As plans were being made for the extraordinary ordinary Amazonia Synod were being finalized and the event was to begin, a few days before the synod in the Vatican Gardens there was this things described as an
“indigenous ecological ritual.” The “ritual” included a male fertility totem with a
distinctively male and erotic profile. In attendance was what appeared to be a surprised
Pope Francis. Though he watched at a distance, it was rather obvious that he was uncomfortable. This was only confirmed when he decided to skip his
prepared remarks and left the whole affair abruptly after the Lord’s Prayer.
Why was Francis surprised? He had given every indication that this Synod was wide open to consider that may be considered emergency measures but which will diverge from the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. These are things such as allowing married men to be priests, perhaps instituting a female diaconate, and giving precedence to the indigenous culture over the culture of the faith itself. Now you can argue these points and that is not my point but rather I have a question. Why was Francis surprised by all of this? After all, was it not Francis who opened the door in the first place?
Let me move another direction. There are many, some of them I count as friends, who are in distress over the direction of the ELCA. But why are they surprised? After all, the door to these changes was opened long ago, was it not? When in a somewhat backdoor method, the Lutherans in the old ALC and LCA began ordaining women in 1970, they did so without a compelling defense of this action that could be substantiated from Scripture, the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the larger catholic tradition. It was, by all accounts, a distinct breach from the historic and nearly universal understanding and practice of the Lutheran Church prior to that day. Yet it was determined that a larger purpose was at work than fidelity to the doctrine and practice of the faith that went before them.
So when in 2009 the Church Wide Assembly broke with historic doctrine and practice again to open the ELCA to same sex marriage, to the full incorporation of the GLBTQ+ agenda, and to the radical altering of the requirements for ordination and practice of pastors, should anyone have been surprised? It is my opinion that this did not represent a serious detour from the direction charted first generation after generation before this action took place. Indeed, the seeds were laid a long time ago when the Gospel was lifted from its basis in fact and history, when the Gospel became a principle more than a message of Christ and Him crucified and risen, when culture became a voice and a prominent voice in what the Church says and does, and when it was determined that creativity was more important than fidelity. Why were people surprised by this in 2009? That remains my question to those who are uncomfortable with these decisions and those who left to form new church bodies that rolled back time to an ELCA just prior to 2009.
The liberal or progressive direction was long ago set when these seeds were sown and to be surprised at where it has led is to be blind to the consequences and implications of those choices. So Pope or Lutheran or whatever kind of Christian you might be, do not cry out with surprise when liberalism and progressivism refuses to be bound and limited by any artificial constraints. The genie is out of the bottle, folks. You may not have wanted to see this coming but that does not mean you should be surprised that there is no limit to where these things will lead. Any, by the way, we have not seen the end of it all. Change is even now being fomented which will make even the things mentioned here seem moderate.
30 comments:
Spot on Pastor.
The warning signs were there decades ago. For those with a discerning spirit, the signs were there for all to see. When the authority of scripture is challenged, the door is open for secular influence to take precedence. Remember the ELCA statement on the bible saying it "contains" the word of God while Missouri said it "IS" the word of God. Many missed this warning sign to their peril.
It is ironic that Catholics are facing the same issues and appear unable to deal with them as well, yet they remain loyal to a corrupt pope. Irony, irony!
I associate with many Roman Catholics, and the kindest thing I can say is that they are totally brain washed. Whatever nonsense comes from Rome the take as Gospel, even rank heresy. It is all they have ever known, and otherwise thinking people simply struggle to make sense of much of the foolishness.
Just this morning, I was at a Bible study with a group of RCs. One of them, a life-long RC originally from the Philippines, asked, "Why do we need the saints?" I think I detect, under the surface, a hint of awakening in her, a sense that this does not all appear reasonable. I'm sure she has a long way to go before she would say, "I'm out of here," but something is stirring.
The RC Bible study I attend is composed entirely of people 40 and up; there are no younger folk. I'm pretty sure that most of them are reading Scripture for the very first time in their entire lives, and it is a great mystery to them. They have so very much to try to take in, and so little background from which to work. Sadly, these folk can easily be led into all manner of errors.
Fr.D+
Continuing Anglican Priest
Fr. D+ (is that your grade as a pastor or is there some false modesty going on?) says:
The RC Bible study I attend is composed entirely of people 40 and up; there are no younger folk. I'm pretty sure that most of them are reading Scripture for the very first time in their entire lives, and it is a great mystery to them. They have so very much to try to take in, and so little background from which to work. Sadly, these folk can easily be led into all manner of errors.
Ok, I'll bite. Well yes, let's hope that they don't fall into so-called "privated interpretation" as Luther had and the ending result is, again, thousands of self-proclaimed Bible only schism boxes that all claim to have the true faith. Also let's hope that they don't fall under unqualified so-called "teachers and pastors" who set themselves up as the final arbiters of what the scriptures mean and then pass on those errors to their "bible students." So much for private interpretation or the perspicuity of scripture.
Mr. D+, seriously? Laughable
"don't fall into so-called "private interpretation" as Luther had" -that is a pure myth! Have you not read Luther? or just picked up a talking point you heard someone say? Just as the other myth that blames Luther for all the other denominations. How is he to blame? Luther is excommunicated for not holding to teachings that are not based in Scripture and also which no Early Church Father held. He is kicked out. Factually, Luther rejected the Reformed and offered them no aid as they departed from catholicity.
Anonymous said:
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"don't fall into so-called "private interpretation" as Luther had" -that is a pure myth! Have you not read Luther? or just picked up a talking point you heard someone say? Just as the other myth that blames Luther for all the other denominations. How is he to blame? Luther is excommunicated for not holding to teachings that are not based in Scripture and also which no Early Church Father held. He is kicked out. Factually, Luther rejected the Reformed and offered them no aid as they departed from catholicity.
You prove my point. Luther set himself as the arch expositor of the scriptures with his novel doctrines of faith alone and scripture alone. He thus set the stage for others to set themselves up as the sole expositors of scripture such as Zwingli and Calvin who SURPRISE did not agree with his, ahem, "correct" intepretations of scripture. Luther in is crazed zeal also attacked all things Catholic such as the ministeria priesthood, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, etc. So, in effect, Luther ceased to be Catholic.
LOLOLOL
Daniel,
Why do you choose to do what you are doing?
You are doing Rome no credit, nor yourself.
This is a Lutheran blog. We know you are Roman Catholic. We know you disagree about many things. This repeating of relatively infantile debating points does not honor God.
And I'd rather be catholic than Catholic, thanks.
You’re not catholic or Catholic. You’re protestant.
Hello Daniel G
You wrote:
"let's hope that they don't fall under unqualified so-called "teachers and pastors" who set themselves up as the final arbiters of what the scriptures mean and then pass on those errors to their "bible students." So much for private interpretation or the perspicuity of scripture."
I'm sure you're familiar with Ann Barnhardt and Father James Martin. They both present themselves as devoted Roman Catholics, and as such subscribe to the Bible, the Roman Catholic catechism, and the writings of the Church Fathers. Yet, their theological viewpoints are much farther apart than, say our host Pastor Peters and Joel Osteen.
In light of the diametrically opposed positions of Ann and Father Martin on many issues, would you say that one of these Roman Catholics would fall under your category of "unqualified so-called teachers who set themselves up as the final arbiters of what the scriptures mean".
The theology of Ann and Father Martin are logically contradictory, in other words, they both can't be right. How do you square the existence of logically contradictory theologies within the Roman Catholic Church? (Hint: you probably want to include in your response the phrase "private interpretation of scripture")
Daniel,
You need to read more and write less.
Anonymous writes:
I'm sure you're familiar with Ann Barnhardt and Father James Martin. They both present themselves as devoted Roman Catholics, and as such subscribe to the Bible, the Roman Catholic catechism, and the writings of the Church Fathers. Yet, their theological viewpoints are much farther apart than, say our host Pastor Peters and Joel Osteen.
In light of the diametrically opposed positions of Ann and Father Martin on many issues, would you say that one of these Roman Catholics would fall under your category of "unqualified so-called teachers who set themselves up as the final arbiters of what the scriptures mean".
The theology of Ann and Father Martin are logically contradictory, in other words, they both can't be right. How do you square the existence of logically contradictory theologies within the Roman Catholic Church? (Hint: you probably want to include in your response the phrase "private interpretation of scripture")
Interesting you mention Father Martin and Ann Barnhardt. Yes they are diametrically opposed but Ann unlike Father Martin is a faithful Catholic while Fr. Martin is not. He, like Luther, wants to change the Church. He is much like the ECLA who claims be Lutheran but isn't really. Maybe in name only but in practice no. So I'm not sure of your point if there is a point you are making.
I think our friend Daniel G. has been attending too many Latin Masses, and if anybody follows their blogs and U tube videos would soon know what I mean. They claim that TLM mass is authentic Catholicism and that Vatican II high jacked their church. They spew venom against Protestants and even beloved pope John Paul II.
They have a strong voice and carry a lot of influence. I won't name any blogs or individuals as I am sure the astute observer knows all about them.
So far too date I have seen only legalism and law in their message. Needless to say TLM group does not impress me.
Cliff,
As always you hit the nail on the head. The Latin Mass is the Mass par excellence because it embodies fullness of the Catholic Faith unlike the Novus Ordo,, while valid, pales in comparison. I liken traditional Catholics to you LCMS and Wisconsin Synodials who are steadfast and uncompromising in their faith even though the Lutheran faith is incomplete. We are like you LCMS and Wisconsonians in their rigidity to their Smallcald Articles, Book of Concord, Large and Small Catechisms yet we have the True Faith and, well, you don’t. We are like you LCMS and Wisconsonians who balk at open Communion with those who do not hold what we believe and yet, you don’t have true Communion like the Catholic Church because your Eucharistic Theology is deficient, erroneous and unbiblical. Cliff, we Traditional Catholics may be a minority in the big Church but we will be what saves the Church from the likes of people who are striving to make it mainstream protestant. Like Benedict XVI said, it will be a small Church but a stronger and more fervent Church.
Daniel G.
I am not sure what happened to your reasoning but something nasty has happened to you as you at first appeared to be a well balanced individual? You have turned into a typical nasty "trad" who "............................. you know I wanted to say some secular comments about you but Pr. Peters said we should be nice in our comments.
I once considered you a friend but unfortunately that has to end and so should our dialogue. You're comments bring out the worst in people and that is not good. The fruits of TLM group is hatred, and to prove my point check Crisis Magazines comment section yesterday as even your people are seeing the true fruits of this radical group.
So God Bless and enlighten you that you may have peace! Goodbye.
Dear Cliff,
We live in the age of church of nice and compromise. What you call hate is none other than zeal for the Truth. While all around us people are questioning the basic tenets of Christianity there has to be something to counteract the falsehoods set forth by those who claim to know better than that which Christ founded teaches and which is the Church that I belong to. The Church is One, Holy, and Apostolic and Catholic, with a capital C. It is there that the fullness of the faith is found and it is the Mass of Ages, the so-called Tridentine that embodies that faith. Lex credenda, lex orandi or something like that.
I speak the truth and I am sorry if your feelings are hurt but that can't stop me or others like me for telling it like it is. I responded to Mr. D+'s inflammatory statement that Catholics are brainwashed and so forth. If that is nice then I'm not sure you know the difference btw nice and naughty. I had to respond to his ridiculous statement just like I must respond to yours. I don't hate but I know a lot of Lutherans who do hate what they don't understand. Anyway that's my two cents.
God bless!!!!!
Daniel G., to you, hate seems to be what Luther or Lutherans say, and not what you or Romanists say, like:
"Luther set himself as the arch expositor of the scriptures with his novel doctrines"
"Luther in is crazed zeal also attacked all things Catholic such as the ministeria priesthood, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, etc."
"You’re not catholic or Catholic. You’re protestant."
"... even though the Lutheran faith is incomplete."
"... yet we have the True Faith and, well, you don’t."
"What you call hate is none other than zeal for the Truth."
"I know a lot of Lutherans who do hate what they don't understand.""
Of course, your delusional definition of hate is rejected by this Lutheran. It also seems that Cliff objects to your attacks. As a papist, you're pretty much stuck with standing by your pope, or as Lutherans refer to him, the Antichrist.
Mr. Vehse aka Mr. Strickert,
I find your last paragraph particularly amusing in light of all if your vapid anti-Catholicism posts on this site in addition to your swipes at lutheran schism boxes outside the LCMS and your particular offshoot.
Oh and about Antichrist you prove that your knowledge of him dismal.
Carl:
Daniel should read today's comments from Church Militant as even his own faithful Catholics are calling pope Francis the anti-Christ. Ironic isn't it how little Catholics understand theology?
Oh Cliff......
For hardcore papists like you, Daniel G. or whatever your real name is, I leave you with these words from Martin Luther.
LOL Mr. Strickert,
First of all, where is the Christian Love in that statement? Proves to me that Luther was a crazed psychopath and as your hero, you the apple that didn't fall far from the tree. LOL.
I am also amused that you Mr. Strickert and Cliff the cumbaya type are now teaming up. Kind of reminds me of Herod and Pilate, just sayin...
Hmmmm. On a Lutheran blog, a papist complains about "Christian Love," then calls Martin Luther a "psychopath," and claims Cliff and I remind him of Herod and Pilate, based on my previously noting, "It also seems that Cliff objects to your attacks."
And, starting on this blog's third post, Daniel, your ad hominem attacks were first aimed at Fr. D+ ("is that your grade as a pastor or is there some false modesty going on?") and continued with an attack on David Gray ("You’re not catholic or Catholic. You’re protestant.") and then on Cliff. I was your next target when I posted some of your hate-quotes against Luther or Lutherans.
I suggest you consider the October 8, 2019, Pastoral Meanderings blog, "Some pause. . .."
Oh MR. Strickert,
Spare me. I stumbled on this blog and was impressed, not by you, but by the good Pastor for his wit and wisdom. As I have said in the past, there is MUCH that he writes that I agree with as is evident in this particular post where I said, "Spot on Pastor." And if he mentions Catholicism it is never with the vitriol that comes from you and or MR. D+. Cliff, gotta hand it to him IS charitable. Mr. D+ goes on a tirade about brainwashed Catholics(Christian Charity?)and the like to which I responded in kind. As for you, there is little evidence that you exercise anything remotely charitable. From what I have seen of your posts, you have called Lutherans who don't share your view, Lufauxeran, me a papist, and others views who don't quite square with yours either demonic (Demonicrats ring a bell?) or some other such insult which again, lacks Christian Charity. So I see that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle Black.
I refer to a church body or person who claims to be Lutheran but publicly holds and practices only a quatenus subscription to the Book of Concord of 1580 as a Lufauxran, because that church body or person is not really Lutheran.
I refer to Romanists as papists because that is the accurate description used repeatedly [Papisten] in the Book of Concord of 1580 and in writings by Martin Luther.
For almost forty years the Demonicrat Party platform and its members have given their demonic support at the federal and state level for murder-by-abortion, hull-crushing depths of moral perversions, and treachery against the United States. Demonicrat is a name they deservedly and for a long time have brought on themselves.
These terms have specific meanings and are valid descriptions.
OTOH, Daniel, your ad hominem attacks appear to contain only whatever you reach around to your backside, grab, and hurl.
Richard,
Same crap spewed in a different manner but it is the same crap more or less. You miss the point of course but again that is to be expected from someone who is arrogant. I can't say anymore on this topic. Your vitriol speaks for itself.
It is your vitriol, Daniel, that reveals your real intent on this blog. Your intent is not simply to learn more about Lutheranism. But rather you have continued to attack, mock, and ridicule Martin Luther and Lutheran doctrine, in addition to those who subscribe to the Book of Concord of 1580. You continue to reject anything that contradicts your papist views. 2 John 1:10 applies to you.
Politics aside, the only thing that matters is the "way" us
sinners have access to God. It is the same "way" we will have
access to an eternal life of bliss in His presence and in the
presence of loving fellow believers versus having an eternal
life of fire, poison ivy, and darkness in the presence of
fellow bullies, predators, and scorners. Jesus said He is the
"way" to the former place while unbelief in Him is the "way" to the
latter place. In fact, He said none "cometh to the Father but by Me."
Both of these are "Lutheran" doctrines and are supported in
many other scripture passages. Luther realized the Catholic
church was teaching other "ways," such as paying indulgences to
the church not to mention paying even more money to the church
to make a "way" for someone else, namely in Purgatory, which is
another "way" the Catholics believe can be used to get access
to God--or at least heaven.
So Jesus is "the way." That means praying to Mary is no
legitimate "way." Purgatory is no legitimate "way." Praying
some prayer over and over again is no legitimate "way." Going
to mass is no legitimate "way." Touching or seeing "holy" water
or any other molecular matter is no legitmiate "way." Being
"holy" or even Christlike is no legitimate "way." Helping the
poor is no legitimate way. Praying to some supposed saint is no
legitimate "way." Becoming "sainted" is no legitimate "way." Following some order or receiving forgiveness by or from a self-appointed sinless pontiff or a confessional priest is no legitimate "way," especially since the bible says over and over again that there is no sinless human being, never, no "way." Not even the pope.
So my question is this: If we say we are a (Catholic) Christian and yet TRUST in any of the above "ways" to get access to God, are we really a Christian? After all, a Christian is someone who trusts in
Jesus as the only "way." Therefore if we trust in any of the
above "ways," how many of them can we trust in to get access to
God and still make it to heaven?--or get our prayers heard? In
other words, will a 90% Christian get God's favor? How about a
70% Christian? How about a 51% Christian?
Please someone tell me. (Please use bible passages.)
Post a Comment