This is mainly for Roman Catholics and Anglo Catholics, but anyone is free to answer, Mary's love is free to all, and all are invited. Anyway, where exactly did the holy rosary originate? Saint Dominic? Or other roots, also, what do you guys think about the Marian apparition of nuestra señora de guadalupe(our lady of guadalupe) do you think it is really a miraculous apparition, or a scheme by Juan Diego, all opinions are welcome, just no hate please, and only have formal arguments, or, please don't have any at all, thanks! God bless! And also, what do you guys think of the 39 articles of religion, are they more like Guidelines, or actual rules.
There are quite a few articles on the articles here under questions about anglicanism. We are of course children of grace, so rather than understanding them as law, perhaps you might find it more helpful to understand them as the lore to be embraced. There is an opportunity on the sight to subscribe to the 39 Articles for those who wish to do so. The is no expectation or compulsion to do so, but part of the charter of the site is to encourage a propper and fuller understanding of the 39. It has certainly helped me a great deal.
Agreed, I take them as a set of sayings that are more of guidelines, not rules we are obligated to follow, and like all guidelines, many anglicans take certain articles lightly or strongly. Some say they really are rules, some say they are not relevant to our age, it's not really OFFICIAL church doctrine.
And the articles went through several revisions through history, one of which is the ten articles presented in 1536 THE TEN ARTICLES (1536). In the year 1536 convocation under Henry VIII gave sanction to the "Ten Articles," entitled "Articles devised by the King's Higness' Majesty to stablish Christian quietness and unity among us." These were probably compiled by Cranmer, though ostensibly emanating from the crown. Five of the articles related to doctrines and five to ceremonies. Articles related to doctrines: That Holy Scriptures and the three Creeds are the basis and summary of a true Christian faith. That baptism conveys remission of sins and the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, and is absolutely necessary as well for children as adults. That penance consists of contrition, confession, and reformation, and is necessary to salvation. That the body and blood of Christ are really present in the elements of the eucharist. That justification is remission of sin and reconciliation to God by the merits of Christ; but good works are necessary. Articles related to ceremonies: That images are useful as remembrancers, but are not objects of worship. That saints are to be honored as examples of life, and as furthering our prayers. That saints may be invoked as intercessors, and their holydays observed. That ceremonies are to be observed for the sake of their mystical signification, and as conducive to devotion. That prayers for the dead are good and useful, but the efficacy of papal pardon, and of soul-masses offered at certain localities, is negatived Source: http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tenarticles.htm As you can see, the church originally approved intercession of saints, but when different kings took over who had different beiliefs, they changed it to how they saw fit.
So i don't see any trouble in asking saintly intercession. And that is also why I take them more as guidelines
Yes, but it is a long held tenate of Anglicanism that worship services be spoken in a language understood by the congregation. ARTICLE XXIV reads: "It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people." There is more than one latin translation of the BCP out there.
To be fair, Henry VIII is a poor representative of Anglicanism, and the official doctrines or guidelines of Anglicanism were finished in their formulation with the BCP of 1662, and they really started to see something like their current form after Henry VIII, as he was opposed to the actual Reformation doctrinally.
Anglicanism, as we recognize it today, didn't really show up until accession of Elizabeth I. To be sure, it could be argued that it was not until the Restoration, or perhaps even the Glorius Revolution, that things finally found the groove they would stick to into pepetuity. But for all intents and purposes, the foundation of Anglican character was fimly laid by King James' time imho.
A question for @Lowly Layman and @PotterMcKinney, do you think of the articles as rules, or guidelines.
I think of them, insofar as they discuss matters of faith, as Scriptural walls, within which we must limit ourselves and our thought. G.K Chesterton once said something along the lines of "orthodoxy is a wall, but it is the wall of a playground." We have to have some boundaries or else we will drift farther from the truth as we have received it. The 39 Articles provide that boundary, telling us what lines we should not cross, for if we do it will be to our detriment because we have drifted from what the Scriptures teach us. What do we need to have beyond that wall, when the playground is within it? There are many things not addressed within them and they leave a lot of leeway for many things they do address anyway,
I honestly think we shouldn't limit ourselves and our prayer life to something that's not even an obligation to follow, sure, they do have some good teachings, but I just don't like the current revision, either way most Anglicans I know don't pay much attention to it.
We should remind everyone that on this forum the historic bulwarks of Anglican orthodoxy remain firm; namely the Articles, the Prayerbook, the Catechism, the three sacred Creeds, and the like: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/anglican-forums-reformation-advent-2014.1257/ In the judgment of history a departure from these holy Norms has in every situation led to schisms, harm, and spiritual danger among the faithful. This has been confirmed by the early history of this forum, where without a common Rule of Faith and a common identity, the faithful began attacking each other and bitter internecine squabbles left the community devastated, as seen in the above thread. While we certainly don't want to prevent anyone who doesn't adhere to the holy Norms from attending and participating in this site, the fundamental truth remains that here only those who do can be considered unqualifiedly Anglican. Anyone who professes adherence to the above Historic Formularies will receive the label of "Anglican" under their username.
So is that how one gets that? Good to know. What points of controversy would I be taking sides on if I were to make such a declaration?
@PotterMcKinney, Hello! There are no points of controversy. We ask for nothing of our own, only the subscription to historic orthodoxy. See here: http://forums.anglican.net/pages/orthodoxy/
Yes, but I'm fairly new and still exploring the Formularies to understand them properly. Eucharistic doctrine has been my main point of study, but I would like to understand better other points of contention the formularies side on against and beyond other standards of faith before I affirm assent to them.
I mean, I loved learning about the church and the like, but the more I learn, the more I realize it doesn't suit my beliefs. Not all of them at least