Denominations which allow Women Pastors.

[Tom_Baum]

Two people kicked the proverbial bucket and went up to Jesus:

First one said, Lord, I did everything right, had the RIGHT religion, told so, so many other people that they had the wrong religion and those with no religion I made sure that I told them that they were not completely hopeless but pretty darn close to it, I also made sure that I told lots of people just what they were doing wrong, Lord I let NO ONE try to sneak in but I made sure that I told them that they were all welcome and that if they believed everything written down in various writings and did everything exactly like they were told that they just might make it, well that they might maybe make it to the good place, I don’t expect any big pat on the back, even tho I deserve it, because I am too humble for that sort of thing but I thank you that I was able to get so much right for you.

Second one said, Lord, I sure did screw up, I hope that You have Mercy on ALL of us, including me, hopefully.

Didn’t Jesus say something about the Pharisee and the tax collector somewhere that is somewhat similiar to this?

As I have said in other places: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

 

[stewstew03]

All I know is Paul was writing in those times.

Yes, but – how is that relevant?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because it was the custom in Paul’s time for women to not speak in churches and to be submissive to men. Slavery and other things were part of the culture too. Different times. Different culture. Different century. That’s why it’s relevant at least to me.

Secular liberals and religious liberals are also influenced by the culture when they espouse their own socio-political viewpoints…no more or less than anyone in the first century. The difference between the two, of course, is that Western liberals are not espousing their views with the benefit of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, unlike the authors and evangelists of the NT.

However, I think you are operating under the assumption that the role of men and women given in the Scriptures is pulled from the culture. You seem unwilling to allow the possibility that it was, in fact, the apostles and the Christian faith that influenced the culture and not the other way around. I would encourage you to research, if you haven’t, the role of women in the first century, especially in the Greek world, and compare to the role of women in Christianity and what Christianity to change that situation.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Indeed. Praying!

Despite poster after poster, both Lutheran and Catholic, speaking to the truth of the unity that is HOPED FOR but NOT YET ACHIEVED, there is one adamantine poster who refuses to acknowledge the truth that union is NOT THERE yet.

One has to wonder what the source of his recusant attitude is.

Interesting choice of words, per

Definition of RECUSANT
1: an English Roman Catholic of the time from about 1570 to 1791 who refused to attend services of the Church of England and thereby committed a statutory offense
2: one who refuses to accept or obey established authority
— recusant adjective
Merriam Webster

Jon cites blessed Benedict XVI who served as Pope Pope John Paul II Prefect on Doctrine said this:

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

The Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity is rich in promises of full communion:

Even so, Catholics will have to take seriously and answer the Lutheran question. If Catholics hold that the Lord’s Supper celebrated in Lutheran churches has “because of the lack [defectusl of the sacrament of orders… not preserved the genuine and total reality [substantial of the Eucharistic mystery”,268 does that not, after all, show that they regard the episcopal office in historic succession as the regular transmitter of the ordained ministry in the church, and so indirectly as necessary for salvation? Catholics must answer that an ecclesiology focused on the concept of succession, as held in the Catholic Church, need in no way deny the saving presence of the Lord in a eucharist celebrated by Lutherans.

The difference in the theological and ecclesiological evaluation of the episcopal office in historic succession loses its sharpness when Lutherans attribute such a value to the episcopate that regaining full communion in this office seems important and desirable, and when Catholics recognize that "the ministry in the Lutheran churches exercises essential functions of the ministry that Jesus Christ instituted in his church"269 and does not contest the point that the Lutheran churches are church.270 The difference in evaluating the historic episcopate is thereby interpreted in such a way that the doctrine of justification is no longer at stake and consequently it is also possible to advocate theologically the regaining of full communion in the episcopal.271

[/quote]

 

[benjohnson]

Different times. Different culture. Different century. That’s why it’s relevant at least to me.

The argument that Jesus’ actions were constrained to His culture is rendered moot when you recognize that He acted contrary to the culture repeatedly. He even crossed one of it’s most profound rules - that the dead stay dead.

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting choice of words, per

Jon cites blessed Benedict XVI who served as Pope Pope John Paul II Prefect on Doctrine said this:

The Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity is rich in promises of full communion:

You are the ONLY one who has read the dialogue in such a manner as what you are proposing.

The ONLY one.

All Lutherans here on this forum have been on the same side as the Catholics here.

One would think that given this, your interpretation would need to be re-examined.

And, in fact, I think you understand that you are not interpreting the documents correctly.

Incidentally, there was a poster here, now banned, who kept insisting that the Holy Father rejected the Real Presence of Christ in favor of a symbolic one.

He used quotes from the Holy Father of course.

But we all know that the Holy Father did not advocate for a merely symbolic Eucharist.

Either this poster was sorely mistaken in his reading of the Holy Father, or he was simply being coy and disingenuous.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

You are the ONLY one who has read the dialogue in such a manner as what you are proposing.

The ONLY one.

All Lutherans here on this forum have been on the same side as the Catholics here.

One would think that given this, your interpretation would need to be re-examined.

And, in fact, I think you understand that you are not interpreting the documents correctly.

Incidentally, there was a poster here, now banned, who kept insisting that the Holy Father rejected the Real Presence of Christ in favor of a symbolic one.

He used quotes from the Holy Father of course.

But we all know that the Holy Father did not advocate for a merely symbolic Eucharist.

Either this poster was sorely mistaken in his reading of the Holy Father, or he was simply being coy and disingenuous.

I invite you to show evidence of your claims. It is easy to impulsively reject that which we do not agree with even in light of the truth. Please identify where I am misinterpreting or accept that you are wrong.

 

[GKC]

You are the ONLY one who has read the dialogue in such a manner as what you are proposing.

The ONLY one.

All Lutherans here on this forum have been on the same side as the Catholics here.

One would think that given this, your interpretation would need to be re-examined.

And, in fact, I think you understand that you are not interpreting the documents correctly.

Incidentally, there was a poster here, now banned, who kept insisting that the Holy Father rejected the Real Presence of Christ in favor of a symbolic one.

He used quotes from the Holy Father of course.

But we all know that the Holy Father did not advocate for a merely symbolic Eucharist.

Either this poster was sorely mistaken in his reading of the Holy Father, or he was simply being coy and disingenuous.

All Lutherans, and the occasional Anglican, understand that.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Indeed. Praying!

Despite poster after poster, both Lutheran and Catholic, speaking to the truth of the unity that is HOPED FOR but NOT YET ACHIEVED, there is one adamantine poster who refuses to acknowledge the truth that union is NOT THERE yet.

One has to wonder what the source of his recusant attitude is.

And Anglican. Don’t forget the Anglican.

GKC

 

[Porknpie]

I wasn’t there to know if Jesus even had gender on his mind when choosing 12 and that if he had chosen more than 12 that the next several would not have been women.

Jesus knew what he was doing, choosing 12 men who would be his first New Covenant Priests. He definitely knew that Priests needed to be exclusively male as only male Priests could offer sacrifice.

Jesus is God incarnate. If Jesus wanted to extend the Priesthood to women, he would have done so.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The argument that Jesus’ actions were constrained to His culture is rendered moot when you recognize that He acted contrary to the culture repeatedly. He even crossed one of it’s most profound rules - that the dead stay dead.

Like I said I wasn’t there so as far as I know if Jesus had chosen lets say 24 original Apostles the next 12 might have been women. 12 is not a huge number for me to assume that just because out of 12 none were women, that Jesus meant only men could be Apostles. Or pastors.

 

[JonNC]

Indeed. Praying!

Despite poster after poster, both Lutheran and Catholic, speaking to the truth of the unity that is HOPED FOR but NOT YET ACHIEVED, there is one adamantine poster who refuses to acknowledge the truth that union is NOT THERE yet.

One has to wonder what the source of his recusant attitude is.

Hi PR,
EC will, I hope respond to this perspective, but it seems to me he has reported here often that, in his geographic area, Eucharistic hospitality is the norm between Lutherans and Catholics. And while I find that hard to imagine under the nose of Cardinal Dolan, I also refuse to question EC’s honesty on the matter.
Therefore, if inter-communion is already the practice, one should not be surprise that EC would hold to that reality Churchwide.

Jon

 

[Sy_Noe]

Jesus knew what he was doing, choosing 12 men who would be his first New Covenant Priests. He definitely knew that Priests needed to be exclusively male as only male Priests could offer sacrifice.

Jesus is God incarnate. If Jesus wanted to extend the Priesthood to women, he would have done so.

Those in churches that allow females to be pastors or in the case of TEC, priests in their tradition, might say He has.

 

[Novocastrian]

Jesus knew what he was doing, choosing 12 men who would be his first New Covenant Priests. He definitely knew that Priests needed to be exclusively male as only male Priests could offer sacrifice.

I’m really curious as to why this is the case.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Interesting choice of words, per

Jon cites blessed Benedict XVI who served as Pope Pope John Paul II Prefect on Doctrine said this:

The Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity is rich in promises of full communion:

EC, another poster said to you “All Lutherans here on this forum have been on the same side as the Catholics here”. You’re Lutheran, right?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

PRmerger

Please explain why you differ from your Church; are you being RECUSANT?

“the ministry in the Lutheran churches exercises essential functions of the ministry that Jesus Christ instituted in his church”
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/e_lr-c-info.html

Here’s another Lutheran’s opinion; a LCMS pastor/ observer in the Dialogue

Furthermore, they report having found
“serious defects in the arguments customarily used against the validity
of the Eucharistic ministry of the Evangelical-Lutheran churches”,
and add that they “see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of
the Roman Catholic Church recognising the validity of this ministry”.
The Roman Catholic dialogue group then appeals to the authorities
of their church to “recognise the validity of the Evangelical-Lutheran
ministry and, correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood
of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic celebrations of the Evangelical-Lutheran
churches”.49
koed.hu/vocation/johngeorge.pdf

 

[KjetilK]

Because it was the custom in Paul’s time for women to not speak in churches and to be submissive to men. Slavery and other things were part of the culture too. Different times. Different culture. Different century. That’s why it’s relevant at least to me.

That’s not true. The pagan culture into which St. Paul was speaking had numerous priestesses and many female oracles. Paul was acting counter-cultural, here. He wasn’t merely applying ‘custom.’

 

[stewstew03]

Like I said I wasn’t there so as far as I know if Jesus had chosen lets say 24 original Apostles the next 12 might have been women. 12 is not a huge number for me to assume that just because out of 12 none were women, that Jesus meant only men could be Apostles. Or pastors.

Wait a minute – what are you saying here? That there were actually 24 apostles, but we only know of 12?

 

[PRmerger]

I invite you to show evidence of your claims. It is easy to impulsively reject that which we do not agree with even in light of the truth. Please identify where I am misinterpreting or accept that you are wrong.

I invite you to look at every single poster who has ever addressed your documents.

Every. Single. One.

Not a single one has ever agreed with your interpretation–at least, with your conclusion.

That the documents say that unity is possible. And that we are hopeful for unity. And that we are making progress. And that we agree on much…

yes.

But what you have concluded: therefore the Lutheran Church is simply another Catholic church, is way off. Way off.

It is absurd to claim that there is a group of Catholic churches loyal to the Bishop of Rome, and another group of Catholics who don’t have to submit to the Bishop of Rome.

Ridiculous.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I invite you to look at every single poster who has ever addressed your documents.

Every. Single. One.

Not a single one has ever agreed with your interpretation–at least, with your conclusion.

That the documents say that unity is possible. And that we are hopeful for unity. And that we are making progress. And that we agree on much…

yes.

But what you have concluded: therefore the Lutheran Church is simply another Catholic church, is way off. Way off.

It is absurd to claim that there is a group of Catholic churches loyal to the Bishop of Rome, and another group of Catholics who don’t have to submit to the Bishop of Rome.

Ridiculous.

Your commentary, as usual, lacks any source of authority yet you claim to represent Catholics. It appears that you are out of step with your Church and yet are a forum “elder”.

I ask again, please show me where I am wrong beyond your claim that all other Lutheran posters on CAF disagree with me.