Former Lutherans, now Catholic?

[JonNC]

I really admire what you and Jon have to ask and what you two think about this. It is a paramount question. In my own personal understand, through the eyes of a faithful Catholic, is that you need to trust in God for the truth. I would say, go in prayer. Catholics are taught that Orthodox sacraments are valid. I think Orthodox feels the same about Catholic sacraments. Both claim to be the true Church, the bride of Christ. Well, the most logical thing for anyone inquiring would be to go to tabernacles where the valid Blessed Sacrament is within the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and pray to Almighty, All-knowing, and All-loving God that he will send his Spirit to guild you as you pray.

If God is the driver, wherever you are sent (make sure to be honest and throw out your own ideas) then you can’t go wrong. The Father would know who the bride of his Son. The Son founded the Church that is his bride. And the Holy Spirit guides the bride. You’re good to go.

Important: I would highly highly suggest you pray very passionate and very specifically. Not just how to be in good graces with God or who has proper sacraments. Ask such questions as where can I become a saint, where is the Church founded by Christ now, which one would the Apostles say have kept to their teachings throughout time, and where does Christ want me to be to best worship him?

P.S. You may already be doing this. But I think if you really commit, you’ll know the answer to your question. Don’t hesitate. There are lots of ways to learn about God, but what better way to learn if either Catholics or Orthodox have it right then to ask the Blessed Sacrament that they both worship!

I really appreciate this well thought out and heart felt post.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

Hi Ralph,
It is curious, and to someone like me, a bit confusing that you close your first paragraph by saying, "Not that I am saying that the Orthodox are correct, mind you.", then feel safe in giving them an “A”. And that is the confusion Iowajay and I are talking about. Yes, I feel safe enough in Lutheransim to say it also has an “A”, or close enough to it. So, if I’m going to change, another “A” isn’t good enough. I need to be certain that the “A” Church I move to is the 100% true Church. Without east-west reconciliation, there is no way to know which (if either) is just that. And why take the risk of changing, and maybe going from one tier 2 church to another?

Now, of course, as I told workingman above, there is always the possibility of being pushed - somewhere.

Jon

I know that you feel that Lutheranism would make an A or at least a high enough B to do , otherwise, you would have been pushed out by now.

Here is how I see it. No matter how many issues one paints between the Catholic and the Orthodox, the main sticking point is Papal Infallibilty and Supremacy (They should be connected as one, really, because one depends on the other to work). If Catholics are right, they have the 100% and the Orthodox do not. If Catholics are wrong, and the Orthodox are right, flip it. Now, the other issues are close enough to each other that there is only one question missed on the test. Personally, I buy Rome’s argument, but I cannot totally dismiss the Orthodox as completely without merit. But, as I cannot rule Rome out, I cannot in good faith go to Constantinople. That sounds familier, doesn’t it?

Lutherans have a few more issues. Sure the Pope is a HUGE one, but so is the role of the Sacraments (and number), the place of Scripture vs. tradition, and so on. However, the Lutherans that are more resonable see a Real Presence, and that is HUGE as well.

The issue of being pushed out is a good one that we should all discuss one day. In the end, I think that will lead to many converts to the Catholic and Orthodox faith, as well as into the more conservative Liturgical Protestants.

 

[IowaJay]

I fully echo JonNC’s thanks for all who have participated in this thread. I think this has been the kind of dialogue that I hoped would happen when I first stumbled upon this message board awhile back.

One aspect of the discussion that hasn’t been directly addressed yet is the concept of what is essential and what is nonessential in faith. As I have indicated before, I have problems with some aspects of Lutheranism. However, one aspect of Lutheranism that I just can’t seem to shake is the concept of adiaphora - that there are some matters of the faith that are not essential to salvation. And this is perhaps the biggest problem I have with Catholicism - I see a tendency to overly dogmatize certain things - for example, Marian dogmas. I have absolutely no problem with people believing in the immaculate conception and the assumption. As has been pointed out, Luther’s writings indicate he was sympathetic to these beliefs. However, I’m not convinced that these are dogmas which should be mandatory for all believers.

For me personally, I’m personally sympathetic to RC/EO beliefs regarding the idea of the saints praying for us, the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Bible (the Lutheran confessions do not define the canon!), the threefold office of ministry (bishop/priest/deacon), and apostolic succession of bishops, but I still have difficulty accepting that these must be mandatory beliefs for all.

So, this is another layer of the hurdle that I have, which is related to what I have said earlier about my reticence of joining a Church that demands 100% assent to all it teaches.

 

[yoopersenior]

For me, the primary issue was authority; i.e., issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and so forth showed me that the ELCA had none and were content to change their theology in accordance with public opinion, as opposed to seeking Truth regardless of societal pressure.

First, I should say that I have an appointment with a priest from a traditional Catholic Church tomorrow. I will be asking him about becoming a Catholic.

This was one of the issues I had with the Lutherans (and other denominations who change rules, beliefs, etc. according to what is popular). I was raised and confirmed in the ELCA, and was a deacon at one time.

Christianity Today’s website says that there are 38,000 Protestant denominations at present in the world. Think about it! Each one seems to go further away from the truth. Some churches are based on one line of Scripture - like the snake handling churches of Appalachia. (If you want to see what they are about, look on YouTube). Then there are the Holy Spirit churches where people laugh hysterically, crow like roosters, fall all over each other on the floors… When I think of the beauty and dignity of the Mass, it makes quite a comparison.

 

[yoopersenior]

I did a lot of praying before I came to my decision, so ultimately it was the Holy Spirit doing the leading. I’ve come to believe with all my heart in the Real Presence, the value of praying the rosary, the value of redemptive suffering and “offering it up”. And so many other things that several years ago I would have dismissed in that anti-Catholic attitude so many Protestants have. It’s a matter of faith. I now love learning about all the richness of the Church, but learning isn’t what made me decide to convert. Someone recently (maybe it was on EWTN, I don’t remember) said, Faith must come before knowledge.

I have accepted that church authority has to be a hierarchy. Look what happens when democracy is applied in churches. The popular thing to do is not always the right thing to do. The right thing to do is not always the popular thing to do. We can’t “tweak” the laws of God every time we don’t want to obey them.

 

[Reuben_J]

Might have started with me, when I mentioned I was a history minor because the same poster tried suggesting I knew nothing of scripture or history though a host of straw man arguments. So my bad there.

No problem there. You are stating it as it is.

But how many times have we encountered some Protestants who would tell us that we do not know about History and the Bible (perhaps much to the chagrin of their fellow Protestants who have known better)? They would then go on to lecture us on History and the Bible (of course, their own version of History and Biblical interpretation). But what’s so predictable is that they would try to impress you first by remunerating their academic credentials. It’s like a pre-empt assault before they move into the main attack.

Well, don’t fall into that but to keep our composure so as not to be defensive and fall to their level. It is not Christian.

Considering that the thread has progressed objectively and charitably, this may be a dampener but we can always improve as we move on.

God bless.

 

[JonNC]

I fully echo JonNC’s thanks for all who have participated in this thread. I think this has been the kind of dialogue that I hoped would happen when I first stumbled upon this message board awhile back.

One aspect of the discussion that hasn’t been directly addressed yet is the concept of what is essential and what is nonessential in faith. As I have indicated before, I have problems with some aspects of Lutheranism. However, one aspect of Lutheranism that I just can’t seem to shake is the concept of adiaphora - that there are some matters of the faith that are not essential to salvation. And this is perhaps the biggest problem I have with Catholicism - I see a tendency to overly dogmatize certain things - for example, Marian dogmas. I have absolutely no problem with people believing in the immaculate conception and the assumption. As has been pointed out, Luther’s writings indicate he was sympathetic to these beliefs. However, I’m not convinced that these are dogmas which should be mandatory for all believers.

For me personally, I’m personally sympathetic to RC/EO beliefs regarding the idea of the saints praying for us, the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Bible (the Lutheran confessions do not define the canon!), the threefold office of ministry (bishop/priest/deacon), and apostolic succession of bishops, but I still have difficulty accepting that these must be mandatory beliefs for all.

So, this is another layer of the hurdle that I have, which is related to what I have said earlier about my reticence of joining a Church that demands 100% assent to all it teaches.

I couldn’t agree more. I share many of your stated sympathies. I also think I would be more inclined to accept the dogmatics of some of these things had they the benefit of a true ecumenical council.

Jon

 

[workingman]

IowaJay;6013880]I fully echo JonNC’s thanks for all who have participated in this thread. I think this has been the kind of dialogue that I hoped would happen when I first stumbled upon this message board awhile back

.
I also would like to extend the same thank you to all so far. This has been a great thread.

One aspect of the discussion that hasn’t been directly addressed yet is the concept of what is essential and what is nonessential in faith. As I have indicated before, I have problems with some aspects of Lutheranism. However, one aspect of Lutheranism that I just can’t seem to shake is the concept of adiaphora - that there are some matters of the faith that are not essential to salvation. And this is perhaps the biggest problem I have with Catholicism - I see a tendency to overly dogmatize certain things - for example, Marian dogmas. I have absolutely no problem with people believing in the immaculate conception and the assumption. As has been pointed out, Luther’s writings indicate he was sympathetic to these beliefs. However, I’m not convinced that these are dogmas which should be mandatory for all believers.

I do see the point of the adiaphora there are some that are not essential but how does one decide? That to me is the hardest part. This is where I leave it to the Bishops and follow the Church direction. Also a lot of prayer.

I am curious though of the five Marian dogmas what is the hardest one’s for you?
The Catholic Church has proclaimed five Dogmas about Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ:
1- Mary Mother of God, 431.
2- Mary always Virgin, before the birth of Jesus, during the birth, and after the birth of Jesus, 649.
3- Mary Immaculate: On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX issued the bull Ineffabilis Deus, which proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, “preserved free from all guilt of original sin”.
4- The Assumption of Mary, on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII stated that Mary was “taken up body and soul into heaven,” and “exalted as Queen of the Universe.”
5- A fifth dogma is “Mother of the Church”, proclaimed by Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, Nov. 21, 1964

For me personally, I’m personally sympathetic to RC/EO beliefs regarding the idea of the saints praying for us, the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Bible (the Lutheran confessions do not define the canon!), the threefold office of ministry (bishop/priest/deacon), and apostolic succession of bishops, but I still have difficulty accepting that these must be mandatory beliefs for all.

The saints praying for us is a powerful and wonderful thing, that I feel one should use. I do find it ironic that the deuterocanonical books are used in places in The Book of Concodia to demonstrate points but the Lutheran Church today does not like to use them.
Apostolic succession does have biblical points but I think most of this could be a whole nother thread.

So, this is another layer of the hurdle that I have, which is related to what I have said earlier about my reticence of joining a Church that demands 100% assent to all it teaches.

I guess I see it as the opposite. If I don’t believe it 100% why would I be there. This is how I feel I got pushed out of the Lutheran Church.

JohnNC, Thank you first for asking if I would share my thoughts on the topics in the previous post. Second thank you for your comments and kind remarks. I truly enjoy reading your post as they are quite well formulated and polite even if one does not always agree. God bless you and yours.

 

[IowaJay]

.

I guess I see it as the opposite. If I don’t believe it 100% why would I be there. This is how I feel I got pushed out of the Lutheran Church.

I did not express my thoughts very clearly. My complaint with the Catholic Church is not that it expects a 100% belief in what it teaches as dogma - that makes sense. My complaint is the number of things it has defined as dogma and demands assent to, which would be best left as a permissible pious opinion among the faithful, and not necessarily mandatory.

An example would be the Immaculate Conception, which is my answer to the question of which Marian dogma presents the biggest problem for me. I understand the reason for many of the others, particularly the belief in Mary as the Theotokos, which is necessary to avoid the Nestorian heresy which affected the orthodox belief in the two natures of Christ. The Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, does not add anything to solidify the Nicene/Chalcedonian faith as I see it, though, so I’m not sure why it has to be a mandatory belief.

 

[JonNC]

=workingman;6014813].
I do see the point of the adiaphora there are some that are not essential but how does one decide? That to me is the hardest part. This is where I leave it to the Bishops and follow the Church direction. Also a lot of prayer.

As you know, the Lutheran way is to determine what scripture says is necessary for salvation, and what is explicit in scripture. For example: Mary as Theotokos is explicit, the Assumption is implicit, but neither belief has a scriptural designation as necessary for salvation.

I am curious though of the five Marian dogmas what is the hardest one’s for you?
The Catholic Church has proclaimed five Dogmas about Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ:
1- Mary Mother of God, 431.
2- Mary always Virgin, before the birth of Jesus, during the birth, and after the birth of Jesus, 649.
3- Mary Immaculate: On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX issued the bull Ineffabilis Deus, which proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, “preserved free from all guilt of original sin”.
4- The Assumption of Mary, on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII stated that Mary was “taken up body and soul into heaven,” and “exalted as Queen of the Universe.”
5- A fifth dogma is “Mother of the Church”, proclaimed by Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, Nov. 21, 1964

First, take a look at the dates. For me, that is huge when determining which ought to be believed without question. The last three do not have the support of a *true * ecumenical council. So, 1 and 2 I accept without reservation.
3 & 4 I have no problem with, but then I think the Orthodox have a different take on them. They describe things that are implicit, but the believer’s conscience should not be bound either way. The “Queen of the Universe” and “Mother of the Church” in 5 just are not part of Lutheran culture. That doesn’t make believing in them wrong, but the believe ought not be bound to them.

The saints praying for us is a powerful and wonderful thing, that I feel one should use. I do find it ironic that the deuterocanonical books are used in places in The Book of Concodia to demonstrate points but the Lutheran Church today does not like to use them.
Apostolic succession does have biblical points but I think most of this could be a whole nother thread.

Agreed on both points.

JohnNC, Thank you first for asking if I would share my thoughts on the topics in the previous post. Second thank you for your comments and kind remarks. I truly enjoy reading your post as they are quite well formulated and polite even if one does not always agree. God bless you and yours.

And thank you for sharing them. Yours is a very interesting perspective for me.

Jon

 

[workingman]

I did not express my thoughts very clearly. My complaint with the Catholic Church is not that it expects a 100% belief in what it teaches as dogma - that makes sense. My complaint is the number of things it has defined as dogma and demands assent to, which would be best left as a permissible pious opinion among the faithful, and not necessarily mandatory.

An example would be the Immaculate Conception, which is my answer to the question of which Marian dogma presents the biggest problem for me. I understand the reason for many of the others, particularly the belief in Mary as the Theotokos, which is necessary to avoid the Nestorian heresy which affected the orthodox belief in the two natures of Christ. The Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, does not add anything to solidify the Nicene/Chalcedonian faith as I see it, though, so I’m not sure why it has to be a mandatory belief.

Thank you for making it a little more clear for me. I do see your point’s. Thank you. I am not able at this point to answer why it is mandatory so I will get back to you on it when I have a proper answer if I am not beat’s me to it.

 

[workingman]

JonNC;6015447]As you know, the Lutheran way is to determine what scripture says is necessary for salvation, and what is explicit in scripture. For example: Mary as Theotokos is explicit, the Assumption is implicit, but neither belief has a scriptural designation as necessary for salvation.

First, take a look at the dates. For me, that is huge when determining which ought to be believed without question. The last three do not have the support of a *true * ecumenical council. So, 1 and 2 I accept without reservation.
3 & 4 I have no problem with, but then I think the Orthodox have a different take on them. They describe things that are implicit, but the believer’s conscience should not be bound either way. The “Queen of the Universe” and “Mother of the Church” in 5 just are not part of Lutheran culture. That doesn’t make believing in them wrong, but the believe ought not be bound to them.

Thank you JonNC. A do agree a ecumenical council would help with the them being athorative. All I guess I say about it is pray and see what the answer is. God will let you know.

 

[ufamtobie]

There are 2 here that I know of. “workingman” and I believe newbie2. Also, I believe Jerry Parker is in the process, as is Adam14 (I think that’s the name), though he doesn’t post very frequently.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I know of another Lutheran soon to be Catholic! It is You Jon:thumbsup: Lord Willing.

Ufamtobie

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I know of another Lutheran soon to be Catholic! It is You Jon:thumbsup: Lord Willing.

Ufamtobie

Thank you, my friend, for your kindness. I wonder, though, what have I written that makes you think this? It would be, I think , really interesting, and in keeping with this thread.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thank you, my friend, for your kindness. I wonder, though, what have I written that makes you think this? It would be, I think , really interesting, and in keeping with this thread.

Thanks,
Jon

You have indicated your desire to be a part of an apostolic succession-based ministry in the past and your frustration with the fact that Lutheranism, by and large, lacks it…maybe that’s a clue And you’re so charitable, kind, open-minded, and thoughtful in your ongoing dialogues with Catholics. You’re very concerned about truth and fairness and overall your interactions with Catholics are just positive and ecumenical as heck. You’re a guy all Catholics would love to have on “the team!”

 

[Reuben_J]

I did not express my thoughts very clearly. My complaint with the Catholic Church is not that it expects a 100% belief in what it teaches as dogma - that makes sense. My complaint is the number of things it has defined as dogma and demands assent to, which would be best left as a permissible pious opinion among the faithful, and not necessarily mandatory.

An example would be the Immaculate Conception, which is my answer to the question of which Marian dogma presents the biggest problem for me. I understand the reason for many of the others, particularly the belief in Mary as the Theotokos, which is necessary to avoid the Nestorian heresy which affected the orthodox belief in the two natures of Christ. The Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, does not add anything to solidify the Nicene/Chalcedonian faith as I see it, though, so I’m not sure why it has to be a mandatory belief.

Though I can understand why you have this stance and it is quite reasonable in and by itself perhaps the premise that we must have the essentials and the non-essentials that creates this problem.

Mandatory belief needs not confine to the essentials only. By doing so we simplify Christianity unlike as it was believed and practiced by the apostles. Personally I thought every teaching of the Church is an essential.

The Immaculate Conception exalts Jesus which you rightly pointed out that the Nestorians wanted to downgrade. Seen in this perspective it solidifies the Nicene faith.

 

[ralphinal]

Let me see if I can help confuse the issue.

We are required to believe dogmas because the Church has said that they are dogmas. It may or may not have to do with the dogma being that crucial to our understanding of God.

For example, the dogma of the Assumption. Now, if the Blessed Mother was not assumed into heaven, it does not change the faith one little bit. However, this has been believed in one form or another for the majority of the time the Church has existed. Because of that, and because some argued that Mary might not have even believed and could be in hell, the Church says that it is dogmatic and must be accepted. It is a matter of trust in the Church and submission of our own will to that of God that we accept it

 

[JonNC]

=ralphinal;6019470]Let me see if I can help confuse the issue.

We are required to believe dogmas because the Church has said that they are dogmas. It may or may not have to do with the dogma being that crucial to our understanding of God.

Hey Ralph. By what authority did the Pope and/or Magisterium make this dogma? The early Church would have required an ecumenical council, correct?

For example, the dogma of the Assumption. Now, if the Blessed Mother was not assumed into heaven, it does not change the faith one little bit. However, this has been believed in one form or another for the majority of the time the Church has existed. Because of that, and because some argued that Mary might not have even believed and could be in hell, the Church says that it is dogmatic and must be accepted. It is a matter of trust in the Church and submission of our own will to that of God that we accept it

The Theotokos in hell?

This is all fine, Ralph. But were I to take the stand that Luther took regarding the assumption: “There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.”, wouldn’t this be good enough to defend the faith against such statements as, “Mary did not believe”? Why can it not still be “believed in one form or another”, and not be Church dividing?

Luther continues: "And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . " And this is why, for a Lutheran, this particular marian teaching should be adiaphora, and not dogma.

Is then the difference between our views on this entire subject of dogmatic decrees that the Catholic Church believes the Pope was indeed given this dogma by the Holy Spirit?

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

Hey Ralph. By what authority did the Pope and/or Magisterium make this dogma? The early Church would have required an ecumenical council, correct?

Probably. The EO would have said yes. The pope did so with the Authority of the Pope, who hold the authority to bind and loose/

The Theotokos in hell?

I can give you names of people that I know who have said it is possible.

This is all fine, Ralph. But were I to take the stand that Luther took regarding the assumption: “There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.”, wouldn’t this be good enough to defend the faith against such statements as, “Mary did not believe”? Why can it not still be “believed in one form or another”, and not be Church dividing?

It does not matter what the dogma is. Either you accept that the Church can declaire it or you do not.

Within this dogma, there is some room to move. You do not have to accept that she died first, for example.

Luther continues: "And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . " And this is why, for a Lutheran, this particular marian teaching should be adiaphora, and not dogma.

Is then the difference between our views on this entire subject of dogmatic decrees that the Catholic Church believes the Pope was indeed given this dogma by the Holy Spirit?

Jon

Yes. Now, I assume that Luther is making a point that since it is not in the Bible, it should not be dogma. What if she had not died when the Gospels, or Acts, had been written? Where does that leave us?

I chose this one to discuss for a reason. First, both the EO and the Catholic Church accept it. It dates from very, very early in the Church. The only reason that it could be declaired dogma is because there is so much Tradition supporting it, none of which conflicts with Scriptures. It was made dogmatic by the Pope at the time when the Holy Spirit moved him to do so. It was not a new revelation, such as we see with Mormons.

 

[JonNC]

=ralphinal;6019706]Probably. The EO would have said yes. The pope did so with the Authority of the Pope, who hold the authority to bind and loose/

Yeah, I think we would disagree that the pope has this power, either based on “binding and loosing”, or the early Church.

Yes. Now, I assume that Luther is making a point that since it is not in the Bible, it should not be dogma. What if she had not died when the Gospels, or Acts, had been written? Where does that leave us?

I’m speculating here, but I think he would say that it is not explicit in scripture, and moreso that is not necessary for salvation.

I chose this one to discuss for a reason. First, both the EO and the Catholic Church accept it. It dates from very, very early in the Church. The only reason that it could be declaired dogma is because there is so much Tradition supporting it, none of which conflicts with Scriptures. It was made dogmatic by the Pope at the time when the Holy Spirit moved him to do so.

All reasons why I have no problem with it, except my belief that the pope cannot do this on his own, without ecumenical council, which also dates from the early Church.

Jon