Is The Papacy Still The Very Antichrist?

[swbohler]

But the current pope has also continued to uphold the Council of Trent.  When one refuses to repudiate error, one embraces it.  The Roman Catholic Church has an official position -- which the current pope has not, and will not, recanted -- that denies salvation by grace alone, through faith alone.  Simply calling other bishops "brother" or having as chaplain one who may give good sermons does not change that.  The papacy is the very Antichrist.

[Charles_Austin]

swbohler writes:
The papacy is the very Antichrist.

I muse:
So what then of those who cooperate with this person, say by working with him in opposing abortion or caring for the poor or addressing the immorality of the world? What then of those who honor him through honoring the part of the church he leads or shake his hand when he visits?

[pearson]

When one refuses to repudiate error, one embraces it.

This is not so; in fact, it is a logical fallacy.  I can recognize an error held by someone else without either repudiaiting or embracing it.  I recognize that your comment above represents an error, but there is no necessity imposed on me either to repudiate it or to embrace it.   Further, I can repudiate an error held by someone else without ever repudiating the person holding the error. 

Tom Pearson 

[MMH]

If we are asking this of the Pope, ought we not ask it of the leaders of other denominations?

I can think of some folks who might fit the bill better Benedict XVI. 

[Charles_Austin]

Matt Hummel writes:
I can think of some folks who might fit the bill better Benedict XVI. 

I comment:
Ah, Matt; but it is The Confessions, The Confessions, The Confessions, THE CONFESSIONS! What they say, without any interpretation, context, or history; that's the deal. That's why we are a "confessional" church. 

[MMH]

Matt Hummel writes:
I can think of some folks who might fit the bill better Benedict XVI. 

I comment:
Ah, Matt; but it is The Confessions, The Confessions, The Confessions, THE CONFESSIONS! What they say, without any interpretation, context, or history; that's the deal. That's why we are a "confessional" church. 

My bad!

[Dan Fienen]

This may be rank heresy, so be it.  I am having trouble figuring out why it is so important to decide whether the Pope is/was/forever will be the Anti-Christ or not.  I will readily agree that in Luther's day the Popes he dealt with fit many of the characteristics assosciated in the Bible with the Anti-Christ.  Hence the judgements that found their way into the BoC.  Surely I am not being unConfessional to recognize how some past abuses by the Popes and the Roman Catholic Church have been dealt with by that church over the years.  In some ways the papacy that we interact with today is significantly different, and from our point of view, better.  We can also acknowledge the ways in which the RCC have worked to spread the Gospel (which has been and still remains in the RCC, albeit mixed with error), do Christian acts of charity, and attempted to protect the faith from some of the excesses of contemporary culture.  Similarly, I don't think that I am being ungracious when I point out those areas, at times significant, where we disagree, the past errors that have gone uncorrected, and the practices that still tend to distort the pure Gospel message.

In those areas that led to the reformers' judgment that the Pope is the Anti-Christ and that since have been corrected, the judgment no longer applies.  In those areas that led to the reformers' judgment that the Pope is the Anti-Christ that have remained in force within the papacy, the judgment still stands.

I admire the current and recent popes for quite a number of things and feel that they and the RCC have been servants of God's kingdom in those areas.  There still are things that I feel are errors that still need correcting and so I will not be soon going over to Rome.  Our differences and what I understand as errors on their part are just too great for me to undertake the unconditional surrender that I understand swimming the Tiber to entale.

Is it that important for us to decide to label or refrain from labelling the papcy the very Anti-Christ in our day?  Why should it be important?  To me it is more important to recognize error and treat it as such, as well as recognize truth and rejoice in it.  I'm just not convinced that pinning the label on the churchman is all that useful.

Dan

[Dave_Poedel]

This may be rank heresy, so be it.  I am having trouble figuring out why it is so important to decide whether the Pope is/was/forever will be the Anti-Christ or not.  I will readily agree that in Luther's day the Popes he dealt with fit many of the characteristics assosciated in the Bible with the Anti-Christ.  Hence the judgements that found their way into the BoC.  Surely I am not being unConfessional to recognize how some past abuses by the Popes and the Roman Catholic Church have been dealt with by that church over the years.  In some ways the papacy that we interact with today is significantly different, and from our point of view, better.  We can also acknowledge the ways in which the RCC have worked to spread the Gospel (which has been and still remains in the RCC, albeit mixed with error), do Christian acts of charity, and attempted to protect the faith from some of the excesses of contemporary culture.  Similarly, I don't think that I am being ungracious when I point out those areas, at times significant, where we disagree, the past errors that have gone uncorrected, and the practices that still tend to distort the pure Gospel message.

In those areas that led to the reformers' judgment that the Pope is the Anti-Christ and that since have been corrected, the judgment no longer applies.  In those areas that led to the reformers' judgment that the Pope is the Anti-Christ that have remained in force within the papacy, the judgment still stands.

I admire the current and recent popes for quite a number of things and feel that they and the RCC have been servants of God's kingdom in those areas.  There still are things that I feel are errors that still need correcting and so I will not be soon going over to Rome.  Our differences and what I understand as errors on their part are just too great for me to undertake the unconditional surrender that I understand swimming the Tiber to entale.

Is it that important for us to decide to label or refrain from labelling the papcy the very Anti-Christ in our day?  Why should it be important?  To me it is more important to recognize error and treat it as such, as well as recognize truth and rejoice in it.  I'm just not convinced that pinning the label on the churchman is all that useful.

Dan

The Padre in the Desert adds: AMEN!  Thanks Pr. Fienen

[loschwitz]

Pope endorses Book of Faith

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805053.htm

[Karl Hess]

The papacy pretends to be infallible now, something they did not claim in Luther's day.  Now it is unchangeable dogma.  If anything, the Papacy is more clearly antichrist than it was in Luther's day. 

No matter how many stupid things any protestant group does, they will never be able to be the antichrist.  None of them claim to be infallible, and even if they do, who cares what some Tony Alamo nutjob cultist says?  Mormons are not the antichrist because Joseph Smith did not take his seat in the temple of God.  Instead he denied the Trinity and left the church.  But the pope sits right in the middle of Christendom, is proclaimed infallible, anathematizes the gospel, presumes to let people out of purgatory, and presides over a whole system of religion that obscures Christ and justification.  To proclaim yourself infallible, to act as the Lord of the church but put forth a different system of salvation than the true Lord of the church--that's wanting to be worshipped as God in the midst of the temple of God.

Of course all pastors are tempted this way.

[JoshuaEM]

But if we look at a lot of the issues that the reformers tackled as corrollaries to justification by faith, vatican II took care of a lot of these. Melanchthon, in the confessions, acknowledged that the Pope could, and mayhaps should, rule the Western Church by human right. Is there such a thing as infalibility with humility?

Josh

[Samuel_Zumwalt]

To avoid breaking the 8th commandment on this one:  I learned in Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogues that the last ex cathedra pronouncement was in November 1950 when Pius declared the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven was considered to be part of the Catholic faith.  The monsignor/theologian explained to our dialogue group in Dallas TX back in the 80s that ex cathedra pronouncements are always a result of centuries of commonly held belief by the faithful -- rising up from the grassroots.  The same theologian suggested that many of his colleagues wonder if any pope may ever speak ex cathedra again.

Typically, protestants tend to think that papal infallibility is whatever comes out of the pope's mouth on a daily basis or at least from his pastoral letters.  Nay not so.

The Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogues have produced some good reading for pastors of both traditions.

[Charles_Austin]

So, Pastor Hess, I guess you are not too friendly with the Roman Catholics, clergy and laity, in your town.

[Karl Hess]

So, Pastor Hess, I guess you are not too friendly with the Roman Catholics, clergy and laity, in your town.

Actually, I am friendly with them, Charles. 

[Charles_Austin]

And they know you believe their beloved leader is the Anti-Christ? You must tell them, of course, because their souls are in peril. And you must be fervent, persistent and dedicated in winning them away from him.
Tell me how that works these days.