Is it possible to bless certain items such as rabbit's feet in an orthodox Anglican church or is this something that is only done in the Episcopal branch?
It didn't bring much luck to the rabbit though, did it. In spite of the rabbit being much more intimately connected to it. So, useless superstition seems an accurate assessment of the item.
True, it's often said in response to the concept of rabbit's feet as a luck item to begin with. However, some traditions say it only becomes enchanted if the rabbit is caught and killed under a full moon, or something of that sort, but then you have to ask why this only applies to rabbit's feet and not to other objects under similar conditions.
Superstitions like not walking under a ladder, not putting your shoes on the table, not putting an umbrella up indoors etc. I can see some point in, but rabbits feet, charms, crystals, lucky stones and the like are the beginnings of 'turning to the mysterious dark side', in my opinion. Can you imagine Jesus with a rabbits foot in his pocket, expecting it to save him from crucifixion?
Supersitions are mentioned in Scripture: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their sensuous (Commentary Fidei: 3. highly susceptible to influence through the senses) mind.” (Colossians 2:8, 18)
Reliance on amulets or charms for good fortune is like saying to God, "I don't have much confidence in your ability (or willingness) to provide for my needs, so I'd rather rely on this good-luck piece." Trying to have the church's blessing on the luck charm would be tantamount to getting the priest's 'stamp of approval' on one's lack of faith. Do we pray "Give us this day our daily bread" (that is, God please meet our needs as they arise) and then assume that God won't do as we have asked? That's weak faith. I wrote a more detailed reply about such practices in this thread: What is the Anglican view on "Christian sorcery and spellcraft"? In particular Bibliomancy?
Indeed, there is actuslly a rebuke if you add fo the Blood of Christ, which is exactly ehat trusting in rabbit’s feet or amulets is doing. Here is the rebuke: “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29) Granted this is in context to someone who outrigjt rejects the gospel of grace (sed verse 28), but I argue those trusting amulets, magic, and dead saints are commitomg Heb. 10:29 in a more subtle and protracted state. They are insulting God’s Grace by adding to Jesus’ blood and His grace objects fo protect of cleanse.
How is the sacrament of unction different from new age healing? I am not saying it is evil, I just want to know how we should explain the distinction to people who inquire about it.
In the case of Unction it is commanded by the Apostles (James 5:14), and it draws our faith to Jesus Christ the Healer, fixing our eyes on our Lord (Hebrews 12:2). New Age healing draws the attention to the Universe and or the person as a healer. The Apostle tells us to test the spirits: “1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:1-6) The Church must test prophecies and becin order: “26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. 29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh (Judge) carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.” (1 Corinthians 14:26-32)
Holy unction is 'recommended' by Apostolic authority, according to scripture. That is our reason for employing it in the church. But has anyone noticed the anomaly here? : "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets". If women were forbidden to speak, how could they possbly prophesy, and if they cannot prophesy, how can the word all be used in any logical sense? Particularly when the same author in the same letter has already said this: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." 1 Cor.11:4-6. So women at Corinth certainly were 'praying and prophesying' (i.e. expositing, explaining and preaching), but some with their heads uncovered. It is the uncovering of the women's heads that is condemned by whoever wrote this, not the prophesying. If the women indeed were permitted, with covered head, to pray and prophesy, then the word all would be logically appropriate here, but if women, (at least half the congregation), were actually required to remain silent at all times then all is an inappropriate choice of word here if it is to be taken as being truly 'inspired'. All the men only, would still not be all the prophets present. So logically speaking, all prophets could not then "speak in turn", unless the women were also permitted to speak. .
To the women cannot speak, in seminary and in older Bible translations you learn that it says “let not the women speak,” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, cross ref. 1 Timothy 2:12) it meant “let not the pythonness speak.” In certain churches, there where men who were going to the women as oracles who were harlots when they were pagans, and then when they became Hellenistic Christians they kept up the practice (hence Romans Chapters 1-6), and hence the Revelation passage, “Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.” (Revelation 2:20). Elsewhere women are commended and can prophecy and teach and be disciples: “Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy and prophesied.” (Acts 21:8-9) Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Him (Jesus) because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” (John 4:39) “Please give my greetings to our brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church that meets in her house.” (Colossians 4:-5) “Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow.” (Acts 18:18) The teacher or leader was always named first, notice its Priscilla the wife is listed first. “Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.” (Romans 16:13) “And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching.” (Luke 10:39). Mary, Martha was being trsined as a disicple by Jesus. To “sit at a Rabbi’s feet meant to learn and be trained as a disicple.” “Don't we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other apostles and the Lord's brothers do, and as Peter does?” (1 Corinthians 9:5) At the cross most of the disciples were women, save for John the Apostle: “Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved (John) standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, b here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.” (John 19:25-27) It was the women of Galilee that funded Jesus’ ministry: “Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's business manager; Susanna; and These women were contributing from their own resources and minstering to support Jesus and his disciples.” (Luke 8:3 NLT and Berean Literal Bible)