Catholic or Episcopal

[springmama]

Can anyone outline the main differences between Catholic and Episcopal for me? If you have converted from one to the other please share your biggest reasons why. Thanks!

[Tradd]

I went from Catholic to Episcopalian to Orthodox - where I'm staying!

[flower01]

As a Catholic, what I can say is that the main critical difference is that Episcopals don't believe in the authority of the Pope. So if you are trying to decide which church is TRUE - which I believe is what we are all ultimately seeking (Truth), then you should look at the history of the church. When I was deciding whether I wanted to be protestant or Catholic this is what I did - read tons of books on church history. Ultimately, that was what made me decide that the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus instituted by handing the keys to St. Peter. The Catholic Church is the church with an unbroken line of succession from Peter until now with Pope Benedict.

I recommend a series of books called Surprised By Truth by Patrick Madrid.

[athansor]

I was born and raised Catholic, and have converted to the Episcopal faith. There are some things I really miss about the Catholic church, and I still attend a mass every once in a while there, but I am happy in the Episcopal faith and think it was the right move for me.

The reasons for becoming Episcopal for me are many. Being a medieval history geek, I spent a lot of time learning about the formation of the Church of England and I believe if I was alive at that time, I would have seen a need for the reforms brought about during this time, including things like translating the Bible into English.

Other reasons include the inclusiveness of the Episcopal faith, as evidenced by things like the elevation of women to the priesthood. I also liked the diversity of writings by Episcopal theologians such as N.T. Wright and J. Spong. In addition, one of the main things I loved about the Catholic faith was the social justice and liberation theology that was so prevalent when I was growing up in the faith. Lately, though, it seems that the Catholic Church has moved away from that and in some ways the Episcopal Church is becoming more active in social justice issues. This is pretty evident in my own community.

For me, there are also some issues on a personal note related to the Catholic Church that would likely keep me from returning.

So, for me, it's a combination of many things...history, current status of the Churches, style of worship, sense of community, etc. There's a good book out there "Those Episkopals" (http://www.amazon.com/Those-Episkopo.../dp/1885985029) that might be good reading.

[Bluegoat]

Here are a few differences, but they are not complete:

The Pope; RCs say he is head of the church. He is able to make executive decisions, and in some cases can infallibly pronounce doctrine.

Epis. tend to see the authority to govern resting in councils of Bishops. This is certainly closer to what happened earlier in the history of the Church, as the role of the Pope as seen today developed largely in the medieval period (which is not necessarily to say it is wrong.) Some Episc. see the Pope as a kind of a first among equals, like a sort of chairman.

In the Episcopal church, Unity is supposed to be maintained through the Instruments of Communion, however, they are being given a run for their money these days. Some might say each Bishop acts like a Pope.

Sufficiency of Scripture: Both groups believe in reason, tradition, and scripture. However, Episcopalians do not demand belief in anything not found in scripture, unlike the RC church. So while Epis. are free to believe in the Assumption of Mary, or even Purgatory, they aren't "required for salvation." Anything required is found in scripture.

Both groups are catholic and Apostolic. However, the RC church claims that due to a technicality, the Anglicans lost their Apostolic succession, so their Holy Orders are not valid. You can read up on it, it is certainly a rather technical point.

The RCs tend to go into a lot more detail about how things like the mysteries work. They are very specific about the nature of what happens in the Eucharist, for example. Episcopalians are supposed to believe in the Real Presence, but tend to be a little less specific about how the transformation is accomplished. Many believe in consubstantiation, but others believe a doctrine identical to the RC one.

Anglicans recognize two major sacraments and the rest are called minor sacraments. The RCs say they are all full sacraments. What exactly a minor sacrament is is anyone's guess, and IMO causes trouble for Episcopalians trying to work out the meaning of things like marriage.

History - The Church was unified until the Great Schism between East and West. The Eastern Church considers that the Western church is in schism. The Western Church carried on and in the medieval period, they were a lot of controversies about the relation of Church and state and the increasing authority of the Pope. Much of the Reformation fell out of this. The Western church considered them to be in schism.

However, the English Church did not consider itself to be part of the Reformation, it saw itself as a reformed Catholic church, not a new church. The RC church considers that they have lost the validity of their episcopate, and also that they are in schism.

Some Episcopalians point to the fact that a Christian church existed in Great Britian beore the Roman Church became dominant. This wasn't a sect or anything, it was a valid Church in communion with the rest of the Church. They eventually adopted the customs of the rest of the Western church though and they accepted it's political structure. This is the church that some Episcopalians see themselves as being part of.

Liturgy - these days, there is probably more traditional liturgy and music in Episcopal churches than RC ones, which have modern style liturgies. But many Episcopal liturgies are lot are pretty flakey too, and there is a fair bit of terrible music in both churches.

[EnviroBecca]

I am an Episcopalian. I was raised Unitarian but went to Catholic school for one year, and I was intrigued by Catholicism, but as I learned more about it I knew it was not right for me.

Episcopals don't believe in the authority of the Pope. So if you are trying to decide which church is TRUE - which I believe is what we are all ultimately seeking (Truth), then you should look at the history of the church.

I don't mean to question the validity of Flower01's decision, but I see it differently: When I look at the history of the church, I see a long series of people grabbing for power and arguing over which human being has the "true" power, and it seems to me that's all beside the point because the only true power is with God.

The place to seek truth, IMO, is in the Gospels, particularly Mark which is the oldest and least "embroidered" one. What I see in the Gospels is that Jesus discouraged power structures and special titles. I strongly doubt that he intended to put Peter in charge of everybody's relationship with God or that the idea of papal infallibility would sit well with him. Really, we probably shouldn't have ordained clergy or special church buildings at all...but in my human weakness, I need that, so I've chosen a church that doesn't believe any one human is in charge.

The Anglican Communion does have one person in sort of a top spot, the Archbishop of Canterbury. His status is nothing like that of the Catholic Pope; he's a leader, and his statements are taken very seriously, but he doesn't have the same kind of authority. As Bluegoat said, individual bishops and national Presiding Bishops have a lot more choice about how their diocese or their national church does things, than Catholic bishops.

Here is an official statement of Episcopal teachings about the Eucharist. I'm an Episcopalian, and the way I personally see it is that the human flesh Jesus inhabited during his time on Earth was not his "real" body; what we are receiving at Communion is real, and because it transcends nature, it can't be detected by science. The bread and wine are bread and wine, but along with them we really do take in Jesus. To quote another source, "The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people and received by faith."

Bluegoat wrote:

Anglicans recognize two major sacraments and the rest are called minor sacraments. The RCs say they are all full sacraments. What exactly a minor sacrament is is anyone's guess, and IMO causes trouble for Episcopalians trying to work out the meaning of things like marriage.

Here's a nice simple explanation and here's a little more detail, so there is nothing to guess about. I've never heard the term "minor sacrament" but instead a distinction between the two sacraments and the five sacramental rites. The sacraments are those ordained by Christ. The sacramental rites are just ways of conveying blessing upon people and events; they are not required.

Speaking of marriage, my only big contention with the Episcopal Church is that it not only allows divorce but actually was FOUNDED because Henry VIII wanted to get divorced and the Pope wouldn't let him. I believe the whole concept of marriage is a poor fit with Christ's teachings about the unimportance of family ties and the need to love everyone, and all Christian groups have given marriage more importance than it should have, but gee, if you ARE married, what Jesus said about divorce is VERY clear!

Here are some of the reasons I'm an Episcopalian instead of a Catholic:

Episcopalians use prayerful discernment to guide our personal decisions about sexuality and reproduction. Catholics have a very strict standard that all sexual activity must be "open to life" and are not allowed any means of child spacing other than abstinence.

Episcopalians in the United States allow sexually active people to be priests, even if they are homosexual, which is fine by me. Catholics require priests to be completely celibate and teach that if a man who wants to become a priest feels attracted to men, that is a deviancy which he must overcome before he is ready to be a priest. (I think it's fine if a priest happens to be celibate; I just don't think it needs to be a requirement.)

Episcopalians allow all baptized and believing Christians to receive Communion, whether or not they are Episcopalians. We believe that participation in this holy mystery can only be good for a person. Catholics allow Communion only to Catholics and believe that a person who receives it in violation of this or any of the other rules actually can be harmed by it. Catholics also (although I don't know all the details on this) don't let children participate in Communion or Confession until a certain age. I'm feeling pretty strongly about that as I see how my child, who's still several years younger than that, has been growing in his faith since he began confessing and receiving Communion.

Catholics do Confession one-on-one with a priest. Episcopalians do it together, saying a prayer about sins in general while thinking of our specific sins. One-on-one reconciliation is available if you feel you need it. When I became an Episcopalian, I didn't see this as important, and I still don't think the Catholic style is wrong. What bothers me is the number of Catholics (many of them very serious about their faith) who have told me that one-on-one Confession is better because when you speak to "a real person" you can't dodge the wrongness of your actions the way you can when it's "just you" praying--how can they forget that it's NEVER "just you"? There's always God, and I can't hide anything from God since God knows all about it already, so I may as well get on with repenting for it!

I have other objections to Catholicism which I can best summarize by saying, Catholics believe a lot of stuff that feels wrong to me instinctively. When I look at the Gospels (sometimes even at verses cited by Catholics to support their beliefs), I see that these beliefs either aren't in there at all, can be supported only by IMO misinterpreting scripture, or are contradicted by things Jesus said. When it comes down to following Church Tradition vs. following the Gospel, I go with the Gospel.

I hope Catholics don't feel disrespected by what I've said. I have immense respect for Catholicism and people who follow it seriously. I'm just trying to explain why I chose to be Episcopal.

[Bluegoat]

Hey EnviroBecca, why did you not stay with Unitarianism? More people seem to go the other way, other than T.S. Eliot. Mind you that is good company.

Originally Posted by EnviroBecca

Here is an official statement of Episcopal teachings about the Eucharist. I'm an Episcopalian, and the way I personally see it is that the human flesh Jesus inhabited during his time on Earth was not his "real" body; ."

That is not an Anglican/Episcopalian position, as you said. I think it would actually fall under Docetism.

[moonshoes]

Envirobecca, as a Catholic I have to say thank you for your lovely and completely respectful response. I really enjoyed reading it.

[EnviroBecca]

I didn't stay with Unitarianism because (as I experienced it--different congregations of UU are very different from one another) it was all about learning what other people do with a sort of anthropological attitude of being above all that, and we didn't actually believe in anything ourselves except that each person should be free to believe what works for her, except that certain beliefs (mainly born-again Christianity) are wrong and stupid. There was heavy liberal political indoctrination, but there was no RELIGION being taught as actually TRUE there. I wanted to believe in Jesus, and I wanted to be with a group of people who would come out and admit to believing in something and agree on it. UU has a concept of a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning"; I went on that search, and I became an Episcopalian.

That is not an Anglican/Episcopalian position, as you said.

You mean the part I stated as my personal opinion, not the link or the quote from the Episcopal Church's website, right? The exact way I put it is not church doctrine, but I don't think I'm far off in saying that when Episcopalians say "real presence" we don't mean "2000-year-old meat". As I understand it, the difference between the Episcopal and Catholic positions on the "real presence" is in how literally we mean "real".

[Peppermint]

I am really surprised that so many people have said "the main thing" or "the #1 thing" etc. was any manner of different things, but- IMO the most major difference is transubstantiation. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ, not both bread and body at the same time, not symbolic, but- actually changed, completely from bread to body and wine to blood.

I can't think of anything as more huge than that. Clearly, I am the only one seeing it this way though. AFAIK, only Catholics and Orthodox believe in transubstantiation. (I could be wrong about the Orthodox though )

Transubstantiation is the one reason that no matter what, I would never leave the Catholic faith.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Peppermint

I am really surprised that so many people have said "the main thing" or "the #1 thing" etc. was any manner of different things, but- IMO the most major difference is transubstantiation. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ, not both bread and body at the same time, not symbolic, but- actually changed, completely from bread to body and wine to blood.

I can't think of anything as more huge than that. Clearly, I am the only one seeing it this way though. AFAIK, only Catholics and Orthodox believe in transubstantiation. (I could be wrong about the Orthodox though )

Transubstantiation is the one reason that no matter what, I would never leave the Catholic faith.

We Orthodox simply believe the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. We don't get into the "how the change happened, etc." Transubstantiation is a Catholic term - per my limited understanding, has to do with medieval Scholasticism and incidents and accidents and all sorts of complicated stuff I didn't get when someone attempted to explain it to me.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Peppermint

I am really surprised that so many people have said "the main thing" or "the #1 thing" etc. was any manner of different things, but- IMO the most major difference is transubstantiation. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ, not both bread and body at the same time, not symbolic, but- actually changed, completely from bread to body and wine to blood.

I can't think of anything as more huge than that. Clearly, I am the only one seeing it this way though. AFAIK, only Catholics and Orthodox believe in transubstantiation. (I could be wrong about the Orthodox though )

Transubstantiation is the one reason that no matter what, I would never leave the Catholic faith.

Some Episcopalians do believe in transubstantiation. It isn't against doctrine - the important thing is that we believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, not that it is a symbol or spiritual presence. We do say it is received by Faith, but it is also objectively there, even without Faith. The Faith is important to the person receiving it.

Those who believe in consubstantiation do believe in the real presence, but they think that there is also real bread and wine remaining. Anglicanism says that is fine too, but ultimately we do not know how the Eucharist happens, just that it does.

It is almost the same position as the Orthodox (which I believe Catholicism accepts?) in fact, I would say it has moved closer in recent years.

[Jade's Mom]

Originally Posted by EnviroBecca

I believe the whole concept of marriage is a poor fit with Christ's teachings about the unimportance of family ties and the need to love everyone, and all Christian groups have given marriage more importance than it should have, but gee, if you ARE married, what Jesus said about divorce is VERY clear!

I find this interesting. Can you explain in more detail? Thanks.

[EnviroBecca]

Jade's Mom, are you asking me to explain about marriage or about divorce? Either way, it's off-topic, so please PM me and I'll answer your question there.

[springmama]

Wow! Thanks for the responses. I'm still so confused This Sunday I will attend Mass for the first time and then my third Episcopal service. Next week I will begin the class at the Episcopal Church. Hopefully I will soon find out which church I best fit into - at this time I feel like I need to ask some really personal questions but I don't feel comfortable asking anyone at either church yet.

I would love it if someone who is Catholic would PM me so I could ask a few in depth questions.

[Peppermint]

Meghan, I see your point, and I can see how it seems like not a big difference to an Episcopalian, but it seems like a big difference to me as a Catholic. Do you know what I mean? You have 2 possible beliefs about the Eucharist, and one of them is the same as ours. However, we have one, and to move to a belief system that makes that "just one choice" of belief, would just never happen for this Catholic.

OP- you are welcome to PM me and I will do my best to get you the answers you seek.

[BMG580]

Originally Posted by Peppermint

Meghan, I see your point, and I can see how it seems like not a big difference to an Episcopalian, but it seems like a big difference to me as a Catholic. Do you know what I mean? You have 2 possible beliefs about the Eucharist, and one of them is the same as ours. However, we have one, and to move to a belief system that makes that "just one choice" of belief, would just never happen for this Catholic.

OP- you are welcome to PM me and I will do my best to get you the answers you seek.

I agree with this. I spent the last year seriously studying Roman Catholicism and early Christianity, I did a good bit of reading about the Anglican/Episcopalian denominations and a bit about the Orthodox church as well because all have some similarities. I ended up becoming Roman Catholic because I do believe in the primacy of the papacy and the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, and I do believe in transubstantiation. That does not mean I believe the Roman Catholic church as an organization is without faults - there have clearly been huge missteps and outrageous behavior in Church history at all levels of the Church hierarchy. The Church isn't perfect but I still believe it is the the Church which was founded by Jesus himself and the only church with true apostolic succession.

I read this quote, and I agree with it wholeheartedly:

"We are not baptized into the hierarchy; do not receive the cardinals sacramentally; will not spend eternity in the beatific vision of the pope. Christ is the point. I, myself, admire the present pope, but even if I criticized him as harshly as some do, even if his successor proved to be as bad as some of those who have gone before, even if I find the Church, as I have to live with it, a pain in the neck, I should still say that nothing that a pope (or a priest) could do or say would make me wish to leave the Church, although I might well wish that they would leave."

-Frank Sheed

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Peppermint

Meghan, I see your point, and I can see how it seems like not a big difference to an Episcopalian, but it seems like a big difference to me as a Catholic. Do you know what I mean? You have 2 possible beliefs about the Eucharist, and one of them is the same as ours. However, we have one, and to move to a belief system that makes that "just one choice" of belief, would just never happen for this Catholic.

OP- you are welcome to PM me and I will do my best to get you the answers you seek.

Yes, I see why you think it is different. Although I would say Episcopalians have only one belief - that the Eucharist is indeed the real Body and Blood of Christ.

On the other hand, although the RC church says more than that about the Eucharist, do they really think that all that explanation is required? THe reasons I wonder are:

1. The doctrine of transubstantiation is from the middle ages. THe RC church believes it's Eucharists were real and valid even before the doctrine was developed.

2. The RC church believes that the Orthodox Eucharist is valid, and they do not have a doctrine of transubstantiation. (On the other hand, the Orthodox say the RCs sacraments are not valid, another problem altogether...)

3. The reason for denying the validity of Anglican sacraments is not related to their views on transubstantiation.

So, even according to RC doctrine, a person in an Orthodox church receives the Body and Blood in exactly the same way as a person in an RC church. From the point of view of what the sacrament is and does, there is no difference at all.

[sarahsmiles]

Was Episcopalian -- became one as a adult and was very "high -Church." Basically, theologically and liturgically, I wanted to have my cake and eat it to. I wanted to believe that the Anglican tradition was a valid expression of the catholic Church founded by Christ, that the sacraments (at least some of them) were valid, that apostolic succession was maintained, and that the Eucharist was an essential part of worship.

I saw, over the course of several years, however, that *I* could believe those things and consider myself a good Episcopalian, but there were lots of other people who didn't believe these things (or didn't care about them) -- many of them in leadership positions in the church -- and we couldn't all be "good Episcopalians."

I really struggled with some of the "ethical" teachings of the Catholic church, but what I appreciate most is that the Catholic Church *IS* teaching, rather than just saying "this is the way life is now. Get over it."

Part of the reason the difference might not be obvious to an outsider is that much of the liturgy at the average parish looks similar. An Episcopal church might have a female priest, but otherwise, it could look like about the same kind of service.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by EnviroBecca

You mean the part I stated as my personal opinion, not the link or the quote from the Episcopal Church's website, right? The exact way I put it is not church doctrine, but I don't think I'm far off in saying that when Episcopalians say "real presence" we don't mean "2000-year-old meat". As I understand it, the difference between the Episcopal and Catholic positions on the "real presence" is in how literally we mean "real".

Yes, the personal opinion bit.

No, the difference between the RC and Episcopalian position is not about how literally they mean "real". There is no difference on that count.

RC doctrine is quite specific about how the real presence is there. Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents to explain how it is that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ, while appearing to the observer to still be bread and wine. It's a good explanation that has stood the test of time in many ways.

Episcopalians and Orthodox don't attempt to explain how it is that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Christ, or why is still looks like bread and wine. They simply assert that it is a mystery, a miracle, and that it is true.

What confuses some people is that often the passage where Paul talks about us being resurrected as spiritual bodies is invokes when explaining the nature of the Eucharist. It's not improper to do so, but the passage is widely misunderstood. Spiritual in the sense being used there (and there are translation issues at work) does not mean spirit as opposed to matter as we tend to assume. Rather, matter is taken up and transformed into something everlasting and perfect - we really don't know what that will look like.

So one could say that the flesh and blood in the Eucharist are perfected flesh and blood, so are in that way different than what we see in our own bodies. That is true for Roman Catholics as well as Episcopalians.

In this sense, what you said

the human flesh Jesus inhabited during his time on Earth was not his "real" body; what we are receiving at Communion is real,

is true, but easily misleading (especially to RCs who think Episcopalians don't believe in the real presence the way they do) because it sounds like the heretical position of Docetism, which says that Christ is really a spiritual and immaterial being, and the body he inhabited on Earth was not part of him, but like a pair of clothes.

Of course, many Episcopalians have no concept of authority, so they feel free to reject this understanding and claim that their Church has no dogma at all. Which I would say is bunk, but it accounts for a lot of my frustrations.: