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.
Dave_Noonan said:
AFAIK the Catholic Church teaches that the marriage between two baptized persons is a sacrament, regardless of whether there was a priest present or not–because the ministers of the sacrament are the couple themselves.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what AFAIK means but I was given an emergency Catholic baptism as a baby.
 
I remember one time I was walking down the street (This was before I was Catholic) and saw a women coming out of the church, dressed as a Priest. I asked why she was dressed like that because women can’t be pastors in anyway, and she told me the Catholic Church now allows women priest… so for about 2 years I actually thought the Catholic Church allowed women to be Priest. Until I found out that the church she came out of was Episcopal and that Anglicans just like referring to themselves as Catholics.

Saying hi is not bad, I say hi to my Muslim friend all the time and I disagree with him on a lot of issues. Just because you may strongly disagree with their beliefs doesn’t mean you got to feel uncomfortable around them and not say hi.
 
christofirst said:
I grew up very insulated in a Catholic environment, so women ministers were not the norm for me either. Later, I worked on the remodel of an Episcopalian church, and the pastor was female. I’ll never forget, I was working on an elaborate switching system for the church lights, and the pastor came up and examined the work, nodded in approval, and declared it, “Sexy.” (or maybe she was referring to me! :eek:). But I’m almost certain it was the switch bank.
Click to expand...
Christofirst, sounds like you were being hit on! lol. Don’t convert now!
 
Catholic_farmer said:
That was quite offensive.
Click to expand...
My apologies to any who were offended. It was actually that story that made me realize that it wasn’t the manner of delivery of the Word, but the Author that made the Word of God effective. At that point, I stopped being mentally critical if the lector’s voice was a monotone, or the homily didn’t seem engaging.

I am still opposed to women’s ordinations and other roles that have traditionally been performed by men as part of the liturgy.
 
AtDawn said:
It’s not your church. You don’t have to judge. I have seen Catholic priests and woman Lutheran priests in friendly public conversation and can’t see why you’d have to treat her any differently than other people who doesn’t follow your own faith. To make it easier for yourself, I suggest you use the normal word in Luthern churches, “minister” rather than “priest” (and certainly not “priestess” which implies something heathen.)
Click to expand...
Priest is the proper term for Lutheran ministers.
 
steido01 said:
I’m on the same page. Women’s “ordination” is clearly against the natural order established by God and the Tradition of the church, and having female lectors and cantors seems like a waffly attempt to -ugh- compromise. As for women’s suffrage in congregational voter meetings, I’m indifferent. The ‘head’ of the congregation is still the [male] Pastor, so is a woman actually in any authority over a man by being permitted a voice (that’s a chance to be heard, not a position of leadership) in what goes on at a given parish? 🤷

In relation to the OP, sure, I’ll call them pastor out of respect for the faith they practice; but those pastrixes’ “ordinations” are not valid in the same way that I know a Confessional Lutheran, Continuing Anglican, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox ordination to be.
Click to expand...
I can recommend an article by, then Church of England priest Geoffrey Kirk (he is now in the Ordinariate). The title of the article is “Fatherhood, Headship and Tradition,” which is found in Consecrated Women? A Contribution to the Women Bishops Debate, ed. Jonathan Baker (Norwich: Canterbury Press 2004). A shortened version may be found here.

Kirk makes a case for an important distinction, in St. Paul’s writings, between lalein glosse, ‘speaking in tongues,’ whixh is associated with prophecy, and which is open to women, and lalein in ekklesia, ‘speaking in the assembly’ or ‘speaking in the Church,’ which is reserved for males. He makes the case that this is, essentially, the presiding of the Eucharist, and he connects this to the president of the Passover seder, who must also be male.
 
We disagree with having women clergy, but we should always be nice and respectful of everyone regardless of their beliefs.
 
JonNC said:
Actually, the typical word in Lutheran settings in America is “pastor”. However, our confessions do refer to our called and ordained clergy as priest, and there are those who call them Father, even here in America.
From this Lutheran’s perspective, the issue isn’t particularly the title, but instead the validity, or lack thereof, of female ordination. I would never be disrespectful to the clergy of other communions, male or female, but it doesn’t follow that I am obliged to view their female clergy as valid.

Jon
Click to expand...
So, Jon, some Lutherans view this woman’s ordination valid while other Lutherans, such as yourself, as invalid. Which group of Lutherans is correct? Which group isn’t? And who, within worldwide Lutheranism, has the authority to make the final decision on this matter?
 
KjetilK said:
I can recommend an article by, then Church of England priest Geoffrey Kirk (he is now in the Ordinariate). The title of the article is “Fatherhood, Headship and Tradition,” which is found in Consecrated Women? A Contribution to the Women Bishops Debate, ed. Jonathan Baker (Norwich: Canterbury Press 2004). A shortened version may be found here.

Kirk makes a case for an important distinction, in St. Paul’s writings, between lalein glosse, ‘speaking in tongues,’ whixh is associated with prophecy, and which is open to women, and lalein in ekklesia, ‘speaking in the assembly’ or ‘speaking in the Church,’ which is reserved for males. He makes the case that this is, essentially, the presiding of the Eucharist, and he connects this to the president of the Passover seder, who must also be male.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Father. I’ll be sure to give them a read. 👍
 
Tomster said:
So, Jon, some Lutherans view this woman’s ordination valid while other Lutherans, such as yourself, as invalid. Which group of Lutherans is correct? Which group isn’t? And who, within worldwide Lutheranism, has the authority to make the final decision on this matter?
Click to expand...
Which position, Tomster, conforms to the historic tradition of the Church Catholic, and that of scripture?

Jon
 
Tomster said:
So, Jon, some Lutherans view this woman’s ordination valid while other Lutherans, such as yourself, as invalid. Which group of Lutherans is correct? Which group isn’t? And who, within worldwide Lutheranism, has the authority to make the final decision on this matter?
Click to expand...
‘Lutheranism’ is not a Church.
 
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...
Priestess?
 
JonNC said:
Which position, Tomster, conforms to the historic tradition of the Church Catholic, and that of scripture?

Jon
Click to expand...
Let’s take Scripture Jon.

I would just love to listen to this Lutheran woman “priest” preach from the pulpit some Sunday on 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. What a hoot that would be :rotfl: It would be fascinating listening to her go through all sorts of contortions trying to explain away St. Paul’s teachings.

But, since I don’t foresee that happening soon, perhaps some of the Lutheran/Catholics or is it Catholic/Lutherans (this gets confusing sometimes) posting on this thread could give us their particular spin on the above Scripture passages.

Private interpretation of Scripture, the glory of Lutheran theology! What a mess.
 
KjetilK said:
‘Lutheranism’ is not a Church.
Click to expand...
O.K., Lutheranism is not a Church. Please authoritatively define from the Bible “Church”. Give us a definition that would be binding on all Christians if you would please.
 
Tomster said:
Let’s take Scripture Jon.

I would just love to listen to this Lutheran woman “priest” preach from the pulpit some Sunday on 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. What a hoot that would be :rotfl: It would be fascinating listening to her go through all sorts of contortions trying to explain away St. Paul’s teachings.

But, since I don’t foresee that happening soon, perhaps some of the Lutheran/Catholics or is it Catholic/Lutherans (this gets confusing sometimes) posting on this thread could give us their particular spin on the above Scripture passages.

Private interpretation of Scripture, the glory of Lutheran theology! What a mess.
Click to expand...
Would you be prepared to make do with a mere Anglican bishop and biblical scholar?

ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
 
AtDawn said:
Some Lutheran churches have women ministers. Others not, and opinions vary. A lot.

Since Lutheran churches multiply by division, this is one of the things that churches have sometimes split over.
Click to expand...
Lutheran churches, as in plural, yikes :eek:.

I thought St. Paul taught that there was only one Church, Christ’s Mystical Body.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top