The church of Ireland

Lucy211

What misgivings might people have about the church of Ireland?

philologos

Lucy211: How about giving us your view on it first, and then other people might share what they think of the Church of Ireland. As an adherent of said church, I'm going to be very biased so please excuse me

I think the church is very transparent about our beliefs, you can look at the Book of Common Prayer (2004) which is based on the Church of England original during the English Reformation, and see the Articles of Religion online.


If you have doubts and apprehensions, you should really consider what the Church of Ireland actually advocates first. This church like other Anglican churches considers itself to be via-media, a Reformed church with a Catholic heritage, although in reality the Church of Ireland is much more Reformed leaning due to the increased role of Catholicism in Ireland. In other countries such as the UK, and the USA, you have Anglo-Catholics, those who practice in a Catholic style, and do the Rosary and so on, but do not recognise the authority of the Pope.

If you have any questions feel free to leave them here.

Lucy211

thanks for your reply. One questions I would have is the fact that although you recognise Mary as the mother of Jesus, why do you not pray to her?

philologos

Lucy211: We believe that Mary was the mother of Christ, and a servant of God the Almighty, however Mary to us is not the Queen of Heaven, nor is Mary born sinless. There is no reason in the Bible to advocate this.

As for prayer to the Lord alone. What I don't understand is the apparent need of people to pray to Mary. Jesus Christ bridged the bridge between man and God, that was His purpose for us. I honour Mary for what she did, and for her role on earth. However I don't understand the purpose why I should pray to her, when I can pray to the Father alone as described in Matthew 6.

homer911

Perhaps this thread should be retitled?

Mary was the instrument of God and therefore blessed among women. She was not divine, she was not to our knowledge immaculately conceived. She died just like anybody else. As a former CoI member/former independent evangelical church member and now a Christian who happens to worship in the Presbyterian tradition, I'd be more inclined to turn the question on its head and ask why Roman Catholics do pray to Mary?

No intention of flaming or starting an argument here, just sharing my thoughts..

I'd say all Protestant Churches would share the common attitude of not praying to anyone other than God - Father, Son or Holy Spirit

ynotdu

Religion is such a minefield I try to avoid discussion of any particulor faith.I was raised catholic but have discarded it in favour of searching for something/anything that will inspire me.IMO if their is a god we all belong to that entity,just various groups all looking for the same thing.

so why have i posted?well because of the mention of mary.(I am male btw so its not like a feminest thing,more a human respect thing)

why does it emphasise so much that Mary conceived without sin(the natural act of sex is sin)

also in a very hurtful way catholics born out of wedlock were described as illegitamite/Bastard children! how much more unholy or unchristian or cruel could people be?

It was all about inheritance rights and sweeping peoples unintended parenting of children under the carpet and led to such suffering laundrys etc,but perhaps to elaborate on all that would be going way off topic.

PDN

ynotdu wrote: »

why does it emphasise so much that Mary conceived without sin(the natural act of sex is sin)

No, the point of the virgin birth is nothing to do with the sexual act being in any way sinful. the teaching of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is that sex is a gift from God and wonderful in its proper context of marriage.

The point of the vigin birth is much more to do with original sin being hereditary - passed from father to children. Both Protestants and Catholics historically believe in the virgin birth and that so Jesus could not inherit sin from His Father.

As a happily married man I believe that sex is one of God's best ideas!

ynotdu

PDN wrote: »

No, the point of the virgin birth is nothing to do with the sexual act being in any way sinful. the teaching of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is that sex is a gift from God and wonderful in its proper context of marriage.

The point of the vigin birth is much more to do with original sin being hereditary - passed from father to children. Both Protestants and Catholics historically believe in the virgin birth and that so Jesus could not inherit sin from His Father.

As a happily married man I believe that sex is one of God's best ideas!

lol at your beliefe that sex is one of gods best ideas,dont know of any religion that disagree,s with that!:D

I wont comment about the comment that sex in its proper context i.e marridge as we would disagree.

Have to comment on original sin comment though as to follow the logic of what you say it means the creator is a sinner?otherwise jesus could not have inherited original sin from his father?

philologos

ynotdu: The creator is sinless, and if original sin (or the sinful nature, not actually a sin itself) is passed from father to son, if Jesus' father was sinless, therefore Jesus was also sinless.

Makes sense to me anyway.

ynotdu

Jakkass wrote: »

ynotdu: The creator is sinless, and if original sin (or the sinful nature, not actually a sin itself) is passed from father to son, if Jesus' father was sinless, therefore Jesus was also sinless.

Makes sense to me anyway.

worse thing about religion is the more we think about it the less sense it makes:(

wolfsbane

Lucy211 wrote: »

What misgivings might people have about the church of Ireland?

Minor misgivings:
1. It is not congregational in government.
2. It is paedobaptist.

Major misgivings:
1. A majority of its churches and leaders have departed from the faith, no longer holding to things like the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
2. It is controlled by this majority.

However, I have many personal friends who continue to hold fast to the faith while remaining in the system. I have also preached in one of their services.

Seaneh

Lucy211 wrote: »

thanks for your reply. One questions I would have is the fact that although you recognise Mary as the mother of Jesus, why do you not pray to her?

For the same reason we Don't pray to Saints. We don't believe that we have to.

Jesus died so that we could have a relationship with God, if we accept christs sacrafice then we have no reason to need another party to interject on our part.

It's like having your friends mobile phone number which is always available, whenever you need/want and then phoning his P.A. everytime you want to give him a message.

I also believe that in a way you are saying that you don't believe that God listens to your prayers or that he can't help you, which makes no sense, God is God!


Also, I'm not CoI but pretty much every non-catholic Church would see it this way.

Clemens

I think the official Roman Catholic teaching is that one shouln't pray to the Saints. The Saints are venerated and one can ask a Saint to intercede for oneself, but the prayer is in fact not directed to the Saint himself/herself.

Am I right?

I tried to find something about the task in the CCC but didn't find very much. I only took a quick look, but I couldn't find anything about prayer to the Saints, only about prayer to the Triune God.

Seaneh

But why would you need anybody to intercede?
It makes no sense.

Genghiz Cohen

Quick Question: Is sin only passed from father to child? Or does the mother have some involvment.

Fanny Cradock

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Quick Question: Is sin only passed from father to child? Or does the mother have some involvment.

It's commonly known that the children of single mothers are without sin.

I assume that you are talking about Exodus 34:7. I wouldn't have thought that this is a description of how sin is transmitted. Sin, it seems to me, is a personal act of rebellion against God and is apart from what you received from your father (though probably not entirely independent of it).

Genghiz Cohen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's commonly known that the children of single mothers are without sin.

Is that a throwback if the Virgin Birth?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I assume that you are talking about Exodus 34:7. I wouldn't have thought that this is a description of how sin is transmitted.

I'm not too well up on the Bible

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sin, it seems to me, is a personal act of rebellion against God and is apart from what you received from your father (though probably not entirely independent of it).

Yeah, I meant do you only receive (Original?) Sin from your father, and why not the mother?

Fanny Cradock

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Is that a throwback if the Virgin Birth?

That was a joke/ smart arsery on my part.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Yeah, I meant do you only receive (Original?) Sin from your father, and why not the mother?

Depends on who you are asking. I don't agree with teaching that we are born sinful. Rather, I believe that we knowingly choose to do sinful things at some stage in our lives.

PDN

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Yeah, I meant do you only receive (Original?) Sin from your father, and why not the mother?

Some Christians see a sinful nature as being passed from fathers to children. The New Testament only speaks about inheriting the sin of Adam, not of Eve. Personally I think such an interpretation is stretching it a bit.

Genghiz Cohen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That was a joke/ smart arsery on my part.

Completely over my head :D
What a fool I was to trust you! :P

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Depends on who you are asking. I don't agree with teaching that we are born sinful. Rather, I believe that we knowingly choose to do sinful things at some stage in our lives.

I was Baptised RCathloic, taught that we all had sin and if we died before Baptism were were damned to limo or some such.
really this line was the one that got me thinking.

PDN wrote:

The point of the vigin birth is much more to do with original sin being hereditary - passed from father to children.

bullpost

Lucy211 wrote: »

What misgivings might people have about the church of Ireland?

I'd say realistically that given our history there is a cultural element involved here.

I'd imagine that a major issue for a lot of Irish people would be the association the Church of Ireland has with the British Empire.

Fanny Cradock

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I was Baptised RCathloic, taught that we all had sin and if we died before Baptism were were damned to limo or some such.
really this line was the one that got me thinking.

The RC's here would be able to expand more on Original Sin and the requirement for baptism for salvation. As I don't subscribe to either view I'm not the best person to ask.

getz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The RC's here would be able to expand more on Original Sin and the requirement for baptism for salvation. As I don't subscribe to either view I'm not the best person to ask.

i dont know that much about the roman church ,but when i was at a recent christening the priest said i quote ,all babies are born without sin,if that is so why baptise them

PDN

getz wrote: »

i dont know that much about the roman church ,but when i was at a recent christening the priest said i quote ,all babies are born without sin,if that is so why baptise them

Generally you can divide most understandings of original sin into three categories (I'm outlining these in broad detail - so others may choose to add their own refinements on these):
a) The Calvinist version teaches that Adam's sin is transmitted and imputed to every human being. Therefore we are born already deemed guilty of Adam's sin.
b) The Arminian version teaches that we inherit an inherent bias towards sin from Adam. Therefore, although not guilty of Adam's sin, we will inevitably end up sinning and so be deemed guilty of our own sins.
c) The Catholic version seems to vary. Augustine taught something similar to the Calvinist view - and that would appear to be borne out by the idea of baptism washing away original sin. Some Catholic theologians appear to take the Arminian view (which would square with their abolition of limbo) - but in that case I don't see how baptism washes it away. After all, kids who have been baptised appear to be just as prone to commit sin as those who haven't!

BTW, I personally hold to the Arminian position on this matter.

Fanny Cradock

I'd go with B myself.

philologos

I'm stuck between A and B. I find some passages that seem to allude to A, and some passages that suggest B. I'm rather confused on the whole issue myself

getz

PDN wrote: »

Generally you can divide most understandings of original sin into three categories (I'm outlining these in broad detail - so others may choose to add their own refinements on these):
a) The Calvinist version teaches that Adam's sin is transmitted and imputed to every human being. Therefore we are born already deemed guilty of Adam's sin.
b) The Arminian version teaches that we inherit an inherent bias towards sin from Adam. Therefore, although not guilty of Adam's sin, we will inevitably end up sinning and so be deemed guilty of our own sins.
c) The Catholic version seems to vary. Augustine taught something similar to the Calvinist view - and that would appear to be borne out by the idea of baptism washing away original sin. Some Catholic theologians appear to take the Arminian view (which would square with their abolition of limbo) - but in that case I don't see how baptism washes it away. After all, kids who have been baptised appear to be just as prone to commit sin as those who haven't!

BTW, I personally hold to the Arminian position on this matter.

also the priest [catholic] said a strange thing ]quote that some people in the church believe that a halo [like pictures of saints] can be seen around a young babies head,--any thoughts on that?-with him being a catholic priest he may well have been still drunk