Anglican

This phrase "the Holy catholic Church" comes from the Apostles Creed:- " I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. " I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, "Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, "Born of the Virgin Mary; "Suffered under Pontius Pilate, " was crucified, died, and was buried; " He descended to the dead. " On the third day he rose from the dead; " He ascended into heaven; "and is seated at the right hand of God the Father; " From there He will come to judge "the living and the dead. "I believe in the Holy Spirit, "the Holy catholic Church, "the communion of saints, "the forgiveness of sins, "the resurrection of the body, " And the life everlasting. Amen. " (This is from page 171 of "A Prayer Book For Australia" by the Anglican Church of Australia 1995 ISBN 1-876677-42-2 ) Article 8 of the "Thirty Nine Articles" of the Church of England in 1562 says:- "VIII. Of the Creeds. The ... Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for [it] may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." (op cit p.478) As the various Creeds were written with great care and exactness for absolutely precise meanings, this also means that the relevant phrase "the Holy catholic Church" must also have an exactly precise meaning. As the capitalized word "Holy" is an attribute of God and not man and every church denomination considers themselves "Holy" this word can safely be disregarded in this case, and the Question in context really therefore becomes: "What does it mean to believe in the catholic Church?" The answer to this question basically comes down to the difference between 'catholic' [ with a small 'c'] and 'Catholic' [with a capital 'C'] as they are not the same.

According to the Collins Dictionary [ISBN 000 433174-5] the word 'catholic' means 'universal, relating to all men, all-inclusive' and comes from the Latin 'catholicus', which came from the Greek 'katholikos' meaning 'universal', while on the other hand 'Catholic' means 'the Christian Church before separation [ie in 330AD] into the Greek or Eastern and Latin or Western churches' and after the[official] separation [ie in 1054AD] 'especially the Roman catholic Church.'. This distinction may sound trivial but it is important, and led to at least two major schisms. The first split was between the eastern and Western churches. Although this separation was made official in 1054AD, it had actually begun over 700 years before in 330AD when:-

This slow process of separation was encouraged in 330 AD when Emperor Constantine decided to move the capital of the Roman Empire to the city of Byzantium (Byzantine Empire, modern-day Turkey) and called it Constantinople. When he died his two sons divided their rule, one taking the Eastern portion of the empire and ruling from Constantinople and the other taking the western portion, ruling from Rome.

"In 1054 AD a formal split occurred when Pope Leo IX (leader of the Roman branch) excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (leader of the Eastern branch), who in turn condemned the pope in mutual excommunication." (Taken from "Eastern Orthodox Church History: A Brief History of the Eastern Orthodox Denomination" http://christianity.about.com/od/easternorthodoxy/a/orthodoxhistory.htm)

The second major schism was the Reformation of the 16th century, so-called because of the re-forming of new churches in accordance with the Scriptures in protest at the Roman Catholic church, hence the apellation 'Protestant'. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Biblical Literature in the Union Theological Seminary N.Y. wrote in "The Creeds of Christendom" [to avoid repetition see details at end of Answer] that:- The Reformation was eminently practical in its motive and aim. It started from a question of conscience: 'How shall a sinner be justified before God?' And ... 'What shall I do to be saved?' The answer given by the Reformers ... was: 'By faith in the all-sufficient merits of Christ, as exhibited in the holy Scriptures.' And by faith they understood not a mere intellectual assent to the truth, or a blind submission to the outward authority of the Church, but a free obedience, a motion of the will, a trust of the heart, a personal attachment and unconditional surrender of the whole soul to Christ, as the only Saviour from sin and death [and] The absolute supremacy and sufficiency of Christ and his Gospel in doctrine and life, in faith and practice, is the animating principle [of] the Reformation, and the essential unity of Protestantism ...

...

The Reformers were baptized, confirmed, and educated, most of them also ordained, in the Catholic Church, and had at first no intention to leave it, but simply to purify it by the Word of God. They shrank from the idea of schism...When the Pope refused to satisfy the reasonable demand for a reformation of abuses, and hurled his anathemas on the reformers, they were driven to the necessity of organizing new churches and setting forth new confessions of faith, but they were careful to maintain and express in them their consensus with the old Catholic faith as laid down in the Apostles' Creed.

. These differences were the basic reason for the Reformation. Philip Schaff explained this furthur and gave the differences between the Poman Catholic and the Protestant churches:-

The doctrinal principle of evangelical Protestantism, as distinct from Romanism, is twofold-objective and subjective.

The objective ... principle maintains the absolute sovereignty of the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and life, in opposition to the Roman doctrine of the Bible and tradition, as co-ordinate rules of faith. Tradition is not set aside altogether, but is subordinated, and its value made to depend upon the measure of its agreement with the Word of God.

The subjective ... principle is the doctrine of justification by the free grace of God through a living faith in Christ, as the only and sufficient Saviour, in opposition to the Roman doctrine of (progressive) justification by faith and good works, as ...conditions of justification. Good works are held by Protestants to be necessary, not as means and conditions, but as results and evidences, of justification.

...a third, the social principle,... affects chiefly the government and discipline of the Church, namely, the universal priesthood of believers, in opposition to the exclusive priesthood of the clergy. Protestantism emancipates the laity from slavish dependence on the teaching and governing priesthood, and gives the people a proper share in all that concerns the interests and welfare of the Church; in accordance with the teaching of St. Peter, who applies the term clergy ('heritage', 1 Pet 5:3 see (KJV) " Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."; (NET) "And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock") to the congregation,...

It is impossible to reduce the fundamental difference between Protestantism and Romanism to a single formula without doing injustice to the one or the other.... But if we look at the prevailing character and the most prominent aspects of the two systems, we may draw the following contrasts:

Protestantism corresponds to the Gentile type of Apostolic Christianity, as represented by Paul;

Romanism, to the Jewish type, as represented by James and Peter, though not in Peter's Epistles (where he prophetically warns against the fruitful germ of the Papacy, viz., hierarchical pride and assumption), ...

Protestantism is the religion of freedom

Romanism, the religion of authority.

Protestantism is mainly subjective, and makes religion a personal concern;

Romanism is objective, and sinks the individual in the body of the Church.

The Protestant believes on the ground of his own experience,

the Romanist on the testimony of the Church

Protestantism is the religion of evangelism and spiritual simplicity;

Romanism, the religion of legalism, asceticism, sacerdotalism, and ceremonialism.

Protestantism appeals to the intellect and conscience,

Romanism to the senses and the imagination.

Protestantism is internal,

Romanism is external, and comes with outward observation.

Protestantism is the Christianity of the Bible;

Romanism, the Christianity of tradition.

Protestantism directs the people to the fountain-head of divine revelation,

Romanism directs the people to the teaching priesthood.

Protestantism freely circulates the Bible, as a book for the people;

Romanism keeps it for the use of the clergy, and overrules it by its traditions.

Protestantism is the religion of immediate communion of the soul with Christ through personal faith;

Romanism is the religion of mediate communion through the Church, and obstructs the intercourse of the believer with his Saviour by interposing an army of subordinate mediators and advocates.

The Protestant prays directly to Christ;

the Romanist usually approaches him only through the intercession of the blessed Virgin and the saints.

Protestantism puts Christ before the Church, and makes Christliness the standard of sound churchliness;

Romanism virtually puts the Church before Christ, and makes churchliness the condition and measure of piety.

Protestantism claims to be only one, but the most advanced portion of the Church of Christ;

Romanism identifies itself with the whole Catholic Church, and the Church with Christianity itself.

Protestantism claims to be the safest way to salvation.

Romanism claims to be the only way to salvation.

Protestantism is the Church of the Christian people;

Romanism is the Church of priests, and separates them by education, celibacy, and even by their dress as widely as possible from the laity.

Protestantism is the Christianity of personal conviction and inward experience;

Romanism, the Christianity of outward institutions and sacramental observances, and obedience to authority.

Protestantism lays the main stress on living faith, as the principle of a holy life;

Romanism lays the main stress on good works, as the evidence of faith and the condition of justification.

Protestantism proceeds from the invisible Church to the visible;

Romanism, vice versa, from the visible to the invisible.

Protestantism is progressive and independent;

Romanism, conservative and traditional.

Protestantism is centrifugal,

Romanism is centripetal.

Protestantism is exposed to the danger of radicalism and endless division;

Romanism to the opposite danger of stagnation and mechanical and tyrannical uniformity.

Since the Roman Catholic church put man's tradition on an equal footing with Scripture, the Protestants regarded the Roman Catholic church as an ungodly, worldly, and pagan organization following man. Since the Protestants held the Scriptures to be the Word of God pre-eminent above all, the new Protestant churches were therefore truly universal and open to all God-fearing and truly Christian believers: they were 'catholic' ( not 'Catholic' or 'Roman Catholic' in the true sense of this particular word) . As the word 'catholic' meant 'universal' and the term 'Roman Catholic' therefore meant individual believers worldwide having to worship according to the dictates of a particular organization based in one city (Rome) in one country (Italy) it was therefore an oxy-moron. As the word 'Catholic' had previously always been taken to be synonymous with 'Roman Catholic', to ensure there would be no confusion about this the word, the phrase "Holy catholic Church" in the Creed was deliberately not capitalized to stress that the Roman church was not Godly but by inference the universal body of believers definitely was Godly. Philip Schaff concluded:- The exclusiveness and anti-Christian pretensions of the Papacy, especially since it claims infallibility for its visible head, make it impossible for any Church to live with it on terms of equality and sincere friendship. And yet we should never forget the difference between Popery and Catholicism, nor between the system and its followers. It becomes Protestantism, as the higher form of Christianity, to be liberal and tolerant even towards intolerant Romanism. (From source "THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM IN THREE VOLUMES with A HISTORY AND CRITICAL NOTES" , Volume 1 :"The History of the Creeds" , Chapter 2, byY

PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, N.Y.

Bibliotecha Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis

SIXTH EDITION

Harper and Row, Publishers

Copyright, 1905, 1919 by David S. Schaff)

On occasion yes, the Episcopal church is the Anglican church of the USA (and also of Scotland) and is one of the provinces of that church along with the Church of England, the Church in Wales and many Anglican churches in Africa.

In the Anglican communion there are 3 orders of ministers: deacons, priests and Bishops. Occasionally, an Episcopal deacon or priest is referred to simply as a 'minister.' However, unlike other Christian ministers, there is a significant difference regarding the understanding of ordination and the sacramental priestly role. Additionally, the Episcopal Church has non-ordained ministers such as local preachers, lay readers, accredited lay-workers and so on, however, lay ministers are not permitted to celebrate sacraments as an ordained minister or 'priest' would.

The priestly role in the Church of England and in the Episcopal Church is slightly different from that of the Roman Catholic Church. For starters, Roman Catholics have a slightly different concept of what happens at the mass than Anglicans/Episcopalians do. Roman Catholics believe that it is the priest that is transforming the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. Anglicans and Episcopalians typically believe that God is the one performing the Sacrament, and that the priest is just working as vessel ordained by Christ, however he (or she) is not the one transforming the elements, rather it is God. Also, Roman Catholics hold strong to the belief of transubstantiation or the belief that the bread and wine physically transform into Christ's literal body and blood. Whereas Anglicans/Episcopalians tend to be more diverse in their Eucharistic theology, Ranging from Real Presence, to Consubstantiation, to Transubstantiation and anything and anywhere in between.

However, one thing all Anglicans/Episcopalians believe is that in some manner, when the priest celebrates the Eucharist, it is no longer simply bread and wine, but also the real presence of Christ, his True Body and Blood. However, the 'how' and 'in what way' remains a mystery for Anglican/Episcopalian Christians, and it is preferred that way. Just as God is a mystery, so is the Eucharist.

Additionally, Anglicans allow women to be ordained as deacons, priests and Bishops. However, the term 'priestess' is not used in reference to women priests, as this is a pagan term. The term 'priest' was retained after the Church of England broke ties with Rome in the 16th Century, as this schism was not over theology, but politics. Although there are striking similarities between both the Catholic and Anglican priesthood, such as apostolic succession, and the Eucharistic and sacramental role, there is also varying differences as well. Anglican/Episcopalians tend to view their priests on a more human light, recognizing them as guided and consecrated by God, but remaining human and therefore permitted to marry or have relationships. Whereas Roman Catholics view their priests as holding a 'semi-divine' office, and as such are not permitted to marry or to have sexual intercourse.

The Roman Catholic view of the priesthood has changed throughout the centuries, as Roman priests were once permitted to marry. However, the issue of land inheritance came into play during the 11th and 12th centuries, and typically by the 14th century most Roman Catholic priest's were 'strongly encouraged' not to marry. By the time the Protestant Reformation began in the 16th century, it had become canonically mandatory that ALL Roman Catholic priests take vows of celibacy.