Why is the pope considered the anti christ by the protestants?

[rinnie]

I am already convinced about my beliefs, but I am open to other interpretations and explanations or theories.

Hi Cristian, If I may say something. What you want is to have one interpretation and thats Gods teaching. We are all supposed to be united in One Church One Belief because there is only One Holy Spirit teaching the fullness of the truth.

While I am very happy you are going into this with an open heart and sincere heart I believe if you study truly study you will come to realize why the CC makes the Claim and is the only church that claims to have the Fullness of the Truth.

God bless you in your journey.

 

[rinnie]

Having a strong faith is a good thing, but it is a good thing also to look at the foundation upon which your faith wrests. So I would ask you again, to please pray and study as I have exhorted earlier.

Talk about strange crazzeto, we are on the same page. we were writing pretty much the exact thing, at the almost exact time.

 

[crazzeto]

Talk about strange crazzeto, we are on the same page. we were writing pretty much the exact thing, at the almost exact time.

Jinx, buy me a coke

 

[Cristian_B]

Having a strong faith is a good thing, but it is a good thing also to look at the foundation upon which your faith wrests. So I would ask you again, to please pray and study as I have exhorted earlier.

Exactly! I have researched what I believe and I have found that it has a very good foundation.

 

[John7]

Show me where did I say the Pope is the anti-Christ.

You are assuming things I never stated. You can only guess what I mean. Who says that what I said is supposed to be deduced? Maybe I didn’t mean that. Logical deduction is not 100% accurate. Maybe I didn’t mean that the Pope is the anti-Christ or maybe I did mean it. Only I know,

God knows.

and I didn’t state whether the Pope is or isn’t the anti-Christ. your logical deduction could be a success in this case, or a fail.

I think that you think that the Pope is antichristian, but since you’re being secretive I’ll have to leave it at that.

 

[rinnie]

Exactly! I have researched what I believe and I have found that it has a very good foundation.

Good for you Cristian. And keep it up. You will come to realize that the CHurch has ONE FOUNDATION with Jesus Christ our Lord.

Keep studying and keep asking questions about our faith that you do not understand. And I for one will try to answer as honest as I can.

 

[Vile_Servant]

Dear friend,

I do not try to tear down the Roman Catholic Church, nor the pope. In fact, I do the best I can to present them in the best possible light (something that gets me into trouble once in a while with my Lutheran or Protestant friends.) There is much good in Rome, and there is much good in a godly papacy. I think that much of the fractured Christian world began to see this after Vatican II, and for decades now we’ve been learning how to walk more closely together in faith, hope, and love, recognizing the gifts of the One Spirit amongst us. I think this in part reflects the insights of the Roman Catechism, when it recognizes that all Christians who are Baptized in the name of the blessed Trinity are in fact united, however more or less perfectly, with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We are One Body-- Christ is not divided.

As a Lutheran, I would not attempt to entice you away from the Roman communion. All I would counsel is that you keep your eyes and your faith on/in Christ, regardless of where you find yourself. His promises are more sure and solid than the heavens and the earth. Bishops, priests, deacons, laity… we all err, and will exhibit our fallen human condition. But Christ will never fail you-- whether in Rome or elsewhere, remain in Christ.

Blessings to you, and peace.

Dear stbruderklaus,

Saint Nicholas Flue (d. 1487), otherwise known as Brother (Bruder) Klaus, the saint that you honor with your nickname in CAF, was faithful to the Catholic Church, was devoted to praying the rosary, ate nothing for 21 years but the Holy Eucharist alone, and demonstrated holy perseverance the practice of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. In 1481, his wise counsel averted civil war in Switzerland.

St Nicholas Flue was beatified in 1669 by Pope Clement IX, canonized in 1947, by Pope Pius XII, and is venerated by Catholics and Protestants alike. His blessed soul would have been scandalized, to say the least, at the “innovations” introduced by Luther et al shortly after his death and the accusations by Luther et al that the Papacy is the seat of the Antichrist.

Blessings and peace.

 

[stbruderklaus]

St. Nicholas von Flue was indeed a great saint. I’m not fond of everything he did or thought, but I respect him greatly. His time was prior to the Reformation, so perhaps we can speculate about what he would or would not appreciate. We do know that he appreciated a simple piety, a life centered on the Sacraments, and the promulgation of peace between warring factions. This I celebrate, and attempt to emulate.

Luther is not the measure of the Lutheran churches, though his thought is obviously very near the center of the Lutheran Confessions. The most central of those confessions to Lutherans, aside from the Scriptures and the Creeds, is Augsburg. The addendum to the Augsburg Confession was the Power and Primacy of the Pope, where I think the doctrine regarding how Lutherans perceive the papacy is most firmly rooted.

Not all Lutherans will agree on the specifics of the papacy (and they didn’t all agree in Luther’s time, either.) This is not a central element of our confession of the faith, since it is not central to the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Ecumenical Councils, nor our confessions. I prefer to think that the papacy is redeemable, based on the use of that office. When it was badly used, it was condemnable… but when it is rightly used, it is commendable. I do not think this so alien a concept to the broader swath of Lutherans, nor of the churches of the east.

Grace and peace.

Dear stbruderklaus,

Saint Nicholas Flue (d. 1487), otherwise known as Brother (Bruder) Klaus, the saint that you honor with your nickname in CAF, was faithful to the Catholic Church, was devoted to praying the rosary, ate nothing for 21 years but the Holy Eucharist alone, and demonstrated holy perseverance the practice of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. In 1481, his wise counsel averted civil war in Switzerland.

St Nicholas Flue was beatified in 1669 by Pope Clement IX, canonized in 1947, by Pope Pius XII, and is venerated by Catholics and Protestants alike. His blessed soul would have been scandalized, to say the least, at the “innovations” introduced by Luther et al shortly after his death and the accusations by Luther et al that the Papacy is the seat of the Antichrist.

Blessings and peace.

 

[Tomster]

Dear stbruderklaus,

Saint Nicholas Flue (d. 1487), otherwise known as Brother (Bruder) Klaus, the saint that you honor with your nickname in CAF, was faithful to the Catholic Church, was devoted to praying the rosary, ate nothing for 21 years but the Holy Eucharist alone, and demonstrated holy perseverance the practice of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. In 1481, his wise counsel averted civil war in Switzerland.

St Nicholas Flue was beatified in 1669 by Pope Clement IX, canonized in 1947, by Pope Pius XII, and is venerated by Catholics and Protestants alike. His blessed soul would have been scandalized, to say the least, at the “innovations” introduced by Luther et al shortly after his death and the accusations by Luther et al that the Papacy is the seat of the Antichrist.

Blessings and peace.

V.S.,

I notice with interest the reply sbk has given to your post. Interesting to say the least. On the one hand, according to the information I posted earlier this day on this thread, Lutherans are to regard the Pope as the anti-Christ. It is on their “to-do” list as I have shown. If our esteemed adversary is truly a Sola Scriptura adherent as his spiritual fore-father was, and I am referring to Dr. Luther, then it would seem that he would be a good, little Berean and search the Scriptures to find exactly where Jesus said that the successors of St. Peter would, in fact, be the anti-Christ. But, alas, it is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. In fact, quite the opposite is to be found.

Additionally, why would our esteemed adversary say that there is good to be found in the office of the Papacy and encourage Catholics to follow him when according to the Scriptures there is no good to be found in the anti-Christ? It really shows a lack of pastoral sensitivity for him to do this.

The questions are out there for him to answer. Let’s hope he can cut through Lutheranism’s contradictions and give us a coherent response.

 

[the_Assyrian_1]

I will attempt to answer the opening thread…(OT)

I am a little sadened to see the topic descend in the opening few posts, then people not speaking to each other, lets us not be irreconcilable but talk and act in Love all the way…

I am in no way anti catholic, but recently upon my journey I came across this “propaganda” claiming the pope was this and that… first of all before going on to explain my answer can I say that this is not doing anyone any good and speaking like this…

However, they (whoever) tie together the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation, the seven hills being Rome and power that ariseth (the horn with eyes) in Daniel to meet their discontentment with the Church. In my opinion this is inaccurate. I can tell you that the Catholic doctrine on this is sound and there is no need to go outside this…

A good understanding (correct also) is found on Wikipedia regarding the “Antichrist” I suggest you look here…

But do not be worried nor concern yourself with anyone who calls the POPE an Anitchrist!
Leave them well alone. Have nothing to do with them. And they stand condemned unless they repent - in my opinion. There are lot of voices who sound truthful but deny the truth. In truth you need to pray for them (Im an not talking about anyone in the forum- so please dont worry). Sadly I have met some people personally who spread this anti-catholic stuff about…! I cant eat my bread with them! It is sin! So please Stop. Bad character corrupts good company. Read the Apocolypse of Paul and see what happens to those who reject the body and blood, if you choose to believe it!!!

However if at all possible (and it is with God) who has our peace… I wish you unity in the Body of Christ… Amen.

 

[peary]

It’s a good example of how you can’t fix stupid, actually.

 

[Vile_Servant]

St. Nicholas von Flue was indeed a great saint. I’m not fond of everything he did or thought, but I respect him greatly. His time was prior to the Reformation, so perhaps we can speculate about what he would or would not appreciate. We do know that he appreciated a simple piety, a life centered on the Sacraments, and the promulgation of peace between warring factions. This I celebrate, and attempt to emulate.

Luther is not the measure of the Lutheran churches, though his thought is obviously very near the center of the Lutheran Confessions. The most central of those confessions to Lutherans, aside from the Scriptures and the Creeds, is Augsburg. The addendum to the Augsburg Confession was the Power and Primacy of the Pope, where I think the doctrine regarding how Lutherans perceive the papacy is most firmly rooted.

Not all Lutherans will agree on the specifics of the papacy (and they didn’t all agree in Luther’s time, either.) This is not a central element of our confession of the faith, since it is not central to the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Ecumenical Councils, nor our confessions. I prefer to think that the papacy is redeemable, based on the use of that office. When it was badly used, it was condemnable… but when it is rightly used, it is commendable. I do not think this so alien a concept to the broader swath of Lutherans, nor of the churches of the east.

Grace and peace.

Luther’s theology challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the only infallible source of religious authority. The greatest obstacle to the Protestant theology of sola scriptura, the central pillar of their confession of faith, was infallible papal authority. What better way to nullify papal authority than to label the pope as the antichrist?

Blessings and peace.

 

[Vile_Servant]

V.S.,

I notice with interest the reply sbk has given to your post. Interesting to say the least. On the one hand, according to the information I posted earlier this day on this thread, Lutherans are to regard the Pope as the anti-Christ. It is on their “to-do” list as I have shown. If our esteemed adversary is truly a Sola Scriptura adherent as his spiritual fore-father was, and I am referring to Dr. Luther, then it would seem that he would be a good, little Berean and search the Scriptures to find exactly where Jesus said that the successors of St. Peter would, in fact, be the anti-Christ. But, alas, it is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. In fact, quite the opposite is to be found.

Additionally, why would our esteemed adversary say that there is good to be found in the office of the Papacy and encourage Catholics to follow him when according to the Scriptures there is no good to be found in the anti-Christ? It really shows a lack of pastoral sensitivity for him to do this.

The questions are out there for him to answer. Let’s hope he can cut through Lutheranism’s contradictions and give us a coherent response.

Dear Tomster,

We may reject Luther’s theology, but we should treat Lutherans with charity, in the spirit of Saint Robert Bellarmine. Let us consider sbk as a brother and not an adversary as we discuss and debate this topic.

Blessings and peace.
V.S.

 

[thegreypiper]

Well, if you want to descend into that level of discussion, the Roman doctrine of Papal supremacy over an Ecumenical Council is heretical. Take that.

My guess is, that you have as little understanding of formally what heresy is, as you do about the theological nuances of either Lutheran or Anglican sacramental theology. Whadaya say we just play nice, and stick to the topic at hand?

Well let’s just say that the Ang/Luth ideas diverge from Roman teaching on the subject, in a way that Orthodox teaching does not. Orthodoxy does not use the term ‘transubstantiation’, but accepts that there is Christ’s real body and blood in the Eucharist.

Incidentally, many Orthodox -not just Protestants- see the Pope as antichrist, based on the etymology of the word “Vicar”, meaning “in place of”, which is ‘anti’ in Greek, NOT, 'against. In fact, after receiving the Eucharist, Orthodox take also a small piece of bread which has been blessed, but not consecrated (that is, it is still just bread and not Body). As this can also be received by those who for some reason are not receiving the Eucharist itself, this is called Antidoron “In place of the Bread”.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Friend,

I think it’s important to note, that Luther’s theology (nor the confessional theology of succeeding Lutherans) hinges on this concept of the Roman bishop being the/an anti-Christ. It is indeed true, that Luther, like many of the early Church Fathers, said that all Christians should be subjected to the Holy Scriptures, but we should not wrongly accuse Luther of the Protestant concept of individual interpretation. Luther was actually much more akin to the councilliar tradition regarding the interpretation and application of the Holy Scriptures, and this is played out in the Lutheran Confessions, where Fathers and Councils are often quoted to support the Lutheran positions. Luther did not seek anything new, but the recovery of something old. Naturally, we could argue about how well or not he accomplished that end.

The idea of the Pope as anti-Christ emerged, not because of the Sola Scriptura argument, but because of the bloody persecution and tyrrany the popes of the late medeival period perpetrated across Europe. I find it encouraging that modern 20th century popes have collectively repented of this abuse of papal power, making much more charitable our common work for Christian unity. As Roman Christians ceased viewing Lutherans as heretical and condemned schismatics in need of purging from the earth, but rather as seperated brethren united to the Catholic Church through Holy Baptism (however imperfectly), Lutherans were able to let down their own vitriolic tyrades and look afresh at the Roman communion in a similar light. No one is trying to kill anyone anymore, and particularly in the Americas, no Church is vying for political control in order to oppress or suppress contrary opinion. Lutherans and Romans can see each other as Christian brethren, and as such, to work together as we find growing unity.

The Pope as anti-Christ is not an article of faith for Lutherans. We observe that the actions of some popes have been particularly anti-Christian, and many of us are still leary that the infallibility dogmas and the anti-councilliar traditions (particularly that the bishop of Rome cannot be judged by anyone, including his fellow Patriarchs in the east, nor even by a council of the Church) promulgated by Rome since the Reformation era, could lead to future abuses akin to those of the past. However, the 20th and now 21st centuries have shown us Popes that are much more charitable in their disposition, and our Lutheran hackles have been largely laid to rest. I think most of us are looking forward to a day of Christian unity where Lutherans can walk again with their Patriarch, in a unity of faith, hope, and love… a movement that is afoot between Romans and Anglicans, Romans and Orthodox, and many others.

Grace and peace.

Luther’s theology challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the only infallible source of religious authority. The greatest obstacle to the Protestant theology of sola scriptura, the central pillar of their confession of faith, was infallible papal authority. What better way to nullify papal authority than to label the pope as the antichrist?

Blessings and peace.

 

[crazzeto]

All of which of course ignores Protestant violence durring the same period, the fact that the Church invited the Lutherans to the Council of Trent to work together to reunite and basically any good actual objective research durring the period. It goes so far as ignoring Luther him self.

 

[inkaneer]

why is the pope considered as the anti christ which was written in the book of Revelation? Protestants in the early centuries claim this with historical records to back them up. I’m now wondering whether the catholic faith is the one really instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and the church He entrusted to St. Peter. Can anyone clear this up, please! Thank you!

The reason is simple. Protestantism followed the same line as all the other heretical sects in attacking the church. They did not have anything to stand on for their doctrines because their doctrines were man made 116th century inventions. They therefore had to invent something that people would find objectionable. Also do not think that protestantism was purely a religious movement. It was religion bound up in political affirs. Note that the claims against the pope were political due to the temporal power wielded by the papcy but initially there were never any claims of the pope teaching error. Later these allegations would be made and are still made today by fundamentalists and evangelicals but in 500 years not one allegation has been proved. Nor will they ever be. Why, you ask? Because it is a complete impossibility. Here’s why.

The protestant lie [that is what it is] that the church somehow lost its way and taught error and needed to be corrected by protestantism is anti scriptural. For if the church ever taught error then Jesus and scripture are liars. In Mt 16:18 Jesus said that the forces of hell would never prevail over His church. The only way hell could prevail over the church was for the church to teach error. Recall that the mission given to the church by Jesus was to teach the nations and to Baptize them [See Mt 28:19-20]:

“19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” [Mt 28:19-20]

This is known as the Great Commission. So the allegation of the church or the pope ever teaching error is not only false but according to Jesus, a complete impossibility. In addition, Jesus promised to remain with His Church until the end of the age. That hasn’t happenend yet so Jesus is still with the Catholic Church.

 

[stbruderklaus]

My intent was not to ignore anything… this kind of forum is difficult to cover all elements of a period in such short posts.

However, we must be careful not to mash Lutherans in with general Protestantism… there are many significant differences. But naturally, in an age where Church and State were entirely intertwined, there were abuses all around. The Reformers (at least the Lutherans) argued for a division of powers, harkening back to Augustine’s Two Kingdom argumentation, and so were less likely to use the State for the persecution of Christians, though the Lutheran princes did on occassion… but Rome continued to argue that the pope held a divine right over not only the Church but also the State, which naturally translated (along with their greater numbers) into a greater proportion of the abuse of power. I’m sure that where Lutherans were in majority populations, and the Church and State were still intimately united, there were plenty of abuses to go around. All this, however, supports the Lutheran contention that all men are fallible, be they ever so great.

As for the councils in the west, and particularly the long awaited Council of Trent which Luther did not live to see, keep in mind that since the 1400’s (well before the Reformation) Popes contended that councils could only ratify or support the positions of the Papacy… meaning that councils were not really free, like they were in the ecumenical period before the Great Schism. Trent was a great example of this. Looking at the few papal legates who actually wrote the positions of Trent, and the severe penalties threatened to any attending bishop who dissented from the papal positions (Trent having been convoked in Italian lands, where the sword could be used to ensure dissenters were either converted or eliminated… as was the case with Huss a hundred years or so prior) and one can see why Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and so forth were not present. No council is free, when the attendees in dissent must leave their heads at the door.

But this is something behind us. Our day is no longer enmeshed in the ugliness of the 16th century. No one was killed after Vatican II, whether they agreed or disagreed. We should be able to move forward, and walk together better than our Reformation era counterparts did.

Peace to you.

All of which of course ignores Protestant violence durring the same period, the fact that the Church invited the Lutherans to the Council of Trent to work together to reunite and basically any good actual objective research durring the period. It goes so far as ignoring Luther him self.

 

[crazzeto]

And now you’re just out right making stuff up, you know quantity of text posted doesn’t make this position correct. I’d really like to try and maintain a level of charity, but I find this difficult with a series of accusations thrown out either with out merit, or context.

 

[stbruderklaus]

I have no intent to offend you, friend. I didn’t make anything up-- but I’m willing to bet we’re using different historical resources that inform our observations.

Perhaps we can agree at least, that there was undue violence and hostility on both sides of the Lutheran/Roman controversies of the 16th century, and that this violence, for which both parties were liable, contributed to very negative perceptions of each other that continued until the modern era?

My main point, was that we have opportunity today to move beyond the hostilities of our past, and live charitably together, seeking to heal each other’s old wounds.

Cheers.

And now you’re just out right making stuff up, you know quantity of text posted doesn’t make this position correct. I’d really like to try and maintain a level of charity, but I find this difficult with a series of accusations thrown out either with out merit, or context.