Episcopalian Vs Catholic: The Big Issues

[BohemianMare]

I was told that the Episcopalian church is very similiar to Catholicism, but a little more modern. So I was curious how they stack on issues like birth control, homosexuality, the salvation of non-Christians, etc.

I'm more then a little curious and would appreciate input! Also, do alot of Catholics end up going Episocpalian if they have issues with some of the hard line Catholic stances? Anyone here that has done that?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

Mare

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I was told that the Episcopalian church is very similiar to Catholicism, but a little more modern. So I was curious how they stack on issues like birth control, homosexuality, the salvation of non-Christians, etc.

I'm more then a little curious and would appreciate input! Also, do alot of Catholics end up going Episocpalian if they have issues with some of the hard line Catholic stances? Anyone here that has done that?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

Mare

Episcopalian is Anglican, and I am "Church of England", which is also Anglican. Anglicanism isn't more "modern" than Roman Catholicism. Anglicanism comes from the Church which has been in England since the very early days of Christianity. There are explanations of Anglican history and beliefs in the CF Anglican congregational thread http://www.christianforums.com/t673925-an-outline-of-the-faith.html

My mother is an example of someone who was RC and converted to Anglican (Episcopalian). The reasons for her conversion were mainly to do with the fact that the Anglican church has open communion, has women in the priesthood, and also she was upset at the time of the paedophilia going on in the RC priesthood.

The Anglican church does not tell people what kind of birth control to use.

The Anglican church is continuing to examine issues such as homosexuality, especially within the priesthood.

 

[eoe]

Our religion is 2000 years old.

Modern = bad.

 

[deapo7]

I had pretty much a similiar experience with the RC church. I am looking to learn more about the Angelican church and am looking to embracing it as well.

I have always been curious about things and I had finally taken the step towards learning the ways.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I had pretty much a similiar experience with the RC church. I am looking to learn more about the Angelican church and am looking to embracing it as well.

I have always been curious about things and I had finally taken the step towards learning the ways.

Excellent! Come on over to the Anglican congregational forum (we call it 'STR' - Scripture, Tradition and Reason). Welcome to Christian Forums!

 

[UberLutheran]

Our religion is 2000 years old.

Modern = bad.

I've never been big on electricity, light bulbs, indoor plumbing, air conditioning or English, either.

Of course, when I asked the church council to have these things removed from our parish so we could worship as Christians used to do (in Aramaic) 2,000 years ago, everyone laughed.

Well -- the catacombs had their OWN air conditioning, thank you very much!

 

[L3g3nd]

I've never been big on electricity, light bulbs, indoor plumbing, air conditioning or English, either.

Of course, when I asked the church council to have these things removed from our parish so we could worship as Christians used to do (in Aramaic) 2,000 years ago, everyone laughed.

Well -- the catacombs had their OWN air conditioning, thank you very much!

Are you comparing the changing of doctrine to social/technological advancement?

 

[PaladinValer]

I was told that the Episcopalian church is very similiar to Catholicism, but a little more modern. So I was curious how they stack on issues like birth control, homosexuality, the salvation of non-Christians, etc.

Modern in what sense? I assume you mean less..."dogmatic"?

Anglicanism is just as Catholic as the Vatican Church.

Birthcontrol is up to the individual, but most Anglicans are fine with it so long as they aren't abortives.

Homosexuality is the current hot topic. There are all sides to this, which is fine with me.

Salvation of non-Christians is possible by their living faith in those commonalities and similarities their religions share with Christianity. Our position is exactly the same as that of the Vatican Catholic Church.

I'm more then a little curious and would appreciate input! Also, do alot of Catholics end up going Episocpalian if they have issues with some of the hard line Catholic stances? Anyone here that has done that?

A lot of Vatican Catholics convert to Anglicanism. My mother pretty much has. If you have any questions in particular, feel free to PM me and I hope you come to STR here in CF.

Episcopalian is Anglican, and I am "Church of England", which is also Anglican. Anglicanism isn't more "modern" than Roman Catholicism. Anglicanism comes from the Church which has been in England since the very early days of Christianity. There are explanations of Anglican history and beliefs in the CF Anglican congregational thread http://www.christianforums.com/t673925-an-outline-of-the-faith.html

My mother is an example of someone who was RC and converted to Anglican (Episcopalian). The reasons for her conversion were mainly to do with the fact that the Anglican church has open communion, has women in the priesthood, and also she was upset at the time of the paedophilia going on in the RC priesthood.

The Anglican church does not tell people what kind of birth control to use.

The Anglican church is continuing to examine issues such as homosexuality, especially within the priesthood.

Well said Karen!

Our religion is 2000 years old.

Modern = bad.

I'm surprised at the lack of Christ's love in this obviously negative and rude implicit reply.

I'm also surprised that you didn't seem to notice that the OP probably didn't mean "modern" in the sense of time but, rather, meant something else but probably couldn't think of the word to use at the moment. Surely you've had similar experiences; I know I do from time to time.

I had pretty much a similiar experience with the RC church. I am looking to learn more about the Angelican church and am looking to embracing it as well.

I have always been curious about things and I had finally taken the step towards learning the ways.

Like the OP, feel free to PM me if you wish, and I would hope you'd stop by STR and ask questions and join us in fellowship.

Are you comparing the changing of doctrine to social/technological advancement?

What "change in doctrine"?

1. Apostolic Succession?
2. True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
3. Seven Sacraments?
4. Orders of deacons, priests, and bishops?
5. Sacrificial Mass?
6. Ecclesiastical and Episcopal authority?
7. Adherence to Holy Tradition?
8. Deuterocanon as Scripture?

 

[ebia]

What "change in doctrine"?

1. Apostolic Succession?
2. True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
3. Seven Sacraments?
4. Orders of deacons, priests, and bishops?
5. Sacrificial Mass?
6. Ecclesiastical and Episcopal authority?
7. Adherence to Holy Tradition?
8. Deuterocanon as Scripture?

Of course, a good many Anglicans would deny that the Anglican church holds to some or all of points 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8. But it's that very diversity that is the Anglican Communion's most distinctive trait and what attracts many of us to it.

 

[L3g3nd]

Of course, a good many Anglicans would deny that the Anglican church holds to some or all of points 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8. But it's that very diversity that is the Anglican Communion's most distinctive trait and what attracts many of us to it.

The arguments among Anglicans concerning those things do not denote diversity, but disunity.

 

[PaladinValer]

2 is actually the norm of even the 39 Articles.

3 is believed by us, since we accept the definition of a sacrament to be a visible, physical sign of an invisible, spiritual grace.

5 is proven to be fully Anglican by our official Saepius Officio doctrinal bull

7 is a part of our unofficial credo, Scripture, Tradition, Reason

8 is also Anglican. What we pray is what we believe, as we Anglicans often say. A great deal of our prayers and hymns come from these books, as does a great deal of Holy Tradition, so it is included.

Still...

2 is flexible. While it is certainly both a bodily and spiritual Presence, how exactly? Consubstantiation? Transubstantiation? Somewhere in the middle? Pious Silence on those particulars?

3. There is no doubt that the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist are the Greater Two and the others are lesser. That notion is not outside Anglicanism.

5. This is the only one where there cannot truly be much flexibility.

7. It is wise to remember that there is a difference between dogmas and doctrines with disciplines and devotions. The former two are necessities, whereas the other two are largely optional. You don't need to say the Anglican rosary every day to be a good Anglican!

8. Certainly there was debate on these books, and that should always be remembered. Still, the Church ecumenically did declare the Canon, although it might be wise of some of us to instruct ourselves in these books perhaps after the undebated Old and New Testaments.

 

[ebia]

The arguments among Anglicans concerning those things do not denote diversity, but disunity.

That may be your perspective - I'm not going to get into slagging insulting someone else's church nor defending my own against somebody else's insults.

 

[ebia]

2 is actually the norm of even the 39 Articles.

Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly isn't held to by a large proportion of Anglicans.

3 is believed by us, since we accept the definition of a sacrament to be a visible, physical sign of an invisible, spiritual grace.

Nevertheless a significant number of Anglicans prefer something closer to what the Articles say - that there are two sacraments, and the other 5 are of some kind of lesser status, not to be called sacraments. At the other end a significant number take a more EO view that there are are many more sacraments than the usually numbered 7.

5 is proven to be fully Anglican by our official Saepius Officio doctrinal bull

Whatever Saepius Officio may say, it's not the position of a large proportion, quite possible the majority, of the Anglican church.

7 is a part of our unofficial credo, Scripture, Tradition, Reason

Note the word 'unofficial'. For many Anglicans it plays a definite 3rd fiddle to Scripture followed by reason.

8 is also Anglican. What we pray is what we believe, as we Anglicans often say. A great deal of our prayers and hymns come from these books, as does a great deal of Holy Tradition, so it is included.

We may draw on it, and even believe a lot of it, but a huge proportion of the Anglican communion does not believe it is canonical scripture.

Still...
5. This is the only one where there cannot truly be much flexibility.

It's probably the one where there is least consenus to your view. Most evangelical Anglicans would throw a fit at the idea of a sacrificial mass.



8. Certainly there was debate on these books, and that should always be remembered. Still, the Church ecumenically did declare the Canon, although it might be wise of some of us to instruct ourselves in these books perhaps after the undebated Old and New Testaments.[/quote]

 

[karen freeinchristman]

It's probably the one where there is least consenus to your view. Most evangelical Anglicans would throw a fit at the idea of a sacrificial mass.

I have to say that as upsetting as it might be for some Anglicans to hear this, ebia is right. In all my years as an Anglican (which has only been 8), my parish has never taught this. It doesn't teach that it's simply a remembrance, either. I think it would rather leave it as mystery, which suits me fine. My parish is what would be called 'modern catholic' (or broad). During my discernment process in discussions with our Diocesan Director of Ordinands, the subject did come up once. I explained my view that, yes, Christ is present in the Eucharist, but I believe it is a spiritual presence. My Diocesan Director of Ordinands (an evangelical priest) nodded in agreement and we moved on to another topic. Since I've been in training, we have not been told that we must believe in the 'sacrificial mass'.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what it would mean to believe in a 'sacrificial mass'. Can someone enlighten me with a concise description of how that actually works?

 

[PaladinValer]

Its actually not as complex as the Vatican Catholics make it out to be (though even their concept of transubstantiationism isn't even that complex either!)

The word "remembrance" in Greek denotes a mystical link to the original Last Supper. It is like a sort of time travel in which the participants, lay, clergy, and the Celebrant are drawn back mystically to that Thursday. The Celebrant is like Jesus and everyone else is like the Apostles. When the Celebrant consecrates, Jesus has consecrated. When the Celebrant recites the Words of Insitution, so has Jesus.

In addition, it is a sacrifice because Jesus is literally there, Body, Bloody, Soul, and Divinity. He gave Himself up there for it. It isn't a resacrifice of the Sacrifice, but it is a Gift of Grace (thus, a sacrament) for us to partake upon the label "sons (and daughters!) of God" and to receive life (St. John 6).

It is literally the most intimate relationship we can have with God. It isn't deserved, but it is given anyhow. It is a sacrifice that Jesus said He would give and it is a sacrifice that we give: our praise and thanksgiving. It isn't a "tit for tat," but a cooperative love: the servant giving and a Master blessing.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

PV: nicely explained, thank you!

 

[Ave Maria]

Our religion is 2000 years old.

Modern = bad.

I disagree. Modern equals good in my book.

 

[catlover]

Our religion is 2000 years old.

Modern = bad.

Yes, modern ideas women are people, minorities are people as well...terrible.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I was told that the Episcopalian church is very similiar to Catholicism, but a little more modern. So I was curious how they stack on issues like birth control, homosexuality, the salvation of non-Christians, etc.

I'm more then a little curious and would appreciate input! Also, do alot of Catholics end up going Episocpalian if they have issues with some of the hard line Catholic stances? Anyone here that has done that?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

Mare

To answer one of your questions:

my aunt and uncle went to the Episcopalian faith because my aunt, who was Lutheran (converted after marriage) just could not be in the Catholic Church anymore.

I would not call the Episcapalian Church more modern, I think the term is more properly (IMO) relativistic.

Also, the Angelicans are trying to and have officially distanced themselves from the Episcapaleans over the homosexual minister/bishop issues.