Showing posts with label Missed It By That Much. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missed It By That Much. Show all posts

Missed It By That Much!

This time I am giving this "Missed It By That Much" - to ME! I was back in the hospital last week and one of the chaplains and I were discussing the Blessed Virgin Mary. I made a comment about Catholics do not "worship" her like a goddess. He responded, with, "Well, some do," and gave me a look like, "you agree with me on that, don't you?" I responded that it is not Catholic teaching, but I cannot speak for every single professing Catholic out there - and that is where I "Missed It By That Much!" 


I told my wife about this discussion and she was quick to point out, as a "cradle Catholic," she has NEVER heard of ANY Catholic worshiping Mary as if she were a goddess - NOT ONE! Of course, that is a bit anecdotal, but true! I too know of NO Catholic who believes the Blessed Virgin is a goddess. Now you might find some former Catholic professing he/she worshiped Mary as a goddess - but that might be one of the reasons they are no longer Catholic - they didn't KNOW their faith!

The problem here is many Protestants, like this chaplain, have a perception of Catholics where they believe that WE believe the Blessed Virgin is essentially a goddess. I did explain that prayers to Mary are essentially petitioning her to petition her Son to gain graces or answer prayers. She does not replace Jesus, as when we go to her, ultimately we are going to Him THROUGH her. 

We discussed the Wedding at Cana, Jesus' first public miracle, where she intervened and even after He told her, "this is not My time," she turns to the servants, knowingly, and says, "Do whatever He tells you." Jesus then goes to them and has them fill the large water pots to the brim with water, and turns the water into wine! (John 2:1-11).

 Want to discuss this more? Please leave a comment!

Laying On of Hands

Laying on of hands to pass the Holy Ghost upon others. This was the subject of Pastor Greg Laurie the morning of August 28, 2022. I happened to have NewsMax on in my bedroomand his broadcast came on. Laurie spoke about the laying on of hands, but "missed it by that much!"

The laying on of hands is part of the Rite of Confirmation - and is done solely under the auspices of a valid bishop (a priest can do it with permission from his bishop). So while Laurie had it partially correct, the Holy Ghost IS passed on through the laying on of hands, not just anyone has the authority to do this.


A Matter of Character


Listening to The Lutheran Hour (a half hour program on the radio presented every Sunday by one of our local Lutheran churches) on September 30, 2018 to a sermon entitled Cut Off -- For Us - I am compelled again to respond, and my theme (comparing to other Lutheran Hour responses) remains the same - while the underlying message is true - there is a fundamental flaw which could, in fact, lead to "losing our reward," as this sermon refers to.

I will quote portions of the sermon so you can see the context. It is also found in whole here: https://www.lutheranhour.org/sermon.asp?articleid=31709

Text: Mark 9:38-50
Have you ever seen a post on Facebook and said to yourself, "Oh, that's not smart"?

One of the challenges that can confront people today as they enter the job market is their digital footprint. Posts on Instagram, Facebook, and other social media sites follow people into the application process and even into personal interviews. Folks are sometimes surprised to find that prospective employers have searched their online postings as a part of the hiring process. What was posted in fun can have serious effects on a person's employment!

Why would a prospective employer go to the trouble of investigating materials that have nothing directly to do with the potential employee? Plain and simple--it's about character.


sw: I must say, I am often struck with how "right on" the speakers on The Lutheran Hour are much of the time - and this is no exception. What we say or post on the Internet can have an effect on potential employment.

What is more, He uses the occasion to teach the disciples once again what the kingdom of God is really about. While they argue among themselves about who is going to be first in Christ's kingdom, He steers them back to the focus of work in His kingdom: "And He sat down and called the twelve. And He said to them, 'If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all'" (Mark 9:35). Then Jesus takes a child into His arms and says that whoever receives this child receives Him, and whoever receives Him receives His Father, the One who had sent Jesus. Then Jesus goes on to say: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea" (Mark 9:42). This is serious stuff for the Twelve!

sw: And this is case in point where "the message" is really right on the mark, this is "this is serious stuff" for ALL of us - as Dr. Rast goes on to say...

And it is also serious for you and for me. Have you ever caused one of Christ's little ones--youthful or otherwise--to sin? Indeed, you have, whether you realize it or not--and I have, too. Thus, if you really take Jesus' words seriously, you and I are next in line for a pair of cement shoes and an all-too-brief swim in the harbor.

Let's be honest with one another--and with God: how seriously do we really take our caring for others? Do we really put others first, or do we serve ourselves, just like the power-hungry disciples?

sw: I don't know where this "power-hungry" comment comes from - but the statement about "causing one of Christ's little ones - youthful or otherwise--to sin" rings absolutely true. From a certain perspective, ALL Christians can be considered "Christ's little ones" as we are all considered children of God.

But in all honesty, while the first two are pretty straightforward: that is, communicate the faith of the church as taught by the Bible and confessed by the Lutheran Confessions; and share that with people who do not know Jesus both here in the United States and throughout the world, it is the latter where we find the challenge. Where we--where I-- struggle, is in caring for all. This is a basic human challenge--and often it degenerates into sin. For either we fail to care for those in need or, worse, actually harm them by our words and deeds. In so doing we show we disregard God's commands for us, refusing to share even "a cup of water to drink" with those in need and, as a result, we should "lose (our) reward."

"Losing our reward" is a terrifying prospect. Much more than a foolish social media post, your sinfulness and mine cuts us off from God by destroying our relationship with Him. Further, it disrupts all our relationships with family and friends. And it threatens to leave us eternally separated from God. This is indeed serious, serious stuff!

sw: Yes! Indeed this is "serious stuff!" Now, consider that starting with Luther himself, the whole Lutheran movement is causal to literally millions falling from the grace which Jesus Christ Himself provided for His People - the Church. This is no small matter! Whereas the Lutheran Church has similar beliefs to Catholicism in many ways, there are serious flaws to the concept of the schism of Lutheranism. Most notable, we look to the "Four Marks" of the Catholic Church, which are, ironically, still professed in most - if not all - Lutheran churches throughout the world. Those "Four Marks" are, "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic."

sw: Lutheranism itself is not "One," as there are several "synods" of the Lutheran Church - which do not blanketly accept others - even other Lutherans. Anecdotally, when my family moved from one part of town to another, we went from a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS, same synod which produces The Lutheran Hour) to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) and before they would allow our family to participate in Holy Communion, we had to meet with the pastor and be interrogated regarding our faith. We "passed" and were "accepted," but I felt very strange and even a bit offended that as "fellow Lutherans" we had to go through this.

sw: "Holy" is arguable. While I do believe there is a good measure of holiness in the Lutheran Church, can they really be considered "holy" if they are part of what broke apart the Christian Church in the 16th century and continue to be separated to this day? This could be argued as quite "unholy."

sw: Lutheranism is not "Catholic" nor even "catholic." The term meaning "universal," cannot be applied to Lutheranism for they, while being in many parts of the world, are not a universal church - nor do I believe they would literally claim this "mark." Now again, as a former Lutheran, I do concede they do claim this "mark" with the lower-case "c" - implying they belong to the universal belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, this watered down representation of the term cannot be what the writer(s) of the Nicene Creed had in mind because it specifically expresses belief in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic CHURCH. Another point I would add - of the major Lutheran synods, only the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) retains the word "catholic" - the others using a mistranslation here choosing to use the word "Christian."

sw: Lutheranism is not Apostolic - for in breaking with the Catholic Church they have lost their link to the line of bishops. Lutheran bishops (yes they do exist) do not have a valid consecration to the bishoprick - and thus have no valid claim to the "mark" of "apostolic."

God's Word challenges us to take sin seriously by showing us the grave consequences that it has. And it demands that we address it with absolute earnestness: "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched'" (Mark 9:43-48). If we really took these verses literally, every one of us would be affected. For our hands rarely help others; our feet move slowly for the Lord's service; and our eyes too often serve as an opening for all kinds of uncleanness to come into us.

Yes! We should take this seriously - and that is part of why I post this Missed it By That Much series. While I have deep rooted love and respect for Lutherans (having spent 20 years as one myself), I also have deep concern that they have missed the mark, "by that much." As Dr. Rast stated above, we need to "address it with absolute earnestness." Anything less than this and we may be judged as "lukewarm" because we got comfortable with the way someone preaches or the people in the congregation. 
Matthew 7:20-25
20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.
Matthew 16:18
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (rock); and upon this rock I will build my church
Revelation 3:14-16
14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
sw: So ask yourself - are you seeking the ultimate truth with absolute earnestness, as even Dr. Rast encourages you to do? Do you believe Jesus waited 1500 years for Luther to come around before He built His Church? Dr. Rast next challenges his listeners (and readers) with the hyperbole of "What should we do--begin the amputations?" While that is a bit hyperbolic, it is true! If you have a cancer, you cut it out - why? Because the cancer can kill the rest of your body if you let it stay. Being content with a portion of the Truth is just as deadly, spiritually speaking, for the lukewarm Jesus will spit from His mouth and say to them, "Depart from Me for I never knew you." Pretty stern words, and keep in mind - the lukewarm are people who THINK they are following Jesus, they even claim to prophesied and cast out devils in His name - but they find themselves cast out!  Don't be satisfied just because you have found a pleasant pastor or made some good friends - what good will these do you when you are cast out of Heaven? What does a bit of good feeling do here in this temporal state we are in if it does not bring us to eternity with Him?

sw: Don't just take my word for it - study for yourself. Be open to hearing/reading the whole Truth, and do not be complacent with a comfortable niche - and remember, "Wise men still seek Him." Never stop seeking Him!

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

Reminder: If you like what you read here - click one of the "Like" and/or "Share" buttons below!








Faith in Absolutely Nothing


I happened upon The Lutheran Hour ( @LutheranHourMinistries ) again this morning and heard Rev. Ken Klaus reciting a sermon on Absolutely Nothing. He spoke of how one day when he was a junior in high school, his grandfather passed away leaving his father as executor of his estate. There was a box of what was important papers. "The greatest number of papers in that box was stock certificates from various companies. The one thing those stocks had in common was this: they had been issued before the stock market crash of 1929." As it turned out, there was one set of stocks from a company which was still in business - and that stock was valued at a couple hundred dollars. Then there was a huge stack of other stocks for which all of the companies had ceased to exist after the stock market crash... the were worth "Absolutely Nothing." Rev. Klaus tells a couple other stories about "Absolutely Nothing" and then gets to his point.  "As a believer, I have absolutely nothing to believe in. Yes, you heard that right. I have absolutely nothing to believe in. Please, allow to me to explain."  Rather than me paraphrasing, allow me to quote the next section verbatim:
                       Nowadays, most believers and unbelievers who have studied history agree that there was a man by the name of Jesus who was crucified under the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. Most don't have any difficulty with the events after Jesus' death. 
                        Here's what the evangelist Matthew wrote: "The chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and, referring to Jesus they said, 'Sir, we remember how that imposter said while He was still alive, 'After three days I will rise.' Therefore, order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples go and steal Him away and tell the people, 'He's risen from the dead.' The last fraud will be worse than the first.' Pilate said to them, 'You have a guard of soldiers go, make it as secure as you can.' So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard."
                           Those Jewish leaders knew Jesus had promised that He would rise from the dead. They also knew that if the Christ's body disappeared things could get a bit dicey for them. People might believe on Him. They might trust Him. They might even claim He was the promised Messiah. To prevent that, these civic leaders asked for and received the Roman ruler's permission to lock down Jesus' grave. A great stone at the entrance of the grave made it difficult for Jesus' body to be stolen. The guards outside the tomb made any attempt a suicide mission. 
                          A guarded and inaccessible tomb is what the women should have found that Sunday dawn when they went to finish preparing Jesus' body for His final rest. As they progressed to that borrowed grave, they would have had absolutely nothing to comfort them. Their Rabbi, their Friend, their Teacher was dead. Yes, He had talked about repentance, forgiveness, and salvation, but that kind of talk had ended on Friday's cross when a Roman spear had ripped into His heart. They had heard Jesus say "It is finished." They had watched when He breathed His last. All that was left for this sorry funeral procession is for them to pay their final respects to the memories, the hopes, and the dreams of what once had been. Yes, that's the way it should have been. Now, let me tell you the way it really was. 
                         Sometime before the women's arrival, an angel from heaven came down to earth. Fear of his presence threw the armed guards to the ground after which they ran away to report to their bosses. Shortly after, the women arrived and were taken aback to see an angel sitting on the stone. Knowing what was in their hearts, the angel began: "Do not be afraid for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for He has risen as He said. Come, see the place where He lay. Then go quickly and tell His disciples that He is also risen from the dead."
                        For the first time that Resurrection Sunday, people poked their heads into Jesus' borrowed tomb. Not long after, two disciples, Peter and John, also ran to Jesus' grave to see if there was any truth to what the ladies had told them. John waited at the entrance to the grave, but Peter raced right on in. John soon joined the big fishermen, and together they looked at-well, there's no other way to say it-they looked at absolutely nothing. Oh sure, the embalming cloths, which had wrapped Jesus' body and face were still there. Yes, they were there, but Jesus was gone. If there had been a traffic cop there that day, he probably would have said, "Move along. Move along. There's absolutely nothing here to see." That cop would have been right. On Resurrection Sunday there was absolutely nothing to see. 
So, Rev. Klaus, using a clever play on words, justifies the sentiment that the Christian Faith is based on "Absolutely Nothing." 

What I found a bit disturbing was a couple of things. First off, I used the word "reciting" earlier because I don't believe this sermon to be Rev. Klaus'. He made it sound like this sermon was his own creation - but I heard almost the exact same sermon at Our Lady of Mount Carmel (OLMC) in Phoenix, Az at least ten years ago! I don't recall the exact date - but I do recall it was Easter Sunday and Fr. Bonavitacola had a guest priest celebrating Mass that day and the guest priest also gave this sermon. The point here is, in an open letter to Rev. Klaus, I've heard this sermon before. I recall being a bit offended then too - this priest was preaching that our Faith is built on nothing. I realize he was saying this for shock value, much like Klaus is too, I'm sure, but, it's simply not a true statement.

While it is a somewhat clever play on words - it is simply NOT TRUE! Well, it IS true that on that first Easter morning the women and then Peter and John, found the empty tomb, but the didn't find "Absolutely Nothing!" What the DID find was Jesus' burial cloth - but no Jesus. Also remarkable was the fact that the Roman guard had fled their post. For them to leave their post would mean death to them, for their orders were to stand guard, period, and abandoning their post would result in capital punishment. Their absence is a significant "something." Then, over the next 40 days, Jesus would appear to His Apostles first and then to many others.  That again is not "Absolutely Nothing." We have their testimonies on this. St. Paul too has an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul, previously known as Saul, was a persecutor of Christians - doing whatever he could do to destroy the Church which Jesus had built.

This brings us to the key point which Rev. Klaus (and sadly, that guest priest at OLMC) missed completely. The Resurrected Jesus was there, walking and dining with others for 40 days and teaching them how to build His Church. Most of what went on during those 40 days is not recorded in Scripture - but it is clear, Jesus was instructing them. This is far from "Absolutely Nothing." They were to - and DID build His Church.

Now what we have "Absolutely Nothing" to show - for over 1500 years - is a "Lutheran" church! Okay, it is a bit anachronistic to expect a Lutheran church to exist before Martin Luther, but the point is - there was no "church" which held the Protestant beliefs - like "the Five Solas" or "once saved, always saved," no Calvinism or Baptist or Methodist, etc. The FACT is, for over 1000 years after Christ, if you were a true Christian - you were Catholic. In 1054 AD, the Eastern Orthodox split with Catholicism - but Catholicism continued and continues to this day! 

Likewise, in the Lutheran church there is "absolutely nothing" for the forgiveness of sins since their clergy separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Forgiveness of sins is a charism given ONLY to the bishops (originally given ONLY to the Apostles, our first bishops).  
John 20:22-23 And with that he breathed on them (The Apostles) and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Thus ONLY those whom the bishop has given faculties can hear confessions and grant absolution. Outside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - there is absolutely nothing for the forgiveness of sins.

So, while there is some truth in what Klaus and that guest priest preached - the bottom line is, they missed it "by that much" (to quote Maxwell Smart).
Missing it, even "by that much" can have serious and eternal consequences.

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

You can hear Rev. Klaus' entire sermon here:  http://media.lhm.org/lutheranhour/mp3s/8452.mp3 









Luther on the Eucharist

Many Protestants reject the concept of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ with regard to the Eucharist, or as they refer to it more often "The Lord's Supper" or "Holy Communion" (we, Catholics, do use those terms too on occasion, the latter more than the former).  What IS the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence?

The Catholic belief/faith in the Real Presence is that upon consecration of the bread and wine, while maintaining the appearance of bread and wine the substance changes to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. There is no change in what we see or perceive through our senses, the accidents (in philosophical language) remain but the substance, that is what something REALLY is, changes so that what we receive through the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ.  The scholastic or philosophical term for the Catholic position is "Transubstantiation" (trans = change and substantiation = substance, or a "change in substance").  For most Protestants they focus on "The Lord's Supper" as a memorial only - there is no change in the substance nor is there any special presence of Jesus Christ "in, on or under" (we'll get to that in a bit) with the bread or wine.  For those it is pure symbolism.

Now I said "most Protestants" for a reason - as SOME do still cling to some sort of belief in the Real Presence to one degree or another.  For example, officially speaking, Anglicanism (which Episcopalianism is part of), they have a very "Catholic" understanding of the Real Presence.  Lutherans, on the other hand (of which I am a former member) while accepting the Real Presence "with" the Eucharist do not believe the substance actually changes.  The term for what Lutherans believe is "Consubstantiation" (con = with) that is, they believe Jesus Christ is "in, on and under" the hosts of bread and wine - the substance does not change, but Christ is "with" the bread and wine.  Since I was born and raised in the Lutheran Church, I have a particular interest in their teachings and beliefs - so what did Luther himself teach on this subject?
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”  [—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391; qtd on BFHU blog]
Note, while he insists upon the Real Presence, and even points to the unanimity of the Fathers of the Church, his language clings to Consubstantiation.

This next one, from Luther's Confession and the Lord's Supper, also shares a true belief in the Real Presence, but still a consubstantial understanding:
Christ has shown this to us not only by his own example and by his Word, but he has also pictured it to us in the form of the Sacrament of the Altar, namely, by means of the bread and the wine. We believe that the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread and wine, even as it is. Here we see one thing and believe another, which describes faith. For when we hear the Word and receive the Lord's Supper we have merely a word and an act, yet by it we embrace life and every treasure, even God himself.  [Confession and the Lord's Supper, by Martin Luther]
Jesus is under the bread and wine - LutherMuch of that piece is Luther railing against the pope and Catholicism in general regarding the practice of not giving the Cup to the faithful, only the bread/body of Christ.  That is another discussion though, so let us not be distracted by that discussion in discussing the subject of this article.  Getting back to the subject, notice the statement that "the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread and wine."  That is Consubstantiation.  Again, it is very close to the Catholic belief of Transubstantiation, and if the true faith were stated, he could have/should have said something like "We believe that the bread and the wine IS the true body and blood of Christ," and then there would be no doubt and an affirmation of the, to use Luther's word "unanimous" consent of the Early Church Fathers.

In short, Luther's belief, which is perpetuated in today's Lutheran teaching, is one which accepts the Real Presence of Jesus Christ with the Eucharist.  He brings you close, but not quite to what Jesus Christ Himself taught, and that is that "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood."


The scriptural TRUTH:

This IS My Body
 

Is There Fine Print in Romans 10?

"Before you sign a contract you had better read the fine print to see what is not covered," so says Pastor Seltz of The Lutheran Hour.  He goes on to say that "God's promises are not like that... there are no exceptions, there is no fine print.  Everyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ will not be put to shame.  Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  You might be asking, 'Well, what does it mean to call on the Lord?'  Ah!  There's the catch, right?"  That's in the introduction to today's radio broadcast this first Sunday in Lent.  As he starts the actual lesson the above is repeated and then he asks, "Everyone?  Really? I mean, is there any fine print in Romans chapter 10?  You know about fine print, don't you?  Fine print spells out exclusions in contracts... Fine print says that even though it's being marketed is for everyone, it's not really for everyone.  So, is there any fine print in Romans chapter 10?  Does the word really mean everyone, or is there some fine print somewhere excluding people from this bold promise?  Where is the fine print in Romans 10?  Nowhere!  You won't find it there or anywhere in the Bible."  With all due respect, Pastor Seltz is wrong here.  Scripture, the Bible, DOES contain "exclusions" and even states that there will be some who cry out TO HIM "Lord, Lord!" who shall NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven; in fact He will say to them, "depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matt. 7:21-23).  Part of "the fine print," if you will, limits entry into Heaven to those who "do the will of My Father in Heaven."  Simply calling upon Him is not enough, and the "fine print" is right there!

Attempting to prove his point, Pastor Seltz tells the story of the Pharisee and the Publican/Tax Collector who go into the Temple to pray (Luke 18:9-14).  The Pharisee boasts, "Thank you Lord for not making me like this tax collector..."  The tax collector humbly prays, "Have mercy on me, a sinner."  Jesus declares it is the tax collector who goes away justified before God.  Hmmmm, according to Pastor Seltz just "calling upon the Lord" is enough to justify, or save (keep in mind, he makes this equivocation in using this parable to support his argument for salvation).  So, per Seltz' earlier statement, the Pharisee should have been justified too!  Afterall, he too called upon the Lord, did he not?  Scripture tells us that the Pharisee did not leave justified.  So there we have yet another example of "fine print" which negates Pastor Seltz' premise.

Mt Claret Retreat Center, Camelback  Mountatin behind it.
Seltz goes on to tell another story, this one of a 21 year old man in Phoenix, Arizona who had decided to climb Camelback Mountain.  He made this decision without thought for any special clothing or gear - just a "strapping young man" who was full of courage.  However, as you may have guessed already, after getting about 50 feet up the side of a steep and shear rock face, he found himself unable to climb any higher and it was too risky to attempt to climb back down.  He was stuck, but he did happen to have a cell phone on him - so he called "9-1-1" and rescuers came out to save him.  He was saved because he gave up his pride and humbly called out for help.  Well, this climber happen to know the right number to call!  What if he had called the Mount Claret Retreat Center (a Catholic church and retreat center at the base of Camelback Mountain)?  The priests, nuns and/or office staff there would not have been able to "save" that young man - however, they would have known the right number to call to get him rescued!  The point we make here is just calling out for help may not be enough!  You have to call the right number!  When it comes to our salvation and the forgiveness of our sins, Jesus gave explicit instructions (more "fine print" for Pastor Seltz) which specifically points out who is able to forgive sins.  Jesus gave this authority to a special group of men, the Apostles, who would become our first bishops in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and only THESE MEN had the authority to forgive sins, and sins THEY did not forgive are NOT forgiven (John 20:22-23).  In the same context, as Jesus sent our first bishops out, they too were to send others out in the same manner  (John 20:21) [typo fixed, thanks Nathan!].  So, going somewhere which does not have this apostolic authority means you're going somewhere which has no authority to forgive sins - you would therefore be still stuck on the side of Camelback Mountain, to use Pastor Seltz' analogy.  You would not be "saved."

One cannot read Romans 10 in a vacuum, apart from the rest of Scripture.  The "fine print" is there, for those who have eyes to see.

Overall, Pastor Seltz message is not too far off the mark, in fact, "the message" is right on - but when it comes to where/whom to call, he "missed it by that much."

Please click on one of the "share" buttons below to share this article to your favorite social media sites - and feel free to comment too!

Luther on the Eucharist

What did Martin Luther believe regarding the Eucharist?

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
(qtd, on:  https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/ )

From The Large Catechism (XIV):


And all these are established by the words by which Christ has instituted it, and which every one who desires to be a Christian and go to the Sacrament should know. For it is not our intention to admit to it and to administer it to those who know not what they seek, or why they come. The words, however, are these:
    Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.

    After the same manner also He took the cup when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
Here also we do not wish to enter into controversy and contend with the traducers and blasphemers of this Sacrament, but to learn first (as we did regarding Baptism) what is of the greatest importance, namely that the chief point is the Word and ordinance or command of God. For it has not been invented nor introduced by any man, but without any one's counsel and deliberation it has been instituted by Christ. Therefore, just as the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed retain their nature and worth although you never keep, pray, or believe them, so also does this venerable Sacrament remain undisturbed, so that nothing is detracted or taken from it, even though we employ and dispense it unworthily. What do you think God cares about what we do or believe, so that on that account He should suffer His ordinance to be changed? Why, in all worldly matters every thing remains as God has created and ordered it, no matter how we employ or use it. This must always be urged, for thereby the prating of nearly all the fanatical spirits can be repelled. For they regard the Sacraments, aside from the Word of God, as something that we do.

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar!

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et At sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence fear, and humility.

With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about which men are troubled at the present time, such as this one: Whether even a wicked priest can minister at, and dispense, the Sacrament, and whatever other questions like this there may be. For here we conclude and say: Even though a knave takes or distributes the Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the true body and blood of Christ, just as truly as he who [receives or] administers it in the most worthy manner. For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be misused. For the Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief. For He does not say: If you believe or are worthy, you receive My body and blood, but: Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood. Likewise: Do this (namely, what I now do, institute, give, and bid you take) . That is as much as to say, No matter whether you are worthy or unworthy, you have here His body and blood by virtue of these words which are added to the bread and wine. Only note and remember this well; for upon these words rest all our foundation, protection, and defense against all errors and deception that have ever come or may yet come.

Thus we have briefly the first point which relates to the essence of this Sacrament. Now examine further the efficacy and benefits on account of which really the Sacrament was instituted; which is also its most necessary part, that we may know what we should seek and obtain there. Now this is plain and clear from the words just mentioned: This is My body and blood, given and shed FOR YOU, for the remission of sins. Briefly that is as much as to say: For this reason we go to the Sacrament because there we receive such a treasure by and in which we obtain forgiveness of sins. Why so? Because the words stand here and give us this; for on this account He bids me eat and drink, that it may be my own and may benefit me, as a sure pledge and token, yea, the very same treasure that is appointed for me against my sins, death, and every calamity.

On this account it is indeed called a food of souls, which nourishes and strengthens the new man. For by Baptism we are first born anew; but (as we said before) there still remains, besides, the old vicious nature of flesh and blood in man, and there are so many hindrances and temptations of the devil and of the world that we often become weary and faint, and sometimes also stumble.

Therefore it is given for a daily pasture and sustenance, that faith may refresh and strengthen itself so as not to fall back in such a battle, but become ever stronger and stronger. For the new life must be so regulated that it continually increase and progress, but it must suffer much opposition. For the devil is such a furious enemy that when he sees that we oppose him and attack the old man, and that he cannot topple us over by force, he prowls and moves about on all sides, tries all devices, and does not desist until he finally wearies us, so that we either renounce our faith or yield hands and feet and become listless or impatient. Now to this end the consolation is here given when the heart feels that the burden is becoming too heavy, that it may here obtain new power and refreshment.

But here our wise spirits contort themselves with their great art and wisdom, crying out and bawling: How can bread and wine forgive sins or strengthen faith? Although they hear and know that we do not say this of bread and wine, because in itself bread is bread, but of such bread and wine as is the body and blood of Christ, and has the words attached to it. That, we say, is verily the treasure, and nothing else, through which such forgiveness is obtained. Now the only way in which it is conveyed and appropriated to us is in the words (Given and shed for you). For herein you have both truths, that it is the body and blood of Christ, and that it is yours as a treasure and gift. Now the body of Christ can never be an unfruitful, vain thing, that effects or profits nothing. Yet however great is the treasure in itself, it must be comprehended in the Word and administered to us, else we should never be able to know or seek it.

Therefore also it is vain talk when they say that the body and blood of Christ are not given and shed for us in the Lord's Supper, hence we could not have forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament. For although the work is accomplished and the forgiveness of sins acquired on the cross, yet it cannot come to us in any other way than through the Word. For what would we otherwise know about it, that such a thing was accomplished or was to be given us if it were not presented by preaching or the oral Word? Whence do they know of it, or how can they apprehend and appropriate to themselves the forgiveness, except they lay hold of and believe the Scriptures and the Gospel? But now the entire Gospel and the article of the Creed: I believe a holy Christian (the Creed says "catholic") Church, the forgiveness of sin, etc., are by the Word embodied in this Sacrament and presented to us. Why, then, should we allow this treasure to be torn from the Sacrament when they must confess that these are the very words which we hear everywhere in the Gospel, and they cannot say that these words in the Sacrament are of no use, as little as they dare say that the entire Gospel or Word of God, apart from the Sacrament, is of no use?

Thus we have the entire Sacrament, both as to what it is in itself and as to what it brings and profits. Now we must also see who is the person that receives this power and benefit. That is answered briefly, as we said above of Baptism and often elsewhere: Whoever believes it has what the words declare and bring. For they are not spoken or proclaimed to stone and wood, but to those who hear them, to whom He says: Take and eat, etc. And because He offers and promises forgiveness of sin, it cannot be received otherwise than by faith. This faith He Himself demands in the Word when He says: Given and shed for you. As if He said: For this reason I give it, and bid you eat and drink, that you may claim it as yours and enjoy it. Whoever now accepts these words, and believes that what they declare is true, has it. But whoever does not believe it has nothing, as he allows it to be offered to him in vain, and refuses to enjoy such a saving good. The treasure, indeed, is opened and placed at every one's door, yea upon his table, but it is necessary that you also claim it, and confidently view it as the words suggest to you.

This, now, is the entire Christian preparation for receiving this Sacrament worthily. For since this treasure is entirely presented in the words, it cannot be apprehended and appropriated in any other way than with the heart. For such a gift and eternal treasure cannot be seized with the fist. Fasting and prayer, etc., may indeed be an external preparation and discipline for children, that the body may keep and bear itself modestly and reverently towards the body and blood of Christ; yet what is given in and with it the body cannot seize and appropriate. But this is done by the faith of the heart, which discerns this treasure and desires it. This may suffice for what is necessary as a general instruction respecting this Sacrament; for what is further to be said of it belongs to another time.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-14.html

By nearly all the words here, Luther's view on the Eucharist is very "Catholic."  The distinction between Lutheran and Catholic theology can be shown through two words, "transubstantiation" v. "consubstantiation."  My father-in-law often stated the truism, "words mean things," and they most certainly do here.  Clearly both words are dealing with the "substance" of the Eucharist - but one deals with "change" (tran-) and the other speaks of "with" (con-).  The Catholic view is that the substance changes "transubstantiation" and Luther's view was that the body and blood of Christ, while truly present, is "with" (to use his own words, "in and under") the substance or "consubstantiation."  So which view is the more scriptural view?  Did Jesus hold up the host and declare "This IS My body WITH the bread," or did He say, "This IS My body," period?  Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24 - regardless of translation you will find that Jesus (or St. Paul repeating Jesus' words) does not say "WITH" but simply, "this IS My body..."  Does this cause you to stumble or grumble?  Do you realize that in such grumbling you would put yourself in the same boat with those disciples who also grumbled, and then "turned and walked with Him no more."  Do you really want to be in THAT boat?!  Luther was close, but he:

I encourage you to continue studying this topic, and if you like - join us in discussion or even debate in the Catholic Debate Forum - where respectful questions, even the "tough ones," are answered.

Questions for Catholics - Part 7 - The Mass and Call No Man Father

In Prasch's final entry he states:
Jacob Prasch
But I have one final question for my Roman Catholic friends. And I assure you I have many friends, I am not speaking antagonistically or with hostility to any Catholic people. I'm only asking you these questions which I’d like you to answer, I invite you to answer. Engage with me, there’s one more I’d like to ask you.
I hope he's sincere and is really asking for engagement.  If there are any questions he feels I have not answered, or answered fully, I hope he does not hesitate to engage the discussion.
I am told that the doctrine of the mass says Jesus must die and again and again and again sacramentally. The same sacrifice that took place on Calvary happens in the mass: He dies sacramentally. He has to die again, again, and again. Remembering that the Lord’s Supper – communion, the Eucharist as Catholics would define it – comes from the Jewish Passover which is a memorial, you remember something already happened, the Roman Church rather says, “No, it continues to happen sacramentally.”
I'm reading from the epistle to the Hebrews 7:27, Christ…
who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. Why is there daily mass when it says we don't need a daily Mass? The Old Testament sacrifices that took place daily with the priests in the temple were symbols of what the Messiah would do. Given the fact that He came and did it, we don't need it anymore according to the epistle to the Hebrews.
The epistle to the Hebrews 9:12
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He……that is, Christ…
…entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.  If it’s “eternal” it means it’s forever and ever without end, without beginning as such – it’s eternal. He did it once and for all for all eternity. Why is there a mass?
Chapter 10 of Hebrews, verse 12…
but He……that is, Christ…
… having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, One sacrifice for sins for all time. Verse 14…
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.  If something is perfection, by definition it cannot be improved upon. How can you improve upon perfection?
Given the fact that Rome claims Peter was the first pope, can it be explained why, in his epistle in 1 Peter 3:18, St. Peter says Christ diedonce to bear the sins? Once – perfection – for all eternity! We don’t need a priest to do it again and again like in the Old Testament, the Priest has come. It’s a good question.
Well, it's a good question from one who is ignorant of Catholic teaching.  Prasch is actually pretty close to the answer, but seems to have "missed it by that much."  The Mass is not a new offering, over and over again, it is a re-presentation of the same Sacrifice of Christ.  God is timeless, as are acts of God.  When Jesus was crucified on the Cross, that One Sacrifice is for all time and the Mass "taps into" that eternal Sacrifice.  The Mass does not re-crucify Christ, that one act was done - but at the same time is an eternal act.  Jesus Himself commanded that we "do this" every time we partake in the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:25 and Luke 22:19).  To not use the ceremony (the Mass) which He Himself instituted would be contrary to His command.  Again, this is not the imperfect sacrifices of the Old Testament priests, but the Perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  When the New Testament priests offer this Sacrifice, it is not by their own authority, but in "alter christus," it is through Jesus Christ Himself, operating through the priest, that He, Jesus, offers the same Sacrifice for us in the Mass.  Again, it's not a new or repeated sacrifice, it is the same Sacrifice that we "tap into" through the Mystery of Faith.

It truly takes Faith to accept this Mystery too, as Jesus Christ hides Himself under the appearance of bread and wine, but the reality of Faith is that it is no longer bread and wine, though the accidents (those things we sense) still appear to be bread and wine, the substance (that which it really is) is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  If you lack the faith to accept this, then pray to Jesus that He gives you sufficient faith to accept Him at His Word.  

Why do we need the Mass?  Because Jesus told us how we are to remember and celebrate His suffering and victory.  To not "do this" would be to disobey Him.  That's why we need the Mass.
A famous priest who was a Catholic theologian, the author of eight books, on a video admitted he didn't have the answer. Understand something: What astounded me coming from a Catholic background on my mother’s side was that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching as precepts of God the inventions of men. (Mt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7)
The last thing Jesus said in the Apocalypse is don’t add to the Bible. (Rev. 22:18-19) In his First epistle to the Corinthians 4:6 St. Paul said, “Learn not to exceed what is written”. Moses says don’t add to it, (Dt. 4:2) Jesus said if you do you’ll be condemned to hell. 
Before changing the subject, Prasch presented the above warnings not to add to or change the Scriptures.  I'd like to know who this "famous priest" is and see the context of that video, but the context from the Scriptures he refers to do not really say what he presents them as saying.  Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7 speak to Isaiah's prophesy of the Pharisees and scribes because they rejected God's word for the sake of their korban tradition, specifically the precept to honor your father and mother was over-ruled by a korban which allowed for sons to circumvent the obligation to care for one's parents by consecrating to God that which would have been used to support them in their old age.  Revelation 22:18-19 speaks specifically to the Book of Revelation, not to "the Bible" which had not been put together as a book nor in the form of the "canon" we're familiar with now (that would not happen for nearly 400 years).  Deuteronomy 4:2 speaks to Mosaic Law, which I am quite certain Mr. Prasch does not fully adhere to, and if he does not then to use this passage is quite hypocritical.  Jesus, contrary to what Mr. Prasch said, quotes Old Testament Scripture several times and then says, "but I say..." so does Prasch accuse Jesus of the same thing he accuses Catholics?  

In short, the inconsistency and inaccuracy of Prasch's arguments are exposed.  
Find me indulgences, purgatory, or the mass in the New Testament. Penance? Whose sins you shall forgive? That was talking about leading people to Christ. Show me one place in the book of Acts where the early Christians went to confession to a priest. Or a better question, show me a priest.
It could be said that each of Prasch's challenges can be covered in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 - the Church was given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses.  As for indulgences, these are specifically under the authority just mentioned, but there are examples in Scripture:
In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42) (qtd on Catholic Answers).
Prasch's first objection will likely be that 2 Maccabees is from the Deuterocanonicals (he may call that the Apocrypha, which is not an accurate name as apocrypha means "hidden" and those books were never hidden).  The point is, however, that the books of the Maccabees reflect what the Jews thought, believed and practiced.  Scripture also refers to sins being forgiven in both this world and the next:
32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.  (Matt. 12:32).
Being relieved of sin "in the world to come" is an indulgence, it is scriptural.

As for Purgatory, there are several scriptural references, including the two just previously mentioned.  We also have Rev. 21:27 (nothing impure can enter Heaven),  1 Cor. 3:13 (our works will be tested, as by fire) and St. Peter makes the same analogy in 1 Peter 1:7 as well as Zechariah 13:9 and Proverbs 17:3-13.  References to indulgences and Purgatory are clearly there for those who are not blind to see them.

As for the Mass, please Mr. Prasch!  The central point of the Mass is the Eucharist and that is straight out of Scripture.  The rest of the Mass, if you study it even minimally, comes from Scripture too.  The structure actually has Jewish roots, as our religion really isn't a new religion, it is a completion of the Jewish faith.
There is no such thing as a priest in the New Testament because we are all called priests by Peter. (1 Peter 2:5,9) St. Peter said we are all priests with Christ as the High Priest. There is no “priest”, the word is “presbyter” where you get the word “Presbyterian”. It meant the elders of a congregation. There was no priesthood other than the priesthood of all Christians.  
Actually, the English word "priest" comes from the Greek word "presbyter," which Prasch admits is part of the New Testament, in fact is mentioned several times throughout.  One of the responsibilities of the "elder," if you wish, was to perform the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist with his congregation.  St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, wrote of the distinctions between the authority of the bishops as separate from the authority of presbyters and deacons.

Yes, we are all called to a priesthood of believers, but what does that really mean, especially to the non-Catholic?  We are all called to offer up our own sacrifices too.  When we suffer, we can offer up those sufferings in union with the suffering of our Lord on the Cross.  Out of our abundance, we can offer up a portion to the needy.  If we don't have an abundance of money, we can always offer up prayers for those in need - especially for those who cann0t petition for themselves, the ones in most need of His mercy. 
Jesus said call no man your father as a religious title. In Matthew 23, St. Matthew quotes Jesus As saying, “Call no man your father”. (Mt. 23:9) Jesus forbade us to call the pope a “holy father” or to call the priest “our father”. He forbade it as a religious title. “Call no man your father”. There’s no priest, He said don’t even call somebody that, One is your Father who is in heaven.
Nathan, who also authors on this blog, wrote an article on "Call No Man Father" in response to this same challenge back in 2013.  

Scripture Catholic posts an article citing the many times Scripture calls men "father" https://www.scripturecatholic.com/priesthood-fathers-celibacy-womens-ordination/ 


The bottom line here is Prasch, as well as other assumably well-meaning Protestants who also often take this passage out of context, misses the point.  The point is not to be like the Pharisees.  In the verse just previous, Matthew 23:8 tells us not to call anyone "rabbi" or "teacher," yet 
With sincerity I've asked these questions. Who do I believe, Mary or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Paul or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Peter or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Matthew or the Vatican? Who do I believe, Jesus Christ or the Vatican? I had to make a decision, so do you. Whom will you believe?
And with all sincerity, your questions have all been answered.  Do we believe Mary or the Vatican?  We believe both.  Mary points us to Christ, and so does the Vatican.  The same is true of the other questions.  To decide not to to believe Catholicism is to not believe in what Jesus Christ taught us.  After His Resurrection, He spent another 40 days with the Apostles, our first bishops, teaching them how His Church was to be run.  As He commands them to do as He did - as He was sent, He also sends them. (John 20:21).  This means that they too had to go out and select more bishops, and those bishops were to select others - and it is in that succession of bishops that we find His True Church.  Outside of that succession you do not have the fullness of His Truth.  His desire is that we be one, just He and the Father are one, (John 17:20-21).  Yes, you have made a decision - but your journey is not at its end.  As the Prodigal Son did, it's time for you to come home.

I do hope you will engage this discussion, as there is so much more that can be said on each topic.  It has also not gone un-noticed by me that you have been recovering from a severe illness while I've been writing these responses.  You have been in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope you fully recover.  When you are well enough, do look me up.

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<
Scott Windsor
Part 6 - Doctrine of Demons?

Back to Index Page

Feast of the Assumption

 The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...