Not to split hairs, but I have had a Wisconsin Synod pastor specifically tell me that a distinction needs to be made - it isn't the individual pope that is the anti-Christ, but the office of the Pope (an understanding which is re-affirmed here). Lutherans, even Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, tend to like the Pope in general. Take, for instance, this eulogy to John Paul II, found on the wels.net website:
Four to five million people spent hours in line to file past his body and pay their last respects, and 1.1 billion people claimed him as their spiritual father. Catholic and non-Catholic, Christian and non-Christian alike sang his praises. Even English Prince Charles’s wedding was postponed one day for his funeral. Only a few detractors were to be found. The world had lost a truly great man.
I’m speaking of Pope John Paul II and the days following his death. Some clearly have overdone their adoration for him. A Mexican immigrant, after he had seen John Paul in person on one of the pope’s 104 trips abroad, said, “Holy God came to us today.” Similarly, a 44-year-old Ohio woman opined, “I don’t know if you’re going to get any closer to God on earth.” And one archbishop now has prayed, “From heaven may he look over us always and help us to cross the threshold of hope.”
That kind of awe begs questioning. However, much of the hundreds of tributes paid by religious and political dignitaries around the world were right on. This pope was a man of “transparent integrity,” “unselfish compassion,” “love and courage,” “friendship and understanding.” He was a champion of world peace, human freedom, morality, justice, and life. He loved the youth, the poor, the suffering. He is credited with helping cause the fall of communism, defending human rights, opposing anti-Semitism, serving the cause of Christian unity. He has been called “The Gladiator” and “The Great.”
All of this and more John Paul was and did.
Now, Bachmann has apparently left her denomination. She could do little else, since denying that the Pope is the Anti-Christ - and she has emphatically denied that the Pope is the anti-Christ - has a specific repercussion in her denomination:
This teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist is not a fundamental article of faith. . . . It is not an article on which saving faith rests, with which Christianity stands or falls. We cannot and do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth that the Pope is the Antichrist.
Yet it is an important article and should not be side-stepped or slighted. It is clearly revealed in the divine word, and there is nothing needless and useless in the Bible; God wants us to know about the Antichrist. . . . This article is clearly expressed in the Lutheran Confessions; whoever denies it does not stand in one faith with his fathers; he is not a confessional Lutheran.
Now, was Bachmann aware of this teaching? WELS spokesman Joel Hochmuthsaid in an interview the anti-papal doctrine is “not one of our driving views, and certainly not something that we preach from the pulpit.’"
When I brought it up in discussions with non-ordained Lutherans, they were always uniformly unaware that their church taught such a thing. Indeed, several were aghast to discover it. Lutheran pastors may (or may not) believe this, but they certainly don't preach this, which is undoubtedly why Michelle Bachmann denied that her church taught such a thing way back in 2006 - she had no idea.
So, how does Bachmann's situation differ from that of Barack Obama?
Bachman was in a main-line Protestant community that embraced liturgy. The doctrine of a liturgical Christian community like Lutheranism, Anglicanism or even the true Church, Catholicism, are so wide-ranging and interconnected that it is literally impossible to learn all the teachings and their ramifications by simply listening to Sunday sermons.
In order to learn the doctrines of a liturgical faith, you have to sit down and study through the various pieces.
Obama, on the other hand, belonged to an essentially non-liturgical church, the United Church of Christ. Yes, they claim to have liturgy, but as they themselves point out, it's so amorphous that they themselves are hard-pressed to identify it.
A non-liturgical faith community is built much more strongly around the personal beliefs and charisma of a specific pastor than it is around a bedrock of specific doctrinal beliefs. Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, was well-known for vocally preaching all kinds of racist, hate-filled vitriol. Indeed, that's how he got and maintained his position.
In direct contradiction to Bachmann's situation, Obama sat for 20 years, basking in the glow of that nonsense. He was married by the Reverend Wright, he had his children baptized by the Reverend Wright (although Obama was apparently never himself baptized), he named his book after one of Wright's sermon snippets.
Bachmann, on the other hand, was never formally or informally taught the WELS position, there is no indication that she heard it from the pulpit or even via hearsay, and WELS' teaching is hardly clear to someone who hasn't seriously studied it, since it obviously has some very nice things to say about various individual popes.
Furthermore, she's a LOT more honest than most cafeteria Catholic politicians. When she discovered her personal understanding differed from her confessional church, she left the church. Would that the Cuomo's, Pelosi's and Biden's of the world would do the same.
When all of this is combined with the fact that Wisconsin Synod Lutheran moral teachings (e.g., on stem cell research, homosexuality or abortion) are essentially identical to Catholic teaching while UCC positions are essentially identical to Planned Parenthood, the position a Catholic should take on all this is quite clear.
If you vote for Michelle Bachmann, you are voting in line with Catholic Faith.
If you vote for Barack Obama, you are enabling evil.
Any questions?
30 comments:
Never been the largest fan of Bachmann, but this story was baseless.
I told many of my friends who want to see her crash and burn to stay away from stories like this. since they are so absurd, they can only stand to increase her "street cred" amongst conservatives.
Besides, one just needed to look at her record. Not just the socially conservative views, but her work with pro-life Catholics, that she's never adopted religious discriminatory rhetoric or action towards catholics, etc.
As a former WELS member, I find Hochman's claim that the Pope as anti-christ "is not one of our driving views" to be disingenuous. When I was being taught the basics of the Lutheran faith, I was taught that doctrine. If Bachmann was raised in the WELS, she had to be aware of it. As for the Lutherans you met who were ignorant of this teaching, most of the Lutherans in America are in the liberal ELCA and there's a liberal sub-culture in the LCMS, neither of these groups would emphasize the traditional doctrines of the Lutheran Church.
Nebraska is mostly Missouri and Wisconsin Synod - very few ELCA. At least, I don't remember meeting any in Nebraska.
I never met a single non-ordained Lutheran who knew that the office if the Pope was the anti-Christ, and I brought in pretty much only Lutherans. It was rural Nebraska, after all.
The only thing I can figure ot to explain this ignorance of WELS and LCMS members in the neck of the woods you were in is bad cathesis. When I was being instructed prior to baptism, I was taught the Pope was very anti-christ. I still believe Bachmann believe this idea, but she's puting it aside so she won't alienate the Catholic vote. She is, after all, a politician.
I agree with scotju - bad catechesis is at play. And for the record, I have had my pastor preach this doctrine "from the pulpit" in vivid detail, so it's not something that we brush under the rug. Albeit that I am in Milwaukee, the heart of WELS territory.
Well, were you an adult convert?
All the people I talked to were cradle Lutherans. It's quite possible adult converts get more than cradle Lutherans do - that frequently happens in the Catholic Faith.
I am a cradle Lutheran; I specifically remember covering the doctrine in Confirmation class, and examining it in some depth in two high school courses as well (one was a junior year survey of various doctrinal topics, and the other was a senior year elective on the book of Revelation).
The supposed illumination of this doctrine by the media, however, is quite behind on the times - 500 years, in fact. It's been part of the Lutheran Confessions since the beginning. As such, the WELS isn't the only synod (even in America) that professes it; any synod which wholly subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions professes it (even the larger Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which has nearly 3 million members).
This is just media hype at its best. You could nit-pick a variety of doctrinal statements from various churches that seem to be 'hateful' or uncouth to modern and 'progressive' sensibilities.
Ok, well scotju says he remembers being taught that prior to baptism.
Since Lutherans baptize infants, I'm assuming scotju was an adult convert to Lutheranism.
I've met tons of Catholics who didn't realize that the Eucharist is the Real Presence, or didn't realize that Confession was supposed to precede First Communion. I can absolutely believe that Bachmann was never taught, or at least never learned, the Pope-antiChrist doctrine.
As for WELS always teaching this, yeah, the MSM's take is kind of humorous. Clearly, they're either ignorant or nit-picking. It's not like Lutheran teaching on this point is new, so I don't see how it's news...
"I can absolutely believe that Bachmann was never taught, or at least never learned, the Pope-antiChrist doctrine."
With that I totally agree, particularly since, according to the articles I have read, she seems to think that a "non-denominational church" is an acceptable religious institution.
One of the fundamentals - moreover, the life - of the Lutheran Church is the Blessed Sacrament, and one certainly will not find any Sacrament in the Reformed sects. If she doesn't even comprehend this, it is no doubt that she doesn't comprehend the Church's teaching on the Antichrist.
Bachman had this to say -
"I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . We have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle."
Eight years of Bush being wagged by the Israeil tail was enough to bankrupt the country. The last thing we need is this neo-con nutter,( Dubya in a Dress), skulking around thinking the Jews are still the chosen people producing half-baked foreign policies cooked-up in the crackpot of Christian Zionism.
Not Spartacus's comments on Bachmann's newly discovered Christian Zionism brings up a whole new can of worms. Namely, what was the full story of what was transpiring in the last two years. Was her newly found CZ the result of changing churches, the promise of mucho Jewish support, guilt feelings about her former church's stand on the Jews, or a combination of all three? I hate to sound like a conspiracy monger, but it is well known that anyone who wants to aspire to a Congressional or Presidental seat has to suck up to the Israeli-Jewish lobby. Again, I find Bachmann's change of religion to be just a little too convenent and timely.
Well, there are a lot of ultra-orthodox Jews who are not happy about the existence of the state of Israel.
Given a choice between Israel in the Middle East and nothing but Islam in the Middle East, I'll definitely take Israel every time.
If nothing but Islam exists there, the chances for an Islamic caliphate increase, as the Muslims have nothing to disagree about. With Israel there, they at least fight with each other over the strategy of how to deal with Israel.
As long as they're fighting each other, it's harder for them to concentrate on fighting us. So, from that perspective, I view money poured into Israel as part of our defense policy.
For our President's official commentary on this topic, read his interesting press release here:
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/07/well-said-president-schroeder.html
Yes, Daniel, I must say, WELS is not backing down from what they teach. That kind of courage is laudable.
Of course, in following Scripture, the apostle John seemed very clear that the anti-Christ is anyone who denies God took flesh. So, even with WELS' official explanation, I still don't quite get why the office of the papacy is the anti-Christ, but that's a separate discussion.
WELS is not attacking Bachman in any way, shape or form, which is also quite laudable.
I'd say both WELS and Bachman have nothing to apologize for in this. Both acted honorably throughout the situation.
"As long as they're fighting each other, it's harder for them to concentrate on fighting us. So, from that perspective, I view money poured into Israel as part of our defense policy."
There is simply no choice in the matter.
It is not possible for a candidate of either party to be elected if he were to call for total or even partial disinvestment in that crummy country.
A more rational approach would be for America to step back and add-up the numbers. Is the foreign policy of America sensible if she backs a teeny minority amidst an enormous population whose religion is antagonistic to that teeny minority?
Nope.
And why ought American back a crummy country whose religion is based upon rejection of Jesus Christ?
The Jews who illegally and immorally occupy those lands are, at best, only tangentially related to the Jews of the Old Testament.
The Judaism that was invented after Titus destroyed the City of Deicide is a Rabbnnical Judaism whose divorce from the Old Testament Judaism is total and complete.
Being a Jew is not a matter of DNA. It is a matter of Faith. That is, one ceases to be Jew if he converts to Catholicism even if he has a Jewish mother.
But, we all know that such speculation about America divesting in Israel is only engaged in for amusement because we all know that The Jews control the Media and any Christian politician who advanced a platform of a sensible foreign policy would be slaughtered by the press.
"As for the "city of deicide" crap, my sins are what killed Christ, so if you want to assign blame, you better put me at the front of the list"
Dear Mr Kellmeyer. Crap? I am surprised at your response. It is well within Catholic Tradition to identify Jerusalem as the City of Deicide.
The destruction of Jerusalem was punishment for the sin of Deicide.
" One thing I know is that you can't get two Jews to agree on anything"
They are all in agreement concerning the rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Now, it may be the case that Jewish control of the media is a hate fact, but it is an undeniable fact, attested to my many prominent Jews themselves.
And yes, Muslims are suicide bombers but when it comes to our Lord and Saviour, they at least grant that He is a prophet whereas the Talmud teaches Jesus was justly executed and that Jesus is now in Hell covered in boiling excrement.
Spartacus, I know a lot of Catholics of Lebonese or Syrian extraction who are not fans of Israel. They are not fans for good reasons.
On the other hand, these same Catholics are no fans of Muslims either.
To argue that the Muslims are somehow superior to the Jews is ridiculous. I have read through and taught both sections of the Talmud and sections of Sharia law - I much prefer the Talmud.
If we were to follow your line of reasoning regarding "Jewish control of the media" we would also have to note the enormous preponderance of Jews among Nobel Prize winners.
We would have to argue that "Jewish control of science and technology" is what essentially created the advances that have extended 40 year life spans to nearly 80 year life spans.
Since they've done so much to save human life via science, why shouldn't they have the right to talk about it via the media?
Quite frankly, most American Jews aren't any more interested in Judaism than most Americans of German extraction (like myself) are interested in Germany. They don't think about Judaism on a day-to-day basis any more than I think about Germany on a day-to-day basis.
So, yes, the Jews "control the media", the Japanese "control computers", the Irish "control police departments", the French "control cuisine", and the Spanish "control siestas". I find it hard to get worked up about any of that.
Dear Mr Kellmeyer. Lord have Mercy.
I am not sure how my identifying the truth that Muslims accord Jesus more religious respect than do the Jews means, in your mind, that I am promoting Muslim superiority but such things do seem to happen when the subject of Jews is discussed.
I am no fan of Muslims but America has nothing to gain by siding with Israel against them.
I will leave it at that and suggest you read, if you have not already, E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History."
"I am no fan of Muslims but America has nothing to gain by siding with Israel against them."
That's a joke, right?
I mean, you really MUST be kidding.
Islam is a serious military threat, a serious theological threat, a serious cultural threat, a threat in any way you care to name.
Israel is a bulwark against those threats.
As an historian, I am fully aware of the history of both Zionism and the role atheistic Jews have played in various political and economic movements that are contrary to America and her historical interests. Indeed, I am fully aware that Israel was essentially a socialist state when we decided to throw our support behind her.
However, given the history of Islam, I am also fully convinced that the choice to support Israel against Islam in the 1940's was absolutely the right choice.
There is no way you can convince me that Israel or Judaism presents anywhere NEAR the threat to the West in general and to the Catholic Faith in particular that Islam does. Given the historical evidence presented by both Jewish and Muslim cultures, there's just no way to compare the two or draw anything like a claim for comparable damage.
Islam is far and away the pre-eminent threat to Western civilization.
No. I was not joking.
America is infinitely stronger than Islam and while I well know its 1300 + years history I do not agree that it is a military threat to America and treating it as though it is a legitimate military threat to America is only hardening the radicals amongst them.
I am, however, in favor of refusing them any additional immigration into America while constantly monitoring their Mosques for anti-American activity. But, who is it that is collectively in favor of open borders and immigration into America for Non-Christians, such as Muslims, so as to weaken the influence Christians have in govt? The Jews.
Israel is a crummy country that erred mightily in situating itself in Palestine and America ought let it fish a peace agreement with its neighbors or let it cut war bait with its neighbors.
Either way, Israel is our problem only insofar as we let her influence us negatively. Had I the power, I'd tell them today that as of Jan 1st, 2016, they will not receive one dime of foreign aid.
They will then be required to get our aid and technology the way they have done since 1948; steal it.
Despite the past one-half century of ecclesiastical laxity and false ecumenism vis a vis the Jews, they remain a constant threat to the Catholic Church, a situation unchanged since 33 A.D.
At the UN, the Holy See has successfully allied with Islam against abortion whereas Israel and the Jews were where in that fight?
Does Islam control Hollywood and the pornography industry?
No. It is the Jews who control both.
Well, I could go on citing additional hate facts but I can see that you, like the vast majority of Christian Catholics, have accepted that your enemy is your ally.
C'es la vie.
I am personally not necessarily opposed to open borders.
America had them for the first century of existence, it didn't hurt us a bit. The only reason we started immigration quotas was to enforce eugenics policies. Every US president from Teddy Roosevelt to Harry Truman was a fan of eugenics.
America is a Protestant country, not a Catholic country, and thus barely a Christian country.
Dear Mr Kellmeyer. It is a binding religious duty upon Muslims for them to try and establish Sharia Law in whatever host country is lunatic enough to allow them to move into.
We Catholics are under no religious obligation to establish Canon Law in whatever country we may move to.
As re. open borders, a country that has open borders ceases to be a country.
In "City of God," St Augustine remarks that it is much easier for a man to hold conversation with his dog than it is for him to try and communicate with one who speaks a foreign language.
It is to be expected that the establishment would be in favor of open borders because that tends towards chaos which gives the ever-expanding govt a sense of legitimacy amongst the people - "they have to protect us"- but open borders is the way a govt elects a new people (Bertold Brecht) ; ones who are pliant and passive and totally disconnected from its traditions
In any event, thanks for the pacific exchange re topics that, far too often, end-up in accusations and recriminations.
Pat tecum
Augustine's opinion on foreigners is not doctrine - it's just opinion, and I'm free to think he was absolutely wrong, which I do. Furthermore, American history has pretty much demonstrated him wrong.
If your comment about open borders was correct, then the US was not a country until 1875, with the passage of the Page Act. That's rather later than most historians put America's founding.
American government did not begin massive expansion until AFTER immigration laws began to be implemented.
So your theory does not match the historical facts on any level you have so far specified.
Upon reflection, does it ever occur to you how odd it is for you to support Israel, with its closed borders and restricted-to-Jews Immigration policy ,while supporting Open Borders for America?
Open Borders leads, ineluctably, to the dissolution of a country.
As a Catholic, I think you can do much better on the National question.
Here is Chilton Williamson on The National Question. St Augustine, etc
http://www.vdare.com/williamson/city_of_pilgrims.htm
And with that, I am outta here.
Pax tecum
I forgot to source the Bertold Brecht reference.
In 1953, The Commies in East Germany put down a worker’s uprising. In response, Bertold Brecht wrote this
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had thrown away the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
I feel the same way towards Israel's border policies that I feel towards Mexico's border policies.
Why should we imitate the border policies of countries that are clearly inferior to us?
Israel's probably a nice place to visit (I don't really know), but I wouldn't want to live there.
If "Open Borders leads, ineluctably, to the dissolution of a country" then how did America survive the first century without ANY restrictions?
Indeed, America really didn't start restricting non-Asian immigration until the 1900's, so that's MORE than a century.
Before anyone can convince me that open borders are absolutely insane, or even moderately stupid, they have to explain why most countries didn't have much in the way of immigration controls until AFTER eugenics took hold.
"If "Open Borders leads, ineluctably, to the dissolution of a country" then how did America survive the first century without ANY restrictions?"
100 years ago, it was a bit more difficult than it is now for foreigners to arrive in America.
America should have continued its traditional immigration policies instead of trashing them as she did in 1965. The great Catholic, Ernest Van den Haag, (sp?) was prescient in writing against that revolutionary act in then then still readable," National Review." His piece can still be read online at VDARE .
Israel and Zionists are clear and present dangers to America. I can't write that fact any clearer.
I want to disconnect from the exchange by noting that America was dragged into WW1 through the secret manipulation of the Zionists and a lot of American Christians lost their lives in an Unjust and immoral war - The casus belli, USS Sussex was sunk? Really? - so the Zionists could fulfill their promise to England that we would enter the war against Germany of their behalf and the Zionists reward - The Balfour Declaration - was Palestine given to them by England which, as Benjamin Freedman noted (paraphrasing here) that England had the right to give Palestine to the Jews as much as America had the right to give Japan to the Irish Catholics.
Now, it was quite easy for the Zionists to accomplish this out of the sight of Joe and Jill America because Jews controlled the Media then, as they do now, and Americans read naught but Zionist propaganda when it comes to Israel.
Israel is a democracy. Israel is our ally. We must support Israel
Any deviation from that Zionist Party Line means courting disaster (and the Zionists are quick to accept proposals) and any knowledge of, say, how the Jews are not the friends of Christians or the friends of America is knowledge that must never be gained or, if once gained, must be repudiated as conspiracy theories.
So, America's insane involvement in world war one must never be attributed to Zionist manipulation.
Israel is a democracy. Israel is our all. We must support Israel.
To bring this back to the topic, Bachmann, she is a Christian Zionist who can be counted on to do the bidding of Israel. In that, she is no different than any other candidate capable of becoming elected in America.
http://www.vdare.com/pb/haag_memoriam.htm
" America should have continued its traditional immigration policies instead of trashing them as she did in 1965."
I've never heard a Catholic advocate for eugenics.
Until now.
The "traditional immigration policies" were all based on Darwinian eugenics and social Darwinism.
Has it occurred to you that the massive immigration the US has experienced has almost always been CATHOLIC?
The Germans and Irish in the 1840's through 1860s, prior to any immigration controls, the Italians at the turn of the century, the Mexicans from 1965 onward... all Catholic immigration.
American immigration law was designed to prevent Chinese and Catholic immigration. And you want to KEEP it?
As for the rest of it... yes, I'm sure the Jews forced the Kaiser to re-start unrestricted U-boat warfare and send the Zimmerman telegram. Sneaky of them.
In this one post you have slighted St Augustine and his personal opinions which you are, of course, at liberty to disagree with (as though your personal opinions on the matter are equally informed and astute) and you out-of-hand dismiss Catholic objections to the 1965 Immigration Act by Chilton Williamson and Ernst van den Haag and cast their ideas and rationale as support for Eugenics.
Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinions but I can not write that I think much of them.
As for the blackmailing of Woodrow Wilson by a Zionist (having to do with $40K and Adultery) and his payback to the Zionist Cause by appointing Louis Brandies to The SCOTUS and then his public lie about The USS Sussex as the casus belli for American involvement in WW1 which resulted in Zionists getting Palestine, well, let's all pretend none of it happened and that American involvement in WW1 made sense.
Oh, and that whole Germany-sues-England-for-peace-after-winning-war-world-one-before-the-Zinoist's-behind-the-scenes-machinations-so-as-to-acquire-Palestine?
Yeah, let's scotch that conspiracy right now. It was all Germany's fault.
As a Catholic, I am already a member of a Nation, Holy Mother Church, that includes men from all nations and languages but the idea that America as a nation has been strengthened and/or improved by the immigration of men from countries other than European countries is not even an idea, it is a delusion.
P.S. Andrei Navrozov makes a good point when he observes that conspiracy theories are what we have because we are not allowed to have history (such as the history of how it was America came to become involved in WW1, for example).
But, I can see I am wasting my time here.
Pat tecum
Did Jews write the Zimmerman telegram?
Did Jews begin unrestricted submarine warfare?
Did Jews make a habit of blowing themselves up anywhere?
Augustine's opinions on immigration are not exactly considered high theology (or even low theology) by the Church. They aren't quoted in any Magisterial document I'm aware of.
As for the others, I never heard of them before and have no interest in them in any case.
Post a Comment