What is the Anglican Church's view of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Tom, May 30, 2017.

  1. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    As Anglicans, we may be free to believe things which are repugnant to the Word of God but it is wise not to do so. Nor does the church have authority to decree such things and ur Articles advise us against beliefs and practices with "no warrant of scripture".

    Since under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit both St Paul in his letter to the Romans and King Solomon in Ecclesiastes wrote all have sinned and none are righteous, stating that the Blessed Virgin Mary never committed sin and was without the stain of original sin common to everyone else is difficult if not impossible to square. The Roman Church relies not on scripture to do this but a story regarding the intricacies of her conception (which seems icky to even discuss such a private matter in relation to the Mother of God). I'm from a generation where folks didn't kiss and tell, I can't imagine the BVM's parents were more forthcoming than that. And even if they were, how would they know about this "miracle" being done? And if they didn't, how on earth would the Bishop of Rome know 1900 years later?

    The Articles are a guide to the discipline of the Anglican Church. Article 15, declares that Christ alone is without sin. I am inclined to agree
     
    Dave Kemp and PotterMcKinney like this.
  2. alphaomega

    alphaomega Active Member

    Posts:
    196
    Likes Received:
    200
    Country:
    usa
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I am inclined to believe in the EO view of Mother Mary, not a belief in Immaculate Conception, but she was "cleansed" from sin at the Annunciation. As the Holy of Holies was purified so as to contain the word of God, so much more the fulfillment of the Ark, Mary, who contained God Himself.
     
    Christina, Tom and Aidan like this.
  3. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    952
    Likes Received:
    603
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    We are all cleansed from sin after confession. Our Blessed Mother was so much more!
     
    alphaomega likes this.
  4. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    316
    Likes Received:
    200
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    So much more in what way? Functionally, I would certainly agree. Ontologically, I could not disagree more emphatically. And the Immaculate Conception can come dangerously close to the former and is often taken to meant such by too many.
     
  5. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    952
    Likes Received:
    603
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    As the theotokis, by definition she is free from all stain of sin
     
  6. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    What definition and from where does this definition come? How is the Theotokis free from all stain of sin?
     
  7. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    952
    Likes Received:
    603
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    Reason dictates so, the God bearer is free of all stain of sin
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  8. ACC congregant

    ACC congregant Member

    Posts:
    39
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country:
    USA
  9. ACC congregant

    ACC congregant Member

    Posts:
    39
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country:
    USA
    The same Roman Church that GAVE Holy Scripture to the world via the inspiration of the Holy Ghost as she alone had the power to do so by the authority granted to her by God Himself, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. By whose authority did Henry VIII and his bishops willingly sever the church to fit their agenda?
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  10. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    316
    Likes Received:
    200
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    I fail to see how. I am, of course, ignorant on the matter comparatively.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  11. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    575
    Likes Received:
    625
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I don't have a problem with the perpetual virginity of Mary. I am not convinced of the Immaculate Conception. I think it is largely a gloss of pseudapigraphical texts like the "Protoevangelium of James." And the whole reasoning is that Christ could not have dwelt in the presence of sin in his pre-infancy, which I don't see any particular philosophical need for. Now, I do find the concept of Mary's womb being "more spacious than the Heavens" (as the Orthodox say) a fascinating assessment of the incarnation.

    And then there is Assumption, which is another sticky issue. I know the APCK put(s) it on their Orko Kalendar. My jurisdiction is keen on Dormition, but I don't think it has actually been added to the Kalendar yet. And I don't have a problem with Dormition, but it is quite a different commemoration than Assumption.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  12. Mark

    Mark Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    224
    Likes Received:
    391
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Happy Anglican
    Rome did not give us Holy Scripture. The Church did, of which Rome is but one part. All the Councils of the Church were held in the East. Not one Council was held in Rome and none were called by Rome, especially alone.

    You should really read Church History. The Venerable Bebe uses Gildas Sapien as a source for his work on English Church history. Gildas Sapien, Rome and the Orthodox list the name of the first Bishop of Britain. His name was Aristobulus, listed as number 29, named Bishop of Britain. Search Romes archives and you will find the list. The historian Gildas tells us he, Aristobulus, arrived in Britain in the year 37. Few years before Rome had Peter or Paul.

    Rome asserted authority over the Anglican Church in the 600's, why there is an Arch Bishop in Canterbury and in York. The authority was never recognized by either the Royality or Church leaders. Why Rome support William the Conqueror (the Bastard)...he promised to return England to Papal rule. He did not.

    It was not Henry that "severed" the Church. Plus V on 25 Feb 1570 issued Regina in Excelsis in which he called Queen Elizabeth I a pretend Queen, told her subjects they should overthrow her, and some Catholic Nobility rebelled. Plus severed the Church as Rome severed the Church in 1054 and the temporary schism in 1378 as the Cardinals setup competing Popes.

    I am beginning to believe you do have not read history, the church fathers or theology. You are just parroting links from the internet that support your narrow view. You find a link, see a line you like and post it as the "gospel truth". Read the Apostolic fathers, not what someone tells you to believe. Read Church history, don't just go to the comfortable sites that support your narrow view point. Read Systematic Theology. Not just Roman Catholic, but read the Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant. That way you get a complete understanding of a subject. Read opposing authors, theologians etc. It will help you understand not only your position but opposing positions.

    Blessings

    Fr. Mark
     
  13. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    With all due respect friend, it was not Rome, but the Holy Ghost, speaking through the prophets and the apostles, that gave us the bible. I would direct you to Bishop Jewel's rebuke of papal pretentions in his Apology of the Church of England:

    "Furthermore, we believe that there be divers degrees of ministers in the Church; whereof some be deacons, some priests, some bishops; to whom is committed the office to instruct the people, and the whole charge and setting forth of religion. Yet notwithstanding, we say that there neither is, nor can be any one man, which may have the whole superiority in this universal state: for that Christ is ever present to assist His Church, and needeth not any man to supply His room, as His only heir to all His substance: and that there can be no one mortal creature, which is able to comprehend or conceive in his mind the universal Church, that is to wit, all the parts of the world, much less able rightly and duly to put them in order, and to govern them rightly and duly. For all the Apostles, as Cyprian saith, were of like power among themselves, and the rest were the same that Peter was, and that it said indifferently to them all, "feed ye;" indifferently to them all, "go into the whole world;" indifferently to them all, "teach ye the Gospel." And (as Hierom saith) all bishops wheresoever they be, be they at Rome, be they at Eugubium, be they at Constantinople, be they at Rhegium, be all of like pre-eminence, and of like priesthood. And, as Cyprian saith, there is but one bishopric, and a piece thereof is perfectly and wholly holden of every particular bishop. And according to the judgment of the Nicene Council, we say, that the Bishop of Rome hath no more jurisdiction over the Church of God than the rest of the patriarchs, either of Alexandria, or of Antiochia have. And as for the Bishop of Rome, who now calleth all matters before himself alone, except he do his duty as he ought to do, except he minister the Sacraments, except he instruct the people, except he warn them and teach them, we say that he ought not of right once to be called a bishop, or so much as an elder. For a bishop, as saith Augustine, is a name of labour, and not of honour: because he will have that man understand himself to be no bishop, which will seek to have pre-eminence, and not to profit others. And that neither the Pope, nor any other worldly creature can no more be head of the whole Church, or a bishop over all, than he can be the bridegroom, the light, the salvation, and life of the Church. For the privileges and names belong only to Christ, and be properly and only fit for him alone. And that no Bishop of Rome did ever suffer himself to be called by such a proud name before Phocas the emperor's time, who, as we know, by killing his own sovereign Maurice the emperor, did by a traitorous villainy aspire to the empire about the six hundredth and thirteenth year after Christ was born. Also the Council of Carthage did circumspectly provide, that no bishop should be called the highest bishop or chief priest. And therefore, sithence the Bishop of Rome will nowadays so be called, and challengeth unto himself an authority that is none of his; besides that he doth plainly contrary to the ancient councils, and contrary to the old fathers; we believe that he doth give unto himself, as it is written by his own companion Gregory, a presumptuous, a profane, a sacrilegious, and an antichristian name: that he is also the king of pride, that he is Lucifer, which preferreth himself before his brethren: that he hath forsaken the faith, and is the forerunner of Antichrist."

    Harsh I know. But the more I learn the more true it rings.
     
    Shane R likes this.
  14. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Friend, that's not evidence supporting you claim. Why does Reason dictate it? What has one got to do with the other?
     
  15. ACC congregant

    ACC congregant Member

    Posts:
    39
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country:
    USA

    The Proceedings of the Council of Ephesus

    The Third Ecumenical Council gathered in Ephesus in the year 431 and condemned the heretic Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius. Though none of its canons directly pertains to the main subject, the Acts of the Council were preserved, and they shed important light on the significance of the papacy in the eyes of the whole Church. For example, in Session III of the Council, the Pope's head representative stated the following:


    "Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Clestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time."

    http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...y/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html
     
  16. ACC congregant

    ACC congregant Member

    Posts:
    39
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country:
    USA
    From an ORTHODOX source. Enjoy.

    The Orthodox study The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992) by John Meyendorff states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period (before 325 AD) --

    "Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of 'church-with-priority' at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor...Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)....we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome...We know that Clement was 'president' of the Roman Church...." (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 124)

    "The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)

    "Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...." (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 128f, 133)

    "It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome -- 'presiding in agape,' according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance." (Schmemann from Meyendorff, page 163-164)

    Bold and italics are mine.
     
  17. alphaomega

    alphaomega Active Member

    Posts:
    196
    Likes Received:
    200
    Country:
    usa
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I know our Lord said "upon Peter I found my Church"(obvious paraphrase). Many believe that was fulfilled at Pentecost, also called the "birthday of the Church". Some of the statements made of Peter by Christ,"whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whoever's sin you forgive will be forgiven"etc was also said to the other Apostles(Mt18:18).
    This, to many, shows equal authority among the Apostles and Apostolic Succession. St.Peter had always been shown proper respect by being named"first among Equals", Peter as being first in carrying out the Great Commission and in establishing the Church in Jerusalem. Traditionally, the "government"of the Church is conciliar, it has built it checks and balances so no one bishop has all power. Actually St.Peter's first Holy See was established in Antioch,Syria. The gates of hell have not prevailed against it and it is still here despite all attacks against it throughout history and present. The Syriac Church is Orthodox. Peter was not infallible neither is the Pope, as no man is, thus the need for conciliary accountability. Paul had to correct Peter's wrongdoings as recorded in Galatians2:11-21. At the first Church council,at which Peter was present, it was James who gave the final decision on points of controversy. I have much respect for Roman Catholism, but the Pope is another bishop. It was Rome who separated their selves from the rest of Christianity not the Eastern Churches. This is what led to the much splintered Christian church of the world today.
     
    amazinglove, Christina and Tom like this.
  18. ACC congregant

    ACC congregant Member

    Posts:
    39
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country:
    USA
    6. England

    Persecution Laws of Irelandand England (1558-1760 A.D...)


    • "Elizabeth . . . is on record for the burning of two Dutch Anabaptists in 1575 . . . Henry VIII . . . had a score of them burned on one day in 1535." (45:143)
    Six Carthusian monks, a Bridgettine monk, and the Bishop of Rochester, St. John Fisher, were hanged or beheaded (the Bishop), some being disemboweled and drawn and quartered, in May and June, 1535, all for denying that Henry VIII was the Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England. (45:181-2)

    Hugh Latimer, an English "reformer", had, remarks Will Durant, "tarnished his eloquent career by approving the burning of Anabaptists and obstinate Franciscans under Henry VIII." (122:597)

    Queen Elizabeth, writes Philip Hughes:


    • " . . . enacted a definition of heresy that made life safe for all who believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation. But the statute left intact that heresy was, by common law, an offense punishable by death. An English Servetus could have been burned under Elizabeth, and, in fact, in 1589 she burned an Arian." (45:274)

      And as the Reformation in England progressed in age, its ingenious methods for bringing the knowledge of the true God to the people progressed likewise. Some of the subjects chosen for inducting progressed likewise. Some of the subjects chosen for inducting of religion into, "were burned before a slow fire; some were put on the rack and tortured to death; whilst others, like Ambrose Cahill and James O’Reilly, were not only slain with the greatest cruelty, but their inanimate bodies were torn into fragments, and scattered before the wind." The fate of the gentle and saintly Archbishop Plunkett is only too well known: "His speech ended and the cap drawn over his eyes, Oliver Plunkett again recommended his happy soul, with raptures of devotion into the hands of Jesus, his Saviour, for whose sake he died—till the cart was drawn from under him. Thus then he hung betwixt Heaven and earth, an open sacrifice to God for innocence and religion; and as soon as he expired the executioner ripped his body open and pulled out his heart and bowels, and threw them in the fire already kindled near the gallows for that purpose"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2017
  19. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    316
    Likes Received:
    200
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    I don't see the point that you make here.
     
    alphaomega likes this.
  20. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    I don't either. High treason was punishable for men by hanging, drawing and quartering and for women was drawing and burning. Petty treason was punished by hanging and drawing without quartering.This codified in the Treason Acy as early as 1351. All traitors to the crown were subject to this, no matter their religious scruples. It may be brutal by todays standards but it lawful at the time and certainly not out of the norm of the other nations of the time.

    Certainly Catholics of the time were no less guilty of atrocities.
     
    Tom and alphaomega like this.