Anglican Catholics

Hey Jude, do you consider yourself "Anglican Catholic"?

The reason I ask is that I learned about the Anglican Catholic Church at anglicancatholic.org and was intrigued about what I read. I learned that the ACC--like the Eastern Orthodox--accepts the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the seven Ecumenical Counsels of the undivided church, as well as Patristic Tradition as authoritive. That being the case, I was curious about whether or not the ACC shares the same beliefs about Mary and praying to the saints that the RCC and the EOC teach. If you don't consider yourself Anglican Catholic, what are your thoughts on the ACC and how the beliefs of that church are different from those of "garden-variety" (if there really is such a thing!) Anglicans?

Thanks.

 

(bump)
While I'm waiting patiently for a response , I also am curious as to why some Anglicans accept the first FOUR ecumenical councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) while Anglican Catholics accept the first SEVEN?
Anyone?

 

Jude,
Thanks for your response. I'll check out the website you provided.
God Bless.

 

Interesting that you should say that.

I've been a lifelong Baptist, but over the past year or so I've done a lot of rethinking of long held Baptist beliefs. First to go was the pre-trib rapture myth. Although that has been taught by every pastor and guest speaker at each of the churches I've belonged to since childhood, I can neither find Scriptural proof of this nor any historical evidence that this idea existed before the 1800s. Secondly, over that past few months, I've all but ditched the "once-saved-always-saved" belief that is held by most Baptists. Again, on the whole, there are many more Scriptures warning against the possibility of falling from the faith or exhorting the believer to endure to the end than there are passages that may suggest an unconditional eternal security. I still believe in eternal security, but only for those who continue to abide in Christ.

More recently I've rethought the nature of the Baptist ordinances--Baptism and the Lord Supper. Having always believed these practices to be merely symbolic, I've been surprised to learn that the Early Church Fathers didn't think the same way. First, I have yet to see any evidence that any early Christians considered Baptism to be a mere symbol. Second, although I've read some quotes from "the Fathers" regarding the symbollic nature of the Eucharist, most other quotes express a belief in the Real Pressence. Now, I certainly don't buy the whole doctrine of transubstantiation, but it seems like there have been many in Church history who've held to a more mystical or spiritual concept of the Real Presence, including many Protestants! So I guess I've been coming around to having a more sacramental belief regarding the Lord's ordinances. However, I still have problem with baptising infants and I do think that immersion is a more vivid picture of what it means to be "buried with Christ".

I also have reconsidered Sola Scriptura and do agree that it (at least the version of it that many Protestants profess) is problematic as an epistimologic guide. However, I think the whole partim-partim Scripture/Tradition view of the RCC is equally problematic. Ironically, I've read (and am reading) two books by Prostestants (including one by a BAPTIST) who calls for a return to apostolic Tradition as expressed in the early regula fidei, confessions, creeds, and councils. This view, as opposed to both the no-tradion view and the two-source theory, makes the most sense to me, but I'mn still working through it.

I guess my biggest hang-ups with Catholicism (and Roman Catholicism in particular) is the infallible papacy/magisterium, the exalted view of Mary, and praying "to" Mary and the saints. I can see the evidence of belief in Mary's perpetual virginity from antiquity in the Protoevangelium of James (c.120 AD?), but I also see that Jesus did not encourage any special emphasis on his mother (Luke 8:19-21 and 11:27-28). And yes, I've heard Catholic apologists say that they don't "worship" Mary and that they only pray "through" her (as an intercessor) and not "to" her. However, I've read more than a handful of prayers from Catholics to Mary which border on blasphemy, attributing to her divine attributes that only God can possess. I also think that history belies the notion of an infallible papacy and magisterium, but I'm sure that you'd probably agree with me here.

Anyway, sorry to be so long winded. I would be curious, though, to hear more about how you may have changed some of your beliefs over time, if you don't mind sharing. Thanks.

God bless.

 

Thanks for the offer. I'll have to get back with you, because I'm at work and don't have access to the sources which contain those prayers to which I was referring. Later...

 

Grant, here's what I had in mind...

"Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy. Hail our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to you do we send up our sighs, mourning, and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, your eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary, pray for us, O holy Mother of God. That we may be worthy of the promises of Christ." (If I'm not mistaken, this is the conclusion of the Rosary)

So in other words, Mary is "our life" and "our hope"? Maryis our "most gracious advocate"? These descriptions belong to the Lord Jesus Christ alone! We need Mary to turn her "eyes of mercy" towards us? We require mercy of GOD not Mary.

Here's another...

"Mary of the New Advent, we implore your protection on the preparations that will now begin for the next meeting. Mary, full of grace, we entrust the next World Youth Day to you. Mary, assumed into heaven, we entrust the young people of the world..the whole world to you!" (John Paul II, August 1993)

So rather than entrusting the world to Christ, the pope is entrusting the world to Mary? He's imploring Mary's protection rather than God's??? This doesn't sound like he's asking Mary to pray "for" him--he's asking Mary--and not God--to do the protecting!

Here's one more...

"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem Populi

Contrast this prayer with the words of Jesus:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to Father except through Me/" (John 14:6)
...or the words of the Apostle Peter:
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).

No mention of Mary's name nor notion of Mary's role in salvation mentioned here or anywhere else in the Bible.

On the contrary, Jesus deflected praise from His mother (Luke 11:28), and basically said that ANY who hears the word of God and does it is His mother and His brothers (Luke 8:21), thereby passing up another opportunity to stress any role she may possibly have in salvation.

Anyway, didn't mean to sound too harsh. I have to admit that I found these "prayers" through secondary sources, but if they are accurate, can you understand how Prostestants believe that Catholic devotion to Mary borders on blasphemy?
Later....

 

Raymond,
That's very interesting--a BAPTIST hymn to Mary? Where did you find that?

Anyway, I certainly don't think anyone should bash Mary. Afterall, she must have been special indeed for God to choose to become Incarnate in her womb. All generations SHOULD call her "Blessed" for that is what she is. However, I'm not sure we should go to the other extreme and emphasize some ongoing role that she allegedly has in salvation (Though I'm not disputing that she HAD an instrumental role in bringing the Savior into the world.) Basically, applying titles such as "Redemptrix", "Mediatrix", and "Advocate" to Mary is highly problematic to me and many other Protestants. I'm beginning to coming around to the possibility of the Perpetual Virginity and PERHAPS the Assumption, but NOT the Immaculate Conception.

I'm aware that Catholics believe that the "Woman" in Revelation 12 is Mary, but I'm not convinced. I can't recall from history Mary fleeing into the wilderness and being persecuted for 3 1/2 years. I'm more inclined to think the Woman is Israel and that the 3 1/2 years are in the future. And in Genesis chapter 3 it is the SEED of the woman who bruises the head of the serpant with His heel, and not the woman herself. Just some observations.

God bless.

 

Jude, thanks for the compliment.

I do find myself somewhat drawn towards a more liturgical type service, especially in the face of today's contemporary "worship". I still like many of the old Baptist (and Protestant) hymns, and SOME of the modern praise songs are reverent and Scriptural. However, I'm no longer a big fan of drums and electric guitars on Sunday mornings. Also, I've yet to recite the Apostle's creed in a Southern Baptist Church.

You make a good point about the Orthodox view of the Real Presence as opposed to the specific formulation of Transubstantion which developed much later. The Lord's Supper is indeed a memorial, but contrary to what many modern evangelicals believe, it isn't merely so.

As to what "path" I'm on, I'm not quite sure myself. I've certainly been reading about both Anglican Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and find in both many commendable features. I'd probably choose either over Roman Catholicism (and perhaps Anglicanism over Orthodoxy). However, I'm still a proponent of believers' baptism (albeit in a more "sacramental" way) as opposed to infant baptism, so I'm not quite ready to give up being a deacon at the Baptist church just yet. But we'll see...

God Bless.

 

Matt, I appreciate the insightful remarks. It sounds like we do have some converging viewpoints despite having the different backgrounds. It's also encouraging that some Baptists are putting more of an emphasis on the early creeds and Church Fathers. I recently read a book by an ordained Baptist minister (who happens to teach at a Catholic University!) called RETRIEVING THE TRADITION AND RENEWING EVANGELICALISM. I couldn't believe what I was reading!

I'm currently reading a book called THE SHAPE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA by Keith Mathison discussing the role that Tradition plays in the classical Reformed and Patristic understandings of Scriptural and ecclessial authority for the believer. The author contrasts this with the "no-Tradition" view (ie many modern evangelicals) and the two source view of Tridentine Catholicism. It's pretty good so far--I'm about half way through.

Anyway, thanks again.

God bless.

 

Brother Ed,

Good to see you back. I hope you had a good Easter season.

If I had to choose a "Catholic" church, it would probably be the Anglican or the Eastern Orthodox--but your comment about the Orthodox not being evangelistic is somewhat concerning.

I just can't seem to bring myself to accept infant baptism at this point, regardless of the denomination. So despite some of my misgivings for the current state of typical Baptist worship services, I'm "content" to "remain Baptist" for now. (Plus I'm still at the beginning of my three year rotation as a deacon at my church, and my wife really likes the "praise" music). But I still have a great attraction to the idea of a more liturgical tradition.

BTW, Rome is about 1 hr 15 min from Atlanta.

In Christ,

DT