Sermon -- Festival of the Reformation, transferred (October 27, 2024)

DANIEL 3:16-28

WE HAVE A FAITH WORTH DYING FOR.

In the name + of Jesus.

     You have likely heard the phrase, “I will die on this hill.”  In a military context, it notes the strategic advantage of holding the high ground.  Troops would defend the hill to the death.  They would die on that hill rather than concede the advantage.  Today, it is used to express a commitment to one’s beliefs or behavior.  People will defend their convictions rather than concede them to pressure or convenience. 

     Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were such men.  They were among the first to be exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon along with the prophet Daniel.  They were of the noble class, and probably teenagers.  King Nebuchadnezzar was no idiot.  When he recognized their potential for serving him, he had them train for service in his kingdom.  They were taught the Babylonian language, Babylonian literature, Babylonian culture, and so on.  There was no sin in doing this, so these young man gave themselves diligently to their studies.  They were also to eat the king’s food.  But some of that food was unclean according to the law of Moses.  You might think this was a petty matter.  They were exiles in a pagan land.  Who cares about dietary rules?  But these young men refused to violate the covenant.  It was a hill they would die on because they would not sin against the Lord, not even in what seemed like little matters.

     Fast forward to our reading.  Nebuchadnezzar had built a large, golden statue and commanded his subjects to worship it.  Once the orchestra began playing the worship music, everyone was to bow low to the ground—both an act of worship to the idol and an act of allegiance to the king.  However, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused.  When everyone was prostrate to the ground, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego stood upright.  It was not hard to see that they refused to worship the king’s idol.  This was a hill they would die on, and it was reported to the king.

     Once again, King Nebuchadnezzar was no idiot.  He would not execute valuable employees on hearsay.  So, he confronted them.  “If you worship the idol, we’re all good.  But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace” (Daniel 3:15).  Then he scoffed, “And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands” (Daniel 3:15)?

     Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s reply was another bold confession.  They made two statements.  “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace” (Daniel 3:17).  In other words, our God can save.  But they continued, “If not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Daniel 3:18).  In other words, even if God does not save us, we will be faithful to him—no matter what threats or punishments we face.  We will not yield in our faith.  We will not turn from his word.  We will die on this hill.

     God, in his grace, chose to preserve Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  Nebuchadnezzar recognized this when he declared, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire? … But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods” (Daniel 3:24-25).  And he was right.  The Son of God stood with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the flaming furnace.  He had preserved them so that they did not even smell of smoke.  He does not always step in to miraculously save his people from a martyr’s death.  In fact, God rarely does that.  Many saints have glorified God by suffering death for their faithful confession.  We have a faith worth dying for.  God’s people recognize that there are some things that are worse than death.

     We have a faith worth dying for, and that is because we have a God who decided that we were worth dying for.  Jesus Christ is God in the flesh who came into to the world to die for sinners.  Jesus took into himself all our sins.  Now, the devil had given Jesus all kinds of reasons not to do this.  When he tempted Jesus in the wilderness, the prince of this world offered to give Jesus all the riches, authority, and kingdoms of the world.  Jesus would not even have to suffer to get these.  He needed only to bow before the devil, and he would have them.  But that is not how sinners would be saved.  There was a hill that Jesus had to die on in order to redeem us.  And he was convinced that we were worth dying for.

     Jesus went to a hill to die on it for us.  There he was roasted in God’s fiery wrath for sins he did not commit.  He endured hellish torment that he did not deserve.  He did this to pay for all your sins.  Since Jesus has taken up all your sins, there is no condemnation for you.  You have received a full pardon.  This is the faith we live and die in. 

     Therefore, we have a faith worth dying for.  The odds of you facing death in a fiery furnace are slim.  You will likely never have to suffer death for your confession.  But you will suffer for it.  We hold to God’s word in a world that mocks those who live according to it.  To the world, our faithfulness to God’s word is bewildering.  To the world, sinning against God’s word is no big deal.  St. Peter warned, “They are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you” (1 Peter 4:4). 

     God’s people hold to his word even when violating it seems like no big deal.  Examples abound, but we will consider just one.  St. Paul instructs us, “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving” (Ephesians 5:4).  If you avoid vulgar or obscene speech, people will notice.  They will think you are strange.  They will mock you, “Oh, goody two-shoes.  You think you’re better than us!”  But remember, you have been set apart from all wickedness.  We dare not dabble in some of it, reasoning that some sins are harmless.  The world is evil.  It dwells under God’s wrath, and judgment is coming because of it.  But you have been set apart from it.  You not only rejoice in God’s promises, but you also believe that all of God’s word is good and right and true.  You have been set apart to be God’s people and to live according to God’s word.  Your faith is not mere words; faith governs your whole life.  It is a life lived for God’s honor.  It is a faith worth dying for.

      This is nothing new.  God’s people throughout all of history have suffered for the sake of Jesus Christ.  Today, we celebrate the Lutheran Reformation.  At the time of Martin Luther, Jesus was portrayed as an angry judge that you had to satisfy with holy living.  The confession, “He will come again to judge the living and the dead” filled people with terror rather than hope.  Christians were told to amend their lives, making up for all of their sins.  Who can do that?  What is enough?  And what happens to a Christian who lived his whole life trusting God’s word but does not have enough time to amend for all his sins?  This is where the teaching of purgatory came in.  It isn’t in the Bible, but it was created to tell people they would have to be purged of the wickedness that was still in them.  Once they had been purged of all their evil, then they would be holy and able to enter heaven.  How long would that suffering take?  Thousands and thousands of years.  What comfort did these Christians have?

     This is where the sale of indulgences came in.  For a price, people could reduce the time spent in purgatory by the authority of the Pope.  And it was not only for yourself.  Would you really let grandma suffer in purgatory when you could purchase her release?  It was a wicked practice, but the money ended up building St. Peter’s Basilica.  Martin Luther challenged this practice.  Having discovered from Scripture that Jesus is not an angry judge but a gracious Savior, Luther preached forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection.  Indulgences were a scam, and Luther said so.  Once the money stopped flowing to Rome, Luther faced threats.  First, he was ordered to stop preaching and writing.  Later, he was marked as a wanted man—dead or alive.  Luther’s life would have been much easier if he had just shut up.  But God’s people would have been robbed of comfort, hope, and salvation if he had not.  He was willing to die on that hill because Jesus had willingly died for him and for the sins of the whole world.  Whenever Luther saw the good news of Jesus being perverted by false teachings, he lashed out in rather strong language.  He would not let the light of the Gospel be clouded, and he would not let God’s people be plagued by doubts and fears.  Luther was willing to die for this confession.  God graciously spared him of that, but Luther recognized that we have a faith worth dying for. 

     There is a reason Martin Luther wrote, “And take they our life, goods, fame, child, and wife, let these all be gone, they yet have nothing won; the kingdom ours remaineth” (TLH © 1941, Hymn 262, stanza 4).  For Luther, losing these things was a real possibility.  That does not mean God’s gifts are not precious.  But it does mean they don’t save.  Only Jesus Christ does.  It would be hard to lose one’s possessions or reputation.  It would be gut-wrenching to lose one’s wife and children.  But it would be eternally tragic to lose one’s faith.  There are things worse than dying.  That is why we confess that we have a faith worth suffering and dying for.

     Whether 500 BC in Babylon, 1500 AD in Saxony, Germany, or the 2020’s in the United States of America, God’s word is under attack.  God’s promises are clouded by words which sound nice and allow for alternative beliefs.  Back in September, the Pope decreed that all religions are a path to God (https://www.christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-claims-all-religions-are-a-path-to-god.html).  That was received well by many people, but it is absolutely wrong.  Jesus declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). There is no other path to God.  To suggest there are other paths to God is to promote a lie which grounds people in a faith that leads to death.

     Faith in Jesus alone brings life everlasting.  Our Savior lived and died for us.  Our risen Savior lives and reigns for us.  Therefore, we live and die holding firmly to his words and promises.  Jesus promises, “Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:25-26).  If you must suffer for your faith, suffer as one who is godly and confident of God’s goodness.  If you must die for your faith, go boldly into death knowing that you will come out unscathed, just as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were delivered from death.  We have a faith worth dying for because we have a Savior who lives.  And because he lives, we shall live with him in glory.

In the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

A Pastoral Concern re: teaching God's word with clarity

I have seen a few headlines for stories about Pope Francis giving approval for priests blessings same-sex couples and for making advances in the inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community to the Roman Catholic Church.  Many articles quote or summarize Pope Francis’ words in a similar fashion.  I am working under the assumption that they are quoting him fairly.  However, even accurate portrayals of the Pope’s comments are still open to interpretation.  In my opinion, they are so vague (intentionally?  By this time, I have to think so) that opposing view points can claim that the Pope supports them.

The article, taken from Deutsche Welle and picked up by the AP and Reuters, is in bold print.  My comments are interspersed between paragraphs.

Days after approving blessings of same-sex couples, Pope Francis has warned against ideological inflexibility in the Catholic Church he leads. He said that too rigid stances could prevent the church from seeing reality. Pope Francis on Thursday told members of the Vatican's central administration that holding views that remain too rigid could be an obstacle to perceiving reality and moving forward.

The summary above is probably the most disconcerting thing the Pope said.  He warned against “ideological inflexibility” and “too rigid stances.”  What does this mean? 

When we conclude a reading from the Bible in our Divine Service, we conclude with the pastor stating, “The word of the Lord.”  That is a declarative statement.  Is it supposed to be a question now?  The congregation responds, “Thanks be to God,” indicating their confession that the reading from the Bible is, indeed, the word of the Lord.  We are grateful that the Lord has been pleased to reveal his will to us in an unchanging, firm way.  The congregation does not respond, “Well, the word of the Lord for now.  We’ll see how things change next year.”  Yes, we are quite inflexible on what the Lord has to say.  He has not given us permission to alter his word, and he has indicated that we should not anticipate any further editing.  Quite the contrary, we have warnings from God not to change his word in the Old and New Testaments (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19).  It seems that God is quite inflexible on his word.  Our “ideology” is to come from God’s word.  If it does not, then I agree with the Pope.  We can shuck and jive our way to whatever works.  If it does, then it seems we should be rigid and not yield even an inch.

But for the sake of argument, if God can be flexible and is not so rigid on his stance, I would contend we have to hold that opinion about all of his word, including his promises.  Is the death of Jesus sufficient for the payment of sins, or has God now added to the bill so that we have to cough something up?  Does the word of the Lord endure forever, or does God change his stance from time to time?  Does our faith rest on solid ground, or do we need to prepare for a seismic shift?  In short, can we depend on anything we read?  If the word of the Lord is rigid, we can.

The Pope also expresses that such inflexibility “could prevent the church from seeing reality.”  Does the word of God fail to do that?  Does the Lord not know what the sinful world is like?  We all are sinful; that is reality.  We are all called to repent of our sins; that is the reality.  There is a damning judgment that awaits all who will not repent and order their lives according to the word of the Lord.  That is reality.  No Christian wants to see anyone perish eternally.  Love compels us to uphold God’s word so that people will see their sins and flee from them.  There is boundless mercy found in Jesus Christ.  There is abundant forgiveness which Jesus won.  This is reality.  But to tell people that their sins are not sins is not loving, nor is it reality.  To allow “flexibility” for sins to go on unrepentant may be popular now; it will result in damnation later.  This is the reality.  God says so; therefore, his Church does too.

One more thought about the above paragraph.  What does it mean for the Church to “move forward”?  As positive as that is supposed to sound, not every move forward is a good one.  If one is at the edge of a cliff, moving forward is a bad idea.  If one is standing firmly on God’s word, any move from there is a bad and deadly idea.  What move does the Pope want to see?  Does he desire more people to hear the word of the Lord, to join the Church, and to be saved?  Then, bravo!  But to suggest that blessing people who persist in sin is the way to do this is blasphemous.  It is a move forward right off the cliff, and the landing will not be a safe one.

His comments came just days after he angered many church conservatives by issuing a declaration allowing blessings of same-sex couples.

That approval went against a 2021 policy by the Vatican's doctrine office, which forbade such blessings because God "does not and cannot bless sin."

A confessional Lutheran says: “The Vatican is right on this.”  Why?  Because that is what the Scriptures say.

Francis didn't specifically mention his decision in his comments on Thursday.

What did Francis say?

During his traditional Christmas greetings to members of the Curia, Francis said, "Let us remain vigilant against rigid ideological positions that often, under the guise of good intentions, separate us from reality and prevent us from moving forward."

"We are called, instead, to set out and journey, like the magi, following the light that always desires to lead us on, at times along unexplored paths and new roads," he said.

"The Christian faith -- let us remember -- is not meant to confirm our sense of security, to let us settle into comfortable religious certitudes, and to offer us quick answers to life's complex problems," he added.

Did anyone hear a loud ripping sound regarding the context of the Bible?  We journey “like the Magi, following the light that always desires to lead us on”???  Yes, the Magi followed a star.  But this is what the Magi testified, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?  For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him” (Matthew 2:2).  The star directed them on a very specific quest, not some generic quest for knowledge “along unexplored paths and new roads.”  It is a safe bet that the Magi traveled well-worn roads on their way to and from the Christ child.  They came to worship their King, Lord, and Savior.  Why?  Because they had a specific word which directed them to him.  The star was merely the sign that tipped them off that the prophetic word had been fulfilled.  We do not journey away from the word of God to follow unexplored paths and new roads.  The Bible says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Psalm 119:105).  If we are not following that, we are being led away by something else.

It is also disturbing to hear the Pope suggest that “The Christian faith -- let us remember -- is not meant to confirm our sense of security, to let us settle into comfortable religious certitudes, and to offer us quick answers to life's complex problems.”  Ummmm…. What?

The Christian faith is not to confirm our security?  The Christian faith is not to provide certitudes?  (I actually looked up “certitudes,” wondering if it meant something different than “absolute certainty or conviction that something is the case.”  Nope, that is the very definition of the word.)  The Christian faith does not offer quick answers to life’s complex problems?  That last one is vague enough to spark debate.  Oftentimes, life is messy.  Oftentimes, we are left to make the best out of a bad situation.  But the Pope’s comments suggest that the Bible offers little in the way of certainty, security, guidance, or instruction.  If that’s the case, why bother with the Bible at all? 

The annual greeting is a high-profile event to which all cardinals based in Rome are invited.

Since becoming pontiff 10 years ago, Francis, who turned 87 on Sunday, has made some steps toward more inclusivity in the Catholic Church, notably by expressing more tolerance of the LGBTI+ community than has previously been shown.

However, he has tried to do so without making any actual changes to the church's moral teachings; in his declaration on Monday, he made it clear that the blessing given by priests to same-sex couples must not make the impression of a wedding ceremony.

Then what’s the point of the blessing?

The Vatican holds that homosexual relations are "intrinsically disordered," while saying that gay people must nonetheless be treated with dignity and respect.

Agreed!  Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect.  The LGBTQ+ community are human beings.  Every human being deserves respect.  Every person should be treated with dignity.  There is hope for everyone.  Dignity and respect, however, are not the same as fully, unquestioned acceptance of everything one believes and does.  We should also treat prisoners with dignity and respect, but it does not mean that we approve of whatever resulted in their prison sentence. 

Conservatives and traditionalists have slammed Monday's declaration as going against biblical teachings about homosexuality.

“Conservatives” and “traditionalists” sound like political terms.  That works well in a news article which looks for clicks or in a debate where we draw up sides.  But what is it that conservatives are trying to conserve?  What tradition are the traditionalists holding to?  If it is status quo for the sake of status quo, then they should be corrected and/or criticized.  If they are upholding the Scriptures and seeking to preserve the word of God, then they are being the faithful. 

tj/sms (AP, Reuters)

Copyright 2023 DW.COM, Deutsche Welle. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Something from ... Pope Leo on the Two Natures of Jesus (3rd entry)

Here is something more from Pope Leo the Great ( c. 400 – 10 November 461) on the two natures of Jesus -- that Jesus is both God and man.  (For a longer introduction on the significance of this teaching and the attack against Christianity which prompted Leo's letter, see this blog entry.)

Pope Leo the Great

After the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), Pope Leo wrote a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, regarding Eutyches who had been teaching that Jesus was not really a man, but bore only the form or appearance of a man.  What Pope Leo writes is the correct teaching of the Scripture and the faithful confession of the Church. 

It is a mystery worth pondering, especially as we are coming up on the celebration of the incarnation of our Lord, better known as Christmas.  

Here is another portion of Leo's letter:

"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man. God, by the fact that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; man, by the fact that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. God, by the fact that all things were made through him, and nothing was made without him, man, by the fact that he was made of a woman, made under the law. The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels’ voices announce the greatness of the most High. Herod evilly strives to kill one who was like a human being at the earliest stage the Magi rejoice to adore on bended knee one who is the Lord of all. And when he came to be baptised by his precursor John, the Father’s voice spoke thunder from heaven, to ensure that he did not go unnoticed because the divinity was concealed by the veil of flesh: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Accordingly, the same one whom the devil craftily tempts as a man, the angels dutifully wait on as God. Hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep are patently human. But to satisfy five thousand people with five loaves; to dispense living water to the Samaritan woman, a drink of which will stop her being thirsty ever again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink; to rebuke the storm and level the mounting waves; there can be no doubt these are divine."

Source: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

Something from ... Pope Leo on the Two Natures of Jesus (2nd entry)

Here is something more from Pope Leo the Great ( c. 400 – 10 November 461) on the two natures of Jesus -- that Jesus is both God and man.  (For a longer introduction on the significance of this teaching and the attack against Christianity which prompted Leo's letter, see this blog entry.)

Pope Leo the Great

After the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), Pope Leo wrote a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, regarding Eutyches who had been teaching that Jesus was not really a man, but bore only the form or appearance of a man.  What Pope Leo writes is the correct teaching of the Scripture and the faithful confession of the Church. 

It is a mystery worth pondering, especially as we are coming up on the celebration of the incarnation of our Lord, better known as Christmas.  

Here is another portion of Leo's letter:

"So without leaving his Father’s glory behind, the Son of God comes down from his heavenly throne and enters the depths of our world, born in an unprecedented order by an unprecedented kind of birth. In an unprecedented order, because one who is invisible at his own level was made visible at ours. The ungraspable willed to be grasped. Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time. The Lord of the universe veiled his measureless majesty and took on a servant’s form. The God who knew no suffering did not despise becoming a suffering man, and, deathless as he is, to be subject to the laws of death. By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin’s womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man."

Sourece: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

Something from ... Pope Leo on the Two Natures of Jesus

With Christmas approaching soon enough, we get to ponder once again one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith -- that Jesus is both God and man.  Logic dictates that he must be one or the other.  Scripture asserts that he is completely God and completely man at the same time.  How can this be?  That is the mystery.

Both are essential if Jesus is to be the Savior of the world.  He must be true man if he is to be our true substitute in life and in death.  As true man, Jesus fulfills the Commandments.  So, a man has earned God's favor.  As true man, Jesus dies.  And in Jesus, a man has conquered the grave, overcome death, and opened up heaven to all mankind.

And yet, as the Psalms remind us, "Truly no man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life." (Psalm 49:7)  So, if Jesus is only a man, he earned his spot in heaven.  Good for him; but he would have done nothing for you or me.  Therefore, he has to be God in order for his perfect life and sacrificial death to count for all.

This is not a Lutheran teaching, as if Lutherans invented this teaching.  This is the teaching of the Christian church, the church catholic--with which Lutherans concur.  We are declaring only what the Scriptures declare.  In teaching and confessing this, we find comfort that Jesus is the very Savior we need, and that his work of redemption guarantees our place in God's kingdom.

Pope Leo the Great

This was also decreed after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) by a letter from Pope Leo I ( c. 400 – 10 November 461) to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, regarding Eutyches who had been teaching that Jesus was not really a man, but bore only the form or appearance of a man.  What Pope Leo writes is the correct teaching of the Scripture and the faithful confession of the Church.  It is a mystery worth pondering.  Here is a portion of Leo's letter:

"So the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours. By “ours” we mean what the Creator established in us from the beginning and what he took upon himself to restore. There was in the Saviour no trace of the things which the Deceiver brought upon us, and to which deceived humanity gave admittance. His subjection to human weaknesses in common with us did not mean that he shared our sins. He took on the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, thereby enhancing the human and not diminishing the divine. For that self-emptying whereby the Invisible rendered himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things chose to join the ranks of mortals, spelled no failure of power: it was an act of merciful favour. So the one who retained the form of God when he made humanity, was made man in the form of a servant. Each nature kept its proper character without loss; and just as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not detract from the form of God."

Sourece: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

A Pastoral Concern ... on the Authority of the Church

Recently, it was reported in an Italian paper, La Republicca, that the Pope has stated that there is no hell, and that all who die in sin and unbelief simply disappear and cease to exist.  (To read an article about this, see Cranach, the Blog of Gene E. Veith.)  Those who believe are "admitted to the contemplation of God."  The description of eternal life is, at best, confusing.  I really don't know what that means.  It sounds more Hindu than Christian to me.  But the denial of hell is much more problematic.  Those in the Roman Catholic Church will note that it stands in contradiction to Church tradition, to Church Councils, to the decrees of previous Popes, and to the Roman Catholic Catechism.

I would add the glaring omission: It defies Holy Scripture (cf. Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; Matthew 25:41-46; et al.) 

The Roman Catholic faithful are put in a rather difficult position here.  While it has been "clarified" by the Vatican that the Pope did not say this or did not mean this, it does not help that Pope Francis has developed a habit of saying things that are so vague and confusing that we find such reports of a reversal of Roman Catholic teaching on his part to be quite believable.  After all, according to the Roman Catholic Church itself, what the Pope teaches ex cathedra ("from the chair", that is, in his official position as Pope) is infallible.  He cannot err.  So if he reverses the teaching of the Roman Church, some Pope must have erred in the past or the current Pope has erred.

Full disclosure: The reporter who referred to his conversation with Pope Francis was not conducting an official interview.  He did not take notes or record anything.  He was "reconstructing" his conversation with the Pope, making his statements about the Pope's words highly suspect.  And since the reporter is an avowed atheist, there is reason to believe his report may be biased or simply wrong.  Still Pope Francis' track record does not help his own cause.  And for what it is worth, I do not consider this recollection of a conversation between Pope Francis and an atheist reporter to taken too seriously. 

What is to be taken seriously, however, is what the Church deems to be the final authority in its doctrine and practice.  For the Roman Catholic Church, the answer is the Pope.  He is declared to be the sole interpreter of Scripture.  (Although it seems that Vatican officials are more important right now in giving the official understanding of Pope Francis' vague statements.)  But what happens when a Pope decrees something that stands in direct contrast to official Roman Catholic teaching?  The answer usually given is that the Pope did not speak ex cathedra.  But, who determines when the Pope does speak ex cathedra?  Does a committee decide this?  And when the Pope does speak ex cathedra and it stands in contrast to the Bible, does that mean we are supposed to dismiss the Bible on that point?  And if the Bible can be overruled by Papal decree, how much of the Bible can be dismissed?  (After all, a later Pope may decree that a certain teaching has been reversed.)

Here is a very practical example.  Can an atheist be saved and go to heaven?  Here is the official Roman Catholic teaching:  “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.” --Lumen Gentium, chapter 2, par. 16 (November 21, 1964, by Pope Paul VI)

Here is what the Bible teaches:  "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.  Whoever believes in his is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:17-18)  And: "There is salvation  in no one else,  for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

So, which is right?  That there is no salvation outside of Jesus, or that there is salvation outside of Jesus?  Either Pope VI is right, or the Bible is right.  One is in error, and one is not.  Both can't be true.  So which is it?  The answer is crucial, don't you think?

Martin Luther was hardly the first to state that the Bible is the sole authority of the Church.  So, when Lutherans confess sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone) as the authority of the Church, we are not on a island.  Nor are we insisting that Martin Luther or any other man is our final authority.  Our sole authority is the word of God.  Therefore, we let God speak for himself.  God does not lie.  God does not change.  God does not speak in deceptive words or use vague terms.  Granted, that has not prohibited people from twisting his words or presenting conflicting interpretations; but the fault lies with man, not with God.  Man often uses his reason or his emotions to interpret what God really means, which turns man into his own Pope in being his own interpreter of Scripture.

But the Bible does not need to be interpreted, just read.  And while some passages are not as clear as others, that is not to say that there is nothing clear in the Bible.  The Bible is amazingly clear.  Hard passages will find their interpretation from clearer passages.  In this way, the Bible remains the authority, not me or you with our own interpretation of it.

The issue is of utmost importance, since our eternal salvation rests on it.  How do you know you are saved?  Is it the decree of a Pontiff in Rome who does not even know you (which is official Catholic teaching), or is it the word of the God whose work it is to save you?  Popes have changed official teachings over the centuries.  Jesus Christ has not.

That is why the authority of the Church always stands on the word of God which has been revealed and recorded in the Bible.  Since the word of God stands firm forever, so does our confidence.

Indulgences via Papal tweets?!

Almost 500 years after Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the church door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, nothing seems to have changed.  The Pope is still offering relief from time in Purgatory.  Indulgences are still being offered to all who follow the papal appointed steps.  See the articles below.

There are many comments that one could make about this (for example, the existence of Purgatory having no Scriptural foundation; the fact that the teaching of Purgatory denies the benefits of Jesus' atoning sacrifice for sins -- If they are paid for, why are your sufferings still necessary?; etc...)

It was about 500 years ago that a pesky monk in Saxony wanted to debate the following points:

     This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
     To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial." (Theses 81 and 82 of Martin Luther's 95 Theses)

Even though the Pope is not making use of salesmen-preachers to gather in money for indulgence sales, the basic question about pardon for punishments still stands:  If the Pope truly has authority to pardon people from punishments for their sins, why doesn't love and compassion for tortured souls compel him to grant full and immediate pardons?

 

 

One hell of a deal: Pope Francis offers reduced time in Purgatory for Catholics that follow him on Twitter

Court in charge of forgiveness of sins says those that follow upcoming event via social media will be granted indulgences

 

Salvation – or at least a shorter stay in Purgatory – might now be only a tweet away with news that Pope Francis is to offer “indulgences” – remissions for temporary punishment – to the faithful who follow him on the social media site.

Around 1.5 million are expected to flock to Rio de Janeiro to celebrate World Youth Day with the Argentine pontiff later this month. But for those who can’t make it to Brazil,  forgiveness may be available to contrite sinners who follow Francis’s progress via their TV screen or social networks.

The Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican court that rules on the forgiveness of sins, has said that indulgences may be given to those who follow the “rites and pious exercises” of the event on television, radio and through social media.
The Penitentiary said that Pope Francis' Twitter account, which has already gathered seven million followers, would be one such medium.

Vatican officials, noted however, that to obtain indulgences over the internet or otherwise, believers would first have to confess their sins, offer prayers and attend Mass.

“You can't obtain indulgences like getting a coffee from a vending machine,” Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, head of the pontifical council for social communication, told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/one-hell-of-a-deal-pope-francis-offers-reduced-time-in-purgatory-for-catholics-that-follow-him-on-twitter-8713666.html

 

 

 

Similar comments from the UK Guardian:

 

Indulgences these days are granted to those who carry out certain tasks – such as climbing the Sacred Steps, in Rome (reportedly brought from Pontius Pilate's house after Jesus scaled them before his crucifixion), a feat that earns believers seven years off purgatory.

But attendance at events such as the Catholic World Youth Day, in Rio de Janeiro, a week-long event starting on 22 July, can also win an indulgence.

Mindful of the faithful who cannot afford to fly to Brazil, the Vatican's sacred apostolic penitentiary, a court which handles the forgiveness of sins, has also extended the privilege to those following the "rites and pious exercises" of the event on television, radio and through social media.

"That includes following Twitter," said a source at the penitentiary, referring to Pope Francis' Twitter account, which has gathered seven million followers. "But you must be following the events live. It is not as if you can get an indulgence by chatting on the internet."

In its decree, the penitentiary said that getting an indulgence would hinge on the beneficiary having previously confessed and being "truly penitent and contrite".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/16/vatican-indulgences-pope-francis-tweets

 

Hat Tip:  Rev. Geoff Kieta