"We Must Affirm that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jordan_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jordan_Francis

Guest
Okay…now I know this will rile many people up, so let us try and maintain a charitable spirit, but…

cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2008/07/the-papacy-is-the-antichrist-the-continuing-necessity-and-validity-of-this-lutheran-confession.html

…I was very surprised to come across this article on a Lutheran blog which affirmed the necessity of considering the Papacy to be the anti-Christ predicted in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2.

The author says this for several reasons, 1. being the degree of authority the Papacy claims for itself, and 2. being the Catholic denial of the “true gospel”: faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone.

Personally, I discovered that, what I thought was just anti-Protestant CAF rhetoric (there are some posters we must really take with a grain of salt!) turned out to be true! Luther really did desire to dispose of the Epistle of James, and actually penned in the word “alone” after faith in Romans.

How can Lutherans not stop and pause at that fact?

No matter how we spin it, James says “faith without works is dead”. Clearly a dead faith is still a faith, as a dead body is still a body. Clearly dead faith does not save…how can Lutherans deny that there are conditions which prevent faith from being salvific!?

Why am I posting this? This article just really frustrated me and I thought our dialouge with the Lutherans was beyond this.
 
I prefer this sort of protestant. At least I know where he stands.
 
Dauphin said:
I prefer this sort of protestant. At least I know where he stands.
Click to expand...
That’s good, Dauphin. I felt the same way when Pope Benedict made his statement on Protestant churches not being true churches. At least we know he’s Catholic!
 
Yes indeed, Triune Unity, our Holy Father is quite a perceptive man! Easy to spot the heretics; their outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
 
bcm6987 said:
Yes indeed, Triune Unity, our Holy Father is quite a perceptive man! Easy to spot the heretics; their outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
Actually, according to your Catechism, the heresy charge doesn’t apply to modern day Protestants. And also, according to the Catechism, they are still part of the Church by their Baptism (if validly baptized), though imperfectly.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Actually, according to your Catechism, the heresy charge doesn’t apply to modern day Protestants. And also, according to the Catechism, they are still part of the Church by their Baptism (if validly baptized), though imperfectly.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve misread the catechism. Post the relevant excerpt here and we’ll help clear up an difficulties.

Rest assured, Protestants are heretics.
 
Dauphin said:
I think you’ve misread the catechism. Post the relevant excerpt here and we’ll help clear up an difficulties.

Rest assured, Protestants are heretics.
Click to expand...
818: “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

838: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

2089: Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Protestants would be considered schismatic, not heretics. There is no such thing as a Christian heretic that Roman Catholics would call “brothers in the Lord.” Would they have said that about Arius or Nestorius?
 
TriuneUnity said:
818: “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
Click to expand...
Yes, we cannot charge someone with the sins of schism or heresy for simply being born into a protestant community. An act of will is necessary for the commission of a sin.
838: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
Click to expand...
Imperfect Communion = out of communion = in schism.

I’m not a fan of the fuzzy language in the catechism. I don’t like wading through the ambiguity. However, no contradiction with previous teaching can be found. The catechism has an amorphous teaching - it’s difficult to learn the Catholic faith from it, since it makes such an incredible effort to “be nice”.
2089: Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Click to expand...
A breath of fresh air! It proves that the CCC isn’t totally ambiguous.
Protestants would be considered schismatic, not heretics. There is no such thing as a Christian heretic that Roman Catholics would call “brothers in the Lord.” Would they have said that about Arius or Nestorius?
Click to expand...
The writers of the Catechism decided to define a Christian and “Brother in the Lord” as anyone who has been baptised. I don’t think this was a good idea, but it certainly doesn’t have any doctrinal significance. Being baptised doesn’t give one salvation if he is devoid of faith or guilty of grave sin.

The Catechism has to be interpreted in continuity with previous Church teaching. The Catholic Church can’t suddenly say that protestants aren’t heretics, and it hasn’t.
 
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Click to expand...
But heresy is also the denial of doctrines required to be held…?

So if a Protestant denies the Real Presence of Christ, for example, or affirms another teaching such as total depravity, would the Church not consider that heretical?
 
Jordan_Francis said:
But heresy is also the denial of doctrines required to be held…?

So if a Protestant denies the Real Presence of Christ, for example, or affirms another teaching such as total depravity, would the Church not consider that heretical?
Click to expand...
Precisely.
 
Jordan_Francis said:
But heresy is also the denial of doctrines required to be held…?

So if a Protestant denies the Real Presence of Christ, for example, or affirms another teaching such as total depravity, would the Church not consider that heretical?
Click to expand...
I always thought that to be a heretic, one must know what the true teaching is. One poster on here, and I cannot remmember who it was, says heresy is knowing the truth but prefering the lie.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Actually, according to your Catechism, the heresy charge doesn’t apply to modern day Protestants. And also, according to the Catechism, they are still part of the Church by their Baptism (if validly baptized), though imperfectly.
Click to expand...
“Actually” the catechism of the Cotholic church isn’t the infallible word of our Holy Father. Nice try, but it is an invaild arguement that many heretics try to use.
 
thecoach said:
so if a heretic means non-catholic…count me in!
Click to expand...
Coach. In your situation, you are considered a heretic because you left the Catholic faith. Don’t act like you weren’t Catholic and act like you’re above all of us. You are a Catholic that became a heretic and thus broke causing disunity in the body of Christ and now to make you sin even worse you are trying to proselytize other Catholics into falling away as well.

This may seem uncharitable, but you have chosen to be outspoken in your heresy and thus you must be rooted out in the open for all to see that are being abused by your position. God help you. I am praying for you.
 
bcm6987 said:
“Actually” the catechism of the Cotholic church isn’t the infallible word of our Holy Father. Nice try, but it is an invaild arguement that many heretics try to use.
Click to expand...
Can you point to a statement by the “Holy Father” that has called all Protestants heretics?
 
Dauphin said:
Yes, we cannot charge someone with the sins of schism or heresy for simply being born into a protestant community. An act of will is necessary for the commission of a sin.

Imperfect Communion = out of communion = in schism.

I’m not a fan of the fuzzy language in the catechism. I don’t like wading through the ambiguity. However, no contradiction with previous teaching can be found. The catechism has an amorphous teaching - it’s difficult to learn the Catholic faith from it, since it makes such an incredible effort to “be nice”.

A breath of fresh air! It proves that the CCC isn’t totally ambiguous.

The writers of the Catechism decided to define a Christian and “Brother in the Lord” as anyone who has been baptised. I don’t think this was a good idea, but it certainly doesn’t have any doctrinal significance. Being baptised doesn’t give one salvation if he is devoid of faith or guilty of grave sin.

The Catechism has to be interpreted in continuity with previous Church teaching. The Catholic Church can’t suddenly say that protestants aren’t heretics, and it hasn’t.
Click to expand...
So the Catechism doesn’t faithfully teach the Catholic faith now?
 
TriuneUnity said:
So the Catechism doesn’t faithfully teach the Catholic faith now?
Click to expand...
I think that we are stuck in a battle of semantics. The Catechism bears an impromature and a nihil obistat, meaning that its printing was allowed by the Church and it holds no problematic teachings in faith and morals. It does not say that it, in and of itself, is dogmatic nor does it say that it, in and of itself, was defined ex cathedra or any by any other means to be dogmatic.

That said, the Catechism does contain the basic teachings of the Church, including all dogmatic teachings. I would say that any Catholic who disagrees with any of it, even in the word choice, does so at his own risk.

There is one baptism, that is scriptural. If it is in the proper form, Trinitarian, with water, it is accepted the same as a Catholic one. That is logic based on Scriptures. What a person does or has doen to their faith afterwards is another story.

Protestants are not defacto heretics. I would hold that the vast majority of them do not know what we teach in the first place to make the choice to be heretical. Heck, most Catholics do not know it for themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top