The RC Pope relaxes on abortion and SSM, time for us to make a stand?

While I believe that abortion is murder and homosexuality is a sin, it is always much easier to talk about another person's sin than it is to focus on God and face my own sins. God hates all sin but I've always believed that the worst sin is pride. But I don't like to talk about that sin...it hits too close to home.

It's not my job to forgive someone. That's between him/her and the Lord. It's my job just to love them because Jesus loves them.

 

So you and Jesus love homosexuals?

 

The new(ish) Pope's soft words are confusing, coming on the heels of bishops like John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Christians ought to make a stand on all moral issues at all times, regardless of the state of other denominations' teachings. Anglicans have an excellent tradition of strength and history of courage.

I don't personally believe there's any such thing as the "sin of homosexuality". Giving into lusts and acting in impure manner is the sin. Fornication and adultery are unlawful according to the will of God, regardless of the sexes involved.

 

It might help if you could define these "moral issues". Do they include, for example, contraception, racism, sexism, the class system.....?

 

The Roman bishop, who presumes to be Christ's vicar, is nothing but the Antichrist, or one of the Antichrists.

Bergoglio is more liberal than Ratzinger, we all knew that. What effect does that have on true Chrisians? None.

 

Thank goodness, I had begun to worry that far too much reasonableness was breaking out in this discussion.

 

These are strong and judgmental words, something we are not supposed to do. Judgment should be left to God.

But what did the Pope really say? That the church should spend most of its time proclaiming the gospel. I have no argument with that.

 

It's interesting. I've been censured/censored for criticising the CEC; for asking why people don't move to Rome; and for referring to "good" news from Ireland (but not Wales). But when I reported Old Christendom's language to Admin for being defamatory, which quite clearly it is, nothing happened. If that sort of language constitutes "orthodox" Anglicanism, God help us.

 

Thomas Cranmer:

"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) - Taken from Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

John Wesley:

Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." - Taken from Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms by John Wesley, pg. 110.

Martin Luther:

"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull): "I despise and attack it, as impious, false... It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." - D'Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.

John Calvin:

"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." - Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin.

 

'Pope's opponents call him rude names'

This is like trying to assess the IRA by consulting only Ian Paisley.
Or even for that matter, trying to assess the Pope by consulting only Ian Paisley!

This is a Richard the thirding of the papacy of Shakespearean proportions.
Find me a Catholic source that thinks the pope is the antichrist, and I might give your claims more weight!

 

Actually, with respect, I must protest this. Whilst I completely agree with the sentiments of this post, I do not believe calling the Pope the 'antichrist' without qualification, justification, provocation or explanation, falls within the remit of anything that could be considered 'criticizing the Roman communion'. There was no critique at all, just an intemperate display of poor taste and bad manners which is insulting to any Roman Catholic guests on the forum. Regardless of whether they thought as much centuries ago, I would be surprised if you can cite any evidence of such talk from the contemporary Anglican Communion, who presumably speak on behalf of their members.

History should never be used as shield for prejudice. To do so is an insult to the whole study of history.

 

When I was in Ireland a few years back, I heard a Dr Paisley on the radio describing the Pope as anti-Christ. The Doc is not, of course, an Anglican, though Old Christendom might agree with him. Whether he would also agree that the IRA is "the armed wing of the RC Church", as Rev Paisley also stated, is for him to say.

Edited for off-topic content.

 

I was not going to push this matter further but I have to confess that this request is rather puzzling. A church that believes and teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the vicar of Christ and the supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians, whose ex cathedra definitions are in and of themselves irreformable, without need of any consent on the part of the church (as per Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus), is not going to have sources teaching that he is also the Antichrist predicted by the Scriptures!

That being said, individuals in the past, even before the Reformation, have identified the roman popes as Antichrists.

Arnulf, bishop of Orléans in the 10th century, "deplored the roman popes as "monsters of guilt" and declared in a council called by the King of France in AD 991 that the pontiff, clad in purple and gold, was, "Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God." - Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian church.

Eberhad, archbishop of Salzburg in the 13th century,"stated at a synod of bishops held at Regensburg in 1240 (some scholars say 1241) that the people of his day were "accustomed" to calling the pope antichrist." - LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers.

 

That seems to me like a false alternative. There is no sin apart from the sinner, and if we go to the sinner to talk about sin in the abstract, it never becomes applied to him, and consequently he has nothing to repent for. The centrality of Christianity resides in repentance. Little else matters if this is missing, and repentance gets brought about by applying the teachings Christianity to the concrete person on the ground.

 

You know friend, I almost think you're pretending to misunderstand me just to play games with me!
Or have you simply never committed a sin? (by the by, isn't talking about sin in the abstract exactly what moral pntificators and advocacy groups etc. do?)

When a person does something awful, they can become consumed by guilt, and shame and self-loathing. It can be a time of deep anxiety...Yet if the subject stays in that place crying out 'my sin is ever before me!' They have not achieved spiritual insight; it is only when they can learn to trust in forgiveness that they can be released from the despair that is the true poison of the soul.

Can you tell me you've never felt this?

Contrary to your assertion, I think actually the centrality of Christianity resides in God's action towards man (love and mercy) and not man's action towards God (repentance)..

 

You know, whilst trying to find some more facts about your second quote, I think I found the website you culled it all from. There they were, laid out one after the other. It was all rather at the 'conspiracy theory' end of the spectrum- you should be careful, that stuff is bad for your health. Soon you'll be telling me 9/11 was a government ploy, the moon landings didn't happen, Europe is run by a homosexual jewish cabal and that 'I can't believe it's not butter' is in fact, butter.

Like all good conspiracy theorists, it makes two errors of thought; it follows good reasoning but from unsubstantiated premises (pope is in fact, the antichrist and not anything else) and it treats evidence with different relative levels of importance as being of equal importance.

I noticed you saw the puzzle of my request but didn't quite grasp my point. Why should Protestants be right and Catholics be wrong about the pope and the anti-christ? Because they're protestants? They're already prejudiced, if anything it makes them seem less reliable as sources!

Yet these two raised an interesting historical point, to this second quote, it is useless. You know what we do with anonymous complaints? Bin them. the 13th Century was a time of much experimentation and foment, lot's of accusations from all sorts of groups, we know not who said these or how many...it's no good to us. The first however is interesting, because Arnulf criticizes the pope in office at the time and because of his behaviour. Your protestant sources seem to condemn the pope as antichrist simply for being the pope.

And I don't really understand that; does that mean every pope is an antichrist? Presumably a 'little antichrist' and not the one from the end of days in which case. Or do they only become antichrists after the reformation? Or was it in fact Antichrists who helped seal the legitimacy of doctrines like the two natures of Christ and the Trinity in ecumencial councils? What about all the people that criticised the papacy without resorting to the term 'antichrist'? And why use this title I wonder, when according to my brief search, the Papacy, which presumably has never thought to 'deny Jesus as Christ' does not (therefore) fulfill the criteria?

 

Your rant is very amusing, Alcibiades, but quite besides the point. Either the quotes are correct or they aren't. As far as I can tell from my historical inquiries, many Christians have strenuously opposed and denounced the Roman popes long before the Reformation itself, including the Easterners or the Waldenses in the West, for instance. Surely their grievances differed from one another but the Protestant animosity towards the Roman Pontiff is not without merit or historical pedigree. What is puzzling to me is your request for Roman Catholic sources teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. It would be the same as asking for a Protestant confession of faith that recognises the Roman bishop as the Vicar of Christ. It's absurd.

Alcibiades, either the Roman Catholic Church is correct and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the supreme pastor of all Christians, or she isn't, and he is the Antichrist, or one of the antichrists, by virtue of the teachings of Rome and the power he claims to himself.

As for why the Protestants are correct about the Pope, let the word of God be the judge and ultimate authority in the matter. That has been the constant appeal since the Reformation. Futhermore, this is an Anglican, and thus Protestant, forum. One would expect that the majority of people here would at least agree with the principles set forth by the Reformation.

 

You can find Roman Catholics calling the pope Antichrist on any Traditionalist forum or blog any day of the week. But I don't know if that's the kind of source Alcibiades was asking for.