wish to portray Luther (and possibly their Confessions) in such a manner which is less than ‘complete’.

“In each case, the historical record blocks their path of seeking support from Luther for their fondest undertaking, unless hey falsify, distort, or minimize it.” Kittelson.

Kittelson is speaking of the history of Martin Luther being ‘falsified, distorted, or minimized’, by Lutherans. Over the years I have seen this on a regular basis. Kittelson could just as easily be speaking of the ‘interpretations’ of their Confessions by those Lutherans who are the most interested in some sort of reunification with Rome. In other words, it all must be taken with a grain of salt.

Hi Topper: As you most likely already know it appears that most Lutheran’s are going to defend Luther no matter what since it was he who started their church. Now there seems to be a factured church since at least here in the USA they are not in union with many of the things that have been accepted in some of their churches. It also seems that not all Lutheran’s agree with all of the confessions and concord, so do while others only agree with some of it, but so far it seems if I understand it these confession cannot be change though I might be wrong about that. #39 I think is a real problem since till that changes, I do not see a reunion. I think it offensive to Catholic’s, But I do understand that it was written in the 1500’s and may not apply in our day and age, yet, at least one thinks it true so I wonder at it all.

 

[Topper17]

Hi House,

Thanks for your response. I very much appreciate the fact that you are so forthright.

The confession that the pope is the antichrist is contingent on the pope continuing to teach false doctrine and persecute Christians.

Since the pope has stopped persecuting Christians, but still teachings false doctrine (IMO) confessional Lutherans continue to see him as the antichrist.

If he stopped and returned to correct doctrine, we would presumably cease believing that he is the antichrist.

When you say “IMO” that is exactly what it is, your opinion. I know that Lutherans are pretty sure that they have the correct interpretations of Scripture and that on that basis they can tell everyone else what is right and what is wrong, but you have correctly referred to the ‘false teachings’ of the Catholic Church as being such in your personal opinion. Again, I appreciate the honesty.

When you say that until ‘he’ stops and returns to correct doctrine, Lutherans will continue to see ‘him’ as the antichrist. It isn’t really a ‘stretch’ to see the use of the word ‘him’ as being a reference to the man who is the pope. But honestly, as Edwin points out, it’s probably worse that everyone else seems to want us to believe that the antichrist is ONLY the office of the papacy, like that is not offensive enough.

What mystifies me to no end is all of these people who profess to have such respect for the Catholic Church and consider us to be fellow Christians, even going so far as to consider conversion, while at the same time stating without any apparent embarrassment the ludicrous idea that the pope is the antichrist. They state it like it is a known and proven fact and therefore is not something that they should be bashful about saying. Astonishing.

You say that the pope would cease to be the antichrist to Lutherans if he ‘stopped and returned to correct doctrine’. Of course you refer to Luther’s driving psychological issue of Salvation, which was his deal breaker and so has become so for all of Protestantism and especially Lutheranism. You say that the pope should ‘return’ to the correct doctrine, and yet, you must know that Luther’s teaching on Salvation by Faith Alone had never been taught in the history of Christianity. Therefore we Catholics cannot ‘return’ to the Lutheran teaching on Salvation.

This leaves you with the responsibility of explaining how the Holy Spirit could have allowed the entire Church to be misled for the entirety of the prior 1500 years on a matter as important as Salvation. It would seem that such an explanation would then need to be compared to the likelihood of Luther simply being another in a long line of heretics who wrongly challenged the teachings of the Church and refused to be corrected. This logically would then lead to a discussion on the temperament of the ‘reformer’ and his extremely un-Christian teachings, all of which he demanded were ‘Scriptural’.

Once all of those really crazy teachings (on the Jews, Anabaptists, Peasants, Wives, etc. etc.) are lined up alongside Luther’s other radical teachings like Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation for EVERYONE (at least initially), and Salvation by Faith Alone, it becomes much more than plausible that Luther was teaching false doctrines and claiming an authority to teach that he did not legitimately possess.

That being said, how, specifically and exactly of course, do you explain how the Holy Spirit allowed all of Christianity to be so misled for 1500 years?

God Bless You House, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Let’s be clear here. The language doesn’t fit, in part because the usage has taken on different meanings, not due to actions by either of our communions. It is also true that at least one of the charges against the papacy is now moot (Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].), and another is somewhat mitigated by growing convergence on Justification. Hence, the word heterodox would hold less baggage than anti-Christ, while still conveying the fact that we believe there remains error in the teachings in the Papacy.

So – of the three ‘complaints’ of the papacy which supposedly ‘prove’ the pope to be the antichrist (to Lutherans), only 1.5 remain? Even if that is true, that still leaves the pope as proven to be the antichrist doesn’t it? After all, Lutheranism’s ‘conditions’ have not been met have they?

If the word ‘heterodox’ is a better description for you personally, fine, but that still does not mean that Lutheranism can change those offensive passages. So – I want to ask the question directly and simply:

With a simple yes or no Jon, can Lutheranism change the wording of the Confessions to eliminate the word ‘antichrist’ in reference to the pope?

You doubt it because you refuse to listen to what you have been told, not only by Lutherans and non-Lutherans on this board, but also to what the confession’s writers and our synod have said. It has been made clear to you, often, that this charge is historically conditional. It is not doctrine, as doctrine is not conditional. Conditional means if conditions change, so can the teaching.

Actually Jon, I actually DO listen to what I am told, but if the language of your confessions are as plain as they are, I am not going to automatically going to believe that some modern day interpretation of those Confessions is what they actually say. You can say that it’s historically conditional all you want but the fact is that Lutheranism still considers the pope to be the antichrist – today.

When you say ‘if conditions change’, that means IF the Catholic Church changes its teachings and agrees with Lutheran teachings. What is shocking to me is that you seem to believe that we can, and should and will do so.

IF Lutheranism actually CAN change that offensive language, and is really interested some real form of unity, then why haven’t you? As you saw from my post yesterday, even some Lutherans are ‘confused’ by the language of your own LCMS statement. Why not clear up the matter and do something significant? BTW, this is not a question about the Catholic Church but is in regards to the statements of the LCMS.

From the oft-posted LCMS document regarding this topic:

**At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma. **

Please correct me if I am wrong, and maybe you will already have answered my question by now with a yes or a no, but it appears that you are telling me that Lutheranism cannot change it’s teachings, on Salvation for example. The above quote, which is not linked, appears to suggest that some form of unity could be achieved IF the Catholic Church’s position changes. It mentions NOTHING about the possibility that Lutehransim could ‘adjust’ its teachings.

As you know, in his time Luther was known for his extreme arrogance. He still is. That arrogance lives on today in the kinds of statements that you quoted.

 

[Topper17]

Luther found it ‘necessary’ to define the pope as the antichrist because of his terrors over his everlasting Salvation. He had to CRUSH all opposition in order to keep those fears even partially in check. But Jon, this does not at all explain why modern day Lutheranism finds it necessary to claim that the pope is the antichrist.

Why go to such an extreme? Why not simply state that you believe the pope and the Catholic Church to be seriously wrong on this and that issue? Why go to the most hateful and inflammatory language possible? In my opinion the short answer is because of Martin Luther. The charge that the pope is the antichrist is a direct result of the temperament, personality, and spirituality of the man for whom your communion is named.

The reason that your confessions use the most hateful language possible to describe the pope is because of Luther’s extreme hatred. Remember that Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards said that:

“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan.” “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36

As you know I have asked many times who the ‘adherents’ in the Confessions. Since the Lutheran Confessions are a result of Luther’s hatred for Catholics, it would seem that the adherents are people like me, Catholics whom Luther hated as ‘agents of Satan’.

This belief and the statements about the pope as the antichrist or the papacy as the antichrist are SO over the top, so ridiculous, so ludicrous, so hateful and SO, SO unnecessary. But Luther’s hatred knew no bounds and so your Confessions go to such an extremely preposterous position.

One of the things I’ve noticed about a few posters on this thread, and others, is the practice of topic-creep. Catholics, and non-Catholics, sometimes use it. This is an example. For many Lutherans, the LWF is a federated body of Lutheran synods. For others, such as the LCMS, there is the ILC. Both continue to be in dialogue with the Catholic Church (something you seem to oppose, at least in part, as I recall from other threads). The specific issue of the power and primacy of the pope is not one that particularly divides Lutherans.

Jon, you know for a FACT that I do not oppose dialogue. A FACT. What I am in favor of though is something completely different than what you might support. I want there to be dialogue that does not prance around pretending that we don’t have serious differences, hoping that they won’t be noticed.

Personally I believe that the well intentioned Dialogues are far too timid on both sides. As you know, your then first VP of the LCMS Preus agrees. In fact, it might be helpful to post that amazing article that he wrote discussing the view of the Catholic Church by the LCMS.

Perhaps the criticism isn’t regarding the question, but the approach employed.

That’s very convenient Jon. As you know, I have claimed several times that some of the questions I ask will be difficult to respond to from a Protestant perspective. You claim that is not true that then fail to address them.

In my experience, if a Protestant thinks they have a compelling response to a point or a question, they march that response right out there because they believe that people are going to find their response convincing.

On the other hand, when people recognize that the weakness of their position is going to be revealed by the weakness of their response, that is when we see complaints about the questioner’s ‘style’ or ‘methods’, or ‘approach’ or level of charity, while STILL defending the claim that the pope is the antichrist. An alternate means of deflecting attention from the questions and points raised is the old, “Well the Catholic Church did that and that.”

When I say that it will difficult to answer this or that question, and you fail to respond to it, how do you think that looks? It isn’t so much the first round answer to those questions but those ‘pesky’ follow-up questions which are designed to look below the surface of a position or point. I have come to believe that many people here do not like having those difficult questions and points brought up and so they do about the only thing they can do, which is criticize the questioner.

**The question about whether Lutheranism could change the ‘antichrist language’ in your Confessions stands. Is this one of those ‘difficult questions’? **

As Always, God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I do like the JDDJ, but it’s not quite there. I’m hopeful that more exploring of the topic will lead to consensus, but if not, then understanding each others viewpoints is also a good goal.

I’ll give you the Catholic side to digest:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

The ‘clarifications’ sections withdraws some of the language that makes it looks like the Catholics have come to the Lutheran understanding.

Of course, my communion has objections: lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=339

Thanks Ben; I have read both the responses from the LCMS and Catholic Church. My sense is that the clarifications are somewhat nuanced and more a theological parsing then church-dividing statements.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Same here with my family and friends; I can relate. One of my favorite quotes from the catechism of the Catholic Church:

This is a beautiful affirmation of Christ’s Real Presence

Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”