Posted on 07/15/2011 5:01:33 AM PDT by tcg
....some of my colleagues in the world of Catholic media, journalism and the Press have attributed the positions of this Church and Bachmanns past membership to just "being a Protestant." As someone who has worked ecumenically for decades I reject that dismissal. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does not represent many Protestants. It is an Anti-Catholic body.
....I have worked with, prayed with and collaborated with MANY Protestant Christians, for over three decades, who would NEVER call the successor of Peter the Antichrist. The colleagues to which I refer go further, they seemingly accept the notion that if Protestant Christians felt otherwise they would no longer be Protestant. That is not only overly simplistic, it fails to recognize the substantial issues which divide the broken Body of Christ.
....Some of the other articles I have read ...attempt to dismiss it by pointing to the authors purported political leanings. So, let me speak to that for a moment. I have political leanings. I like Michele Bachmann's positions on the issues which matter most to this Catholic voter. She is pro-Life and defends marriage and the family and society founded upon it.
I appreciate her pledge to reign in the ever expanding size of the Federal government, which I fear threatens the principle of subsidiarity. Finally, I had been impressed with her intelligence, her oratorical skills, her background and her presence. All of this made her my second favorite possible candidate, until now. My first choice is obvious to anyone who reads my ongoing political commentary.
However, her political and policy positions were not the point of Joshua Green's article and focusing upon them may be a form of deflection. Green raised the issue of Michele Bachmann's long standing identification with a Church body which is clearly Anti-Catholic....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Pat Kessler, WCCO (debate moderator): We'll start with Senator Bachmann. . . . the church you belong to is affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which, it says, regards the Roman Catholic pope as the Anti-Christ. Is this true, do you share the views of your church, and why should any Catholic in the Sixth District vote for you if it is true?
Bachmann: Well that's a false statement that was made, and I spoke with my pastor earlier today about that as well, and he was absolutely appalled that someone would put that out. It's abhorrent, it's religious bigotry. I love Catholics, I'm a Christian, and my church does not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that's absolutely false.
First of all, the question starts with a faulty premise, namely, that because Lutherans teach that the pope is the antichrist, therefore Roman Catholics should not vote for a Lutheran. This is a non sequitur. The belief that the pope is a false teacher who claims authority over Christendom by divine right is a *religious* belief. It is not a political position, and it does not affect how a person holding that belief would govern.
I vote for people all the time I do not agree with doctrinally--Roman Catholics, Jews, the Reformed, Baptists, etc. I vote based on their political views, not their religious views. I would even vote for a Mormon if I agreed with him politically.
Secondly, when Bachmann was a Lutheran (she is not now), she did not know the teachings of her church. The Lutheran church *does* teach that the pope is the antichrist. This does not mean that Lutherans do not love Roman Catholics. It does not mean that we think that no Roman Catholics will be saved. I'm sure there will be, in spite of the errors taught in their church. And it does not mean that we would let our beliefs about the pope as a false teacher affect how we govern in political office.
Does the Lutheran church teach that the pope is the antichrist (i.e., the individual occupying the chair) or that the papacy (i.e., the office) is the antichrist?
Again, doctrinally...not politically...
Its such an easy strategy. All you have to do is find reactionaries on two sides:
Some Protestants think Catholics are not Christians
Some Catholics believe they are being persecuted in their beliefs by Protestants
Now that you have two sides who have made their mind up, all you have to do is introduce that one of those two ideas exists, and even without presenting any facts, you can create an argument that extends far beyond the size of the original two groups. You end up with Protestants that have nothing against Catholics either saying, “Yeah, Catholics arent Christian” or you have them say, “this is not important” which leads to them being considered not “real” as a fallacy. It works the other way two, but it splinters off and changes focus. And it is very effective.
Respectfully, is the Athenasian Creed no longer an official Church creed?
You are correct, and what you say represents my views also as a Missouri Synod pastor.
As a member of WELS, I agree completely with the above. Other WELS members here have stated they have never heard this in their congregations, but this is an issue that has been discussed in both the WELS congregations I have been a member of. I cannot remember it being discussed in a sermon, but most definitely in bible study classes.
It has always been taught that despite this, there are true believers in the Catholic church. This doctrine has never been taught as a hate issue. Just as we pray for non-believers, we also pray for Catholics to understand Grace is a gift from God, not earned by good works. Christ has done it all, there is no need for a vicar, we only need our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Having more relatives in my family that are Catholics than are not, this has never been an issue because they understand I bear no ill will against them, I only pray for their salvation.
Exactly. Unless the political position in question involved something where religious beliefs would come into play. Bachmann as ambassador to the Vatican, for instance.
Indeed. People have gotten all soft and goopy about these theological positions that mattered a great deal to our progenitors. They are still important.
But because of this goopiness, it is extremely unlikely, almost unthinkable, that a President Bachmann would take any action in that role which would be deleterious to Catholics. I cannot think of a single area where it would come into play.
If she believed it before, could be she still does...So what???
Is she going to lock up all Catholics??? Is she going to ban the Catholic religion??? Is she going to turn her back on Catholic leaning countries, or Jewish leaning countries???
This election isn't about the Catholic religion...It's about America...It's about the constitution and freedom of speech and religion...
Catholics will always have the option of voting for Obama.....again.
My guess, and it is only a guess because I don't know the answer, is that a Missouri Synod conservative pastor who believes the Pope is the Antichrist may get a few strange looks from some of his more moderate colleagues but will be acknowledged by them as someone who holds to traditional Lutheran doctrine, but a person who denies that won't get in too much trouble in most parts of the Missouri Synod.
On the other hand, it looks like Michele Bachmann’s statements that she loves Catholics and denying what her church clearly teaches about the Pope being the Antichrist might have gotten her into a great deal of trouble if she were a ordained Wisconsin Synod minister — which, of course, could never happen in either the LCMS or WELS because she is female.
Maybe I should be glad that most people I deal with roll their eyes when I say I'm a Calvinist who believes in baptizing babies; after I say things like that, we never get around to issues like whether “the mass teaches that the living and the dead have not the forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priests; and that Christ is bodily present under the form of bread and wine and is therefore to be worshiped in them. And thus the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 80).
I quote that to make clear that the Wisconsin Synod's “anti-Catholic statements” are pretty typical of Protestant doctrinal statements in the time of the Reformation.
I expect Catholics to affirm the Council of Trent. I expect Pentecostals to speak in tongues. I expect Baptists to require believers’ baptism for church membership. I expect Orthodox Jews to keep kosher. I expect Calvinists to believe in predestination. But just as with Lutheran doctrine on this issue of the Pope being the Antichrist, none of those issues make much difference in how I vote in political races.
On the contrary, I have a lot of problems with the integrity of someone who claims to be a member of a church and denies its teaching. For people on Free Republic who emphasize original intent of the Constitution, I think it should be obvious that those of us who are members of confessional churches need to follow the confessions of our churches or have enough integrity to resign our memberships and get out — which Bachmann seems to have done, by the way.
Even if have a problem with what somebody’s church teaches, I expect the church members to follow church teachings or get out. I have no respect for people who stay inside a church, attack its confessions, and swear before God that they believe things which they in fact do not believe. On the other hand, I have no problem with someone running for political office who says, “I affirm the teachings of my church because I believe it's what the Bible says, and here are my reasons why, but I'm running for public office and I don't think swearing to uphold the Constitution has anything to do with my doctrinal views on that point.”
That, I believe, is where the focus needs to remain.
I can... harassment of evangelicals by certain Latin American countries, up to and including burning evangelicals out of their homes because they refuse to participate in certain religious practices which, in fairness to the Roman Catholic Church, may be more pagan than Catholic.
Northern Ireland is on the back burner — Roman Catholics seem to have decided that time is on their side due to Protestants commonly using birth control — but having a Wisconsin Synod member as president during the controversies of a few decades ago would have created significant issues in American relations with Britain as it pertains to Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, President Bachmann standing up for evangelicals in such situations would be viewed very differently than how Hillary Clinton advocates for women's rights in Islamic countries. When a secular American political leader stands up for women's rights and for freedom of religion, that leader is regarded as speaking up for equal rights and secular American values. President Bachmann would have trouble standing up for the rights of evangelicals in some situations without getting accused of anti-Catholic bias.
My basic attitude: “Tough bananas.” I don't favor religious violence by Protestants or Roman Catholics against each other, I assume Michele Bachmann feels the same way, but that doesn't mean someone won't be able to make a claim of anti-Catholic bias.
Relax. Ten-to-one you are invincibly ignorant, that is, even though you think you are rejecting the Catholic Church knowingly, you have never really made the acquaintance of the Catholic Church and her teachings. You are rejecting a figment, an invention.
Of course, if you actually stop for a moment and honestly ask yourself, “just what do I really know?” “Where has my information come from?” “Is it accurate?” “What does the Catholic Church really believe?”
if you started asking those questions and honestly pursued them, you might realize you’ve been living with a false understanding of the Catholic Church. And then you’d have an obligation for the sake of Truth to find out the Truth.
So, if your conscience doesn’t bother you, if you don’t have a little twinge of remorse or question, you’re probably safe. Unless, of course, you’ve already had those twinges and in some deep way are aware that you’ve been scammed by the information about the Church you’ve been given.
You probably shouldn’t have responded to me. The more you get into this, the less you’ll be able to plead invincible ignorance.
But for now, you’re probably okay. I’m just a die-hard Catholic apologist, you don’t need to open your mind to what I say, you already know Catholicism is wrong.
You’re the one who has to decide whether you’ve openly and honestly searched for the truth about Catholicism or not. I don’t have the faintest idea whether you have not. I’m glad I don’t have to decide. Someone Else does.
But a lot of non-Catholics will be saved and a lot of people formally Catholic will be damned. For the same reason: they didn’t really care about finding out the truth and living according to it.
The Bible (God’s word) specifically states that the way to Heaven is: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” (John 14:6)
Yep. That’s what it says.
“not by belonging to a specific church”
Nope, the Bible doesn’t do that “not” part. It says that Jesus’s Body is the Church and that one can’t drive a wedge between Jesus and His Bride. You can’t get to heaven outside the Church.
The issue is what’s The Church, how is she bounded, how does Christ work in people outside visible boundaries.
Any Baptist or Catholic or Mormon or Lutheran or agnostic who ends up in heaven will have gotten there through with and in Christ’s Body, even if they didn’t know that’s what they were doing.
When you truly open yourself to Truth, you open yourself to Christ. And Christ is inseparable from his Body and Bride, the Church.
And the Bible says so.
Which verse are you referencing that shows you cant get into Heaven without the Church? In fact, your first statement that Jesus’ body is the Church and that you cant drive a wedge between Jesus and his Bride is not a comparison of like things.
Are you speaking of 1 Cor 12? The way I read it, Paul is telling the Corinthian church that everyone has a responsibility within the church, no matter how “important” it looks to outsiders. It does not say that to be saved, you must get there through a specific church. All it does is recognize that the “church” or followers of Jesus, encompasses all believers and needs all believers. Paul does not attempt to make an affirmative proclamation on the role that a specific church makes in your salvation.
“Obama also hates the teachings of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.”
No doubt! I can’t believe the P.C. incrementalism over the last 40+ years brought us to the point where we’d elect this horrid, wretched specimin.
What a wonderful ecumenical spirit your church displayed in the Christmas season! I don't think that I have ever heard of another non Catholic church doing anything remotely like it. Kudos to all those in your church who truly put Christian love into action!
We took communion as well.
You are the ignorant one. You are making an argument based on assumptions that are incorrect. I was brought up in the Catholic church so....I've definitely "made the acquaintance of the church and her teachings". I left that church body for a variety of reasons, none of which I need to explain to you and I KNOW that God & Jesus know my heart and soul and know that I believe in Jesus as my personal savior. That will get me into Heaven and the House of God when my body departs this world.
Your post made me smile and it reminded me of the way my father raised us. I don’t ever remember him saying one derogatory statement against Protestants, and he taught us to love our neighbor regardless of their denomination. This has always stuck with me and I love my protestant brethern, in fact my closest and dearest friend is a non-denominatinal christian and we don’t regard each other as a protestant or catholic, we’re just “sisters in Christ”. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.