Is The Papacy Still The Very Antichrist?

[Mike Gehlhausen]

57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling.

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 57

Is this a doctrinal article of faith or a polemical historical assertion on the part of the Lutheran Confessors? If the latter, was it true then and is it true now?

I have become reinterested in the question of whether Lutherans are to regard the Office of the Papacy as the very Antichrist because an argument has been made that while this was true, it is no longer  true because of such changes as Vatican II and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. While Rome has not repudiated the Council of Trent and its anathemas -- for Rome never admits error;  it simply changes by means of "clarifying" things -- Rome has seemed to seek  a common confession on the matter of the Scriptural teaching of justification, and it has also sought to reach out ecumenically to other Christian confessions.  Furthermore, the mark TPPP, 2 points out that the Pope claims by divine right both swords in both of God's Kingdoms seems to have become obscured at the very least since the Papacy no longer seems to explicitly claim political power. Accordingly, it is argued the Papacy can no longer be surely identified as the Antichrist by the very marks the Tractatus points out from Scripture.

What do you all think?

Mike

[Keith Falk]

On this board, of course, you are much more likely to get the "No" votes than "Yes" votes, given the bent of many of the posters.  Also, since half of the responses are No responses (only 1 yes, and the other isn't "yes" or "no") you are more likely to get "No" votes.

Does TPPP refer to the Bishop of Rome at the time it was written?  All who hold the office?  And, if Mike points out, things change (or are clarified) to be more in line with the Reformers protests, then does the condemnation still hold?

[Charles_Austin]

This approach sounds dangerously close to applying "historical criticism," "contextual criticism" or other aspects of the dreaded "higher" criticism to the Treatise. OOOOOh, don't wanna get involved in that, do we?

[Dave_Poedel]

Popes can say and do things that are "Antichrist", as I fear, I can as well.  Popes have done some pretty boneheaded things in the past, as have Orthodox Lutherans.

Right now, my candidates for Antichrist happen to reside in our country....

[gcnuss]

Popes can say and do things that are "Antichrist", as I fear, I can as well.  Popes have done some pretty boneheaded things in the past, as have Orthodox Lutherans.

Right now, my candidates for Antichrist happen to reside in our country....

If the Pope still had the power to encourage, or insist that, civil rulers burn heretics at the stake, I might be inclined to think of the Papacy
as the anti-Christ.  I will agree that there are candidates far more deserving of the title than either the present Pope or his predecessor.

Peace,
Gary Nuss, STS

[grabau14]

In the most recent issue of Gottesdienst, the Rev. Fr. Larry Beane (LCMS) has written an excellent article entitled "Is the Papacy Still the Antichrist?"  Fr. Beane's answer isn't "yes."

 Here is the website for the journal  http://www.gottesdienst.org/   It is an excellent liturgical journal.

[pr dtp]

In the most recent issue of Gottesdienst, the Rev. Fr. Larry Beane (LCMS) has written an excellent article entiled "Is the Papacy Still the Antichrist?"  Fr. Beane's answer isn't "yes."

 Here is the website for the journal  http://www.gottesdienst.org/   It is an excellent liturgical journal.

As long as the Pope tolerates Trent, and doesn't repeal it (which he can - see the council of Florence) he is.

That doesn't mean he is the only one - indeed - I would say the Mormons are it equally.

[Dan Fienen]

This approach sounds dangerously close to applying "historical criticism," "contextual criticism" or other aspects of the dreaded "higher" criticism to the Treatise. OOOOOh, don't wanna get involved in that, do we?

Charles,

How come sarcasm sounds so much better when it comes from you and you find it in others usually to be disrespetful?

Dan

[Charles_Austin]

Dan Fienan writes:
How come sarcasm sounds so much better when it comes from you and you find it in others usually to be disrespetful? (sic)

I respond:
'Cause I'm better at it. And I love everybody.

[ptmccain]

OK, now truly that is a great comeback Charles. A hat-tip to you sir!

 

[racin_jason]

(wondering outloud)

I'm curious why Vatican II was included in the the reasoning that the Papacy is no longer the antichrist.
What aspects of the papacy did Vatican II change?

Signed,
Weak on Vatican II

[Erme Wolf]

As long as the Pope tolerates Trent, and doesn't repeal it (which he can - see the council of Florence) he is.

That doesn't mean he is the only one - indeed - I would say the Mormons are it equally.

There is a spirit of Antichrist at loose in the Church.

But - with all due respect - you aren't even close.

[grabau14]

Examples of why the pope may no longer be the antichrist from Larry Beane's paper:

One of our confessional reasons for describing the pope as antichrist involves his lack of fraternity with the other bishops: "But now no bishop dares to call the pope 'brother,' as was then customary, but must address him as 'most gracious lord,' as if he were a king or emperor" (SA IV, 1-2, Tappert).  However, in his 2004 work Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way (Grand Central Publishing, 2004), Pope John Paul II offers the book to his "brother bishops" (viii-ix) and his "dear brothers in the episcopate" (216).  He speaks with a humility lacking in the days of Luther: "We bishops all find the presence of our brothers provides us with support expressed through the bonds of prayer and ministry through our witnes, and through sharing the fruit of our pastoral labors" (159-160).  He adds: "I draw great profit from meeting bishops: I could say in all simplicity that from them I learn about the Church.  I do this constantly, because I am always learning new things" (161-162).

He makes reference to the fact that Lutheran pastors  like to use the pope as an easy enemy in the pulpit while ignoring the greater threats as the "emergent movement", Joel Osteen, Oprah, etc...  Also, has the pope stopped the preaching of the Gospel from Lutheran pulpits through the use of force recently?

From his concluding paragraph:

Is the papacy still the antichrist?  I think it is a question worth further inquiry.  It is, I believe, a question that can't be answered with a facile appeal to our Confessions apart from history.  I do believe we put ourselves in grave spiritual danger by assuring ourselves that we are beyond antichrist's grasp because we're not Roman Catholic.  The devil is far too cunning to limit himself to the bureaucracy of only one denomination.

[swbohler]

J & S has nailed the reason that the papacy is still the very Antichrist -- because it denies/rejects/damns the teaching of salvation by grace alone, though faith alone.  And calling others "brother" cannot erase that fatal, false, and satanic teaching!

[grabau14]

Again from Fr. Beane's paper:  Pope Benedict's personal preacher, Fr. Raniero Catalamessa, has preached sermons on grace and faith that were so evangelical, these sermons could be preached in our pulpits.  Benedict did not gag him, order him to recant, or execute him.  To the contrary, this is Benedict's choice for a chaplain.