Discussion in 'Sacraments and Holy Orders' started by Dallas Rivera, Oct 20, 2017.
Like crosses or saint medals or other religious items that are blessed by a priest?
Historically no, but since the rise of the Anglo-Catholic movement it has become more acceptable in some quarters. From the period when Henry VIII separated the Church of England from Rome, until the late 19th century (a period of some 300 years), I think you would be hard pressed to find examples of sacramentals in the Church of England.
Thank you for that informative answer. Would a cross count as a sacramental, can it get blessed by a priest? Please pardon my questions if they seem silly, I'm trying to increase my knowledge in the Anglican Church.
"The Sacraments are not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about," Art 25. So by analogy this would apply to a "sacramental" that probably obtains no recognition in Anglicanism, as there are but two sacraments in Anglicanism "ordained by Christ" that is the sole criteria of recognition.
One of the clear divergences of Anglicanism from Romanism lies in the forsaking of the diversity and multiplication of sacraments not specifically ordained by Christ. By extension, sacramentals are equally not "ordained by Christ" so I doubt that they should be permitted.
Sure, items can and often are blessed by a specific liturgy. For instance at our churches, when a young postulant becomes an ordinand to holy orders, the clergy will lead a liturgy to bless his vestments. Likewise there is use of holy oil. In a good number of ACNA churches you will find the use of holy water.
These blessed items exist in quite a large number, they just don't function like a sacramental in a way that the old RCC churches used to do it; their purpose is not to function as a charm or a trinket that will 'ensure your salvation' as the Marian medals claimed to do.
So there are quite a few blessings of items and material artifacts, while at the same time avoiding the abuse of people's superstitiousness and a desire for trinkets and magic charms. You will not find Anglicans burying a statue of St. Joseph on their land 'for good luck', for instance.
Further to what I wrote above, it appears that some amendment to the view of the 16th century English Reformers, to wit, that "the practice of blessing objects—altars, vestments, so-called “holy water,” and so-called “holy oils”—was not agreeable with Scripture" crept in with the Caroline Divines (i.e. reigns of Charles I & II) who amended the position to re-include the anointing of the sick with oil, but there remains no warrant of scriptural authority for blessing the oil itself, or for such things as "sacramentals."
This position is to be contrasted with the ACNA, which apparently espouses what Douglas Bess describes as “an extreme form of Anglo-Catholicism,” which has as its aim "the reshaping of the Anglican Church along the lines of the purportedly undivided Church of the early High Middle Ages during the eleventh century before the East-West Schism—an imaginary golden age of Catholic Christianity. " (per Robin G. Jordan)
So quite a degree of divergence of opinion at this point. I find the blessing of objects to be without any foundation in scripture, unless it is a metaphore for blessing the person who owns or keeps the object (e.g. Ark of Covenant).
I just wanted to tell you that you that Robin Jordan is a nut. You should not give much thought to what he says. He runs a malignant blog from which he takes potshots at the church without any foundation. His sources of authority are extreme puritans and anabaptists. Even the higher-church puritans he would characterize as Papist. He lives thoroughly in the past as if the Reformation was the Parousia, foundation of all time, the holy moment of all history, instead of being one contention among many. He is unstable.
And furthermore, and most damningly, he worships at a Presbyterian church. He's not even AN ANGLICAN...
It doesn't need to be, as the Regulatory Principle is wrong and Anglicans have never accepted it. Where in Scripture does it say that the minister wear a cassock? Yet in the canons under Edward VI and the 1604 Canons, A priest was mandated to wear the cassock and surplice under the pain of punishment.
Good thing Anglicanism doesn't just have scripture to guide the church, but also tradition and reason.