Women Clergy?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

tradition and habit?
oh I thought it was innovation and plasticity?
must be a misunderstanding on my part

You might be thinking about the "other" Lutherans...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Phoebe was "diakonos" the first one mentioned in Scripture. This is same title gives to himself. She is attached to a particular church. So, to me, there is no question that there were female deacons in the time of Scripture.
=====
HOWEVER, and this is a BIG, however, in all the Tradition that has come down to us from the 3rd century on, when there were clear roles for pope, bishop and ordained religious, there is only one situation where any female is in a consecrated role, only one. There are NO female priests or bishop in the Tradition of the Church.
========
As the Orthodox tell us, there were certain roles which only women could perform. For example, recall that when adults were baptized they were naked. It would have seemed improper for men to baptize or confirm naked women. So, yes, there were woman deacons. HOWEVER, it does not follow that women performed ANY of the roles performed by male deacons and priests.
==========
SO, WHERE ARE?
Scripture certainly has examples of the role of a female deacon. The Early Church did indeed have female deacons for certain task. So, these roles should be seen to be in opposition to Scripture. The Episcopal Church has taken the leap, and decided that since women are not prohibited from being ordained, and there are many reasons to want to ordain women, TEC (and many other Anglican bodies throughout the world) ordain female deacons, priests and bishops.

In the end, when there are no prohibitions, there are man-made choices. However, one should proceed with much care when making such a large move from the tradition of the Church.

My tradition has remained on the side of caution, taking to heart the Biblical admonitions regarding women being silent and not usurping authority over men. Since we view the office of Deacon as an extension of the Pastoral office, only male deacons may assist with the Liturgy; only males can be ordained to the office of the Holy Ministry, and only males may read in Chruch. From a Biblical stand point, we do believe that there is a clear prohibition against female clergy, bishops and liturgical deacons.

 

[mark46]

and only males may read in Chruch. From a Biblical stand point, we do believe that there is a clear prohibition against female clergy, bishops and liturgical deacons.

By "we", I presume that you mean LCMS?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

By "we", I presume that you mean LCMS?

I'm Lutheran Church Canada, in fellowship with the LCMS and a whole bunch more Synods world wide.

 

[mark46]

I'm Lutheran Church Canada, in fellowship with the LCMS and a whole bunch more Synods world wide.

In a previous post, you wanted us to be sure which Lutherans and lUtheran doctrine you are associated with.

To be clear, does your synod believe that the pope is the anti-Christ or that the anti-Christ will be a pope? As I recall, that was part of the doctrine of confessional Lutherans.

I apologize in advance if I am incorrect.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

In a previous post, you wanted us to be sure which Lutherans and lUtheran doctrine you are associated with.

To be clear, does your synod believe that the pope is the anti-Christ or that the anti-Christ will be a pope? As I recall, that was part of the doctrine of confessional Lutherans.

I apologize in advance if I am incorrect.

Certainly, you are correct as far as you go. I have read much from both Lutheran and Catholic theological writings of that period; and both employed the art of "rhetoric" (a subject that was often taught in universities of the time) in stating their positions on both sides. Certainly both sides used name calling as part of these discourses in ways that today would be unacceptable but 500 years ago it seemed perfectly fine.

Certainly there were good Popes, average Popes, and bad Popes, history is the witness to that. The pope of that time was not one of the shining stars of Catholicism, and Luther was a hard-headed German (to this I can speak as I grew up surrounded hard-headed Germans).

While the language is strong and dated in that 500 year old document, the bottom line is that it's not the person of the Pope, but rather the nature of the Papal office and the powers associated with it. Luther certainly drew attention to the political nature of the office at that time in history, the fact that the Pope was also a waring prince. Like the Eastern Orthodox Church, Papal Supremacy was also at issue. What is not at question is that the Pope is the "Patriarch" of the Catholic Church.

Actions often speak louder than words, the LCMS, LCC and the International Lutheran Council are engaging in free and open "official" dialogue on local levels in our own countries for about 70 years or so, and the ILC with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
more recently.

Certainly, there are a number of serious theological differences separating us, and these talks are not aimed at reunification, but they are aimed and developing a strong and cordial relationship.

 

[mark46]

Certainly, you are correct as far as you go. I have read much from both Lutheran and Catholic theological writings of that period; and both employed the art of "rhetoric" (a subject that was often taught in universities of the time) in stating their positions on both sides. Certainly both sides used name calling as part of these discourses in ways that today would be unacceptable but 500 years ago it seemed perfectly fine.

Certainly there were good Popes, average Popes, and bad Popes, history is the witness to that. The pope of that time was not one of the shining stars of Catholicism, and Luther was a hard-headed German (to this I can speak as I grew up surrounded hard-headed Germans).

While the language is strong and dated in that 500 year old document, the bottom line is that it's not the person of the Pope, but rather the nature of the Papal office and the powers associated with it. Luther certainly drew attention to the political nature of the office at that time in history, the fact that the Pope was also a waring prince. Like the Eastern Orthodox Church, Papal Supremacy was also at issue. What is not at question is that the Pope is the "Patriarch" of the Catholic Church.

Actions often speak louder than words, the LCMS, LCC and the International Lutheran Council are engaging in free and open "official" dialogue on local levels in our own countries for about 70 years or so, and the ILC with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
more recently.

Certainly, there are a number of serious theological differences separating us, and these talks are not aimed at reunification, but they are aimed and developing a strong and cordial relationship.

Thank you for the clarifications.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you for the clarifications.

Sorry we got a bit off topic...