You are redefining the term "heretical." Protestant orthodoxy, historically, acknowledged the papacy as antichrist. You simply cannot ignore this fact. The antichrist will teach another Gospel.
The Council of Trent, CANON 9 "
If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will;
let him be anathema."
There you have it. If not the' antichrist, the one who teaches the above is an antichrist.
Francis Turretin was a Reformer. From his Seventh Disputation, "Whether It Can Be Proven that the Pope of Rome Is the Antichrist.The term Antichrist implies two meanings:
(1) That he is an Enemy and
Rival of Christ;
(2) That he is
His Vicar.
The definition of the prefix
anti, indeed, introduces both, which, when used in conjunction with a noun, means, on the one hand,
before, and on the other hand,
against. It can also mean
in place of, and, indeed, a
substitute. . . . In this regard, the Antichrist certainly presents himself as the great adversary of Christ, in so far as he makes himself equal to Christ as a rival, while professing to hold the place of Christ on earth, as His Vicar."
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
#882, The
Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff,
by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
"...he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2 (for a detailed fleshing out of 2 Thess. 2 please see
Thomas Manton's 18 sermons on the subject.)
The church is the Temple, "For we are the temple of the living God" 2 Cor. 6
Manton,
But is, then, the church of Rome the church of Christ?
Ans. It was one part of it before it was perverted; it usurpeth still that name; it retaineth some relic of a church, mangled as it is. Saith Calvin in his Epistles: ‘I think I have given some strong reasons that it yet retaineth some show of a church.’ Now in this temple of God he sitteth as an officer and bishop there, as I before explained it: and whereas other princes are said to reign so many years, the Pope is said to sit so long. It is his sedes, his cathedral or seat. And again, here he is said to sit as God, that is, as God incarnate, for Christ is the true and proper Lord of the church; none should reign there but he. And the name of this man of sin is not Antitheos, but anticristos; not one that directly invadeth the properties of the supreme God, but of God incarnate, or Christ as Mediator: he sitteth negatively, not as a minister, but positively as supreme lord upon earth, whom all must adore and worship, and kings and princes kiss his feet. In short, he usurpeth the authority due to Christ.
Now I shall prove that by a double argument: -
First, By usurping the titles due to Christ; for he that will make bold with names will make bold with things; as to be sponsus ecclesiæ, the husband of the church, as Innocent called the church sponsam suam, his spouse; caput ecclesiæ, the head of the church, which is proper to the Saviour of the body; supreme, visible, and universal head, which only Christ is, who hath promised to be with her to the end of the world, and will be visible to those who do at length approach his court in heaven, where his seat is; to be chief pastor, Christ’s own title: ‘And when the chief shepherd shall appear,’ 1 Peter v. 4; to be pontifex maximus, the greatest high priest, whereas Christ alone is called ‘the high priest of our profession,’ Heb. iii. 1, and ‘the great high priest over the house of God,’ Heb. iv. 14; so his vicar-general upon earth; whereas the ancient church attributed this to the Holy Ghost, calling it Vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, he supplies his room and absence. Now titles including power, certainly they are not to be usurped without warrant. Therefore to call the Pope the chief and only shepherd, and the like, it is to usurp his authority to whom these things originally belong.
Secondly, He doth usurp the thing implied by the titles—the authority over the church, which is only due to God incarnate. Supreme authority may be considered, either as to the claim, right, property, and pre-eminence which belong to it, or to the exercise.
1. The claim and right pretended. He sitteth as God in the temple of God; that is, by virtue of his office there, claimeth the same power that Christ had, which is fourfold:—
(1.) An unlimited power over all things both in heaven and earth. This was given to Christ, Mat. xxviii. 18, and the Pope, as his vicar, challengeth it. But where is the plea and ground of the claim? For one to set up himself as a vice-god without warrant, is rebellion against Christ. To set himself in his throne without his leave, surely none is fit to have this authority that hath not his power to back and to administer and govern all things for the church’s good, which power God would trust in the hands of no creature.
(2.) A universal headship and supremacy over all the churches of Christ. Now, this supreme power over all Christians is the right of God incarnate, and whosoever challengeth it sits as God in the temple of God; and it is very derogatory to the comfort of the faithful that they should in all things depend upon one man as their supreme pastor, or else be excluded from the hope of salvation. Certainly this power, as to matter of fact, is impossible to be managed by any man, considering the vast extent of the world, and the variety of governments and different interests under which the people of God find shelter and protection, and the multitude and diversity of those things which are comprised in such a government; and, as to matter of right, it is sacrilegious, for Christ never instituted any such universal vicar and bishop. It is a dignity too high for any creature: none is fit to be universal head of the church but one that is God as well as man.
(3.) Absolute authority, so as to be above control. When a mortal man should pretend to be so absolute as to give no account of his actions, that it shall not be lawful to be said to him, What doest thou? and all his decrees must be received without examination or complaint, this is such a sovereignty as belongs to none but God: Job ix. 12, ‘Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?’ Now, this is in their canon law, that the Pope is to be judged by no man; that though he should lead millions of souls into hell, none can say Domine, cur ita facis?
(4.) Infallibility and freedom from error, which is the property of God: he neither is deceived nor can deceive. ‘Let God be true, and every man a liar.’ Now, that corrupt and fallible man should arrogate this to himself, such an unerring in judgment, is to usurp divine honour in matter of right and in matter of fact. For the Pope to arrogate this is as great a contradiction to all sense and reason as if a man sick of the plague, or any other mortal disease, should say that he was immortal, and in that part wherein the disease was seated.
...perhaps you should read Wylie before dismissing his argument, especially since you don’t know what it is.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
PS: Interpreter, you are incorrect in your assumption, that I haven't read Matthew 16...and if you decided to fellowship with the Orthodox just ask them what they think of Matthew 16 in relation to the pope. Also, maybe you should Matthew 28:18 where Christ tells us, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Or Revelation 1:18 which explicitly states that Christ, not Peter, has the keys. "I have the
keys of Death and Hades."
