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

[Tomster]

Would you be prepared to make do with a mere Anglican bishop and biblical scholar?

ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

BTW - Since Anglicanism and Lutheranism both share the erroneous belief of Sola Scriptura, would you care to give us your own interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Anglicanism is pretty much in the same boat as Lutheranism is on this topic. Private interpretation of Scriptures has led both “churches” (as if there could be more than one Church) down the same erroneous road.

Fine. So Professor Wright’s particular spin on Corinthians could be just what you were asking for. I’m sure you won’t agree with it, but no doubt you will read it with the respect Prof Wright deserves.

 

[Picky_Picky]

BTW - Since Anglicanism and Lutheranism both share the erroneous belief of Sola Scriptura, would you care to give us your own interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35?

I’m not an Anglican, except by nationality, so I’m not sure my opinion is of much relevance. I find Prof Wright’s examination interesting, though.

 

[Tomster]

Fine. So Professor Wright’s particular spin on Corinthians could be just what you were asking for. I’m sure you won’t agree with it, but no doubt you will read it with the respect Prof Wright deserves.

I’ll read it and I would ask you to give us your personal spin on the Scripture passages 1 Corinthians 14:33-35.

Ecumenism at work. It’s a beautiful thing.

 

[Tomster]

I’m not an Anglican, except by nationality, so I’m not sure my opinion is of much relevance. I find Prof Wright’s examination interesting, though.

I’m not asking for your opinion. Opinions are what got Protestantism into trouble 500 years ago. I am asking for YOUR interpretation of the Scripture passages. And if you are willing to do this, please tell by what authority you can interpret them so that they are binding on all Christians. The same goes for your Prof Wright.

BTW - If you are not an Anglican please tell us how you can be one nationally. :whacky:

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’m not asking for your opinion. Opinions are what got Protestantism into trouble 500 years ago. I am asking for YOUR interpretation of the Scripture passages. And if you are willing to do this, please tell by what authority you can interpret them so that they are binding on all Christians. The same goes for your Prof Wright.

BTW - If you are not an Anglican please tell us how you can be one nationally. :whacky:

I am English. I am in the happy position that the Church of England is my church even though I am not an Anglican. And I have no interpretation to offer that would be worth offering: I am ignorance itself. I certainly wouldn’t claim to be able to bind the beliefs of Christians – why on earth should I?

Professor Bishop Wright is hardly “mine” nor, I think, would he claim that his scholarship imposes on others a necessity to agree with him. He’s Anglican, you see. But you expressed an interest in the “spin” of those who favour the ordination of women. I offer the bishop as an expert witness. I hope you read him, however much you will disagree with him, because it is often worth understanding those who think differently from oneself.

 

[KjetilK]

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.

A Church is those gathered around their bishop(s), celebrating the word and sacraments. Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition, though not all Lutheran churches are in communion. (Like, say, Byzantine christianity is an ecclesial tradition, though not all Byzantine churches are in communion.)

If you want to find out what any given Lutheran believes, find out what Church he is part of. I akm part of the Church of Norway, and I am thus not obliged to answer for what, say, some WELS Lutheran should happen to believe.

Lutheran churches, as in plural, yikes .

I thought St. Paul taught that there was only one Church, Christ’s Mystical Body.

The Roman Catholic Church is itself a union of 23 particular churches.

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.

 

[WilT]

Anglicanism is pretty much in the same boat as Lutheranism is on this topic. Private interpretation of Scriptures has led both “churches” (as if there could be more than one Church) down the same erroneous road.

 

[Tomster]

A Church is those gathered around their bishop(s), celebrating the word and sacraments. Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition, though not all Lutheran churches are in communion. (Like, say, Byzantine christianity is an ecclesial tradition, though not all Byzantine churches are in communion.)

If you want to find out what any given Lutheran believes, find out what Church he is part of. I akm part of the Church of Norway, and I am thus not obliged to answer for what, say, some WELS Lutheran should happen to believe.

The Roman Catholic Church is itself a union of 23 particular churches.

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.

Hate to break your bubble but Catholic theology most definitely teaches one has to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff to be Roman Catholic. The Eastern Church that you mention are in communion with the Pope. It’s the Orthodox communion that are not, as yet, in communion with the Successor of St. Peter. Big difference!

 

[Tomster]

A Church is those gathered around their bishop(s), celebrating the word and sacraments. Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition, though not all Lutheran churches are in communion. (Like, say, Byzantine christianity is an ecclesial tradition, though not all Byzantine churches are in communion.)

If you want to find out what any given Lutheran believes, find out what Church he is part of. I akm part of the Church of Norway, and I am thus not obliged to answer for what, say, some WELS Lutheran should happen to believe.

The Roman Catholic Church is itself a union of 23 particular churches.

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.

In your first paragraph you have spoken the truth by saying that “not all Lutheran churches are in communion”. Whether you realize it or not that was a courageous statement to make on your part and I commend you. By saying it you know that you are admitting there is no unity of belief among all of the different Lutheran churches which is contrary to the will of Christ, “that all may be one”. When one ponders the will of Christ, one realizes something has gone wrong, terribly wrong. I ask you, in all sincerity, what has gone wrong with all of the different Lutheran churches? Why the divisions? Is not Christ’s will of paramount importance?

 

[KjetilK]

Hate to break your bubble but Catholic theology most definitely teaches one has to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff to be Roman Catholic. The Eastern Church that you mention are in communion with the Pope. It’s the Orthodox communion that are not, as yet, in communion with the Successor of St. Peter. Big difference!

You should read my post one more time. In my last paragraph I was not talking about the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, but the Orthodox Churches. They are defined as Catholic - by the Roman Pontiff - even though they aren’t in communion.

In your first paragraph you have spoken the truth by saying that “not all Lutheran churches are in communion”. Whether you realize it or not that was a courageous statement to make on your part and I commend you. By saying it you know that you are admitting there is no unity of belief among all of the different Lutheran churches which is contrary to the will of Christ, “that all may be one”. When one ponders the will of Christ, one realizes something has gone wrong, terribly wrong. I ask you, in all sincerity, what has gone wrong with all of the different Lutheran churches? Why the divisions? Is not Christ’s will of paramount importance?

And you keep assuming that Lutheranism is a Church. It isn’t. It is an ecclesial tradition, like Byzantism. Since not all Byzantine churches are one, does that mean that the Roman Catholic Church isn’t one, because their Byzantine churches aren’t in communionwith +Constantinople?

You need to take each particular Church on its own terms.

 

[Tomster]

You should read my post one more time. In my last paragraph I was not talking about the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, but the Orthodox Churches. They are defined as Catholic - by the Roman Pontiff - even though they aren’t in communion.

And you keep assuming that Lutheranism is a Church. It isn’t. It is an ecclesial tradition, like Byzantism. Since not all Byzantine churches are one, does that mean that the Roman Catholic Church isn’t one, because their Byzantine churches aren’t in communionwith +Constantinople?

You need to take each particular Church on its own terms.

And if you were to read post #51 more carefully you will see that I was not referring to “Lutheranism”. I was referring to the many different Lutheran churches.

 

[JonNC]

And if you were to read post #51 more carefully you will see that I was not referring to “Lutheranism”. I was referring to the many different Lutheran churches.

Well, Tomster, no Lutheran claims that there is a “Lutheran Church”, or that there are many “Lutheran Churches”. From the Augsburg Confession:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

There is one one true Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which Lutherans are members, and Catholics, and many others.

Jon

 

[Mystophilus]

Why? Doesn’t God speak to us through our conscience and instincts?

God might, but our prejudices certainly do, which gives us good reason to be careful about assuming that any particular instance is the former rather than the latter.

 

[Mystophilus]

BTW - Since Anglicanism and Lutheranism both share the erroneous belief of Sola Scriptura

We don’t: Anglicanism in general does not believe in sola scriptura, although some individual Anglicans do. The more general Anglican position is Scripture + Tradition + Reason, in a complex relationship.

 

[Mystophilus]

Lutherans typically don’t call their male ministers “father”… possibly Anglicans are an exception here? Ask the lay protestants in said church what they call their female ministers. Or check the news, how ministers of said Lutheran church are referred to.

An Anglican priest, male or female, is a priest. As such, the formal address is “the Reverend John/Jane Smith”, less formally “Rev John/Jane”, informally “John/Jane”. I suppose that an Anglo-Catholic might call a priest “Father” (or possibly “Mother” if a liberal Anglo-Catholic - and yes, they do exist), but I have not personally heard it used.

 

[GKC]

An Anglican priest, male or female, is a priest. As such, the formal address is “the Reverend John/Jane Smith”, less formally “Rev John/Jane”, informally “John/Jane”. I suppose that an Anglo-Catholic might call a priest “Father” (or possibly “Mother” if a liberal Anglo-Catholic - and yes, they do exist), but I have not personally heard it used.

Possibly because I’m not speaking loud enough.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

An Anglican priest, male or female, is a priest. As such, the formal address is “the Reverend John/Jane Smith”, less formally “Rev John/Jane”, informally “John/Jane”. I suppose that an Anglo-Catholic might call a priest “Father” (or possibly “Mother” if a liberal Anglo-Catholic - and yes, they do exist), but I have not personally heard it used.

I’ve heard it used by Anglicans who no one would mistake for an Anglo-Catholic.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

We don’t: Anglicanism in general does not believe in sola scriptura, although some individual Anglicans do. The more general Anglican position is Scripture + Tradition + Reason, in a complex relationship.

Yes, those attributes are vital for the Church

 

[cmodrmac]

the term is Priest not Priestess like Actor not actress

I can assure you female clergy are very sincere-the issue I have is that they often have difficulty in areas such as Teaching the faith and morals but tend to excel in Patoral counseling

my Church was definitely not enriched by femnale ordination-led to a major schism