Replies

I'm sorry. I don't agree with that at all.

For instance, if a man abandons his family and sues or divorce, it doesn't mean the woman had not considered the marriage binding. And to say so to satisfy the church is to be untruthful.

Peach -

As a former Episcopalian, now RC, I will try to answer a couple of your questions.

In 1980, John Paul II established the Pastoral Provision for Anglicans/Episcopalians who are converting to Rome. It provides that entire congregations, along with their priests, may convert. Many times the priest will go on to become an RC priest, even if married. The Anglican Use parishes use the "Book of Divine Worship," which is basically the 1979 BCP which has been modified to conform to the Latin Rite. For example, the Mass is the same, with the Words of Consecration changed to the Roman Canon. In addition, I think most of the Anglican Use parishes use the 1982 Episcopal Hymnal - I know mine does.

Here is a website on the Pastoral Provision, which explains everything and provides links to Anglican Use parishes:

http://www.pastoralprovision.org/

When Mr. Claret and I converted, we had to have our previous marriages annuled. It was a very healing experience! It was not about whether we considered our previous marriages binding, but whether or not they were Sacramental. The Church makes that judgement after having been given all the facts - and it is really a judgement about facts and not feelings.

Hope this has helped. Freepmail me if you have any questions. I will be happy to answer them.

nan c

"[I]f a man abandons his family and sues or divorce, it doesn't mean the woman had not considered the marriage binding. And to say so to satisfy the church is to be untruthful."

Ah! I think there's the misunderstanding. There's no reason why one spouse's abandonment of the family means the other spouse's vows weren't sincere. But because Matrimony is a covenant based on a mutual vow, if one party didn't sincerely intend the vow, then here was no "mutual vow."

As I understand it, if the abandoning partner believed from the outset that divorce would be an option "if the marriage didn't work out," then he didn't really intend what the Church intends by Matrimony.

It's no reflection on the innocent spouse. She intended the marriage to be binding. But since that intention wasn't mutual, the marriage was defective (in a Sacramental sense) from the git-go. There's no reason she would have to say something untruthful by claiming that she herself wasn't sincere. She was sincere. Thee was simply no mutual vow.