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.
KjetilK said:
First, I used the LCMS as an example. I do not have all the details. The Church of Norway, of which I’m part, did loose apostolic succession, but regained it through the Church of England, who had regained it through Old Catholic bishops.

Second, your point is entirely different then the one Tomster has tried (and failed) to make. Tomster’s argument is basically this:


  1. *]Not all Lutheran churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
    *]Therefore, Lutheran churches aren’t proper churches.

    The hidden premise here is this: In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition. Now this creates problems for him, because he cannot apply one set of logic on Lutheranism, and another set of logic on other traditions. Let’s take two examples:

    Example 1: Byzantinianism.

    1. *]Not all Byzantine churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
      *]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
      *]Therefore, Byzantine churches aren’t proper churches.

      This would mean that the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is an invalid Church. That is what logic demands.

      Example 2: Anglican.

      1. *]Not all Anglican churches are in communion with all Anglican churches.
        *]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
        *]Therefore, Anglican churches aren’t proper churches.

        This would mean that the Ordinariate erected by Pope Benedict is invalid. That is what logic demands.

        My point is that Tomster keeps ignoring the logical outcomes of his own arguments. Logic doesn’t change when applied to the Roman Catholic Church.

        If he doesn’t want to admit to that, he needs to change his argument.

        BINGO!
Click to expand...

      1. papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

        As you begin to read this pay particular attention to the first two sentences.

        A brief outline of this encyclical:
        1. Condemns those who contend that Catholic doctrine must be made acceptable to modern minds; approves prudent research.
        2. Condemns “false eirenism”
        3. Exposes erroneous efforts to free dogma from established terminology and scholastic concepts.
        4. Warns against contempt for teaching authority.
        5. Treats of historical and dialectical materialism, historicism, existentialism, evolution, biblical studies.
        6. Stresses obligation of ecclesiastical institutions to further progress od sciences within limits necessary for protection of truth…
 
KjetilK said:
First, I used the LCMS as an example. I do not have all the details. The Church of Norway, of which I’m part, did loose apostolic succession, but regained it through the Church of England, who had regained it through Old Catholic bishops.

Second, your point is entirely different then the one Tomster has tried (and failed) to make. Tomster’s argument is basically this:


  1. *]Not all Lutheran churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
    *]Therefore, Lutheran churches aren’t proper churches.

    The hidden premise here is this: In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition. Now this creates problems for him, because he cannot apply one set of logic on Lutheranism, and another set of logic on other traditions. Let’s take two examples:

    Example 1: Byzantinianism.

    1. *]Not all Byzantine churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
      *]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
      *]Therefore, Byzantine churches aren’t proper churches.

      This would mean that the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is an invalid Church. That is what logic demands.

      Example 2: Anglican.

      1. *]Not all Anglican churches are in communion with all Anglican churches.
        *]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
        *]Therefore, Anglican churches aren’t proper churches.

        This would mean that the Ordinariate erected by Pope Benedict is invalid. That is what logic demands.

        My point is that Tomster keeps ignoring the logical outcomes of his own arguments. Logic doesn’t change when applied to the Roman Catholic Church.

        If he doesn’t want to admit to that, he needs to change his argument.

        BINGO!
Click to expand...

      1. Your first sentence destroys your whole position! The bishops of the Church of England and the Old Catholics lost jurisdiction through their schism. You cannot give what you do not have.

        ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16mirar.htm
 
Tomster said:
Your first sentence destroys your whole position! The bishops of the Church of England and the Old Catholics lost jurisdiction through their schism. You cannot give what you do not have.

ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16mirar.htm
Click to expand...
Use of the word “jurisdiction” here confuses me. What the question of OC participation in Anglican episcopal consecrations would involve is valid (if illicit), orders, via the OCs’ valid apostolic succession. Which is not affected by schism.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Use of the word “jurisdiction” here confuses me. What the question of OC participation in Anglican episcopal consecrations would involve is valid (if illicit), orders, via the OCs’ valid apostolic succession. Which is not affected by schism.

GKC
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/11235b.htm

True enough GKC.

Old Catholics bishops and priests do have valid Orders. Their ordination, as you say, is illicit, because they, the Old Catholics, intentionally severed themselves from the visible head of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Pope, who as we all know is the successor of the chief of the Apostles, St. Peter.

For a bishop and/or priest who has been validly but illicitly ordained, to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist is a grave sin. That bishop or priest has broken unity with Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.

This unity implies profession of the same faith (symbolico - dogmatic bond), participation in the same means of salvation (liturgico - sacramental bond), submission to the same pastors, especially to the Roman Pontiff, the hinge, the center, and the acme of ecclesiastical unity (hierarchico - social bond). To the unity of the faith is opposed heresy; to the unity of grace caused by the sacraments is opposed sin (which does not separate from the Church, but only paralyzes the member who is affected by it) to the unity of government is opposed schism.

The mark of unity is the first endowment or property of which the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol attributes to the Church, and which arises spontaneously from its nature and end. Since the Church is the union of man with Christ in social form it cannot help being one, as Christ is one, and as also the human race is one, which Christ the Redeemer drew into the orbit of His divine influence.
 
Tomster said:
newadvent.org/cathen/11235b.htm

True enough GKC.

Old Catholics bishops and priests do have valid Orders. Their ordination, as you say, is illicit, because they, the Old Catholics, intentionally severed themselves from the visible head of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Pope, who as we all know is the successor of the chief of the Apostles, St. Peter.

For a bishop and/or priest who has been validly but illicitly ordained, to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist is a grave sin. That bishop or priest has broken unity with Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.

This unity implies profession of the same faith (symbolico - dogmatic bond), participation in the same means of salvation (liturgico - sacramental bond), submission to the same pastors, especially to the Roman Pontiff, the hinge, the center, and the acme of ecclesiastical unity (hierarchico - social bond). To the unity of the faith is opposed heresy; to the unity of grace caused by the sacraments is opposed sin (which does not separate from the Church, but only paralyzes the member who is affected by it) to the unity of government is opposed schism.

The mark of unity is the first endowment or property of which the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol attributes to the Church, and which arises spontaneously from its nature and end. Since the Church is the union of man with Christ in social form it cannot help being one, as Christ is one, and as also the human race is one, which Christ the Redeemer drew into the orbit of His divine influence.
Click to expand...
Whether it be a sin for such a cleric, in such a state, to confect the Eucharist, I am not certain, but it is not the point. If the OCs possess valid orders, as the RC affirms, and they confer these orders, through joint episcopal consecrations (validly, but illicitly, per Ott), then the Anglicans then will possess orders in the same sense as the OCs (valid/illicit) and will transmit them, in the same sense and by the same token. Hence, absent a definitive statement on that matter from Rome, Kjetilk’s position is tenable, at the least, and the question of schism is specifically not a factor, as Ott states.

So it seems to me, at any rate.

GKC
 
KjetilK said:
The Roman Catholic Church is itself a union of 23 particular churches.
Click to expand...
Wrong, there is no ‘Roman Catholic Church.’ There is only the Catholic Church which includes 23 Rites.
And the Roman Catholic Church recognises the particular Eastern Orthodox churches as valid and Catholic. Thus you do not have to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff to be Catholic, according to Roman Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as Catholic because they are Catholic. They have Apostolic Succession. They do not submit to the full authority of the Bishop of Rome, who is St. Peter’s successor. But they do recognize his position among the Bishops. They just see it more of an honorary one than one of authority.

The Anglican and Lutheran traditions are break offs of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. As such they were obligated to follow the teaching of the Latin Rite. So Lutheranism and Anglicanism are departures from a validly recognized Catholic Rite, unlike the Orthodox Rites.
 
Tomster said:
Your first sentence destroys your whole position! The bishops of the Church of England and the Old Catholics lost jurisdiction through their schism.
Click to expand...
It is hard to discuss with a person who pontificates on the positions of other Churches when he doesn’t even know the position of his own Church.
 
And you still do not see my point, Tomster. Let’s assume that the current (or a future) Pope does what Pope Benedict did, and erects a Lutheran Ordinariate, or opens up the current one for Lutherans. Let’s also assume that a Lutheran body (for example a diocese) joins, and that they are defined as Lutherans in communion with Rome.

If your argument is valid, then that body would still not be valid, since you hold that all members of the Lutheran tradition are invalid.

You still keep treating Lutheranism as if it is a Church, and not an ecclesial tradition (like Byzantinianism).
 
vsedriver said:
Wrong, there is no ‘Roman Catholic Church.’ There is only the Catholic Church which includes 23 Rites.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Pope Pius X, IIRC. Maybe GKC can chime in.
vsedriver said:
The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as Catholic because they are Catholic. They have Apostolic Succession.
Click to expand...
My point, exactly. The same goes for my Church, which regained apostolic succession.
vsedriver said:
The Anglican and Lutheran traditions are break offs of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. As such they were obligated to follow the teaching of the Latin Rite. So Lutheranism and Anglicanism are departures from a validly recognized Catholic Rite, unlike the Orthodox Rites.
Click to expand...
So what, then, do you do with the fact that Rome recognized the validity of Old Catholics such as the PNCC? Aren’t they also “break offs of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church” and as such “obligated to follow the teaching of the Latin Rite”?

And aren’t you implying, here, that doctrine is relative, if it is OK to have different doctrines based on spatial location?
 
Why? Its universal for Protestants to have female religious leaders. Where were you for the past decades?
 
boar2roar said:
Why? Its universal for Protestants to have female religious leaders. Where were you for the past decades?
Click to expand...
lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1099
The issue of the ordination of women is not a matter of
“human rights” or “church traditions” or various human
opinions and customs.Nor is it a matter of “discrimination
against women.”
Various social reformers in our culture would have us
believe that men and women are totally interchangeable and
that their God-given differences simply have no bearing on life
in this world. Not only does this run contrary to the clear testimony
of nature,it also contradicts the Bible.The Bible teaches
us a different view of God’s creation.
The Scriptures teach us that both men and women were
created in the image of God,but are two distinct and special
creations of God.We praise God for His wisdom in creating
human beings as both man and woman.
We believe that God has gifted men and women with different
responsibilities and duties. For example,men are gifted
by God to be husbands and fathers;women are gifted by God
to be wives and mothers. So also in the church,God has gifted
men and women with different, though complementary,
opportunities and responsibilities for service.
Click to expand...
Jon
 
KjetilK said:
Tell that to Pope Pius X, IIRC. Maybe GKC can chime in.
Click to expand...
Pius X (saith wiki) did use the term in 1908, in a catechism, to distinguish the Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome, from “other Christian communities who are not in full communion with the Holy See”. Pius XII used it, in Humani generis, saying “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing”. And other examples might be adduced, I suppose.

I use RCC for such Churches, collectively, who are in communion with Rome, while certainly recognizing the various sui iuris particular Churches who make up the totality of that RCC, in addition to the Latin Rite Church. But I’m a maverick.

GKC
 
Tomster said:
Your first sentence destroys your whole position! The bishops of the Church of England and the Old Catholics lost jurisdiction through their schism. You cannot give what you do not have.
Click to expand...
If this statement were true, then the CC could not accept the Sacraments of the EO as valid, which they do.

There is valid Apostolic Succession in several Protestant communities.
 
WilT said:
I saw this Lutheran Priestess and I couldn’t help but to feel very odd and uncomfortable. She seemed like a nice person but I couldn’t get myself to say hello. I hope to be able to remove this uncomfortableness in the future.
Click to expand...
You’re meeting a woman who is a human being. Incorrect in her thinking.
Nevertheless, a human being, made in the image and likeness of God.

Say “Hi” and be nice. Say a prayer for her and remind yourself, “there, but for the grace of God, go you or I”.
 
KjetilK said:
First, I used the LCMS as an example. I do not have all the details. The Church of Norway, of which I’m part, did loose apostolic succession, but regained it through the Church of England, who had regained it through Old Catholic bishops.

Second, your point is entirely different then the one Tomster has tried (and failed) to make. Tomster’s argument is basically this:


  1. *]Not all Lutheran churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
    *]Therefore, Lutheran churches aren’t proper churches.

    The hidden premise here is this: In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition. Now this creates problems for him, because he cannot apply one set of logic on Lutheranism, and another set of logic on other traditions. Let’s take two examples:

    Example 1: Byzantinianism.

    1. *]Not all Byzantine churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
      *]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
      *]Therefore, Byzantine churches aren’t proper churches.

      This would mean that the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is an invalid Church. That is what logic demands.

      Example 2: Anglican.

      1. *]Not all Anglican churches are in communion with all Anglican churches.
        *]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
        *]Therefore, Anglican churches aren’t proper churches.

        This would mean that the Ordinariate erected by Pope Benedict is invalid. That is what logic demands.

        My point is that Tomster keeps ignoring the logical outcomes of his own arguments. Logic doesn’t change when applied to the Roman Catholic Church.

        If he doesn’t want to admit to that, he needs to change his argument.

        BINGO!
Click to expand...

      1. To say that you do not have all the details is an understatement.

        Additionally, to say that the Church of Norway has regained apostolic succession through the Church of England who had regained it through the Old Catholic bishops is a fiction.
 
KjetilK said:
First, I used the LCMS as an example. I do not have all the details. The Church of Norway, of which I’m part, did loose apostolic succession, but regained it through the Church of England, who had regained it through Old Catholic bishops.

Second, your point is entirely different then the one Tomster has tried (and failed) to make. Tomster’s argument is basically this:


  1. *]Not all Lutheran churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
    *]Therefore, Lutheran churches aren’t proper churches.

    The hidden premise here is this: In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition. Now this creates problems for him, because he cannot apply one set of logic on Lutheranism, and another set of logic on other traditions. Let’s take two examples:

    Example 1: Byzantinianism.

    1. *]Not all Byzantine churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
      *]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
      *]Therefore, Byzantine churches aren’t proper churches.

      This would mean that the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is an invalid Church. That is what logic demands.

      Example 2: Anglican.

      1. *]Not all Anglican churches are in communion with all Anglican churches.
        *]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
        *]Therefore, Anglican churches aren’t proper churches.

        This would mean that the Ordinariate erected by Pope Benedict is invalid. That is what logic demands.

        My point is that Tomster keeps ignoring the logical outcomes of his own arguments. Logic doesn’t change when applied to the Roman Catholic Church.

        If he doesn’t want to admit to that, he needs to change his argument.

        BINGO!
Click to expand...

      1. To say that the Church of Norway has regained apostolic succession from the Church of England who regained it from the Old Catholic bishops is a fiction.

        At a conference in 1872 in Cologne the name Old Catholic, emphasizing the traditional point of view these people believed they were accepting, was adopted. A committee no less was established to prepare for the election of a bishop. In 1873, Joseph Hubert Reinkens was elected by the Old Catholics and ordained by a bishop of the schismatic Utrecht Church. Of course, since the bishops of Utrecht were validly (but not lawfully) ordained, Reinkens was as well.

        Later, Reinkens provided for his successors by ordaining two of his priests as bishops of the Old Catholics, again, validly, but not lawfully, since he did not have jurisdiction to do so. Reinkens was placed under interdict by Pope Pius IX, but continued in his schism by establishing his Church administration in Bonn.

        Some German bishops in communion with the See of Peter (lawful and licit with the power of jurisdiction) responded to the movement, for that is all it was, by denying the sacraments and imposing the penalties of canon law on the dissenters including suspensions for priests and excommunication.

        Additionally, for your information, by accepting Anglican Orders as valid and licit, the Old Catholics really sealed the deal as one might say. The problem here for the Old Catholics is that the Church declared Anglican Orders absolutely null and void.

        Once again, to say that the “Church” of Norway regained apostolic succession by these means is a pure fiction.

        Regarding your specific condition as a self proclaimed priest, Catholic Canon Law, Title III - Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Functions and Offenses in Their Exercise Canon - 1378, #2, 1 states: " The following incure an automatic (latae sententiae) suspension penalty of interdict or if a cleric, an automatic (latae sententiae) suspension; one who has not been promoted to the priestly order and who attempts to enact the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

        So much for your perceived notion of apostolic succession.
 
Tomster said:
To say that the Church of Norway has regained apostolic succession from the Church of England who regained it from the Old Catholic bishops is a fiction.

At a conference in 1872 in Cologne the name Old Catholic, emphasizing the traditional point of view these people believed they were accepting, was adopted. A committee no less was established to prepare for the election of a bishop. In 1873, Joseph Hubert Reinkens was elected by the Old Catholics and ordained by a bishop of the schismatic Utrecht Church. Of course, since the bishops of Utrecht were validly (but not lawfully) ordained, Reinkens was as well.

Later, Reinkens provided for his successors by ordaining two of his priests as bishops of the Old Catholics, again, validly, but not lawfully, since he did not have jurisdiction to do so. Reinkens was placed under interdict by Pope Pius IX, but continued in his schism by establishing his Church administration in Bonn.

Some German bishops in communion with the See of Peter (lawful and licit with the power of jurisdiction) responded to the movement, for that is all it was, by denying the sacraments and imposing the penalties of canon law on the dissenters including suspensions for priests and excommunication.

Additionally, for your information, by accepting Anglican Orders as valid and licit, the Old Catholics really sealed the deal as one might say. The problem here for the Old Catholics is that the Church declared Anglican Orders absolutely null and void.

Once again, to say that the “Church” of Norway regained apostolic succession by these means is a pure fiction.

Regarding your specific condition as a self proclaimed priest, Catholic Canon Law, Title III - Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Functions and Offenses in Their Exercise Canon - 1378, #2, 1 states: " The following incure an automatic (latae sententiae) suspension penalty of interdict or if a cleric, an automatic (latae sententiae) suspension; one who has not been promoted to the priestly order and who attempts to enact the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

So much for your perceived notion of apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
Seems to be a couple of theoretical issues with your view. Possibly.

Again, per Ott, valid/illicit bishops exercising their episcopal functions confer valid/illict orders (in this sacramental instance). This specifically includes schismatic bishops, i.e., the OCs.

Whether Anglicans, in 1932, possessed valid/illicit orders at the time the joint IC/Anglican episcopal Consecrations were commenced, is not (ISTM) relevant. The stated intent of the OCs was to confer fully the valid (and, in Rome’s eye, illicit) orders possessed by the OCs to the candidates being consecrated, which, per Ott, is within their power. And also to mingle those orders with the Anglican Orders, whatever their status might be (in Rome’s eyes, null and void). The question remains: what does Rome specifically say about that action? Not what you or I might say, but what, per Ott, Rome might say, formally. I’ve wondered for years.

GKC
 
That Rome doesn’t follow their own principles were they logically lead is not my problem, Tomster. The 1896 ruling didn’t have magical properties, extending into the future.
 
I meant universal in the sense that every major type of Protestant group (lutherans methodists, anglicans, baptists) have female leaders, preachers, pastors whatever you want to call them. Every single splinter group doesn’t like certain conservative strands but you’ll find the major organizations with them, its pretty universal especially in Europe and the more organized ones like lutherans. So don’t you think its weird that the poster was shocked by that? Its like being shocked that fundamentalist groups read the bible more than other christians
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top