No doubts about converting from LCMS

[Topper17]

Hi Don,

Probably about as well-catechized as Roman Catholics are regarding the anti-Lutheran Anathemas of Trent. Catechesis is often a sore point for both of our communions, at least in most of the Western World. I would further state the obvious generality (to which there are, of course, exceptions): individuals who leave one communion for another generally were not well-catechized in the first, or they wouldn’t have left. Think about it. Your communion teaches that leaving the RCC for another denomination puts an individual’s soul at risk. Why would you be surprised that we Lutherans, including Preus and Fisk, teach the same?

I completely disagree with your statement that the people who leave one communion for another are not well catechized. This would imply that our two theologies appeal equally to logic, reason, and the facts of Christian history. That is absolutely not true. As you stated, there certainly are exceptions. All of those notable Lutheran Theologians are the most glaring example. The fact is that they know more about Lutheran Theology than do Lutheran laypeople, and it definitely seems that they are converting at a higher rate than Lutheran laypeople. This would suggest that the people who know the MOST about Lutheran Theology are the most likely to convert. I think that that is telling.

That’s just silly, and I think you know that. If one seeks it, offense can be found - on both banks of the Tiber. But Christ calls us to be one. So why not work toward His command?

Don – I AM working towards unity.

I consider the Anathemas of Trent to be more so. The Lutheran Confessions do not pass a judgement on any individual; only against certain (to Lutherans, erroneous) teachings. The Anathemas, on the other hand, make it personal and condemn “anyone who holds ________… let him be anathema!” Now tell me. What’s more offensive? Telling someone that their practices may be sinful, or announcing that they are cursed and condemned a sinner?

My general understanding from posters on CA is that they don’t think that the Lutheran Confessions are offensive to Catholics. That shocks me. According to the Lutheran Confessions, I, personally, am an ‘adherent’. As for the anathemas, it would probably ease your mind to know that they do not apply to you. They do not.

What is the historical precedent for anathemas? Prior to the Reformation, who did the Church pronounce an anathema against? Conversely, what is the historic precedent for groups breaking away from the Church and then claiming that the Pope was the antichrist and that his adherents bore the marks of the antichrist?

:sigh:

I say that “Lutheranism and thus Protestantism were founded on personal interpretation – Luther’s - and your response is to sigh? I would agree though – you can’t deny it and you didn’t attempt to. Given that we are in agreement on Luther’s private interpretations being crucial to our division, the question then centers around Luther’s ‘authority’ to rebel against the Church and replace several dozen doctrines with ones that he found to be personally ‘more acceptable’. What was it that made Luther ‘right’ and all of Christendom before him wrong? BTW, I have not forgotten your denial that Luther was a ‘Prophet’. It is an integral part of the whole “Luther’s Authority” thing.

I wouldn’t trust statistics; apparently there are 226 different Catholic denominations - all in communion with Rome.

In my experience, the people who find the stats working against them are the ones who don’t trust them. I’m always in favor of the use of statistics. What I wish you had noticed about my comment was the term ‘doctrinally independent’. Of course, those 226 ‘different’ Catholic denominations are NOT AT ALL doctrinally independent. Yet, neither of us know how many doctrinally independent Lutheran denominations there are. I have seen lists which indicate that the number is more than 100.

If you want to work towards unity with someone, why start with Catholics?

Nothing to stop a Roman Catholic from doing this either, despite what our communions teach.

Before Christian unity was broken, there was no ‘place’ for dissenters to go. Luther and Protestantism set the precedent for individual ‘choice’ doctrinally. You can’t suggest that this was a ‘positive outcome’.

That’s not at all accurate, but I won’t address that jab in this thread.

First of all, there was no jab. Secondly, what was not accurate?

I know what you were asking. So I’ll return the question to you; would anyone - perhaps of the more liberal persuasion - leave the RCC if they learned that Pope Francis doesn’t actually condone homosexual unions? Would any RCC members leave if they knew what their church taught about other Christians at Trent?

Thanks to Protestantism, people of the ‘liberal persuasion’ have absolutely NO problem finding a church that agrees with THEM, and that is unfortunately how some people shop for churches. It is worth noting that those people who are looking for a ‘lesser version’ of Christianity, DO NOT migrate from something else to Catholicism.

God Bless You Don, Topper

 

[GraceofGod31]

Okay…by adhering to the Lutheran confessions…which was written by men also…so in an indirect way…you are then, in an indirect way, accepting someone’s authority over you…those who wrote the confessions?

 

[GraceofGod31]

Lion Heart,
I am glad to here a Catholic on here that recognizes the first set of salvation doctrines has always been the historical Catholic faith. I would say you sound like a great Lutheran scholar, but that would deny my joy at viewing saving faith among my brothers in the RCC. Wish there were more who believe as you that would stand up for the Universal Church.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

God administers the sacraments!!! What good is Water, Bread and Wine if the source of it’s power is not God? What good is cell phone if its not charged? “Baptism now saves you!” Does the water save because its water? No. Does it save because the Pastor, Priest, Deacon, or bishop applies it? No. It saves because God said it does. Where did he say that? In his Word, the Bible where you hear God speak.

That is not the point. The Sacraments are Divinely instituted yes. The Sacraments are physical signs of Divine work, yes. But nevertheless, they are commanded by God with certain requirements. Does a layman have the authority from God to consecrate the Holy Eucharist? No. Does a layman have the authority from God to ordain priests and bishops? No. Etc. Etc. That means it is absolutely necessary to obey God’s prescribed institution of whatever Sacrament. The Sacraments are Holy. That is why they are treated as something holy. It is not a case where anyone can just decide to administer sacraments based on his own (or some other cohort’s) understanding of the Bible. IOW, Sacraments are works of the Church in cooperation with God’s dispensation.

 

[JonNC]

=betsybug354;11797974]
And yet your denomination’s name is based on the name of a man who you believe to have interpreted Romans correctly.

Actually, the name has the same roots as the name, ROMAN Catholic Church. Both names originated with opponents as an insult, and both names, to one degree or another, simply became adopted by each. Luther vehemently opposed the name Lutheran. We are, in fact Evangelical Catholic.

I never said the Bible is indecipherable without the help of a special person. I have attended many wonderful Protestant Bible studies over the years and gained a great deal of knowledge of Sacred Scripture. But the fact that there is so much division in Protestant circles over important matters - well, that is hard to ignore.

The division among “protestants” is obvious, but the differences between, say, Lutherans and Baptists, is no different than the differences between Baptists and Catholics. In both cases, two Christian communions that do not agree.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Continuation

Please don’t be deceived by having a false security and to hide under Christ’s promise: “Even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
The Body of Christ the Universal (Catholic) Church has that promise.

The Catholic Church is only a part of the Body of Christ, the Universal (Catholic) Church. – This is Catholic teaching. [CCC 818]; [CCC 819]; [CCC 1271]

There is NO class system in the Body of Christ, the Church which Christ has founded. The Protestants are absolutely EQUAL with us in the Universal (Catholic) Church.

If we want the safest security, put our faith into the Word of God (John 5:24).
Obey God’s command given to us for our protection in 1 Thess.5:21, in the way as it described in Acts 17:11 and in 1 John 2:26-27 and accept the teaching and the interpretation of the Holy Spirit as it is described in
1 John 2:26-27.

And then AFTER THE TESTS we will know the doctrines of our Catholic Church and the doctrines of our uninvited guests.

The tests PRECEDES to know and to be able to distinguish between Church doctrines and the doctrines of our uninvited guests.

So, don’t make the fatal mistake, that you think you can do the test in the light of the Church doctrines, because the test is to DISTINGUISH between Church doctrines and secretly brought in doctrines of demons PRESENTED as genuine Church doctrines.

THIRD SET OF DOCTRINES/TEACHINGS OF SALVATION:

We could call this teaching of salvation: Universal Salvation.

L’Osservator Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition 05/22/1984
Quote: “MASONS ARE SONS OF GOD THE FATHER.”

[CCC 841] “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by John Paul II,
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1994
Quote: “BUDDHISM IS A RELIGION OF SALVATION.”

Ratzinger. Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Unuversality of Jesus Christ and the Church, 6 August 2000
Quote: “MANY FALSE RELIGIONS FALL WITHIN THE PLAN OF SALVATION … NON-CHRISTIANS CAN BE SAVED AS SUCH.”

L’Osservator Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition 07/06/1980.
Quote: “ALL MEN ARE SAVED.”

Ratzinger. Principles of Catholic Theology Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987
Quote: “THE GOD KHRISHNA IS A SYMBOL OF CHRIST AND REALITY.”

L’Osservator Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition 11/01/1993
Quote: “ALL DECEASED MEN ARE STANDING BEFORE GOD AS SAINTS.”

KEY POINTS:

1. Buddhism is a religion of salvation. (In fact, ALL religion.)
2. ALL men are saved.
3. ALL deceased men are standing before God as saints.

With love in Christ,
LH.

LH,
Thanks for your outline. If, as you portray in the first set of doctrines, that this is the true Catholic teaching, then in fact little dispute remains between Lutheran and Catholic soteriology, IMO.

As for set two, I believe this is precisely what Luther was most familiar with in central Germany in the early 1500’s, an Occamist view of soteriology, particularly from Gabriel Biel.

Most of Luther’s important teachers were disciples of the Franciscan theologian William Ockham. The Occamists taught a theology of grace that tilted in a decidedly Pelagian direction. Pelagianism is theological shorthand for a theology that deemphasizes the role played by grace in human salvation and overemphasizes the role played by human free will. Gabriel Biel, the Occamist theologian Luther knew best, even argued in a burst of anthropological optimism that human beings were able to love God perfectly without the assistance of grace. While Biel admitted that the human intellect and will were fallen, he thought they were nevertheless largely undamaged by sin. He concluded therefore that acts of extraordinary moral heroism, unassisted by grace, merited divine favor. Not surprisingly, Luther found no authorization inSt. Paul or St. Augustine for such a rosy view of human nature, and he rejected all Occamist accounts of salvation.

A prominent early-20th-century Roman Catholic historian, Joseph Lortz, agreed with Luther that Biel’s theology of grace was thoroughly “uncatholic” and he thought Luther was quite right to protest against it. The problem, from Lortz’s perspective, was that Luther seemed unaware of the best Catholic antidote to the Pelagianizing tendencies of Biel – the thought of Thomas Aquinas.

religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3267

Melanchthon, in the Apology, seems to back up Lortz’s perspective:

Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

67] The Eighteenth Article, Of Free Will, the adversaries receive, although they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case. They add also a declamation that neither, with the Pelagians, is too much to be granted to the free will, nor, with the Manicheans, is all freedom to be denied it. 68] **Very well; but what difference is there between the Pelagians and our adversaries, since both hold that without the Holy Ghost men can love God and perform God’s commandments with respect to the substance of the acts, and can merit grace and justification by works which reason performs by itself, without the Holy Ghost? **69] How many absurdities follow from these Pelagian opinions, which are taught with great authority in the schools! These Augustine, following Paul, refutes with great emphasis, whose judgment we have recounted above in the article Of Justification.

Jon

 

[betsybug354]

We are, in fact Evangelical Catholic.

I’ll take your word for it, Jon. Most Lutherans I know seem quite proud to be known as Lutheran. In all my years of attending Lutheran churches (since age 11 when I would visit my sister) I have never heard the term used. But then I have always been a layperson.

The division among “protestants” is obvious, but the differences between, say, Lutherans and Baptists, is no different than the differences between Baptists and Catholics. In both cases, two Christian communions that do not agree.

Jon

But would the Baptists be the second largest denomination in America today had the Reformation not occurred in the first place?

 

[JonNC]

=betsybug354;11802411]I’ll take your word for it, Jon. Most Lutherans I know seem quite proud to be known as Lutheran. In all my years of attending Lutheran churches (since age 11 when I would visit my sister) I have never heard the term used. But then I have always been a layperson.

Sure. Just as casually as all Lutherans refer to themselves as Lutherans, Catholics tend to refer to themselves as Roman Catholic. My point is nothing can be read into those names of a theological nature.

But would the Baptists be the second largest denomination in America today had the Reformation not occurred in the first place?

In the broad, general understanding of protestant, no, though there is probably little connection between John Smyth in early 1600 Amsterdam, Roger Williams, the “Great Awakenings”, etc., and the Lutheran Reformation.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

I’ll take your word for it, Jon. Most Lutherans I know seem quite proud to be known as Lutheran.

That’s not terribly surprising. In like manner, nowadays it is considered completely acceptable to speak of “Roman Catholics” and “Methodists”, even though all three terms were originally given in a derogatory way.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

I just read this entire thread, and it took several hours.

It strikes close to home, as I was raised LCMS, was confirmed as a teenager, then was away from the Church for years, married a Catholic woman, have been attending only Catholic Mass when I have gone to Church for the better part of the last 20 years, and have now gone into the process of full conversion mainly due to having a young daughter we are raising Catholic, and wanting to present a unified family.

My mother is vehemently opposed to Catholicism and to this decision of mine. VEHEMENTLY. I never understood her anti-Catholic attitude, but after reading this thread, I have gained a greater knowledge of Lutheran beliefs - particularly LCMS - and learned things I either forgot or never learned in Catechism as a youth.

I still have nagging questions about Catholicism. There are things that haven’t set well with me throughout RCIA…and though I’m not coming from a recent background attending Lutheran Church, perhaps it was truly ingrained in me as I was growing up?

I watched Pastor Fisk’s youtube video - the whole thing - and have spent all of today reading and researching and trying to make sense of what I should believe.

I feel lost, to be honest.

I felt no opposition to what Pastor Fisk was saying.

I read A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. A lot of it made sense to me.

In particular this section…

7] In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above [cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy whatever over] other bishops and pastors.

8] I. Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, He says: The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. The antithesis here shows [By holding these matters against one another, one sees] that lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.

II. Matt. 18:2. The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom places a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself.

9] III. John 20:21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other], when He says: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. [These words are clear and plain:] He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship above the rest.

10] IV. Gal. 2:7f St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed [and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right [if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] without consulting Peter. Also: Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man’s person). And: They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. Since Paul, then, clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that it was not from this one individual Peter that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this one person, Peter, alone].

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

Continued…

11] V. In 1 Cor. 3:6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: “Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this.” Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.

12] VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

If these are the facts, then the Authority of the Pope, and the Magisterium come into question for me. And that being the case, I sincerely need to think about things.

I feel trapped because I’ve made a commitment to RCIA, and to my family - my brother-in-law is my sponsor.

In reply to the idea that Jesus wanted all of us together, I’m not so sure, as Matthew 10:34-36 says…

Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

35 "For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’;

36 "and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’

Seems like a representation or foretelling of The Reformation. Not to mention Islam, and the rest of the religions of the world. I am so confused about all of this, and what to believe.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

And also from the treatise, addressing “Peter and the Keys”…

22] But they cite against us certain passages, namely, Matt. 16:18f : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; also: I will give unto thee the keys; also John 21:15: Feed My sheep, and some others. But since this entire controversy has been fully and accurately treated elsewhere in the books of our theologians, and everything cannot be reviewed in this place, we refer to those writings, and wish them to be regarded as repeated. Yet we shall reply briefly concerning the interpretation [of the passages quoted].

23] In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18:18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20:23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].

24] In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]

Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or lordship [which he had, or was to have had, in preference to the other apostles].

25] However, as to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. [Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.]

26] Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons as the Levitical ministry, but it is dispersed throughout the whole world, and is there where God gives His gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers; neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person, but on account of the Word given by Christ. 27] [Nor does the person of a teacher add anything to this word and office; it matters not who is preaching and teaching it; if there are hearts who receive and cling to it, to them it is done as they hear and believe.] And in this way, not as referring to the person of Peter, most of the holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, 28] Hilary, and Bede, interpret this passage: Upon this rock. Chrysostom says thus: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Hilary says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” 29] Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi guiltyofdoubt. You shouldn’t feel trapped. Joining RCIA doesn’t necessarily mean that you are committed to becoming Catholic (nor does leaving RCIA necessarily mean that you won’t become Catholic someday). In the meantime, hopefully you and your wife can present a united front without either of you switching sides.

 

[JonNC]

If these are the facts, then the Authority of the Pope, and the Magisterium come into question for me. And that being the case, I sincerely need to think about things.

I feel trapped because I’ve made a commitment to RCIA, and to my family - my brother-in-law is my sponsor.

Hi guiltyofdoubt,
As Peter said, do not feel trapped! For what its worth, I would strongly encourage you to continue with your commitment to attend RCIA. It seems to me one of two things are likely to happen:

1. you will become convinced to remain Lutheran.
2. you will become convinced to join the Catholic Church.
   In the first, you have lost nothing, and gained insight to the teachings of our Catholic Christian siblings.
   In the second, you will continue to receive His grace through word and sacrament.

In both cases, you will better understand our shared catholic faith, as well as our differences, and you will be better off.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Amen to what both Jon and Peter J have said.

I’d only like to add some personal insight as a fellow LCMSer married to a Roman Catholic. My wife and I were lucky enough to develop a tremendous relationship with the priest who counseled us through pre-cana. During our discussions, I brought up my concerns about how we might confuse our children by living in a “mixed marriage.” He told us something that has continued to resonate in both of our minds and lives;

“You will disagree. But you can never allow yourselves to forget the one thing that you will always agree on, and what He has done for you. Let Him always be your shared starting point. Love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love each other as He loved you.”

If you don’t already, please consider praying daily -aloud- with your wife. You and yours will be in our prayers tonight.

May God grant you His peace, and the Holy Spirit guide you to a strengthened faith and trust in Him.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi guiltyofdoubt. You shouldn’t feel trapped. Joining RCIA doesn’t necessarily mean that you are committed to becoming Catholic (nor does leaving RCIA necessarily mean that you won’t become Catholic someday). In the meantime, hopefully you and your wife can present a united front without either of you switching sides.

This is exactly right. I would postpone any conversion to the Catholic Church if you have doubts about leaving the Lutheran Faith.
Prayers for your discernment process
Blessings to you and your family and a Christ Centered marriage and family life.
Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Amen to what both Jon and Peter J have said.

I’d only like to add some personal insight as a fellow LCMSer married to a Roman Catholic. My wife and I were lucky enough to develop a tremendous relationship with the priest who counseled us through pre-cana. During our discussions, I brought up my concerns about how we might confuse our children by living in a “mixed marriage.” He told us something that has continued to resonate in both of our minds and lives;

“You will disagree. But you can never allow yourselves to forget the one thing that you will always agree on, and what He has done for you. Let Him always be your shared starting point. Love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love each other as He loved you.”

If you don’t already, please consider praying daily -aloud- with your wife. You and yours will be in our prayers tonight.

May God grant you His peace, and the Holy Spirit guide you to a strengthened faith and trust in Him.

Well said and Amen. I am happy to hear a priest gave you such Christ centered advice.
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

This is exactly right. I would postpone any conversion to the Catholic Church if you have doubts about leaving the Lutheran Faith.
Prayers for your discernment process
Blessings to you and your family and a Christ Centered marriage and family life.
Mary.

Ok. Now guiltyofdoubt is probably very confused.
First I a Lutheran tell him I would strongly encourage you to continue with your commitment to attend RCIA.

Then you, a Catholic, recommend he postpone RCIA.



Do what you feel guided to do.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Ok. Now guiltyofdoubt is probably very confused.
First I a Lutheran tell him I would strongly encourage you to continue with your commitment to attend RCIA.

Then you, a Catholic, recommend he postpone RCIA.



Do what you feel guided to do.

Jon

Jon, I agreed with you to finish RCIA. RCIA does not obligate one to convert at the end.
I simply meant to not convert with doubts in your mind.
Prayers for discernment continuing
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I agreed with you to finish RCIA. RCIA does not obligate one to convert at the end.
I simply meant to not convert with doubts in your mind.
Prayers for discernment continuing
Mary.

Ah yes. I agree.

Jon