WELS Lutheran Hesitant to Convert - help!

[FollowChrist34]

BirdLives, I think I’ve hit on your real dilemma - you’re struggling with kind of a nutty Lutheran parish on one hand and kind of a nutty Catholic one on the other… Best of luck.

 

[KjetilK]

Lutherans do not ‘hate’ any Pope. We have a theological disagreement with the Office of the Papacy. That is a significant difference. While people, especially today and especially in America, have a personal gut reaction to the word “anti-Christ,” it’s important to keep in mind that Lutherans use the term as an academic distinction, not as a personal insult.

Well, I’m not entirely sure, but I assume that you’re LCMS. The LCMS does teach that the office of the Papacy is, or at least was (at the time of the Reformation), in some way ‘anti-Christ-like.’ But WELS teach that it is the pope as person who is the Anti-Christ.

 

[benjohnson]

Well, I’m not entirely sure, but I assume that you’re LCMS. The LCMS does teach that the office of the Papacy is, or at least was (at the time of the Reformation), in some way ‘anti-Christ-like.’ But WELS teach that it is the pope as person who is the Anti-Christ.

I think you were correct a few years ago - after some nasty politics here, WELS seems to have directed the charge at the office of the papacy rather than at the individual man - from here: wels.net/about-wels/what-we-believe/doctrinal-statements/antichrist/

“this prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in the history and development of the Roman Papacy, it is Scripture which reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist.”

That said, any WELS church should be following is own teaching. The OP does have a point in that his church is not behaving well.

"Certainly we do not deny this teaching or attempt to hide it. At the same time, it is not a topic of daily discussion or a regular theme in Sunday sermons. "

 

[Fauken]

Hello All-

I’m a WELS Synod Lutheran, which you may remember as the branch which was in the news a few years back for a controversy with Michelle Bachman and the WELS referring to the office of the papacy as the anti-Christ (yeah, that synod).

I was born into this branch of Lutheranism 40 years ago, went to Lutheran High School, and my entire extended family is in this synod.

I began studying Catholicism four years ago because I wanted to know why our synod hated the Pope so much. I figured I had better learn about our reasons for being anti-Catholic, since it was in the news and I may be in a situation to explain myself to others. What happened was the opposite of what I intended - a deep appreciation for Catholic theology, scholarship, and a realization that it’s correct!

However, I haven’t converted yet. My reasons are not theological or really even reasonable. They are purely social. Yet, I cannot get over them. Perhaps some voices here could help?

Reason 1: My family has been in my current church for over 150 years. We were one of the founding families straight from Germany. That makes it really hard to leave.

Reason 2: My entire family would basically disown me and my family if we became Catholic. Basically, Catholicism is the worst thing I could covert to according to them. I certainly would not be “saved” if I converted to Catholicism.

Reason 3: We’re comfortable where we are. The kids like the church, the pastors know and respect my family (since it’s been there so long). Conversion would be starting over essentially.

Reason 4: My local Catholic church is very…weird. It’s very 60’s oriented. Guitars, very loose form of Mass, everybody’s wearing t-shirts, and a jokey priest who honestly doesn’t know the Bible very well. I’d have to do RCIA somewhere else, because they don’t offer it. I am very used to a traditional worship style in a traditional gothic style church.

Reason 5: Hymns! Could I ever give up my Lutheran hymns?! My understanding is that Catholics don’t sing much during Mass. Is that correct?

Sorry for the long initial post! But, any thoughts on these would be appreciated.

Welcome to CAF! :extrahappy:

Lutheranism was actually my last stop before Catholicism. Though I never attended a WELS church, I did go to an LCMS and ELCA one (I actually corrected one of the nice ladies at the LCMS church when she claimed LCMS was the most conservative branch), so I’m a little familiar with WELS Lutheranism. I still hold Confessional Lutheranism to a high respect.

I’m sorry that your family would react that way. I don’t know if chnetwork.org/converts/ will help, but it has the conversion stories of everyone from lay people to pastors leaving their congregations for Catholicism. I hope it gives you some inspiration and comfort to know you’re not alone. Talking to a Priest would also be a good idea so he can help you with some of these concerns before you make the plunge to Catholicism. I know I was searching for about a year and this is something I would never want rushed for anyone.

Anyway, welcome again! Ask questions and be amongst friendly faces!

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well, I’m not entirely sure, but I assume that you’re LCMS. The LCMS does teach that the office of the Papacy is, or at least was (at the time of the Reformation), in some way ‘anti-Christ-like.’ But WELS teach that it is the pope as person who is the Anti-Christ.

But do modern members of WELS walk around believing it is the real question, at least for me. Catholics hold that Martin Luther was a heretic. You do see some Catholics who are still animated about this and/or express hostility to Lutheran individuals or Luther as a religious figure but a vast majority of Catholics do not.

I think it is essentially the same with WELS or LCMS and this teaching. After all, it stems from a historic claim by Luther in his lifetime, after he was excommunicated, the height of the conflict for both sides. As far as I am concerned, today, the well-balanced Lutheran or Catholic approaches all of this with a fair amount of embarrassment and discomfort - which is not to discount or downplay differences in doctrine. (The Orthodox also have some pretty hair-raising statements against the supremacy of the papacy in their writings; for some reason this never seems to bother Catholics as much as these kinds of beliefs from the Protestants.)

I think most Catholics and Lutherans view the significance of these claims in the abstract - indicative of theological differences, nothing more. I note that WELS includes a modifying statement that they do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth of the fact that the person of the Pope is the AntiChrist.

 

[Peter_J]

Hold up. It seems like you’re succumbing to media shaming, just as Bachman did. If that’s your reason for considering conversion, I’d caution that you’ll get just as much ridicule from the media if you were to swim the Tiber. The Left is never friendly to those who hold religious convictions, whether their Lutheran or Catholic.

It is good to study other religions, especially our fellow Christians from other communions. As a fellow Confessional Lutheran from a different Synod, I agree that there is much we can learn from our Roman Catholic cousins. But you do a disservice to your Synod and to Lutheranism when you mischaracterize the spirit of your communion as one that “hate the Pope so much.” Lutherans do not ‘hate’ any Pope. We have a theological disagreement with the Office of the Papacy. That is a significant difference. While people, especially today and especially in America, have a personal gut reaction to the word “anti-Christ,” it’s important to keep in mind that Lutherans use the term as an academic distinction, not as a personal insult. Practically anyone could act “anti-Christ,” including Lutheran pastors. Our confessions admit as much. Have you read and understood the three reasons Lutherans make the charge?

You make a good point. However, leaving aside the gotcha(s) that the media like to use against the WELS (e.g. “anti-Christ” etc), it seems to me that there is a real issue with many in the WELS being, shall we say, “extremely unecumenical”. (Not unlike certain so-called “traditionalist Catholics” whose writings I try not to read.)

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Stilldreamn]

But do modern members of WELS walk around believing it is the real question, at least for me. Catholics hold that Martin Luther was a heretic. You do see some Catholics who are still animated about this and/or express hostility to Lutheran individuals or Luther as a religious figure but a vast majority of Catholics do not.

I think it is essentially the same with WELS or LCMS and this teaching. After all, it stems from a historic claim by Luther in his lifetime, after he was excommunicated, the height of the conflict for both sides. As far as I am concerned, today, the well-balanced Lutheran or Catholic approaches all of this with a fair amount of embarrassment and discomfort - which is not to discount or downplay differences in doctrine. (The Orthodox also have some pretty hair-raising statements against the supremacy of the papacy in their writings; for some reason this never seems to bother Catholics as much as these kinds of beliefs from the Protestants.)

I think most Catholics and Lutherans view the significance of these claims in the abstract - indicative of theological differences, nothing more. I note that WELS includes a modifying statement that they do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth of the fact that the person of the Pope is the AntiChrist.

Having grown up in an era that has seen a succession of outstandingly graced Popes, I had a great deal of trouble digesting the WELS teaching but it did lead to my understanding that Luther’s time was very troubled for Christians. If Luther were alive on earth now, he would seem fairly benign compared to some of the outlier Catholic bishops we see in the news today.

The LCMS has certainly taken the heat out of their Papacy teachings and our Synod president has taken positions in solidarity with Catholic bishops and most recently the Archbishop of St. Louis.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Reason 4: My local Catholic church is very…weird. It’s very 60’s oriented. Guitars, very loose form of Mass, everybody’s wearing t-shirts, and a jokey priest who honestly doesn’t know the Bible very well. I’d have to do RCIA somewhere else, because they don’t offer it. I am very used to a traditional worship style in a traditional gothic style church.

I’ll start with the easy one first. Find a Catholic Church that appeals to you. You may have to travel a bit further afield, but it’s pointless allying yourself to a local church where you think the standard is too low.

Reason 5: Hymns! Could I ever give up my Lutheran hymns?! My understanding is that Catholics don’t sing much during Mass. Is that correct?

Second easiest one - you’re right. I used to be Presbyterian, and the effort put into singing was much higher, and I think you’ll find that’s generally the case with most Protestant churches.

Mind you, I have seen Catholic Churches where the music standard is much higher, and they don’t all finish after two verses.

You may just have to put up with it, unless you can change things yourself.

Reason 3: We’re comfortable where we are. The kids like the church, the pastors know and respect my family (since it’s been there so long). Conversion would be starting over essentially.

I’m going back to front on your points - Christ didn’t promise comfort. St. Paul had real problems in some of the churches he helped to found. Being too comfortable is a trap. What’d going to happen if the comfort zone contracts?

What is important is the truth.

Reason 2: My entire family would basically disown me and my family if we became Catholic. Basically, Catholicism is the worst thing I could covert to according to them. I certainly would not be “saved” if I converted to Catholicism.

That’s a tough one. You need to make sure you have a good grasp of Catholic doctrine so you can defend your decision if and when you do so.

In the end though, it’s something you’re just going to have to wear if you make the decision.

Any chance of moving somewhere else if you have to? Job transfer? Better prospects elsewhere?

As for being “saved”, I personally believe it’s Protestants who might be in for a shock when they die, and God asks them why they continue to divide His Church. And that’s not based on any Catholic fanaticism - it’s based on things my old Protestant pastor said to me personally not long before he died viz. “I sometimes wonder if Protestants get into heaven” and “I don’t think God is as easy-going about the division of His Church as we are” and “The Reformation was easily the most violent upheaval in church history”.

Reason 1: My family has been in my current church for over 150 years. We were one of the founding families straight from Germany. That makes it really hard to leave.

Pretty much the same as question 2 & 3 - Christ didn’t promise a “comfort zone”. St. Paul was stoned, whipped, jailed, shipwrecked, scourged and maligned. St. Peter was crucified upside down.

What’s your sacrifice to date?

However, I haven’t converted yet. My reasons are not theological or really even reasonable. They are purely social.

You said it.

 

[steido01]

You make a good point. However, leaving aside the gotcha(s) that the media like to use against the WELS (e.g. “anti-Christ” etc), it seems to me that there is a real issue with many in the WELS being, shall we say, “extremely unecumenical”. (Not unlike certain so-called “traditionalist Catholics” whose writings I try not to read.)

Just my 2 cents.

Probably an accurate observation. I hope the OP takes into consideration that the same unfortunate ‘spirit of disunity’ is common to people regardless of their denominational affiliation.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Having grown up in an era that has seen a succession of outstandingly graced Popes, I had a great deal of trouble digesting the WELS teaching but it did lead to my understanding that Luther’s time was very troubled for Christians. If Luther were alive on earth now, he would seem fairly benign compared to some of the outlier Catholic bishops we see in the news today.

The LCMS has certainly taken the heat out of their Papacy teachings and our Synod president has taken positions in solidarity with Catholic bishops and most recently the Archbishop of St. Louis.

Not a problem. I feel exactly the same way about Catholic hardline attitudes toward Lutherans. They just make me want to crawl under a rock. How does one acknowledge our essentially common faith and yet retain doctrinal integrity? I think most of us - both sides - struggle with this dilemma. But I find great comfort in knowing that a vast majority of us struggle with this, we don’t engage in the ugly polemic stuff (which achieves nothing and destroys much). As they say, it’s not personal.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Having grown up in an era that has seen a succession of outstandingly graced Popes, I had a great deal of trouble digesting the WELS teaching but it did lead to my understanding that Luther’s time was very troubled for Christians. If Luther were alive on earth now, he would seem fairly benign compared to some of the outlier Catholic bishops we see in the news today.

The LCMS has certainly taken the heat out of their Papacy teachings and our Synod president has taken positions in solidarity with Catholic bishops and most recently the Archbishop of St. Louis.

Is there any meaningful difference between the WELS teaching and the LCMS teaching on this issue? I am WELS and I was under the impression that we are on the same page as the LCMS on this issue.

 

[steido01]

Is there any meaningful difference between the WELS teaching and the LCMS teaching on this issue? I am WELS and I was under the impression that we are on the same page as the LCMS on this issue.

If meaningful is the qualifier, no, there is no meaningful difference between the two. Both use the term in an academic or “identifying” sense to describe the Office of the Papacy. Both make the charge based on the three reasons outlined in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Most importantly, both acknowledge Roman Catholics to be fellow Christians.

In a more subtle way, the LCMS has been a bit more ‘ecumenical’ toward Roman Catholics, since Missouri has no rules against praying with other Christians and working together on common social issues (which the LCMS does often and publicly with Rome). Wisconsin, on the other hand, (mis)understands shared prayer to be the same thing as unionistic worship, so they’ve remained a bit more cloistered – they won’t pray with Catholics or even Lutherans from other Synods. Sometimes, the reasons for this exclusivity is misunderstood by laity (and, regrettably, even some pastors) as an excuse to promote anti-Catholicism. And that is most unfortunate.

WELS view
LCMS view

 

[BirdLives]

If meaningful is the qualifier, no, there is no meaningful difference between the two. Both use the term in an academic or “identifying” sense to describe the Office of the Papacy. Both make the charge based on the three reasons outlined in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Most importantly, both acknowledge Roman Catholics to be fellow Christians.

In a more subtle way, the LCMS has been a bit more ‘ecumenical’ toward Roman Catholics, since Missouri has no rules against praying with other Christians and working together on common social issues (which the LCMS does often and publicly with Rome). Wisconsin, on the other hand, (mis)understands shared prayer to be the same thing as unionistic worship, so they’ve remained a bit more cloistered – they won’t pray with Catholics or even Lutherans from other Synods. Sometimes, the reasons for this exclusivity is misunderstood by laity (and, regrettably, even some pastors) as an excuse to promote anti-Catholicism. And that is most unfortunate.

WELS view
LCMS view

From LCMS.org (lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist)

The wording uses “he” and not “the office of” anywhere (it does use “and his dominion” after identifying the Pope himself). This is more of what I heard coming up in WELS schools and church and is the reason I’m looking elsewhere.

OF THE ANTICHRIST
As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.)Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Now, I realize this is from the Smalcald Articles, but if that’s not the LCMS position, why put it on the site under “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod”?

 

[BirdLives]

Thanks so much to all who weighed in on this! Much to think about. I appreciate the dialogue.

 

[steido01]

From LCMS.org (lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist)

The wording uses “he” and not “the office of” anywhere (it does use “and his dominion” after identifying the Pope himself).

Friend, you’re misreading the text. The words you cited speak of “the Pope of Rome” in the abstract, not the personal, which should be clear and becomes exceedingly so if we read further in the paragraph. It talks about “the Papacy” (an office, with specific teachings), not any person who holds that office (else it would have named Leo X, or someone specifically). The actual beliefs are not “anti-Catholic,” but a loving rebuke of what Lutherans understand to be false teachings.

I linked to a clarifying statement by the LCMS earlier, here is the text:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25, 11:36-45; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 17-18) … Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds:

To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

This is more of what I heard coming up in WELS schools and church and is the reason I’m looking elsewhere.

I’m sorry you had such an experience; it is not typical. I’m again cautioning you against making a decision based on anecdotal experience - especially when it runs contrary to what Lutherans actually profess. Christians of all stripes are poor, miserable sinners who, despite the guidelines of their churches, continue to sin by their own most grievous fault.

Now, I realize this is from the Smalcald Articles, but if that’s not the LCMS position, why put it on the site under “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod”?

The LCMS holds all of the Lutheran Confessions as binding. I don’t mean to offend, but the personal misinterpretation that you were taught is not congruent with the church’s actual position. Again, please meet with your pastor.

 

[BirdLives]

Friend, you’re misreading the text. The words you cited speak of “the Pope of Rome” in the abstract, not the personal, which should be clear and becomes exceedingly so if we read further in the paragraph. It talks about “the Papacy” (an office, with specific teachings), not any person who holds that office (else it would have named Leo X, or someone specifically). The actual beliefs are not “anti-Catholic,” but a loving rebuke of what Lutherans understand to be false teachings.

I linked to a clarifying statement by the LCMS earlier, here is the text:

I’m sorry you had such an experience; it is not typical. I’m again cautioning you against making a decision based on anecdotal experience - especially when it runs contrary to what Lutherans actually profess. Christians of all stripes are poor, miserable sinners who, despite the guidelines of their churches, continue to sin by their own most grievous fault.

The LCMS holds all of the Lutheran Confessions as binding. I don’t mean to offend, but the personal misinterpretation that you were taught is not congruent with the church’s actual position. Again, please meet with your pastor.

Thank you for the clarification!

 

[KjetilK]

Friend, you’re misreading the text. The words you cited speak of “the Pope of Rome” in the abstract, not the personal, which should be clear and becomes exceedingly so if we read further in the paragraph. It talks about “the Papacy” (an office, with specific teachings), not any person who holds that office (else it would have named Leo X, or someone specifically).

Well, not very reassuring. “It’s not that pope this-or-that is the Anti-Christ, it’s that every pope is the Anti-Christ.”

Of course this is based on very bad exegesis, especially since neither Daniel, nor 2. Thessalonians, nor the Revelation of John talks of the ‘Anti-Christ.’

The actual beliefs are not “anti-Catholic,” but a loving rebuke of what Lutherans understand to be false teachings.

Some Lutherans, not all. This is not ‘Lutheran’ teaching, it may have been the personal opinions of Luther, and it most certainly was the personal opinion of Melanchthon, but it has never been official Lutheran teaching. And by Lutheran teaching I refer to that which is binding on Lutherans as such, and not what happens to be binding on some of the churches in the Lutheran tradition.

 

[pablope]

Friend, you’re misreading the text. The words you cited speak of “the Pope of Rome” in the abstract, not the personal, which should be clear and becomes exceedingly so if we read further in the paragraph. It talks about “the Papacy” (an office, with specific teachings), not any person who holds that office (else it would have named Leo X, or someone specifically). The actual beliefs are not “anti-Catholic,” but a loving rebuke of what Lutherans understand to be false teachings.

I linked to a clarifying statement by the LCMS earlier, here is the text:

I’m sorry you had such an experience; it is not typical. I’m again cautioning you against making a decision based on anecdotal experience - especially when it runs contrary to what Lutherans actually profess. Christians of all stripes are poor, miserable sinners who, despite the guidelines of their churches, continue to sin by their own most grievous fault.

The LCMS holds all of the Lutheran Confessions as binding. I don’t mean to offend, but the personal misinterpretation that you were taught is not congruent with the church’s actual position. Again, please meet with your pastor.

This is a Jekyll and Hyde type of reasoning. It is mor meant to make the anti Christ position more palatable and a feel good one. It allow the Lutherans to hold that he pope is the anti-Christ in a more benign way.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Some Lutherans, not all. This is not ‘Lutheran’ teaching, it may have been the personal opinions of Luther, and it most certainly was the personal opinion of Melanchthon, but it has never been official Lutheran teaching. And by Lutheran teaching I refer to that which is binding on Lutherans as such, and not what happens to be binding on some of the churches in the Lutheran tradition.

I will admit that I have seen instances where Lutheran theology seems to have - by my read - hardened Luther’s work and created a much more recalcitrant position than I suspect he would hold - but then there are Catholic theologians who are guilty of this as well in terms of dealing with justification by faith and this whole initial crisis with Luther…(note: I am not referencing the same people Francis is when he talks about hard legalistic hearts - different issue / different thread / different century… )

 

[JonNC]

This is a Jekyll and Hyde type of reasoning. It is mor meant to make the anti Christ position more palatable and a feel good one. It allow the Lutherans to hold that he pope is the anti-Christ in a more benign way.

There is nothing benign about it, just like the charges against non-Catholics are not made benign by “invincible ignorance”, which one might claim was designed as a more palatable, feel good "development " of the doctrine that one must be in communion with the pope in order to be saved.
It is not benign. None of the condemnations coming out of the Reformation era are.

Jon