Those terms are really just the names of different traditions. All Episcopalian means is that the church has a Episcopal polity, which means it is run by Bishops. And Episcopalian as in The Episcopalian Church is just the name for the American Anglican Church. Baptists put a strong emphasize on the believer's baptism which means you need to be an adult who chooses to be baptized. Can't help terribly much with the other 2 I'm afraid.

Actually, Anglican is now used to refer to the churches which split from ECUSA (Episcopal Church - USA) after the 79 Prayer Book came about, along with the institution of homosexual and women priests. To further confuse things, there are now Anglican Usage Roman Catholic churches (I attend one), which use an Anglican liturgy but are Roman Catholic. Many churches with bishops (Methodists comes to mind) would NEVER call themselves Episcopalian, because it is now identified with ECUSA.
There are over 300 flavors of Baptists. That blows my mind.

Maybe it would be better to say that The Episcopal Church is the American member of the Anglican Communion. And most Anglican Use churches are former Episcopal parishes IIRC. And one thing I found out recently actually was that the Methodist Church was originally the Methodist Episcopal Church and the African Methodist Episcopal Church still exists.

Which Anglican Use Roman Catholic parish was Episcopalian? While there are many former Episcopalians in the pews, I was not aware of a former ECUSA church that went Roman Catholic. That may change with the new Anglican Ordinate, but that remains to be seen. I know of several former ECUSA parishes that are now in different Anglican churches (ACC, POCTK, DOHC, etc. . . ) but hadn't heard about an Episcopal parish joining the RCs.

I could be wrong, but that is what I was told. It's also possible I misunderstood and parishes split with some petitioning the RC church for membership? I'll be honest and say I don't know for sure.

Everything you could want to know - http://anglicanuse.org/index.htm

eta - Maybe you were thinking of the Sisters of the Poor? They left ECUSA for RC. St. Mary's in San Antonio started with ECUSA under a different name.

I've been letting this one perculate for a few days. I'm not sure how helpful this is, but I tend to think a proper answer may turn on what is meant by "prayer" and what is mean by "work."

I think too often, people think of prayer as asking for things, whether for ourselves or others. This may be okay as far as it goes, but if one isn't careful, it turns God into Santa Claus and prayer into a wish list. If I got what I wished for, it worked; if I didn't, it didn't. I fall into this trap myself sometimes.

But I think a better understanding sees prayer as conversation, the goal of which is deeper relationship with God and with others. Conversation, of course, involved talking and listening. Intercessory prayer in such a context "works" not only if the thing prayed for happens (say, cure from cancer), but also if the prayer produces a change in me and my understanding of how I need to relate to the person for whom I'm praying, a change in that person or a change in my understanding of how the prayer is being answered.

I know that in my own prayers, I try to remember to pray for all who suffer, including those known to me. I also have a tendency not to get too specific -- I tend to pray, say, for healing and comfort and peace and good, with an understanding that healing can come in forms other than just healing of the body. Healing of the spirit can be equally if not more important, and my idea of what is good for someone may be totally off.

I don't discount more specific intecessory prayer at all -- I know that if my kid had cancer, I would pray hard for that cancer to be gone. (And I have seen that happen in others.) But I think I would struggle to situate that prayer in a larger context of conversation like I've described.


I seem to recall that C.S. Lewis wrote in Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer something to the effect that his prayer list just kept getting longer and longer, because once he put someone on it, he couldn't bear to take them off.

He also said in that book: "It's so much easier to pray for a bore than to go and see one." Don't know if you'd find the book useful or not. I did.

Aside from other values, I think at least part of the value for intercession is that it reinforces, for me, that it's not all about me and my needs. It brings a consciousness of the needs of others and need to be in community with others. (See CSL quote above.) When the prayer is a conversation, then one might hear the answer to "please help ____" as "I can and will, through you. I need you to ______."

FWIW.

I'm going to look into the CS Lewis book, however I guess I'm still left with this thought process - many types of intercessionary prayer are simply... "doing it wrong" so to speak. But for those other types of prayer, and "correct" intercessionary prayer, if prayer is a conversation, then what is the explanation for those who receive no reply, no understanding, no feeling, no nothing?

None of the explanations I can come up with work, the only one that's passable for being utterly unprovable is that there's something 'wrong' with the person praying, but it's a shifting standard. And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I'm just not any closer to finding answers.

/yeah this is all about me.

And this probably doesn't get you any closer -- I think there's always a response. I think "the explanation for those who receive no reply, no understanding, no feeling, no nothing" is not that's it's not there. It's that they're missing it. I wouldn't say that means there's something "wrong" with the person praying exactly. And I'd also say even the most devout saint has periods when there seems to be no response.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwald...%20smalley.jpg

And that's okay. :p

That was my thought when I first read the question as well. Sometimes we miss the response/answer or don't interpret it as the response/answer. Like in the movie Signs.. do you believe in Signs or Coincidence?

I read an article calling this "blowing holy wishes to God". I found that so interesting, because once you agree to pray for someone/something, you do tend to get into this. For me, I consider prayer a form of communion with the Lord, so I say, "you know my heart, and for all I want to pray," before I start.

As for the Baptist issue, oy. It's gotten to the point with MOST Protestant churches that you need to work on a church to church basis. There are certain elements that most hold true (ie: the issues of transfiguation, Calvinism, etc). Most Baptist churches I've attended don't believe in either.

Coincidence. If anyone's going to bother to send a sign, it's going to be obvious and not my brain trying to make patterns out of random occurrences which is something our brain is proven to do.
While I understand what you're saying there's no way for me to... accept it. If that makes any sense. I know what you mean, but I don't believe it.

It makes complete sense. I don't know that it could be otherwise. Either you believe it or you don't. Either it fits into your frame of reference for making sense of everything or it doesn't. I'm not sure it's something others can convince a person of one way or the other.

The Gospels according to Mark, Matthew and Luke all include accounts of the transfiguration. (For the last 100 - 150 years at least, Biblical scholarship has recognized that Mark, Matthew and Luke have very close literary resemblances. Probably the dominant -- but not the only -- scholarly view nowadays is that Matthew and Luke each used Mark as a source, sometimes word for word, sometimes with a few changes.) See for example the relevant texts (in English translation) at

http://www.rockhay.org/sermons/texts...figuration.htm

Exactly how a church would interpret / teach about the transfiguration story/stories probably does vary. Some might say "literally true," others, "highly symbolic of ___ (something)_____; probably never really happened ."

Not to mention what individual Christians might believe about it.

I'm surprised that the Baptist churches you've attended don't "believe in" it (in some fashion) but that probably says more about my unfamiliarity with Baptist theology than it does about the actual theology or Biblical interpretation.

^^ The general consensus if I actually recall my theology class is that Matt and Luke use Mark and unknown "Q" as sources. Hence similarities between Matt and Luke that don't come from Mark.