Hello

[winters]

Hello, I'm new to the site and was wondering if someone could give me some info. I was interested in joining the Anglican/Episcopal church but was a little confused. While looking through the phone book for the closest churches to me I see a category under "Churches" for Anglican and for Episcopalian. I though that all Anglicans and Anglican churches in the U.S. were officially Episcopalian as only the Church of England can be officially called Anglican. When trying to choose a church does it matter if I go to one listed as Episcopalian or Anglican? If I joined the one church called St. Paul's Anglican Church would I call myself Episcopalian or Anglican being in America? Sorry, this whole issue has me pretty confused.

Secondly, what do I need to do to join the church? Should I just attend the service on Sunday and talk to a priest and tell him I would like to join? I know there is Baptism and Confirmation, what is the process there and how long does it normally take to become a full member? Is there some sort of "RCIA" class like the Catholic church has to instruct you on the teachings before you are a member, or is it more and informal "when you are personally ready" kind of thing. Thanks for the info.

[Polycarp1]

You ask a simple question with a complex answer, Winters. (And by the way, Welcome!!! :wave: )
Let me first say that going to a service first, speaking to the rector or the folks running the new member ministry program (many churches have trained laymen doing the welcome-and-answer-questions element of assisting people interested in joining), and following through from there, is pretty much standard. You'll be welcomed, and can follow the flow of the service from the Prayer Book and the ubiquitous service bulletin ("Collect for Purity......BCP p. 356 / Hymn of Praise ....Hymnal 411").

Now, to terminology. "Anglican" is supposed to mean a church in communion with the See of Canterbury, part of the "Anglican Communion." And throughout most of the world it does. Members of the Church of England are Anglican; the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Australia are obvious; etc.

But because for many years the presbyterian Church of Scotland was the established church in that country, as the Church of England is in England, the Anglicans of Scotland referred to their church as "the Episcopal Church of Scotland." And when they assisted the Anglicans in the U.S. to establish an independent church after the American Revolution (since though loyal to Anglican principles and tradition, no American priest wanted to take the oath of loyalty to George III that was a part of the English canon law at the time), the new church modeled its name on the Scottish church and took the name Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (PECUSA), which is still our legal name. Hence American members of the Anglican Communion are "Episcopalians" (I'd note in passing that at the time "Protestant" meant merely "separated from the Pope at the Reformation," and, like the Lutherans, as it began to carry the connotation of "anti-Catholic" and "non-sacramentalist," we tended to avoid using it -- and we are "the Episcopal Church" or "ECUSA" by formal resolution, though the original name formally remains in place for reasons of legal continuity.)

However, starting in the late 1970s, schismatic groups objecting to things such as revision of the Prayer Book, the ordination of women, the welcoming of openly gay people, etc., split off, and, holding that they were preserving the purity of the Anglican tradition, started referring to themselves as "Anglican." So you'll find that "St. Paul's Anglican Church" is likely very conservative, using the Shakespearian/KJV Bible language of the original Prayer Book in their worship, likely opposed to women's ordination, and a number of other specific issues. Nearly every American church which refers to itself as "Anglican" rather than "Episcopal" is a part of this schism.

As an Episcopalian myself, I cannot in good conscience encourage you to affiliate with them -- but as a brother in Christ, I can only place the facts before you and encourage you to affiliate where you will feel most at home.

(Colabomb can add to this the issues that led to the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church back in the late Nineteenth Century, and summarize the positions they take -- I cannot do them justice in a few short remarks. REC is a fairly small denomination; there may not be REC parishes anywhere near you; but it's only fair to give the whole gamut of the Anglican tradition here.)

[winters]

Ok thanks for the great, in-depth reply. So I will choose one of the Episcopal churches close to me and start attending the Sunday service (is it called Mass or a just a service in the Episcopal church?) and talk to the priest or rector. So then I would be Episcopalian which is part of the Anglican Communion right?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Yes. From what's been described, it seems that the Episcopalians are really Anglican (i.e. in communion with Canterbury, whilst the 'Anglicans' aren't. :scratch: :scratch: :scratch:

[Polycarp1]

Exactly.

We normally use "Eucharist" to describe the Sunday service where communion is given -- the normal Sunday service in most Episcopal churches -- but don't shy away from "Mass" if someone cares to use the term.

Karl, that is a classic irony!

[PaladinValer]

The Episcopal Church USA is the official Anglican Province in the United States. We are in Full Communion with the Holy See of Canterbury. We are full members of the worldwide AC (Anglican Communion).

If you are curious in joining our Church, I suggest you go to a few of our services (you can call them whatever you like, service, Mass, mob, etc :P) and talk with the priest. You will find everything you need to know regarding our services in the Book of Common Prayer, which is a red book that contains our liturgies. There will be one right by you when you sit down, as well as a Hymnal. Follow it along (and pay attention to the service leaflet you'll receive) and you'll have no problems! If you've been baptized, you may join for Communion as well. After the service, there will be a food and fellowship hour (we Episcopalians are famous for them!), so you can get to know some of the parishioners and ask questions. They will probably take the initiative in the welcomes (we are a very inviting group and very friendly), so don't feel like your the oddball. :) The priest(s) will eventually join in, and you should then be able to ask as many questions as you'd like then. One question you should ask is if there is an inquirer's class. If not, I'm certain the priest(s) will be more than happy to set time off to help you learn about the Episcopal Church as well as the AC.

[winters]

Ok one last thing, because of my work schedule I cannot go to Sunday morning services. Do most Episcopal churches have a Sunday evening service as an alternative to take part in the Eucharist? I could also attend any service on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday (my days off) if they have the Eucharist then. I guess every church is different in their service times so I'll just have to check I guess?

[PaladinValer]

Many Episcopal churches (we call them "parishes" too) do have services on other days than Sunday. You should get in contact with the church you wish to visit and ask them when they have services. They will be more than happy to help you. :)

[winters]

Ok great. Does the Episcopal/Anglican church have an official version of the Bible it uses or recommends? I currently have a copy of the KJV reference edition, does the Episcopal church use another, do they use and support the dueterocanons?

[PaladinValer]

The Episcopal Church does have a list of translations acceptable for its worship and liturgies. On the other hand, it barrs no translation for the member to read (although it does advise from such translations like the NWT (A Jehovah's Witness "translation").

I believe the following translations are used:

New Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
New Jerusalem Bible

The Episcopal Church uses the same lectionary as the Catholic Church, the ELCA, the Disciples of Christ, the United Methodists, and others, so the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon are a part of our worship. Officially, the Episcopal Church believes them to be useful, but not necessarily for doctrine, However, many High Church Episcopalians, like myself, do accept them as fully canonical and useful for doctrine, and we are still considered members in good standing with the Church.

I would suggest the NRSV with either the RSV or NJB as backup for six reasons:

1. The NRSV is the more recent and utilized the most up-to-date ancient resouces available.
2. The NRSV is an ecumenically-created translation, with members from several different denominations, including Catholics, Anglicans (Episcopalians), and an Eastern Orthodox member.
3. The NRSV has the Eastern Orthodox Deuterocanonical Books as well as the Catholic Deuterocanonical Books. We in the Episcopal Church use these books as well.
4. The NRSV is a formal equivalence translation, which means it is a fairly literal translation. This is important because it makes it an excellent translation for study. On the other hand, it is "idiomatically" correct, so metaphores, hyperboles, and the such are maintained the best they can in a form the reader can understand.
5. The NRSV comes in some excellent Study Bibles. I personally have the HarperCollin's Study Bible and I always consult it.
6. It is in the same family as the KJV, so it'll read very similar to it, without the archaic words.

Pros for the RSV for a secondary Bible:

1. It is also an ecumenically-created translation, with pretty much the same team as its' offspring the NRSV
2. It trades in some of its idiomaticacy for more literalness, making it an excellent companion with the NRSV.
3. The 1977 Common Edition also includes the Eastern Orthodox Deuterocanonical Books.

Cons with the RSV as a secondary Bible

1. It is older than the NJB, which means it is more out-of-date
2. It has some archaic idioms and words
3. The Deuterocanon is in its own section like in the NRSV

Pros with the NJB as a secondary Bible

1. It is newer than the RSV
2. You get the Catholic Deuterocanonical Books within the OT, not in their own place
3. It is just as literal and just as idiomatic as the NRSV

Cons with the NJB as a secondary Bible

1. It is a Catholic translation, which means it will affront more Catholic theology, making it more biased (which may or may not bother you if you are a High Church Episcopalian)
2. It doesn't include the Eastern Orthodox Deuterocanonical Books
3. It won't feel as natural for you, since it doesn't comes from the same translation family as the RSV and NRSV versions.

I hope this helps!

[winters]

Awesome, thanks much for the info.

[PaladinValer]

Keep posting! :) There are others here much more knowledgable than I am; polycarp1 especially, so keep asking question and we'll keep answering ;)

[Polycarp1]

There are something like 14 translations "authorized for use in worship," and nobody condemns or bans any translation.

My wife uses the New King James Version (Open Bible Expanded Edition) for private worship and study, not for any theological reasons but because it's the one she finds most comfortable to work with. I use the New Jerusalem Bible more often than not, for the same reasons. (Online I generally quote the RSV because I have a link to it saved in my favorites, and it's one of the most common translations.)

[winters]

Ok I found this church that is fairly easy for me to get to saintmarks.org/ and it looks very beautiful inside from the picture at the bottom here saintmarks.org/history.htm (I don't have enough posts to link to external sites so you'll have to copy and paste). The only thing is I will have to wait until September before I can get in on the next Inquiry classes, I just missed the latest ones. They do them for four weeks in January, May and September. No big deal, I think I will just start attending the Eucharist service which they have on Wednesdays at 12:00pm since I can't go on Sundays and then go to the classes in September. I wonder if I really need to though, if I attend the service and I feel I am ready and the priest agrees can't they confirm me before then or do you think they would require the class first?

Ok on a totally different subject, I see our faith icon is the Celtic cross for Anglicans here. I always thought that cross was the cross used by the Catholic church in Ireland, how did it come to be our symbol here? I've also seen it on the outside of some Anglican/Episcopal churches and was wondering the history. I guess both churches use the cross because of the Celtic heritage of that entire region?

[PaladinValer]

It has to do with the history of the Church in England (the roots of the Anglican/Episcopal faith). Since I've given it else where, I'll do a quick cut-and-paste since it applies here so you won't have to fish for it:

The English Church has long since been a bit different from the rest of Christianity. Originally, they were somewhat connected with the rest of Christdom thanks to the Roman Empire, especially when Christianity was given official status. In fact, Christians from England participated in a few of the Ecumenical Councils, signifying their growing numbers.

Unfortunately, when Rome fell, the connection between England and the rest of the British Isles with continential Europe was destroyed greatly. This was due, for obvious reasons, to the fact that the British Isles are exactly that; islands. Travel to and fro wasn't a numerous now than Rome was gone, so the English Christians slowly developed "partially away" from the rest of Christendom.

Because of this, many different local influences affected the English Church. With various conquests and invasions, old traditional beliefs, and local historical events, partually with the Magna Carta, the English Church was enriched with some unique qualities that differed from those in Rome and Constantinople. Even when the Church split again into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (the Oriental Church had long since been split), the English Church, although fully Catholic, was flavored by its own uniqueness.

The Celtic cross was a local phenomenon, as the Celts lived in all of the British Isles as well as France. Those roots were a powerful force in those areas, but especially in the British Isles since France was kept longer under Roman control. It is why it has such a powerful showing.

In addition, congradulations on finding a church and a time to go and receive the Eucharist! I would encourage you to take the classes as they are very useful. The ones I went to were done in a "Questions-and-Answers" formula which provided me with a tremendous amount of information that I felt was invaluable.

In addition, have you already been Confirmed in a different denomination? If so, the Episcopal Church will recognize it along with your Baptism. However, to officially join the Episcopal Church, you'll go through the rite of Reception. It uses the same liturgy as Confirmation, except it words the final ceremony differently to signify your new fellowship with the Episcopal Church. If you haven't been Confirmed before, ignore this paragraph.

[BAChristian]

Welcome to the Anglican forum!

[winters]

No Paladin, I haven't been confirmed in another denomination before and thanks again for your answers. My parents tell me I was baptised as an infant in a Baptist church but they have no record of it and don't even remember the name of the church so I'm hoping I can be baptised in my new church (St. Mark's). I know the Episcopal/Anglican faith does not believe in re-baptism, but since I have no record of it and don't even know if it was valid (could have just been a naming ceremony) then I would really like to go through it again to set my mind at ease and know it has been done the right way. I think they will though since I have no proof to show that I have been baptised. From what I read on their site, they will do my confirmation on the Saturday before Easter so I have a long time to wait. Hopefully I can be baptised before then.

[pmcleanj]

My parents tell me I was baptised as an infant in a Baptist church but they have no record of it and don't even remember the name of the church so I'm hoping I can be baptised in my new church (St. Mark's).

If it's unknown whether you were baptized or not, you can be conditionally baptized. The rite is identical to the baptismal rite, except that at the time of immersion (or as the water is poured), the minister says "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the name ...." etc. This nicely avoids re-baptism while recognizing situations like yours.

Besides Easter, there are five occasions considered particularly appropriate for baptism: Pentecost (which is the customary date for confirmation, too, but as it's tomorrow you probably won't be able to arrange anything by then ;) !), All Saints (November 1), The Naming of Christ (Jan 1), and the Baptism of our Lord (first Sunday after January 6), and Candlemas (Feb 2). But of course, baptisms can be done any time by arrangements with the rector.

[Polycarp1]

If it's unknown whether you were baptized or not, you can be conditionally baptized. The rite is identical to the baptismal rite, except that at the time of immersion (or as the water is poured), the minister says "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the name ...." etc. This nicely avoids re-baptism while recognizing situations like yours.

Besides Easter, there are five occasions considered particularly appropriate for baptism: Pentecost (which is the customary date for confirmation, too, but as it's tomorrow you probably won't be able to arrange anything by then ;) !), All Saints (November 1), The Naming of Christ (Jan 1), and the Baptism of our Lord (first Sunday after January 6), and Candlemas (Feb 2). But of course, baptisms can be done any time by arrangements with the rector.Thanks, pmcleanj! :) You beat me to it! I take it your list is taken from the Canadian church's "particularly appropriate" list? The American (U.S.) list parallels it with some differences:

Holy Baptism is especially appropriate at the Easter Vigil, on the Day of Pentecost, on All Saints' Day or the Sunday after All Saints' Day, and on the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord (the First Sunday after the Epiphany). (Rubric on p. 312, BCP)
It goes on to suggest that when possible, it fit with when the Bishop is present (for a formal visitation or not), and whether or not it's one of those feasts. The thinking here is that the Bishop represents the universal church, so that the idea is brought home that the Baptism is into God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not merely one's parish church.

[winters]

Thanks, I guess I will have the conditional baptism. Wouldn't they want some sort of proof of my baptism anyway before they confirmed me or would they just go on your word if you said you had been baptised?

[PaladinValer]

You infant baptism, so long as it was "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," is completely recognizable in our Church. You will need to provide some sort of proof that you were baptized; it can be the baptismal certificate or the time and place of your baptism. Having a photo or two might help as well.

In addition, as already explained, you can receive a conditional baptism, which will work as well if you cannot find evidence and then your confirmation.

[winters]

Conditional baptism it will be then, my parents don't have the record anywhere...I think it was lost in a move.

On a side note, I just picked up a new bible. It's the New Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocrypha and bound in genuine leather with thumb indexes. It's very nice.

[PaladinValer]

Excellent choice! I wish my HarperCollin's was in leather...its a floppy paperback :(

...

still useful though! :D

[Polycarp1]

Casual thought, on rereading this series of posts....

Winters said that he was told he was baptized as a baby in a Baptist church.

One of the major distinctives of Baptist tradition is that Baptism is undertaken by believers past the age of reason as a response to God's salvific call, not a sacrament conveying grace. Accordingly Baptists do not baptize babies, but dedicate them in a quite distinct ceremony that is not equivalent to Trinitarian Baptism.

[winters]

Ahhh, I didn't know that. I'll just tell the priest or rector at the church that it was a baptist church and see what they think. I'm fine with a full baptism or conditional, whatever they see appropriate. I just hope I can get some sort of documentation that I can keep for myself this time.

[PaladinValer]

When I was confirmed, I received a certificate. You will receive a similar one when you are baptized and confirmed :)

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Because there is the remote possibility that you were baptised, your baptism will be conditional, I expect. However, as Polycarp points out, the unlikelihood of it in a Baptist church is very great. The view could be taken that there is some confusion and faulty memory here - either you were not baptised, or the church was not a Baptist one. Either could be the case.

There really is little difference. The priest says "If you have not already been baptised, I baptise you..." and that's the sum total of the difference, as I recall.