What is the difference of marriage of Aglipayan and Catholic Church?

Answer 1

Quick Reference; The Philippine Independent Church, officially the Iglesia Filipina Independiente is a church which is in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA. Although the Aglipayan Church has many Catholic characteristics, the 2 main differences are that they reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the pope) and they allow their clergy to marry. The Eucharistic service is a mixture of the Tridentine Rite and the Book of Common Prayer.

Answer 2

Externally similar yet doctrinally different in views concerning the Sacraments, Papacy and Apostolic Succession. It started as a schism protest against Rome for not granting Filipino bishops at the turn of the 20th century during the Philippine Revolution and not expelling the abusive Spanish friars from the Philippines. It decalred itself as the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) of the Philippine Independent Church, a sort of a National Catholic Church by Isabelo de los Reyes Sr. (who later returned to the Roman Church at his deathbed). The self proclaimed bishop, former Catholic priest Gregorio Aglipay (who later also joined freemasonry), was declared Obispo Maximo (Supreme Bishop) and was consecrated as such by 12 former Catholic priests (who have no power to do so and since no legitimate Catholic bishop joined the schism, their orders are null and void thus renedering all of their Sacraments illicit and invalid). The IFI disintigrated into around 15 different factions but the main group veered away from the Trinitarian belief and adapted the Unitarian doctrine. However, they have united themselves with the Episcopalian Church with their bishops being ordained by them. Sadly. the Anglican orders have been decalred in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII to be nuull and void, thus they also have no Paotolic succession. They now again profess the Trinitarian faith but technically speaking, they are not anymore independent since they are now part of the Anglican Communion. Pope Leo XIII in 1896 declared all Anglican ordinations to be "absolutely null and utterly void" (which of course includes the IFI ordinations). The Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York of the Church of England responded to the papal charges with the encyclical Saepius Officio in 1897.

The principal objection to Anglican orders being valid, according to Leo XIII, was the alleged deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. In the case of deficiency of intention, the pope declared that the rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church and reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, an appointment or blessing, instead of a sacramental conferral of actual grace by the action itself.

The view of many Anglican bishops and apologists was that the required references to the sacrificial priesthood never existed in many ancient Latin Rite ordination liturgies or in certain Eastern Rite ordination liturgies which the Roman Catholic Church considered to be valid. Many Roman Catholic apologists, including English bishops, asserted that those Eastern Rite forms adequately described the powers proper to a bishop, including his supreme priesthood and the ordination of priests, deacons and subdeacons, thus confirming the true intention and meaning of the rite.

Answer 3

Assuming you mean the "Anglican" church, their similarities are too many to mention. Their main difference, however, is that the head of the Catholic Church is the pope in Rome, whereas the head of the Anglican Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury in England.