Can us anglicans ask for intercession from Mary and the saints?

I have to take issue here my brother. Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted a divine monarchy, not a democracy.

 

So, are we required to pray for Mary's or another saint's intercession to be saved?

 

Absolutely not, although you may if you wish

 

I'm confused, are Anglicans allowed to ask for interssision or not, there are so many contradicting opinions

 

Then I don't think I understand the objection to Lowly Layman.

 

Because brother, although we aren't compelled to ask Our Blessed Mother or the saints to intercede for us, there are many laws which are absolutely binding in order to be considered Catholic, eg baptism , abstain from extra- marital sex.

 

True, but the emphasis is on "divine" as opposed to "human". Our Lord gave us his law, the limits of which are found in scripture-- which "containeth all things necessary to salvation." Therefore, "whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." A christian, then cannot be rightly compelled to pray rosaries or invoke saints though he is free to do so if his conscience compels him so.

 

Depends on who you ask, I suppose.

The interesting thing is that I don't think the saints won't be praying for you whether you ask or not. But consciously praying with the saints is a good thing, and asking them to pray for you is one way of aligning yourself with God's will. The only problem comes about when it becomes superstitious and nearly polytheistic. There is a big difference between asking St. Joseph to pray for you and asking St. Joseph to help you sell your house. Even assuming selling your house is something God wills and thus is to be prayed for, why ask St. Joseph when the Most High God is right there?

However, the reason saints are important, and why having certain saints in mind in our prayers is a good thing, is that while Jesus is the perfect example of the perfect and complete human being, he isn't relatable to more specific facets of our lives. Saints throughout history have shown by example how a common man of such and such profession can live the life Jesus calls us to. Therefore, joining ourselves in prayer with such people we relate with more precisely can be good to help us understand better our particular place in the grand plan of Jesus.

There is nothing wrong with "joining our voices with Angels and Archangels, and all the company of Heaven," so long as we do not misunderstand it.

 

I don't think anyone said differently. Just that one is not compelled to do extrabiblical things like ask for saintly intercession.

 

Where in the Bible does it say that cloning human beings is immoral?

 

Nowhere. Your point?

 

The Bible is not the sole source of law

 

This is answered in Article XX, where it is stated that the Church has power to make positive decisions on issues of faith and doctrine (under the authority of Scripture).

That is, it has the ability to state things which are not themselves in Scripture, so long as they are in conformity with, and under the authority of, Scripture.

 

I'm sorry, but you've lost me. Let me see if I get your logic right:

Point: Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Consequently whatever is not read in Scripture nor proved from Scripture cannot be a requirement of belief as an article of the faith. Nor is it to be thought necessary or required for salvation.

Counterpoint: Scripture does not say that human cloning is immoral.

ERGO: The bible is not the sole source of law.


I think there must be 2 conversations going on here, because we are failing to connect.

 

Article XX limits the Church's authority to that which is not contrary to scripture. In terms of that which is required for salvation Article VI tells us it will be found in scripture.

So when it comes to the matter of human cloning we are being challenged. Would a cloned human being be a moral being bearing the image and likeness of God? I don't know I have thought about it enough but I suspect I would find in the affirmative. The purpose and ethos of human cloning is in my view dangerous given our awareness of the capacity of humans to aquire an inflated opinion of their own role in creation.

As nicene christian we believe that God is the creator and source of all being and I don't think this is the kind of emulation of divine behaivior that we are called to -though some will clearly differ.

 

My issue with cloning is threefold.

1. As I understand it, it is similar to invitro in that multiple embryos are fertilized but not all of them are implanted. Some fertilized embryos are intentionally destroyed, which is the taking of innocent human life in violation of the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill"). This is a grave sin. One which the church is duty bound to condemn in the strongest possible terms and must work to end.

2. Even if no embryos were killed in the process, it is unnecessary, there are children in desperate need of adoption and loving parents without the need to defy the natural law to get. It truns one's child into a science experiment, which is highly unethical.

3. It separates the marital act (ie, sex) from the reproductive act (as does contraception, abortion, invitro, and surrogacy) in contradiction to God's design in creation. It is an unnatural practice, motivated by selfishness and vanity.

While the morality of human cloning per se is not mentioned in the bible, that would, to an Anglican, only mean that it is not a salvation issue. However, as I discuss above, there are elements in the process, as it is currently decsribed, that are are stated very plainly and strongly in scripture as immoral. Unless and until those elements are removed from the process, the process must also be considered immoral.

Holy Scripture is the primary and ultimate testament of God's Law and Gospel. Any other source has derivative authority only.

 

Try Anglican prayer beads instead of the rosary beads. I have two sets, one resides in my purse and the other in my "prayer spot" next to my Bible and BCP. I took them to church and asked my priest to bless them as well.

 

I think the Anglican view of this is right. The Roman Catholic Church must make declarations based on testimonies, written accounts, and other things to determine someone's sainthood. When a person asks for intercession from a saint, they have to know exactly what a saint has done in order to distinguish them from others, including how the RCC defines their virtue in theological terms. Even though RCC will simply say that we don't need to know, because the church says so and defines what exactly their virtue is already before we pray to them, I still feel that, when you have already consulted the evidence available publicly as to what exactly the saint's virtue, wisdom, and so forth was, it defeats the purpose of asking for their intercession, because you already know what they had to say. The RCC idea of saints is that they achieved holiness in their lifetime and will reach heaven without undergoing the refinement of purgatory. So, therefore, their virtues known on earth are the same in heaven, yet this is takes us back to what I already said. The Anglican view of sainthood as basically a memorial, 'employee of the month' type hall is more appropriate. Also, Roman sainthood undermines the good done through simple values because of their lack of humility. Surely, the work of Saint Theresa of Calcutta in charity is commendable, but it's more about how much of it does she owe in the end to the simple acts done by everyone around her? You could say that to judge their superiority by public awareness and praise is more humanistic than anything. The Lord uses simple acts to do profound things. We can't undermine that power that can be used through a basic act. Jesus said in Matthew 25:45, in the parable of the Sheep and Goats: "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."

There's also the secular proverb, "Take care of the little things, and the big things will take care of themselves."

It takes true faith in the unseen to not care about the praise of men, perform a Godly act, and believe that lack of public recognition will not affect God's approval in our deeds or it's magnitude.

I also must say, that if in the bible (I believe in Revelation, one particular verse) it says that the saints are already praying for us in heaven, then we have no need to ask them for intercession in that sense because they're already doing what God wants them to do.

I also believe there is more relevance in prayer, both for us and intercessory, for mortal human beings that we are, because we can never pray once that all will be well and yet expect ourselves not to ask it again later in life, in order to renew our trust and commitment to God, simply because we are not strong enough to have faith 100% of the time. Likewise, intercessory prayer asks someone who is more confident to trust God for our healing than we are ourselves, and for similar reasons, because of deficiency in faith. In short, flawed, sinful human beings have more need for intercession from our flesh and blood brethren than the saints.

Regardless, I pray the Anglican rosary (look it up, 33 beads) but only Protestant prayers and meditations, not for intercession from the saints or Mary, as I don't adhere to that doctrine by any means.

 

IMHO, it is a low view of God's omnipresence that drives the impulse to seek intercession from "saints." The rediscovery of God's accessibility to all believers at all times was the great triumph of the Reformation. Further, the Roman church uses a very narrow definition of "saint" to refer to those individuals whom it has deemed worthy of canonization when in reality the saints are the collective church, visible and invisible, Catholic or otherwise - another great rediscovery of the Reformation.

There is no need to pray to "saints" when you can appeal directly to the Triune God Himself.

 

Every Anglican church- whether low or high- that I've ever seen is in violation of the homily "on peril of idolatry." The mere presence of images, including crucifixes, stained-glass windows, etc., is denounced in this homily as idolatry or at best temptation to idolatry.