Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)

A note on naming

The Constitution of the Episcopal Church lists only two names:

• The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America
• The Episcopal Church

It is quite understandable to feel the latter to be awkward, especially given the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church of Mexico, and the other like named provinces in the Anglican Communion. However, unlike all those others, its jurisdiction is not limited to just one country; the Episcopal Church has long included a substantial number of non-US dioceses.

At this point, basically nobody but nobody calls it the "Protestant Episcopal" anything, and the name is retained for historical reasons alone. Indeed, a primary reason behind adding the name "The Episcopal Church" as an official name was precisely because it's not NPOV to say "Protestant", and the word irks many Anglicans

And, since it gets to decide its own name, it chooses not to piss off its own members outside the US, rather than worry about non-members in other Anglican churches around the world. It's just one of those quaint little weirdnessess that is so common in Anglicanism. :)

I would be happy to add a disambiguator in parentheses, but only if it's accurate: and "United States" just wouldn't be accurate.

--Tb 23:38 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

There's nothing that says we have to have organizations under thier constitutional names; we have them under the most common, most recognizable, less ambigous name available. Episcopal Church, USA and ECUSA are used by the church it self on its website, I see no reason we can't use one of those here. The Episcopal Church could be the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Phillipine Episcopal Church, or the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & the Middle East which has parishes in thirteen countries. - Efghij 00:37 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

We should have organizations either under their consitutional names, or under a correct descriptive name. "Episcopal Church, USA" is, unfortunately, neither. (Frankly, if it weren't likely to raise hackles, I would vote for just such a change of its name.) I added a reference to the problem on the page itself, which seems like a good idea; if you can think of ways to improve it, that would be great too.

The church's website is (unfortunately) incorrect. alas, they are trying to solve a hard problem. As I said, I have no objection to a disambiguation, but it should be *correct* and not merely an oversimplification. The issue isn't just that the Episcopal Church is in more than one country; as you point out, so is the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East. But note that that latter name correctly describes the broad spread of that church. If it were called "The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and Egypt", it would be very wrongly titled. Similarly, "USA" is just not an adequate descriptor of the name of the Episcopal Church. If there were a good disambiguator, we could add it in parentheses. I agree completely that we should try to do this. But it needs to be correct. The fact is that the actual reality (out there in the world) is confusingly ambiguous, and while we might prefer a more ordered reality (and it would be easier to describe in the encyclopedia!) we can't declare the reality changed just so that it's easier for us to describe.

It's a similar problem to the adjective "American"; regardless of whether it is or is not unambiguous, it's the adjective we've got. We don't rename "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" just because the name is ambiguous between the continent and the country.

--Tb 00:45 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

It just strikes me as rather nitpicky to say that we can't call this Episcopal Church in the United States of America or Episcopal Church, USA or ECUSA because the church includes dioceses outside the US, when the church's own constitutional name includes "... in the United States of America". I agree that this may not be the best discription, but it used by the church itself so there is no reason that we can't use it. - Efghij 01:54 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, we could certainly pick parts out of the two different names and fuse them together into a new name. I think that, particularly with official organizations, part of the job of an Encyclopedia is to give the correct name. Which is exactly what's going on here. Certainly all those other possibilities should (and do) have redirects. I welcome any suggestions for how to disambiguate it *accurately*.

The problem is that of the two names, the first is now disparaged, and the second is, well, it. And was explicitly and deliberately chosen to not have "United States" in the name.

The rule of thumb, seems to me, should be: give the correct information, and if it's confusing, explain the confusion. --Tb 02:00 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I suppose it's fine now, the confusing aspects are explained. I changed the example to the Middle East, because I thought that was the Church most likely to be be thought of as the Episcopal Church. (because of the in) - Efghij 02:40 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps it is. It's one of the newest Provinces of the Anglican Communion (at least, with this name). Actually, outside the US, even when "Episcopal" is an official part of the name, the word "Anglican" is more often heard, and I suspect this is true in the Middle East as well. The only substantial exceptions are the Philippines and Scotland, I think. It's also multinational, which makes it a better example too, I think. --Tb 02:42 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

It is important to appreciate that just as the Episcopal Church in the USA has several acceptable names, "Scottish Episcopal Church" is not the only name of the episcopal church of Scotland. "Episcopal Church", "Episcopal Church of Scotland", "Scottish Episcopal Church", "Episcopal Church in Scotland" are all used. (the last can be found on the title page of the Scottish Book of Common Prayer). More generally, Episcopal can be a synonym for Anglican.

In other words, the Scottish church is not the <Scottish Episcopal> Church, it is the Scottish <Episcopal Church>. Wikipedia users from Scotland should not be faced with an article that says:

'"The Episcopal Church" = (ECUSA)......The "Scottish Episcopal Church" on the other hand can be found (several paragraphs down)... '

So either the title should change or there should be a clear disambiguation paragraph _at the top_. Seeing as Scots are quite aware that theirs is not the only Episcopal Church in the world (is the same true the other way around?), I think the second option is probably more user-friendly. Andrew Yong 08:55, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Noting that National Headquarters at 815 should be there probably, the official name used here is "Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America". I agree that one should used the abreviated as the title for the article, however one need not use that to refer to it within other articles as the link to this page is easily altered in appearance, thus one could use ECUSA or plainly the Episcopal Church in reference to this article, just making sure they have ARTICLENAME|ECUSA in their link.

---

I noticed a change in the first sententce (fixing vandalism) that also changed

"The Episcopal Church or the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the American national church of the Anglican Communion."

to

"The Episcopal Church or the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is an American national church of the Anglican Communion." (Emphasis added)

As far as I know, the Anglican Communion only recognizes one institution per nation. For various reasons the choice of article (the/an) is currently very politically charged and keeping NPOV seems to require a decision one way or the other. An official list of members only lists the ECUSA for the United States.

Robwaldo 03:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As of the 2006 General Convention, the official name of this instiution is "The Episcopal Church" abreviated TEC. "in the United States of America" has officially been removed due to the solidification of the IXth province consisting of primarilly central/south american and carribean provinces. One wonders if this should be changed to "The Episcopal Church (TEC)" to reflect their recent official name change. CJJDay 05:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

new paragraph about the election of a homosexual bishop

Right, is it just me, or does the new paragraph that has been added about the election of a homosexual bishop strike anyone else as seeming superfluous in context? It doesn't fit the flow of the page, and, further, without having mentioned in depth other means by which the Episcopal Church traditionally defines itself on the page (e.g. scripture, reason, tradition; or the Book of Common Prayer) it seems rather strange to devote a paragraph to a simple matter of current events. Besides, Gene Robinson covers the issue fully and within context.

I'm going to take down the paragraph; if anyone disagrees with my reasons, please throw your opinions up here on talk. --Charleschuck 20:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, someone has elected to again add a paragraph about Robinson, and either they did not read talk, or felt it unnecessary to state their opinion. Again, I think the issue is of historical importance, but without further historical information to put it in context, I still think it's superfluous. Further, they have covered this in General Convention. Again, if there is any disagreement with my choice, please post your opinions up here. --Charleschuck 03:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

recent edit on the BCP.

The source of my recent edit comes directly from the Canon Law of the ECUSA. See Title II, Canon 7, Sec. 6, subsection B: It's reproduced here:

(b). It shall be the duty of the Custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer:

1. To arrange for the publication of such proposed revision;
2. To protect, by copyright, the authorized text of such revision, on behalf of the General Convention; which copyright shall be relinquished when such proposed revision or revisions shall have been adopted by the General Convention as an alteration of, or addition to, the Book of Common Prayer;
3. To certify that printed copies of such revision or revisions have been duly authorized by the General Convention, and that the printed text conforms to that approved by the General Convention.

See http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/legal/gc.canons.html. -iHoshie 10:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

It's true that the Custodian is responsible for ensuring that the text passed by the General Convention is the text that is published. However, the Custodian is in no way responsible for creating that text; in the case of the 1979 BCP, that happened over the course of 25 years of discussion by liturgical scholars, priests, and lay leaders, and was approved by General Convention. I've removed the sentence for clarification, and will add more information about how the BCP text is decided upon.

00527 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of approved translations template

No offence, but why should there be a template of approved translations of the bible on the translation's pages? If a person wants to know which translation are approved by the Episcopal Church, they would search for 'The Episcopal church'. As it is, the pages for several translations (none, I am aware of, are specific to the Episcopal Church) are now cluttered with an ugly template. Are we going add templates for all translations aproved by the Southern Baptist Convention, Latter-Day Saints, Local Church Movement, Watchtower Society, etc? The RSV and KJV would have dozens of little boxes at the bottom.

If there are no objections, I will be removing these soon.

I am the user (hoshie) who added the EPUSA template. Feel free to remove it. @ first, I thought they were the only church that had a list of approved versions, hence the template. From reading I have done, other churches have lists too and as you said the boxes would become crappy after a while. Thanks for spotting this. - 65.184.227.24 10:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Difference with other Christian groups

What is the difference? I know that Episcopalians don't follow the Pope. What else? Do E. believe in the Holy Trinity? Do they celebrate Mass or have a Holy Eucharist? Is there a stress on a particular doctrine, eg. Baptists with baptism, Pentecostals with gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. Do the preachers, reverrends, etc. have to be celibate? Is there an official Episcopalian stand on abortion, cloning? Can woment be pastors, reverrends, etc.--Jondel 03:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This link should be helpful [1]. This article and the article on the Anglican Communion should help as well.Rockhopper10r 13:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

To add to that, generally, in Anglican churches, unity comes from practice: all Anglican churches are liturgical churches following some version of the Book of Common Prayer or a derivative of it. In most congregations, Holy Eucharist (sometimes called "mass") is the primary service on Sundays. In Anglicanism, there are three orders of ordained ministry: deacons, priests and bishops. In ECUSA, all three orders are open to women. Celibacy is not required of clergy.Rockhopper10r 22:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a new Episcopalian friend and just want to know how to relate to him.--Jondel 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Full Communion

The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are indeed in full communion: [2] Rockhopper10r 9 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Multiple cathedrals

Only two dioceses have two full-fledged cathedrals: Iowa and Minnesota. The Diocese of Lexington has a cathedral and a "cathedral domain", which is essentially a chapel at the diocesan conference centre. The Diocese of Pennsylvania has one: Philadelphia Cathedral (formerly Church of the Redeemer). The Diocese of Bethlehem, in Pennsylvania has one cathedral (Nativity, Bethlehem) and a pro-cathedral (St. Stephen's, Wilkes-Barre). We can add a bit about some dioceses having a pro-cathedral, but it is not technically the same thing as having two cathedrals.Rockhopper10r 18:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Can you tell me where you got this information? I've never heard of any diocese not referring to the seat of its bishop as its cathedral. Thanks.

00527 14:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Minnesota (where I live) is one diocese where the bishop happens to have two historic seats and thus there are two cathedrals: one in Minneapolis and one in Faribault, Minnesota (see this link). Jonathunder 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely read that wrong; I thought it was saying that only two dioceses have cathedrals. Duh. Sorry. But thanks for telling me about that - that's really interesting. 00527 17:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, there are several dioceses that do not have a cathedral at all: Alaska, Georgia, Eastern Michigan, Northern Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rochester, East Carolina, North Carolina, Northwest Texas, Southern Virginia, Southwestern Virginia and West Virginia, as well as the Navajoland Area Mission (I think that's everyone). Los Angeles, West Texas and Virginia all have very non-traditional cathedrals (essentially conference center chapels).Rockhopper10r 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? Where do they have their ordinations and such? 00527 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It varies. Often a large church in the diocese's see city (sometimes designated a pro-cathedral) hosts diocesan functions. Some diocese's cathedrals are relatively small, so diocesan functions may be held elsewhere even if there is a cathedral.

In the Diocese of Texas, where I live, for example, our cathedral, Christ Church Cathedral, Houston, is the oldest congregation in our see city, Houston. It hosts some diocesan functions. It is a lovely old church, but it is not an enormous building by any means. Some of the larger diocesan functions are held at the chapel at the diocesan retreat center, Camp Allen.Rockhopper10r 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's so interesting - thank you guys for sharing. 00527 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "High Church" etc. in "The Church"

The paragraph as written implied that "High Church," "Low Church," etc. are specific churches; in fact, they are styles of worship. Within an individual parish, for example, there can be a "Low Church" service at one time and a "High Church" service at another. I have removed it for the sake of clarification.

There can be theological differences associated with each group, but those are a very marginal aspect of the Church as a whole, and don't really merit inclusion in a general article.

00527 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There are definate differences between parishes and among parishoners and clergy in this regard. The article should have something about it. Jonathunder 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Presiding Bishops

I've added a succession box to the bottom of the Frank Grimes page. Edmond Lee Browning is the previous presiding bishop but does not have a page.

It might be worthwhile to add pages for them. Or perhaps not. Markkawika 13:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Frank Griswold? Deaghaidh 9:32, 20 January 2006 (EST)

Episcopal Church in Micronesia / The Convocation of the American Churches in Europe

Neither of these are included in the provinces listed in the first paragraph, yet they are both under the jursidiction of the Presiding bishop, and should be included.

Convocation of American Churches in Europe : Brussels, Paris, Frankdfurt, Weisbaden, Munich, Genvea, Florence, and Rome.

Appropriate adjective

The adjective in the title, describing the church, is "Episcopal", but the adjective I usually see describing people, schools, etc, that belong to the church is "Episcopalian". Is this viewed as incorrect by ECUSA members? I ask because I keep seeing edits around wikispace (almost invariably from anon IPs) that replace "Episcopalian" with "Episcopal", which sounds odd to me. /blahedo (t) 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, "Episcopal" is an adjective and "Episcopalian" is a noun (e.g., I am an Episcopalian. I attend an Episcopal Church.). One never says "Episcopalian Church" or "I am an Episcopal". One occasionally hears "an Episcopalian priest", but this is incorrect. The correct term would be "an Episcopal priest."Rockhopper10r 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Role of John Jay in Episcopal History

Columbia University's list of "250 Greatest Alumni" describes Jay as, among other things, "a founder of the American Episcopal church". Is there any truth to this? Thanks! --198.59.190.201 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Jay was a vestryman at Trinity Church, Wall Street and a delegate to the second General Convention in 1786. It was the third General Convention which enacted the Costitution of the Prostestant Episcopal Church in the United States in 1789. I think that a "founder" designation is entirely appropriate.Ruidh 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bard College

Bard College is currently listed under Colleges affiliated with the Episcopal Church. While, historically, Bard maintained a relationship with the Church, and served as a seminary for many years, the college has been non-sectarian and unaffiliated with the church for many years. I thought I would note this here and allow discussion before removing this particular factual inaccuracy. Burndownthedisco ^talk 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless this is a new development, the Episcopal Church officially recognizes Bard College as an affiliated institution in the 2006 Church Annual. In addition the Bard College article affirms this affiliation. Furthermore, as a part of the affiliation, Bard's college chaplain is an Episcopal priest. It should not be removed. CJJDay 05:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Name rehash

I find that I have to bring up the name argument again and argue for the use of Protestant Episcopal Church (whether or not in the USA comes after or not.) I realize that in common use, and as of several years ago in legal use, that the term Episcopal Church refers to the major Anglican body in the U.S. However, the term Episcopal Church is not affirming of, and rather offensive to, those religious bodies who are also episcopal churches (i.e. those with an episcopacy), not limited to but including the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Roman Catholic Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, etc. I argue for the use of the term Protestant Episcopal Church on this website (which strives for impartiality), since: 1.) this was formely the most widely used term, 2.) is still a current legal term for that body, 3.) is used by a few organizations connected with that body (such as the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation in Washington, DC), and 4.) that body still retains legal ownership of that name (as was established somewhat recently in court).

I know many argue that the use of Protestant Episcopal implies to some that this body is not catholic. However, the term protestant simply means opposed to papal supremacy and, by Anglican understanding, this need not be opposed to the term catholic. In fact, the term Protestant Catholic Church was used for many years in colonial Maryland. I know very few Anglicans who would agree with the statement that, "Anglicans are (or should be) directly under the authority of the pope." Perhaps, this sensitive issue could be considered...

MiguelJoseErnst 06:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

While the Episcopal Church retains the name "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" for legal and historic reasons, it 'never' uses it in practice. Its full legal name, after all is "Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" and that's never used either. The word "Protestant" carries connotations (whether true or not) or evangelicalism and being non-liturgical which many Episcopalians would not be comfortable. By the definition "opposed to papal supremacy", the Eastern Orthodox churches would also be Protestant. This issue has been discussed before and the decision to leave the article at "Episcopal Church in the United States of America" seems to be the one that is agreeable to most parties.Rockhopper10r 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To throw another monkey wrench into things, I've heard [3] that ECUSA is now planning to go by the name The Episcopal Church (TEC for short, instead of ECUSA). Should we maybe refer to it now as The Episcopal Church, or perhaps The Episcopal Church (TEC)? Panchitaville^talk 05:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is another article about the name change. Jonathunder 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that use of "The Episcopal Church (TEC)" is the most approrpiate, in light of the recent convention that officially accepted it as the legal name due to the growing number of dioceses linked to this denomination that are not a part of the United States of America, i.e. Venezuela and Columbia. CJJDay 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)