Its been kind of going both ways for a long time, hasn’t it? Sad that both sides fail to recognize, 1) the plank in our own eyes, and 2) that through baptism we share the grace that saves.
Jon
- Status
Jon
Thank you for recognizing the the truly remarkable writings of his in his Small Catechism. That he often failed to live by those words, as all of us do, just points to his humanity, and how clearly God can work through any of us.
Jon
T
Thorolfr
Guest
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your response.
“In the same year (1521), Luther would speak of the pope as the Roman Antichrist and the papists as bloodthirsty murderers of souls (AE 48: 215, 249). ** This identification of the pope as Antichrist would never be shaken but would be expressed in ever more definite language over the years…….**
**In the first place, Luther viewed the pope as an eschatological figure whom Satan had raised up during the last days to be ordained into an antichristian office as the foremost apostle and bishop of an unchristian church……**The pope as an inherently eschatological figure can only be understood in opposition to the person of the Son of God. Until the end, Christ will always be opposed by Antichrist, just as the true church will always be opposed by the false church.
The title itself of Luther’s treatise Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, written in 1545, indicates his view of the origin of the papacy. Everything that follows in this treatise only supports the title. His frequent references to the pope as **“His Satanty,” “Most Hellishness”, **are not meant only as insults, but also to express the source out of which the papal office flows. Even Luther’s crude and frequent references to the “ass-fart pope” and various renderings of this same coarse nomenclature (AE 41:335-337) are not meant simply to be vulgar ridicule designed by a man and frustrated old man to drive his enemy to fury. They are, rather a theological statement about the source of the papal office One need only read the entire treatise to see that this is so, as Luther again and again points to Satan himself as the founder of the papal office. **This the pope is called the possession of the devil (AE 41: 286) who founded the papacy (296), and drives the pope (290), as the destroyer of Christendom (278), to attack Christ (339), exterminate the gospel (296), and ravage Christ’s flock (323).” **Daniel Preus, “Solus Christus”, “Logia”, 1996, Vol. V, Number 3.
For the record, I have read portions of Luther’s “AGAINST THE ROMAN PAPACY AN INSTITUTION OF THE DEVIL”. It drones on for over a hundred pages, revealing in the process MUCH MORE about Martin Luther the man than it does about the papacy. I read only as much as I could bear.
Preus continues on emphasizing the connection between Luther’s radical Salvation by Faith Alone and his ‘judgement’ on the papacy (although of course Preus would not consider it ‘radical’):
“If Luther’s doctrine of justification, indeed all his theology, can be said to be Christocentric, then his view of the papacy could be termed ‘antichristocentric’. The pope is, by virtue of his office, the enemy of Christ and the gospel. In fact, his office has been founded with the very intention that it stand forever in opposition to Christ. Therefore “it is a blasphemous, accursed office, so that even if one should wish it to be pious, one would still have to be a blasphemer and enemy of Christ, because of one’s office” (AE 41:333)
**It would be a mistake, moreover, to conclude that this harsh judgment against the papacy was characteristic only of the late Luther. ** Already in 1520, in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther was declaring the papacy the Antichrist, Babylon (AD 36:12, 72, 83), the haunting of Rome (12), thus establishing its intimate connection with the devil (79).” Preus,
Catholics today, myself included, wonder how Christian Theologians could possibly have accused the pope of being the antichrist in the Formula of Concord. However, the Formula is quite in consistant with Luther’s ‘theology’. It was from this ‘theology’ that the Formula and Lutheranism sprung.
We need to keep in mind always the comment made by Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards:
**“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan.” “Luther’s Last Battles”, **pg. 36
The idea that Lutherans somehow ‘honor’ the pope as having some kind of “Primacy” within the Western Church, while still depicting the papacy as being somehow the antichrist, is quite frankly, at least in my opinion, an insult to our intelligence.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Thanks for your response.
The question the becomes – WHY does Lutheranism take such a horrendous position on the papacy? Of course getting to the bottom of this requires that we understand why Luther himself took such a horrendous position. Maybe we should turn to another LCMS leader, in this case Rev. Daniel Preus, the Third Vice President of the LCMS, and Director of the Concordia Historical Institute, and also the son of Robert Preus. (In other words, he is a very credible spokesman for the LCMS). Preus describing Luther’s opinions about the Pope:
“In the same year (1521), Luther would speak of the pope as the Roman Antichrist and the papists as bloodthirsty murderers of souls (AE 48: 215, 249). ** This identification of the pope as Antichrist would never be shaken but would be expressed in ever more definite language over the years…….**
**In the first place, Luther viewed the pope as an eschatological figure whom Satan had raised up during the last days to be ordained into an antichristian office as the foremost apostle and bishop of an unchristian church……**The pope as an inherently eschatological figure can only be understood in opposition to the person of the Son of God. Until the end, Christ will always be opposed by Antichrist, just as the true church will always be opposed by the false church.
The title itself of Luther’s treatise Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, written in 1545, indicates his view of the origin of the papacy. Everything that follows in this treatise only supports the title. His frequent references to the pope as **“His Satanty,” “Most Hellishness”, **are not meant only as insults, but also to express the source out of which the papal office flows. Even Luther’s crude and frequent references to the “ass-fart pope” and various renderings of this same coarse nomenclature (AE 41:335-337) are not meant simply to be vulgar ridicule designed by a man and frustrated old man to drive his enemy to fury. They are, rather a theological statement about the source of the papal office One need only read the entire treatise to see that this is so, as Luther again and again points to Satan himself as the founder of the papal office. **This the pope is called the possession of the devil (AE 41: 286) who founded the papacy (296), and drives the pope (290), as the destroyer of Christendom (278), to attack Christ (339), exterminate the gospel (296), and ravage Christ’s flock (323).” **Daniel Preus, “Solus Christus”, “Logia”, 1996, Vol. V, Number 3.
For the record, I have read portions of Luther’s “AGAINST THE ROMAN PAPACY AN INSTITUTION OF THE DEVIL”. It drones on for over a hundred pages, revealing in the process MUCH MORE about Martin Luther the man than it does about the papacy. I read only as much as I could bear.
Preus continues on emphasizing the connection between Luther’s radical Salvation by Faith Alone and his ‘judgement’ on the papacy (although of course Preus would not consider it ‘radical’):
“If Luther’s doctrine of justification, indeed all his theology, can be said to be Christocentric, then his view of the papacy could be termed ‘antichristocentric’. The pope is, by virtue of his office, the enemy of Christ and the gospel. In fact, his office has been founded with the very intention that it stand forever in opposition to Christ. Therefore “it is a blasphemous, accursed office, so that even if one should wish it to be pious, one would still have to be a blasphemer and enemy of Christ, because of one’s office” (AE 41:333)
**It would be a mistake, moreover, to conclude that this harsh judgment against the papacy was characteristic only of the late Luther. ** Already in 1520, in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther was declaring the papacy the Antichrist, Babylon (AD 36:12, 72, 83), the haunting of Rome (12), thus establishing its intimate connection with the devil (79).” Preus,
Catholics today, myself included, wonder how Christian Theologians could possibly have accused the pope of being the antichrist in the Formula of Concord. However, the Formula is quite in consistant with Luther’s ‘theology’. It was from this ‘theology’ that the Formula and Lutheranism sprung.
We need to keep in mind always the comment made by Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards:
**“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan.” “Luther’s Last Battles”, **pg. 36
The idea that Lutherans somehow ‘honor’ the pope as having some kind of “Primacy” within the Western Church, while still depicting the papacy as being somehow the antichrist, is quite frankly, at least in my opinion, an insult to our intelligence.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Koin,
Thanks for your response.
First of all, I would like to get your reaction to my post numbers 274 and 275. You had claimed that Luther did not teach the ‘right of the individual’ to interpret Scripture, but my posts proved that he actually did. In fact, there is a great deal more evidence if you are interested. What do you think now that the facts have come to the surface? I ask because you seemed to think it was important to deny this. Is it still an important issue now that it has been proven that he did, or is it now less important?
God Bless You Koin, Topper
Thanks for your response.
First of all, I would like to get your reaction to my post numbers 274 and 275. You had claimed that Luther did not teach the ‘right of the individual’ to interpret Scripture, but my posts proved that he actually did. In fact, there is a great deal more evidence if you are interested. What do you think now that the facts have come to the surface? I ask because you seemed to think it was important to deny this. Is it still an important issue now that it has been proven that he did, or is it now less important?
Given that the official position of the LCMS is that there will be doctrinal unity with the Church IF the Church changes it’s teachings, I have no choice but to, unfortunately, agree with you. This leaves us with the discussion as to which one is the more likely to be the ONE that is teaching correctly according to God’s Absolute Truth (if either). My position is that a MUCH stronger case can be made for the Church than can be made for Lutheranism, especially when all of the “details” are known (such as the fact that Luther taught Private Interpretation.)
Yes, but I think that the “Hypothetical Council” causes us to think about how it could actually happen, and that that actually causes us to think critically about the hypothetical Lutheran approach to such a situation. They SHOULD be willing to attend a truly Ecumenical Council of ALL Christians and abide by the decisions made. But as you seem to agree, they would probably not, which I think speaks volumes. Luther was very much opposed to his followers attending Trent, demonstrating his preference for dividing Christianity rather than uniting it.
God Bless You Koin, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Agreed, although I would state that the underlying reason for Luther’s Revolt was his incredible need for assurance of his everlasting salvation. That is what forced him to reject the authority of the Church and establish his own, one where he could create a ‘system’ which would provide him the assurance that he so desperately needed.
That being said, what do we do now? It is clear that the current Dialogue is not exactly wild about discussing key issue that divides us – Authority. The fact that they have not even begun to discuss Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility after 50 years is I think, nothing short of shameful. On the other hand, how do they even begin to discuss it?
If all Lutherans take the position that the LCMS does, there is no reason to even bring it up. That being the case, at least with the LCMS, about as ‘good’ as we are ever going to do is cooperate on non-dividing issues where we agree (like homosexuality and abortion).
I don’t see any hope for doctrinal movement on either the Catholic or LCMS side and I would bet that you don’t either. Is that why you seem much more ‘content’ than I am with the situation as it exists – because you recognize that it is NOT going to get any better?
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes, the sentiments of some LCMS posters don’t “match” their official writings.
Mary.
T
Topper17
Guest
Agreed, although I would state that the underlying reason for Luther’s Revolt was his incredible need for assurance of his everlasting salvation. That is what forced him to reject the authority of the Church and establish his own, one where he could create a ‘system’ which would provide him the assurance that he so desperately needed.
That being said, what do we do now? It is clear that the current Dialogue is not exactly wild about discussing key issue that divides us – Authority. The fact that they have not even begun to discuss Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility after 50 years is I think, nothing short of shameful. On the other hand, how do they even begin to discuss it?
If all Lutherans take the position that the LCMS does, there is no reason to even bring it up. That being the case, at least with the LCMS, about as ‘good’ as we are ever going to do is cooperate on non-dividing issues where we agree (like homosexuality and abortion).
I don’t see any hope for doctrinal movement on either the Catholic or LCMS side and I would bet that you don’t either. Is that why you seem much more ‘content’ than I am with the situation as it exists – because you recognize that it is NOT going to get any better?
P
protestantinca
Guest
I think that before the Catholic Church manages to convince Lutherans about the necessity of accepting the supremacy of the papacy it should convince Orthodox Christians which whom it has even more commonality than with Lutherans (including LCMS Lutherans). There hasn’t been much success in 1000 years and I don’t expect there will be much more in the future.
On the other hand, I think that the current situation of agreement on matters that affect people’s individual lives -including religious freedom- between Catholics and confessional Lutherans is more important than the goal of accepting the dogma of the supremacy papacy.
Not sure how that relates to our discussion, but ok.
Do you have evidence that the dialogue partners have NOT talked about these issues, or if they haven’t why that is the case? Since they consult neither you nor me, perhaps they have reasons for going about their business as they do.
I think it a bit presumptuous for us to pass judgement on the dialogue partners. And again, how do you know what has been discussed behind the scenes?
It is precisely because of entrenched attitudes that they need to be brought up. It is precisely because of the dividing nature of both the CC’s teaching and the confessional response that it needs to be resolved. What won’t happen is dialogue that requires prerequisites from either side. That’s been made clear by the era prior to Vat II.
I’ll be honest and say that I am most discouraged by the radical traditionalists on both sides, who regularly fan the flames of animosity. OTOH, I believe what Pope Benedict said about this issue at the Lutheran parish in Rome:
“We must not content ourselves with the successes of ecumenism over recent years, because we still cannot drink from the same chalice or gather together around the same altar”. … “This cannot but make us sad because it is a situation of sin; and yet unity cannot be achieved by men. We must entrust ourselves to the Lord, because He is the only one Who can give us unity. Let us hope that He brings us to that goal”.
So, you are wrong in your evaluation that I am “content” with the current situation. Of all the Lutherans you may talk to, I promise I am among the least content. But I also do not take your position that things will not get any better, because as Benedict said, “we must entrust ourselves to the Lord, because He is the only one Who can give us unity.”
Jon
True, though individual members of our leadership also hold personal opinions that may or may not reflect the teaching of the synod. And this is perfectly permissible outside doctrine.
You don’t know the half of it. For example, I find the uber-congregationalist polity of the LCMS to be, at the minimum, frustrating. But let’s be clear, in the area of articles of faith Noland and I are probably in step. He and I would agree on CA, and the Apology, and whereever in the confessions that doctrine is described.
The teaching about the papacy is not an article of faith. My salvation is not in any way wrapped up in whether or not I think the papacy bears in its teachings any of the mark of being opposed to Christ. Where Noland and I would agree is that, in our view, universal jurisdiction is an innovation not supported by scripture or the councils of the early Church. That’s the issue. That’s what has to be resolved, and not just between Catholics and Lutherans. I would suggest that this is THE Church-dividing issue, and has been for 1,000 years. Its resolution is far more critical between Rome and the other Patriarchates than it is between Rome and Pan-Lutheranism.
Jon
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I was reading St. Catherine of Siena’s ‘Dialogues’ again…and really was drawn to her teaching that the papacy has the Keys to the Blood.
I am reading that people who do best are not so much spiritual people, but religious people, implying here that religion is binding…to Christ. As I shared, at Mass, my focus is not on the priest or pope…my focus as Catholic in my faith is Jesus Christ. At Mass, I enter into the Mystical Presence of Christ and draw on the nourishment of the Divine in the Eucharistic Liturgy.
I cannot make Eucharist. My personal interpretation cannot create the experience that I have because it is before me, outside of me, but drawing me into the life of God…This is the Tree of Life that was the only good fruit named in the Garden of Eden…and despite the Fall of Adam and Eve…was ever present before them separated by the Angel and the sword of fire.
There are several books out by Fr Thomas Dubay, SM, ‘The Fire Within’, where he talks about the saints of contemplation…the ongoing witness of the saints of the Resurrection…their various charisms…but always bringing us deeper into the life of Christ. There is his book, ‘Authenticity’ in how he describes authentic faith. And another, ‘Faith and Certitude’…One of the aspects of true faith is certitude…and this comes when faith is defined not only spiritual manner, but in religion…that which is defining and binding…and the Binding Agent one other than Christ Himself.
I see countless times Protestants hesitation to our faith centered on the papacy and I think they put much more focus on the papacy than we do. In the Church we are the People of God, pope, bishops, and lay…all on equal footing facing Our Lord.
The papacy binds the Church in unity with Christ…the papacy is not an end in itself…but must work, as in the case of papal infallibility…as a servant of God for us.
Yes, I agree with Topper that what I have reflected on Luther in various discussions here on CAF…is his need to have it written down his assurance for salvation…but this contradicting a Psalm …66?..I have to go back to the Liturgy of the Hours…I read one night at bedtime…that what pleases God the most is we before Him on trembling knee…we cannot be assured of our salvation on our own…but trust in His mercy.
This coming year, beginning December 8, 2015, is the Jubilee Year of Christ’s Mercy for us. We must trust in His Mercy…and step out in faith to be bound with Him no matter the cost.
I am reading that people who do best are not so much spiritual people, but religious people, implying here that religion is binding…to Christ. As I shared, at Mass, my focus is not on the priest or pope…my focus as Catholic in my faith is Jesus Christ. At Mass, I enter into the Mystical Presence of Christ and draw on the nourishment of the Divine in the Eucharistic Liturgy.
I cannot make Eucharist. My personal interpretation cannot create the experience that I have because it is before me, outside of me, but drawing me into the life of God…This is the Tree of Life that was the only good fruit named in the Garden of Eden…and despite the Fall of Adam and Eve…was ever present before them separated by the Angel and the sword of fire.
There are several books out by Fr Thomas Dubay, SM, ‘The Fire Within’, where he talks about the saints of contemplation…the ongoing witness of the saints of the Resurrection…their various charisms…but always bringing us deeper into the life of Christ. There is his book, ‘Authenticity’ in how he describes authentic faith. And another, ‘Faith and Certitude’…One of the aspects of true faith is certitude…and this comes when faith is defined not only spiritual manner, but in religion…that which is defining and binding…and the Binding Agent one other than Christ Himself.
I see countless times Protestants hesitation to our faith centered on the papacy and I think they put much more focus on the papacy than we do. In the Church we are the People of God, pope, bishops, and lay…all on equal footing facing Our Lord.
The papacy binds the Church in unity with Christ…the papacy is not an end in itself…but must work, as in the case of papal infallibility…as a servant of God for us.
Yes, I agree with Topper that what I have reflected on Luther in various discussions here on CAF…is his need to have it written down his assurance for salvation…but this contradicting a Psalm …66?..I have to go back to the Liturgy of the Hours…I read one night at bedtime…that what pleases God the most is we before Him on trembling knee…we cannot be assured of our salvation on our own…but trust in His mercy.
This coming year, beginning December 8, 2015, is the Jubilee Year of Christ’s Mercy for us. We must trust in His Mercy…and step out in faith to be bound with Him no matter the cost.
P
protestantinca
Guest
Yes, I find some Catholics’ obsession (in truth not all, and certainly not all in the Catholic leadership) with Luther a bit bizarre, as if 500 years prior to the Protestant Reformation what is still called the Great Schism had not happened.
Sometimes it feels as if these Catholics believe that undoing the Protestant Reformation could be used as a first step to convince the Patriarchs that their forebears were wrong 1000 years ago.
Well I have some news for them: I don’t see anytime soon the Protestant Reformation being undone nor the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs recognizing the supremacy of the pope. So if Rome (and others) are serious about unity, they will have to define “unity” in a way that doesn’t involve recognizing that the pope of Rome has universal theological jurisdiction over all followers of Christ. The genie is already out of the bottle and it has been shown that living according to Jesus’ doctrine does not require membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Who will decide the final decision when non Catholic religions disagree on issues?
Such as:
Justification, LWF signed off on JDDJ, Confessional Lutherans did not. Which Lutherans were correct, the ones that signed or did not?
What about real presence? Is it “in with and under” the body and blood or transubstantiation, o r does it matter? Symbolic anyone?
What about Sacraments? How many should there be or once again does it not matter if we trust in Christ for our salvation?
What about women ordination, homosexual relationships including sex, abortion, etc?
What now? We already see the plethora of religions all claiming to be Bible Based.
Do you think some religions or synods are dead wrong in their belief(s) or do you believe it’s all a matter of trusting in Christ for salvation and his work done on the cross?
Mary.
Let’s also not forget that the Catholic Church felt the need to “clarify it”.
Some Lutheran and Catholic theologians think this:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/i_l-rc_eucharist.html
This is clearly a point that needs to be discussed, but the starting point between Catholics and Lutherans is vastly closer than with most other non-Catholics.
Pretty solid ground between the CC and the ILC.
I believe it is both.
Jon
S
Selah_KY
Guest
This is FAR too simplistic an explanation.
"JonNC:
I think these comments show exactly what one of the big problems within the LCMS is. Confessional Lutherans are NOT more “moral” than their missional couterparts, any more than missional Lutherans are more “moral” for their emphasis on evangelization and social justice. A LCMS Lutheran who prefers modern worship music doesn’t automatically fall into the pro-choice camp. The two have nothing to do with each other!
All LCMS Lutherans are closer to the Catholic church than our Protestant brothers because of our belief in baptism and the Eucharist as a sacrament, our emphasis on the importance of regular confession and forgiveness (conferred through a priest), because we follow the seasons of the church, and use a historic liturgy (which used to be nearly identical).
This isn’t true. Even though there is a “secondary” category, it is considered that based on the writers not being Apostles. They are taught with the same authority as the rest of the NT and I was an adult before I ever even knew there were “categories”.
Amen! Mercy is such an illusive things, though… right up there with grace.Since I spent the first (almost) 50 years of my life as a Lutheran, I don’t find my obsession with Luther bizarre at all.
Whew. Leaving for vacation in the middle of this conversation made for too much deep reading at one sitting!
T
Tomyris
Guest
One of the most bizarre aspects of this whole thread is that Lutherans are CLOSE to Catholics in many, many ways. If you have trouble reconciling with them, what will you do when you try to talk to Christians who are more distant from the Catholic Church than they are?
It wasn’t my intention to imply that we were “more moral”? My statement was that our moral stance was more like that of the CC.
As for modern worship, I may not care for it, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Lutheran worship has some basic prerequisites: Invocation, Absolution, scripture readings, homily, sacrament, benediction. Further, music must reflect doctrine, but beyond that, what worship looks like is adiaphoron.
Further, with social justice, what that entails often depends on the definition, and who provides it.
Agreed.
Additionally, simply because there are books of a “second category”, doesn’t mean the door is open to add additional books, which is what Commenter was speaking of.
Jon
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your response.
MaryT777:
Yes, the sentiments of some LCMS posters don’t “match” their official writings.
Mary.
First of all, I do LOVE a good understatement.
It seems to me that if we are looking for an understanding of the Lutheran concept of the antichrist, then we need to better understand that of Luther.
“Calvin was no less concerned with this problem (of the antichrist) than Luther, particularity in connection with the unyielding opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to evangelical doctrine. **The difference between Luther and Calvin is that the later tended to identify the antichrist not so much as an individual pope, but with the ecclesiastical kingdom that would allegedly stand through all the ages.” ** G. C. Berkouwer, “The Return of Christ”, pg. 263
The inference of course is that Luther considered individual popes to be the antichrist. Noted Lutheran Scholar Paul Althaus supports this charge:
“Luther was indeed not the only one who characterized the papacy as the antichrist; other reformers and revolutionaries, one thinks primarily of the Bohemians, had also done this. ** And yet, Luther does not simply repeat the Hussite thesis. His basis was completely new. The Bohemians called the papacy anti-Christian because of his unchristian life. ‘Luther, however, was not so much concerned with the life as with the doctrine, not with the works but with the faith, because this is the root from which the branch and the fruits grow……thus Luther’s antichrist differs from the antichrist of medieval opponents of the papacy exactly as the theology of the Reformation differs from pre-Reformation theology.”** (Althaus here quoting (LCMS) Preus). Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 420.
I have often heard that Luther was just one a long line who had accused the papacy of being the antichrist. However, as Althaus points out, Luther took that accusation to a whole different level.
“Luther finally concludes that the antichrist is to be found only on the papacy, that is, in a power within the church itself – although his opinion on this question varies somewhat from time to time. Basically he does not see the antichrist in the external oppressors of Christendom – which in his time were primarily the Turks. In the Smalcald Articles he says: **“The pope is the real antichrist who has raised himself **over and set himself against Christ, for the pope will not permit Christians to be saved except for his own power, which amounts to nothing since it is neither established nor demanded by God. Neither the Turks nor the Tarters, great as is their enmity against Christians, do this……’ At another place Luther declares: ‘I do not think Mohammed is the antichrist. He does things too obviously; that black devil is so easily recognized that neither faith nor reason can be deceived. He is like a pagan who persecutes the church from outside it, as the Romans and other pagans have done. ** But the pope of our time is the true antichrist. He has a very crafty, beautiful, and glorious devil who sits inside the church.” **Althaus, pg. 421
Given Luther’s references to “he” here, there is no way that he is referring to an ‘office’, which BTW, cannot be ‘crafty’.
We have heard how it is supposedly the ‘office’ which the Formula refers to as the antichrist, and YET, nowhere does it use the term ‘office’ or anything that would describe the office of the papacy. You might think that the accusation is somehow ‘softened’ by suggesting that it applies to ‘only’ the office, but a case could be made for the exact opposite. Nothing excuses that ridiculous accusation. Furthermore, when we look at Luther’s actual words, it becomes very clear that he intends to refer to the individuals, and it is within that context that we need to understand the Formula of Concord.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Thanks for your response.
Yes, the sentiments of some LCMS posters don’t “match” their official writings.
Mary.
First of all, I do LOVE a good understatement.
It seems to me that if we are looking for an understanding of the Lutheran concept of the antichrist, then we need to better understand that of Luther.
“Calvin was no less concerned with this problem (of the antichrist) than Luther, particularity in connection with the unyielding opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to evangelical doctrine. **The difference between Luther and Calvin is that the later tended to identify the antichrist not so much as an individual pope, but with the ecclesiastical kingdom that would allegedly stand through all the ages.” ** G. C. Berkouwer, “The Return of Christ”, pg. 263
The inference of course is that Luther considered individual popes to be the antichrist. Noted Lutheran Scholar Paul Althaus supports this charge:
“Luther was indeed not the only one who characterized the papacy as the antichrist; other reformers and revolutionaries, one thinks primarily of the Bohemians, had also done this. ** And yet, Luther does not simply repeat the Hussite thesis. His basis was completely new. The Bohemians called the papacy anti-Christian because of his unchristian life. ‘Luther, however, was not so much concerned with the life as with the doctrine, not with the works but with the faith, because this is the root from which the branch and the fruits grow……thus Luther’s antichrist differs from the antichrist of medieval opponents of the papacy exactly as the theology of the Reformation differs from pre-Reformation theology.”** (Althaus here quoting (LCMS) Preus). Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 420.
I have often heard that Luther was just one a long line who had accused the papacy of being the antichrist. However, as Althaus points out, Luther took that accusation to a whole different level.
“Luther finally concludes that the antichrist is to be found only on the papacy, that is, in a power within the church itself – although his opinion on this question varies somewhat from time to time. Basically he does not see the antichrist in the external oppressors of Christendom – which in his time were primarily the Turks. In the Smalcald Articles he says: **“The pope is the real antichrist who has raised himself **over and set himself against Christ, for the pope will not permit Christians to be saved except for his own power, which amounts to nothing since it is neither established nor demanded by God. Neither the Turks nor the Tarters, great as is their enmity against Christians, do this……’ At another place Luther declares: ‘I do not think Mohammed is the antichrist. He does things too obviously; that black devil is so easily recognized that neither faith nor reason can be deceived. He is like a pagan who persecutes the church from outside it, as the Romans and other pagans have done. ** But the pope of our time is the true antichrist. He has a very crafty, beautiful, and glorious devil who sits inside the church.” **Althaus, pg. 421
Given Luther’s references to “he” here, there is no way that he is referring to an ‘office’, which BTW, cannot be ‘crafty’.
We have heard how it is supposedly the ‘office’ which the Formula refers to as the antichrist, and YET, nowhere does it use the term ‘office’ or anything that would describe the office of the papacy. You might think that the accusation is somehow ‘softened’ by suggesting that it applies to ‘only’ the office, but a case could be made for the exact opposite. Nothing excuses that ridiculous accusation. Furthermore, when we look at Luther’s actual words, it becomes very clear that he intends to refer to the individuals, and it is within that context that we need to understand the Formula of Concord.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
- Status