Mary -quite contrary

"A document called Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ, published yesterday in Seattle and to be released in London on Thursday, declares: 'We do not consider the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us as communion dividing ... we believe that there is no continuing theological reason for ecclesiastical division on these matters.'"
Now I happen to agree that the practice is not, for me, one that is communion dividing. I accept that there is a case -even one that has some scriptural and good theological foundation- for asking MAry and other dead saints to pray for us. I am happy to let people who think it okay to get on with it. I respect their bona fides. I just happen to disagree that the case for doing it is strong enough to make it a de fide matter. And that is my concern. I will happpily be in a church where any positon that is not clearly repugnant to scripture can be accepted. So, for example, I would like to see a church polity that makes room for paedobaptist and pisteuobaptist since both have a good scriptural/theological basis. Similarly with asking dead saints for their prayers.

What I fear is that we could end up with a situation where the right to dissent is constained. I am concerned that the RC position is that it is necessary for salvation to believe in asking dead saints for their intercession.

My doubts about it revolve around several points. One is that it is not something that we see practiced in the NT. It may be possible to argue that it is an implication of all being alive in Christ and death having been conquered by Christ, however, even that set of arguments fails to demonstrate that there really is a mechanism by which our prayers reach dead saints. When we ask living saints for their prayers we talk to them and use air molecules, ears and the paraphenalia of brains. We don't just speak into thin air and hope our friend hears even though they are not physically present, and even though we are both 'in Christ'. Similarly the doctrine allowing dead saints to be asked for their prayers presumes that they are able to attend to us, there is a kind of ubiquity implied which I feel raises all sorts of issues. Then there is the issue of time. There is a particular position on the nature of time in relation to eternity probably implied which I am unconvinced makes sense. There is also a st of implications about the state of those who have fallen asleep in Christ and await the Resurrection; that they are conscious, that they are able to watch or hear us; that they can simultaneously hear a number of us, and that their relationship with God is such that it might be possible that their prayers would make a significant difference. All of thiese things are still the subject of debate, in my book, and should not be dogmatically defined.
I suspect that disembodied humans are not in a state to offer their prayer support and that the implied claims for thier superhuman abilities of observation are nonsensical. I hope that ARCIC leaves room for people like me to say that we respect others' belief but we cannot share them and would be unhappy to support institutions that only allowed those views to be promulgated.
Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Anglican theologians accept Catholic devotion to Mary: