Infanticide is Sin. Christians Rebuke Sin. We Do Not Honor It.

Sola Scriptura

I come from a heavily Roman Catholic part of the country. I also live in a part of the country that is consumed with Marian devotion... to the point that even the Roman Catholic church has had to correct and reprimand members of the laity.

So I wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth (unfortunate choice of words, I know). What does the Roman Catholic church officially say about the Blessed Virgin? How far does this "devotion" thing really go?

I am reading "True Devotion to Mary" by St. Louis De Montfort. This book has the endorsement of several Popes. John Paul II called reading it a "decisive turning-point" in his life. I haven't even answered my original question yet, but reading this has taught me one fundamental thing about Roman Catholicism. (Something that I already knew more or less, but it is always nice to get some validation.)

The lesson I take from this book:

I now understand why it is taught by the Roman church that only the Roman Catholic Church can interpret Scripture properly. Why? Because, in many areas relating to newer doctrines, it is impossible to read the same thing that they read and draw the their same conclusions. When one uses grammatical context and stays within the confines of the information that is available in the text, you cannot see what they see, believe what they believe, or teach what they teach. Their interpretations are so wide and allegorical that it is impossible to follow their philosophy without being told (by them) how to think.

The authority of church Tradition has become so important to the Roman theological system that it cannot stand without it. Without the authority to formulate external doctrines and fabricate new teachings, there can be no distinctively Roman church. More often than not, the only reasonable answer that this mother can say to quell the questions of her children is the ill-advised, "because I said so."

New light has been shed upon the frustrations of the Lutheran Fathers as they waded through this quagmire of Aristotelian scholarship and romantic conjecture.

Crashing the Table Talk Party

So I get to my living quarters and press play on my favorite Lutheran talk radio program with a game show theme... and lo and behold, they were reading my email on the air! :P Thanks guys! I'm flattered and overjoyed that I was able to brighten your day.

Let me take this moment to plug their show. Go check them out right now here. And if you like the show be sure to check out their Table Scraps extra programing... it is pure gold. Oh, and donate to them because this program is providing an important service: a light-hearted, simple presentation of Lutheran theology.

I am more than happy to provide the text that they read on the air for your reading enjoyment. If you want to know the context that prompted this email... you are just going to have to go listen to the show! :P

--------------------------

Greetings Most August and Pious Iron Preacher, Pastor Bryan Wolfmeuller,

Shepherd of the Most Fortunate Flock of Hope Lutheran Church of Aurora Colorado,

Stalwart Defender of the true Faith of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Beloved Son of the Missouri Synod,

Slayer of Heretical Teachings and Apostates,

Frequent Theological Contributor to the Lively Discourse on Issues, Etc,

Friend and Brother to all Who Meet Him,

And Bold Confessor of the Book of Concord,

...and to his lowly and humble seminarian co-host,

Grace and Peace from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I just donated to Table Talk Radio for the Johann Tetzel Fundraising Drive. I wanted to know if my Table Talk Points could be given to some of my already deceased family members. Deep down, I feel that they need my points far more than I ever could since I live a good life, go on pilgrimages, and donate to your radio show. Since I am so pious, such points would be wasted if granted to me. It would only make sense to give these valuable points to others. If earning Table Talk Points for the dead is possible, please forward my points to the appropriate divine offices in purgatory thru the dedicated communications network located in the pope's ex cathedra bunker at the Holy See. If it is not possible to grant points to the dead, please forward my points to some pitiful sinner in need of the comfort that the points earned by my works will bring them. Thank you....

--------------------------

Hehe... good times. :P

Keep up the good work and keep cranking out informative, entertaining programs!

Oh, and if you know Pr Wolfmeuller, I'll give 1,000 points to anyone who introduces him as the "Stalwart Defender of the true Faith of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" etc, etc, etc, dear listener.

It's Called the Gospel, People! Look it up!

My dear Roman Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters... I'll say this one more time:

Christ does not enter your life and make you holy so that you can work to become pious in order to find favor with God and earn heaven. Christ alone is holy. Christ alone is pious. Christ alone has found favor with God. It is Christ who has given you salvation and heaven as a free gift.

You didn't deserve it back then, you don't deserve it now, and--no matter how hard you may try--you won't deserve it in the future. Just get over yourself!

Those works that you are doing now are not for God (because He doesn't need your help) and they are not for you (because your redemption by Christ is already complete). These good works that you are doing are done out of love of God to help and serve your neighbor. They stay here on earth where such imperfect, temporary things belong.

Rome is Still Rome

I went to the Roman Catholic Bible study here on base. It is currently taught by a very dedicated and learned layman. He knows his Roman theology and is very respectful.

I don’t think that they want me to come back. When I told my wife that I didn’t think that the Roman Catholics wanted me to come back to their meeting, she asked, “What did you do?” We were text messaging, but I can just hear the tone in her voice.

In my defense, I was on my best behavior! I did not speak unless I was asked a question or invited to share my point of view… that just happened to be more often than I had hoped. Since this Lutheran donkey had wandered in and was chewing his cud in the room, the conversation always seemed to compare Rome with Protestantism and Lutheranism in particular. I did my very best to give a clear, humble response to every question and offer everything with charity. It was a very respectful discourse.

Regardless of the theological issue, every conversation went this way:

1. The Roman Catholic espoused the dogmatic position of the Church. The Roman Catholic pointed out the errors of radical Protestantism and other heresies.

2. I put in my two cents which was mostly made up of agreeing with his criticism of radical Protestantism and other heresies... and then making slight distinctions between the Roman position and the truth. Most of the time, I was directly quoting (or at least summarizing) the Augsburg Confession and its Apology.

3. The Roman Catholic replied with a "yes but" and then reasserted the authority of Rome in matters of doctrine. Most of his counter points were exactly what you would hear in the apologetic responses to the Augsburg Confession 500 years ago. He sounded exactly like the Council of Trent. It got so predictable that I knew what he was going to say before I finished talking.

4. I would usually reply with an appeal to the early church fathers or to Holy Scripture. I would say something like “Scripture says [this] right [here] therefore I believe it,” or “Records show that the church has taught [this] since the 5th century therefore I believe it without adding any of my own opinions to the apostolic faith.”

5. The Roman Catholic would reply with some Greek philosophy or complex pontificating (hehe… what a great pun!) that would talk way over the heads of everyone in the class.

6. I would reiterate the simple message of the Gospel and let him have the last word.

It was very eye-opening for everyone. They learned a little Lutheran doctrine and I learned that Rome has not changed no matter how much they insist that the Church has moved beyond her past errors.

At the beginning of the class, the teacher confidently declared, “Most Roman Catholic scholars agree that Lutheranism is no longer necessary because we have fixed most of the errors that Luther pointed out in the 95 Theses.”

I replied, “That’s good to hear! What about the more serious errors that we pointed out in the Heidelberg Disputation, the Augsburg Confession and Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Examination of the Council of Trent? Have you addressed those, too?”

Of course they had not heard of those documents before so that created a great deal of edifying discussion.

After over an hour of in depth discussion, I think they at least got the idea that “most Roman Catholic scholars” are wrong for thinking that Lutheranism has been rendered obsolete.

Bring in the Heavy Artillary!

What does a lone Lutheran Soldier (who has no Lutheran chaplain in his new home!) do when...

...the local Roman Catholics overhear him singing the liturgy of the hours in the garrison chapel

...and become convinced that he is just too catholic to not be a Roman Catholic

...and that he is too well read on the writings of the church fathers to not bow down and worship them and plead for their intersession

...and that his belief that Christ is bodily present in the Holy Supper is a step in the right direction to becoming a student of their most holy St. Aristotle

...and they are so busy looking at the similarity of his "pious" outward works that they do not consider the immense chasm of difference that he has with them on matters of faith

...and they mistake his polite courtesy and honesty for theological openess and idealogical weakness

...and so they begin to talk to him as if he is being pushed by the Holy Spirit to complete his "journey home" to be a favored son of the Roman Pontiff?

So again I ask: What does the poor evangelical, heretic catechumen do in such a situation?

...he runs to a phone, calls back to the States, and orders the eight volume set of Chemnitz's Works and has CPH mail it directly to his address in the combat zone.

When you're outnumbered, call in the heavy artillery for some close fire support. Nothing like a little Chemnitz to keep the papal errors at bay.

Please pray for me in this situation. I require patience, discernment, and tact. These are three things that I do not feel I am very proficient in. Pray that I will ardantly defend the truth that has been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit in God's Word. Pray that Almighty God will help me in spite of my spiritual loneliness, my inability to access the Sacraments, my constant exposure to unionism (The Latter Day Saints are classified as a "Protestant" service here), and the strain of having to constantly explain the basics of Lutheran doctrine to all kinds of other Christians.

Oh ...and if you work for CPH's shipping department, please put my box on the next truck out. It's the one with the APO address. Thanks!

Code Word: Tradition

I have finally decided that many people use the word "Tradition" as a code word. What they really mean is "Authority"... because that is how they are using it when you take it in the context of the conversation.

Traditions in themselves do not dictate anything. They simply exist. True traditions are a matter of fact and historical reference. If one chooses to observe a tradition or not has nothing to do with the actual tradition. A tradition, in and of itself does not force itself on anyone. How could it?

But that is not how "Tradition" is used when talking about the church. Many times church "Traditions" carry a great deal of force behind them as if observing them was mandated by the Tradition itself. They have confused "Tradition" and "Authority".

You find this a great deal in the "Tradition versus Scripture" debate. What is primary? In this discussion, the word "Tradition" does not mean "tradition" in the traditional sense. What they are really saying is "Authority". They are talking about the authority of the church to enforce its traditions just because they are traditions. Just as the Roman Catholics have added love to faith, they have added authority to tradition. Tradition is not a matter of fact. It is a matter of enforcement... no matter how new or contradictory the tradition may be.

The truth is that their "Tradition" is a cleverly phrased term that permits them to enforce progressive ideas that actually conflict with real tradition.

REAL tradition... ancient apostolic tradition allows pastors to be the "husband of one wife", but false tradition (i.e. modern church authority) upsets that and forces them to be celebate. If you hold to the older tradition, you are a radical. If you hold to the new change, you are observing "church tradition" and are most holy and pious. What gives?

REAL tradition... ancient apostolic tradition has bishops on an equal field with each other, but false tradition (i.e. modern church authority) upsets that and forces the Pope above all. If you hold to the older tradition, you are a traitor to Christ's vicar on earth. If you hold to the new change, you are a true servant of St. Peter. What gives?

REAL tradition... ancient apostolic tradition sets up Scripture as the authority for ALL teaching, but false tradition (i.e. modern church authority) upsets that and requires that we listen to the whims of the church through all ages without holding them to the standard of the apostolic record. If you stand with St. Paul against "even an angel in heaven", you are a damned heretic. If you hold to the new change, you are preserving the true faith and church tradition. What gives?

You see this in the debates of the Reformation. The Lutheran Reformers appealed to much older sources for their arguements while their opponents pointed to much newer ideas as matters of "tradition" and asserted that they were more valid than the older traditions that they had replaced, corrupted, and removed.

Is it just me or is this logic upside down?

Be careful when someone uses the word tradition to force you away from the historical teachings of the apostolic church. We must hold fast to the rich, ancient tradition that is witnessed to in Holy Scripture... not new novelties and midevil speculations.

A Proud Lutheran Husband

My wife has taken to Lutheranism like a fish to water. Here is an excerpt from a recent instant message conversation.

Me: "You know who else is horrible at translating the Bible and explaining it in context?"

Me: "(Besides Joel Osteen)"

Wife: "Joyce Meyers"

Me: "lol... besides her."

Wife: "Binny"

Me: "I'm talking about someone who is not considered a kook by most people."

Wife: "lol"

Me: "good grief... you're like a heretic blotter."

Wife: "The Pope?"

Me: "LOL!!!!"

Wife: "lol"

The Pope! hehe... Luther would be proud.

Only In Rome?!? Ha!

I heard a hilarious story after the Divine Service today:

Several of my friends from church attended the Roman Catholic wedding of their friend last week. There was a vocal solo during the service. After the solo, the priest exclaimed, "Only in the Roman Catholic church can we hear such a beautiful song about the Blessed Virgin Mary!"

The female vocalist was a Lutheran from our congregation.
The chorale that she sang was an arrangement by the uber-Lutheran composer, Johann Sebastian Bach.

I am so glad and proud that members of my "imperfect communion" could show the local papists how it's done. How do you say "oops" in German?

Deuling Church Signs

...this is funny and sad at the same time. As a person who has suffered through the tortures of sign duty I can tell you that someone has waaaay too much time on their hands.

Rome, Luther, and River Idioms

I have heard a new idiom thrown about when talking about good Lutherans who abandon the purity of the Gospel and enslave themselves to the error and sophistry of Roman Catholicism so that they can be a part of a Rome that no longer exists. (Heehee... how's that for inflammatory language?) People say that John Q. Public swam the Tiber. Since the Tiber is a river in Rome, I guess that the metaphor fits. In fact, you can see the Vatican from the bank of the Tiber River.

With this idiom in mind, I would like to point out that Rome has had a long history of drowning their own citizens in the Tiber or at least disposing of their corpses by throwing them into the river. The king Tiberinus Silvius was drowned in the river. That is how the river got its name. It is a river for killing people and getting rid of dead weight.

I would also point out that the Tiber is prone to rampant flooding because it refuses to stay within the limits of its banks. The river is also very difficult to navigate safely by boat. Another problem with the Tiber river is that the bottom is filled with sediment from constant silting and the level of muck at the bottom of the Tiber rises with each passing year.

William Shakespeare wrote a really good passage that assocoated the Tiber River with the heart of Rome. I find it to be very apt for this metaphor. In speaking to commoners who were blindly celebrating Caesar's dictatorial rise to absolute power by defeating Pompey, Marullus and Flavious admonish them for their ingratitude for Pompey's sacrifices and victories. How wonderfully this applies to those who return to their Caesar, the Pope, and betray the holy work of the Reformation!

MARULLUS:
Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home?
What tributaries follow him to Rome,
To grace in captive bonds his chariot-wheels?
You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!
O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome,
Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft
Have you climb'd up to walls and battlements,
To towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops,
Your infants in your arms, and there have sat
The livelong day, with patient expectation,
To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome:
And when you saw his chariot but appear,
Have you not made an universal shout,
That Tiber trembled underneath her banks,
To hear the replication of your sounds
Made in her concave shores?
And do you now put on your best attire?
And do you now cull out a holiday?
And do you now strew flowers in his way
That comes in triumph over Pompey's blood? Be gone!
Run to your houses, fall upon your knees,
Pray to the gods to intermit the plague
That needs must light on this ingratitude.

FLAVIUS:
Go, go, good countrymen, and for this fault
Assemble all the poor men of your sort;
Draw them to the Tiber banks, and weep your tears
Into the channel, till the lowest stream
Do kiss the most exalted shores of all.
-Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act I Scene I

Which brings us to another important Roman river: The Rubicon. The interesting thing about this Roman river is that scientists and historians have discovered that the Rubicon abandoned its original riverbed long ago by meandering off course. The Rubicon has a famous idiom as well. In fact, it is probably better known than the one about the Tiber. When someone passes the point of no return we say that they have crossed the Rubicon. To protect the republic from a coup, Roman Law forbade any general from crossing this river with his army. Julius Caesar violated that law in his attempt to seize control of Rome from his governmental peers, the Senate. When his fellow statesmen would not bow to his will, Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army and imposed an authority that was not his to assume.

The Senate backed a general named Pompey to defend Rome. When Caesar marched on the city, Pompey and the army abandoned the capital and waged a protracted war with Caesar in various places throughout the Empire. Caesar not only fought Pompey, he hunted down and violently engaged anyone who opposed his absolute rule. Pompey was eventually defeated and the Senate that had previously supported him turned to Caesar and voted to elect him dictator for life. At that moment, the ideal of the Roman Republic that had liberated the people from the absolute rule of the ancient Etruscan kings was cast aside. Rome lived on for many centuries after that and they continued to flourish, but Senatus Populusque Romanus had become an empty motto; the Roman Republic was no more. Rome was no longer Rome. Like the Tiber and the Rubicon, she had left her riverbed and flowed in a different direction.

Like Senatus Populusque Romanus, The church of Rome has a motto that no longer means what it once did: catholic. Rome stopped being "universal", "useful to all", and "all-embracing" when her Caesar tied Rome's authority to the rulings of the government and not the ideals of her people. Like the dictatorial empire that she grew up with, she still called herself Rome, but she was not what she once was. In both cases (the civilization and the church) her rulers had severed the legacy upon which she was built. The great Cincinnatus would not recognize this new way of doing things in Rome. She was no longer a state which adhered to common principles. After the rise of Caesar, she was now a state which interpreted and invented principles in an unending progression of trends, reforms, and initiatives.

So when you decide to swim the Tiber, be sure to remember that your new Caesar, whose office was created when his predecessor first crossed the Rubicon and betrayed all of Rome, was never intended to be the absolute authority of the Empire. There was a time when the consuls, co-consuls, senators, citizens, and slaves all lived under the rule of law which was above all men. Final authority was reserved for Rome herself. That was Rome before individual Romans started attempting to invent the rule of law from the authority of their chairs and by the seat of their pants. Rome, like her rivers, has become full of dirt.

I'd like to contrast those two Roman rivers with another river. The Danube River is the longest running river in what is now the European Union. It spans east and west by stretching from western Germany to the Black Sea. It is much longer than the muddy Tiber or the tiny Rubicon. For centuries the Danube stood as the border for the Roman Empire. It was the river that marked the limits of Caesar's domination over the earth. Even today the Danube is a vital source of drinking water that gives life to millions of people. Geologist agree that the Danube River is very ancient. In fact it is even older than the Rhine.

It is true that the Danube has become far more shallow than it used to be, but it has maintained its course through the ages. Why? The foundation of the bed of the Danube is solid limestone; not shifty sand like the Tiber and the Rubicon. Give me a shallowing but solid Danube over those muddy, wandering rivers that are filled with Roman bones any day of the week.

A Priest Analyzes Western Theology

Fr Alvin Kimel, a catholic Anglican, has written a soul searching post about the western faith on his blog: Pontifications. (Lutherans might chuckle at the ironic name choice: Pontifications. Hehe... at least four jokes/snide remarks about the dogmas of the papacy are on the tip of my tongue right now.)

This is a rare glimpse into one man's honest look at a theological issue that is kept free from all of the dogmatic mumbo-jumbo and sectarian posturing. In addition to striking a fatal blow to the heartless doctrine of double Predestination, the author asks some interesting questions that we should all be asking about works-righteousness and making bargains with God. Interestingly, he identifies this sinful doubt of God's infinite love as the motive that spawned the "quid pro quo transactionalism" that Luther addressed in the Reformation. [For those who do not know Latin and have missed all 17 seasons of Dick Wolf's Law & Order: quid pro quo means "something for something".]

I am sure that Fr Kimel probably would never put it this way, but he correctly points to the fatal error that plagues all Christians: the desire to be self-justified through appeasement under the Law rather than simply embracing the free gift of the Gospel by faith alone. Fr Kimel writes a better argument for Sola Fide than I ever could. This wise priest then asks a million dollar question: "To what extent does this transactionalism still shape the spiritual lives of Catholics and Protestants today?" I would love to hear some of your answers to that question!

Incidental references to purgatory aside, this is a post that is definitely worth your time. The title is Disbelieving the Predestinarian God. Here is a sample:

Why do Western Christians fear God? Might not it be because the God who saves and damns in absolute, inscrutable determination still haunts our imaginations? When confronted with such a deity, we will always urgently ask the question “How can I get a gracious God?” Hidden deep below all conscious thought lies the knowledge that perhaps, just perhaps, God has abandoned us, abandoned “me,” unto perdition. And so God himself becomes our enemy. The holy Creator becomes Satan!

But even if the hard predestinarianism is pushed into the theological and homiletical background, it continues to do its insidious work. If we are unsure, even to the tiniest degree, that God wills the good of every human being—if “I” am uncertain that he wills “my” good—then we must find ways to negotiate with him. Hence the rise of that quid pro quo transactionalism that often characterized late medieval spirituality and church life, against which Martin Luther so powerfully protested. To what extent does this transactionalism still shape the spiritual lives of Catholics and Protestants today?

Equal Time: Rome is Also Wrong

It has occurred to me that my blog bashes on the errors of Protestants too much. Well... maybe it is more like I do not bash on the errors of Rome enough to make it sound fair. Lest someone assume that I am secretly a papist on the verge of signing my soul over to the Holy See, I will begin to outline my take on the well-beaten horse of Roman Catholic error.

Here is a comment that I made over at Past Elder. If you have not read Past Elder's blog, you are missing out on an intellectual titan. This man is brilliant and I encourage you to study his writings as this student does. Here is my comment:

[The Immaculate Conception of Mary] is just one of those cases where the Church ruins its credibility by participating in speculation and guesswork. Christianity is not about speculation, it is about the truth. When you are willing to speak authoritatively about things that you cannot know for sure (and have no proof that you got it anywhere other than your imagination), people are less likely to trust the other things that you have to say.

If you have a friend who tells you lies, guesses, and facts with the same amount of conviction, it is foolish to trust him on anything. I think these kinds of dogmas promote unbelief rather than combat it.

For example, the greatest damage that has ever been dealt to the true doctrine of Real Presence in the Eucharist is the speculative philosophy and superstition that surrounds the dogma of Transubstantiation. That kind of guesswork pushes people to reject all mystery in the Lord's Supper because Rome makes the belief look idolatrous and credulous.

Rome proves just how far she is out on the radical fringe of Christianity when she makes liberal statements like "theology is a progressive science" to support their new and different Gospels. As Lutherans, we wrote the book on pointing out Roman error (literally), but the truth does not play favorites with people who are wrong. We walk that narrow road between the errors of the Pope and the errors of Protestantism.