Just a thought here: Could it perhaps be possible that calling the Papacy the very Antichrist was simply part of the hyperbole of the Reformation? One of my favorites quotes from Francis Schaeffer is "beware of the habits you learn during controversies." When one has controversies and arguments and disagreements, passions are raised. When passions are raised, people can say all sorts of things that they normally would not say. I think its kind of unrealistic to hold modern day Lutherans to some statements the elderly and cranky Luther made in the Schmalkald Articles about the Papacy. I think it is both wise and prudent to look at the historical circumstances that led Luther to make those statements and place them in their proper context.
I am not trying to sweep Lutheran and Roman Catholic differences under the rug in the name of some false ecumenism or "feel good" Christianity. I recognize Lutherans and Roman Catholics have real, legitimate differences in their theology. It does seem to me, however, that some Lutherans fixate on the Council of Trent to such a degree that they forget that Rome has held other Councils as well. I do really get tired of the old Lutheran canard of "Rome damned the Gospel" at Trent. Rome did no such thing. Let's try to be honest and fair here. Rome rejected the Lutheran interpretation of the doctrine of justification at Trent. Rome most certainly did not anathematize the Gospel at Trent because Rome reads from the Holy Gospel at every Mass and confesses the Christ rose from the dead every time they recite the Nicene Creed. I think a fairer and more objective way to phrase things might be "Lutherans hold to a monergistc view of salvation while Roman Catholics hold to a synergistic view of salvation" and leave it at all. Throwing around the words "antichrist", "anathema" and "damned the gospel" are simply not helpful. Can we not develop a new way to speak about those who disagree with us theologically in the 21st century without sounding so tribal, hateful and partisan?
Poll