http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/protestant-converts/baptist/item/73-baptist-convert-stacy-trasancos

“Lutherans will argue that their doctrine and/or practice on these matters is “Scriptural,” and that this is the important thing, even “the one thing necessary,” but, then, so will antipaedobaptists, seventh-day sabbatarians, and those who make foot-washing “a gospel ordinance.” If (as seems to be the case) those whom we are discussing in this paragraph are dubious about Sola Scriptura as well, they may well choose (as I did, decades ago) to adopt for themselves a historicized version of Tertullian’s De Praescriptione and rule out any “option” whose dogmatic commitments and sacramental practices are so clearly at odds with what we can know about the Church Fathers and the practice of the Early Church.”

However, once one begins reading the Fathers outside of their quotation in a Lutheran contexct (whether in a Roman, Orthodox or academic context) it starts to become clear that such patristics are really just a form of hagiography and window treatment. It’s meant to be proof, but it’s really just preaching to the choir and sidestepping arguments and contradictions your audience doesn’t know enough to make. That is, patristic “proof” from Lutherans very quickly turns into at best a scattered and inconsistent witness to 1% light shining through 99% darkness (from the Lutheran perspective). That’s why most quotes end up being Scriptural exegesis.

Technically, since LCMS headquarters are located in a town called Kirkwood, Missouri, just outside St. Louis, joining the Missouri Synod should be called “swimming the Meramec” since that river borders Kirkwood. But since nobody who’s not from this area has ever heard of that river, I guess you could say “swimming the Mississippi and taking a cab.”

:-)

I think William is mostly correct in his analysis. Most Catholics I know who converted to another form of Christianity, basically fall into three camps. There’s the group that is pretty much ignorant of the patristic writings of the Church (as was I). Then there’s the group that is aware of them, but believes that the institutional church was already falling away or had fallen away during that period, so their writings are of little, if any, authoritative value. Finally, there’s the group that is aware of them, and takes them seriously, and doesn’t see the modern Catholic Church living up to the doctrines and standards of those writings.

I’ve seen those in the last group turn in three directions when leaving institutional Catholicism. Many will choose to join a “traditionalist” Catholic community not in full-union with Rome, such as an SSPX chapel, or one affiliated with a sedevacantist Catholic group. Others, like Rod, have decided upon Eastern Orthodoxy. Finally, I have met some who have chosen an Anabaptist path (Hutterite, Conservative Mennonite, etc.), despite the lack of apostolic succession. The writer and author David Bercot comes to mind.

The principal question for these people is not so much whether the Catholic Church fell away, but when it fell away. Traditionalist Catholics will tell you it was Vatican II. Orthodox will tell you it was the Great Schism. And Anabaptists, at least the few willing to venture an opinion, will state the major falling away happened around the time of Constantine.

I am of the opinion that one’s view of the Patristic era will play heavily into the decision of where one goes after leaving the Roman Catholic Church. If one accepts the Patristic commentaries as authoritative, it would eliminate most (though not all) “Protestant” churches. I must confess my lack of personal specific knowledge about Lutheranism, though it has never struck me as having a particularly patristic bent about it, despite certain exterior similarities (liturgy, etc.). I am open to correction on this matter.