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.

Lutheran vs. Catholic -- What's the difference?

One of the big lies that is so prevalent in America today is that all religions are the same.  Even Christians say that.  It is a lie.  They are not all the same.  

In the link here, https://www.facebook.com/DailyWire/videos/288785111777404/ ,  Charlie Kirk (a conservative commentator and a Jew) asks a Roman Catholic priest about salvation.  The priest gives an answer that is perfectly consistent with Roman Catholic theology.  It is appalling.

The most appalling claim is that you don't need Jesus to be saved.  You can renounce Jesus and even the very existence of God and can still be saved.  Really.  He says that, and backs it up with Vatican II proclamations.

Secondly, he says that the grace of Christ is not enough.  You need to follow up with that and cooperate with Christ to attain your salvation.  He says that Luther should have said "By grace first" rather than "By grace alone."  So, he highlights that Lutherans and Roman Catholics are still far, far apart on the matter of how one is saved and where one finds confidence in salvation.

If I need to add something to the grace of Christ, I am going to hell for sure.  The very problem from the start is that I am corrupt and cannot fulfill the Commandments of God.  Even now, as a Christian who desires to be godly and obedient, even now I cannot fulfill the Commandments of God.  The only thing I can add to the grace of Christ is my corrupt failures.  THAT is supposed to help save me?!?  That's the very reason I need to be saved!!!

According to the priest in the interview, atheists can be saved.  A vehement rejection of God and his word is, apparently, not enough to condemn anyone.  However, this is what the Roman Catholic Church says about Lutherans:  "If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema." (Session IV, Canon XII)  NOTE: This has never been repudiated.  So, according to Roman Catholic theology, an atheist can be saved, but a confessional Lutheran is damned for sure.

So, the difference is massive.  It is tragic, but it dare not be ignored or glossed over.  Salvation and comfort for sinners is at stake.

Lutherans uphold what the Scriptures declare about salvation so that all may have the comfort and confidence of knowing God's favor rests upon you.  Scripture references abound, but I will highlight two.

Romans 3:20-28
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.  
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Salvation is by grace alone -- God's gift, won by Jesus Christ, and given to sinners.  Salvation is by faith alone -- the works were done by Jesus Christ and are credited to sinners.  Ephesians even highlights that saving faith is given by God.  We have nothing in ourselves to boast about.  It is all God's doing for us.  And, since God did it, we can be certain that everything has been done completely and perfectly.

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.

Luther Lecture Series continues

Our next segment of the Luther Lecture series takes place on Sunday, November 19 at 6:00 PM.  

This Sunday's Luther Lecture will focus on the Thirty Years War, battles between Roman Catholic and Lutheran princes and territories.  

These Luther Lectures are intended to be interactive discussions as well as informational.  Desserts will be served, and door prizes will be given.  All are welcome. 

If you are willing to provide a dessert for the evening, it will be greatly appreciated.

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