Ok. Where to begin?
I was raised a Roman Catholic until my 16th Birthday where after confirmation I did not step foot into the church again. My parents fullfilled their duty as devout Catholics to bring me through Confirmation.
My views now at age 30 hold similar to the Unitarian Universalist perspective and I profess that being an honest man is a good way to live.
I am getting married in 83 days. My wife is Episcopalian. I recently went to a mass with her and was amazed at the similarites between the Catholic Mass and the Episcopal proceedings. I was happy to see a married Priest, that was nice.
Following the mass we went to my soon-to-be inlaws house and proceeded to get in a conversation about the modern Anglican movement in the United States.
I was listening to the conversation, thinking mainly about what I am going to get my groomsman for a gift when Uncle Mike (my fiance’s uncle who’s Catholic) jolted in this Statement, “Episcopalians are basically the easy man’s Catholic”
Silence
Then dad piped in something along the lines of a historical account of Episcopals and how when he lived in the UK (they have dual citizenship because my father-in-law is British and my mother-in-law is American) he was percecuted etc…etc…My fiance’s uncle quoted to the best of his ability this quote:
Quoted from FATHER CHRYSOSTOMOS from the Catholic information Network
So in all faces flared, chests heaved and in the end we rested and gulped our reisling. Each party thinking their faith was the more pure path to Divine Providence. My question / debatable inquiry is this:
If the basis of the RC system is grounded in the assertion that jurisdictional oversight of the Church is not a power that derives from human ambition, but strictly from the authority of Christ which was given to his twelve apostles, than how does the Episcopal church separate their jurisdictional powers within it’s own hierarchy? And how is it different from Catholicism?
I’m nominally Episcopalian, there are many differences between the Episcopal and Catholic churches (especially in the evanglist movement within the CoE, though at the other end of the spectrum the High Church movement is pretty close to Catholism). The doctrine of transubstantiation is rejected by the episcopal church, no confession or penance either, saints aren’t venerated there is not real cultus surrounding the Virgin Mary,etc.
The Archbishop of Canterbury does not claim any sort of infallibilty and there is much more debate and difference of opinion within the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
I refuse to get into a war with Roman Catholics over the distinctions in our theologies.
The Anglican Communion more closely resembles the Orthodox church in terms of polity than it does the Roman Catholic Church.
The Anglican Communion has preserved the same Apostolic Succession on which Orthodoxy and RCC hang their collective authority-hats.
Doctrine has not changed; how it’s understood to apply to people has been modified as church leadership becomes more aware of psychological and sociological facts affecting formerly misunderstood parts of the population.
“Catholic lite” and related termingology is about on a par with “all those pedophile priests” in terms of offensiveness. I’ve edited back what I’ve had to say here twice – the first time would have gotten me a Mod. warning.
Any chance I could get a rework of the question in the OP that would allow a more level and courteous answer than this one probably is?
Polycarp - I did not intend on ressurecting flames in this post. And I was hoping you would respond to this thread. I enjoy reading your theological viewpoints in posts and hold a good amount of virtual respect for you. Allow me to rephrase the question from more of a layman’s point of view. Me being the layman of course.
After attending mass at an Episcopalian Church I noticed quite a few similarities between it and the Catholic Masses I remember as a kid. The Lords Prayer is the same as is the Apostle’s Creed IIRC. And it appeared many of the ecclesiastical traditions of the two religions are very similar. What are the differences in the hierarchy of the two religions (Governing Bodies)? If the Episcopal church more closely resembles the orthodoxy why is that? And how did the Great Schism happen between the two?
I’ve heard more than one Catholic wag deliver this judgement about Episcopalianism: “It’s Catholic Lite. Two-thirds the guilt.”
I know very little about what separates the two faiths, but given that I’ve heard this sentiment at least twice, there must be something to the notion for the phrase to have become common currency like that.
I’ve got a long, long series of posts on the origins of major denominations, starting with my own, somewhere on the board (in Great Debates), and also in the Salad Bar on the Pizza Parlor. I’ll try to search that out and link to it. Forgive me if I don’t go through a whole mess of history.
Very quickly, almost every nation was part of the united church prior to 1000 AD but had a national church organization under an archbishop in communion with Rome and Constantinople. England was no exception to that rule. At the time of the Reformation, political issues were such that the English church disavowed the right of the Pope to intervene locally. About 40 years later, Rome excommunicated the Anglicans.
Like the Orthodox, the Anglicans are divided into national churches: the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., the Church of Nigeria, etc., joined in communion with the See of Canterbury but with no authority over them. (E.g., if the American Catholic bishops felt that married priests would be no problem, they’d have to clear it with Rome; the Episcopal Church accepted women as priests back in 1967 with nobody but itself having a say over whether they did or not.)
Sacramentally, we preserve a great deal of the old Catholic ritual, including Eucharist every week in most parishes, the availability of personal confession to a priest (but we don’t mandate it), the old monastic offices preserved as the Daily Office, etc. The creeds (Apostles’ for the daily office and Baptisms; Nicene for the Eucharist) are identical to Rome (barring minor differences in translation). Theologically we’ve grown much closer to Orthodoxy – a trend with several hundred years of history, but I’ve noted the tendency as increasing in the 25 years Barb and I have been Episcopalians.
Each Anglican church is organized into dioceses under a bishop, of course. The larger ones are grouped into provinces (a technical term in this context), in most cases under an archbishop. Overall governance is done by an elective convention meeting every few years and by a Primate, usually an Archbishop, in the interim. The Episcopal Church holds to the job of Presiding Bishop and refuses to make him into an Archbishop, for quite technical reasons. England has two provinces, as does Ireland;, Canada and Australia have four each; the U.S. has ten (but no archbishops; instead we elect a President for each province, who may be a layperson); Wales and Scotland have no breakdown into provinces.
It’s always possible to set doctrinal questions in a variety of contexts; what the guy you quoted in the OP has to say is taken from a very legalistic POV (typical of official Roman Catholic pronouncements, I’m sorry to have to say), and our perspective is that the commands of Christ call on us to extend welcome and ministry to people whom we previously misunderstood as willful sinners. Beyond that, I’ll end up getting into controverted theological questions, but if that’s a start on answering you, I’ll be glad.
The “Catholic Lite” thing has a great deal to do with things that are mandator for Catholics being voluntary for Anglicans – beyond that, I’d rather not go there.
As a Catholic, I would note that Uncle Mike behaved as a jerk. (While I have seen “Catholic Lite” used without an intent to offend–usually with the “2/3 of the guilt” quip, describing the Anglican Communion as “Easy man’s Catholic” is not only offensive, but stupid.)
As to Fr. Chysostomos, here is his article. Here is the CIN homepage. I wandered throught the “Ask Father” columns, noting responses by Fr. Chysostomos, and I note that he, on several occasions, longs for the days before Vatican II (back when the Church Militant was strongly opposed to all them turr’bl’ protist’ts). It would seem that he chooses to ignore or to re-interpret various changes that have occurred in the Catholic expression of Faith, as well.
His was a personal opinion that I surely do not endorse.
Nice. This being Great Debates, furnish proof of your assertions, or apologize to me and other Anglicans (Siege, Steve Wright, etc.) for slandering our church.
FWIW, the “difference” started about 1000 years before Henry VIII was ever thought of, and the final separation from Rome came about roughly forty years after he asked the Pope for an annulment, partly owing to Anne Boleyn having caught his eye and partly due to religious scruples.
And Catherine of Aragon died a natural death attended by her daughter Princess Mary several years after Henry got his way. Only Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard of his wives were executed, both for treason.
I’m sure Henry would have come up with any reason he could have in order to have them out of the way…
Seriously though, no matter how you dress it up, it was a political decision whether that drive for an heir was from passion of having lots of woman or simply for a male heir. It gave Henry a way to have more power by becoming the head of the spiritual lives of people in addition to policital and geographical.
The RCC became a legitimate religion after Constantine bloodied a battlefield with germanic blood(or was it the goths?). In any case, no religion is free of political decisions. The Episcopal Church is just a little easier to document because it occurred more recently.
I’m not particularly interested in trying to defend Henry VIII, who is by no means one of my favorite historical persons. But if you’ll notice, the material you cited contradicts what you said in your first post and confirms mine. Divorce !=annulment; Catherine of Aragon != Anne Boleyn.
And none of them address what Thomas Cranmer did in stabilizing the Church of England after the initial separation from Rome.
Your remarks put a very offensive construction on the origin of my church, and I called you on it. [BTW, adultery on the part of the queen was considered an attempt to introduce a usurper on the throne (i.e., her child would not be the heir of the king in blood, though he’d end up recognized as heir) and as such was considered treaqson in that period.]
The difference is based in theological and liturgiological questions, which spun off Henry’s decision to deny the Pope authority to refuse the annulment he sought.
I may ow a few apologies here for my less-than-poeaceful tone. But it seems like 2003 was declared National Bash-the-Episcopal-Church Year, and they forgot to send me a copy of the memo. So I’ve been jest a mite tetchy about anti-Episcopal/Anglican remarks of late.
Polycarp, my understanding was that Katherine of Aragon did not see her daughter on her death bed, but instead was prevented from seeing her in her final years by Henry who was pushing both to accept the annulment. Am I mistaken?
[/hijack]
My understanding (again, I could be wrong and would appreciate some information) is that the Church of England greatly evolved over the years after Henry’s death and is very different from Henry’s vision which was a basically Roman Catholic church but one that didn’t require a ruling monarch to be obediant to the Pope.
I am Episcopalian/Anglican for several reasons, not the least of which is because it’s the faith I was raised in. I actually have seriously considered converting to Catholicism, in part because I was once engaged to a devout Catholic, but I decided it would be morally dishonest of me to convert. My brother in spirit, Polycarp, is far better equipped to talk about the fine lines of distinction between the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church, but here are the major things which have kept me Episcopalian:
[ul]Current Issues
[li]I’m a woman and I have considered the priesthood. If I genuinely get such a call, within the Episcopal Church, I am free to act on that calling. I wouldn’t be within the Catholic Church.[/li][li]Some Catholic churches have a policy of only allowing Catholics to partake in the Eucharist. Because of my own issues, I dislike barring anyone from doing so, especially not those who are good standing by their own or at least their own denomination’s standards (although, I do find myself checking to see if that business about being in good standing with one’s neighbors still applies to me.[/li][li]I cannot accept the policy of Papal Infallibity, even in a limited role. The Pope may be a good leader (I’m afraid I have my doubts), but he is still a human being, therefore fallible by my Episcopalian standards. [/li][li]I disagree with what I’m told the Catholic church’s policy on birth control is, although that fiance I mentioned was all for us using it and claimed the Pope was not speaking ex cathedra when he banned it. I don’t consider sex something to be used solely for procreation, and, to put it flippantly, as far as I’m concerned, if God didn’t want birth control to work, it wouldn’t. [/li]
[li]I am also in favour of priests being allowed to marry and have had the privilege of knowing some very good married couples, both of whom are priests. [/li]
Historic issues:
When the Anglican Church was founded, the Catholic Church had policies which I think weren’t good ideas and, like Protestantism, I think it instituted some much needed reforms. I’ll leave most of these to Polycarp, but I wanted to point out one I particularly agree with.
[li]One of the things which I am most in favor of is from its inception, the Anglican Church was of the opinion that services must be conducted in the language of the congregation. Here’s Article XXIV from the church’s Articles of Religion:[/li]
The Catholic Church routinely used Latin until the 1960’s, if I recall correctly.[/ul]
MC Master of Ceremonies, I’m afraid you got a few things wrong about our shared church. Even the official documents are a bit vague on transubstantiation, and in some ways my response may be truly Episcopalian. While I don’t believe the bread and wine become literal, DNA-containing flesh and blood, as someone who not only partakes in mass, but is often a chalicist, the person serving wine from the chalice, I do believe that these things become much more than mere half-cardboard and port wine (the wine at my particular church is much better than the bread!) The only thing is, the best way I know how to describe this involves switching over to Wiccan terminology!
The Anglican Church also does have Confession, and I’ve made use of it after committing a particular vile, unjust sin that involved serious violations of vows I personally have made to God. The confession was made to my personal priest who, after hearing what I did and seeing my reaction to it, did formally absolve me of my sin and, I think, figured I was putting myself through penance enough. While I acknowledge that God forgives sin, not men, and He’s usually quicker to do so than I am, in that particular circumstance, I needed formal confession and absolution for my own sake. I’ve also used Polycarp as a confessor a time or two.
Veneration of saints. OK, we aren’t as big on asking them to intercede for us as the Catholics are, but I honored and revered St. Polycarp long before I even heard of the poster who bears his name. I also have a great deal of honor and respect for the saint who’s name my church bears, and see his life as an example, along with many others, including some the Anglican Church acknowledges but the Catholic Church doesn’t, such as one Absalom Jones.
On the cult surrounding the Virgin Mary, you’ve got me there. I don’t understand it myself, but that’s another reason I’m Episcopalian. As I’ve said only half jokingly, I’m a reasonable Episcopalian, but I’d be a lousy Catholic! More seriously, why should I trade a religion I honor, follow, and whose obligations I am willing and able to fulfill for one I wouldn’t?
Antiquarian, I understand your confusion. My fiance came to my church on Christmas Eve and was stunned to realize that the service was word-for-word identical to the service at his Catholic church. Since he was an altar boy, just as I was an acolyte, we’d both gotten real familiar with the service when we were teenagers. One of the things I loved about him was the way we could discuss and even argue about our religions without losing respect for each other. As a result, I’m less bothered by the term “Catholic lite” than Polycarp is. Maybe if he heard it from a guy who’s 6’ 3" tall, hairy, and totally in love with him . . . Nah, maybe not!
I am Episcopalian and I cannot be Catholic, not because I am incapable of meeting the higher moral standards of Catholicism, but because what I believe to be True better suits Truth as defined by the Anglican Church rather than the Catholic Church. There were good reasons for my church’s founding which went far beyond a certain monarch’s pecadilloes, and there remain reasons for the separation. Nevertheless, while I was looking through the Book of Common Prayer, I was reminded of this statement from our House of Bishops in 1886:
I may as well leave you with one of the traditional ways Episcopalians end a church service:
“The peace of the Lord be always with you.”
“And also with you.”
“Thanks be to God!”
CJ
That last can sound suspiciously fervent at times!
I’m pretty sure that the Anglican church rejects [bTransubstantantion**, certainly in the literal way it is taken in Catholism though maybe not in transcendental sense.
As usual, we resort to Orthodox doctrine here – the bread and wine convey the Real Presence of Christ. How? It’s a mystery – we categorically reject the idea that one must adhere to the Aquinan/Aristotelian categories and interpretation (though to be fair it would seem from tom~'s posts that Catholicism is slowly allowing more freedom of interpretation here as well.
We have a General Confession recited every Sunday by the congregation, admitting our inability to love God with all that is in us and our neighbors as ourselves, “things done and left undone.” As Siege notes, the option of private auricular confession to a priest is available to those who wish it. At least six different priests have explained this with what is apparently a standard formula: “All can; some should; none must.”
Generally, saints are honored as exemplars who furnish us with models of how to follow Christ in a variety of roles in life. Some few high-church Anglicans do pray to them. My wife is a member of the Society of St. Francis, life professed in a religious order that is structured to allow its members to follow normal roles in society, including the married life.
Well, Chris did use the term once jokingly. Of course he’s only 6’1" but otherwise the description fits, though he has a badly receding hairline…
As usual, we resort to Orthodox doctrine here – the bread and wine convey the Real Presence of Christ. How? It’s a mystery – we categorically reject the idea that one must adhere to the Aquinan/Aristotelian categories and interpretation (though to be fair it would seem from tom~'s posts that Catholicism is slowly allowing more freedom of interpretation here as well.
We have a General Confession recited every Sunday by the congregation, admitting our inability to love God with all that is in us and our neighbors as ourselves, “things done and left undone.” As Siege notes, the option of private auricular confession to a priest is available to those who wish it. At least six different priests have explained this with what is apparently a standard formula: “All can; some should; none must.”
Generally, saints are honored as exemplars who furnish us with models of how to follow Christ in a variety of roles in life. Some few high-church Anglicans do pray to them. My wife is a member of the Society of St. Francis, life professed in a religious order that is structured to allow its members to follow normal roles in society, including the married life.
Well, Chris did use the term once jokingly. Of course he’s only 6’1" but otherwise the description fits, though he has a badly receding hairline…
