Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?

[jmcrae]

Well, in all fairness I think most people’s conversions are less rational than they claim. Actually I did relate to it quite a bit, but then I started to see things as a bit more complex.

One of my best friends in my early years in grad school was Tim Gray–a student of Hahn’s who is now teaching at the seminary at Denver and leads a regular Bible study broadcast on EWTN. Some of you may know about him. He tried very hard to convert me to Catholicism, and he nearly succeeded.

No human being, no matter how knowledgeable and holy, can ever succeed in such an endeavor. The best thing any human being can do is just get out of the way and let the Holy Spirit do his thing.

I was “almost” converted by the Vicar General of my Diocese, and at the time, I felt kind of bad for him, because I’m sure he was thinking what an honour it would have been for me to be brought into the Church by him at the Cathedral - but I just was not ready yet, and the honour involved was not enough to tip the scales.

Instead, I was brought into the Church a few years later by a quite ordinary diocescan priest, in a ceremony that probably was pretty pale compared to the one at the Cathedral that I would have received, if I had converted according to human timing.

I think you are right that conversion is a very complex affair - after all, it involves the whole person.

Someone who is intellectually converted to the Catholic faith still has his relatives and their emotional reactions to deal with, as well as some very concrete changes in lifestyle - going to Mass instead of to Protestant church services, and making some very radical changes in one’s social circle (as well as the inevitable change in status when you go to a new church - no matter who you were before, you’re low man on the totem pole, now - nobody really cares what a big shot Protestant you used to be; the best you’ll get is, “Well, thank God you saw the error of your ways,” but they aren’t going to admire you for anything other than the courage to convert.)

 

[glimmer]

Your stubborness and arrogance will one day turn on you.

I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness. I will not be back on this thread as I do not with to partake of the fruit of whatever spirit that is.

 

[Mickey]

No, I’m not saying that. I believe that Holy Orders is a sacrament, but I believe that it proceeds from and depends on the primary sacrament of baptism. I can agree with most of what the CCC says about it, but certainly there is some difference. So if you simply mean “Edwin doesn’t believe in Holy Orders exactly as we do” then of course you are right.

I would say that Edwin doesn’t believe in Holy Orders the way the Catholic and Orthodox Church does. Is that better?

 

[lordgrog]

Oh dear, i’ve gone and typed something again.

I was never asked to subscribe to the Articles. My first rector definitely held Orders to be a sacrament (he was a Nashotah grad). He argued that the five “lesser sacraments” are sacraments but are subsidiary to the two “sacraments of the Gospel.” That makes sense to me, and could possibly be reconciled with the CCC.

I rather doubt that there’s ever been an Anglican who didn’t take issue with at least a couple of the articles. While the 42 articles were Cranmer and co.'s stab at top-down calvinization of the English Church, the 39 were a (post second separation) political convenience. They should perhaps be viewed as an appeasement, and as a kind of bureucratic cudgel to hold over the heads of recalcitrant priests in elizabethan England. Betty was rather good at getting everyone to fall in line.:bowdown2:

I would say that Edwin doesn’t believe in Holy Orders the way the Catholic and Orthodox Church does. Is that better?

Heh, this almost makes it sound as though the Orthies agree with the Catholics re: nature of ordination.

Peace
C

 

[mikew262]

You show me one scripture where Jesus has any criticism or hate against anyone. .

Merchants in the temple. I’d say he was critical of them, and rightfully so.

 

[jmcrae]

I joined the Lutheran Church because my husband was Lutheran. I didn’t go to church at the time and honestly, had he been Catholic I probably would have joined the Catholic Church. I didn’t even really know the difference except that the Lutherans were very friendly, welcomed me with open arms, made me take 4 classes and I was in!

Yes, it’s very easy to join a Protestant church. I once became Evangelical by accident. (Yes, I was young, and it was not one of my brighter moments.)

Most of us have no idea HOW to even become Catholic or to be welcomed into the Catholic community. No one ever invited me to a Catholic Church in MY life until I was 37 and that person said, “You can come with me once, but it’s family time and I don’t to take you more than that”. Seriously, pretty much my whole life I wanted to go but it all seemed so mysterious. You guys have your own schools, your own sports leagues and your own VBS’s where only Parishioners may attend.

Yes, it really does seem like a world apart, doesn’t it?

Contrast the Lutheran Church where the whole community is invited and it’s so much less intimidating. Most Protestants do not feel wanted or invited to the Catholic Church. Once I got up the nerve to go on my own and I had no idea what to do and no one said a word to me. Again, contrast that to the Lutheran Church where they have a welcome book, welcome committee and donuts. Maybe even a sign on the front of the Catholic Church saying visitors welcome or something?

Good points.

Yeah, I know none of that is doctrinal but most people just want to be a little bit comfortable in a foreign surrounding. Most people become Catholic because their spouse attends or because they really want to be Catholic and are quite tenacious about it.

Yes, I agree. It seems as though we leave a lot up to the Holy Spirit, and we don’t really go out of our way to get people into the Church.

Myself, I’m a bit nervous to invite my family and friends, because I worry about whether they will behave themselves. My mother, for example, considers herself “entitled” to receive the Eucharist, and so for that reason, I don’t invite her to Mass - I just don’t want to get into that argument, and particularly not with my own mother.

But I do invite other friends, because they are interested and respectful - it’s safe to bring them because I know that they will always behave themselves. But they aren’t really interested in RCIA, or at least, not yet.

 

[Katholikos]

I know that. I’ve read quite a bit of Newman, and I respect him greatly. But he was wrong on this point.

In his defense, he was dealing (as many Catholics are today) with a resurgent, aggressive evangelical Protestantism that disregarded tradition and was deeply hostile to Catholicism. He’s quite right that being deep in history makes you cease to be that kind of Protestant. But it doesn’t necessarily make you Catholic (or Orthodox). It makes you more thoughtful and reflective and less prone to simplistic black-and-white characterizations. Thus, it makes you cease to be a certain kind of Catholic as well. There are folks on all sides who are deep in history, and many more who are not.

Edwin

“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it omits, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this” (John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christine Doctrine, Image Books, 1960, p. 34).

 

[stefany379]

Stefany,

We could insult each other for weeks and not get anywhere. Can’t you see that this is pointless? You have yet to say anything substantive–you just rant and spew out insults.

It’s incredible to me that anyone could think that this is actually “defending” Catholicism.

If you have something to say, for goodness’ sake say it. The fact that you can only rant and rave indicates that you really don’t know how to defend Catholicism. Apparently you can’t deal with the fact that there are relatively intelligent people out there who have thought about Catholicism and are not convinced. Who is really in denial?

As for rereading my posts–no thanks. As G. K. Chesterton said (yes, I’ve read him too!), there’s a proper division of labor in these things.

Edwin

Mr.Contarini,
you do not intimidate me whatsoever with your so called “reasoning”. I am a defender of my faith and I will speak out, tell it like it is and that’s that. St. Paul said “Stay steadfast in your faith, be ready to stand up for your faith, even to the point of death”. He also said to “Be prepared for the hope that is in you.” you try to turn everything around and interpret things in your own way, just like your church.

 

[stefany379]

I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness. I will not be back on this thread as I do not with to partake of the fruit of whatever spirit that is.

Are you serious?? St. Paul said similar things. There is nothing bitter about me but joy, happiness and peace. Can you say that?

 

[a14yrldwitopinn]

Stefany, this sounds more like a rant than truly wanting to understand. I am glad you love your church. Bless you.

My :twocents: :

If you read the Augsburg Confession and the Examination of the Council of Trent, you will learn why people continue to believe what Lutheranism
teaches.

Also, consider that people following their faith traditions
-may have been born into it and it’s all they’ve known.
-may sincerely believe that tradition
-may not have considered Catholicism for whatever reason
-may not see a reason to be Catholic
-may have studied things out and have come to a different conclusion than Catholics

Taking the step to understand where others are coming from is one step toward being able to share your faith in a charitable manner.

we all think our religion is the true religion but that cannont be prooved which is true for the fact that THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN TRUELY KNOW IS THE DAY YOU DIE and unless youve been blessed or your just downright creepy you cant come back to tell us about it…

 

[jmcrae]

Mr.Contarini,
you do not intimidate me whatsoever with your so called “reasoning”. I am a defender of my faith and I will speak out, tell it like it is and that’s that. St. Paul said “Stay steadfast in your faith, be ready to stand up for your faith, even to the point of death”. He also said to “Be prepared for the hope that is in you.” you try to turn everything around and interpret things in your own way, just like your church.

I am Catholic and I am totally embarrassed by this.

First, Edwin has in fact made a thorough study of the Catholic faith - this is evident in how he presents himself. Instead of attacking his character or insinuating that he is either a liar or an idiot, it would be more helpful to try to point out things that he may have missed in his studies, or try to present him with another way of looking at things.

Second, “defending the Catholic faith” does not consist in attacking other people; rather, it consists in showing where in the Bible and where in the historical development of doctrine we get our ideas, and showing why we can believe that they come to us from the Apostles.

So far in this thread I haven’t seen you do anything like that.

I apologize in advance if I’m being too blunt: I’m just saying what I see, here.

 

[stefany379]

we all think our religion is the true religion but that cannont be prooved which is true for the fact that THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN TRUELY KNOW IS THE DAY YOU DIE and unless youve been blessed or your just downright creepy you cant come back to tell us about it…

Three words…Read Your Bible.

 

[happygal]

we all think our religion is the true religion but that cannont be prooved which is true for the fact that THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN TRUELY KNOW IS THE DAY YOU DIE and unless youve been blessed or your just downright creepy you cant come back to tell us about it…

Wow…make you did your point…yup till we die then we know whether we anot we go heaven, even if you think you deserve a place in heaven doesn’t mean you really qualify…

 

[stefany379]

I am Catholic and I am totally embarrassed by this.

First, Edwin has in fact made a thorough study of the Catholic faith - this is evident in how he presents himself. Instead of attacking his character or insinuating that he is either a liar or an idiot, it would be more helpful to try to point out things that he may have missed in his studies, or try to present him with another way of looking at things.

Second, “defending the Catholic faith” does not consist in attacking other people; rather, it consists in showing where in the Bible and where in the historical development of doctrine we get our ideas, and showing why we can believe that they come to us from the Apostles.

So far in this thread I haven’t seen you do anything like that.

I apologize in advance if I’m being too blunt: I’m just saying what I see, here.

If Edwin made a thorough study of The Catholic Faith, he’d be Catholic. Who’s embarrassed by whom??

 

[whatevergirl]

Actually, you guys broke off from the Orthodox Church in the eleventh century.

You guys were the first Protestants.

Jesus handed the keys to Peter…to build His Church upon ‘him,’ (His rock)…that was the start of the Church…perhaps not in its entirety…I mean, it had a beginning somewhere, of course…but, that is where it began. Peter, started the Church in Rome, upon Jesus’ request. When one picks and chooses what one wishes to follow…you don’t get faith. You get subjective reality…something that suits your own desires.

That couldn’t possibly resemble Jesus intent.

 

[stefany379]

I am Catholic and I am totally embarrassed by this.

First, Edwin has in fact made a thorough study of the Catholic faith - this is evident in how he presents himself. Instead of attacking his character or insinuating that he is either a liar or an idiot, it would be more helpful to try to point out things that he may have missed in his studies, or try to present him with another way of looking at things.

Second, “defending the Catholic faith” does not consist in attacking other people; rather, it consists in showing where in the Bible and where in the historical development of doctrine we get our ideas, and showing why we can believe that they come to us from the Apostles.

So far in this thread I haven’t seen you do anything like that.

I apologize in advance if I’m being too blunt: I’m just saying what I see, here.

I don’t think edwin is a liar or an idiot, those are your words. I just think he is being misled and he knows this. If you think this is attacking people, well read about what is being said about Catholics on this thread…I do notattack, I state facts and back them up. Reread the threads, this is the second page.

 

[jmcrae]

If Edwin made a thorough study of The Catholic Faith, he’d be Catholic.

So you keep saying, but so far, you haven’t indicated why he should leave all his family and friends and job, etc. to become a Catholic.

“You are being misled and you know it” isn’t really a very good answer, unless you can show where and how he is being misled. In other words, show him in a friendly and gentle manner what it is that he has been overlooking.

 

[Contarini]

Mr.Contarini,
you do not intimidate me whatsoever with your so called “reasoning”. I am a defender of my faith and I will speak out, tell it like it is and that’s that.

I really shouldn’t consider this conversation–no doubt I’ll pay for it in Purgatory. But it does intrigue me that you think you are defending your faith by simply repeating things over and over. Just how are you defending it?

St. Paul said “Stay steadfast in your faith, be ready to stand up for your faith, even to the point of death”.

So now I’m somehow a persecutor just because you fail to convert me by yelling at me?

He also said to “Be prepared for the hope that is in you.”

Actually it was St. Peter, and he said to be ready to give a *reason *for the hope that is in you. Which, clearly, you are not.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

BTW, jmcrae, thanks for your courtesy. You’re an example to all of us.

Edwin

 

[angiegirl67]

I think it depends on which Lutherans you are talking about. There are numerous synods. I have discussions all the time on stuff like this with an elderly Lutheran lady who tells me that many do believe in the Real Presence as well as the physical body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist. There is an official Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is, I believe, a bit more tolerant of various views than other Synods. I don’t know what the others think, but probably the Wisconsin and Missouri synods would be stricter on this matter.

Yes, the Missouri and Wisconsin synods do believe in the Real Presence, but then you have to ask yourself: under what authority do they have a right to transform bread and wine into body and blood. Can just any man or woman who decides they want to be a pastor consecrate? That is why through Apostolic succession a Catholic priest can transform (by ordination and the process of laying on of hands). Missouri Synod Lutherans do not actually receive Christ (Body & Blood) in their Communion service, although they believe they do (unlike many other Protestants where the Communion service is purely symbolic).