The Pope is here, and Washington, D.C., that secularist haven, is all excited. The Washington Post is full of favorable coverage. We even have a discussion of his vestments from the fashion editor.
Why do you think so many secularists are making such a big deal about the Pope’s visit?
22 comments ↓
He is a major world leader, whether secularists like it or not. We welcome world leaders with a lot of fanfair here in Washington!
I think they’re building him up so they can tear him down later. The coverage in my area has done nothing but focus on the sex scandals and anti-gay, anti-female ordination issues surrounding the Catholic church.
Please forgive me in advance but this was the first image anyone ever sent me of the current Pope. If came in an email that said “German Pope changes the Eucharist.” I know it is probably not right to laugh at this but I did …
http://attachments.techguy.org/attachments/61760d1123723180/pretzel-pope.jpg
Living here in Utah it is quite refreshing to see a different religous leader monopulate the news hour. And this one I can atleast agree with a lot more, even if I am bound by my ordination vow to consider his office in less then good terms.
Maybe, in answer to your question, and considering what the Lutheran Confessions say about this man’s office, the secularists are honoring their own ally?
What I don’t understand is why some reporters (don’t know, of course, if they’re R.C. or not) refer to the pope as, “holy father”. Anyone have a clue?
Many secularists are cradle catholics who have left the faith. That might be it.
Bror, you and Ian Pasley ought to get together.
Holy Father is one of the many official names for the Pope, and it’s certainly a lot different than the typical sort of honorific of diplomats, Senators, and presidents. A lot of the fuss is stirred up just by people’s reaction to celebrity. There’s not a bigger celebrity on the planet than the Pope!
Bror, I’m not sure enough of American society knows what a Lutheran is to join anyone against them.
I’d have to guess one part of it has something to do with the fact that he is the head of a very large organization — I mean, he may even pass the leaders of China and India in being the leader of the largest number of people. And the head of China, if I remember, also received a lot of fanfare when he last visited.
I’ve read that not all world leaders get this kind of greeting here, though. Perhaps it’s also that the Pope doesn’t often visit our country, so it’s more of a rarity. A bigger deal for those now in office, certainly.
He’s also more of a controversial figure than most world leaders. There’s always a lot of interest when those sorts of people appear (again, cf. Hu Jintao, I believe it was).
There’s also the history of it all. The papacy as an office has a longer history than that of any other human leader I can think of. That’s worth something, no?
Finally, and I think this is a huge part of it, he’s so clearly distinct from us and our daily lives that people are fascinated with him. You never see him wearing a business suit, ever. Always with the traditional garb, whether it creates awe or causes one to giggle slightly. Few other church leaders would cause a stir because no one would recognize them — some guy in a nice suit.
Anon and Webmonk,
Just for the record, I would never condone acts such as those of Ian Paisley.
Nor do I think the pope and the secularist are enemies of Lutherans. I think is office is much more insidious than that. But most people would be unable to recognize it because they don’t know exactly what the papal office stands for, or what the Gospel is.
“Holy Father is one of the many official names for the Pope”
But you probably won’t see the MSM use the official Lutheran name for the pope.
I know what the official Lutheran name is for the pope, but what’s MSM?
Not only will the MSM not use it, I believe even some Lutherans would not either. I’m thinking of one in particular in the Atlantic District!
I’m waiting for him to kiss his ring…the voice of Darth Vader echoes down the halls of the International Center, “Now the circle is complete.”
LOL! Yeah, I don’t think that the MainStreamMedia will start calling the Pope the Antichrist.
Oh come on Webmonk,
Why did you have to go and ruin it. We were having fun alluding to it without saying it, so as not to offend the Catholics, or upset the evangelicals who have determined he is too good of a man to be the AntiChrist, and certainly won’t incite armegeddon.
Benedict 16th does not deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
neither does the devil.
Bror, do you know your Bible? Read 1 John on the definition of the spirit of the Antichrist.
Or are you saying that B16 is -the- AntiChrist prophesied for the end of salvation history? Or was that Leo the Simoniac. Wait. . .
Anon (if that is your real name), if I read your comment (@18) correctly, I believe you have misunderstood the Lutheran explanation on the Antichrist. It has never been taught that this or that one Pope is the Antichrist, but rather the Papacy and all its teachings and trappings, or “the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents,” as one translation from the Book of Concord puts it.
As for ribbing Bror about his Bible knowledge, I hope you won’t mind my pointing out that the particular passage you’re referring to is actually in 2 John 1:7
That statement is very similar to two found in 1 John, one in 2:22
and in 4:2-3
What commonalities do you see in those verses? Do all of them say the same thing? In fact, they do, but you’ll miss it if all you focus on is the bit about “coming in the flesh”. The point is that anyone who denies Jesus — and by that we mean Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the God-man (and thus, come in the flesh, but also true God) — is an antichrist, and the Antichrist will most certainly do the same.
The focus in all three verses is on Jesus’ being the Christ, God’s anointed one who by dying on the cross forgave all of mankind’s sins and opened the door to heaven. This is, ultimately, what the Pope (any Pope) denies, placing himself in the position of opening and (more to the point) closing heaven to people, and this based not on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, but on the works of men.
That any Pope admits that Jesus was true man, while denying Jesus as the full Christ, is not really to his credit.
In John’s context, including his famous encounter with Carinthus, it is obvious that the spirit of the antichrist is that which denies that Jesus came (ie was elsewhere before, in other-words, God the Son) in the flesh, thus not as an avatar or hologram, an argument over and against the proto-gnostics, such as the followers of Nicolas, the disciple of Simon Magus, called the ‘Nicolaitans’ in Revelation.
Since the RCC, for all of its errors, most certainly does not deny the incarnation of the Word, that would be a false charge. The Antichrist referred to in the Bible is either a specific individual, or anyone who teaches against the Incarnation of the Word. Since False Witness is still a sin, we ought to be perhaps more careful than has always been the case. It is not impossible to find out what Rome teaches today, relying on 16th century polemics in preference to what they teach now (with Luther, I agree that they do change over time, though they deny it) is an unconscionable methodology. Your understanding tODD of RCC soteriology falls far short of what that magisterium actually teaches. It really is by grace through faith that they are forgiven of their sins. Unfortunately, then they add indulgences and sanctification after death to deal with “temporal punishments” that somehow Christ didn’t die for (!?)Luther himself was a Roman Catholic, until he was excommunicated by the execrable bulla Exurge Domine, and he affirmed that there were true Christians in the RCC, and even true parishes (!) (or so I’ve been orally taught, I don’t have a citation for you), and yet, very serious errors that Rome was not willing to correct at that time. Many have been corrected since, a number of very serious others have -not- been corrected.
While what you say may be what we are to believe, teach and confess, and when you put it that way, that is true, it isn’t good Biblical exegesis to refer to an office, rather than a person or a spirit, let alone the Western Roman Empire, or 1.2 billion people today, among whom the genuinely regenerate Christians likely outnumber the LCMS many, many times over, as the antichrist mentioned in Revelation, or the spirit of the antichrist referred to in 1 John 4.
Anon (@20), you are obviously more learned than I. So when you say that John had a “famous encounter with Carinthus”, I don’t doubt it’s famous for you. But I have not heard of it, nor can I find anything on what you seem to be referring to. A little help?
But you insist that John was only decrying as antichrist(s) those who denied Jesus came in the flesh. Okay, but 1 John 2:22 doesn’t mention the flesh part. What am I missing?
I’m also confused why, if the Catholics “deny” that their teaching changes, why it is “unconscionable” to refer to centuries-old documents. If they admitted that, “Yes, what we said is no longer in effect; here’s where it was repudiated,” then I would be wrong in pointing to such a document. If the “16th century polemics” to which you refer were, in fact, repudiated, then please show me where. But if they maintain that their teaching has not changed, then okay.
As to my understanding of “RCC soteriology”, I have no doubt that it is lacking, but nor can I find evidence in the rather modern Catholic Encyclopedia (or whatever other source) that Catholics believe that “by grace through faith that they are forgiven of their sins” — given, that is, a Biblical understanding of what those words mean, notably “grace”. Catholics may be able to say that sentence — and I would not disagree with it myself — but we would not mean the same thing at all.
I cannot understand the intent of your last paragraph (which is also a single sentence — some punctuation besides a comma would help me out there), but I don’t know anyone who believes that all “1.2 billion” Catholics are the antichrist, myself included. I fully expect to meet many Catholics in heaven. However, I expect to meet them there in spite of all that their church taught, not because of it.
CRB,
No one bothered to answer your question.
“MSM” is an utterly idiotic abbreviation for the phrase “mainstream media.” It implies that the phrase is spelled “main stream media” or “MainStream Media”, which is why most people can’t decipher the acronym without looking it up.
Leave a Comment