Over in the thread about Advent, jjimm made the point that the Episcopal denomination is not Catholicism lite. This (along with other things*) got me wondering what the real differences are between the two denominations.
My thinking is that the differences lie in two main areas:
Transsubstantiation/Consubstantiation
the Papacy.
Are there others? What are the main theological differences between the denominations?
*Being displeased with the Catholic parishes in the area I now live in (they’re all either ultra-conservative or ultra liberal, and I’ve yet to hear a decent sermon), and having enjoyed the Episcopal service I went to earlier this year, I’m considering a switch. I am, however, most concerned with differences in how the Eucharist is perceived within the Episcopal church.
As I said in the original thread, the Episcopal Church is derived from Church of England, which was created to allow King Henry VIII to divorce his wife, leading to his excommunication, and creation of his own church, which was then followed by the “Reformation” which involved genocide, ethnic cleansing and persecution of a high degree, of Catholics.
In modern terms, I think the Catholic/Protestant schism is less stark in the US (where there seem to be a lot more Christian denominations to choose from) than in the UK, and even less stark than in Ireland where, tragically, it has mattered a whole hell of a lot.
IANAChristian, and nor am I totally aware of how much of my conception of Catholicism is coloured by the Irish cultural interpretation of the Catholic Church - better informed people than I will no doubt step in to correct me - but AFAIK, the theological differences are pretty major - e.g. as well as transubstantiation, Catholicism also has original sin, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, and the whole of Canon Law to differentiate it.
The Church of England/Episcopal church is headed up by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Synod, and the rules are quite different: female vicars are allowed, there is more tolerance towards homosexuality, and a less rigid interpretations of the Bible; but its liberal nature is losing it some ground and support from current church members, and some bishops (especially in Africa).
Having said that, I’ve attended both Catholic Mass and Church of England services, and I can confirm that in practical terms, they differ rather less than one would imagine in form and content. Especially “High Church” in England, where you get the old swinging incense and genuflection just like in Catholic churches.
I saw in that thread where jjimm referred to the Anglican church as Protestant. I learned, when I went through confirmation classes in our Episcopal church, that Anglicans consider themselves Catholic (and to make the distinction, not just catholic, but Catholic). Not Roman Catholic to be sure, but part of the Apostolic Succession and not having arisen from the Protestant Reformation.
As for the differences, beside the ones you list is the one I just mentioned. I don’t believe Roman Catholicism recognizes the Apostolic Succession in the the Anglican church.
Catholics often pray to an intercessor, usually the Patron Saint of whatever situation the congregant finds himself in, and confesses his sins to a priest. Episcopalians tell me they dispense with this, and pray/confess directly to God Himself.
Joan of Arc is said to be the first Protestant saint; her vision was of God Himself, whereas other saints who experienced visitations saw other, prior saints.
I have heard that Episcopalians retained the tradition of Transubstantiation.
Very nice. :mad: And the Roman Catholic Church was created by the Council of Trent in order to give the Pope more authority than he deserved!
May I point out to you that denominational polemics belong in GD, where you can have opinions about other people’s beliefs to your heart’s content, or in the Pit (where this post emphatically belongs).
I recently discussed the origins of the Church of England as a body separated from the RCC here. Further down the same thread Guinastasia raises an significant minor point I’d forgotten.
I’d be glad to discuss in some detail how Anglican theology matches and differs from RCC theology. But I rather resent slams against my denominational home on the basis of “facts everybody knows that aren’t so.”
This definition says otherwise - it encompasses both - but I do remember at church saying part of a creed that says “we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”. Can’t remember if these were capitalized or not…
In practical purposes, AFAIK commonly any Christian denomination that isn’t Catholic is protestant, much as if you’re not a Jew you are by default a gentile, not a Muslim you’re an infidel, etc.
I thought Lutherans were “Catholic lite,” at least I’ve been called that. I’d wager we have a closer look and feel to R.C. but the theological differences go far beyond that. When you list “the papacy” as a difference that’s a pretty vast one as opposed to something fairly specific like the eucharist.
FWIW you may find the ELCA flavor of Lutheran to have a lot in common with the Episcopal church. We are to the liberal end of the spectrum from the Wisconsin and Missouri synod on issues like ordination of women and acceptance of homosexuality. Hard to say if it may be what you’re looking for as your frame of reference for ultra liberal or conservative is going to be different than mine.
The (Anglican) Church of Ireland does make a point of being Protestant in the sense of non-Catholic, as might be expected of a minority church in a nation largely Catholic or of Catholic extraction. The Anglican Communion (over whom the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises moral rather than governmental leadership) generally considers itself as part of the Holy Catholic Church, preserves the Apostolic Succession, and identifies itself as Protestant and Reformed only in that it separated from the RCC in Reformation times and in protest against abuses in the RCC at the time.
I’m sure some of the Orthodox of my acquaintance would be incensed at being called Protestant, and although cmkeller, zev_steinhart, and Monty are too courteous to start calling each other Gentiles, the prospect of a LDS/Jewish flame war does have its prospects for humor value.
I think I’ve mentioned before the comment by a very conservative evangelical Christian on another board, regarding some posts by cmkeller explaining Orthodox Judaism, that “he’s not a believing Jew” – which took me aback until I realized that his context for “believing” was “Messianic; believing in Jesus Christ.”
Oh dear, of all the people on the board I would rather not offend, it’s Polycarp. I really mean no offense, and I’m sorry that you think that was a slam - it wasn’t. I’m not claiming that the church perpetrated these crimes, but the reigning monarch, who just happened to be Fidei Defensor.
I was brought up in, and confirmed into the Church of England, so though I have rejected religion per se, I do have a little insight into your denomination. My parents are still practicing Episcopaleans, and I have no more problem with the C of E than I do with any other religion. I’m actually surprised that this version of events offends you, too, since I really thought these were the ‘facts’ as far as any historian knew. It’s certainly what we’re taught in England about the Reformation. A typical interpretation of events:
I’m now going off to read your thread to see if what I thought turns out not to be.
You’re slamming the deonomination by your repeated incorrect descriptions of it, jj. Poly’s well-versed in the theology, traditions, and history of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States (I bolded that so you’ll see the word Protestant.) Having grown up in that denomination, I’m kind of familiar with it also.
Another incorrect assertion of yours is the bit about non-muslims being infidels. 'Tain’t so. Go read the Qu’ran for the correct information & you’ll discover that those who are “People of the Book” aren’t considered to be infidels.
OK, I recant my gentile/infidel/protestant assertion. I don’t know why you’re bolding the word ‘Protestant’ though. Are you saying there is more than one kind of Episcopa Church? Can you explain?
I also know that Poly is way, way more informed about the faith than I am, but I’m also trying to work out what, precisely, is the “repeated incorrect description”. Having read Poly’s post, I see that there are a few nuances that aren’t covered in the standard historical account, mainly to do with unfortunate timing during the occupation of Rome. However, when the events are distilled, it is still the necessity for divorce that was the impetus for this particular schism. If his objection is my implication that the creation of the C of E was based on selfish/lascivious motivation, then I do apologise for having implied this (which I realise I did in the other thread: schoolboy humour is my excuse).
However, it is clear from all accounts of Henry VIII that he wasn’t a very nice chap by today’s standards (that is from an Anglican website, BTW): beheading his wife, instigating the Reformation, not to mention what he did to Catholics in Ireland. Surely nobody could say this wasn’t a ghastly, bloody business (I’m not claiming that Mary, the subsequent Catholic monarch, wasn’t just as nasty). This is not a criticism of this faith or denomination - it’s just English history.
There is little doubt in my mind that Henry Tudor of the six wives was something of a prick. And, England being as nigh unto an absolute monarchy as it ever got during his reign, what he said went. And I agree that what the Protestant Ascendancy did between 1485 and 1922 in Ireland is despicable.
BTW, neither Henry nor his Protestant son Edward VI were excommunicated; in one of the great ironies of history, Mary I was (for being on the wrong side in a political conflict the Pope was involved in). The first excommunication on religious grounds of an English monarch, ignoring John back in the 1200s, was Elizabeth I.
Doctrinally, Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans agree on the idea of the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. Anglicans stop short there, while Catholics are called to adhere to the Thomistic doctrine that while the “accidents” perceptible to the senses remain those of bread and wine, the “substance” underlying them – the reality of what they actually are – is the Body and Blood of Christ. Lutheran doctrine suggests that they remain bread and wine but take on the role of body and blood as well. Anglicans say that the Catholic doctrine of transustantiation “overthrows the nature of a sacrment” – in which one thing serves effectually to function as another for the means of imparting grace. (E.g., placing a ring on a girl’s finger does not ipso facto constitute a marriage, but doing so in connection with exchanging marriage vows with the intention of marrying her does.)
One can get into a long involved argument about the proper “polity” (church government), but suffice it to say that Anglicans hold with Orthodox to the idea of national churches united in one communion, governed by bishops carrying on the Apostolic Succession.
There are a lot of lesser distinctions that might be drawn. But perhaps the “flavor” of the Episcopal Church (as Monty notes, we American Episcopalians are officially PECUSA but tend to use “the Episcopal Church” to identify ourselves) can be best found in the Baptismal Covenant joined in by the newly baptized (or their parents and sponsors if babies) and the congregation in renewal of their own vows at every service of baptism (five times a year, on average, and always at the Easter Vigil):
(The first part of that, of course, will be familiar to many as the words of the Apostles’ Creed.)
Is this still true? Earlier this year I was involved in the updating of the bylaws of our parish, and our Assistant Rector said we should eliminate the word “Protestant” from the name of the national church. I just checked the ECUSA’swebsite and found nothing that mentions the ** Protestant** ECUSA (but it’s a big site, and I didn’t check every page).
I had to do some digging, but I found the answer – and it’s not what I had thought: that the church had dropped the “Protestant” from its official name.
The church when originally formed never formally incorporated, adopting the name of Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America as descriptive of the former Church of England parishes here – they were Episcopal as opposed to Presbyterian or Congregational, Protestant as opposed to the other episcopal church, the Roman Catholics, and of course in the U.S.A.
That quote is taken from an official statement deriving from the move of a bunch of right-wing secessionists to incorporate under the PECUSA name and take over possessions alleged to belong to that name. This article tells that sad story.
We’re officially the {Protestant} Episcopal Church {in the United States of America} with either or both of the terms in braces capable of being omitted and the result still describing us.
