WELS Lutheran Hesitant to Convert - help!

[utah_rose]

Wow, thank you for all of your thoughtful answers! A lot to consider here.

I really appreciate your personal stories and it’s good to here similar stories to mine. I also appreciate the encouragement from those that are Catholic!

If you have cable you may also want to watch EWTN’s Journey Home that airs on Monday nights at 8pm EST. Marcus Grodi who interviews converts was once a Lutheran and Presbyterian minister. He has had a lot of guests on that were once Lutheran and know your struggles. If you have You Tube, some of the programs are on there. They also have daily Masses aired (no singing there) as well as Sunday Masses and occasionally Masses from the Vatican as well as the Catholic Cathedral in Washington, DC which is very beautiful. I believe they may air a Christmas Mass from there too. And Mother Angelica’s broadcasts are great too. I’m a revert and came back to the Church after 20 years, and Marcus’s program helped bring me back. But conversion isn’t an overnight thing. Pray and the Holy Spirit will guide you when it’s time.

 

[JonNC]

If you have cable you may also want to watch EWTN’s Journey Home that airs on Monday nights at 8pm EST. Marcus Grodi who interviews converts was once a Lutheran and Presbyterian minister. He has had a lot of guests on that were once Lutheran and know your struggles. If you have You Tube, some of the programs are on there. They also have daily Masses aired (no singing there) as well as Sunday Masses and occasionally Masses from the Vatican as well as the Catholic Cathedral in Washington, DC which is very beautiful. I believe they may air a Christmas Mass from there too. And Mother Angelica’s broadcasts are great too. I’m a revert and came back to the Church after 20 years, and Marcus’s program helped bring me back. But conversion isn’t an overnight thing. Pray and the Holy Spirit will guide you when it’s time.

You could also read Timothy drake’s book

amazon.com/There-Stood-Here-Stand-Rediscover/dp/0759613206

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

I think the preferred term is PresbyLutheran. But that aside, it never fails to amaze me how many Protestants like Grodi’s show. (Not to put anyone on the spot of course. )

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I think the preferred term is PresbyLutheran. But that aside, it never fails to amaze me how many Protestants like Grodi’s show. (Not to put anyone on the spot of course. )

What’s a " Protestant "

 

[Duane1966]

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.”

Yes, so obvious that it is saying EVERY pope since Trent is the Anti-Christ.

 

[TyburnTreeHuggr]

About the confessional stance:

I am curious how an individual pope can be labeled a ‘Christian’ if he holds an ‘Anti-Christian’ office? That’s like me saying, ‘I’m a prolife abortionist:’ it doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[KjetilK]

About the confessional stance:

I am curious how an individual pope can be labeled a ‘Christian’ if he holds an ‘Anti-Christian’ office? That’s like me saying, ‘I’m a prolife abortionist:’ it doesn’t make sense to me.

And it doesn’t make sense to this Lutheran either.

If the pope is the Anti-Christ, bu virtue of his office, then he is not a Christian. To say that the pope is a good Christian, while simoltaneously calling him the Anti-Christ, is beyond credibility.

 

[JonNC]

About the confessional stance:

I am curious how an individual pope can be labeled a ‘Christian’ if he holds an ‘Anti-Christian’ office? That’s like me saying, ‘I’m a prolife abortionist:’ it doesn’t make sense to me.

I understand. Likewise, it doesn’t make sense to me that a non-Catholic can be considered Christian by the Catholic Church, even though he is a member of a heretical communion, and can’t be saved because he isn’t in communion with the pope (unless he’s ignorant).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And it doesn’t make sense to this Lutheran either.

If the pope is the Anti-Christ, bu virtue of his office, then he is not a Christian. To say that the pope is a good Christian, while simoltaneously calling him the Anti-Christ, is beyond credibility.

The pope is not the anti-Christ, regardless of how often it is stated here. Pope Francis is not, Pope Emeritus Benedict is not, Pope Leo X was not, Pope John XXIII was not. That’s not the teaching. It is the teachings, mentioned in the Treatise, that are opposed to Christ.

1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

For the Catholic Church to say that you are a good Christian, Father, while simultaneously saying you cannot be saved because you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome (it seems difficult to see how you could claim invincible ignorance) is beyond credibility. This is precisely the reason for the charge against the office of the Papacy.

Jon

 

[Della]

I understand. Likewise, it doesn’t make sense to me that a non-Catholic can be considered Christian by the Catholic Church, even though he is a member of a heretical communion, and can’t be saved because he isn’t in communion with the pope (unless he’s ignorant).

Jon

That’s not quite right. True ignorance has a part to play, but it’s not all there is to the story. What the Church means is that we don’t presume to judge anyone’s salvation–we leave that in God’s hands. The Church, with that in mind, goes on to define, for everyone’s benefit, how that works according to Christ’s teachings. I won’t go into the whole thing here, there’s no room for that kind of explanation in one post. For example, the Church teaches that there are also barriers to belief that, try as they might, some cannot overcome. Do we condemn them to hell? Certainly not. We condemn no one to hell. We don’t even condemn Judas to hell. We simply want everyone to know where we stand on the issue of salvation outside visible membership in the Church. We say that baptism is the one thing that unites, but differences in doctrine separate us. The Church’s approach and teaching on this matter is quite benign, and is meant to be so. We do not beat people into submission, rather we invite. It’s up to those who hear and understand to decide for themselves.

 

[steido01]

That’s not quite right. True ignorance has a part to play, but it’s not all there is to the story. What the Church means is that we don’t presume to judge anyone’s salvation–we leave that in God’s hands. The Church, with that in mind, goes on to define, for everyone’s benefit, how that works according to Christ’s teachings. I won’t go into the whole thing here, there’s no room for that kind of explanation in one post. For example, the Church teaches that there are also barriers to belief that, try as they might, some cannot overcome. Do we condemn them to hell? Certainly not. We condemn no one to hell. We don’t even condemn Judas to hell. We simply want everyone to know where we stand on the issue of salvation outside visible membership in the Church. We say that baptism is the one thing that unites, but differences in doctrine separate us. The Church’s approach and teaching on this matter is quite benign, and is meant to be so. We do not beat people into submission, rather we invite. It’s up to those who hear and understand to decide for themselves.

I think you’re hitting the nail on the head, here. We really need to listen to what each other’s church bodies actually teach, practice, and believe, instead of what we (often mistakenly) think they do.

 

[guanophore]

  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).

To be fair to the synod, this is teh rightful inheritance from Luther. They are just being faithful to what has been passed down from the originator.

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!

This is very noble of you. I think if more people would take on the responsibility of this study, there would be less separation on all sides. I have learned a great deal about Lutheranism on these threads, and I too have had an “opposite” learning experience. Despite the integreated anit-Papal foundations, Lutherans have more in common with Catholics than most Protestants.

  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?

This makes a lot of sense.

  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.

This is a serious quandary. You must be facing much the same situation as did the Apostles and the whole first generation of Christians who came out of Judiaism. You are deeply embedded in a culture and a specific reflection of your faith.

For the record, I would not want to be in a parish like the one you described either.

 

[exnihilo]

If the pope is the Anti-Christ, bu virtue of his office, then he is not a Christian. To say that the pope is a good Christian, while simoltaneously calling him the Anti-Christ, is beyond credibility.

Count me as not seeing how this is possible. I think you can use Anti-Christ in the sense of being against Christ. For example comiting any sin is again Christ. But when you speak of ‘the anti-Christ’ or in any way make the usage personal then it is inescapable that this refers to a person. And that being so I don’t see how you can separate the office from the person.

I understand. Likewise, it doesn’t make sense to me that a non-Catholic can be considered Christian by the Catholic Church, even though he is a member of a heretical communion, and can’t be saved because he isn’t in communion with the pope (unless he’s ignorant).

I don’t see this as being difficult. If you are baptized you are a Christian. If you hold incorrect views you don’t cease to be a Christian. The Catholic Churhc is very clear that baptism is what makes you a Christian. There is the expansive notion of baptism by desire or blood. But this doesn’t invalidate the fact that water baptism is efficacious.

As to salvation I don’t see it as a illogical that salvation is dependent on your actions given your knowledge. One could disagree that this is God’s way of working. But it isn’t logically impossible.

 

[guanophore]

And it doesn’t make sense to this Lutheran either.

If the pope is the Anti-Christ, bu virtue of his office, then he is not a Christian. To say that the pope is a good Christian, while simoltaneously calling him the Anti-Christ, is beyond credibility.

This may be my biggest hangup with the Lutheran doctrine. If a truly holy man is occupying an anti-Christ office then how can he really be a Christian? How is it that Jesus has failed in His promise to guide the Pope into all truth? Why has He been so weak and disinterested in all this time that he has not convinced the Popes they are in the wrong to occupy their office? We have been blessed by very holy men occupying this office for a century. They pray all day, and devote their lives to Him in service. How can He let them be so deaf?

The pope is not the anti-Christ, regardless of how often it is stated here.

This is one distinction you have taught me, JonNC. But Luther certainly seems to believe his pope was, and I can find a great many points of agreement with him on that.

Pope Francis is not, Pope Emeritus Benedict is not, Pope Leo X was not, Pope John XXIII was not. That’s not the teaching. It is the teachings, mentioned in the Treatise, that are opposed to Christ.

Why has the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation, able to step forward and corret/redirect His Church, been so weak and disinterested that He has not corrected this opposition?

For the Catholic Church to say that you are a good Christian, Father, while simultaneously saying you cannot be saved because you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome (it seems difficult to see how you could claim invincible ignorance) is beyond credibility. This is precisely the reason for the charge against the office of the Papacy.

Jon

This is, unfortunately, a common misunderstanding of the doctrine of EENS. All who are in Christ will be saved. Not all who are in Christ are visible members of those in cummunion with the successor of Peter.

 

[steido01]

Good to converse with you again, Guano.

This may be my biggest hangups with the Lutheran faith. If a truly holy man is occupying an anti-Christ office then how can he really be a Christian?

How can someone who espouses heretical views truly be a Christian? The Bible tells us that antichrists come from within the church, not outside it.

How is it that Jesus has failed in His promise to guide the Pope into all truth?

Guide the pope, or guide the church? The distinction is important.

Why has He been so weak and disinterested in all this time that he has not convinced the Popes they are in the wrong to occupy their office?

Well, one who has been known to hold Lutheran sympathies did recently resign…

We have been blessed by very holy men occupying this office for a century. They pray all day, and devote their lives to Him in service. How can He let them be so deaf?

Indeed, the past few popes have demonstrated incredible Christian piety and giving. They serve as examples to all Christians, which is why Confessional Lutherans don’t dare to call these good men, personally, antichrist. Rather, Lutherans object to the teachings of the office they hold (papal infallibility, supremacy, universal immediate jurisdiction). Notably, the past few popes have intentionally acted in a more pastoral way, largely forgoing the powers claimed by their office. Frankly, if they were to officially admit those powers as coming from man for the purpose of good order and not of Divine Right, Confessional Lutherans would no longer make the claim – indeed, they couldn’t!

Why has the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation, able to step forward and corret/redirect His Church, been so weak and disinterested that He has not corrected this opposition?

Why so quick to dismiss His work? He brings all things to His purpose in His time.

This is, unfortunately, a common misunderstanding of the doctrine of EENS.

As is the understanding of the Treatise demonstrated here.

 

[guanophore]

 Good to converse with you again, Guano.

How can someone who espouses heretical views truly be a Christian? The Bible tells us that antichrists come from within the church, not outside it.

I do not see how these two statements are related, maybe because I do not think of those who hold heretical views as antichrists?

The definition of Christian is the salient foundation I suppose. In the context of this discussion it is defined as a valid baptism. Most Protestants who are validly baptised have been reared in communities that depart from the aposolic teaching.

Guide the pope, or guide the church? The distinction is important.

Either one, or both! If the Pope is truly seeking the will of God daily, and this goes on with five popes over the span of 100 years, how is it Jesus has been to weak or disinterested to reveal to one of them that they are holding an anti-Christ office?

Well, one who has been known to hold Lutheran sympathies did recently resign... ;)

Are you suggesting he did so because he arrived at the conviction he was occupying an anti-Christ position?

Indeed, the past few popes have demonstrated incredible Christian piety and giving. They serve as examples to all Christians, which is why Confessional Lutherans don't dare to call these good men, personally, antichrist.

I gather the OP is from a community that is doing this. I think the point you are making is that his community has departed from the Confessions.

Rather, Lutherans object to the teachings of the office they hold (papal infallibility, supremacy, universal immediate jurisdiction). Notably, the past few popes have intentionally acted in a more pastoral way, largely forgoing the powers claimed by their office. Frankly, if they were to officially admit those powers as coming from man for the purpose of good order and not of Divine Right, Confessional Lutherans would no longer make the claim – indeed, they couldn’t!

While I crave the outcome, I cannot deny the witness of Scripture, that reflects Jesus charging Peter with the care and feeding of the flock.

Why so quick to dismiss His work? He brings all things to His purpose in His time.

Because of His prayer for unity. I believe He desires that we all be One, as He and the Father are One.

As is the understanding of the Treatise demonstrated here.

I am sure I have been contaminated by reading Luthers’ rants.

 

[Peter_J]

I think you’re hitting the nail on the head, here. We really need to listen to what each other’s church bodies actually teach, practice, and believe, instead of what we (often mistakenly) think they do.

I’m looking for the emoticon that says that I’m not frowning I’m just gritting my teeth to keep from talking about posts that quote the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia…

 

[Vanny]

The pope is not the anti-Christ, regardless of how often it is stated here. Pope Francis is not, Pope Emeritus Benedict is not, Pope Leo X was not, Pope John XXIII was not. That’s not the teaching. It is the teachings, mentioned in the Treatise, that are opposed to Christ.

For the Catholic Church to say that you are a good Christian, Father, while simultaneously saying you cannot be saved because you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome (it seems difficult to see how you could claim invincible ignorance) is beyond credibility. This is precisely the reason for the charge against the office of the Papacy.

Jon

I agree with Jon on this one.(sorry I agree with you so much!)

speaking for myself, I wish the WELS and LCMS would take that down off their websites(well at least the WELS) as a matter of fact, dh and I are looking at other churches, liturgical only, including RCC, EO and LCMS for our home church. But that’s a another thread for another time.
I admire so much about the RCC but I agree with Jon, either you are a Christian in imperfect communion with Rome or you are basically an unbeliever if you are not in Communion with The RCC and the Bishop of Rome.
BTW I’ve had nothing but admiration for the last Popes of my memory starting with JPII to Francis.

 

[chrisc1995]

I completely understand your concerns. Coming from being a former Lutheran like myself. Most of my family is from the WELS church and doesn’t understand my faith at all. But I persevere and pray.

if you need any help with this, please private message me

 

[Della]

I agree with Jon on this one.(sorry I agree with you so much!)

speaking for myself, I wish the WELS and LCMS would take that down off their websites(well at least the WELS) as a matter of fact, dh and I are looking at other churches, liturgical only, including RCC, EO and LCMS for our home church. But that’s a another thread for another time.
I admire so much about the RCC but I agree with Jon, either you are a Christian in imperfect communion with Rome or you are basically an unbeliever if you are not in Communion with The RCC and the Bishop of Rome.

BTW I’ve had nothing but admiration for the last Popes of my memory starting with JPII to Francis.

Well, simply being a non-Catholic does not, according to Church teaching, make one an “unbeliever” of any stripe. Millions of people are believers–not necessarily Christian, but they are believers. It might be worth your while to read what the Church teaches about non-Catholic in the Catechism:

Possible salvation of non-Christians: #s 846-848.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

You apparently have gotten some bad instruction/information about this.

BTW I’ve had nothing but admiration for the last Popes of my memory starting with JPII to Francis.

The great majority of the popes have been admirable men, indeed saintly men. The very idea that the papal office is in any way “anti-Christ” is plainly ridiculous. No one can claim with a straight face that popes can be both saintly and be teaching against Christ, to whom they have completely dedicated their lives.