Church Adventuring: Anglican or Episcopalian or Both?

[Picky Picky]

No, but I might go for that if we could use that title. i think we'd need a funny hat to go along with the title.

Of course Anglicans in England have a Supreme Governor, and she has been known to wear a funny hat.

 

[Albion]

Oh, as to why it is "Episcopal" I am absolutely sure you are right.

And we might add that "Protestant" was made part of the name (Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA) so that people--having been deterred from thinking of the church as an extension of the CofE by the use of the word "Episcopal" --in order to distinguish this church with bishops from the Church of Rome.

This "Via Media" stuff can be tricky at times.

 

[PaladinValer]

Just to give a slightly different gloss to that, PV, because there are some myths about the Scottish origins of the American episcopate, the first American bishop, Dr Seabury, asked to be consecrated by Church of England bishops, but they declined because they were not empowered to consecrate anyone unable to take the oath of allegiance. He was therefore consecrated by Scottish bishops.

Indeed. The CoE was, after all, a state church, and prayers for the reigning monarch were a part of the fundamental liturgy.

Of course, that was not a barrier to being in communion with them or even outright unity, as Anglicans and Lutherans attempted such a feat soon after we formally kicked the Pope out. The fact that it sadly failed doesn't, of course, nix the idea that it is impossible.

Soon after, Parliament passed an Act allowing CofE bishops to consecrate non-citizens serving abroad without the oath, and so the second, third and fourth American bishops were consecrated by Church of England bishops: White and Provoost by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of Bath and Wells; and Madison by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London and Rochester.

Actually, the fourth was the same as the first: ++William White. ++Samuel Seabury was second, and ++Samuel Provoost was third.

Those three bishops – White, Provoost and Madison – with their Church of England lines, dominate the American lines of succession.

Actually, until later, they were the only ones. ++Samuel Seabury consecrated two bishops, but they in turn did not consecrate any further ones. Still, the Scottish legacy lives on today not only in the American BCP, but in the fact that many official liturgies throughout the Anglican Communion have at least elements from it.

However, my point was that our first line was Scottish, which did mingle for a brief period of time with the English. Furthermore, it was because of the Scottish succession that the English line was made even possible: the people there were worried about a new Jacobite ally.

 

[Picky Picky]

Actually, the fourth was the same as the first: ++William White. ++Samuel Seabury was second, and ++Samuel Provoost was third.

I think perhaps you are listing the presiding bishops, I was numbering the Episcopal Church bishops simply in order of consecration: 1 Seabury, 2 & 3 White and Provoost, 4 Madison.

 

[Picky Picky]

And we might add that "Protestant" was made part of the name (Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA) so that people--having been deterred from thinking of the church as an extension of the CofE by the use of the word "Episcopal" --in order to distinguish this church with bishops from the Church of Rome.

This "Via Media" stuff can be tricky at times.

They weren't worried people might think they were Orthodox then?

 

[Albion]

They weren't worried people might think they were Orthodox then?

In the words of our colonial forefathers..."Who?"

 

[PaladinValer]

I think perhaps you are listing the presiding bishops, I was numbering the Episcopal Church bishops simply in order of consecration: 1 Seabury, 2 & 3 White and Provoost, 4 Madison.

Noted.

 

[mark46]

Quite true.

However in the late 1800's there were serious discussions regarding the Orthodox Church accepting The Episcopal Church as an Orthodox church. The TEC prayerbook, with minor changes, was sent to Moscow for approval.

Times have certainly changed, but discussions between the two continue, not with regard to union, but with regard to understanding.

As previously note, TEC is in full communion with world-wide Lutherans.

In the words of our colonial forefathers..."Who?"

 

[alasthai]

They weren't worried people might think they were Orthodox then?

Well, not for about forty years ...

 

[Sean611]

Quite true.

However in the late 1800's there were serious discussions regarding the Orthodox Church accepting The Episcopal Church as an Orthodox church. The TEC prayerbook, with minor changes, was sent to Moscow for approval.

From what I've been told, it seems that Anglicans and Orthodox were really close to full communion again in the 1920s. I remember reading one of the main bishops in the Orthodox Church remarking, after research, that if Anglican orders are invalid, then Catholic and Orthodox orders are invalid as well. With women's ordination the norm in many Anglican provinces, we are probably further away from the Orthodox than we've been in quite some time.

It would be interesting to see where Anglicanism would be today if they would have reached an agreement with the Orthodox.