H
hermit
Guest
Can someone explain the difference between Anglican and Episcopal. Some use the terms interchangeably, however, I believe that Anglican is an offshoot of Episcopalian.
- Status
K
katherine2
Guest
Generally ther term “Anglican Communion” is used to indicate the world wide communion of churches of that tradition. “Episcopal” is the name Anglican churches in certain countries (USA, Scotland, etc) use for themselves.
J
JGC
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually, “Episcopalian” is a subset of “Anglican.” The Scottish and U.S. branches of the Anglican communion refer to themselves (for historical reasons) as “Episcopal” rather than “Anglican.” But here’s where it gets tricky. Various groups who split away from ECUSA refer to themselves as “Anglican” to distinguish themselves from the Episcopal Church, although it belongs to the Anglican Communion and they do not (the partial exception to this is the “Anglican Mission in America,” which is under the supervision of Anglican-Communion bishops, principally the Archbishop of Rwanda, but is not recognized by the Communion as a whole).
In other words, “Anglican” is a broader term, and “Episcopalian” refers to specific organizations within the Anglican Communion. But hermit is right that split-off groups use the term “Anglican,” as a way of saying, “we are still part of the Anglican tradition.” Indeed, such “Continuing Anglicans” would argue that they have preserved far more of the Anglican tradition than has ECUSA and hence have a better right to be called Anglican.
In Christ,
Edwin
In other words, “Anglican” is a broader term, and “Episcopalian” refers to specific organizations within the Anglican Communion. But hermit is right that split-off groups use the term “Anglican,” as a way of saying, “we are still part of the Anglican tradition.” Indeed, such “Continuing Anglicans” would argue that they have preserved far more of the Anglican tradition than has ECUSA and hence have a better right to be called Anglican.
In Christ,
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
“Indeed, such “Continuing Anglicans” would argue that they have preserved far more of the Anglican tradition than has ECUSA and hence have a better right to be called Anglican.”
Yep.
GKC
posterus traditus Anglicanus
Yep.
GKC
posterus traditus Anglicanus
S
Sherlock
Guest
I had always understood that, in the US, “Episcopalian” came into use during the Revolutionary War, as a way of rejecting the obvious “English-ness” of the term “Anglican”. That may not be correct, though, and maybe someone else here who is better versed in the history of the Episcopalians can set me straight.
G
GKC
Guest
Correct, in essence, though the term that “Episcopal” replaced (in 1780, originally) was not “Anglican”, but “Church of England”. Which makes the point even more.
GKC
M
Maccabees
Guest
GKC said:
I think the ECUSA should just rename themsleves the apostate, heterodox church formerly in communion with the Anglican Church.
They are a big embarassment to the rest of the Anglican Communion which attemtps to keep to Tradtional Christiantiy as they know it.
I am afraid your right most decent Anglican churches are breakaway churches from the Episcopal church whose leadership has gone so far away from traditional christianity the african anglican churches want nothing to do with them.
I have visited some tradtional anglican churches that broke away.
Very catholic more so than the Norvos Ordo mass we have today.
The mass is a tweener between what catholics use to have and what we have today. I respect those churches quite a lot. But alas I chose the catholic church as in my mind Christ Church would be much more than small offshoot started in the 1970’s due to the apostacy of the communion it came from.
In a way visiting this Anglican church led me to catholcism. It was so much more than the seeker friendly evangelical churches I visited. Traditional Anglicans know how to worship I tell you that. Hopefully they will rejoin communion with Rome one day. The obstacles are small I think with these break away churches.
The Catholic Church will never be in communion with the Episcopal church in her current apostacy they are barely christian now adays.
M
mean_owen
Guest
Of course, if you’re going to talk that way, you might as well say “the apostate, heterodox church formerly in communion with the Anglican Church, another apostate, heterodox Church.”I think the ECUSA should just rename themsleves the apostate, heterodox church formerly in communion with the Anglican Church.
As a former Catholic, I’ve not been able to supress a few giggles about the more conservative Episcopalians or Anglicans from other parts of the communion referring to the recent “apostasy” of the ECUSA. Maybe they could say “you’re more apostate than we are”?
J
JacobP
Guest
Ha ha ha! Okay, if Episcopal adherents or Anglicans of any kind tried to go further back to their traditional roots, they STILL wouldn’t have sound doctrine. Troubled Anglicans, I am sorry to inform you that the Anglican church has always been apostate, and reforming the Anglican church would not be like reforming the Catholic church, because there is no biblical tradition to refer back to.
I agree that your church services are fun, but there is nothing biblical about humming and repeating, or spreading “holy water” everywhere.
Matthew 6:7 “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words."
And if I am truly addressing Anglicans, once I start babbling I might as well finish. I, personally, believe that the Lord’s Prayer, also found in Matthew 6, is more of a guideline.
8 "So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
9 “Pray, then, in this way:
It seems to me that Jesus was making a point that you should pray humbly and meaningfully. I am not, however, against using the Lord’s Prayer, it just holds a different significance for me.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
We are a bit too gratious to air our laundry in public but you know the embarrassment may traverse both ways. We consider ourselves quite orthodox but of course everyone considers themselves orthodox. The fact that we have differences with our Anglican brothers and sisters is a sadness to us, but we would never stoop to refer to them as “our embarrassment.” Nor would we refer to them as heterodox. This seems to delight some few RC’s no end. I’m not sure why.I think the ECUSA should just rename themsleves the apostate, heterodox church formerly in communion with the Anglican Church.
They are a big embarassment to the rest of the Anglican Communion which attemtps to keep to Tradtional Christiantiy as they know it.
I am afraid your right most decent Anglican churches are breakaway churches from the Episcopal church whose leadership has gone so far away from traditional christianity the african anglican churches want nothing to do with them.
I have visited some tradtional anglican churches that broke away.
Very catholic more so than the Norvos Ordo mass we have today.
The mass is a tweener between what catholics use to have and what we have today. I respect those churches quite a lot. But alas I chose the catholic church as in my mind Christ Church would be much more than small offshoot started in the 1970’s due to the apostacy of the communion it came from.
In a way visiting this Anglican church led me to catholcism. It was so much more than the seeker friendly evangelical churches I visited. Traditional Anglicans know how to worship I tell you that. Hopefully they will rejoin communion with Rome one day. The obstacles are small I think with these break away churches.
The Catholic Church will never be in communion with the Episcopal church in her current apostacy they are barely christian now adays.
But your abject dislike of us is understood. While I as an Episcopalian disagree with the RCC on many issues, I would never suggest that she was any of the distasteful things you attribute so happily to my faith.
We believe deeply and prayerfully that we are following Jesus. That you do not agree is understood. That you continue to revile us in the language you choose is unfortunate and uncharitable.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
For a first time poster, you sure don’t mince words. I might suggest that what you think you know about the Episcopal church is vastly exceeded by what you don’t know. I have no idea what your “humming” reference is to. And we don’t sprinkle holy water. Neither are our services “fun” but actually very reverent, and worshipful. Your opinons on the Lord’s Prayer are duly noted and will be sent to our Bishop. I’m sure he is waiting for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Just exactly who are you again?
E
Eleve
Guest
Holy thread necromancy, Batman!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The Episcopalians never refer to the conservative Anglicans as “our embarrassment” indeed. They just sue the pants off of Anglicans and try to take away their church property and leave them out in the cold. Yeah, real brotherly and charitable! Sad to imagine that some of these conservatives are going to lose their parish halls only to have those halls filled with gay marriages, yoga classes, divorce ceremonies, and carbon footprint town hall meetings…
In the Diocese of San Joaquin, Bishop Schofield told any parish that didn’t agree with the diocese’s decision to leave the TEC that they were free to continue to stay with TEC with no hard feelings or punishment, litigation, or disagreement. Schofield, being the honorable and classy man that he is, kept his promise. Now the TEC is suing the pants off every parish and the SJ Diocese trying to take away church property and even schools. Now that’s the meaning of charity! It’s so hilarious to read the liberal Episcopalians ranting about charity, kindness, openness and their favorite–“tolerance” (aka gay rights agenda) and yet in their tolerance and charity they use litigation to run people into the ground…nice!
In the Diocese of San Joaquin, Bishop Schofield told any parish that didn’t agree with the diocese’s decision to leave the TEC that they were free to continue to stay with TEC with no hard feelings or punishment, litigation, or disagreement. Schofield, being the honorable and classy man that he is, kept his promise. Now the TEC is suing the pants off every parish and the SJ Diocese trying to take away church property and even schools. Now that’s the meaning of charity! It’s so hilarious to read the liberal Episcopalians ranting about charity, kindness, openness and their favorite–“tolerance” (aka gay rights agenda) and yet in their tolerance and charity they use litigation to run people into the ground…nice!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
That is priceless!!
:thumbsup: This thread really came back from the dead!!
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
Very nice. You manage to insult not just Anglicans but Catholics and anyone else of a liturgical tradition. On top of that you do not seem to really have any grasp of the subject.
Using your logic Jesus is apostate as well since he MOST certainly practiced liturgical worship. This may come as a shock but Jesus was…Jewish. He worshiped in a Jewish context and that means…liturgy. The issue of repetitive prayers has less to do with the use of written prayer since it is USED in the bible and more to do with intent and heart of the believer.
Take the time to read Anglican or Catholic liturgy sometime and if you search you will discover the words and prayers are from the Bible.
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Nothing like making a loud and ignorant entrance!
As you seem to be so hostile to liturgical worship, you must think your protestant church does it like the first century church. I use to hear that all the time as a Baptist. Facts are against you.
If you follow Church history back, you will see the Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and other liturgical Churches worship more in line with how Jesus Christ worshiped. As already pointed out, Jesus was a Jew who kept the laws and ritual of the Jews in worship, etc. The first Christians worshiped in Temple and Synagogue until around 70 AD. At times they had to leave due to persecutions of the Jews or Romans, they continued to return unitl 70 AD. Reading the early Church Fathers shows the early church was liturgical. And the majority of the Church is still liturgical. Only small sections of protestantism is non-liturgical, or so they think.
Scholarship has show how the present day liturgies evolved from the Jewish liturgy. Some liturgical Christians I know have gone to Jewish liturgies and have commented to me on how parts were very familiar to them.
As to humming…not in any Anglican or Roman Catholic Churches I have been in. PNCC or Old Catholic I have not been in so I can not say. I have only found (humming) in certain protestant churches. Unless you are talking about singing. Then yes, unfortunately to many Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants etal do not sing to the glory of God, just stand or sit in the pew. So maybe they are humming?
Repeating prayers…first they are not vain so there is not a prohibition from Jesus. If so, Jesus would told St John in the Revelation the Angels and Elders were wrong. The Angels in Rev 4:8 do not rest day or night saying: Holy Holy Holy Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come. Since they do not stop, according to Scripture are the Angels violating the word of Jesus Christ? Or do you have a misunderstanding of what Jesus is saying. I would say you are in error, as God would not and could not allow error or sin to enter Heaven.
So Jesus came to give us guidelines? The Lord’s Prayer is uttered every communion or prayer service, not because it is a guideline. But that is the way Christ taught us to pray.
Not to say only written prayers are used outside service. Though the Church through the centuries has written many, many thousands of beautiful prayers.
I agree our prayers should be meaniful and humble, whether pre-formed or “off the cuff”.
Though when taught to pray off the cuff while growing up baptist, I was give a basic outline of how the prayer should go and how it should end. You as have I have heard many “off the cuff prayers” that were just as empty and vain as those Jesus referred.
I have never been to a “fun” liturgical service. “Fun” non-liturgical yep. I have never in a liturgical Church watched a drama that was theological shallow pass for a worship service.
Never watch interpretative dance, films, praise bands only playing, comedy teams, puppet shows etc etc etc etc. They have had prayer, reverance, sacraments, songs of praise etc. I have only in protestant, Baptist to be exact, seen teenagers given the pulpit to preach and been horrified at what was said! I have never had a priest ask me if I have had “fun” in Mass. At times I do not, when God reveals my sin to me. My kids and I have been asked upon leaving protestant, Baptist and Church of God, churches if we had “fun” during worship. When we say no, we get some strange looks.
I witnessed in one non liturgical service a commuion, or Lords Supper, where the communion music was by Kansas, “Dust in the Wind.”
While a great song, does not belong in a church setting. Fanny Crosby was probably spinning in her grave. A few years ago while still a baptist I witnessed a “moshpit” (hopfully spelled correctly) at a Sunday evening service. The teen age praise rock band lead the service. Nice rock concert, after the second song most of the young people rushed the platform and created the mosh pit. Totally out of control. The pastor said it was a moving of the spirit. Wonder which one?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I have learned enough about you gurney to understand your deep anger and pain at all things liberal within the Episcopal church. In my own church, we have a few conservative members. We do are very best to be inclusive of their feelings and beliefs. And on par, I think we succeed. Just yesterday, one of the most conservative members went out of his way to give me a hug during the “peace”. I had given the legal explanation of the recent same-sex Iowa supreme court case at a forum he attended and so he well knows my position.The Episcopalians never refer to the conservative Anglicans as “our embarrassment” indeed. They just sue the pants off of Anglicans and try to take away their church property and leave them out in the cold. Yeah, real brotherly and charitable! Sad to imagine that some of these conservatives are going to lose their parish halls only to have those halls filled with gay marriages, yoga classes, divorce ceremonies, and carbon footprint town hall meetings…
In the Diocese of San Joaquin, Bishop Schofield told any parish that didn’t agree with the diocese’s decision to leave the TEC that they were free to continue to stay with TEC with no hard feelings or punishment, litigation, or disagreement. Schofield, being the honorable and classy man that he is, kept his promise. Now the TEC is suing the pants off every parish and the SJ Diocese trying to take away church property and even schools. Now that’s the meaning of charity! It’s so hilarious to read the liberal Episcopalians ranting about charity, kindness, openness and their favorite–“tolerance” (aka gay rights agenda) and yet in their tolerance and charity they use litigation to run people into the ground…nice!
I understand that those conservative Episcopalians feel that their church is being taken from them, and obviously your opinions at last drove you to the RCC as your only recourse. You are still in great pain over this, and that is understandable. Spending years in a parish, with friends and family and having to leave all that over doctrine differences is indeed painful.
Of course the existing Church sees the matter of Episcopal property much different than you would, and it seems the courts where these matters unfortunately end up, does as well for the most part. It is sad all around and I would be the first to say that.
You continue to blame all liberals in the church and in some sense I guess I can understand. But it really is not fair is it? I had nothing to do with what happened in your particular parish, nor did thousands of other Episcopalians. It is sad when we differ on doctrine and become hateful to each other as a consequence.
I don’t think that it is quite fair to conclude that because TEC chooses to try to retain that which it believes belongs to it, i.e. property held in the name of the church, that that makes them hypocrites as you have discribed. Just because they aren’t doing as you would wish doesn’t make tolerance, charity, forgiveness, and compassion dirty words. I thought they were the words of Jesus, but they seem labeled to liberals now. I think we are quite happy to accept them.
J
JacobP
Guest
I’m going to have to answer this, because I did jump into the topic without actual need. I apologize, as I was not meaning to be hostile. I mostly just thought that the previous post was a good joke.
I’m sure that your knowledge of the Episcopal church, being Episcopal, does exceed mine. I can say that I do have a bit of first-hand experience with Episcopalians though. I attend a Eucharist service every month, and I’ve also gone for feast day services. But yes, I’d have to agree that I don’t know a great deal. My comments are derived solely from my experiences with the church, but these experiences may or may not reflect common Episcopal practices and teachings.
As far as the Lord’s Prayer, I’d have to say that, having no doctrinal knowledge with which to make any accusation, I did not mean to assault anyone’s beliefs, but rather to introduce my bit on that, in the spirit of friendly conversation. I am very interested in context, and that would be about it. I find new things in scripture all of the time, even if it’s a verse that I’ve repeated countless times, and I merely wish to share them with people. I don’t like using scripture to hurt people, and I’m certainly not trying to hurt anyone here.
The “humming” part was in poor taste, and I apologize. That and when I said that the services were “fun” were my rough, inarticulate ways of saying that I don’t agree with some of the things that the priests do in the church, but I probably wouldn’t bother mentioning it if I had been raised with these ritualized blessings and prayers, it just seems amusing to someone who doesn’t have that background. But my mother, for instance, was raised Catholic, so she would be quite used to that kind of service, and probably wouldn’t appreciate me “getting kicks” from it.
Finally, I know for a fact that Episcopalians use Holy Water for many purposes, including baptism, during which they “sprinkle” it. And who am I? This was probably a rhetorical question, but I am a nobody. I did not mean to imply that I had any kind of religious authority. I’m just another sinner, like all of you, who reads, prays, listens, and thinks, and apparently entered a board with more hostility than I had expected. That being said, it probably wasn’t my place to post here, having no authoritative knowledge on the original topic that was being discussed.
I apologize for being too noisy and zealous.
J
JacobP
Guest
I already gave my longer response in my last post, so I’m just going to respond to this.
I think that written prayers have a purpose. How ignorant would I have to be to disagree? I might have to deny the entire book of Psalms!
And I do agree that the church has written beautiful prayers. I wasn’t making assault on your doctrine, I was just making a completely random point about the Lord’s Prayer, relevant only because of the context of the other verse.As I said, I don’t think that the Lord’s Prayer shouldn’t be used, I just take different ideas from the passage.
“Pray, then, in this way:
‘Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Praise his name. Showing respect and reverence.
10 ‘Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
Acknowledging the Father’s power and your weakness.
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 ‘Give us this day our daily bread.
12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Good petitions.
13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Praying for guidance.
Sounds like a good prayer! Now, how many prayers can you think of saying from your heart with the humility and conciseness of the Lord’s Prayer? That’s the way that I think of it as a guideline.
- Status