Proud Catholic considering becoming Anglican

[dochawk]

If the priest or deacon’s wife dies, they may not remarry, although sometimes from what I gather an exception can be granted if the husband was left with young children who have no mother.

I understand that it isn’t rare in the US for RCC deacons to be granted dispensations to remarry. I was informed of this during an attempt to nudge me that direction.

But I realize that I would be borderline dysfunctional if something did happen to my wife, and would probably have to look for another (which is what brought up the dispensations). But I couldn’t take a vow that I know I would ask to be dispensed if it ever came up . . .

the Anglican Church came into being because Henry wanted a divorce and the pope wouldn’t allow it

actually, what he did was get local theologians to declare that not even the pope could issue the dispensation to marry his brother’s widow, and that he’d been living in mortal sin for those years . . .

as a practical matter, he thought that England would devolve into civil war if he didn’t leave a legitimate male heir–and history proved him correct . . .

 

[AlNg]

I’m saying that these folks are disregarding, even rejecting, explicit papal teaching, and therefore can be discounted in terms of “catholic thinking”

What does that have to do with those who believe that the earth is flat?

 

[dochawk]

Papal investigation and teaching is that Anglican orders are invalid.

To claim a “Catholic” position that they are merely “questioned” or “doubtful” in the face of this is akin to denying that the earth is round . . .

 

[Inquiry]

Do you happen to know the reasons for the finding? I haven’t been able to find that one out. I did find a very interesting quote from John Henry Newman, but I don’t know if that was based on the investigation or on his own experience as a former Anglican. Edit: The timing doesn’t match up for him to be involved.

To clarify: I know that the issue is that shortly after the CofE was created reformists managed to change the wording of the Sacrament of Ordination. It was changed back a century later but by that point the damage was done. I don’t know what they took out, though.

 

[TikhonAthanasiusD]

Yes I was an Infant. My father is Latin rite his mother was Latin rite his father was a hebrew Catholic (convert from Orthodox Judaism).

 

[commenter]

It’s a very complicated issue, which one of our posters, @GKMotley, has explained many times in terms of the actions of long ago. He is Anglican.

But it is more complicated by recent actions, consecration of women as bishops, which was unthinkable at the time of Pope Leo’s decree. Part of the validity of the sacrament is based on intent of the ordainer/consecrator.

Some would argue that even if the earlier break in continuity can be remedied, the break of the last 40 years cannot be.

Even if a male bishop is ordaining a man to Anglican priesthood, after having ordained a woman last week with a female co consecrator, is this bishop still in union with the historic episcopacy?

 

[GKMotley]

The sacramental intent, to be valid, must be to do what the Church does, in the sacramental action (facere quod facit ecclesia). Since intent, as Apostolicae Curae says, is internal, the sacramental intent is normally assumed to be valid, if all other sacramental factors are visibly valid. In the case of conferring orders, an attempt to do so to a non-valid recipient is judged as evidence the sacramental intent is also invalid.

Note that Anglicans, being, as we say, a motley group, do not all make that sacramental error, holding to an all male clergy. This is true, notably, for those Anglicans referred to as Continuing Anglicans.

As to your last question, I’d say no.

 

[GKMotley]

Decree of nullity.