Replies

Well, Koloko, my brother, please do not be aggrieved at my comment but I am most definitely Anglican and I believe precisely that and always have. So do the vast majority of my fellow Anglo-Catholics, all deriving their commuion and orders from the historic and Apostolic Anglican Communion.

It is quite true that Anglicans have few feast days for the BVM, but you surely recognize that this is reaction against what was growing Mariolatry 500 years ago. Our Ordo Kalendar officially celebrates 'The Purification' (related to the custom of the churching of women after childbirth) and 'The Annunciation' as BCP feasts. We include a feast we name 'The Repose' in our Missals and Breviaries, which is the Anglican wording of 'The Assumption', but it is not a BCP feast. No other saint in the Anglican BCP Kalendar has more than one feast (we celebrate St. Paul on Jan 25th and St. Peter on Jun 29th).

The RC has since intensified the problem with the proclamation of the doctrine of the Imaaculate Conception. Now, I am quite clear that this was a growing belief, apparently stemming from French devotional practice around the prior turn of the millenium, but it is still utterly unScriptural and even damaging theologically, so we don't hold it.

There's issues on both ides, is what I'm saying here.

I am 100% for the proposition that Mary, daughter of Joachim and Anna, was conceived naturally, was selected by God, was visited by Gabriel and overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and gave literal birth to the Incarnate Son, Second Person (hupostasis) of the substance (ousia) of the Blessed Trinity. She was faithful where Eve was rebellious and stands as our greatest human example of womanly obedience and love and fear of God. That is what I, as an Anglican, believe as a matter of saving faith about the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I also hold the pious belief that she was Assumed into heaven and reigns there bodily, through the grace of her Son poured out through the Holy Spirit. I pray for her intercession in many matters.

It is worth noting that Anglicans are among the few Church bodies able and willing to distinguish between the words 'adoration' and 'veneration' and properly apply the two. There are many iconoclastic Anglicans, to be sure, but they are still not the majority, even among Anglicans who are willing and able to insist upon outright heresy (such as female or active homosexual ordination and degradation of the Persons to emanations and/or separate Gods) and glory in the schisms they participate in. I wouldn't agree or hold fellowship with the latter Anglicans.

Now, let me be clear. My Province is not in communion with those comprising the ACC and while we are proud of their current stand against ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada, many of them accept female ordination which to me speaks to viewing the pastoral ministry as a job rather than a vocation and a call from God. That is to say, if it's a job, then civil rights issues come into play and women can be hired. My own belief is that the ministry is a calling and a vocation clearly instituted by Jesus Christ for the purpose of guiding, reproving and ministering sacramentally to His flock. I suspect you might agree with my position on that.

In Christ and with every brotherly love to you,
Deacon Paul+