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

[The_young_fogey]

Finding out about them in the Episcopal Church 30 years ago, as a Episcopalian Catholic wannabe, was the first hit I got upside the head about the denomination of my birth: This is not the Catholic Church; get out.

I’ve rarely met them and have never seen them officiate.

Now that I’m in the church I’ve made peace with them. They’re not a threat.

Still, I don’t like how the secular media make a big deal of them, because the media want to spite the Catholic Church.

I’m sure some Episcopal ones are as credally orthodox and almost as liturgically conservative as I am. (Episcopalians love the Tridentine Mass; Catholic liberals don’t.)

But yeah, the church can’t change the matter of the sacraments.

 

[benjohnson]

Our Divine Service marriage (Mass) was officiated by a female Lutheran priest - she proclaimed the Gospel to my and my wife. Our family loves her and respects her, and later on she also played a role in brining out a particular Lutheran church away from heresy.

For myself - the ideal and the expectation is for male priests. Tradition and scripture say we should continue that. But to put things in perspective - ever priest has shortcomings and being the wrong gender is another to the list.

But just as I can’t quite get too mad a Quakers and other sincere expressions of Christian faith, I can’t quite get too upset about somewhat wayward female Lutheran priests - as long as they’re doing the work of the Lord, I respect that even though I no longer will abide by it.

We can be both respectful and maintain God’s will at the same time.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

These are the faces of the ELCA

 

[KjetilK]

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.

But then your argument defeats itself. Because just as there are different Lutheran Churches out of communion with each other, there are, say, different Byzantine and Chaldean Churches out of communion with each other. But even if a Byzantine Church is out of communion with another Byzantine Church (as, say, the Byzantine Churches under +Constantinople aren’t in communion with Rome), it doesn’t follow that Byzantinism is wrong. If it did, it would equally hurt your Church, since there are Byzantine Churches in communion with Rome.

Different Byzantine Churches may or may not be in communion with each other, and different Lutheran Churches may or may not be in communion with each other. But that doesn’t tell us a single thing about the merit of either Byzantinism or Lutheranisn.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that a paricular Lutheran Church were to reconcile with Rome, keeping its Lutheran heritage. Would that mean that your assumed schismatic nature of Lutheranism would be imported to Rome? Of course not. Because Lutheranism is not a Church, but an ecclesial tradition just like Byzantinism.

 

[KjetilK]

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.

Which actually is the historic Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Mystophilus]

Possibly because I’m not speaking loud enough.

GKC

You’re a bit far from here.

 

[Mystophilus]

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

Anglican variety strikes again.

 

[GKC]

You’re a bit far from here.

I’ll speak up, and wave a banner.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Finding out about them in the Episcopal Church 30 years ago, as a Episcopalian Catholic wannabe, was the first hit I got upside the head about the denomination of my birth: This is not the Catholic Church; get out.

I’ve rarely met them and have never seen them officiate.

Now that I’m in the church I’ve made peace with them. They’re not a threat.

Still, I don’t like how the secular media make a big deal of them, because the media want to spite the Catholic Church.

I’m sure some Episcopal ones are as credally orthodox and almost as liturgically conservative as I am. (Episcopalians love the Tridentine Mass; Catholic liberals don’t.)

But yeah, the church can’t change the matter of the sacraments.

In this case, the subject of the sacrament. Matter of Orders is imposition of hands.

GKC

 

[Shuttlepiper]

I grew up with Presbyterian pastors (black and female, imagine that).

It was awkward when I was a kid, but more over the race thing, not so much the gender.

Fast forward 50 years.

I know priests (female) who are Anglican, Lutheran pastors who are female, etc.

You know what? I have experienced almost universally from them a sense of dedication, of love for God, and a sense of having a calling and mission to help people in our community who are suffering and in need of God’s love. God is SO much more than we give him credit for being. How could he do everything that needs to be done in the world without using other Christians?

We should thank God that at least these days they’re in our corner as well!

 

[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.

Claiming to base its position on the teachings of the Fathers, the Augsburg Confession defines the Church as “the Congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught [purely preached] and the Sacraments rightly administered [according to the Gospel].” (1) In the revised edition of 1540, the ambiguous “congregation of saints” was specified, in parentheses, as “the assembly of all believers.” (2) This concept of the Church is equivocal, apparently defining it as invisible, since it is composed of all believers, and yet visible, because it exists wherever the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. As a result, two antithetical theories have arisen among Lutherans. Liberals admit the Church’s invisible character, but emphasize that, “There could never be a Church which is merely invisible . . . Wherever the Word of God is preached and the sacraments are administered, the is the true Church of Christ.” (3) Evangelicals teach the opposite, holding that, “The Church is invisible because the constitutive factor of the Church, faith in the heart, is invisible for men and known only to God.” Consequently, " all who declare the Church to be wholly visible - Romanists - or at least semi-visible - recent Lutherans - are perverting the nature of the Christian Church." (4)

It should be added that this reference to the “Romanists” is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine, which holds that the Church is not only visible but also, and especially, a spiritual entity - the Mystical Body of Christ - animated by the invisible Spirit of God.

(1) Philip Schalf, the Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, “The Augsburg Confessions,” London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1877, pp11-12

(2) Ibid., p 11.

(3) Eric H. Wahlstrom, “Lutheran Church” The Nature of the Church: Papers Presented to the Theological Commission of the World Council on Faith and Order (R. Newton Flew, ed.), London, S.C.M. press, 1952, P. 226

(4) Francis Piper, Christian Dogmatics, St. Louis, Concordia, 1953, vol.III, p. 266.

 

[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.

Your last two statements are incorrect.

The Church is neither the aggregate of believers, nor the sum total of the individual communities, but a moral being to which unity is essential. Not only is the part in the whole, but the whole is in the part. This is why St. Paul addresses "the Church of God in Corinth "; in fact, whether it is at Corinth, at Ephesus, or elsewhere, it is always the Church; and it is always the Church of God, since the Church of God is essentially one. This is why the apostle calls a particular church the temple of the Holy Ghost and the bride of Christ, because that particular church is only an extension of the universal Church (Catholic), and would keep the name of church only by an abuse of language if it were separated from the one only Church.

The Eastern Orthodox churches are not in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and Rome has never said that they are in full communion. Additionally, Rome has never said that any of the many branches of Lutheranism are in communion with the See of Peter which is a pre-requisite for full communion.

 

[Tomster]

Our Divine Service marriage (Mass) was officiated by a female Lutheran priest - she proclaimed the Gospel to my and my wife. Our family loves her and respects her, and later on she also played a role in brining out a particular Lutheran church away from heresy.

For myself - the ideal and the expectation is for male priests. Tradition and scripture say we should continue that. But to put things in perspective - ever priest has shortcomings and being the wrong gender is another to the list.

But just as I can’t quite get too mad a Quakers and other sincere expressions of Christian faith, I can’t quite get too upset about somewhat wayward female Lutheran priests - as long as they’re doing the work of the Lord, I respect that even though I no longer will abide by it.

We can be both respectful and maintain God’s will at the same time.

Maybe your female Lutheran “priest” should read 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Maybe you should too. Sola Scriptura

 

[Tomster]

Priest is the proper term for Lutheran ministers.

If you say so. However, one of the most radical errors of Reformation theology was Luther’s denial of a distinct sacerdotal office or power, and the corresponding claim that all believers are equally priests before God. Ignoring the context which refers to offering “spiritual sacrifices,” he rested his case on the words of St. Peter, saying, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). “By this text,” Luther said, " I have proved that all Christians are priests, for Peter addresses all Christians, as the words themselves clearly prove." This notion was later incorporated into the Smalcald Articles, and thus made confessional doctrine, after had taken up the challenge and repudiated the very idea of a visible priesthood to be consistent with his theory of a purely invisible Church.

A great part of modern Lutheranism finds its basis and justification in the hypothesis of a universal priesthood. As a logical consequence, it rejects as unscriptural the doctrine, “that only such are true ministers of the Church as have been ordained by bishops . . . that the different offices and ranks of the clergy are not of human but of divine origin . . . that only priests can forgive sins . . . that the power of excommunication does not belong to the whole congregation, but to the spiritual rulers of the Church.” But along with the denial of a distinct sacerdotal office, Lutherans inherited a problem which they have yet to resolve, namely, whether it is a divine or merely human institution.

If there is no sacerdotal office instituted by Christ and all believers are equally priests, where does the Lutheran ministry derive its authority to teach, celebrate the Eucharist, absolve from sin, demand obedience, and punish the unworthy? In trying to answer this question, two schools of thought have arisen. The evangelical party "grants that ministry is divinely ordained, but only in the sense as everything wise, appropriate, morally necessary can be said to have divine sanction, not in the sense that an express divine command for the establishment of the public ministry can be shown.

Against this position is the strongly Roman doctrine of the ministry, namely, that the office of the public ministry is not conferred by the call of the congregation as the original possessor of all spiritual power, but is a divine institution in the sense that it was transmitted immediately from the apostles to their pupils, considered as a separate “ministerial order” or caste, and that this order perpetuates itself by means of ordination.

To date no solution has been found for the dilemma, and no compromise seems possible, as evidenced by the number of schisms in American Lutheranism that have centered around one or another of these conceptions of the ministry, which if not divinely ordained has no title to authority, and if divinely ordained is the negation of a cardinal principle of Lutheran theology.

 

[benjohnson]

Maybe your female Lutheran “priest” should read 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Maybe you should too. Sola Scriptura

Oh I quite agree!

My only observation is that some of these female priests truly have good hearts directed to God. They’re wrong, but not insincere.

 

[KjetilK]

Claiming to base its position on the teachings of the Fathers, the Augsburg Confession defines the Church as “the Congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught [purely preached] and the Sacraments rightly administered [according to the Gospel].”

That is correct. But I want to add that this article cannot be read in isolation from the other articles, including article 5 (on the function of the priestly office), article 14 (on the reservation of the priestly office to those who are rightly called), and article 21 (which specifies that the confession ought to be read in light of the Tradition of the Church). Therefore I would add that in order to have, say, rightly administered Sacraments, you need the office (of bishop). And that is how we see ourselves in the Church of Norway. We retained the various episcopal sees.

(1) In the revised edition of 1540, the ambiguous “congregation of saints” was specified, in parentheses, as “the assembly of all believers.”

You wont, AFAIK, find a single Lutheran Church who retains the 1540 revision* as binding. Confessio Augustana wasn’t Melanchthon’s private document, even if he liked to think so. (* Or, ‘Calvinistic corruption,’ to use a more fitting description.)

The congregation of the saints are just those baptised who gather around word and sacrament (in communion with their bishop).

(2) This concept of the Church is equivocal, apparently defining it as invisible, since it is composed of all believers, and yet visible, because it exists wherever the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered.

No, wrong. The Church isn’t just the ‘assembly,’ but the assemebly as it gathers around the official celebration. It is not invisible. Without word and sacrament, there is no Church.

As a result, two antithetical theories have arisen among Lutherans. Liberals admit the Church’s invisible character, but emphasize that, “There could never be a Church which is merely invisible . . . Wherever the Word of God is preached and the sacraments are administered, the is the true Church of Christ.”

And thus you have destroyed your own argument. That some Lutherans are merely Calvinistic Christians in disguise doesn’t mean that Lutheran teaching is Calvinistic.

(3) Evangelicals teach the opposite, holding that, “The Church is invisible because the constitutive factor of the Church, faith in the heart, is invisible for men and known only to God.” Consequently, " all who declare the Church to be wholly visible - Romanists - or at least semi-visible - recent Lutherans - are perverting the nature of the Christian Church."

I’m not an Evangelical. Lutherans aren’t Evangelicals (as we now use that word). So I don’t see the relevance here.

It should be added that this reference to the “Romanists” is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine, which holds that the Church is not only visible but also, and especially, a spiritual entity - the Mystical Body of Christ - animated by the invisible Spirit of God.

Which is also taught by Lutherans, btw.

The Eastern Orthodox churches are not in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and Rome has never said that they are in full communion.

Which is exactly what I said. Yet despite their lack of communion, Rome recognises their catholicity. It thus follows, per Roman Catholic teaching, that you do not have to be in communion with Rome to be catholic.

Simple logic: If the Orthodox are Catholic, then being Catholic doesn’t necessarily imply being in communion with Rome.

And one simple point in the end. Most of what you have cited in the two posts have been private theological commentaries from Melanchthon and Luther. I may agree or disagree with anything they have written. I am not bound to follow anything but Scripture, the three ancient creeds, Confessio Augustana, Luther’s Small Catechism, and the Tradition from the Church Fathers.

 

[Tomster]

That is correct. But I want to add that this article cannot be read in isolation from the other articles, including article 5 (on the function of the priestly office), article 14 (on the reservation of the priestly office to those who are rightly called), and article 21 (which specifies that the confession ought to be read in light of the Tradition of the Church). Therefore I would add that in order to have, say, rightly administered Sacraments, you need the office (of bishop). And that is how we see ourselves in the Church of Norway. We retained the various episcopal sees.

You wont, AFAIK, find a single Lutheran Church who retains the 1540 revision* as binding. Confessio Augustana wasn’t Melanchthon’s private document, even if he liked to think so. (* Or, ‘Calvinistic corruption,’ to use a more fitting description.)

The congregation of the saints are just those baptised who gather around word and sacrament (in communion with their bishop).

No, wrong. The Church isn’t just the ‘assembly,’ but the assemebly as it gathers around the official celebration. It is not invisible. Without word and sacrament, there is no Church.

And thus you have destroyed your own argument. That some Lutherans are merely Calvinistic Christians in disguise doesn’t mean that Lutheran teaching is Calvinistic.

I’m not an Evangelical. Lutherans aren’t Evangelicals (as we now use that word). So I don’t see the relevance here.

Which is also taught by Lutherans, btw.

Which is exactly what I said. Yet despite their lack of communion, Rome recognises their catholicity. It thus follows, per Roman Catholic teaching, that you do not have to be in communion with Rome to be catholic.

Simple logic: If the Orthodox are Catholic, then being Catholic doesn’t necessarily imply being in communion with Rome.

And one simple point in the end. Most of what you have cited in the two posts have been private theological commentaries from Melanchthon and Luther. I may agree or disagree with anything they have written. I am not bound to follow anything but Scripture, the three ancient creeds, Confessio Augustana, Luther’s Small Catechism, and the Tradition from the Church Fathers.

Where other Protestant churches are satisfied to describe their religious similarities and differences without analysis, Lutheran writers are concerned with telling their people and others what they consider the essence of Lutheranism. At a symposium some eighty years ago Lutheran theologians of varying degrees of orthodoxy were allowed to express their opinion on, “What is Lutheranism’s raison d’etre as a distinct communion in the twentieth century.” (1) While there was no agreement on the answer, there was revealed a basic divergency of attitude. On one side are the conservatives, who distinguish Lutheranism as essentially an adherence to the principles enunciated in a half dozen “symbolic documents,” beginning with the Confession of Augsburg (1530)and ending with the Formula of Concord (1577). Without this adherence, it would be quite impossible “correctly to acknowledge God and call upon Him to preserve harmony in the Church and to bridle the audacity of such as invent new doctrines.” (2)

At the other extreme are unionists who are looking for a fusion of Lutheran and other denominations, and liberals who do not hesitate to dismiss the Lutheran Confessions as dated, outmoded, and no more binding than any other statement of religious sentiment. Arguing against rigid conservatives, they insist that, “Symbolism is no part of original Lutheranism . . . The full symbolic system contended for . . . was not adopted until 1580, after the Lutheran Church had existed more than half a century.” (3) Moreover the Formula of Concord itself declares that the Scriptures alone are the norm by which “all doctrines are to be examined.” Since " the official declaration of historic Lutheranism plainly declares that with new light and more adequate interpretation of the biblical writings, changes in doctrine are not only anticipated but necessary." There is scarcely need, say the modernists, to point out that that the Lutheran Confessions " contain many views no longer tenable. We would, for instance, hesitate to call the Pope the Antichrist . . . We might well question . . . the Christological doctrine on the ubiquity of Christ’s body . . . Even the position which Luther himself took on the interpretation of the Eucharist may fairly be challenged." (4)

Between these extremes is a variety of opinion that defies classification, while retaining enough historical continuity to permit a descriptive analysis of the mélange called American Lutheranism.

(1) What is Lutheranism? (Vergilius Ferm, ed.), New York, Macmillan, 1930, p. x.

(2) William H.T. Dau, Ibid., p. 218.

(3) Vergilius Ferm, Ibid., p. 278

(4) Ibid., p.280.

 

[spedteacherita]

I don’t know much about Lutherans internationally, but here in the states we have 2 conservative Lutheran synods (Missouri and Wisconsin) that do not allow women pastors. The ELCA Synod has become less strict in its doctrines and do ordain women and actively gay people in the pulpits. It’s a bit confusing for people who don’t understand those differences and we tend to be lumped together.

 

[Tomster]

I don’t know much about Lutherans internationally, but here in the states we have 2 conservative Lutheran synods (Missouri and Wisconsin) that do not allow women pastors. The ELCA Synod has become less strict in its doctrines and do ordain women and actively gay people in the pulpits. It’s a bit confusing for people who don’t understand those differences and we tend to be lumped together.

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?

 

[KjetilK]

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

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.