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

[Tomster]

Yes, just like there are many Byzantine churches, many Antiochian churches, many Alexandian churches, etc. And not all of these are in communion. Does that mean, then, that the Byzantine churches breeds disunity?

The point is that just because two Byzantine churches aren’t in communion, it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the particular churches in question. And just because two Lutheran churches aren’t in communion, it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the particular churches in question.

If you want to claim that disunity between two given Lutheran churches is a proof that Lutheranism isself breeds disunity, you logically have to say the same about the Byzantine churches in communion with Rome, because they aren’t in communion with their Eastern Orthodox counterparts.

Logically the Byzantine Church in communion with Rome are just that, in communion with Rome. The Eastern Orthodox are not in full communion with nor have they been since around 1054 a.d.

 

[spedteacherita]

So then, are you admitting that there are many different Lutheran churches?

Where does the ELCA derive the authority to be “less strict in its doctrines” as opposed to the Missouri and Wisconsin synods?

Yes, unfortunately, there are differences within the Lutheran churches just as there are differences in any church that man has had any had in. I know that the LCMS is constantly trying to bring back the ELCA to be scripturally sound but so far it is not happening. It’s the ELCA that has reached out to the Catholic church for ecuminism.

 

[KjetilK]

Logically the Byzantine Church in communion with Rome are just that, in communion with Rome. The Eastern Orthodox are not in full communion with nor have they been since around 1054 a.d.

Yes, and many Americans eat cheese burgers.

See, I can also answer with a complete non sequitur.

Your argue that there is a problem for Lutheranism if two Lutheran churches aren’t in communion. But if that is true, then it follows logically that there is also a problem for Byzantianism if two Byzantine churches aren’t in communion, even if one of those are in communion with Rome.

You keep forgetting that Lutheranism is not a Church, but an ecclesial tradition.

And you keep mixing together arguments. Your basic argument is that you need to be in communion with Rome. That’s all fine. Argue that, if you want to. But you try to argue for that by claiming that Lutheranism is disunited because not all Lutheran churches are in communion. But then, to be consistent, you would have to say that Byzantianism is disunited because not all Byzantian churches are in communion.

But when you are confronted with the fact that not all Byzantine churches are in communion with all other Byzantine churches – including the Byzantine churches in communion with Rome – then your argument suddenly stops being relevant, for some unknown reason.

You are inconsistent, and seem incapable if seeing the logical implications of your arguments.

 

[Tomster]

Yes, and many Americans eat cheese burgers.

See, I can also answer with a complete non sequitur.

Your argue that there is a problem for Lutheranism if two Lutheran churches aren’t in communion. But if that is true, then it follows logically that there is also a problem for Byzantianism if two Byzantine churches aren’t in communion, even if one of those are in communion with Rome.

You keep forgetting that Lutheranism is not a Church, but an ecclesial tradition.

And you keep mixing together arguments. Your basic argument is that you need to be in communion with Rome. That’s all fine. Argue that, if you want to. But you try to argue for that by claiming that Lutheranism is disunited because not all Lutheran churches are in communion. But then, to be consistent, you would have to say that Byzantianism is disunited because not all Byzantian churches are in communion.

But when you are confronted with the fact that not all Byzantine churches are in communion with all other Byzantine churches – including the Byzantine churches in communion with Rome – then your argument suddenly stops being relevant, for some unknown reason.

You are inconsistent, and seem incapable if seeing the logical implications of your arguments.

You really need to do your homework. I mean really!

The Uniat Churches are Eastern Christians who profess the same doctrines as the rest of the Roman Catholic Church. Nearly all Non-Uniat churches possess corresponding Uniat groups who have reacknowledged (key word - reacknowledged) their allegiance to the Pope.

Generally, they follow one of the five historic rites: Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, or Chaldean.

The Non-Uniat churches are still in schism and have been long before Luther entered onto the scene.

The expression “Uniat,” though found in theological literature, is seldom used by Eastern Catholics. They feel that it implies something less than complete allegiance to the Holy See. My apologies to my Eastern brothers and sisters for using this term. But, for the sake of this discussion I could not find a better word to use.

I love cheeseburgers! Double patty, mustard, double cheese, tomatoes, lettuce and a kosher dill on the side.

 

[KjetilK]

You really need to do your homework. I mean really!

And you actually have to start reading the posts to which you are responding. I mean really!

My point, which I have no tried a gazillion times to point out to you, is not whether or not the Uniate Churches are in communion with each other, but whether or not one, say, Byzantine Church, is in unity with another Byzantine Church. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church, for instance, is not in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate. Both of these are Byzantine Churches. Unless you want to critique your own Church, you then need to conclude that the problem with disunity is not a problem with Byzantinianism as such.

And therefore you cannot simply claim that the problem with disunity between, say, LCMS and ELCA, is a problem with Lutheranism as such.

You say that Lutheranism is problematic because a given Lutheran Church (say, LCMS) is out of communion with another given Lutheran Church (say, ELCA). That is not an argument you can make without qualifications if you also want to say that it is OK for a given Byzantine Church (say, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church) to be out of communion with another given Byzantine Church (say, the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate).

Again, please consider the logical implications of your arguments.

 

[WilT]

Maybe we should move away from the schematics and focus on why some of us Catholics feel uncomfortable with seeing female priests.

 

[Tomster]

And you actually have to start reading the posts to which you are responding. I mean really!

My point, which I have no tried a gazillion times to point out to you, is not whether or not the Uniate Churches are in communion with each other, but whether or not one, say, Byzantine Church, is in unity with another Byzantine Church. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church, for instance, is not in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate. Both of these are Byzantine Churches. Unless you want to critique your own Church, you then need to conclude that the problem with disunity is not a problem with Byzantinianism as such.

And therefore you cannot simply claim that the problem with disunity between, say, LCMS and ELCA, is a problem with Lutheranism as such.

You say that Lutheranism is problematic because a given Lutheran Church (say, LCMS) is out of communion with another given Lutheran Church (say, ELCA). That is not an argument you can make without qualifications if you also want to say that it is OK for a given Byzantine Church (say, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church) to be out of communion with another given Byzantine Church (say, the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate).

Again, please consider the logical implications of your arguments.

All of which brings us to the bottom line of authority. There is absolutely no final authority within Lutheranism to determine which Lutheran Synod is correct and which isn’t. None!

Whereas, within the True Church, there is.

Get it?

 

[Tomster]

Maybe we should move away from the schematics and focus on why some of us Catholics feel uncomfortable with seeing female priests.

Thanks for the reminder.

If I may add, though, for Catholics it’s not a matter of feeling uncomfortable with seeing female priests. For Catholics it’s a matter of knowing why it is wrong.

In reality, Lutherans do not have a valid, sacrificing priesthood anyway.

 

[KjetilK]

All of which brings us to the bottom line of authority. There is absolutely no final authority within Lutheranism to determine which Lutheran Synod is correct and which isn’t. None!

Whereas, within the True Church, there is.

Get it?

And this just shows that you have no - and I mean no - idea what you are talking about. You still keep treating Lutheranism as if it was a Church, and not an ecclesial tradition. There are, final authorities within any given Lutheran Church to determine what is to be taught in that Church. Bishops and synods, that is. Just as there is a final authority within the Roman Catholic Church to determine what is to be taught in that Church.

To illustrate why you are wrong, and you tell me where the final authority is within Byzantinianism to determine which Byzantine Church is correct and which isn’t. Why not the Patriarch of Constantinople?

 

[SyroMalankara]

The difference is in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, these claim to be the final authority not only in their Church, but in the Church period - since there is only one Church.

 

[Tomster]

And this just shows that you have no - and I mean no - idea what you are talking about. You still keep treating Lutheranism as if it was a Church, and not an ecclesial tradition. There are, final authorities within any given Lutheran Church to determine what is to be taught in that Church. Bishops and synods, that is. Just as there is a final authority within the Roman Catholic Church to determine what is to be taught in that Church.

To illustrate why you are wrong, and you tell me where the final authority is within Byzantinianism to determine which Byzantine Church is correct and which isn’t. Why not the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Please read what you have just written.

First you say that Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition and not a Church.

And then you refer to “final authorities in any given Lutheran Church”.

How many final authorities are there in any given Lutheran Church?

How many “given” Lutheran Churches are there?

Out of all of the “final authorities” within Lutheranism, who has the final authority?

Sir, in all charity, you are all over the map.

And you are doing a very good job of making my case all by yourself.

 

[benjohnson]

Please read what you have just written.

He’s being consistent - if you view ‘Lutheranism’ in it’s totality as a single church, it would be east to discount it as it’s all over the map in it’s teaching.

But if you did that to ‘Lutheranism’ you’d have to logically to that to others churches - his example was the Byzantine church that has two authorities - one Orthodox and one Roman.

We could logically do the same exercise to the broader Catholic church and lump SSPX, PNCC and Roman Catholics and determent that there’s authority issues in the Catholic church.

If you view Lutheran, Catholic and Byzantine churches as ecclesial traditions then there isn’t quite the same issue - there’s still fragmentation, but we don’t have to determent that the whole Church lacks authority, only that some parts have better authority than others.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is a little more difficult to see the authority in Lutheranism, as the divisions make each group not much more than the others in size and structure… With Catholicism, it’s pretty clear which group is mainstream, and which are smaller, less mainstream structures.

 

[KjetilK]

Please read what you have just written.

First you say that Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition and not a Church.

And then you refer to “final authorities in any given Lutheran Church”.

How many final authorities are there in any given Lutheran Church?

How many “given” Lutheran Churches are there?

Out of all of the “final authorities” within Lutheranism, who has the final authority?

Sir, in all charity, you are all over the map.

And you are doing a very good job of making my case all by yourself.

Allow me to rephrase your questions to make my point:

First you say that Byzantinianism is an ecclesial tradition and not a Church.

And then you refer to “final authorities in any given Byzantine Church”.

How many final authorities are there in any given Byzantine Church?

How many “given” Byzantine Churches are there?

Out of all of the “final authorities” within Byzantinianism, who has the final authority?

Sir, in all charity, you are all over the map.

 

[KjetilK]

It is a little more difficult to see the authority in Lutheranism, as the divisions make each group not much more than the others in size and structure… With Catholicism, it’s pretty clear which group is mainstream, and which are smaller, less mainstream structures.

In the US, yes. In Norway, the Church of Norway has 70-80% of the population as members.

 

[steido01]

It is a little more difficult to see the authority in Lutheranism, as the divisions make each group not much more than the others in size and structure… With Catholicism, it’s pretty clear which group is mainstream, and which are smaller, less mainstream structures.

What does a group’s size or proximity to the mainstream have to do with anything? Truth is Truth, no matter how small the voice; 1 Kings 19:11-12 and Matt. 7:14 immediately come to mind.

It seems to me that we’d all be better served by comparing our developed doctrines with those of the early church, not unrelated things like “My Church is bigger than yours!” That’s playground and locker room stuff.

 

[steido01]

In the US, yes. In Norway, the Church of Norway has 70-80% of the population as members.

Is that percentage of practicing, orthodox believers – or simply all baptized, tax-paying persons?

 

[JonNC]

All of which brings us to the bottom line of authority. There is absolutely no final authority within Lutheranism to determine which Lutheran Synod is correct and which isn’t. None!

Why would we need a bishop from another synod to tell us if our teaching is correct? If we abide by the teachings of the confessions, which we believe to be a true reflection of scripture, we are teaching the true faith.
Is the Bishop of Rome willing to accept the authority of a bishop from another patriarchate? If not, why would you expect my synod to do the same?

Whereas, within the True Church, there is.

Get it?

And who is that? And which communion outside those in communion with the Bishop of Rome accepts that authority?

Jon

 

[WilT]

Thanks for the reminder.

If I may add, though, for Catholics it’s not a matter of feeling uncomfortable with seeing female priests. For Catholics it’s a matter of knowing why it is wrong.

In reality, Lutherans do not have a valid, sacrificing priesthood anyway.

 

[AtDawn]

Maybe we should move away from the schematics and focus on why some of us Catholics feel uncomfortable with seeing female priests.

Or on how to handle the feeling - which I think was the original poster’s question.

If I may add, though, for Catholics it’s not a matter of feeling uncomfortable with seeing female priests. For Catholics it’s a matter of knowing why it is wrong.

…or why it would be wrong in YOUR church.

In reality, Lutherans do not have a valid, sacrificing priesthood anyway.

Which is why you really don’t have to neither feel uncomfortable, nor try to do anything about it. Just let it be. Adress her the same as her parishoners do, just to be polite, shrug your shoulders and move on.