Is "Anglican" the same as "Episcopal"

[Lilac]

Hello---

Would the reference of "Anglican" be the exact denomination as "Episcopal"???
I would like to know if I'm in the right place!!!!

Could someone help me on this?

Thanks!!!

:confused:

[PaladinValer]

Yup!

Anglicans in some places are called Episcopalians. :)

[Lilac]

Thank you --Now I know where to post any further questions!

God Bless!!

[PaladinValer]

You are most welcome! :)

God bless you too! ;)

[Polycarp1]

Anglicans are members of the Anglican Communion -- i.e., of a church in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England.

The American (U.S.) branch of the Anglican Communion is the Episcopal Church (AKA the [Protestant] Episcopal Church in the United States of America, abbreviated PECUSA or ECUSA. The member of the Anglican Communion in Scotland is the Episcopal Church of Scotland, since the Church of Scotland is a Presbyterian body, but I'm not sure whether Scottish Anglicans use "Episcopalian" or "Anglican" as their standard adjective.

[LADY DI]

I was wondering if theres any differences between the Angelican church and the Episcopal church?
I was baptised in the Episcopal church when I was 16 years old. but my dad didn't agree with some of the teachings so we left..
Now I'm curious about the teachings and I would like to know if there are any differences.
I hope my question isn't stupid:angel:

[Polycarp1]

I was wondering if theres any differences between the Angelican church and the Episcopal church?
I was baptised in the Episcopal church when I was 16 years old. but my dad didn't agree with some of the teachings so we left..
Now I'm curious about the teachings and I would like to know if there are any differences.
I hope my question isn't stupid:angel:
Other than the Reformed Episcopal Church (which forum member Colabomb belongs to), which schismed back in the 1870s for reasons not really worth going into any longer, most of the groups that have split off from the Episcopal Church in the U.S., most of which are strongly conservative, have adopted names that focus on their Anglican heritage. So Raleigh, as a fairly large city, has Christ Church, Church of the Good Shepherd [both of which will tag "(Episcopal)" on the end of their names in multichurch listings to clarify that they're part of us], St. Mark's Episcopal Church, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, etc. -- and St. George's Anglican Church, which belongs to one of the conservative splinter groups.

So "Anglican" is often a synonym for "highly conservative and split off from them liberal Episcopalians" in the U.S. -- but worldwide it references the national church of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Australia, for example, are mainstream bodies very similar to ECUSA.

[Polycarp1]

For Episcopal Church teachings, see the pinned thread "A Summary of the Faith" at the top of the forum list of threads, and feel free to ask questions. AFAIK we have no "Continuing Anglican" members, though Colabomb can speak quite well for some of the differences, as the REC holds similar views to those groups on those few issues where we differ.

[CSMR]

In which you may note the glaring contradictions between the catechism of the Episcopal church and the Articles or Religion. Alas, the Episcopal church has put itself outside Her Majesty's protection, and there's nowt she can do about it. Seriously, how can the church have made a cathechism that contracts its Articles so blatantly?

[LADY DI]

Polycarp,
Thank you for showing me the A Summary Of The Faith, I believe along those lines.
There are four Episcopal chuches in my area, one says its Episcopal-Angelican.
So what does Episcopal-Angelican mean?
Also I was wondering : both my husband and I were both baptised in the Episcopal church, he an infant and I was a teenager, if we were to go back to the church would we need to be baptised again? And would we have to be baptised before our children are?
Thank you for your help:angel:

[pmcleanj]

There are four Episcopal chuches in my area, one says its Episcopal-Angelican. So what does Episcopal-Angelican mean?

The only way to know for sure, is to call up the church office and ask. But here's an anecdote that illustrates why a church might want to put both names on their signboard:

A friend of mine was in Iran during the last days of the Shah. He, and one of his colleagues, both Canadians, decided they would both go to church -- there were a lot of rusty prayer-muscles getting a work-out those days among the ex-patriot community, especially those who, like my friend, didn't work for a large company that had evacuation plans in place.

My friend and his colleague found out the location of their respective churches -- Roman Catholic for my friend and Anglican for his colleague, and agreed to meet afterward in a coffee-shop. They separated, the colleague heading down a narrow twisting alley. When my friend returned to the coffeeshop, his colleague was already there saying "I got all the way down there, and it wasn't an Anglican church, just some American mission from some 'Episcopal Church' whatever on earth that is! So I just came straight here."

But, the colleague went on to introduce my friend to some Shell Oil workers he had just met in the coffeeshop -- who ended up having room on their evacuation flight to smuggle my friend and his colleague out of the country! I guess God's hand was in that Canadian's ignorance of nomenclature that day -- but in general, we try to overcome that kind of confusion. Our Anglican church has "(Episcopal)" on its signboard, precisely for the sake of American tourists.


Also I was wondering : both my husband and I were both baptised in the Episcopal church, he an infant and I was a teenager, if we were to go back to the church would we need to be baptised again?


Absolutely NOT! Not only do you not need to be baptized again, you *cannot* be baptized again. As we say in the Creed "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins". Rebaptizing people suggests that the original baptism was ineffective or that the effect of baptism "wears off". Both those ideas are shockingly unAnglican. You might have to dig up your baptismal certificates, or at a minimum a witness or two or enough information that your clergy can track down your original baptism records; as if there is any doubt about someone's baptism, they are conditionally baptized. I doubt that would apply in your case.


And would we have to be baptised before our children are?
One would have to talk this out with the priest. There's no theological reason that one would have to be baptized before their children are. Since the godparents take the responsibility for the child's Christian nurture, in theory all that is necessary is that the *godparents* be baptized. But given the reality that parents are the primary influence on children, some clergy might ask for that, in order to be assured that the children will be raised in a Christian home. But the question is theoretical anyway, because you *are* baptized.

[LADY DI]

:) Thank you pmcleanj for explaining this to me!!!

I have three children ages 13, 5 and 3, the oldest one is old enough to understand what baptism is about, but the other two aren't
So if I had them baptised now--when they got older how would they affirm ( I think thats the right word, it's late) their faith in Christ?

Thank you,
Di:angel:

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Confirmation.

The older child may wish to go through baptism and confirmation in the one service. Younger children may wish to wait until they want to affirm their baptismal promises for themselves and put off confirmation until later.

However, baptism can be done by your local priest (it can be done by anyone technically). Confirmation requires a bishop (at least in the CofE). Baptism tends to happen whenever it's requested; confirmation once a year in a special service for the event.

[PaladinValer]

IMO, 13 is still young for Confirmation. I'd wait until 16 or even 17 before Confirmation.

[CSMR]

Yeah, 13 is young.

[steviedee]

Certainly NOT. Personally, I always use the name Anglican, as I do not wish to be thought of as an Episcopalian, with all the garbage going on in ECUSA. THAT is an embarrassment.

[PaladinValer]

stevie, I feel no shame, although I am ashamed of your rude comments about my Anglican province.

Part of being a true Anglican is acknowledging the diversity that exists within our Church; that we may be all different but we are One in the Christ. Its a pity that you don't recognize this rich and central tradition of our Church.

[CSMR]

PaladinValer, are you saying that everyone who attends an Anglican church, or Claims to be an Anglican, is thereby in Christ?
Are you saying that any diversity within the Anglican church is acceptable - that if you find a priest who says we shouldn't obey God, or that the Devil is more powerful than God, or that Christ didn't rise from the dead, then that is part of the richness of the church which should be celebrated? Or are there limits to diversity?

[PaladinValer]

Let me ask you this: are those baptized in Christ, in Christ?

Secondly, you are giving some truly rediculous hypotheticals; why the heck would a priest even say such? If you want to give hypothetical situations, at least have them make logical sense.

[LADY DI]

IMO, 13 is still young for Confirmation. I'd wait until 16 or even 17 before Confirmation.

Yes, you're right. I'd want her to take classes and study before she had Confirmation. I'd want her to truely understand what she's doing.:angel:

[CSMR]

PaladinValer:
Would you answer my questions? Let's just take Christ rising from the dead if you like. I'm sure there are preists that think Christ didn't rise from the dead - perhaps he cae to give us a good example of how to live and all this rising from the dead is anachronistic religious stuff. I just wanted to know if you -hypothetically- think there are limits to the diversity that should be celebrated in the Church.
Not all who are baptised in Christ are in Christ. What do you think?

[Father Rick]

PaladinValer:
Would you answer my questions? Let's just take Christ rising from the dead if you like. I'm sure there are preists that think Christ didn't rise from the dead - perhaps he cae to give us a good example of how to live and all this rising from the dead is anachronistic religious stuff. I just wanted to know if you -hypothetically- think there are limits to the diversity that should be celebrated in the Church.
Not all who are baptised in Christ are in Christ. What do you think?
An important note here...

For any sacrament to be valid, there must be faith exercised on the part of the recipient. Without faith, the sacrament is considered null and void.

You are asking if someone who is actively denying the faith can be baptized and the sacrament still be valid-- the answer then is that person went through a ritual but the baptism was null because there was no faith on the part of the baptized.

I know this opens a whole can of worms...

[pmcleanj]

Or are there limits to diversity?

No.

No, if by "limits" you mean a hard,clear line between what is acceptable and what is not, then I would propose that we do not recognize limits.

Oh, certainly we can all imagine beliefs and doctrines that are shocking and are outside the pale of normative Christian thought. You've done a good job in your argument ad absurdium of finding three such examples. But in real life, doctrines and beliefs don't exist as separate from the person holding them, and from the rest of his beliefs that form his theology. My observation of history -- even the formative history of this branch of the Catholic Church, as documented in our 39 articles -- is that human attempts to nail down with precision a definitive line between orthodoxy and heresy, only results in polemic and division, and hyperfocus on adiaphora such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Rather than limits, I would say that there are fringes -- borderlands of theology that extend beyond mainstream thought with increasing heterodoxy but with increasing levels of challenge to the well-trammelled pathways of the mind. It is a borderland occupied by reformers like Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer, Luther, Kant, Augustine, Tillich, Spong -- all those who challenge the Church to examine and reform herself, whether you agree with them or not.

Certainly, Christians do, say, and believe things that I think are wrong. PaladinValer keeps saying that consubstantiation is a normative Anglican belief. Jesusfish just implied that Anglicans deny the Real Presence. I've got a pastor who goes around saying that grape juice is a valid Eucharistic element. My dear husband denies the Apostolic succession. Should we burn them all? -- There's my ad absurdium argument ;) .

Ideas that shock us force us to explore and validate our own ideas. We may not want to embrace to the bosom someone who is actively trying to tear down the faith. But we may very well want to listen to that person. And, having listened, we may sometimes find that they aren't anathema after all. But even if they are, by God's grace we may have grown in our own faith as a result of the encounter.

[CSMR]

Thanks for the response. And to Father Rick for setting us straight on the sacraments! Briefly:
My "ad absurdum" argument tries to make complete toleration within the church absurd, whereas yours tries to make toleration only of the truth - and burn everyone else! - absurd. I accept both arguments!
and hyperfocus on adiaphora such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.Weren't the scholastics who discussed those angels rather arguing over abstractions that did not relate to orthodoxy and heresy - that is what is saving truth and what is its denial?
Of the chaps you listed, Augustine was more a former of church orthodoxy than a changer of existing orthodoxy. And the Protestant reformers were interested in changing an existing orthodoxy into another rather than abolishing orthodoxy altogether. That's because they wished to create a church which could stand for something - for Christ - to the world. That doesn't eliminate all argument or the need to go deeper than Church definitions - the Nicene creed, the 39 articles even, are only skeletal. The world is full of theologians who are very diverse yet can say the Nicene Creed.
Someone who is trying to tear down the faith can be worth listening to as you say, but I wouldn't call one a true member of the Anglican church.

[steviedee]

For Episcopal Church teachings, see the pinned thread "A Summary of the Faith" at the top of the forum list of threads, and feel free to ask questions. AFAIK we have no "Continuing Anglican" members, though Colabomb can speak quite well for some of the differences, as the REC holds similar views to those groups on those few issues where we differ.



Greetings, Poly. I'm from the Continuing Church.:wave:

[steviedee]

stevie, I feel no shame, although I am ashamed of your rude comments about my Anglican province.

Part of being a true Anglican is acknowledging the diversity that exists within our Church; that we may be all different but we are One in the Christ. Its a pity that you don't recognize this rich and central tradition of our Church.
Diversity is fine. Heresy is not.

[CSMR]

Any response, PaladinValer, as to whether all diversity should be celebrated?

[Polycarp1]

Greetings, Poly. I'm from the Continuing Church.:wave:
And I realize that, sir, and apologize. At the time I posted that, I was not aware of your affiliation, so I won't apologize for having said it, because it was the truth as I then knew it, but I will apologize for not having realized your affiliation at the time I wrote it.

Since I presume you know a bit about the Continuing Anglican movement, would it be out of line to ask you to fill in a bit more on the different groups which comprise it. I know very little about AMiA, almost nothing about APA, and am not even sure what other groups presently exist -- so any background you could give would be of interest.

[CSMR]

...