johnbugay
Puritan Board Freshman
As I see it, questions about whether or not the papacy is antichrist, or THE antichrist, miss the mark. Nobody here would question the fact that the papacy historically has been, and is now, a bad thing.
The real issue is that the Reformation historically been inconclusive, not because the doctrines of the Reformation were defective in any way, but because the papacy exercised the power of the sword to kill off some of its leading proponents, and because organizations like the Jesuits were willing to lie, cheat, steal, and worse in the pursuit of its fanatical devotion to the papacy of its day.
We are living not in the 16h century, but in the 21st century. We are still locked in a spiritual struggle to be sure. And numerically, we may seem to be in a position similar to that in which Elijah found himself, as there are upwards of a billion Catholics in the world, but as for churches that really believe the doctrines of the Reformation, well, we are quite small. The pope today can go on TV and claim to be "the head of Christianity" any time he wants to.
But it is important to know what the papacy is today. It is important to know what the papacy is doing.
How many people here are aware that the papacy is "in play" today?
That notion is put forth in Pope John Paul II's 1995 statement, "Ut Unum Sint," in which he asks not only Catholic theologians, but others, to consider "a new situation" for the papacy:
What the papacy gives with one hand (the "new situation"), it takes away with the other (unity "for a whole millennium") -- insofar as, with the schism of the Churches of the East, it is NOT true that there was any true "unity."
This is still the plan. Why is Rome not seeking temporal power? Because it knows it can no longer lie and cheat and steal and kill to retain itself in power. Things in the church move like molassas, and this "new situation" is really still being considered. But the broad outlines are in place, as we see from this document.
One question is, "why"?
Recent historical studies (over the last 50 years) have confirmed the structure of the earliest churches in Rome. Dr. Peter Lampe, a Lutheran New Testament Scholar (who signed the document urging Lutheran churches NOT to sign the "Joint Declaration on Justification" in 1999) provided the most intensive research of the churches in Rome during the first 200 years of its existence, proposed that it really functioned under a Presbyterian model:
Thus, while Peter may have been the head of the church in Acts 2-10, others took over the leadership of the church, even while he was still alive. This has been confirmed, directly or indirectly, by a long list of Catholic and Protestant historians of the highest caliber, including Eamon Duffy, Peter Eno, Klaus Schatz, Roger Collins, and others. According to all of these historians, Lampe's thesis is foundational now for an understanding of the earliest papacy. (There was not even a "bishop" in Rome, as we might recognize it, until about the year 175, much less a "successor" to Peter. A full-blown papacy really did not exist until around the middle of the 5th century).
I believe that the papacy (this current pope and those nearest to him) are fully aware that "the emperor has no clothes," and they in this search for "a new situation" they are really trying to create a fall-back position that will enable them to keep "what is essential to its mission." This historical study severely undermines what the Catholic Church historically has said of the papacy. Along with the schisms of the "churches of the East" (over a doctrine of "Nestorianism" to which none of them actually held), there never was a "period of unity" in which Rome had any greater role than "If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator". (And it only acted this way in a limited number of situations.)
Nevertheless, you still find boastful Catholics "out there" who will still just simply assume that an early papacy existed, (in "seed form," in which it had all of the power that it claims for itself today); the papacy wants to try to hold onto some kind of "Petrine authority" which (a) never existed in the church, (b) didn't "develop" until the 5th century, (c) was never known of by the "churches of the east" and was significantly rejected by the Greek-speaking churches, and (d) finally caused another great schism in the church in 1054, before seeing itself as the master of its own little world in the empire of Western europe.
Today, even someone as prominent as Bishop Donald Wuerl can write about "Pope St. Clement" (the legendary writer of the letter of 1 Clement). And armies of Catholic apologists will follow his lead. But it is far more likely that "Clement" was a stenographer and errand boy, than that he had any kind of "Petrine authority." We must not hesitate to point out such things as this. (And that means, we must not hesitate to get to know things like this, and make others aware of them).
Every form of boastfulness of the papacy must be rejected in this context. If Luther and Calvin and the other reformers had had access to the historical information that we have today, they would have made great use of it in their struggle. We must make use of this knowledge today.
The question of whether the pope really is the antichrist, or that he just plays one on TV, is irrelevant to the actual historical situation on the ground.
Every form of boastfulness of the papacy must be rejected.
The real issue is that the Reformation historically been inconclusive, not because the doctrines of the Reformation were defective in any way, but because the papacy exercised the power of the sword to kill off some of its leading proponents, and because organizations like the Jesuits were willing to lie, cheat, steal, and worse in the pursuit of its fanatical devotion to the papacy of its day.
We are living not in the 16h century, but in the 21st century. We are still locked in a spiritual struggle to be sure. And numerically, we may seem to be in a position similar to that in which Elijah found himself, as there are upwards of a billion Catholics in the world, but as for churches that really believe the doctrines of the Reformation, well, we are quite small. The pope today can go on TV and claim to be "the head of Christianity" any time he wants to.
But it is important to know what the papacy is today. It is important to know what the papacy is doing.
How many people here are aware that the papacy is "in play" today?
That notion is put forth in Pope John Paul II's 1995 statement, "Ut Unum Sint," in which he asks not only Catholic theologians, but others, to consider "a new situation" for the papacy:
What the papacy gives with one hand (the "new situation"), it takes away with the other (unity "for a whole millennium") -- insofar as, with the schism of the Churches of the East, it is NOT true that there was any true "unity."
This is still the plan. Why is Rome not seeking temporal power? Because it knows it can no longer lie and cheat and steal and kill to retain itself in power. Things in the church move like molassas, and this "new situation" is really still being considered. But the broad outlines are in place, as we see from this document.
One question is, "why"?
Recent historical studies (over the last 50 years) have confirmed the structure of the earliest churches in Rome. Dr. Peter Lampe, a Lutheran New Testament Scholar (who signed the document urging Lutheran churches NOT to sign the "Joint Declaration on Justification" in 1999) provided the most intensive research of the churches in Rome during the first 200 years of its existence, proposed that it really functioned under a Presbyterian model:
Thus, while Peter may have been the head of the church in Acts 2-10, others took over the leadership of the church, even while he was still alive. This has been confirmed, directly or indirectly, by a long list of Catholic and Protestant historians of the highest caliber, including Eamon Duffy, Peter Eno, Klaus Schatz, Roger Collins, and others. According to all of these historians, Lampe's thesis is foundational now for an understanding of the earliest papacy. (There was not even a "bishop" in Rome, as we might recognize it, until about the year 175, much less a "successor" to Peter. A full-blown papacy really did not exist until around the middle of the 5th century).
I believe that the papacy (this current pope and those nearest to him) are fully aware that "the emperor has no clothes," and they in this search for "a new situation" they are really trying to create a fall-back position that will enable them to keep "what is essential to its mission." This historical study severely undermines what the Catholic Church historically has said of the papacy. Along with the schisms of the "churches of the East" (over a doctrine of "Nestorianism" to which none of them actually held), there never was a "period of unity" in which Rome had any greater role than "If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator". (And it only acted this way in a limited number of situations.)
Nevertheless, you still find boastful Catholics "out there" who will still just simply assume that an early papacy existed, (in "seed form," in which it had all of the power that it claims for itself today); the papacy wants to try to hold onto some kind of "Petrine authority" which (a) never existed in the church, (b) didn't "develop" until the 5th century, (c) was never known of by the "churches of the east" and was significantly rejected by the Greek-speaking churches, and (d) finally caused another great schism in the church in 1054, before seeing itself as the master of its own little world in the empire of Western europe.
Today, even someone as prominent as Bishop Donald Wuerl can write about "Pope St. Clement" (the legendary writer of the letter of 1 Clement). And armies of Catholic apologists will follow his lead. But it is far more likely that "Clement" was a stenographer and errand boy, than that he had any kind of "Petrine authority." We must not hesitate to point out such things as this. (And that means, we must not hesitate to get to know things like this, and make others aware of them).
Every form of boastfulness of the papacy must be rejected in this context. If Luther and Calvin and the other reformers had had access to the historical information that we have today, they would have made great use of it in their struggle. We must make use of this knowledge today.
The question of whether the pope really is the antichrist, or that he just plays one on TV, is irrelevant to the actual historical situation on the ground.
Every form of boastfulness of the papacy must be rejected.
Last edited: