What exactly is the difference and ultimately the relationship between the United States Episcopal and the Anglican church?
First a little background. The Anglican church recognizes the British monarch as its head. That is why they call it the Anglican church in Commonwealth countries. I know there is an Anglican church of Canada (I live right on the border in Detroit). I assume they also call it that in Australia, New Zealand, ***ETC ***.
The Episcopal church of the United States came after the American Revolution. It is considered part of the Anglican Communion. But it surely couldn’t recognize the British monarch as its head, which is where much of my confusion, at least, comes from.
Also, it is worth pointing out, the word “Episcopal”, means involving a hierarchy of bishops and archbishops. So strictly speaking both churches are episcopal (small " e"). Yet only one is Anglican ?
There is no “Anglican Church.” There’s the Anglican Communion, which is a collection of churches around the world which trace their origins back to the Church of England. However, they are all autonomous. It’s not like the Roman Catholic Church, where the different churches all owe obedience to the Pope. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the most senior leader of the Anglican Communion, but he’s just primus inter pares: he has no authority over the other churches in the Communion.
As well, it’s only the C of E that recognises the monarch as the head of the Church. She has no such recognition in any of the other national churches.
The Episcopal Church in the States was the first church outside the British isles to establish a separate national status, at the time of the Revolution. To preserve the apostolic line of succession, the first Bishop of the Episcopal Church was consecrated by a Bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is also part of the Anglican Communion but does not have the monarch as the titular head.
As for the name, I would assume that it was to distance the church in the newly independent US from the C of E, to avoid any suggestion that Episcopalians were Loyalists.
And yes, all churches in the Anglican Communion are episcopalian in structure, but the churches in Commonwealth countries have been content with the name “Anglican”.
There’s really isn’t Anglican Church as such, despite popular use of that term. There’s an Anglican Communion which has thirty-some member churches (called provinces). One of those is the Church of England, whose clergy swear allegiance to the British monarch. But none of the other member churches are required to have that feature. (Whether the Commonwealth churches also do that, I have no idea.)
The US Episcopal Church is another member of the Anglican Communion. Officially its highest body is the General Convention, but the day-to-day leader is the Primate. Other Anglican churches also have Primates, such as the Archbishop of Cantebury in the Church of England.
The members of the Anglican Communion all have certain doctrinal differences, for example the Episcopalian church ordains women. You have to go pretty far afield to cause a schism, but it’s happened before.
A schism is precisely what was involved with the creation of the Anglican Church in North America in 2009. It was a split by the more conservative US Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans that weren’t happy with church-sanctioned gay marriage and ordination of a gay priest. However, they are not part of the Anglican Communion, although they would like to be.
ETA: Flyer’s links are to the Anglican Church in North America - again, not officially in communion with the Church of England or the Episcopalians.
The Catholic Church example is not quite right - the Chinese Communist Party established a local church,separate to Rome, for essentially similar reasons of trying to avoid the problem of split loyalties for state-sanctioned institutions.
The Anglican church is also labelled Episcopal in Scotland which is a smart move in a country where “connected in any way with England” is the opposite of a selling point. I imagine it wouldn’t have been a selling point in post-revolutionary USA either
No, it’s not. The Church of England and the Church of Ireland are so named because, from the time of the Reformation, they saw themselves as the national churches of England and Ireland respectively, and indeed were established by law as such. The Church of Scotland (which is not an Anglican church, but a Presbyterian church) is so named for similar reasons.
For what it’s worth, by no means all the churches descended from the Church of England and participating in the Anglican communion actually have the word "Anglican’ as part of their name, and for those that do, this is often a (relatively) recent development. We’ve already noted, obviously, the Episcopal Church of the United States; there’s also the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem, the Scottish Episcopal Church, Iglesia Episcopal de Cuba, and others with names constructed on the same pattern. Then there are others named on the “Church of England” pattern - the Church of Bangladesh, the Church of North India, the Church of the Province of Central Africa, etc. And finally you have your Anglican churches - the Anglican Church of Canada (so named in 1977; previously the Church of England in Canada); the Anglican Church of Australia (until 1981, the Church of England in Australia); the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (until 2006, the Church of the Province of Southern Africa); etc.
A bonus point to the Doper who can identify the first Anglican church actually to include the word “Anglican” as part of its formal name. I don’t know the answer to this question myself.
Specifically, I thought that CofE clergy answered to a Bishop (it’s episcopalian), and the Bishops were represented in the House of Lords, so the Bishops would have to take an oath of allegiance before taking their seats, but the rest of them?
Also, the Queen is the “Defender of the Faith”, so in theory, they support her, and she supports them. It’s reciprocal: that doesn’t make her the head of the church.
All the clergy, from deacons upwards. There are exceptions for foreign citizens who are being consecrated as bishops, or ordained as clerics, for ministry in foreign countries, but anyone ordained or installed for ministry in England, whether a British Citizen or not, must take the oath.
She’s “Defender of the Faith” and “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”.
Cradle Episcopalian here, and glad to be one. The Episcopal Church and my own particular parish are deeply faithful, welcoming to all, socially liberal and steeped in the traditions of the Anglican Communion. I love it.
The top Episcopal bishop is indeed a primate, that is, the top bishop of a national church, but his title is actually Presiding Bishop. We have never had Episcopal archbishops, as it happens: Michael Curry (bishop) - Wikipedia
If I recall correctly, it was the Oath of Allegiance that was the reason for the Scottish Bishops being the ones to consecrate the first American Bishop. The Episcopal Church in Scotland isn’t established, so the clergy of that church don’t have to swear the oath of allegiance. The C of E clergy possibly would have been in breach of their oaths if they consecrated the American.
?
