P
Per_Crucem
Guest
In addition, “deaconesses” in the early church period seemed to function solely to minister to other women, esp. in Holy Baptism, since at that time, it was performed in the nude on converts.
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
B
benjohnson
Guest
Ahem… in this case, would probably be best if you let Lutherans speak for Lutherans. You’re not even remotely correct. It’s rather simple scripture really and a trust in God’s gifts - nothing more to read into it.
Before we get to the copy and paste of LCMS reasoning, from a personal standpoint I grew up in faith and was married by a female pastor. She’s quite good. So that’s not the problem.
The problem with getting to the point of having female pastors is that you have to start to discount scripture - you have to pretend it means something other than what it means. You have to lie to yourself.
That’s true problem with female pastors - they’re fine - but once you discount scripture once, it’s darn hard to not do it again and again.
From here:
**What does God say about women serving in the pastoral office?
**
The Lord teaches us through His Word that women are not given the responsibility of serving the church as pastors.We read the following statements:
“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says …what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:33–34, 37).
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she istokeepsilent”(1Tim.2:11–12).
“The saying is sure: If anyone aspires to the office of over- seer, he desires a noble task. Now an overseer must be above reproach,the husband of one wife…”(1 Tim.3:1–2).
“This is why I left you in Crete …that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife…”(Titus 1:5–6).
God has given His church many gifts. Among them is the gift of the office of the public, pastoral ministry. We receive what God gives, in the way He has given it, and in the form He has given it.We do not tell God that His gift is not good enough for us, or that we don’t like the form in which He has given the gift. We receive God’s gifts as He gives them, with thanks and praise. We rejoice in the opportunities God has given us, as His redeemed people, to serve Him in the church, and in our daily lives.
The church which wishes to remain faithful to the Word of God cannot permit the ordination of women to the pastoral office.
C
Contarini
Guest
You’re right that I expressed myself too sweepingly.
Let me put it this way: my own highly qualified belief in the priesthood of all believers is one of the main reasons I have trouble with the Catholic teaching on women’s ordination. And since the majority of Lutherans do accept women’s ordination, I have to reject your claim that I’m not even remotely right. I recognize that from your perspective these folks are just liberals who have abandoned true Lutheranism. But that’s not what they say. One of the basic distinctions, it seems to me, between conservatives and liberals in any tradition is that liberals take what they believe to be the principles of the tradition and extrapolate it at the expense of the letter, while conservatives do the opposite. This distinction is relative–most of us do some of both at one point or another–and I don’t think either approach is entirely right or entirely wrong. Both are appropriate at different times and in different contexts and to different degrees, and both have their dangers. (The problem with the liberal approach is that you may have the principle wrong, or understand its application incorrectly. The problem with the conservative approach is that you may miss the forest for the trees.)
Another reason why I put things the way I did is that while many Catholics on this forum will agree with your exegesis, the Catholic Church as a whole does not necessarily stand behind it (Pope Benedict said in one of his audiences that the passage telling women to be silent has to be understood as “relative,” and that its relationship with another passage in 1 Corinthians speaking of women prophesying is a difficult exegetical issue). The Catholic reason for rejecting women’s ordination, fundamentally, is the Catholic understanding of the sacramental priesthood.
So I was
a) expressing a perspective common among mainline Protestants, including Lutherans; and
b) speaking to my own struggle with Catholic teaching on Holy Orders, coming from a mainline Protestant perspective (and before that from an evangelical tradition–Wesleyanism–that has been particularly open to women’s ministry compared to other Protestant traditions)
You are right to call me on the misleading nature of my language and to remind me that confessional Protestants view the implications of the priesthood of all believers very differently.
It’s rather simple scripture really and a trust in God’s gifts - nothing more to read into it.
That’s just not true. Scripture is not simple on this point.
That isn’t true. It’s a question of hermeneutics, not “discounting Scripture.”
With all due respect, this text reflects one of what I consider the weaknesses of Lutheranism, which is, as John Wesley said after reading Luther’s commentary on Galatians, its contempt for reason.
There’s a hidden assumption here, which is that the passages are rightly interpreted as forbidding women for all time from exercising any pastoral ministry, when in fact plenty of exegetes have come up with alternative interpretations. And from a Catholic perspective,Scripture has to be interpreted within the living Tradition of the Church. Of course, the Catholic Church does forbid women from serving as priests, and perhaps also as ordained deacons (though that’s more open to debate), but as far as I can see it does not forbid women from serving in other kinds of pastoral roles.
Edwin
B
benjohnson
Guest
You could elaborate how it’s not simple? You seem rather clever, so I’d love to see a reasonable explanation on how these simple words don’t mean what they simply say.
Frankly, I’ve never met someone who could supply reasoning that even approaches anything other than simple sophistry. Again, I would be **delighted **to see otherwise - as I do rather like my female paster of beginning faith.
We have a contempt for unnecessary reason - applying our gifts of the mind is always risky proposition.
For all our handwaving about reason, we sure do produce a lot of thinkers. Annoying Lutheran paradox #452.
Nor does our church prohibit everything - most LCMS teachers are female in our rather sizable system. Frankly, the most important role will always be female - motherhood.
B
believerdoc
Guest
You missed the entire point. No one said anything about Jesus wanting Mary ordained a priest. The point is that theology must be logical, consistent, and make sense.
1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
Notice it does not say “men”. We are all priests and ministers to God thus the priesthood of all believers. This is where we differ in theology.
B
believerdoc
Guest
Strange reasoning. Heresy, like treason, is merely a way for one group to justify their attacks on another group. It seems when Catholics/Orthodox attack certain doctrine it is ok but when any Protestant voices their beliefs it is not. The question is the authority of scripture. We cannot accept certain doctrine when we realize they are man made and violate sacred scripture. We believe in the idea that in Essentials unity, non-essentials Liberty, and in all things Charity. I do not see a lot of charity being passed around!!! Your statement about the more lies spread is accurate; the question is who is spreading the lies. You state “The only real way to attract people to Christianity, true Christianity, is to have a solid, agreed upon, universal foundation.” This is absolutely correct. There is only one essential truth; JESUS CHRIST. I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father but by me. This is the sum of the law and the gospels; Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and all of your mind, and all of your soul and you neighbor as yourself! If we do that all other things will fall into perfect place.
R
rinnie
Guest
Probally the same reasons Protestants have a problem with Catholic’s doing it the way God said to do it.
And probally because those darn Catholic’s are so obsessed with the Fullness of the Truth!:
R
rinnie
Guest
Why does it have to SAY men? History proves it is Men who Ordained at Holy Orders. Jesus started it that way, and the Apostles followed, and the Church continues to follow.
What gives anyone the right to change the Priesthood from what Jesus started it to be? The Church is held bound to continue the college of the Priesthood as Christ started it.
Curious what do you think gives Man the power to change what Christ started? The qualification of being a Priest was to be a Man with a Valid Baptism.
Where do you see the Apostles teaching it could be a Baptised Man or Woman?
B
benjohnson
Guest
You’ve glossed over the areas of the bible where it say that the priesthood is made up of men.
God made us man and women for a reason - that they have differing roles is self-evident.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
R
rinnie
Guest
You are correct. You find most of them in the Sacarments! Surprise Surprise huh!
Here are some examples like Confession in Matt. They Glorify God because he gave such authority to such MEN!
And of course they deny Holy Orders. And either don’t read or skip over Tim, Its pretty clear when he is told not to be too hasty in the laying of hands. Holy Orders of course. And even tells him nor participate in another MANS sin, keep yourself pure.
So anotherwards if he lays his hands on a MAN who has sin, he himself is accountable. Pretty elementary.
Funny how all this scripture is either ignored, Dismissed! Forgotten! Misinterpretated!
R
rinnie
Guest
And why do we differ?
When Romans 15:15-16 St Paul is quite clear in telling us his Priestly duty we are the offering accepted to God.
The Hearers which we are, are not the Priests but the sacrifice to God.
Paul is quite clear in drawing the distinction between believers duty and his. His duty is to do the Preaching and ours is to do the Hearing!
So tell me why do we differ? Because in order to make what you say correct is to be in direct conflict with St Paul.
If you go by the teachings of the Church it fits in quite well and scripture do not contradict scripture.
A Royal Priesthood is not a Priestly Duty.
K
Khalid
Guest
The Holy Spirit is not consistently masculine in Greek. He is far more often neuter (like “it” in English) than masculine, especially as the word “Spirit” is neuter in Greek, but can become masculinized (for lack of a better understandable word) by association with two or more masculine nouns. (This is the basis for an argument from internal evidence for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum, by the way.)
Now, for the others, it’s Father this and Son that, not “Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier”.
K
Khalid
Guest
Be humble and learn the stores of the Church’s traditional exegesis of passages instead of believing that you yourself can exegete correctly where those before us have not, or that there was discovered a Biblical truth hidden completely from them that received the “Paraclete…who…[guided them] in to all truth.” We are commanded to “study to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth”, and to defend the faith “once and for all delivered”; we are not commanded to create novel exegeses.
Even in the Lutheran reformation, and to a degree the Reformed reformation, the ideas that were advanced almost always had some representation amongst orthodox Church history and the Fathers, even if it was not the strain that was considered dominant or one that had not been approved (nor denied) dogmatically. Do not transgress even this.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
Yes, indeed. This is very Catholic.
Amen!
We do* not* differ in theology, believerdoc. The Catholic Church does absolutely believe in the priesthood of all believers.
The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” 1 Pet 2:5 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."1 Pet 2:9 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.CCC 1268
S
Slaney
Guest
It’s Universal, it was started at the time of the Apostles, not a free for all Church, anything goes Church.
Your using Universal here to think that the Catholic Church is all things to all men, it is, but only if you want to be apart of it.
The other Christians are not Universal, they are separated by their own choosing…
C
Contarini
Guest
Khalid, I was speaking of pronouns specifically. I think you are right, actually, that neuter pronouns are used sometimes as well, so I shouldn’t have said “consistently.” The noun is of course neuter, but a masculine pronoun is used in John 16 at least. I was trying to be fair, since this is an argument against the position I favor (which is that the Spirit does not need to be seen in masculine terms).
No dispute there. Indeed, questionable as “Mother” is, when used as a substitute/parallel/synonym for “God the Father,” it’s far preferable in my opinion to the modalist language of “Creator/Redeemer/Sanctifier” (or, in more common mainline Protestant usage, “Sustainer”).
The bottom line for me when it comes to “God-talk” is that we don’t mess with the Trinitarian language given us by divine revelation. I’m not so sure that other things are beyond question in the same way, as you know.
Edwin
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Elizabeth Eaton is the first woman presiding bishop of the ELCA.
- Status