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

[KjetilK]

You don’t seem to accept what your own Church teaches.

Exactly. As I have said a few times already, it’s difficult to debate a person who pontificates on the position of other Churches when he does not even know the position of his own Church.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly. As I have said a few times already, it’s difficult to debate a person who pontificates on the position of other Churches when he does not even know the position of his own Church.

Ignorance is the foundation of bigotry.

 

[Tomster]

Who are the “schismatic Greeks”?

Anyone not in full communion with the Holy See.

 

[Tomster]

Historically, your last para is nonsense. Again, I suggest reading Moss/ OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, for the history of the interactions between Anglicans and the OCs/Utrecht, years before Apostolicae curae.

GKC

Perhaps you should read “The True Story of the Vatican Council”. That would be Vatican I. It was written by Henry Cardinal Manning, a convert from Anglicanism, who participated in that Council. Cardinal Manning sheds some very important light on the topic. Stanley Jaki wrote a great introduction to this edition of the book by the way.

"Another supposed consequence of the Vatican Council was the “Old Catholic Schism.” And here in justice it must be said that the opposition of governments and political parties was not spontaneous or without instigation. We have seen with what perseverance the fears of statesmen and cabinets were worked upon, and we know how ubiquitous and how subtle has been the activity of the international Revolution. But another cause was open and palpable. The “Old Catholic” schism in Germany appealed to civil power, and the civil power promptly recognized and copiously paid its ministers. It seemed to bring the promise of a German National Church, representing the mind of the nation and without dependence, as Dr. Friedbergh has it, on “the man outside of Germany.” But the “Old Catholic” schism was not the consequence of the Vatican Council any more than was Arianism the consequence of the Council of Nicea. The definitions of the Council were indeed the occasion of the separation of a small number of professors and others from the unity of the Church, whose antecedents had for years visibly prepared for this final separation.

The strange medley which met at Augsburg and Bonn and Cologne, of Rationalists and Protestants, and Orientals and Jansenists and Anglicans, was not the consequence of the Vatican Council. Every sect there represented had been for generations or for centuries in separation and in antagonism to the Catholic Church."

History shows, GK, that once the government could not enlist all of the Catholics into the state sponsored Old Catholic Church the government pulled the plug on their financial support and the-man made construct, truly Protestant in nature, called “Old Catholics” was relegated to the scrap heap of history proving that they, the Old Catholics, were not of divine origin.

And really GK, “Rationalists and Protestants, and Orientals and Jansenists and Anglicans”? Can you imagine sitting in room listening to their deliberations, trying to hammer out some type of agreement without betraying their own confessional statements non-binding though they are?

Now that is what I would call “motleydom ” to say the least! And I am sure “common sense” would agree.

 

[Tomster]

You don’t seem to accept what your own Church teaches.

The CC considers the Holy Orders and other sacraments of the EO to be valid.

It is also against the teaching of your church to hold the sin of heresy and schism against Protestants.

To your first sentence, they are valid and I never said they weren’t. But they are illicit. EO’S lost jurisdiction when they went into schism. As I mentioned to a previous poster, never will you see an Orthodox priest administer any of the seven sacraments in a Catholic Church. There is a reason for that.

To your last sentence it is the Church who holds Protestantism in schism and heresy. And, since I am a member of the true Church, I can repeat what the Church teaches without any fear of sin. It would uncharitable on my part if I didn’t.

 

[Tomster]

Historically, your last para is nonsense. Again, I suggest reading Moss/ OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, for the history of the interactions between Anglicans and the OCs/Utrecht, years before Apostolicae curae.

GKC

I really do not want to go too far off topic, but since I quoted Henry Cardinal Manning, I would just like to give the reasons for his conversion to the True Church.

A member of the Anglican Church may hold, without imperiling his status, almost anything he pleases on the necessity and efficacy of Baptism, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the sacramental nature of Matrimony, the Divine institution of the Episcopacy, the Resurrection of the Lord and even His Divinity. Moreover, he is bound to tolerate every doctrine which a court, appointed by the civil authority, may decide as tenable. It was this last consideration which finally decided Cardinal Manning to become a Catholic.

I can see where a union between Anglicans and Old Catholics would seem desirable between the two different traditions. They would both have the state replace the jurisdiction of Peter with Rationalists, Protestants, Orientals et. al.

 

[GKC]

Perhaps you should read “The True Story of the Vatican Council”. That would be Vatican I. It was written by Henry Cardinal Manning, a convert from Anglicanism, who participated in that Council. Cardinal Manning sheds some very important light on the topic. Stanley Jaki wrote a great introduction to this edition of the book by the way.

"Another supposed consequence of the Vatican Council was the “Old Catholic Schism.” And here in justice it must be said that the opposition of governments and political parties was not spontaneous or without instigation. We have seen with what perseverance the fears of statesmen and cabinets were worked upon, and we know how ubiquitous and how subtle has been the activity of the international Revolution. But another cause was open and palpable. The “Old Catholic” schism in Germany appealed to civil power, and the civil power promptly recognized and copiously paid its ministers. It seemed to bring the promise of a German National Church, representing the mind of the nation and without dependence, as Dr. Friedbergh has it, on “the man outside of Germany.” But the “Old Catholic” schism was not the consequence of the Vatican Council any more than was Arianism the consequence of the Council of Nicea. The definitions of the Council were indeed the occasion of the separation of a small number of professors and others from the unity of the Church, whose antecedents had for years visibly prepared for this final separation.

The strange medley which met at Augsburg and Bonn and Cologne, of Rationalists and Protestants, and Orientals and Jansenists and Anglicans, was not the consequence of the Vatican Council. Every sect there represented had been for generations or for centuries in separation and in antagonism to the Catholic Church."

History shows, GK, that once the government could not enlist all of the Catholics into the state sponsored Old Catholic Church the government pulled the plug on their financial support and the-man made construct, truly Protestant in nature, called “Old Catholics” was relegated to the scrap heap of history proving that they, the Old Catholics, were not of divine origin.

And really GK, “Rationalists and Protestants, and Orientals and Jansenists and Anglicans”? Can you imagine sitting in room listening to their deliberations, trying to hammer out some type of agreement without betraying their own confessional statements non-binding though they are?

Now that is what I would call “motleydom ” to say the least! And I am sure “common sense” would agree.

Amazingly, having read Moss’ book, I’m aware of all that. None of which addresses why the Anglicans and the OCs entered into formal communion, after the Agreement of Bonn.

GKC

 

[WilT]

Keep to the topic guys! Thanks

 

[Picky_Picky]

Keep to the topic guys! Thanks

Without wanting to comment on the rights/wrongs of women’s ordination, isn’t your reaction the same as that of our grandfathers when meeting a woman doctor, or our fathers when meeting a woman police officer, or ours when meeting a woman combatant soldier? Unease?

 

[WilT]

Without wanting to comment on the rights/wrongs of women’s ordination, isn’t your reaction the same as that of our grandfathers when meeting a woman doctor, or our fathers when meeting a woman police officer, or ours when meeting a woman combatant soldier? Unease?

Sure. But of course it may be more than that since the teachings of the Church have men as priest so when I see a woman with the same looking collar, it tweeks at me:ehh:

 

[Picky_Picky]

Sure. But of course it may be more than that since the teachings of the Church have men as priest so when I see a woman with the same looking collar, it tweeks at me:ehh:

Course it does. Try remembering that collar was copied from some of those separated folk who now tend to ordain women. There is nothing inherently Catholic about the garb.

 

[guanophore]

Without wanting to comment on the rights/wrongs of women’s ordination, isn’t your reaction the same as that of our grandfathers when meeting a woman doctor, or our fathers when meeting a woman police officer, or ours when meeting a woman combatant soldier? Unease?

Yes, you make a good point. Some of this reaction is a cultural response. However, there is something very different involved when it comes to ordination that causes unease. God did not ordain that the proper matter for a person to become a doctor, police officer or soldier, but He did do this with Holy Orders. If it were possible to ordain women, He would have done so Himself, most likely starting with His own mother. But, because of the meaning of Holy orders, this is a status that belongs only to males (just as having children is a status that belongs properly to females). It is not discriminatory, it is simply a recognition of the natural order that God has created.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yes, you make a good point. Some of this reaction is a cultural response. However, there is something very different involved when it comes to ordination that causes unease. God did not ordain that the proper matter for a person to become a doctor, police officer or soldier, but He did do this with Holy Orders. If it were possible to ordain women, He would have done so Himself, most likely starting with His own mother. But, because of the meaning of Holy orders, this is a status that belongs only to males (just as having children is a status that belongs properly to females). It is not discriminatory, it is simply a recognition of the natural order that God has created.

Indeed. The rights/wrongs of women’s ordination is not a subject on which it would be appropriate for me to comment, but the arguments on both sides are familiar to me.

 

[guanophore]

Indeed. The rights/wrongs of women’s ordination is not a subject on which it would be appropriate for me to comment, but the arguments on both sides are familiar to me.

Wasn’t that the whole point of the thread?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Wasn’t that the whole point of the thread?

I think not. It is relevant, certainly, but not the whole point. You might want to read the original post again. It is not simply about the poster’s discomfort at seeing a “priestess” dressed as a priest; it’s about the poster’s discomfort at his/her own reaction, about the poster’s wish to react differently. That is the whole point of the thread, and the point I addressed.

 

[Tomster]

Amazingly, having read Moss’ book, I’m aware of all that. None of which addresses why the Anglicans and the OCs entered into formal communion, after the Agreement of Bonn.

GKC

Maybe this will help GK.

Dr. Dollinger and his associates in the Old Catholic movement lost no time in profiting by the favorable opportunity created for them. The Catholic body in Prussia and elsewhere had indignantly and unanimously spurned every threat or seduction used to induce them to become a “national” church independent of the center of Catholic unity. The Old Catholics at once demanded to be recognized as the legal Catholic body, as the national Catholic Church of the empire. In October, 1873, Prussia recognized the legal title of Dr. Reinkens, lately consecrated as bishop of the Old Catholic church by the Jansenist schismatics of Holland. He was appointed to receive a regular salary from the state.

It is known what active sympathy the Church of England gave to the Old Catholic faction, which in the minds of representative men in Great Britain, promised to separate from the Papacy the great body of German Catholics. In London, as in Berlin, those who were most hopeful of such a result forgot that that age saw many would be imitators of Martin Luther, every one of whom had ended in ignominious failure.

But in the enthusiasm with which the Protestant world hailed the birth of the new empire, in the dense mist of the prejudices and passions evoked by the definition of infallibility and the downfall of the Pope’s temporal power, this Old Catholic church assembled in council with the Jansenist prelates and priests of Utrecht, with the representatives of the Protestant Church of England and of the old Eastern heresies, loomed up to the eyes of sympathizers like something very great, very portentous, if not prophetic of the utter ruin, spiritual as well as temporal, of the Church of Rome.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Maybe this will help GK.

Dr. Dollinger and his associates in the Old Catholic movement lost no time in profiting by the favorable opportunity created for them. The Catholic body in Prussia and elsewhere had indignantly and unanimously spurned every threat or seduction used to induce them to become a “national” church independent of the center of Catholic unity. The Old Catholics at once demanded to be recognized as the legal Catholic body, as the national Catholic Church of the empire. In October, 1873, Prussia recognized the legal title of Dr. Reinkens, lately consecrated as bishop of the Old Catholic church by the Jansenist schismatics of Holland. He was appointed to receive a regular salary from the state.

It is known what active sympathy the Church of England gave to the Old Catholic faction, which in the minds of representative men in Great Britain, promised to separate from the Papacy the great body of German Catholics. In London, as in Berlin, those who were most hopeful of such a result forgot that that age saw many would be imitators of Martin Luther, every one of whom had ended in ignominious failure.

But in the enthusiasm with which the Protestant world hailed the birth of the new empire, in the dense mist of the prejudices and passions evoked by the definition of infallibility and the downfall of the Pope’s temporal power, this Old Catholic church assembled in council with the Jansenist prelates and priests of Utrecht, with the representatives of the Protestant Church of England and of the old Eastern heresies, loomed up to the eyes of sympathizers like something very great, very portentous, if not prophetic of the utter ruin, spiritual as well as temporal, of the Church of Rome.

That’s fine, glutinous prose, Tomster, if perhaps a little rich for today’s palate.

 

[Tomster]

Sure. But of course it may be more than that since the teachings of the Church have men as priest so when I see a woman with the same looking collar, it tweeks at me:ehh:

The teaching of the Catholic Church may be summarized as follows. Since the priesthood is a sacrament, it is a sign that is not only effective but should be intelligible to the faithful. When Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this “natural resemblance” which must exist between Christ and His minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The teaching of the Catholic Church may be summarized as follows. Since the priesthood is a sacrament, it is a sign that is not only effective but should be intelligible to the faithful. When Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this “natural resemblance” which must exist between Christ and His minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man.

It is certainly true that the Catholic Church teaches thus, although I beg leave to doubt that yours is an adequate summary, for Pope St John Paul II did not mention this necessary resemblance in his teaching Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but rested entirely on the masculinity of the Twelve and the presence of Tradition.

 

[Tomster]

The link proves nothing of the kind: it shows two groups of Christians agreeing on intercommunion. I understand why a Catholic would find that intercommunion inadequate; I don’t understand why you should choose to misinterpret it. Why should the Church of England seek a back door towards validity of her orders when she is more than satisfied (even if mistakenly) that her orders are certainly valid already?

If you accept your church’s view that the orders of the Old Catholics were, as you say, valid, how do you think Old Catholic bishops, stating clearly their intent to pass on the full meaning of their orders, failed to do so when they joined in consecrating Anglican bishops?

And yes, I have read it “clear through”.

More than satisfied? Even if mistakenly? Certainly valid?

Wow! The Anglican Church admitted it made a mistake by trying to reintroduce the wording of the sacrificial nature of the priesthood in one of its revised ordinals. By the time they realized their mistake it was too late. There were no sacrificing bishops or priests left.