I ran into a Lutheran Woman Priest. Felt a little odd seeing her

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomster said:
More than satisfied? Even if mistakenly? Certainly valid?

Wow! The Anglican Church admitted it made a mistake by trying to reintroduce the wording of the sacrificial nature of the priesthood in one of its revised ordinals. By the time they realized their mistake it was too late. There were no sacrificing bishops or priests left.
Click to expand...
I understand your view. I assure you that your opinion of the Church of England’s belief in the validity of her orders is fundamentally mistaken.

Never mind. It matters not.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Yes, if you wish to persist in thinking the Church of England was trying to get validity by the back door you will do so. I suggest you are misleading yourself.

What the two agreed after their discussions is easy enough to discover:

willibrord.org/bonn_en.html
Click to expand...
Just a bit of information for you.

In my three volume set of the apologetic classic “Radio Replies” by Fathers Rumble and Carty I came across this little gem. The books are set up in a statement/question - reply format.

In volume #3, # 256

Statement - The Lambeth Conference of 1930 agreed that there was nothing in the Declaration of Utrecht inconsistent with the teaching of the Church of England.

Reply - That is the death-blow to the “Old Catholics.” For it means, not that Anglican doctrine is Catholic, but that the “Old Catholics” are Protestants.
 
Picky_Picky said:
I understand your view. I assure you that your opinion of the Church of England’s belief in the validity of her orders is fundamentally mistaken.

Never mind. It matters not.
Click to expand...
It most certainly matters when an Anglican layman or laywoman stands in front of their communion table telling their congregation that “this is the Body of Christ”.

It matters most assuredly.
 
Tomster said:
Just a bit of information for you.

In my three volume set of the apologetic classic “Radio Replies” by Fathers Rumble and Carty I came across this little gem. The books are set up in a statement/question - reply format.

In volume #3, # 256

Statement - The Lambeth Conference of 1930 agreed that there was nothing in the Declaration of Utrecht inconsistent with the teaching of the Church of England.

Reply - That is the death-blow to the “Old Catholics.” For it means, not that Anglican doctrine is Catholic, but that the “Old Catholics” are Protestants.
Click to expand...
Yes, not a very thoughtful reply, was it? I suppose it could just have easily said:
Reply - That is the death-blow to the Church of England. For it means, not that Old Catholic doctrine is Anglican, but that the Church of England is Catholic.
Click to expand...
My knowledge of the Old Catholics is slight, but I understand the Church of England to be Catholic and reformed. Still, as I say, our disagreement matters not a jot. Neither your opinion nor mine nor that of Frs Rumble and Carty is likely to affect the Church of England’s belief in the validity of her orders, not of her innocence of the charge of attempting to validate them by the back door.
 
Tomster said:
It most certainly matters when an Anglican layman or laywoman stands in front of their communion table telling their congregation that “this is the Body of Christ”.

It matters most assuredly.
Click to expand...
For most Anglicans, that would be in front of their altar.

GKC
 
Picky_Picky said:
Yes, not a very thoughtful reply, was it? I suppose it could just have easily said:
My knowledge of the Old Catholics is slight, but I understand the Church of England to be Catholic and reformed. Still, as I say, our disagreement matters not a jot. Neither your opinion nor mine nor that of Frs Rumble and Carty is likely to affect the Church of England’s belief in the validity of her orders, not of her innocence of the charge of attempting to validate them by the back door.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Picky_Picky said:
It is certainly true that the Catholic Church teaches thus, although I beg leave to doubt that yours is an adequate summary, for Pope St John Paul II did not mention this necessary resemblance in his teaching Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but rested entirely on the masculinity of the Twelve and the presence of Tradition.
Click to expand...
Once and for all Pope St. John II put the matter to rest when on October 4, 1979 he reaffirmed “the Church’s traditional decision to call men to the priesthood, and not to call women”. For a Catholic that was quite enough knowing what every Catholic should know by the previous statements regarding the question down through the ages of Church history.
 
Tomster said:
More than satisfied? Even if mistakenly? Certainly valid?

Wow! The Anglican Church admitted it made a mistake by trying to reintroduce the wording of the sacrificial nature of the priesthood in one of its revised ordinals. By the time they realized their mistake it was too late. There were no sacrificing bishops or priests left.
Click to expand...
No, that wasn’t the reason the form was changed in the 1662 BCP.

GKC
 
Picky_Picky said:
Yes, not a very thoughtful reply, was it? I suppose it could just have easily said:

My knowledge of the Old Catholics is slight, but I understand the Church of England to be Catholic and reformed. Still, as I say, our disagreement matters not a jot. Neither your opinion nor mine nor that of Frs Rumble and Carty is likely to affect the Church of England’s belief in the validity of her orders, not of her innocence of the charge of attempting to validate them by the back door.
Click to expand...
Reformed by whom?
 
Picky_Picky said:
Yes, not a very thoughtful reply, was it? I suppose it could just have easily said:

My knowledge of the Old Catholics is slight, but I understand the Church of England to be Catholic and reformed. Still, as I say, our disagreement matters not a jot. Neither your opinion nor mine nor that of Frs Rumble and Carty is likely to affect the Church of England’s belief in the validity of her orders, not of her innocence of the charge of attempting to validate them by the back door.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the acknowledgement.
 
Tomster said:
Just a bit of information for you.

In my three volume set of the apologetic classic “Radio Replies” by Fathers Rumble and Carty I came across this little gem. The books are set up in a statement/question - reply format.

In volume #3, # 256

Statement - The Lambeth Conference of 1930 agreed that there was nothing in the Declaration of Utrecht inconsistent with the teaching of the Church of England.

Reply - That is the death-blow to the “Old Catholics.” For it means, not that Anglican doctrine is Catholic, but that the “Old Catholics” are Protestants.
Click to expand...
And, if so, still possess (or did so, at the pertinent point for the joint communions), valid, though illicit, orders. Which returns to the major question on the joint consecrations, and the point in Ott, p. 458. Still curious, waiting for an official comment or ruling on that, analogous to Apostolicae curae.

But is this not straying, again, from the point of the OP? A warning has been issued.

GKC
 
Tomster said:
Ah yes, GK, forgive me. You’re of the High Church persuasion. Sorry.
Click to expand...
No offense taken. I’m High Church and Anglicanus-Catholicus, which technically are not identical things.

Across the range of motley Anglicans, the use of the term “table” is mostly to be found on the rather far side of the reformed/evangelical folk.

GKC
 
Tomster said:
It most certainly matters when an Anglican layman or laywoman stands in front of their communion table telling their congregation that “this is the Body of Christ”.

It matters most assuredly.
Click to expand...
This reply only shows that you do not understand the difference between validity and liceity.
 
Picky_Picky said:
I think not. It is relevant, certainly, but not the whole point. You might want to read the original post again. It is not simply about the poster’s discomfort at seeing a “priestess” dressed as a priest; it’s about the poster’s discomfort at his/her own reaction, about the poster’s wish to react differently. That is the whole point of the thread, and the point I addressed.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks for getting me refocused!
 
Why do you say “woman priest”? “Woman” is a noun. “Female” is the adjective. “Priestess” is the word for this situation.
 
Picky_Picky said:
I think not. It is relevant, certainly, but not the whole point. You might want to read the original post again. It is not simply about the poster’s discomfort at seeing a “priestess” dressed as a priest; it’s about the poster’s discomfort at his/her own reaction, about the poster’s wish to react differently. That is the whole point of the thread, and the point I addressed.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
ethereality said:
Why do you say “woman priest”? “Woman” is a noun. “Female” is the adjective. “Priestess” is the word for this situation.
Click to expand...
The English language is perfectly comfortable with the attributive use of nouns: woman doctor, woman soldier, woman teacher, woman priest. And are you quite sure you are really concerned for the grammar, rather than preferring to use a word with more than a whiff of the pagan about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top