New Episcopalians!

I met a fellow today who attends one of these churches.
He says his church is the real deal and refers to the larger group as “Church X”:smiley:
What is the general opinion of Episcopals:?
Are they considered Protestant or Schismatic Catholics?


I don’t know anything about this particular group, but from just a glance at the website, they appear to be a newly formed Continuing group, a group that split from the Worldwide Anglican Communion, meaning they do not follow the Archbishop of Canterbury. Generally though, Episcopalians are considered Protestant (though some Episcopalians would disagree with that for various reasons).


It sounds to me like they are a conservative Protestant group, who have split from the Anglican communion, probably because they are against gay priests/bishops, watering down of Biblical teaching, etc.


Anglicans as a whole are historically Protestant, but there have been a series of revivals of Catholic faith and practice within Anglicanism–one in the 17th century and a further one in the 19th. The 19th-century movement, variously known as “Tractarianism” or “the Oxford Movement” or “Anglo-Catholicism,” denied that Anglicanism was Protestant, though it admitted that Anglicanism had been “infected” by Protestantism as an alien body that needed to be driven out. Many Anglicans today are influenced by this way of thinking. The more common approach is to say that we are a “via media” between Protestantism and Catholicism.

But our Articles are clearly Protestant and our liturgy was shaped by the Reformation. So I would say that we are the high-church, Catholic wing of Protestantism.



This is the most comical expression I’ve heard coming out of Anglicanism. It’s like saying: “we are the ‘via media’ between truth and that which opposes truth.” or “we are the via media between option 1 which claims to be the truth and option 2 which claims to be the truth but opposes option 1”, I think you get my point.

You can’t be serious.

Anglo-Catholicism = “I want the truth, but not the whole truth just yet”. Just the way I see it.

ps. Interesting how these new episcopalians separated from the official Anglican Church and Episcopalian Church, but somehow are the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” as emphasized in their website. [SIGN]Sure…[/SIGN]


The United Episcopal Church is one of a number of “splinter” Churches in the USA coming out of the Episcopal/Anglican tradition but not in communion with Canterbury. Some of these churches split over a hundred years ago, others more recently. Issues have included, among others, the ordination of women and homosexuals. Others such churches include the following (although some of these would say they are in communion with Canterbury through Anglican Churches in other countries):



For those of you who think the Articles a form of Anglican confession, or binding on you in some sense, that seems reasonable. There are certainly Protestant Anglicans. And there are others.


*Anglicanus Catholicus *


It is more common for Anglo-Catholics to affirm that they, like RCs, are a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not that they are the exclusive owners of the title.



Not to forget



Here’s another one: The guy in the picture founded it after becoming a Charismatic Episcopal priest, which he joined after leaving the Catholic Church (he was/is a Catholic priest).

There’s also the Traditional Anglican Church.

My mentor and best friend is a bishop in the Anglican Province; that group has changed names every 3 years as long as I can remember as groups join & split, join $ split. I can’t keep up.


That’s exactly how I understood it.

But realistically, are 2 or more separated bodies “One”? (It doesn’t matter how “close” liturgically and structurally they are)

Or how about a secular authority who had (and still has in some circles) the governmental power to dispose bishops and appoint succeeding bishops or change ordination and liturgical rites for a National Church, is it still “Apostolic”?

We all know where the bar of united oneness is, let none of us deny it.


I was talking to my friend the other day about this. She attends an episcopal church. She says the episcopal church is splitting because some do not like the path that the episcopal church is going down, gay bishops, gay marriages, women ministers and bishops.

I was raised episcopal and I thought was always considered protestant, although they use to be very close to the way the CC runs things. Not anymore Im afraid.:frowning:


My understanding of the Catholic stance on the Episcopal church is that because they underwent a period in their history (possibly around the time of Cromwell) in which they moved into a very Protestant worldview where only the spiritual mattered and the things of earth counted for nothing, the ordination of priests was, for more than a generation, watered down into an ceremony that is considered invalid by the Catholic church. Since this went on for more than a generation, no validly ordained priests or bishops truly remained and apostolic succession was lost. This is where the church moved from being a schismatic catholic group to being Protestant: no authentic apostolic succession.

But this is from memory and second-hand at best, so I’d love to hear a more concise and complete version.


See *Apostolicae Curae *. It’s a long and sad story. Anglicans have a different view.



Yep. You, us (such Anglicans as have not gone ga-ga), the varities of Orthodox, the Old Catholics (see Anglican comment), the PNCC, some others. All those who have valid apostolic succession (and yes, I’m more than moderately well read in the *Apostolicae Curae *affair) are part of the One Church.

Or how about a secular authority who had (and still has in some circles) the governmental power to dispose bishops and appoint succeeding bishops or change ordination and liturgical rites for a National Church, is it still “Apostolic”?

Yep, possibly.

We all know where the bar of united oneness is, let none of us deny it.



My husband and I were Episcopalians. For the life of me I cannot figure out what has happened to the good, thinking people I knew in that Church.
The ones that stayed…a female presiding bishop? Please…
The ones who left…and went into one of 20 or 30 splinter churches that all claim to be the anglican church.
Why on earth are there 20 or 30 anglican sects? Most all of them use the 1928 BCP. Most all of them do not have female clergy. Most all of them do not accept gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle as “normal”.
If these folks would unite they could actually be a force in their church. Instead they do as the Baptists have done. The Baptists separate into Southern Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Old Baptists, Baptist Brethern, Missionary Baptist.
Now the Anglicans are North American Anglicans,ACAs, United As, etc. It’s pathetically sad.
I am so glad we left when we did.


I agree, I have yet to understand why they can’t all unite with each other. It really doesn’t make much sense, and it’s something I didn’t find out before I left the TAC.


Most of the Continuing Anglicans are in only a few of the splinter groups: APCK, ACC, ACA (which is the TAC in America), one or two others. The reasons for the inability to unite them include the range of historic Anglican beliefs, Anglo-Catholic to evangelical, which some in each group are determined to “get right this time”, personal animosity among many of the hiearchy, and a bad case of “Purple Passion”; a rage to be a bishop. It’s sad. Every time it appears that the splinters are coming together (as they were, in 1979, after the St. Louis meeting, when they were all the original Anglican Church in North America), something happens to send them off in all directions again.



And the Anglican Mission in America, a fine Anglican organization which is starting to become quite large, is more evangelical than Anglo-Catholic. Among other things, they have ordained women in their organization, although I believe that there is a “moratorium” of some sorts on that issue within the AMIA. In any event, this is certainly an obstacle to merging with the more Anglo-Catholic groupings.


All the above is true. The AMIA is a sort of no-man’s land, not really one of the Continuing Churches, not ordinary ECUSA. They represent some of those in ECUSA who were able to last the longest. The Continuuers are mainly those who got out early, and have cut ties with the Worldwide Anglican Communion, and Canterbury.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit