Here is a quote found here:
Mine was a decision mandated by conscience. I have never found it in his writings, but a St. Louis professor who had been his student told me that the great confessional Lutheran theologian Peter Brunner regularly said that a Lutheran who does not daily ask himself why he is not a Roman Catholic cannot know why he is a Lutheran. That impressed me very deeply. I was thirty years a Lutheran pastor, and after thirty years of asking myself why I was not a Roman Catholic I finally ran out of answers that were convincing either to me or to others. And so I discovered not so much that I had made the decision as that the decision was made, and I have never looked back, except to trace the marks of grace, of sola gratia, each step of the way.Many people are in Wittenburg for various reasons. Some are in it not because they could identify with Martin Luther's agony while he struggled to find a gracious God, a God he could love. Some never had a crisis of anxiety for their souls so they can not identify with Luther. For example if you are an Evangelical burnt out by the bum steer you got from evangelicalism where can you go without being an RC? Where can you go and get the comfort of being in a sense "catholic" and "historic" without being Roman? Being orthodox without being EO? And just recently with the discussion in the last post, might I say, being protestant without being Protestant? If you think I am describing an oxymoron, you just do not understand how accents work. (well may be one day one can invent, being a lutheran without being a Lutheran, who knows).
But that is the question, and Brenner is, I think right. Should you wake up one day not knowing why you are not an RC, then you'd better be one. Neuhaus turned Brenner's dictum around its head and he was eventually became honest and left to be RC (eventually, I say, because he splattered around that he was a "confessional" Lutheran, see how the bandwagon works? Oh BTW, most doing poping as Dr. Ichabod intimated, love the acceptability that the label "confessional" brings, hence caveat emptor). Now I am new to Wittenberg, but my suspicion is that being Lutheran because you do not like to be an RC does not answer the challenge Brenner brings. You can give philosophically cute answers but the question remains, why not?
Answering why you are a Lutheran, does not answer why you are not an RC. Answer the negative; answering the negative does not mean you have answered the positive, so answer the negative first. This has to be settled first and logically as a I said a negative does not imply the positive opposite of it. Example? If I say it is not -1, does it mean 1? No, it could mean -2, or what not. So answering why you are not an RC, is a good exercise.
My take is that if justification through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone does not picture in the answer and is not the most important one, one can not find a better meritorious sacramental scheme than what Mother Church offers. One better be an RC.
I paraphrase what one wise thing Luther said: you can get all doctrines in Christianity right, you can get your liturgy right (go ahead be a Liturgical Gestapo), your blogging right, your vestments right, your genuflecting right, your raising the host right and your swinging the incense right and feel "really doing it catholic", but if you get this one wrong, then all of your added extras have just led you to being....stuffed.
I am sorry I am being argumentative lately but I can see why some folk want to see more apologetic/polemic works lately... a lot have been blogging and denouncing Evangelian madness of seeker sensitive, neo-legalistic what not-s but only a few have been speaking of the "poping" happening in the camp. Jesus said before you take a speck from your brother's eye, take the plank out first from yours (he even added "hypocrites" in the passage).
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.