Archive

Archive for the ‘Roman Catholicism’ Category

Wise Men Still Seek Jesus, Not Relics

December 9th, 2007 1 comment

Relics
In another reminder that Rome is still Rome, comes a report that alleged bits of bones of the three wise men will be on display in the Tucson, Arizona. The Apostolate for Holy Relics is co-sponsoring the visit along with an area Knights of Columbus group. I’m sure even many good Roman Catholics would beg to differ with Mr. Garcia who exclaimed, "This is the closest I’m going to get to God in my physical lifetime,"
said Arizona Knights of Columbus spokesman John Garcia. "And since this
is a time of Christmas, it puts us closer in touch with the birth of
Christ."

No, Mr. Garcia, the closest you are ever going to be to Christ is when you receive Him in Word and Sacrament.

But, wait! There’s more to be seen. From the article:

The exhibit is also expected to feature relics from the manger,
fabric from the Virgin Mary’s veil and Joseph’s coat, and a bone
fragment from St. Elizabeth, who was the Virgin Mary’s ninth cousin. "It’s a tangible thread between heaven and Earth," said Thomas
Serafin, a lay Catholic who is president of the Apostolate for Holy
Relics.
In his Large Catechism, Luther use the German word for relic, "heiligtum" to good effect when he writes:

"The Word of God is the true holy thing [heiligtum - relic] above all
holy things. Indeed it is the only one we Christians acknowledge and
have . . . God’s Word is the treasure that sanctifies all things" (Large Catechism, Commandments, par. 91).

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Pope Declares Plenary Indulgence

December 5th, 2007 3 comments

Well at least, as far as I can tell, they are not asking people to pay for it, but….this story illustrates the fact, which some unfortunately today wish to sidestep, that Rome is still very much Rome. We can rejoice in all the signs of the work of the Holy Spirit in Roman Catholicism, wherever and whenever the pure Gospel is read or proclaimed and received in trusting faith, but it remains true that, precisely for the sake of the Gospel, we must continue clearly to reject and condemn the errors of Rome, exemplified in the latest announcement from the Vatican, which is offering a plenary indulgence in connection with the alleged Marian apparition in Lourdes, France.  

Here is a quote from the story:

"The first way to obtain the indulgence is to visit the following
places in Lourdes between December 8, 2007 and December 8, 2008,
preferably in the order suggested: (1) the parish baptistery used for
the Baptism of Bernadette, (2) the Soubirous family home, known as the
‘cachot,’ (3) the Grotto of Massabielle, (4) the chapel of the hospice
where Bernadette received First Communion, and on each occasion they
pause for an appropriate length of time in prayer and with pious
meditations, concluding with the recital of the Our Father, the
Profession of Faith, … and the jubilee prayer or other Marian
invocation."

If the faithful are not in Lourdes, but wish to receive the plenary
indulgence, then during the week of the anniversary of the first
apparition, which is the week of  February 2, 2008 through February 11,
2008, and they must visit “in any church, grotto or decorous place, the
blessed image of that same Virgin of Lourdes, solemnly exposed for
public veneration, and before the image participate in a pious exercise
of Marian devotion, or at least pause for an appropriate space of time
in prayer and with pious meditations, concluding with the recital of
the Our Father, the Profession of Faith, … and the invocation of the
Blessed Virgin Mary."

There is also a provision for those who are unable to fulfill the
previous two ways of obtaining the indulgence. Those who "through
sickness, old age or other legitimate reason are unable to leave their
homes, may still obtain the Plenary Indulgence … if, with the soul
completely removed from attachment to any form of sin and with the
intention of observing, as soon as they can, the usual three
conditions, on the days February 2 to 11, 2008, in their hearts they
spiritually visit the above-mentioned places and recite those prayers,
trustingly offering to God, through Mary, the sickness and discomforts
of their lives."

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Get Your John Paul II Relics Here! Why the Reformation Remains Necessary and Essential for the Church

September 15th, 2007 6 comments

Why does the Reformation remain necessary? Here is but the latest example. This is not surprising, actually. It is just a natural extension of the anti-Gospel theology that remains in the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks be to God that in spite of such errors the Gospel is heard in Romanism, but it continues to be deeply obscured by Rome’s errors. What is even more sad is watching Lutherans, who of all people should know better, not understand why Rome is still wrong, deeply wrong. A friend recently observed that there are a certain kind of Lutherans who finally simply can not ever confess the truth and take a stand for the specific doctrinal truths of God’s Word because they have undergone a dogmatic labotomy. It was an interesting comment, a bit harsh to be sure, but interesting nonetheless.

Categories: Roman Catholicism

The Name of God: Does It Matter What We Call Him?

August 20th, 2007 11 comments

First Things knocks one out of the park….

By Robert T. Miller

Monday, August 20, 2007,  7:07 AM

Tiny Muskens, the Roman Catholic bishop of Breda in the Netherlands, says that Dutch Catholics ought to pray using the word Allah rather than God
or its synonyms in Dutch. Muskens argues that it makes no inherent
theological difference in which language one prays, and he notes that
in countries where the word Allah is in common usage as a name for God, Christians already often use the word in their prayers. Adopting the word Allah,
Muskens thinks, will eliminate “discussions and bickerings” between
Muslims and Christians and so improve relations between the religions.

Muskens is right that, from a Catholic point of view, there is
nothing inherently wrong in saying “Allah” for “God,” just as there
would be nothing inherently wrong in saying “Miny Tuskens” or “Tuny
Miskens” for “Tiny Muskens.” The problem, of course, is Tiny Muskens’
name is Tiny Muskens, and anyone who called Tiny Tuny or Muskens
Miskens would be making fun of him. So, too, in theology; despite the
conventionality by which strings of phonemes get their meaning, once
names have been established, people who change them are doing so for a
reason, and the nature of that reason counts in determining whether the
change is reasonable or unreasonable, advisable or inadvisable.

In this case, even from a Catholic point of view, the name of God is
not a pure triviality. When at the burning bush Moses asked God for his
name, the Lord gave a very particular answer. “God said to Moses, I am
who am. This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered
throughout all generations” (Exod. 3:14–15). Many devout Jews treat
this name, especially in Hebrew, with such reverence that they will not
speak it aloud. And when Christ appropriated this name to himself (John
8:58), everyone understood that he was proclaiming his own divinity.

On the other hand, some Muslims believe that the phonetic string
“Allah” is an especially appropriate name for God, in part because, in
their understanding, “Allah” has no feminine or plural forms. Thus,
even many non–Arabic-speaking Muslims refer to God as “Allah” and do so
for reasons of theological importance in Islam. Hence, it’s unclear
what might be at stake theologically in the unlikely event that anyone
were to take Muskens’ proposal seriously.

But debating the merits of Muskens’ suggestion misses the larger
point here. Muskens makes it sound as if the problems in
Muslim–Catholic relations were merely silly arguments about semantics
that distract from the truly important things on which we all agree. In
fact, there is a serious, substantive problem dominating
Christian–Muslim relations at the moment, the same problem that
dominates Muslim–Jewish, Muslim–Buddhist, Muslim–Hindu, and
Muslim–Orthodox relations, and that problem is that Muslim fanatics
keep murdering innocents of all faiths, including their own, in terror
attacks.

In Muskens’ own Holland, for example, a Muslim fanatic killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh on November 2, 2004—though killed
does not quite convey the full meaning here, for the perpetrator shot
van Gogh eight times, cut his throat almost to the point of
decapitation, stabbed him in the chest, and left two knives plunged in
his torso, one attaching a five-page note (text available here)
threatening the life of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and railing against Western
governments and, of course, the Jews. And then there were the train and
bus bombings in London on July 7, 2005 (52 dead); the school massacre
in Beslan in North Ossetia-Alania on September 1–3, 2004 (334 dead,
including 186 children); the train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004
(191 dead); and of course the spectacular atrocities in the United
States on September 11, 2001 (2,974 dead). For that matter, just last
week Islamic terrorists in Iraq detonated four truck bombs, flattening
whole villages and murdering at least 250 Yizadis (the Yizadi religion
combines elements of Islam and pre-Islamic Persian religions).

I realize that the many responsibilities of a bishop can make it
difficult to keep up with current events, but I think Muskens must have
heard about these things. It is puzzling, therefore, that he doesn’t
see them as having the importance for Muslim–Christian relations that
most other people do. To be sure, there are other problems between
Muslims and Christians, but anyone with a normal sense of morality
recognizes immediately that such other issues pale in comparison with
the wholesale slaughter of innocents. Muskens’ suggestion is thus
strangely, even perversely, disconnected from real-world problems.

Worse, in saying that the things that divide Muslims and Christians
are products of human invention, Muskens seems to imply that, on
fundamentals, there is no difference between Muslims and Christians.
The prevalence of Islamic terrorism refutes this simpleminded notion,
but there is an even larger point here. Chesterton explained it well long ago:

There is a phrase of facile liberality uttered again and
again at ethical societies and parliaments of religion: “the religions
of the earth differ in rites and forms, but they are the same in what
they teach.” It is false; it is the opposite of the fact. The religions
of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do greatly
differ in what they teach. It is as if a man were to say, “Do not be
misled by the fact that the Church Times and the Freethinker
look utterly different, that one is painted on vellum and the other
carved on marble, that one is triangular and the other hectagonal; read
them and you will see that they say the same thing.” The truth is, of
course, that they are alike in everything except in the fact that they
don’t say the same thing. An atheist stockbroker in Surbiton looks
exactly like a Swedenborgian stockbroker in Wimbledon. You may walk
round and round them and subject them to the most personal and
offensive study without seeing anything Swedenborgian in the hat or
anything particularly godless in the umbrella. It is exactly in their
souls that they are divided. So the truth is that the difficulty of all
the creeds of the earth is not as alleged in this cheap maxim: that
they agree in meaning, but differ in machinery. It is exactly the
opposite. They agree in machinery; almost every great religion on earth
works with the same external methods, with priests, scriptures, altars,
sworn brotherhoods, special feasts. They agree in the mode of teaching;
what they differ about is the thing to be taught. Pagan optimists and
Eastern pessimists would both have temples, just as Liberals and Tories
would both have newspapers. Creeds that exist to destroy each other
both have scriptures, just as armies that exist to destroy each other
both have guns.

That freethinking secularists can fail to see that there are
critically important differences between religions is unsurprising;
such people are notorious for their inability to understand any point
of view other than their own. That a bishop of the Catholic Church,
however, might make the same mistake is much more disturbing. Bishops
are still expected to know something about theology.

Our blessed Lord told his disciples that he was sending them “out as
sheep in the midst of wolves” and so they “should be as wise as
serpents but as innocent as doves” (Matt. 10: 16). I am happy to
acknowledge the innocence of Tiny Muskens, but he is exactly the kind
of sheep who, if he ever met a wolf, would likely get eaten by it.

Robert T. Miller is assistant professor at the Villanova University School of Law.

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Refuting the claims made by the Bishop of Rome

July 13th, 2007 3 comments

Crowns_2 The recent pronouncement by the Bishop of Rome (see post below for the complete text) errs most fundamentally in that it repeats the Bishop’s claim that he, by divine right, is above all bishops and pastors in the Church on earth. And he claims that this understanding of papal primacy and power is of the very essence of the Church, to the point that those churches that do not acknowledge and agree with his claim are either defective or not Church in the proper sense. This claim is nothing new, but has been the claim of the Roman bishop since the time of the early Middle Ages. While the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged from very early on as having a certain sort of "first among equals" status in the Western Church, due to the fact that Rome was the place where both Peter and Paul were martyred, the claim that he has universal primacy was not taught, or accepted, by the Early Church, and has always been rejected by the Church in the East. The single best refutation of the Roman bishop’s claims is the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, which rightly rejects this claim as godless and pernicious. I encourage you to read this Treatise. I’m posting the entire text of the Treatise in the extended entry.

Read more…

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Is this what Christ intended we do with His Supper?

June 26th, 2007 14 comments

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Kickin’ It Old School Roman Style or What’s Old is New Again

June 19th, 2007 10 comments

180pxtridentine_massFor the sake of a blogging friend who hates it when "old guys" like me try to sound cool, I added the "kicking it" phrase just to make him grind his teeth.
The Vatican is about to release a statement indicating that the celebration of the 16th Century Tridentine Mass is kosher again throughout the Roman communion. Previously, it required special dispensation of the local bishop to celebrate it and many Roman Catholic bishops have not permitted it in their dioceses. The Vatican statement would be a Papal "indult" as it is called allowing priests everywhere to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without the permission of their bishop. The big question still remains: will the Pope put any conditions on his indult, or not? The "Motu proprio," as this kind of statement is called, has been written and is being translated. It apparently has already been leaked, in Spanish, in Central America. This is all the buzz on many Roman Catholic blogs, which I enjoy monitoring. The Old Order Mass is the Mass form that was used throughout Roman Catholicism up until Vatican II introduced the New Order mass. I have attended many New Order masses, while I was a student at a Roman Catholic High School, and at friends’ churches, and I have always been struck by how insipid and banal it is in many respects, to be fair, in terms of style, no different from how poorly the Lutheran Divine Service is conducted at far too many Lutheran congregations. The Old Order mass is the form of the Mass against which Luther speaks out so powerfully in the Smalcald Articles. This is a prime opportunity for Lutherans to assert the Evangelical treasures of the Scriptures. With a Vatican approval of the Old Order of the Mass Rome will  once again clearly demonstrate that in spite of all the romanticizing done by Lutheran ecumenists about how Rome has "changed" and how it has now again "embraced the Gospel," it is in fact just the same old, same old Romanism. Interestingly, this call for the old Latin Mass is coming from younger catholics.

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Layman to Layman: A Response to Rob Koons Conversion to Romanism

June 6th, 2007 3 comments

Dr. Erich Heidenreich provides this very cogent and well informed response to Rob Koons, a professor of philosophy, and a LCMS professor, who recently converted to Romanism. Koons has made available his explanation of his conversion. Erich asked me to "tackle" this issue on Cyberbrethren, but frankly, after reading his critique and response to a number of Koon’s point, I feel he has done a very fine job indeed. By the way, here is another good response to Koons. Dr. Heidenreich’s comments pertain to an earlier version of Koons paper which he had circulated to some mutual friends, and Erich was asked to respond to it. But the points Erich makes are all quite valid and very well done. He write:

Koons’ points in caps, to which I respond:

1) "ALL ISSUES OTHER THAN JUSTIFICATION ARE SECONDARY"

- We all agree that the Gospel exists in all Christian denominations.
Otherwise they would not be Christian.
- But the Gospel is contaminated and contradicted by secondary
doctrines in other churches.
- Only one confession can have the pure doctrine (since they all
differ), and this doctrine must be unadulterated in its official
confession.
- The doctrine of Justification cannot be separated from the whole of
doctrine, including those considered "secondary."

Read more…

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholic Business as Usual

May 26th, 2007 6 comments

Sacrifice_of_the_mass_2
A number of years ago somehow my name and home addresss made its way on to a Roman Catholic mailing list, and, as these things go, my name was passed to other RC charities, and now I regularly receive fund raising requests from various Roman Catholic charities. Today a particularly interesting one came in the mail. It is a stark reminder that for all the fine-sounding words we hear coming from certain corners in Romanism, when it comes down to it, it is, literally, "business" as usual–the business of selling masses, merits and works. The mailing I received came from the Marianist order of priests and contained a memorial card to use to give to a friend or loved one who has  had a death in the family. The fund raising letter urges you to use the card, by sending in money to the order. In the center of the card is a "Memorial Remembrance." It states: "Perpetual Membership in the Marianist Spiritual Alliance has been conferred upon (fill in the blank) who will share forever in the Masses, Prayers, and Good Works of the Marianists. Requested by (fill in the blank). And it is signed "Father Pat" Father Patrick Tonry, SM, Spiritual Director." If that were not troubling enough, it is shocking that nowhere in the card is there any word of Christ and the Gospel. There is a picture of Jesus standing in clouds, but the card nowhere mentions a word about the Resurrection of Christ. It indicates simply that many people see death as an ending, but "religious people" know that death is just the beginning of eternal life. The inside cover of the memorial card states that paying for a loved one’s "Perpetual Membership" in the Marianist Spiritual alliance will bring with it the guarantee of "One holy Mass offered each day of the year for those enrolled" and the promise that every Marianist Priest offers four masses every year for all the enrolled. It is very important for us to keep these things in mind whenever we are tempted to think that Rome really has taken a turn for the better. In fact, it is just, literally, business as usual: the same old anti-Gospel confession and teachings of Rome against which the Lutheran Confessions speak out so forcefully and reject and condemn. Why? Because the grace and glory of Christ is horribly obscured and set aside when people are led to place their hope, and find their comfort, in the good works of another human being. This is false and damning doctrine indeed. And, it just so happens I receive this mailing the day before the anniversary on which the Edict of Worms was issued, declaring Luther a heretic and public criminal, subject to the death penalty wherever he went and at any time. Yes, it’s business as usual. But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, is still the pure, free, true Gospel, as usual, that provides the antidote to Rome’s legalism and that inherent legalist inside each of us that would have us believe that we must "do something" in an effort to placate God and earn His favor. Christ has done it all, for us.

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Beckwith Returns to Rome

May 15th, 2007 Comments off

Perhaps some of you have heard that the president of the Evangelical Theology Society, Frank Beckwith, has returned to the Roman church of which he was a part earlier in his life. It’s always sad to hear about a person turning his back on the pure and sweet Gospel to exchange it for the clouded and distorted version one finds in Rome, with whom we Lutherans have so much in common and yet, precisely to the extent we do, find our differences over the heart of the Gospel so serious and so painful. Dr. Gene Edward Veith has an excellent reflection on Beckwith’s departure.

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Rome is Rome is Rome…on Merit, Grace and Salvation

April 20th, 2007 6 comments

I just popped over to the Vatican’s web site and noticed that nearly two years ago the Roman Church issues a "compendium" to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The compendium is a condensed version of the much, much larger Catechism proper. I never noticed it before. I went to see how they summarize Justification and was particularly struck by how Rome has not changed a bit, when it comes down to it, that man does, and must, merit for himself grace in order to be saved. Oh, sure, it is couched in gentler terminology, etc. but Rome is Rome is Rome is Rome. I’m no sure how best to put this, but…anyone who actually believes that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was any sort of compromise or change on Rome’s part is simply out of touch with reality. All the same Roman definitions and understandings are fully intact! Where is the "great breakthrough"?

426. What is merit?

 

2006-2010
2025-2026

 

In general merit refers to the right to recompense for a good deed. With regard
to God, we of ourselves are not able to merit anything, having received
everything freely from him. However, God gives us the possibility of acquiring
merit through union with the love of Christ, who is the source of our merits
before God. The merits for good works, therefore must be attributed in the first
place to the grace of God and then to the free will of man.

 

427. What are the goods that we can merit?

 

2010-2011
2027

 

Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces
needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life
. Even
temporal goods, suitable for us, can be merited in accordance with the plan of
God. No one, however, can merit the initial grace which is at the origin
of conversion and justification.

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Have a Nice Day – Coburg Style

April 13th, 2007 2 comments

Photo15 - AntiPapal Lutheran Carving at Coburg.jpg
I’m working through my photos that I took last June in Germany and bumped into this one. It is a photo of a wood carving that hangs in the chambers Luther occupied while he was at the Coburg Castle during the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. It portrays the Pope being thrown into the mouth of hell. This was an age not given to irenic subtlety, to say the least.

Categories: Roman Catholicism

What Luther’s Experience with Fasting was Like

February 24th, 2007 Comments off

Fasting, like any other wholesome practice, was, and is, abused. Here is Luther’s recollection of what it was like for him in the monastery, from the Tabletalk.

On March 20 there was talk about the most sumptuous fasts of the papists—which were nothing less than fasts when the meals of bread and wine were without moderation. “Only truly afflicted consciences fasted in earnest,” Martin Luther said. “I almost fasted myself to death, for again and again I went for three clays without taking a drop of water or a morsel of food. I was very serious about it. I really crucified the Lord Christ. I wasn’t simply an observer but helped to carry him and pierce [his hands and feet]. God forgive me for it, for I have confessed it openly! This is the truth: the most pious monk is the worst scoundrel. He denies that Christ is the mediator and high priest and turns him into a judge.

“I chose twenty-one saints and prayed to three every day when I celebrated mass; thus I completed the number every week. I prayed especially to the Blessed Virgin, who with her womanly heart would compassionately appease her Son. Ah, if the article on justification hadn’t fallen, the brotherhoods, pilgrimages, masses, invocation of saints, etc., would have found no place in the church. If it falls again (which may God prevent!) these idols will return.”

Martin Luther, vol. 54, Luther’s Works, Vol. 54  : Table Talk, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther’s Works, 54:339 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967).

Categories: Roman Catholicism

FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » Are Protestants Heretics?

January 31st, 2007 4 comments

I found this article to be particularly fascinating. Father Oakes comments on his position over against Luther and the doctrine of justification.

Link: FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » Are Protestants Heretics?.

Categories: Roman Catholicism

Papal Bull-oney

December 30th, 2006 7 comments

Baloney
The Vatican is bloviating about the evils of the death penalty and condemning the execution of Saddam Hussein. They can never get the Biblical truth about the doctrine of the two kingdoms right, can they? In the Middle Ages they claimed the right to wield both swords, all power in both the spiritual and secular realm, now they are decrying the use of the sword in the civil realm. Pastor Weedon has a good blog post on this papal bull. The Vatican needs to spend more time dealing with homosexuals and child abusers in it clergy ranks, and the lousy theology that infests most of its institutions of higher learning in this country, than pontificating on how to deal with mass-murderers and tyrants. My only question today about the execution of Hussein is why they didn’t broadcast it live? Sic semper tyrannis! The only reason I can think of as to why the Vatican is so strongly denouncing the execution of Hussein is to try to provide protection to Roman Catholics and other Christians in Muslim nations who may be on the receiving end of Islamic demonstration that their’s is a "religion of peace" <yes, that’s sarcasm>

Categories: Roman Catholicism