The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will on Wednesday become the first Anglican leader to visit the Roman Catholic shrine of Lourdes, his office said.
The Church of England chief will preach at the International Mass at the invitation of the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, Monsignor Jacques Perrier, Williams’s Lambeth Palace said in a statement.
We can only hope for a miracle…
Maybe the virgin mother will appear and whisper in Rowan Williams to condemn the sham deposition of Bp Duncan – that would be a miracle.
Will he address in a laguage understanded by the people? Clearly and in short sentences? Or his usual verbosity and loquacity display? Would it matter?
Guys, it’s a SHRINE!!!! Who worships shrines?? Certainly not God’s people! Forget about RW. Study your own Bible and heed what it says.
You mean like the [url=http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/intro.htm]Anglican Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham?[/url] Anyway, don’t worry about it. The chances that he actually believes in any of it are zip. The Blessed Virgin, of all Protestant persona non grata, appearing to a bunch of peasant children and doing miracles? OK, maybe a nice bit of Anglican lore if it occured 1,000 years ago, but TOTALLY tacky today.
Goodness! Miriam [Mary] is hardly persona non grata to Bible believing Christians. We just don’t give her any more of a place than the totality of Scripture gives her, i.e., she is not co-mediatrix with Christ, she was not immaculately conceived, she was not a perpetual virgin.
Catholic Mom:
[blockquote]The Blessed Virgin, of all Protestant persona non grata, appearing to a bunch of peasant children and doing miracles? OK, maybe a nice bit of Anglican lore if it occured 1,000 years ago, but TOTALLY tacky today.[/blockquote]
Hi! I don’t believe that Our Lady of Walsingham is on record as saying that she is “holding back the avenging arm” of her divine Son, who would otherwise give us quite a whacking if she decided to let go.
I also don’t know exactly what His Grace believes on the subject, but therein lies the difference. Some of the claims made at Lourdes and Fatima are also conspicuously absent from her numerous sightings as reported by the Eastern Orthodox. What are we to make of that?
Nothing tacky about Marian apparitions, but very few Anglicans (if any) believe that the Blessed Virgin is Co-Redemptrix along with our Lord Himself, or that she’s Co-Mediatrix of all the graces we receive from God.
I know that isn’t officially Roman Catholic dogma yet, although it probably should be. From what I hear, it’s just a matter of time.
And our Lady isn’t [i]persona non grata[/i]. We’re convinced that she occupies a prominent place in the Body of Christ, but we’re not entirely certain that she’s the neck.
Of course, she hasn’t come back to visit us lately, but perhaps she’s just busy elsewhere. Praying for the welfare of Mater Ecclesia Anglicana Sanctorum, I hope, as many of us who invoke her intercession are asking her to do.
Just another one of those “Catholic” things we sometimes resort to, but it gives you a nice pretext for joining with us in our efforts, don’t you think? 😉
Ahh — so he is still alive. I had thought by the silence that he must have died. …
Now we only need proof that the Bishop of Durham is still on this side of the life after life after death!
I find it quite touching that the Archbishop of Canterbury would participate in the Anglo-Catholic pilgrimage to Lourdes at this time, and it seems equally touching that his participation would be recognized in such a public and significant way by the Catholic Church with an invitation to preach. It will be interesting indeed to see what the content of his sermon will be.
I would hope that some of the comments that were offered regarding his pilgrimage might be reconsidered. Regarding the archbishop, I saw Rowan Williams praying at Walsingham long before he went to Canterbury and I heard him offer a meditation one evening there. It was clear and concise and full of an appropriate love and respect for the mother of God.
Shrines, of course, are places and no one worships a shrine. Christians worship God and they venerate His saints at them. It is also important distinguish worship from veneration which was spelled out by the Seventh Ecumenical Council and over and over by the Fathers.
It is quite right that titles like “co-mediatrix†and doctrines like the Immaculate Conception are not taught in Anglicanism or Orthodoxy, but “Blessed Mary ever virgin†and the Perpetual Virginity certainly are. They have been taught from the days of the earliest Fathers and they are taught by the vast majority of the world’s Christians
“Ever Virgin†is a title of great antiquity widely used throughout the Christian church. It does not contradict Scripture. There is no clear indication in Bible that St. Mary had other children, and there is some indication she did not. The defense of St. Mary’s perpetual virginity begins early, possibly as early as AD 120. The title is frequently used in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. It has been taught by most of the world’s Christians, the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, and by the major Reformers including Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. (See below.)
This title is used because it reinforces the Gospel and the truths of the Creed, and because its use is so widespread in the history of the Church and in the Church today. It is used in the documents of the ecumenical councils and it is used by the Fathers. The faith taught by the prayer-book is the faith of Scripture, the Fathers and the Councils and so, it is an apt expression of that faith to call the mother of our Lord, “blessed Mary the ever-virgin Mother of God.â€
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
1. There is no clear indication in Bible that St. Mary had other children.
“After these birth stories, it comes as something of a surprise to read the episode, narrated in all three Synoptic Gospels, which addresses the question of Jesus’ true family. Mark tells us that Jesus’ “mother and his brothers” (Mark 3:31) come and stand outside, wanting to speak to him.†[Notes: “Although the word ‘brother’ usually denotes a blood brother, the Greek adelphos, like the Hebrew ‘ah, can have a broader meaning of kinsman, or relative (e.g. Genesis 29:12 LXX) or step-brother (e.g. Mark 6:17f). Relatives who are not siblings could be included in this use of the term at Mark 3:31. Mary did have an extended family: her sister is referred to at John 19:25 and her kinswoman Elizabeth at Luke 1:36. In the early Church different explanations of the references to the ‘brothers’ of Jesus were given, whether as step-brothers or cousins.â€] (ARCIC II)
See Also: J. Akin who cites Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J.: “Regarding the idea that there was a word for cousin, [Fitzmyer] was direct: “In first-century Palestinian Aramaic there was no word for ‘cousin,’ but one used the circumlocution, ‘son of the uncle.'” Further, he adds, “I do not know of any word for ‘cousin’ (apart from the circumlocution) in any other Aramaic dialects.”
“Concerning the word ‘brother.’ Fitzmyer notes: ‘The word did not simply mean ‘blood brother,’ and you will find in the Book of Tobit a variety of broader meanings: ‘compatriot,’ ‘kinsman, relative,’ and even a generic usage when a speaker employs it, not really knowing (yet) the relationship proper. The young Tobiah even calls the Angel Raphael (in disguise), ‘Brother.’â€
2. There is some indication she did not as in John 19:26-27.
“There could have been no ‘first blood’ brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given the care of His mother to St. John the Theologian (John 19:26) at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, Christ would have done His ‘brothers’ great disrespect and harm if He had done this!†(L. Puhalo)
3. The defense of St. Mary’s perpetual virginity begins early. The earliest is the Protoevangelium of James. (ca. AD 120-150) By 383 St. Jerome launches a full blown defense which is based on his understanding of Hebrew and upon the writings of earlier Fathers of the Church.
4. There is a general agreement in the patristic literature that St. Mary remained a virgin.
“The Fathers presented Mary the Virgin Mother as a model of holiness for consecrated virgins, and increasingly taught that she had remained ‘Ever-Virgin’. In their reflection, virginity was understood not only as physical integrity, but as an interior disposition of openness, obedience, and single-hearted fidelity to Christ which models Christian discipleship and issues in spiritual fruitfulness.†The Tome of Leo, which was decisive for the outcome of the Council of Chalcedon (451), states that Christ “was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mother, who gave him birth without losing her virginity, as she conceived him without losing her virginity” (DS 291). Similarly Athanasius speaks in De Virginitate (Le Muséon 42: 244.248) of “‘Mary, who … remained a virgin to the end [as a model for] all to come after her.” Cf. John Chrysostom (†407) Homily on Matthew 5,3. The first Ecumenical Council to use the term Aeiparthenos (semper virgo) was the Second Council of Constantinople (553). This designation is already implicit in the classical Western formulation of Mary’s virginitas as ante partum, in partu, post partum. This tradition appears consistently in the western Church from Ambrose onward. As Augustine wrote, “she conceived him as a virgin, she gave birth as a virgin, she remained a virgin” (Sermo 51.18; cf. Sermo 196.1).†(ARCIC II)
5. It is taught by most of the world’s Christians, the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox (sixty-five to seventy per cent) as well as by the major Reformers including Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.
“The whole dogmatic teaching about our Lady can be condensed into these two names of hers: the Mother of God (Theotokos) and the Ever-Virgin (aiparthenos). Both names have the formal authority of the Church Universal, an ecumenical authority indeed. The Virgin Birth is plainly attested in the New Testament and has been an integral part of the Catholic tradition ever since. “Incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary” (or “Born of the Virgin Mary”) is a credal phrase. It is not merely a statement of the historical fact. It is precisely a creedal statement, a solemn profession of faith. The term “Ever-Virgin” was formally endorsed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). And Theotokos is more than a name or an honorific title. It is rather a doctrinal definition-in one word. It has been a touchstone of the true faith and a distinctive mark of Orthodoxy even before the Council of Ephesus (432).†(Florovsky)
Martin Luther : “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.†(Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.) (Schih)
“Ulrich Zwingli: I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.†(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.) (Schih)
John Calvin: “We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called ‘brethren.’ Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as ‘brethren’ of Christ.” (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)
Jean Calvin: “Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel SAYS NOTHING…certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person.” (Commentary on Matthew 1:25)
References
J. Akin,Bad Aramaic Made Easy.
http://www.catholic.com/ library/Bad_ Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp
ARCIC II Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ,The Seattle Statement.
http://www.ecumenism.net/archive/arcic/mary_en.htm
G. Florovsky, The Ever-Virgin Mother of God http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/maria_florovsky_e.htm
Jerome, Against Helvidius
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
P. Porvaznik Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos) http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num27.htm
Protoevangelium of James
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
L. Puhalo On the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos (Mother of God)
http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Brothers.htm
R. Schihl The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
This visit works on a number of levels. It continues the contact with Cardinal Kaspar who spoke at Lambeth.
There have been a few wrinked noses and puckered lips from the more protestant end of the CofE but it also may be making a signal of solidarity with those anglo-catholics in the CofE who are not feeling as loved as they might be at the moment.
#9: A great house of cards. The natural sense of the New Testament is that Mary had numerous other children besides Jesus.
What is wrong with motherhood? No Jew could understand this line of thinking.
I find this interesting because it denies conservative Anglicans their argument that Rome is repulsed by Anglican heresy. It also gives the advantage to liberals who can now say, “See, our actions haven’t really hurt our ecumenical standing.”
#11, let him who has ears to hear..
#12, not really, if you compare this one act with the numerous statements from the hierarchy about how relations ARE damaged. I guess it depends on how much spinning you want to do.
Father Dean A Einerson+:
[blockquote]The faith taught by the prayer-book is the faith of Scripture, the Fathers and the Councils and so, it is an apt expression of that faith to call the mother of our Lord, “blessed Mary the ever-virgin Mother of God.â€[/blockquote]
Amen!
Thank you for this helpful summary, and for your reminder that a return to the position of Helvidius on this subject was very much a post-Reformation development which does not reflect the views of the major reformers themselves.
Apparently, Martin Luther even believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception:
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” [Martin Luther; “Sermon On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God”, 1527]
I think that Luther, like most Catholics of his day, was in error on this point, and I hold to the view defended by Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux that the Blessed Virgin was not conceived without sin. However, it is certainly interesting that Luther thought otherwise.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s pilgrimage to Lourdes is a wonderful ecumenical gesture and I do not doubt that it represents an expression of his own sincere commitment to Marian devotion. That is entirely commendable, although I do not find the claims made for these various apparitions to be entirely credible.
I certainly reject the theology of Alphonsus Liguori and other Roman Catholic apologists which suggests that the Virgin Mary is somehow more mercifully disposed towards us than our Lord Himself, or which in any way detracts from the notion that He is our sole Mediator and Advocate with God the Father.
As an exalted member of the Communion of Saints, the Virgin Mary prays for us and we are free to invoke her intercession on our behalf, just as we ask for the prayers of our fellow members of the Church Militant here on earth. But I think that is as far as we can safely go.
Blessings to you!
[blockquote][b]Forms of Veneration of Saints[/b]
Icons and images of saints are used in various ways. Common rituals include kneeling in prayer before them, touching or kissing them, gazing at them in contemplation, or simply using them as teaching tools.
Source: Religion Facts
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/practices/honoring_saints/veneration.htm%5B/blockquote%5D
It is common practice of the Roman and Orthodox Catholics to kneel before icons and statues and/or to kiss them. Their apologists contend that these activities constitute “veneration” and are not worship.
Merriam-Webster defines veneration as a noun meaning “respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person”. It further defines the act of venerating as: “1 : to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference 2 : to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion”. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veneration
However, the actions of kneeling before icons/statues and/or kissing them are clearly associated with worship in the scriptures. In response to the prophet Elijah’s prayer complaint to God, that he alone remained faithful to YHWH, God assures Elijah that He has reserved 7,000 in Israel that remain faithful to Him.
[blockquote]Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him. 1 Kings 19:18[/blockquote]
Note what actions constituted worship in God’s view. The mere acts of bending the knee or kissing the statue are in fact acts of worship. He does not pronounce worship based on an inner condition of the heart or as a matter of mental assent. God equates the kneeling and kissing of the Baal as worship itself.
God is a jealous God. He will not share his glory with another. We are to have no other god’s. If one kneels to a statue or kisses it, one has broken the commandment.
What is it then when ABC Rowan Williams, iconic leader of Anglicanism, becomes the first Anglican leader to visit the Roman Catholic shrine of Lourdes, a place where inappropriate worship [kneeling before and kissing of statues…or the ground the statue rests on] is routine? Will he bend his knee? Will he warn against idolatry? Is his trip there a tacit endorsement of the illicit worship that occurs there?
#11: Every heretic from Arius on has depended on the “natural sense” in isolation from the whole teaching of the Church. And, for those who do not “understand this line of thinking,” this is neither the first nor the greatest stumbling block.
#15: You must be sick and tired of nuance indeed if you are unable to distinguish between those who bow down to [i] [b]Baal[/b] [/i] and those who show respect, reverence and affection to [i] [b]our Lord, His mother, and His saints![/b] [/i] The Seventh Ecumenical Council taught with authority that icons may indeed be venerated and that iconoclasm– the furious hatred of icons that consumes some in every generation apparently– is tantamount to denying the Incarnation: “Icons are in colors what the Scripture are in words: witnesses to the Incarnation, the fact that God has come among us as a person whom we can see, touch and hear, to offer us the new life and begin the new creation. ”
Anglicans and Orthodox have been able to agree on righteousness of icons and the value of venerating those to whom they witness, if not the necessity of doing so: “[Anglicans] accept that it is legitimate to regard the icon, not merely as a decoration, but as a means of entering into relationship with the person or event it represents; and to hold that in response to the faith and prayer of the believers, God through the icon, bestows his sanctifying grace.” [i]The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984.[/i] 113 (f)
Those who question the teaching of the undivided Church about Saint Mary, and about the veneration–[b] [i] not the worship[/b] [/i] — of the icons of Jesus, His mother, and of the saints ought to consider in which part of the Church Christians have maintained the Faith and in which the Church has capitualated to the world.
In the East where devotion to Saint Mary and respect for the icons of the Church have been taught, Christians have withstood over a thousand years of Islamic rule and frequent persecution. In that same part of the Church Christians have stood firm in the face of the most sustained and viscious persecution in the past 2,000 years, and it is Stalinism that broke, not the Orthodox Church.
In the West Christians have given in to the secularist agenda over and over, not out of fear of prison, tortrue and death, but simply out of fear of being out of step with the culture! The process of selectively picking and choosing which parts of the faith can be accommodated leads inexorably to the dilution and diminishment of the faith. Do away with the icons and then do away with the sacraments. Do away with the sacraments and then do away with the Church’s teaching about marriage.
The crisis of the Episcopal Church, and the rest of the Anglican Communion, is not going to be resolved until we are willing to recover the whole faith and practice of the ancient and undivided Church and that will include, as it always has, the full teaching about Saint Mary and the icons of the Church.
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Here’s a thought provoking essay for iconodules and iconoclasts alike:
“The Veneration of Icons” by Charles Foster.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1624_278/ai_75533395
#17, very disturbing, and a perfect example of deception.
Gee, I guess all those Christian martyrs could have just burned a little incense before a statue of Ceaser and been spared all that torment. They could have just made those fine distinctions between worship paid to God (latreia), honour paid to the saints (douleia) and veneration given to created objects (proskynesis) like statues of the Emperor. What fools! If only they had known how to carefully make these distinctions, their tragic and horrible deaths could have been avoided.
Then again, there is that little matter of the final judgement where they will face the God who told Elijah that bending the knee to a statue or kissing it was worship. I am so glad we have all these fine academics to explain away what God stated so clearly.
Sarcasm off.
I like figures of the saints. I like icons. I think they are beautiful and I think they are a fantastic way to portray and remind us of the stories of great Christians from the past. That said, there is a huge difference between appreciation and regard…even meditation on the works of art…and bending the knee and/or kissing them. That is idolatry. If one is doing that, the statues [i]are[/i] a baal, even if they are of Mary or any saint or angel.
For the record, I have a pewter figurine of St. George, one of the Archangel Michael, and one of St. Joan de Arc, as well as a card of St. Patrick and a print called “Jesus Laughing” all in my living room. They are nice touchstones of faith. I would NEVER dream of bending my knee to them, praying to them, or kissing them. They are works of art that remind me of different aspects of the faith, nothing more and certainly not deserving of the acts of worship of bending the knee or kissing them.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot. I know they are out of fashion these days, but the 39 Articles happen to mention something about this subject:
XXII. Of Purgatory. The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, 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.
Gee, I guess maybe I am on to something here.
To the extent that Article XXII contradicts the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it is in heresy against the Catholic Faith. After all, as another Article states – Alexandria, Antioch, etc. have erred. So Also, therefore, Canterbury could also be in error. Veneration before images and statues does not impart any magical value to the image itself. the image or statue connects the worshipper to the one portrayed. By the way, is it therefore improper to kneel before the Queen? Just a few thoughts.
You won’t catch me kneeling to a queen. Spirit of ’76 and all that…
BTW, the councils can err, but the Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. God clearly stated to Elijah that he had reserved 7,000 whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him. Folks can do what ever they like. I am not responsible for them. I am responsible to give a warning and speak the truth. I have done so to the best of my ability. The rest is on those who disobey God and follow the teachings of men. The Scriptures are quite clear and even a child can understand them. Folks can do whatever mental tap dance they like to pretend to get around them. They will answer for themselves, just as I will answer for myself and may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with us all.
rob k:
Thanks for weighing in on this subject. Your comment about the queen gave me a smile and brought to mind this remark from a wise priest: “If kissing something makes it an idol, then we shouldn’t kiss our children or our spouses either.” 🙂
But here’s why I don’t think Article XXII contravenes the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, or represents “heresy against the Catholic faith.”
If you are a Roman Catholic, I certainly mean no offense to you, but the Article rejects the “Romish doctrine” concerning the practices to which it refers. How objectionable the practices themselves are is still a matter for discussion, even among Anglicans.
In the article I linked to above, this part really caught my attention:
[blockquote]Icons, viewed with John’s caveats, can be very devotionally useful. Viewed without, they are likely to be highroads to dangerous heresy of exactly the kind that the iconoclasts feared.[/blockquote]
We know that the level of popular piety in the Middle Ages left a great deal to be desired, and abuses and excesses were rampant. Superstition was rife among the illiterate masses who largely depended upon the pictorial images they encountered in Church for what little religious instruction they received. Quite frankly, I do not find the iconoclastic tendencies of some of the reformers difficult to understand.
The English Reformation faced the task of purging away the dross which had accumulated down through the centuries and this was a necessary undertaking. Its two greatest benefits were a renewed emphasis on God’s Word written and the restoration of the Divine Liturgy in a language “understanded of the people.”
But sometimes the pendulum of reform can swing too far in the opposite direction. Hence, in order to fulfill its proper mandate of a return to the faith and practice of the early undivided Church, some measure of correction in a more “Catholic” direction has also been necessary.
As a result, we are now in a better position to appreciate the proper use of religious images as aids to Christian devotion, as John of Damascus envisioned and the Seventh Ecumenical Council upheld.
Deo gratia!
As something of a postscript, I just wanted to add to what Sick and Tired of Nuance wrote, two things actually. The first would be to go through the entirety of scripture, and read every last verse you can find about graven images, and how God regards them.
Secondly, in my morning devotions, I read Daniel chapter 3, the account of Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego. I’m certain that these three men did proper obeisance to King Nebuchadnezzar, and I’m sure that included bowing low in some form or another. What we saw quite differently was their response to the command to fall down before the great image that the king had set up on the plain of Dura.
The early Christians were likewise admonished by Paul: “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Peter adds: “Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” Yet the beloved apostle John warns “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.”
#21 and others.
My default position is that of Article XXII as set out in #20.
I failed completely to understand the use of icons until meeting with an Orthodox priest in Greece who explained that it was not the icon itself which was venerated but that from a time when reading was not universal, a picture allowed the worshipper to concentrate on an aspect of the life of Christ and the Saints and their message.
I think though that the Articles express themselves well in highlighting the lack of grounding of these practices in scripture and indeed highlight their dangers:
1. The images can be a distraction if over concentrated on – worship becoming of the form of the image rather than the substance;
2. If taken to an extreme it can become worship of a graven image and this distraction from the honor due to God could well become a breach of the first commandments in both the new and old Testaments; and
3. Finally I think of one of the saddest posts which I ever read on these blogs of a poster who felt that they were unworthy to approach God directly in prayer but instead must ask for the intercession of Mary or of the saints to pray on their behalf. This goes against everything I know and believe of the saving and releasing power of Christ and of our being made through him ‘children of God’ with the instruction that we are to pray to Him directly as our father and bring to Him directly our praise and supplications.
So on balance while I can see some of the arguments for the Catholic and Orthodox uses and invocations, I think the dangers may outweigh their benefits.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s website has posted his sermon at Lourdes:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1972
And of course, with the Protestant rejection of the “Romish” practices, people became better Christians. Seriously, I think the RC Church rejects the “Romish” practices you impute to the Articles.
[blockquote]Superstition was rife among the illiterate masses who largely depended upon the pictorial images they encountered in Church for what little religious instruction they received. Quite frankly, I do not find the iconoclastic tendencies of some of the reformers difficult to understand. [/blockquote]
Speaking of that, I know Hank managed to smash and melt a lot of our bling, but can we have our stained glass back now? 😉
Chris Molter:
[blockquote]Speaking of that, I know Hank managed to smash and melt a lot of our bling, but can we have our stained glass back now?[/blockquote]
Are you kidding?
What would you have us do–relocate Canterbury Cathedral to a strip mall?
You’ll just have to be patient. But perhaps not for much longer.
If present trends continue, the Archbishop of Westminster may be able to pick up a few nice pieces when the C of E has a “going out of business” sale.
Or you could wait for the roundheads to come back into power. There’ll be a field day at Sotheby’s then.
Tell the pope to keep his checkbook handy. Whichever way it turns out, it’ll be cheaper than mounting an invasion across the Channel.
Unless His Holiness plans on sending the Swiss Guard after us.
In that case, Whitehall will have the terms of surrender typed up before their troop train leaves the station.
Then it’s all yours, and sorry it took so long. 🙂
#30 LOL! awesome! pax tecum