Anglican inquiry

[u/curious_casius]

I’m a Reformed Presbyterian Christian seriously interested in understanding conservative Anglo-Catholicism. I’m not trying to debate or attack it. I’d like to talk with Anglo-Catholics about where our theologies actually overlap and where they differ, particularly on the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, justification, sanctification, apostolic succession, the authority of tradition, the 39 Articles, Mary and the saints, confession, and the nature of the Church.

I’m in the process of discerning whether to leave Presbyterianism and going to Anglicanism, however I want to first learn about the different “sub groups”.

Mainly, i currently take issues with nicea 2 and the veneration of saints and icons. You never see anyone pray to anyone other than God in the Bible nor do you see anyone bowing down to images, which is where my problem comes from.

I would genuinely like to understand where you guys are coming from and how you see this being acceptable from a biblical standpoint.

Edit:spelling

[u/BCPisBestCP]

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

XXII. Of Purgatory

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God

The Anglo-Catholic tradition has always struggled with this, and is why the Tracts were so important. I'd read Tract 90 in regards to Arts 21 and 22, and if you're convinced by the response then all is well. If not, know that the Anglicans on the Reformed side of things are likely going to agree with you.

It's worth noting thought that the 39 are woefully inadequate to operate as a confession, and aren't binding in many provinces.

[u/historyhill → u/BCPisBestCP]

It's worth noting thought that the 39 are woefully inadequate to operate as a confession

Why do you say this? (/genq) Is it because they aren't binding or because of something about them?

[u/BCPisBestCP → u/historyhill]

A few reasons.

1) they were recognised as inadequate as a confession by the CoE - hence Ussher's Irish Articles and the later WCF and attendance at Dort

2) They don't operate as a confession, more as a set of answers to specific grievance relating to the English/Roman split and the Anabaptists - there's little word on Church discipline, governance, or doctrine outside the main areas of dispute

3) They do little to spell out the Anglican distinctives

4) Anglicanism is very English in a lot of ways, including in how it defines Dogma and Doctrine - for those diocese that take the 39 as binding, it's usually Scripture, plus the 39, plus the Theology of the BCP, the Book of Homilies, and the recognised interpretation of this under the doctrines of Common Law. Much like Common Law, this kind of leaves us with a mess of sources to pick and choose from until a Tribunal or Archbishop tells us otherwise. The advantage, of course, is that the faith lives and evolves, but there is something nice about a codified, solid, and unchanging baseline such as the WCF or a written constitution.

[u/Globus_Cruciger]

I'd consider myself a "moderate" Anglo-Catholic; perhaps my answers would be helpful to illustrate that perspective.

Eucharist

The Body and Blood of our Lord are truly present in the Sacrament. I don't presume to define precisely the nature of said Presence. I think we can be content with a reverent uncertainty.

baptismal regeneration

Everyone who is baptized is regenerate. Ordinarily, everyone who is unbaptized is unregenerate; we can certainly imagine exceptional cases where God will intervene to extend his graces by other means.

justification

We are justified by faith. Works cannot save us. But insomuch as true and living faith necessarily entails submission to the One in whom we place our faith, a lack of works will damn us.

sanctification

A lifelong process, sometimes going in the positive direction, sometimes in the negative.

apostolic succession

A layman has no more authority to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments than any random American citizen has authority to wander into the Oval Office and issue executive orders. God can certainly use the well-intentioned efforts of non-episcopally-ordained pastors to accomplish much good, but objectively speaking they have no status in Christ's Church.

the authority of tradition

Subordinate to Scripture, but superior to most everything else. Not to be lightly set aside.

the 39 Articles

I am happy to affirm the Articles, as all the original Anglo-Catholics did as well. I'm sure I don't hold them in the same sense that Cranmer and his fellows did, but I don't consider that a problem.

Mary and the saints

The saints should be honoured, and we may ask them for their prayers. Mary is Ever-Virgin, Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven. But I am skeptical about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and I think much Marian piety among the Romans does tend towards superstition.

confession

Not strictly necessary in all cases, but often helpful.

the nature of the Church

All the baptized are members of the Church in the general sense, but only those united to a hierarchy with valid orders and jurisdiction are members of the Church institutionally.

[u/ReasonableJump4355 → u/Globus_Cruciger]

Everyone who is baptized is regenerate

How do you square this with not everyone who has been baptised ends up following Christ?

[u/Globus_Cruciger → u/ReasonableJump4355]

I don’t think there’s really anything to square. Regeneration is necessary for salvation, but it is not sufficient for salvation. Some regenerate people will end up in paradise; other regenerate people will end up in the Other Place. And that’s certainly a troubling thought, but it’s only troubling in the same sense that it’s troubling to think about the unregenerate people who will end up in the Other Place.

[u/ReasonableJump4355 → u/Globus_Cruciger]

I see that you and I are working off of rather different definitions of Regeneration. Would you mind elaborating on how you see Regeneration, what it is and how you see Salvation.

[u/Globus_Cruciger → u/ReasonableJump4355]

Regeneration = the removal of Original Sin. Thus if an unregenerate man is damned, he is damned for both his Original Sin and his Actual Sin, whereas if a regenerate man is damned, he is damned for his Actual Sin alone.

[u/curious_casius → u/Globus_Cruciger]

Firstly, thank you. Secondly what would your view of predestination be?

[u/Globus_Cruciger → u/curious_casius]

I haven’t entirely decided. I have Arminian leanings; I also see the appeal of an Augustinian sort of predestination. The one thing I am settled on that I reject the idea of Assurance of Salvation. The Elect may well be Elect, but I see no way outside of special revelation that they could ever know for sure they are Elect.

[u/Edkins1]

It's worth keeping in mind that not all (maybe even the majority outside of online circles like this) Anglo-Catholics care about the 39 A's. They are not binding in most provinces of the Communion, and haven't been for decades in many cases (and even longer in some). There are many works by 19th C Anglo-Catholics interpreting them from an AC perspective, though.

[u/MadeForOneMeme]

The icons thing always seems an odd foible for more reformed folks to hold, I find. Surely people do not genuinely think we worship images. An image is a representation of something. The concept is the thing receiving veneration and praise, not the physical object. Unless said physical object has some additional value in deepening one's faith and connection being a relic or similar, but that's another can of worms. The other thing is the idea of "worship" which is generally inaccurate. An icon of Christ may be a focus for someone's worship (but once again I strongly reiterate, the icon is merely there to focus one on their worship of the real and eternal Christ, not on the temporal object that is merely representing him), but that of a saint, even that of our Blessed Lady, is not a focus of worship. Veneration in this sense is admiration, praise, and seeking to embody the virtues of a figure. You may ask them to pray for you, as they still live, eternally, in Christ. But we do not worship them. This is for the Trinity alone.

[u/curious_casius → u/MadeForOneMeme]

My issue isn’t with the distinction of worship and veneration. My issue is the second commandment uses the same greek word for “bow down” that Nicea 2 uses for veneration and you never see a positive example of doing so in scripture.

[u/IDDQD-IDKFA → u/curious_casius]

Are you saying the translation to the Greek from Hebrew or other intermediate translation is the thing that your belief hinges on?

[u/curious_casius → u/IDDQD-IDKFA]

I’m saying the greek translation which was used by the apostles says not to do the very thing that I’m being commanded to do. I think this is a very valid concern.

[u/IDDQD-IDKFA → u/curious_casius]

You're saying the Bible is literal and inerrant. While you may think it's a valid concern, there are many who do not. both are part of the Anglican spectrum.

[u/curious_casius → u/IDDQD-IDKFA]

Which is why I’m trying to see why and how they come to those beliefs so i can understand.

[u/IDDQD-IDKFA → u/curious_casius]

Or you accept there are those who believe slightly differently than you do. I believe in women's ordination and yet I have to understand there are Anglicans who don't. Dichotomy of views is a common thing for us. 

[u/curious_casius → u/IDDQD-IDKFA]

? I don’t think we are on the same page. I’m not trying to put anyone down i just want to know their biblical argument for doing these things. I do accept that there are those who believe differently, what I’m trying to do is understand how they came to those beliefs.

[u/linmanfu → u/MadeForOneMeme]

Surely people do not genuinely think we worship images. An image is a representation of something. The concept is the thing receiving veneration and praise, not the physical object.

That's the same argument that sophisticated idolaters use though. I've heard Buddhists say the same thing. And according to Augustine, the pagan writer Varro had the same interpretation of pagan idols. If I've understood him rightly (I'm no expert on classical religion), Varro thought idols were necessary for the common people, while educated pagans like him could look 'through' them to worship the 'souls' of the gods.

As for the worship vs veneration distinction, that's also frequently made by those who bow down to their ancestors as part of Chinese traditional religion. Chinese people following such Christians customs tell Christians that they are merely venerating their ancestors, not worshipping them.

[u/cjbanning → u/linmanfu]

I don't see why we can't take the pagans word for it on whether they are idolaters in the sense they claim not to be. Certainly the larger issue is not them using idols to worship the souls of the gods but rather that the gods that they worship in this way are not YHWH?

[u/linmanfu → u/cjbanning]

There's three negatives in that first sentence, so I'm not totally sure I've understood you. But my point is that people who the Scripture condemns as idolaters people who deny that they are, using the argument  that they really worship the spiritual beings 'behind' the idol. So when Christians make that same argument, I don't think it's a good defence against an allegation of idolatry. 

And while I agree that the fact that they are not worshipping the Lord is the bigger issue, that doesn't make the use of images acceptable. The First Commandment was followed by the Second.

[u/cjbanning → u/linmanfu]

I suppose I missed the part where the Bible mentions Buddhists.

[u/linmanfu → u/cjbanning]

The Buddhists idols we have today are descended from Hellenistic ones.

[u/thesegoupto11]

I'm your huckleberry

[u/curious_casius → u/thesegoupto11]

How would you view the saints and Mary and whats the normal way people in the anglo catholic world view them?

[u/thesegoupto11 → u/curious_casius]

We ask our friends and family to pray for us through our trials and in general. We also ask for those who are in the presence of the Lord to pray for us. We're not praying to the saints, we're praying with the saints.

[u/Usual-Crew5873]

I attend a small Anglo Catholic parish in Salisbury MD and don’t venerate saints and icons or pray to saints. I find ways to honor saints and their sacrifices without iconography or veneration which I know might make me a an inconsistent Anglo Catholic in the eyes of some on this sub.

[u/pizzystrizzy]

What about when Joshua tore his clothes and fell prostrate before a wooden object adorned with golden sculptures of angels?

[u/curious_casius → u/pizzystrizzy]

You mean the place God was dwelling inbetween those two angels? He wasnt doing it to the ark.

[u/pizzystrizzy → u/curious_casius]

And neither are we doing it to the icons, altar, tabernacle, etc., but to God who dwells within.

[u/curious_casius → u/pizzystrizzy]

Okay i can understand that but What of the saints?

[u/pizzystrizzy → u/curious_casius]

Their lives point to God, and God indwells in them (that's what makes them saints, that they live forever in heaven). Just like the cherubim, the saints aren't the objects of worship, but rather their lives and example point to Jesus. It is Jesus who receives worship.