No doubts about converting from LCMS

[Peter_J]

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

To be honest, even your advice by itself, without what came after, would seem a tiny bit confusing to me.

To put this in a larger context, I can completely understand someone saying, in so many words, “You don’t need to convert to what I am. It’s fine to stay what you are.” (I can understand this, particularly, because it is the attitude I take, at least toward the Orthodox.) I just don’t understand you (and many others) saying “You needn’t stay Lutheran. If you want to go to Rome that’s fine.” (Granted, it may be something I just don’t understand because I’ve never been Protestant.)

 

[steido01]

To be honest, even your advice by itself, without what came after, would seem a tiny bit confusing to me.

To put this in a larger context, I can completely understand someone saying, in so many words, “You don’t need to convert to what I am. It’s fine to stay what you are.” (I can understand this, particularly, because it is the attitude I take, at least toward the Orthodox.) I just don’t understand you (and many others) saying “You needn’t stay Lutheran. If you want to go to Rome that’s fine.” (Granted, it may be something I just don’t understand because I’ve never been Protestant.)

Well, it’s not that we Lutherans are “fine,” per se, with breaking fellowship with one of our brothers (It’s sad to see, and I would agree with Pastor Fisk that turning away from the Confessions - which we understand to be the clearest exposition of the Faith - can expose one’s soul to the terrible danger of losing focus on the Gospel), but we do try to keep the bigger picture in mind. Is it possible to be saved outside of the Lutheran church? Of course! But not without Christ. He is the big picture. Word and Sacrament are present in Rome - and if some are able to see Christ there, then God bless them. As for me, I’ll stick to the clear, unobscured Christianity.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Don,

… I would agree with Pastor Fisk that turning away from the Confessions - which we understand to be the clearest exposition of the Faith - can expose one’s soul to the terrible danger of losing focus on the Gospel)…

I understand that Lutherans place a lot of faith in their Confessions, but what I don’t really understand is why. Could you explain why you think those Confessions are ‘better’ (if that is the appropriate term) than the Confessions of other Protestant traditions, and better than the teachings of the Catholic Church?

God Bless You Don, Topper

 

[JonNC]

To be honest, even your advice by itself, without what came after, would seem a tiny bit confusing to me.

To put this in a larger context, I can completely understand someone saying, in so many words, “You don’t need to convert to what I am. It’s fine to stay what you are.” (I can understand this, particularly, because it is the attitude I take, at least toward the Orthodox.) I just don’t understand you (and many others) saying “You needn’t stay Lutheran. If you want to go to Rome that’s fine.” (Granted, it may be something I just don’t understand because I’ve never been Protestant.)

Don gave a pretty good answer to this. It is word and sacrament I care most about, but let me frame it this way: I would not want someone to convert to Lutheranism if they did not agree with its tenants. By the same token, I would not convert to Catholicism if I did not agree with its tenants. IOW, I would not want to be a cafeteria Catholic, anymore than I want someone to be a lunch counter Lutheran.
What I do know, however, is that if our friend here becomes Catholic, he will still be able to avail himself of word and sacrament in the Catholic Church. I would hope he would remain Lutheran, but I understand that there are circumstances that leads someone to convert.
OTOH, I am much less agreeable when a Lutheran is looking toward a communion that does not have the sacraments, or does not have an orthodox understanding of what the sacraments are and do (Baptists, for instance). The choice to not avail oneself of the sacraments seems unwise and, frankly, dangerous.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

steido01:

As for me, I’ll stick to the clear, unobscured Christianity.

I think you have summed up perfectly the attraction of Protestantism.

I have never known an instance where an ex-Catholic who becomes Protestant, whether Evangelical fundamentalist, or Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, didn’t suddenly transform into an expert on Church doctrine.

It may also explain why even cradle Protestants are so SURE of Church doctrine, whether it be their own or another Church.

Catholicism is not like this. It CAN be boiled down into simple basics of course, but that doesn’t explain the Liturgy and the Sacraments, much less Apostolic Succession, the ministerial Priesthood and many other issues and concerns. Catholicism will always CHALLENGE the believer in his entirety, both in Faith and in Intellect, just as it surely did in St. Paul’s time.

IOW, Protestantism allows one to inhabit a kind of Christian comfort zone. One knows exactly where one stands, exactly what one believes and exactly what others believe.

Some may object that the same might be said of Catholics, which is true, but NOT of Catholicism. Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism does NOT make other religions a source of negative inspiration, as does Protestantism with Catholicism. That will always be fundamental to Protestantism. Without Catholicism, there would be no Protestantism, just Christian anarchy. Protestants depend on Catholicism to hold them together, whether they acknowledge it or not. If Catholicism were to suddenly die out, who would fill the void? Lutherans? Presbyterians? Anglicans? Baptists? Fundamentalist Evangelicals? Jehovah Witnesses? Unitarians? Mormons? Who? Nobody of course. But without Catholicism who would inspire “Catholic” Lutherans? “Catholic” Anglicans? and all of the other Protestant denominations who are taking a renewed interest in Catholic Liturgy and Sacraments?

Thank God, we never have to come to that depressing outcome, since both Catholics and Protestants know that the Catholic Church is protected and will triumph in the end. But until then, Protestants may enjoy their chosen denominations.

 

[betsybug354]

Well, it’s not that we Lutherans are “fine,” per se, with breaking fellowship with one of our brothers (It’s sad to see, and I would agree with Pastor Fisk that turning away from the Confessions - which we understand to be the clearest exposition of the Faith - can expose one’s soul to the terrible danger of losing focus on the Gospel), but we do try to keep the bigger picture in mind. Is it possible to be saved outside of the Lutheran church? Of course! But not without Christ. He is the big picture. Word and Sacrament are present in Rome - and if some are able to see Christ there, then God bless them. As for me, I’ll stick to the clear, unobscured Christianity.

Hi Don,

I would just interject here that I find the Catholic Mass to be the most beautiful, Christocentric presentation of the Gospel I have ever experienced. Talk about seeing Christ! Indeed, everything about it points to Christ.

 

[betsybug354]

OTOH, I am much less agreeable when a Lutheran is looking toward a communion that does not have the sacraments, or does not have an orthodox understanding of what the sacraments are and do (Baptists, for instance). The choice to not avail oneself of the sacraments seems unwise and, frankly, dangerous.

Jon

Indeed, and I would also add the term “non-creedal” to your description of those communions. I know several folks who have gone that route unfortunately.

 

[Slaney]

He would do fine as a comedian, I even laughed, 90 seconds later I turned it off, heard it all before, same old same old. Faith works & Grace, hey ho here we go agin, so much for working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Saint Paul To The Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

 

[MaryT777]

I think you have summed up perfectly the attraction of Protestantism.

I have never known an instance where an ex-Catholic who becomes Protestant, whether Evangelical fundamentalist, or Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, didn’t suddenly transform into an expert on Church doctrine.

It may also explain why even cradle Protestants are so SURE of Church doctrine, whether it be their own or another Church.

Catholicism is not like this. It CAN be boiled down into simple basics of course, but that doesn’t explain the Liturgy and the Sacraments, much less Apostolic Succession, the ministerial Priesthood and many other issues and concerns. Catholicism will always CHALLENGE the believer in his entirety, both in Faith and in Intellect, just as it surely did in St. Paul’s time.

IOW, Protestantism allows one to inhabit a kind of Christian comfort zone. One knows exactly where one stands, exactly what one believes and exactly what others believe.

Some may object that the same might be said of Catholics, which is true, but NOT of Catholicism. Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism does NOT make other religions a source of negative inspiration, as does Protestantism with Catholicism. That will always be fundamental to Protestantism. Without Catholicism, there would be no Protestantism, just Christian anarchy. Protestants depend on Catholicism to hold them together, whether they acknowledge it or not. If Catholicism were to suddenly die out, who would fill the void? Lutherans? Presbyterians? Anglicans? Baptists? Fundamentalist Evangelicals? Jehovah Witnesses? Unitarians? Mormons? Who? Nobody of course. But without Catholicism who would inspire “Catholic” Lutherans? “Catholic” Anglicans? and all of the other Protestant denominations who are taking a renewed interest in Catholic Liturgy and Sacraments?

Thank God, we never have to come to that depressing outcome, since both Catholics and Protestants know that the Catholic Church is protected and will triumph in the end. But until then, Protestants may enjoy their chosen denominations.

Great post. Amen.
:tiphat:

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

OTOH, I am much less agreeable when a Lutheran is looking toward a communion that does not have the sacraments, or does not have an orthodox understanding of what the sacraments are and do (Baptists, for instance). The choice to not avail oneself of the sacraments seems unwise and, frankly, dangerous.

I’m glad you put it that way. With that in mind, maybe you can understand how a Catholic would feel about seeing someone convert to a communion with 5 too few Sacraments (2 vs. 7). This of course is not to mention the validity of the remaining 2, the lack of Apostolic Succession, the lack of the Magisterium, etc., etc.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I’m glad you put it that way. With that in mind, maybe you can understand how a Catholic would feel about seeing someone convert to a communion with 5 too few Sacraments (2 vs. 7). This of course is not to mention the validity of the remaining 2, the lack of Apostolic Succession, the lack of the Magisterium, etc., etc.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Sure I understand it. From a Catholic POV, that we only refer to baptism, Eucharist, and Absolution as sacraments proper is important to you, even though we do practice the other 4 without defining them specifically as sacraments. And it is important to you that your communion questions the validity of our orders. Yes, I understand it.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Am,

Some may object that the same might be said of Catholics, which is true, but NOT of Catholicism. Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism does NOT make other religions a source of negative inspiration, as does Protestantism with Catholicism. That will always be fundamental to Protestantism. Without Catholicism, there would be no Protestantism, just Christian anarchy. Protestants depend on Catholicism to hold them together, whether they acknowledge it or not. If Catholicism were to suddenly die out, who would fill the void? Lutherans? Presbyterians? Anglicans? Baptists? Fundamentalist Evangelicals? Jehovah Witnesses? Unitarians? Mormons? Who? Nobody of course. But without Catholicism who would inspire “Catholic” Lutherans? “Catholic” Anglicans? and all of the other Protestant denominations who are taking a renewed interest in Catholic Liturgy and Sacraments?

I have always been fascinated by the fact that Protestantism is very much, too much, defined by what it opposes rather than what it positively affirms. Alister McGrath comments:

 

[Topper17]

Harvard Professor Steven Ozment makes the same general point – that Protestants are now converting to Catholicism in large numbers and makes the point that it is the confessional Protestants who are converting in the largest numbers.

“When four hundred years later we look at the world the Reformation created, we confront a bewildering array of churches and sects. At one end of the spectrum stand the classic Protestant communions of Lutherans, Reformed (Calvinists), and Anglicans, who, despite declining numbers, still represent the defining core of Protestantism. Ironically, they are the Protestants most comfortable with modern culture and the most ecumenically minded as well, drifting today in large numbers back to the Roman Catholic Church, which has remained the largest and most powerful Christian communion…” Ozment, “Protestants, the Birth of a Revolution”, Preface, pg. ix

“Protestantism is a religion that has won battles, but never the war. It has not become the majority religion of Europeans, much less of people around the world. That this would be the case was already clear in the sixteenth century. A majority of Europeans then preferred traditional Catholic piety and accustomed folkloric beliefs to the new Protestant faith, and that preference has stood the test of time. Today, even secular historians of culture, who have no particular religious allegiance and for whom religion is only a window onto a more basic social reality, find traditional religious practice intrinsically more engaging than Protestantism.

The limited appeal of Protestantism, existentially and intellectually, is not difficult to explain and should have been expected. Traditional Catholic piety and folk beliefs are far older and richer religious systems. They are arguably more emotionally involving for their adherents. They also accommodate human frailty and folly more conscientiously and with greater enterprise than their Protestant counterparts. The devotion to the continuity of the world of the living with that of the dead, the predictable cycle of sin and forgiveness, the breathtaking shrines and sparkling festivals, the sensuous, tangible piety – all of these things make traditional religion more enticing for the devout layperson and curious ethnographer alike. Protestant faith by comparison has seemed all too simple and austere a religion, the spiritual equivalent of a sobering cold bath.” Ozment, Birth, pg. 215

It seems to me that this trend towards Catholicism is in part due to the core nature of Protestantism. Christianity should be almost entirely positive in it’s relationship to it’s surroundings. However, as we have seen, it is decidedly ‘against’, and in fact, was born out of being ‘anti’ something, with that ‘something’ being Catholicism. IOW, how can a Christian theology which is supposed to espouse Christian love be all that attractive when it was founded on hatred of some other form of Christianity. It seems that all of that ‘negativity’ is catching up to Protestantism.

All that being said Am, do you believe that there really will be a shift in which Christianity forms a more complete alliance from which we will be able to more effectively oppose the larger enemies of both? Or conversely, do you think that our historic divisions will continue to leave us weaker than we should be?

God Bless You Am, Topper

 

[betsybug354]

Harvard Professor Steven Ozment makes the same general point – that Protestants are now converting to Catholicism in large numbers and makes the point that it is the confessional Protestants who are converting in the largest numbers.

“When four hundred years later we look at the world the Reformation created, we confront a bewildering array of churches and sects. At one end of the spectrum stand the classic Protestant communions of Lutherans, Reformed (Calvinists), and Anglicans, who, despite declining numbers, still represent the defining core of Protestantism. Ironically, they are the Protestants most comfortable with modern culture and the most ecumenically minded as well, drifting today in large numbers back to the Roman Catholic Church, which has remained the largest and most powerful Christian communion…” Ozment, “Protestants, the Birth of a Revolution”, Preface, pg. ix

“Protestantism is a religion that has won battles, but never the war. It has not become the majority religion of Europeans, much less of people around the world. That this would be the case was already clear in the sixteenth century. A majority of Europeans then preferred traditional Catholic piety and accustomed folkloric beliefs to the new Protestant faith, and that preference has stood the test of time. Today, even secular historians of culture, who have no particular religious allegiance and for whom religion is only a window onto a more basic social reality, find traditional religious practice intrinsically more engaging than Protestantism.

The limited appeal of Protestantism, existentially and intellectually, is not difficult to explain and should have been expected. Traditional Catholic piety and folk beliefs are far older and richer religious systems. They are arguably more emotionally involving for their adherents. They also accommodate human frailty and folly more conscientiously and with greater enterprise than their Protestant counterparts. The devotion to the continuity of the world of the living with that of the dead, the predictable cycle of sin and forgiveness, the breathtaking shrines and sparkling festivals, the sensuous, tangible piety – all of these things make traditional religion more enticing for the devout layperson and curious ethnographer alike. Protestant faith by comparison has seemed all too simple and austere a religion, the spiritual equivalent of a sobering cold bath.” Ozment, Birth, pg. 215

It seems to me that this trend towards Catholicism is in part due to the core nature of Protestantism. Christianity should be almost entirely positive in it’s relationship to it’s surroundings. However, as we have seen, it is decidedly ‘against’, and in fact, was born out of being ‘anti’ something, with that ‘something’ being Catholicism. IOW, how can a Christian theology which is supposed to espouse Christian love be all that attractive when it was founded on hatred of some other form of Christianity. It seems that all of that ‘negativity’ is catching up to Protestantism.

All that being said Am, do you believe that there really will be a shift in which Christianity forms a more complete alliance from which we will be able to more effectively oppose the larger enemies of both? Or conversely, do you think that our historic divisions will continue to leave us weaker than we should be?

God Bless You Am, Topper

Topper, I’ve often wondered recently how significant is the trend of people coming into the Catholic Church from non-Catholic communions, especially now that I am a part of that trend. A major factor for me in my conversion (among many other factors) concerns the post-Christian culture that we live in today and the need for a strong bulwark to stand up to and stem the tide of godlessness that is so pervasive. The Catholic Church is that bulwark. Sometimes I feel like a scared little child running to hide in her mother’s skirts.

 

[mikecnorthwest]

Hi again everyone. I’m the original poster of this thread. I’ve been away from it for a while and was shocked to see it at 18 pages.

Just an update on me… I’m absolutely loving RCIA and feel completely at home in the Catholic faith. My daughters and I will come into full membership with the Church on June 8th. I can’t wait.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi again everyone. I’m the original poster of this thread. I’ve been away from it for a while and was shocked to see it at 18 pages.

Just an update on me… I’m absolutely loving RCIA and feel completely at home in the Catholic faith. My daughters and I will come into full membership with the Church on June 8th. I can’t wait.

You ever know one one post can produce such thought provoking discussions! I am thrilled to hear you like RCIA so much and feel Home in the Church Catholic. Enjoy your journey home with your daughters.
Peace in Christ and Blessings.
Mary.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Topper, I’ve often wondered recently how significant is the trend of people coming into the Catholic Church from non-Catholic communions, especially now that I am a part of that trend. A major factor for me in my conversion (among many other factors) concerns the post-Christian culture that we live in today and the need for a strong bulwark to stand up to and stem the tide of godlessness that is so pervasive. The Catholic Church is that bulwark. Sometimes I feel like a scared little child running to hide in her mother’s skirts.

I think you have answered Topper17’s question:

All that being said Am, do you believe that there really will be a shift in which Christianity forms a more complete alliance from which we will be able to more effectively oppose the larger enemies of both? Or conversely, do you think that our historic divisions will continue to leave us weaker than we should be?

IOW, there will be a shift toward Catholicity. For some, like yourself, Protestantism is failing in its duty to be a bulwark against the infidelity of this world. For others, like JonNC and steido01 their will be their confessional Lutheran Church. They too have rejected the common Protestant slide into this culture of infidelity, and look upon the LCMS as a bulwark against it. Catholics can likewise be grateful to Evangelicals and many other denominations for their own contribution to maintaining some sort of bulwark against this rising tide.

There is no doubt our divisions leave us weaker though. It’s amazing to read books like “Surprised by the Truth” without coming to understand the deep spirituality found in some members of the Presbyterian and other Protestant Churches.

What I find especially inspirational is that it is the deeply spiritual and thoughtful Christians who are already important personages in their own faith who are willing to LEAVE ALL, for the sake of the Truth and the Kingdom of God. There are SO MANY examples of this, that it should shame cradle Catholics who make so little effort at appreciating what they have. On the flip side, I see SO MANY Catholics leave the Church for largely personal benefits. Better services, better people, easier theology, etc. etc. Things which Catholic converts can’t say. For them it is just the opposite. They have taken up their cross and followed Jesus in the Holy way.

 

[betsybug354]

Hi again everyone. I’m the original poster of this thread. I’ve been away from it for a while and was shocked to see it at 18 pages.

Just an update on me… I’m absolutely loving RCIA and feel completely at home in the Catholic faith. My daughters and I will come into full membership with the Church on June 8th. I can’t wait.

Mike, I think all of us were wondering what happened to you! That is wonderful news. I hope and pray that I will also be accepted into the faith on that day. When I started my adult confirmation classes last week I was immediately struck by how the material being presented began with an appeal to basic human reasoning regarding the need to believe in a creator. Then I realized that the class follows the format of the Catholic Catechism, which starts at the same point and goes from there. I am reminded of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.

This is very different from my first LCMS church (which, I always feel the need to remind people, has been infiltrated by evangelicalism and church growth concepts taken from corporate America). When I was confirmed there as an adult there were two classes you had to take to join the church if you weren’t raised Lutheran. The first one was called “Discover [Name of Church]”, and the second one was “Discover the Gospel.” The Discover the Gospel class was pretty good. However, the first class, which was a single session, spent a lot of time discussing the history of that local church community - how they started as a local church plant meeting in the Knights of Columbus hall down the road 25 years ago, later moving into their present building, and the construction and recent expansion of the on-site school. That part was mostly about real estate. And I can’t forget the discussion of the local church’s “Mission, Core Values, Legacy Goal, Vivid Description, and Brand Promise.” Wow, what a difference.

 

[Erich]

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

With respect to the extreme diversity in belief among Protestant denominations and theological schools of thought, Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential”?

Lutherans and Baptists, both claiming to be “Bible-believing,” disagree on (among other things) infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and Christ’s real vs. symbolic presence in the Eucharist. “If they still refuse to listen,” Matthew 18:17 instructs us to “tell it to the church” – but which church body would Lutherans and Baptists go to? Lutherans and Baptists (actually, all Protestants) have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

For Catholicism there is a functioning magisterium—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism—or even just Lutheranism for that matter—there is nothing comparable.

 

[JonNC]

With respect to the extreme diversity in belief among Protestant denominations and theological schools of thought, Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential”?

Lutherans and Baptists, both claiming to be “Bible-believing,” disagree on (among other things) infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and Christ’s real vs. symbolic presence in the Eucharist. “If they still refuse to listen,” Matthew 18:17 instructs us to “tell it to the church” – but which church body would Lutherans and Baptists go to? Lutherans and Baptists (actually, all Protestants) have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

For Catholicism there is a functioning magisterium—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism—or even just Lutheranism for that matter—there is nothing comparable.

Yeah, I’ve never had any time for the essentials/nonessentials declaration.
For Lutherans, baptismal regeneration, confession/absolution, and the real presence are essentials.
Beyond that, for Lutherans, the creeds are essentials, as are the confessions. To the degree that our communion is not as hierarchical as yours, you are correct.

Jon