We've been discussing, below, the matter of whether it's worthwhile to spend time commending the Pope when there's something commendable about him, or whether on the other hand one ought to take every opportunity to remind the world of his errors.
I believe the former is the proper tack; to review the discussion, click here.
The Papacy, according to the Lutheran Confessions, is the Antichrist, because it exalts itself and claims priority over the word of God; the passage in Thessalonions describes "the man of sin" as "the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (II Thess 2:3-4).
Here's the thing: I haven't heard this Pope insist on any of those things.
Oh, you may say, but his office does.
True, it still does. But I think there's a big difference in the case of someone whose office has historical baggage, yet who personally shows some integrity.
Incidentally, the Pope was Julius II when Luther first penned his declaration that the Papacy was the Antichrist. Julius was coronated during a great, garish parade in Rome during which it was clearly and loudly proclaimed, quite literally, that he was God.
There is a world of difference between a Papacy bent the corruption rampant then and a Papacy now that takes steps toward reform. Of course there's a long way to go, but we ought not make matters more difficult than they already are, in my opinion.
And I believe that my take is akin to that of St. Paul, who wrote that as much as it depends on us, we should live at peace with all men.