Talk:Sacerdotalism

Proposal to remove entirely
The term "sacerdotalism" appears to be primarily a polemical term used by Lutherans during the Reformation, thus not an official term used in Roman Catholic theology or any other. In other words, this is not a theological term at all, but a negative accusation. Therefore I propose any information on this word be moved in toto to either 1- history of the Reformation or 2- Lutheranism.

Sacerdotal was a word used, from sacer meaning priest - but it was more of a descriptive term than a theological one. So outside of Lutheran and Protestant polemics this word only needs a dictionary reference at best - not an entire encyclopedia article! I'm welcome to be proven wrong if the word actually exists as a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theological term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.102.161 (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Lutheran slant
I question the use of the Lutheran Cyclopedia as the source to define Roman Catholic sacerdotalism. Outdated though it is, the Catholic Encyclopedia would be a more pertinent (and readily available) source. I see references to the Augsburg Confession, but it's hard to discern what content derives from this source. Also, the reference to "Old Testament" sacerdotalism misses the point of distinguishing between sacerdotal Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism, for which see the highly readable article. "Old Testament" betrays a Christian POV. I'm guessing that the article was created by either a Lutheran or someone whose interest in this subject originated in Lutheran theology — which is fine; just means the article needs to be expanded with a more global perspective. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to remove some of the bias by: 1- quoting the definition from Webster's dictionary, 2- changing the wording of the main sections (ie eliminating the phrase "Christian objection") thus presenting both sides as equally valid, 3- rewording some of the Protestant section to be more generic and less specifically Lutheran except in the paragraph dealing with Lutheranism per se, 4- and also added the fact that the Eastern Orthodox would be similar to Rome so as not to frame this issue entirely from a Western European view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.114.20 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Using "Christian opposition" in contradistinction to "Roman Catholic belief" along with saying that "Generally, All Christians...oppose sacerdotalism" implies that Catholics are not to be considered Christian. Though this may be a theological position, in terms of unbiased history of religion is simply not true and should not be phrased as such. Secondly, the article does not address the wider Christian world in Eastern and Oriental Christianity as well as groups such as Anglo-Catholics who, though not Roman, would hold often to a sacerdotal theology of ordination. This article reads more as a "Rome vs Lutheran" article then a treatise on the issue itself. With the top commenter, I as well am skeptical a about using the definition of sacerdotalism from a Lutheran source dating 1899. It seems a more modern and unbiased source should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.121.41 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Priestcraft
I think that the subject extends to what has been termed "priestcraft", in a derogatory sense, equally acceptable, because Protestantism in general (not just Lutheranism) oppose the idea of Christian priests in favour of the "universal priesthood of believers" which includes the role of ministers, which is not the same as that of "priests".

Agreed; the article as it stands is deficient because it suggests that Lutherans are the only Christian branch with any significant objection to Roman Catholic sacerdotalism. FC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.210.168 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

On "Priestcraft" one could refer to William Howitt, A Popular History of Priestcraft in all ages and nations, 1834.

pcastellina (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Protestant Section had inaccurate and polemical paragraph
I removed the entire middle of the Protestant section because it was a mess of inaccuracies and polemics. Firstly, not all of Protestantism are monergists, some actually are synergists such as the entire Arminian and Wesleyan tradition as well as in Anglicanism. Secondly, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists to a degree all believe grace is given in some sense through the Sacraments – and this really has little to do with sacerdotalism at all. I mean, Luther explicitly believed in Baptismal Regeneration. Thirdly, this section used “born again experience” as if that was common in Protestantism. It’s not. It’s a part of revivalism (and perhaps arguably a history in Moravian Pietism) and is popular in much of Methodism, some Presbyterianism, but mostly in the Baptist and various independent church groups. For Luther the “born again experience” was the sacrament of Baptism. Same is true for much of Anglicanism. Finally, the last comments on the priesthood are only the position of a subset of Protestantism – or at least the comment was highly inaccurate. Anglicanism and Lutheranism both hold to a particular ordained clergy able to do the Sacraments. Lutherans may not use the term “priest”, but Anglicans do - and in both cases (for different reasons perhaps) laity cannot perform the Sacrament of the Altar. Oh, and I have no idea what “very ecumenical churches” even means. It sounds more like rhetoric than an actual, meaningful, and useful term in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.102.161 (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)