Monday, December 16, 2019

The ups and downs of popes. . .

The ups and downs of a pope are that you have a pope.  When you have a good one, the papacy can be seen in a positive way.  When you don't, well, you know.  But the reality is that when you have a pope, you have a POPE.

The much ballyhooed Amazonia Synod, that is, the Synod of Bishops on the Amazon end up with hope and fear that many changes would come from this gathering.  For example, there was the expectation that the Synod would endorse married priests, an expanded role of women, a female diaconate, and a host of other things.  The issue was, of course, the great need for more priests.  However this was not the only issue.  Along the way that was talk of the creation of an “Amazon rite” of the Mass to recognize and incorporate the dignity of indigenous cultures. Don't forget the distraction or perhaps illustration of these issues created by the pachamama incident.

In the end, there were recommendations but all of it was left back on the plate of Pope Francis.  Who knows what he will do with them?  I have no clue to what goes on in the mind of this Pope and I am not sure if anyone does -- including those who know him best.  He seems to have learned well the art of dodging your enemies by keeping them guessing.  That said, it does no one, even this Lutheran well beyond the pale of Rome, any good to have a Pope who keeps them guessing.  If there was ever a redeeming feature of the papacy (even Lutherans recognized this), it was the ability for one voice to speak clearly and convincingly on behalf of the eternal Gospel and to be the public face of the creedal and confessional orthodox Christian Faith.  That is not this Pope's gift.  That is what makes him so dangerous.  And it seems that he is appointing bishops who, like him, know the art of keeping them guessing as it seems Rome drifts.

In my own church body we dally every couple of years with the idea that the church is a democracy and that God had in mind a legislative body to vote on matters of the faith like they do voting on whether or not to commend apple pie and motherhood (too bad motherhood needs to be commended!).  The strangeness of conventions and votes that border on voting up or down on the Word of God and what it says is no less odd than a papacy and both can go very bad very quickly.  Sometimes the best church assembly (even in the local congregation) is one that votes on pretty much nothing at all.  I can say that because it has been a very long time since I have voted on a convention floor and I have never voted in a congregational meeting (pastors have voice but no vote).

Some will surely take to the comments to defend pope or laity voting but I think we miss the point.  The faith does not need reforming but conserving.  The church needs reforming from time to time but care needs to be given lest we forget that we are dealing with structures that may come and go and not with the Word of the Lord that endures forever.  Even good popes remember that they have no cause or power to invent doctrine or change it but do best when they can defend and pass on faithfully what came before them.  Here even Lutherans sometimes forget as quickly as others that the faith is not subject to change or the tyranny of the moment but is the once forever faith, the sacred deposit, the holy tradition, the creedal confession that is preserved and passed down as it was received.  No less than St. Paul himself insists that this is the ultimate mark of catholicity, having passed down what he received.  The Church does not need creativity as much as she begs for fidelity.  In that Rome and Wittenberg should both say "Amen."


Carl Vehse said...

The Tiber-wading view: "When you have a good one, the papacy can be seen in a positive way."

The Lutheran view: "... the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.... Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord."

Anonymous said...

Carl, Carl. With the mere headline of the post, I think everyone knew you would jump on this. Okay, I'll jump in too.

The Lutheran view: The person of the Pope can do good things that are positive in the world.

The Lutheran view: The Pope, as in a Papacy that is established, is a type of Anti-Christ.

This has ALWAYS been taught at our LCMS Seminaries, since ALWAYS. Maybe you were sick that day or have not read our LCMS Doctors on this.

You should be ashamed of yourself for ascribing a "Tiber-wading view" to Pastor Peters! Repent. Pastor Peters certainly does not disagree with your BoC except. Lord have mercy!

David Gray said...

I am not a huge Strickert fan.

Having said that when Pastor Peters, who does much good work, says "When you have a good one, the papacy can be seen in a positive way" he is commenting on the office. He does not say that the pope can be seen in a positive way but that the papacy can. But if you concur with the Lutheran confessions the papacy is very problematic even when the office is held by a relatively good man. I don't think from what followed Pastor Peters disagrees however that phrase above is likely easily misinterpreted.

"Tiber-wading" was a foolish way to observe this matter.

" The faith does not need reforming but conserving." This is absolutely correct. The faith never needs reforming but we do continually.

Carl Vehse said...

Anonymous @8:05AM,

You can play your silly games with your semantic spindoctoring, deceit, and ad hominems.

The Lutheran view remains:

And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.

This being the case, all Christians ought to beware of becoming partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the Pope. On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded, Matt. 7:15: Beware of false prophets. And Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and execrated as cursed, Gal. 1:8; Titus 3:10. And he says, 2 Cor. 6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness?

Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling.

But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity [in the sight of all the world and to the injury of all descendants].

Carl Vehse said...

"Tiber-wading" refers to words or actions that are evidence of moving toward the "kingdom of the Pope and his adherents."

David Gray said...

Then it is ill-used. Tiber-wading should refer to those actually crossing the Tiber. Not that I expect precision.

John Joseph Flanagan said...

I see the reformation battle is still being fought. I do think we, as Lutherans, need not focus on the Pope. The Catholic Church has not changed. Luther saw the need to leave it, since it was not amenable to change.I do not think Baptists concern themselves with the latest actions of the Pope. Presbyterians could care less. Why do we Lutherans care?

Carl Vehse said...


The definition I provided fits my earlier phrase, "The Tiber-wading view."

The phrase for those individuals "actually crossing the Tiber" and joining the kingdom of the Pope is "Tiber-crossing" or "Tiber-crossers."

Carl Vehse said...

John J. Flanagan: "Luther saw the need to leave it, since it was not amenable to change."

On June 15, 1520, the pope issued a Papal Bull of excommunication (Exurge Domine) ordering Martin Luther to recant. On December 10, 1520, at Wittenberg Luther burned that and other papal documents.

On January 3, 1521, the pope issued his Decet Romanum pontificem, excommunicating Martin Luther.

OntologicallySpeaking said...

What all of this says is that without the Catholic Church you have no reason to exist simply because the Catholic Church is the only reason Protestants exist. Yes, Lutherans are protestants.

Anonymous said...

Carl, are you so bold in your confession and unashamed to name: what Church you attend and who is your pastor? Thank you.

OntologicallySpeaking said...

Apparently he attends a schismatic Lutheran sect that believes they are the only true Lutherans.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Ontologically Speaking...
True Lutherans are catholic!, but not Roman. We are historical Christians, actually more in-line with the Early Church than even Rome. The Apostles, along with St. Peter and St. Paul were Lutherans! For example, they certainly did not offer prayers to Mary or have a Pope; or invent purgatory, indulgences, celibacy of priests, etc.

Lutherans were kicked out under penalty of death for not holding to teachings of man OVER the Scriptures. True Lutherans believe, teach, confess as the Church always has, not adding or making things up. Luther creates no new doctrines, as the Protestants (and Romans) do.

OntologicallySpeaking said...

Anonymous, your statement does not hold up in light of Sacred History. When one protests the Church of God then one ceases To be Catholic in every sense of the word. Deny the sacrifice of the Mass, you cease to be Catholic. Deny Transubstantiation you cease to be Catholic. I could go on but you get the point I’m sure.

OntologicallySpeaking said...

The very founder of the "Reformation", Martin Luther, was the "regrettable" one, as he surveyed the damage that his rebellion against authority had caused. His writings show that he lamented his deed when he penned the following remarks...
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers."
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O'Hare, Ibid, 209.

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they (the Catholic Church) say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

All of this and much more was written by the founder of the Reformation, just a short time after, when he noted the chaos he had created. By this time, Munzer had run in this direction (in 1521, the same year that Luther broke away), Zwingli, had run in that direction, Calvin in yet another direction, all of them scattering the sheep and taking their flocks with them. Luther had let the cat out of the bag and he was helpless to put it back in. He had started something that he was powerless to stop.
Regretful, he certainly was as:
"Once you open the door to error, you cannot close it."
How true! Luther had become the victim by not heeding the consequences of this simple proverb.

Carl Vehse said...

"The Roman Catholic sect is the greatest enemy of the Christian Church; for all Christians live, move, and have their being in the doctrine of justification by faith. But this doctrine the papacy does not permit its adherents to accept and believe. It rather reviles and curses the Scriptural doctrine of justification by faith ( cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Cans. 9, 11. 12. 20) and trains its followers to seek salvation by works. The Church of Rome has murdered thousands bodily for their adherence to the doctrine of justification by faith and millions spiritually by teaching them to trust in justification by works." — J.T. Mueller (Christian Dogmatics, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1934, p. 368)

OntologicallySpeaking said...

Who is this guy Carl Vehse?? Is he some kind of ogre who is never happy? I state the obvious truth and he answers with his "encyclopedic" (thanks to the internet) memory. Carl if you are so convinced of scripture and faith alone, why do you always appeal to the Smalcald Articles and the Book of Concord? I would think that if the Scriptures are so straight forward and easily perciptible to all who read them, then you would have no need for backup from those two sources among the many Lutheran interpretations out there. I dunno, but I think the two tenets of Lutheran protestantism fall on their faces. Wouldn't you say?

OntologicallySpeaking said...

Here is a small sampling of the 33,800+ non-Catholic denominations, and the dates of founding:

1521, Martin Luther started the Lutherans when he broke away from the one true Church that had already existed for 15 centuries. Prior to this time, the false doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", or "Bible only", had not existed, and neither had the false man made doctrine of "Individual Interpretation" of Holy Scripture.
1521, Thomas Munzer started Anabaptists by breaking from Lutheranism in the same year.
1534, King Henry VIII started the Church of England. (Anglican)
1536, John Calvin, teaching predestination, formed the Calvinists.
1560, John Knox, who studied under Luther, started Presbyterians.
1582, Congregationalists started by Rob Brown, as a branch from Puritanism.
1609, John Smyth formed the Baptists. They have severely splintered since then.
1739, John Wesley started the Methodists, in a split from Anglicanism.
1774, Theophilus Lindley started Unitarians.
1789, Samuel Seabury started Episcopalians.
1793-1809, Churches of Christ had four separate founders.
1830, Joseph Smith founded the Mormons in Palmyra New York.
1860, William Miller, a farmer, started the Adventists.
1863, Ellen Gould White started the Seventh-Day Adventists.
1865, William Booth started the Salvation Army.
1875, New Age was started by Helena Blavatsky. *COL 2:8
1879, Mary Baker Eddy started Christian Scientists.
1879, Charles Russell started the Jehovah's Witnesses.
1895, French Abbe, Alfred Loisy and English Jesuit, George Tyrrell started Modernism.
1900-1920, conservative Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists,
formed a consortium, and started Fundamentalism.
1901, Pentecostalism was started in the United States. It has since split into many independents.
1914, Felix Manalo started Iglesia ni Cristo.
1930, Independent Churches of America (IFCA), was formed by a consortium of churches.
1952, L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology.
1965, Chuck Smith began Calvary Chapel.
1968, Disciples of Christ, started as a splinter of Churches of Christ.
1974, Ken Gullickson started the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.
20th century. Assemblies of GOD, and other splinter Pentecostal groups, are some of hundreds of new sects founded by mere men.

Did GOD examine and approve the plans for all, or for even one, of these splits in His Body?

I don't know about you, but Luther opened up a can of worms and, well, the results speak for themselves.

David Gray said...


In my experience serious RC apologists do not make a fatuous argument like the one above. You may wish to leave matters in their hands.

OntologicallySpeaking said...

Well hello there David, the above cited list is from a solid Catholic Apologist. I used it to make a point which you good Lutherans always ignore and that is that your so-called church is not apostolic in origin and was begun by Luther, not Jesus Christ.

I trust that your Advent is going well.

Carl Vehse said...

If the pope hadn't kicked Martin Luther out of the Roman Church, maybe Luther could have straighten it into an orthodox Christian Church so that it would no longer be the papish sect it is... and Lutheran blogs would not be bothered by whiny papist comments.

As for the various heterodox, or nonChristian church bodies on the list, their founders and adherents will have to be held accountable.

We Lutherans are thankful to God for the true Christian doctrine that exists within the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

OntologicallySpeaking said...


If Luther put aside his hubris and obeyed then maybe his valid point about the abuse of indulgences might have been heard. But like Lucifer and his “I will not serve” Luther placed himself above the Magisterium of Christ’s True Church and set himself up as his own magisterium and the magisterium of the wayward sheep that followed him.

Carl Vehse said...

The pope is still the Antichrist, O.S., and you are one of his devotees. Your rantings are worthless lies.

OntologicallySpeaking said...

Well that was very adult. You should have added na na na na na na.

Carl Vehse said...

It's an applicable paraphrase of the excerpts I quoted earlier from the Lutheran Confessions.

Anonymous said...

Ontoillogically Spewing,
"Luther started the Lutherans when he broke away" -totally, hisotrically untrue!
"the false doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", or "Bible only", had not existed" -historically untrue, Sola Scipture DOES NOT mean "Bible only"!
"the false man made doctrine of "Individual Interpretation."- totally untrue, true Lutherans DO NOT hold to this.

As a Doctor of Church History and a former RC priest, I don't know where to begin with you?

OntologicallySpeaking said...

Well anonymous, I don’t know where to begin with you. Very sad you left the barque for something less than complete.

Anonymous said...

Note to anyone who does not know:

"Carl Vehse" is a fake name used by one Richard Strickert, and old man, in his seventies, who has chosen to devote more time than is healthy to advancing his disusting, perverse understanding of what is it to be Lutheran. His father was a Lutheran pastor in the height of "bronze age" Missouri Synod and he, Richard, has zero formal theological training and views all things through his ignorance.

He is now a member of a congregation, a tiny, dying congregation, in Austin, Texas that has left The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and declared itself an "independent" Lutheran congregation, so he and a few dozen people showing up on a Sunday regard themselves as a pure congregation.

Ignore this sick, old man.

He is a disgrace to himself, his father, and to all things Lutheran.

David Gray said...

Regardless of Mr. Strickert's behavior do you think you are glorifying God when you write what you do? I don't mind critiquing his error but I think you step over a line which would be best to step back again.

Anonymous said...

Hello ontologically speaking:

In an earlier post you wrote

"Here is a small sampling of the 33,800+ non-Catholic denominations..."

The idea that there are some huge number of "protestant denominations" (eg 33,800) has been debunked many times. Here is a link to the latest debunking:

For the record, let me quote from the article from

"sometimes apologists cite misleading numbers, claiming—for example, that there are something like 33,000 Protestant denominations. This number is given as the total number of Christian denominations in the World Christian Encyclopedia, but the methodology used to count them is flawed. It considers two groups to be separate denominations if they are in different countries, even if they are in communion with each other. Because the Catholic Church is found in many countries, the Encyclopedia counts Catholicism as being 242 separate denominations".

If a Roman Catholic friend gave you the 33,800 number and you didn't fact-check it before posting it here, we forgive you and accept your apology. But you should ask your Roman Catholic friend why he needs to use falsehoods to support Roman Catholicism and to attack the religion of others.

If you knew the 33,800 was false but you posted it here anyway, you need to ponder why you believe it is ok to use falsehoods to support Roman Catholicism and to attack the religion of others.

Carl Vehse said...

David Gray,

Anonymous at December 18, 2019 at 7:32 PM is a mentally deranged person who is very likely incapable of comprehending or answering your question.

However your question might be asked of the blog moderator whether he is glorifying God and honoring his office as a Servant of the Word when he allows Anonymous to regularly post his lies and ad hominems on Pastoral Meanderings.

David Gray said...

Mr. Strickert,

Consider your self-critique:

"whether he is glorifying God and honoring his office as a Servant of the Word when he allows Anonymous to regularly post his lies and ad hominems"


"is a mentally deranged person"

That is an ad hominem.

Carl Vehse said...

The lies of Anonymous are so egregious that "mentally deranged" is a valid description of Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Just reading through the comments, while I agree that Anon's remarks regarding Vehse are harsh, are they factually correct? Vehse says they are not. Let him therefore refute them with facts. What is factually incorrect in what is said about him?

Precisely what is factually incorrect?

Is he a man in his seventies?
Does he live in Austin, TX?
Is he a member of Trinity, Austin?
Is it a congregation in severe decline?
Did it leave The LCMS?
Was his father a pastor?
Does he have any formal theological training?
Does he favor LCMS theologians from the 30s and 40s?
Whose works does he routinely cite?

Further, I would point out how routinely he slanders, slashes and personally attacks others here, including the blog author himself. Whining and wimpering when he gets a dose of the same medicine is quite hypocritical on his part.

Carl Vehse said...

271] False witness, then, is everything which cannot be properly proved.

The onus of proof is on the person who makes the accusations.

Anonymous said...

CV...your refusal to identify the "lies" is just plainly bizarre. I have to agree with the person who is asking YOU to back up YOUR claim they are lies. YOU are making the accusation of lies. Prove it.

Carl Vehse said...

Anonymous at December 19, 2019 at 9:24 AM

When I criticize what has been written, either by a poster or the blog author, I support it with arguments, excerpts, references, or links to other documents.

You need to do the same instead of your attempt to shift the burden of proof and your unsubstantiated whataboutism claims.

Jim R. said...

Count me in on those who are incredulous about Carl Vehse not being willing to do more than yell "lie" when the facts listed are easily confirmed or denied by him. He claims they are lies. What is he so afraid of? Very strange. If ever there was an example of a guy who loves to dish it out but can't take it. Wow.

Carl Vehse said...

Jim R., What part of this LC excerpt do you disagree with?

"271] False witness, then, is everything which cannot be properly proved. 272] Therefore, what is not manifest upon sufficient evidence no one shall make public or declare for truth; and, in short, whatever is secret should be allowed to remain secret, or, at any rate, should be secretly reproved, as we shall hear. 273] Therefore, if you encounter an idle tongue which betrays and slanders some one, contradict such a one promptly to his face, that he may blush; thus many a one will hold his tongue who else would bring some poor man into bad repute, from which he would not easily extricate himself. For honor and a good name are easily taken away, but not easily restored."

Carl Vehse said...

It seems that Pastor Peters' words need repeating:

"[I]t troubles me when comments become personal attacks on what others have said. You are certainly as free to disagree with comments posted as you are to disagree with me what I have posted. I would hope that we can act with some level of decorum and address one another politely even in disagreement. So I ask those who comment to refrain from personal comments, from making derogatory comments about the person, or from offensive comments designed more to incite than to debate the points raised. If you want to attack me personally, well, I am a big boy and I will survive; if you want to personally attack other people commenting upon this blog, please count to ten, calm down, and think better about it....

"Please, however, do so politely and respectfully, without resorting to attacks upon the person. If you make a statement, it is fair game for others to disagree -- just like the the blog itself. Let's keep the focus upon the issue."

Thomas W.T. said...

CV....just chiming in to agree with those calling you out on your nonsense. You love to slander, attack and savage everyone and anyone to whom you turn your attention, but then when facts about you are pointed out, you simply scream, "Lie!" and expect everyone to believe that? If you want us to agree with your accusation and your demand that we all agree you are being slandered, then point out what, exactly, has been said about you that is untrue? Why won't you do that? You are afraid and I'm pretty sure you know that many people reading all your online venting and ranting and raving and attacks know what's going on with you.

Prove that you are being slandered. Refute the facts posted about you and your activities.

If you don't, they stand as written and as far as I can tell they are all absolutely the truth.

You are the one who has so often broken the blog owner's respectful request to behave well it is hypocritical now for you to try to hide behind those words.


Anonymous said...

Anyone who has bothered to pay attention to the Internet detritus of Richard Strickert, aka, Carl Vehse, for years, understands he is a very troubled old man, and growing increasingly so. He has made himself nothing more than a laughing stock, for good reason.

I'd say this: just ignore this soul-sick individual. He has chosen to spend his retirement years on the very few sites he is still permitted to contribute to, spreading the manure as he can. It's sad, sick and were it not so tragic, would even be funny, but it is not funny, just ... pathetic.

He has absolutely nothing of value to add to any Lutheran conversation, particularly now that he is party to his little congregation's schismatic separation from the wider Lutheran church. He just does not matter, at all. Let him fume and rage. It's what apparently all he has left of worth and value in his life.

Just ignore the old coot.

Carl Vehse said...

It is Anonymous who refuses to substantiate his lies with evidence, simply because he can't. All he does is hurl lies about me, about my church, and about my family. And his posts are directly contrary to what Rev. Peters stated in an earlier coluymn, and thart doesn't seem to upset a number of people here.

Richard Miller said...

OK, I'm going to chime in here.....I'm sick of this "Carl Vehse" person.

Pay attention, Richard Strickert. We are not sorry for you. You are a pathetic old man. We are tired of you. You are a failure. You have nothing to offer.

Note to Richard Strickert:

Are you in your seventies? YES, you are.
Was your father a LCMS pastor? YES, he was.
Are you a member of Trinity Lutheran, Austin? YES, you are.
Did your congregation leave The LCMS? YES, it did.
Do you have any formal theological education? NO, you don't.

Anyone who can use Google can easily find all this out. Why are so afraid of the truth?

If you are not willing to tell the truth, why should anyone bother to pay attention to your delusional rantings and ravings?

You are, in my opinion, a very soul-sick old man who needs a pastor willing to excommunicate you unless you repent. You don't have one. You have one who depends on your money to keep running his dying congregation.

Repent, "Carl Vehse"

You are fooling nobody but yourself. You are a disgrace.

Richard Miller

Matt Lehrer said...

I rarely comment, but I just have to say this, Larry Peters has been more than patient with Richard Strickert and his disgusting harassment on his blog. I say, block and ban this man. Let him vomit forth his disgusting comments somewhere else. I agree with others who have properly identified him as a deeply sick-minded man. He is a blight on this blog site. A disgrace to our Lutheran faith and a most disgusting person, as he presents himself here. Stop it. It is enough.

Anonymous said...

Long time reader, first time commenter.

I'm just going ahead and add my .02. This person, Carl Vehse, is truly one of the most odious persons who skulks about on Lutheran forums. Pastor Peters has been more than gracious in allowing him to pollute his blog site. I say it is time to ban this disgusting person. I've had enough of him.

He won't even use his real name here. Carl Vehse is Richard Strickert.

Enough with this person.

Carl Vehse said...

With all the papists vomiting their venomous attack above, I expect the Antichrist to be commenting on Pastoral Meanderings soon about about how horribly Lutheran I am.

Carl Vehse said...

Back to the column topic:

"If there was ever a redeeming feature of the papacy (even Lutherans recognized this), it was the ability for one voice to speak clearly and convincingly on behalf of the eternal Gospel and to be the public face of the creedal and confessional orthodox Christian Faith. That is not this Pope's gift."

When was this ever any pope's gift?!? Certainly not in Luther's time as evident from the excerpts from the Lutheran Confessions. And that position continued to be held in the Missouri Synod through 1932. Have the two Concordia seminaries changed their minds on what they said about the JDDJ? Even Summary paragraph 15 (p. 10), in its "noteworthy blessings" of the Roman Catholic Church doesn't include "any redeeming feature of the papacy."

Anonymous said...

The really pathetic reality is that Richard Strickert aka "Carl Vehse" may actually believe his comments on the Internet make any difference at all. And that anyone takes him seriously. I'm unaware of any Lutheran pastor who bothers to see his comments who does. He is universally regarded as a troll and a joke and a total disgrace. His ego is such he can't even figure this out. We all just keep laughing at him and about his comments. He is a pathetic old man. And he is fundamentally a coward at heart. He can't even own his own name, his own reality and the facts about him that has been posted.

He is no longer a member of a LCMS congregation, but a member of a congregation that is "independent" ... he no longer has any reason to care about The LCMS (about which he is obsessed).

Let him fume, rage, vent and bombast all he wants.

He is making zero difference. Nobody cares about his opinions. He is and remains a sad, pathetic joke of a man.

Richard...get over yourself, trust me, we all have. Nobody cares what you think or say.

Anonymous said...

I'm just going to add my .02 worth. Richard Strickert is a vile egotistical individual who has zero business commenting on Lutheran websites. His obsesion with his twisted understanding of Lutheran doctrine and practice is simply a deep soul-sickness. He now is a member of a congregatino that has declared itself independent. He has no status, standing, education or credentials to keep spouting off his nonsense about Lutheranism.

Just ignore this sick, old man.