O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
This is for all those that have one point or other thought about comeing into the Catholic Church and have desided not to. Why? Even if you agree with most of the Church teacing what keeps you out?
- Status
Hi Scott,
There are a number of things, only a few are actually doctrine.
Doctrinally, the power and primacy of the pope.
Outside of that, I am aculturated as Lutheran. My dad was a Lutheran pastor. I’ve been Lutheran all my life. My entire family is Lutheran. I attended a Lutheran college.
But here are some things that could move me:
- reconciliation between our communions
- a recognition by the Pope of the Augsburg Confession as an essentially Catholic confession of faith.
- Reconciliation between Rome and Orthodoxy.
S
Stepson
Guest
I agree with Jon nearly line by line except for primacy of the Pope. Someone explained this to me very well and it no longer bothers me (thank you for to that poster.) I went to Saturday Mass and it was very similar to what I’m used to, so no shocker there. What I particularly agree with Jon is that after countless generations, Lutheranism has crossed over and is now also a part of my ethnicity. To me, when I hear the Lutheran hymns, memories come flooding back to me. I remember barely being able a pew and seeing my great grandfather winking at me. Or the family trips to Minnisota to eat lutefisk in the church hall while the old men hid out back to smoke and speak Norwegian. This may sound shallow but it is somewhat of a barrier.
C
Curious_Seed
Guest
Assuming the inquiry to be ingenuous, let me share a few of my reasons:
I do not believe in transubstantiation, at the Eucharist.
I do not believe in the Sacraments, as some are defined.
I do not believe in the Catholic Church, as the one true Church of Christ.
I do not believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium.
I do not believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.
However, I do believe that the historical depth and breadth of thought and contribution to Christianity, brought by the Catholic Church, is wondrous without measure: a blessing to every Christian!
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
Wow, where to start…I had a powerful conversion experience from hearing the gospel just like I read in the scriptures back in 1973…I lived/worked in a town with a large Italian catholic population and to be honest no catholic I worked with really too their faith seriously…They were hard partier types…It was the bible christians that worked in the office that shared the gospel message with me…AS I grew in my faith the catholic faith practices seemed different from what I read in the scriptures…I saw prayers printed in the local paper guaranteeing answered prayers by saying the same prayer for a certain amount of days, statues you buried in the ground to sell a house…As I studied history I wondered why the protestant split came from the cc and not the orthodox…I could just picture one see wanting their own way
and cutting off from the other sees only to see the issues go unfixed and splintering even more after Luther…I have been walking with Christ for almost 40 years and have never had
one catholic christian come to talk to me about Jesus…I have plenty of just bible christians, jw’s and latter day saints come…It’s all about having a conversion experience…As for specifics
I never saw one NT leader being lording over the rest. I see them coming in councils being
accountable to each other…If I felt the Lord telling me I must belong to an ancient church I would seek out Orthodoxy…
and cutting off from the other sees only to see the issues go unfixed and splintering even more after Luther…I have been walking with Christ for almost 40 years and have never had
one catholic christian come to talk to me about Jesus…I have plenty of just bible christians, jw’s and latter day saints come…It’s all about having a conversion experience…As for specifics
I never saw one NT leader being lording over the rest. I see them coming in councils being
accountable to each other…If I felt the Lord telling me I must belong to an ancient church I would seek out Orthodoxy…
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Thanks Jon.I think you will find Scott to be as ingenuous as they come.
Amen.
Jon
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Form getting to know you here I know that I do not have the ability to shed any new light on that one for you. I also think that given the post following you other may, but I can see how that can be a big issue.
More than like the biggest issue for anyone looking at another faith tradititon
and probably the hardest to overcome.
The best thing yes
I could see many things in Augsburg Confession being brought into a Chruch document if not all, But I would not see the confession itself being reconized Just on the bases of its protestant origin,
That would be a big blessing as well.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Yes, I understand the Family connection all to well. Coming from a family of mostly Protestants, It did not make me very popular with a vast majority of my family when I swan the Tiber at age 12.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
=Curious Seed;7921297]
It is. And Thanks
Do you beleive in the real presence such as what the Luteran or Orthodox hold?
Could you elaborate?
Not being Catholic I can see why that would be.
Why?
Do you believe that the Apostels were given a commisiion seperate form the rest of the diciples?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
My main theological reason is that I do not believe the Catholic Church has an accurate understanding of the role of the papacy, and so their structure is mixed up. Otherwise, I’m pretty catholic in many ways (in fact, on a beliefnet quiz, I scored “ultra traditional Catholic”!)
The second problem, which may be little shallow, is that I find the OF Mass really hard to take, and even theologically suspect, and I have a hard time with a lot of Catholic music. Mind you, this has been a problem in my own tradition as well, but at least I can find a beautiful, sound, English language liturgy.
The third would be some of the theology around indulgences and penances.
And then there are a few popular practices in Catholicism that make me uncomfortable, and I have some questions about it. All the stuff around private revelation for example, or some types of prayer that are encouraged.
The second problem, which may be little shallow, is that I find the OF Mass really hard to take, and even theologically suspect, and I have a hard time with a lot of Catholic music. Mind you, this has been a problem in my own tradition as well, but at least I can find a beautiful, sound, English language liturgy.
The third would be some of the theology around indulgences and penances.
And then there are a few popular practices in Catholicism that make me uncomfortable, and I have some questions about it. All the stuff around private revelation for example, or some types of prayer that are encouraged.
H
hn160
Guest
I have a problem with the primacy of the Pope, Purgatory, Sacrifice of the Mass ( I could live with transubstantiation ). The problem of Virgin Mary is that some in the Catholic Church want to make her Co-redemptrix. Some other things that I would have to work through is what we call the Means of Grace, their view of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is not quite the same as ours.
Hey Stepson,
What’s convinced you that the current Catholic view of the primacy of the pope is ok? Just curious, because this would be the stumbling block for me, in light of the council of Nicea, and Orthodoxy’s rejection of universal jurisdiction and infallibility.
Jon
S
Stepson
Guest
I don’t have heart burn over papal primacy, it’s the papal infallibility that still has me scratching my head.I have a problem with the primacy of the Pope, Purgatory, Sacrifice of the Mass ( I could live with transubstantiation ). The problem of Virgin Mary is that some in the Catholic Church want to make her Co-redemptrix. Some other things that I would have to work through is what we call the Means of Grace, their view of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is not quite the same as ours.
I was not aware that a group wants to wrongly elevate the Virgin Mary as a co-redeemer. Even if this is true, I would not have a problem with a teaching just because a group is taking it out to left field. That like me refusing to call myself a Lutheran because a group in Lutheranism has wrongly ordained non-celibate homosexuals.
I also have found a new adoration to the Virgin Mary after reading Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat.
As I have said in other posts, I was raised to believe that the teachings which say she was a perpetual virgin and that she was filled with God’s grace and therefore born without sin was a Catholic teaching. I was shocked to learn that these were the teachings of Luther as well.
Purgatory is adiaphora to me. If it’s there and I don‘t think it is, I can’t avoid it so I’m not going to worry about it. The way I see it, if I’m wrong, I’ll buy them a beer while I sit and wait. If I’m not, they owe me one.
How’s the Catholic’s Lord’s Supper different?
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
I think many, many people can understand this, and it’s not shallow. Heck, much of the core of Christianity - especially the doctrines revolving around the Body of Christ - are essentially linked to the same part of our being: our relational nature, and our sense of family. My wife had an especially hard time with this sort of thing, despite being fully convinced of the logic of Catholic teaching yet being raised Free Methodist and continuing to go to FM services, which are far, far more doctrinally and practically disparate from Catholicism than is Lutheranism.
I’ll let more learned people speak to the other things asked in this post, but this one, to me, seems fairly basic, at least in as far as explaining the differences. As I understand it (please, correct me if I’m wrong), the Lutheran teaching is that the bread and wine remain while Jesus becomes truly present with them in the Host, and that this only happens during the Liturgy (hense the term con-substantiation - two substances together, God and food, along side each other).
The Catholic belief, on the other hand, is that the bread and wine cease to exist at the epiclesis and are replaced in substance, completely, by the Whole Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, though He continues to appear to be bread and wine (hense *trans-*substantiation - the changing from one substance to another), and He remains with us in the Host for as long as the Host continues to appear as bread or wine, even after the Liturgy has ended. This is also why we see it as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The offering of “the fruit of the earth and work of human hands,” once received on the altar, ceases to exist and is replaced (just as we were) with the One Holy Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. We, in the congragation, are metaphysically tranported/made present at the One historical Sacrifice of Christ for our sins on the Holy Cross. It is not a new sacrifice, but the very Same Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, made present to us - or really, more properly understood, we are made present at It, at the very foot of the Holy Tree on the hill outside Jerusalem in the First Century. We do not offer Him again, but rather offer the very same Sacrifice eternally, through the power of Eternal God to whom time is a simple thing to rearrange as He sees fit.
As I said, our simple offering of bread and wine, which represent us, is completely replaced by Christ in exactly the same way that we, who deserved to die on that Cross, were not allowed to be taken up on it, but were replaced by Christ who suffered instead of us. I do not know the Lutheran reason for believing that the bread and wine remain during the Liturgy, but it seems… unfitting… to me, since the reason I love, honor, adore, and serve Christ is because He took my place, not allowing me to die for my sins.
Hope that helps…
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I don’t think that most Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood cease to be after the Eucharistic service is over. That idea seems to have been popular, but it isn’t as far as I know a required item of belief.
Not really. Lutherans, since the Reformation, have rejected consubstantiation and impanation. The Lutheran belief is more literal. Christ said, “the is My body”, and this is what we believe. Similarly to Transubstantiation, consubstantiation relies on a metphysical outlook. It is the metaphysics that we reject in both cases. What our senses detect is bread and wine, what we receive is his body and blood. Luther called it sacramental union, but my preference is Melanchthon’s description in the APology of the Augsburg Confession:
Jon
The Lutheran reformers were quite concerned about what they believed were abuses regarding the reliquae, for example in Corpus Christi processions. The reformers were intent that Christ’s words regarding the intentions for His body and blood was what He said, that is to eat and drink. So, Lutherans have always viewed the presence in relation to the sacramental act. In order to avoid primarily irreverence, we consider best practice to be the consumption of all consecrated elements during the sacramental act, with the exception of what is reserved for the sick and shut-ins.
Jon
H
hn160
Guest
I don’t have a problem with anything that you said about the Virgin Mary. But before I could even think about swimming the Tiber, I would have to have a clear understanding of Catholic doctrine. I know Catholics that pick and choose what they want to believe. I am Lutheran because I have a clear understanding of Lutheran doctrine. The biggest problem for Lutherans was the Pietistic Movement along with the Calvinist calling Lutherans too Catholic.
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
Jon,
Thank you for posting the Augsburg Confession. It was most enlightening. It does indeed sound quite Catholic, except for, as you pointed out, the fact that it’s lacking the metaphysical terminology. It sounds to me like the Lutherans prefered a more… Eastern attitude toward the Sacrament: to let the Mystery remain a Mystery and just focus on the importance of humbly, but clearly, believing the most important aspect of it: namely, that Christ really, truly, substantially, is there.
Live long and prosper,
Jack
Thank you for posting the Augsburg Confession. It was most enlightening. It does indeed sound quite Catholic, except for, as you pointed out, the fact that it’s lacking the metaphysical terminology. It sounds to me like the Lutherans prefered a more… Eastern attitude toward the Sacrament: to let the Mystery remain a Mystery and just focus on the importance of humbly, but clearly, believing the most important aspect of it: namely, that Christ really, truly, substantially, is there.
Live long and prosper,
Jack
- Status