Episcopalian

[ADiosgracias]

Can someone tell me what are the main differences between Catholic and Episcopalian. I know about the authority of the Pope, married priest, women priest and they don’t pray to saints asking for intercession. But what about the consecration? Have they (the Ep.) the real presence of the Lord?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Episcopalians are the American version of Anglicans (Church of England). In America, you have “high church” and “low church.” High church Episcopalians may do many things associated with traditional Catholicism (incense, bells, Stations of the Cross,and such). There are, of course, “middle church” folk who take some of both.

There is no “official” doctrine for any Anglican church besides the Nicene Creed (which they accept, usually with the filioque). The theologian Francis Hall is regarded by many to accurately define Anglican doctrine, but that’s just an opinion (Hall is seen by some as the Anglican version of Ludwig Ott). Anyone is free to disagree with Hall. He will be considered more authoritative among “high Church” folk. FWIW, Hall’s ten-volume work is about 95% Catholic.

Of course, they accept the Bible (and many traditional Anglicans accept the WHOLE Bible - you can buy the KJV with all the books. King James II was Anglican, and his original translation was complete). But they have no authoritative means of interpreting it.

Many Anglicans have the idea of “real presence” in their Eucharist, but it is usually expressed in the form of receptionism (if you believe it’s the Body and Blood, then it is; this is a heresy in Catholicism).

Anglicans claim to have valid Apostolic succession. The Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of their orders because for a long while (more than 100 years) their ordination rite was defective in form (and probably intent). By the time they fixed the problem, all of their Apostolically-ordained Bishops were dead. Thus, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of any Anglican sacraments except Baptism.

 

[ADiosgracias]

“Thus, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of any Anglican sacraments except Baptism.”
So Episcopalians Priest can’t consecrate?

 

[InspiritCarol]

Can someone tell me what are the main differences between Catholic and Episcopalian. I know about the authority of the Pope, married priest, women priest and they don’t pray to saints asking for intercession. But what about the consecration? Have they (the Ep.) the real presence of the Lord?

They believe they do. And I, by no means, am an authority in this matter; but it seems to me that this would fall under the realm of “invincible ignorance” … at least for most.

Meaning that God *may *(again NOT an authority here) allow for real presence despite the horrible problems surrounding the Episcopal seperation from the church founded by Christ.

Did I mention that I’m not in any way an authority in this matter?

Now - the invincible becomes vincible through places like this site.

 

[SonSearcher]

Can someone tell me what are the main differences between Catholic and Episcopalian. I know about the authority of the Pope, married priest, women priest and they don’t pray to saints asking for intercession. But what about the consecration? Have they (the Ep.) the real presence of the Lord?

I consider them the anything goes folks. You like Mary? Go ahead do it up. You like praying for intercession? Go ahead do it up too! You wanna be a priest but you are married, gay, a woman or all of the above? Go for it!

I have in the past gone to services while I was discerning or better …considering which church… I mainly enjoyed the liturgical ones, even the United Methodists when they focused closely on a traditional service… But ho hum… I went with Catholicism, because it has a fullness of Truth that is unrivaled and unparalleled with other denoms. There is a boldness a certain edge of your seat radicalism, a city on a hill, lamp not hidden in a basket character to Catholicism.

Not that this thread was about that sorry!

 

[GKC]

Episcopalians are the American version of Anglicans (Church of England). In America, you have “high church” and “low church.” High church Episcopalians may do many things associated with traditional Catholicism (incense, bells, Stations of the Cross,and such). There are, of course, “middle church” folk who take some of both.

There is no “official” doctrine for any Anglican church besides the Nicene Creed (which they accept, usually with the filioque). The theologian Francis Hall is regarded by many to accurately define Anglican doctrine, but that’s just an opinion (Hall is seen by some as the Anglican version of Ludwig Ott). Anyone is free to disagree with Hall. He will be considered more authoritative among “high Church” folk. FWIW, Hall’s ten-volume work is about 95% Catholic.

Of course, they accept the Bible (and many traditional Anglicans accept the WHOLE Bible - you can buy the KJV with all the books. King James II was Anglican, and his original translation was complete). But they have no authoritative means of interpreting it.

Many Anglicans have the idea of “real presence” in their Eucharist, but it is usually expressed in the form of receptionism (if you believe it’s the Body and Blood, then it is; this is a heresy in Catholicism).

Anglicans claim to have valid Apostolic succession. The Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of their orders because for a long while (more than 100 years) their ordination rite was defective in form (and probably intent). By the time they fixed the problem, all of their Apostolically-ordained Bishops were dead. Thus, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of any Anglican sacraments except Baptism.

Apostles Creed as authoritative as Nicene, amongst most,

I’ve never met a Receptionist in my Anglican circles. But Anglicans are a motley crew.

Few people outside Anglicanism (and few within) know of Hall’s 10 volumes.

GKC

 

[GKC]

“Thus, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of any Anglican sacraments except Baptism.”
So Episcopalians Priest can’t consecrate?

See Apostolicae Curae, 1896, over Leo XIII’s signature, for the logic behind that.

GKC

 

[George_Stegmeir]

The Epispocal Church broke away from the Anglican Church during the American Revolution over the King being the head of the church. They reconciled with the Anglican Church sometime in the 19th Century, but I don’t know how they resolved the issue of the King or Queen of England being the “Guardian of The Faith”.
The fact seems to be, that each individual Parish, not to say Bishop of the Episcopal Church goes its own way. There even was, in recent years a Bishop ( Bishop Spong) who denied the Divinity of Christ, and the virginity of Mary his mother, and wrote and puboished books on the subject. He was never censured by his fellow Bishops for this!
One always hears exagurated claims by Episcopaleans that they are close to reunion with the Catholic Church, but that is nothing but a pipe-dream. In fact, because of their consecrating women and overtly practicing gay men and women as Bishops, they have come dangerously close to causing a schism amongst the various parts of the International Anglican Church,
This, plus their espousal of gay marriage, negates any possibility of reunion with the Chruch of Rome. In fact, it was because of the dissention within the Anglican Church caused by the Episcopal Church that led Pope Benedict XVI to allow whole congregations of Anglicans to reune intact with the Catholic Church.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

“Thus, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of any Anglican sacraments except Baptism.”
So Episcopalians Priest can’t consecrate?

No they can not. You are as much an episcopalian “priest” as any protestant “minister” in any man made protestant religion.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So Episcopalians Priest can’t consecrate?

Not as far as the Catholic Church is concerned - an Episcopal communion service is no different than any other protestant communion service. There is no “real presence” - it is only a commemorative ceremony. But, of course, there are lots of Episcopalians who would say the exact same thing (as would most other protestants who conduct communion services). A minority of Anglicans believe in a “real presence.”

FWIW, the idea of a “real presence” is specifically countermanded in Article 28 of the “39 Articles” of the Anglican faith, which can be found printed in every Book of Common Prayer in the pew of every Episcopal Church (in both the 1928 and 1979 editions). The 39 articles are of historic nature, and are not binding upon any modern Anglican (even those of the Church of England). But they give insight into the founding beliefs of the Anglican church, and are still influential in that faith.

Episcopalians and other Anglicans have (generally) held many Catholic traditions, such as the wearing of liturgical vestments which are coordinated with a liturgical kalendar observing traditional Catholic fasts and feasts. Indeed, visiting a traditional Anglican service is hardly distinguishable from a Catholic Mass, except for the Elizabethan English (thee/thou). But outward appearances do not prove inward substance. Anglicans are protestants. FWIW, the formal name of the Episcopal Church is PECUSA - the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America.

FWIW, I was once an Episcopalian (you probably guessed that).

 

[jrtrent]

FWIW, the idea of a “real presence” is specifically countermanded in Article 28 of the “39 Articles” of the Anglican faith, which can be found printed in every Book of Common Prayer in the pew of every Episcopal Church (in both the 1928 and 1979 editions). The 39 articles are of historic nature, and are not binding upon any modern Anglican (even those of the Church of England). But they give insight into the founding beliefs of the Anglican church, and are still influential in that faith. . .

FWIW, I was once an Episcopalian (you probably guessed that).

As GKC is fond of pointing out, Anglicans are a varied group (or was that motley crew?). The Reformed Episcopal Church, and at least a few of the Anglican churches that broke from the Episcopal church later, do consider the 39 Articles to be normative; for example, there is the REC statement that the church, “vigorously holds to the plain understanding of the 39 Articles of Religion of the English Reformation and adopted them as the doctrinal standard of the Church at her founding.”

Article XXVIII precludes understanding Christ’s presence in the elements to be anything other than spiritual, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real:

“. . . some have misunderstood the words “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” (Article XXVIII) regarding how the Body and Blood of Christ are received in Communion. “Spiritual” does not mean symbolic or representative; but rather not in a materialistic, carnal, corporeal way. . . The spiritual is anything but figurative. Spiritual things are as real, or more so, than physical or material things.” virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11186

The article linked to above is by a Reformed Episcopal priest and is interesting in including quotes from a number of significant Anglican writers, including Francis Hall, whom you mentioned above. For those interested, Hall’s work can be accessed from the site below.

prydain.wordpress.com/francis-j-halls-dogmatic-theology/

There are a number of great resources linked to at the top of that page, including a large number of works about the 39 Articles and nine books by my favorite Anglican writer, J. C. Ryle.

 

[TexanKnight]

Essentially, the Episcopalians came about )from Church of England) because the King wanted a divorce. Couldn’t;t get one. Started his own church that would allow it. This was the issue that started the series of events for which St. Thomas More was beheaded.

 

[GKC]

As GKC is fond of pointing out, Anglicans are a varied group (or was that motley crew?). The Reformed Episcopal Church, and at least a few of the Anglican churches that broke from the Episcopal church later, do consider the 39 Articles to be normative; for example, there is the REC statement that the church, “vigorously holds to the plain understanding of the 39 Articles of Religion of the English Reformation and adopted them as the doctrinal standard of the Church at her founding.”

Article XXVIII precludes understanding Christ’s presence in the elements to be anything other than spiritual, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real:

“. . . some have misunderstood the words “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” (Article XXVIII) regarding how the Body and Blood of Christ are received in Communion. “Spiritual” does not mean symbolic or representative; but rather not in a materialistic, carnal, corporeal way. . . The spiritual is anything but figurative. Spiritual things are as real, or more so, than physical or material things.” virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11186

The article linked to above is by a Reformed Episcopal priest and is interesting in including quotes from a number of significant Anglican writers, including Francis Hall, whom you mentioned above. For those interested, Hall’s work can be accessed from the site below.

prydain.wordpress.com/francis-j-halls-dogmatic-theology/

There are a number of great resources linked to at the top of that page, including a large number of works about the 39 Articles and nine books by my favorite Anglican writer, J. C. Ryle.

As motley a crew as one might find anywhere.

Attitudes toward the Articles do vary. And no trinitarian Christian could deny many of them. But as a historical collection, in the form they are in (THE Articles), only one group is required legally to have some sort of affirming attitude to them (technically): the clergy of the Church of England. Other folks do make them a doctrinal statement of their particular jurisdictions, as stated. Yet others do not.

Motley.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Essentially, the Episcopalians came about )from Church of England) because the King wanted a divorce. Couldn’t;t get one. Started his own church that would allow it. This was the issue that started the series of events for which St. Thomas More was beheaded.

Decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[TexanKnight]

Decree of nullity.

GKC

Yes…but more people understand the word divorce. Hence, its usage.

 

[GKC]

Yes…but more people understand the word divorce. Hence, its usage.

Precisely why decree of nullity should be used. Most people reading this think of the contemporary idea; dissolving a marriage. Which was not what was done in Hank’s day. What was done (and it was done regualrly, amongst the quality) was to seek a decree of nullity, that no sacramentally valid marriage had occurred. Happened all the time, at the time.

Too many folk see “divorce” and think “Ending a marriage”. Hence, I make my knee-jerk reaction, every time I see it.

GKC

 

[Deegie]

I find the disdain that some have for Episcopalians difficult to read, so I am not here as often as I would like. But I do have three brief points to make:

The first is in reply to DavidFilmer…in my experience, a majority of Episcopalians do accept the Real Presence. Of course yours may differ.

The second is to GeorgeStegmeir…everyone loves to point to Spong as a bad example (and I can’t disagree, I didn’t like the guy). But no one ever points out that the governance of TEC didn’t much care for him either. In fact, his Assistant Bishop, Walter Righter, was brought up on charges for holding many of Spong’s views as a surrogate for Spong himself who was seen as too powerful and popular. Righter ended up being acquitted by the ecclesiastical court in a long and complicated process, but given the rarity of such actions, I think it demonstrates that most of us aren’t on the loony fringe like Spong. Much like the First Amendment in the United States allows people to espouse unpopular beliefs, we believe that individual Episcopalians (and, indeed, bishops) can speak their conscience even if it’s a minority view.

Finally, to the OP…I think one other essential difference is that the Episcopal Church is a ground-up sort of organization. Churches call their own rectors. Dioceses elect their own bishops. The General Convention (both clergy and laity) vote on changes to canon law. We lack the top-down governance of the RCC. Some may say that is not a good thing, while others would say it’s more in keeping with the democratic ideals of this nation’s founders.

I wish you all a blessed day.

 

[Indifferently]

The Episcopal Church of the United States is more or less an apostate organization, and has completely abandoned Anglicanism as properly understood, and did so many years ago. Its Rite II Eucharist liturgy is a great example of this. Look at the General Confession and Absolution used at that liturgy, looks like the priest just waves a magic wand and your sins go away. Compare that, then, to the Confession and Absolution from the 1928 Prayer Book. It’s completely different.

Anglicanism is in a perilous state at the moment, for a number of reasons. The Church of England is in a slightly better position, at the moment, because it more or less has two churches operating within the same ecclesiastical structure, with those under ‘flying bishops’ far better able to maintain the orthodox faith. I am blessed to be in a part of the church which stays true to it, but fear for the future.

In terms of the Eucharist, the only doctrinal difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism is the very specific nature of the real presence, where Roman Catholics assert the doctrine of transubstantiation, whilst Anglicans leave it as a mystery (much as the Eastern Orthodox do).

The Roman Church does not recognize Anglican orders. This is based on some rather nuanced logic which has been proven faulty. I believe the logic was employed at the behest of the new RC hierarchy in 19th century England who, concerned about their own legitimacy, wanted such a pronouncement after it turned out the ‘Nag’s Head fable’ was just that, a fable. So the pope bowed to their pressure and put together a rather poor bull to back them up. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York then replied (in rather better Latin, funnily enough) with ‘Saepius Officio’, which is definitive.

The problem with most Anglicans when they try to justify themselves is that they spend far too much time trying to do so with their backs up against the wall. They don’t actually consult primary sources, only seeing them interpolated or used by Roman or Eastern blog writers and authors and panicking about it. It’s far more productive, for those interested in Anglicanism and what that actually is, to consult actual Anglicans. Start with Richard Hooker.

 

[adrift]

Thus, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of any Anglican sacraments except Baptism.

Do Anglican’s accept marriage as a sacrament?

 

[Indifferently]

Do Anglican’s accept marriage as a sacrament?

Yes.

The Reformers merely clarified that it was not to be taken as a ‘sacrament’ in the early church sense of the word (it was the scholastics who came up with the Seven Sacraments canard) and went for the old fashioned definition, which was that a Sacrament was that which, instituted by Christ, was considered generally necessary to salvation (Baptism and the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper).

Even that is a little legalistic. But read the 1662 Form of Solemnization liturgy if you like, and see that the understanding of marriage is crystal-clear - ‘instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency’, ‘Whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder’, etc.