Reddit mentions of Absolutely null and utterly void: The Papal condemnation of Anglican Orders, 1896

> don't see evidence for papal supremacy/infallibility (not to be confused with primacy) in the early Church, nor for the Immaculate Conception. I think that, if you asked Catholics whether or not these were correct before the Church said so, many of them would have rejected them- even St. Thomas Aquinas, who I respect greatly, rejected at least the Immaculate Conception.

I appreciate you asking these questions. This is part of the reason that I have chosen not to become Catholic, despite the thought of doing so crossing my mind many times.

So to attempt to provide an answer for some of these questions, I will preface this with the joke, "if you walk into a room and ask a theology question to three Anglican priests, you'll receive four separate answers." Anglicanism, like all other religious movements, has a history that is as political as it is spiritual. As a result of the Protestant bickering in the Anglican world, a broad tent approach to Christianity has been taken. There are, broadly speaking, three streams of Anglican Christianity: charismatic, reformed, and anglo-catholic. I fall into the final stream, but attend something of an evangelical/reformed parish. So these answers are coming from that perspective.

1.) I would question whether most Anglicans support same sex marriage. This is probably true in the United States and Canada, but is probably not the case within the global Anglican context. If you are American, the largest Anglican organization in your country will be the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States (PECUSA) (a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which is mostly just a bunch of churches in the Anglican tradition who are in communion with one another). This organization has put homosexual marriage into their canon law. Other Anglican organizations in the United States include the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), and a collection of small churches known as the 'Continuing Anglican' movement. These churches all reject same sex marriage and would raise the same question you raise to the members of PECUSA. Many individuals within PECUSA also oppose homosexual marriage, but the church at large is against them. The best argument posited by those who approve of homosexual marriage would probably be on the basis of 'oikonomia,' believing that it is better to allow those with homosexual urges to engage in a marriage setting rather than engage in less healthy behaviors outside the bonds of legal and religious commitment. This would be similar to the position posited by the Orthodox Church when they allow the divorced to remarry.

2.) The fault lines here in the United States are again split between PECUSA, ACNA, and the continuing Anglican churches. Those in PECUSA almost unanimously accept female priests (with the exception of a very small handful of diocese). In ACNA, this varies diocese by diocese, with most dioceses rejecting female priests as far as I recall. No continuing Anglican church accepts female priests. A popular argument for why woman priests are valid is posed by N.T. Wright, a contemporary Anglican author. The continuing Anglican churches came into existence when PECUSA first began to accept woman priests back in the '60's or 70's or so. They viewed PECUSA as cutting off her claim to apostolic succession through invalid ordinations, and decided that the best way to preserve the church within the Anglican tradition was by separating and "continuing" valid expressions of Christianity without being a part of the Anglican Communion. There aren't a ton of continuing Anglicans in the US, but this church finder map may be helpful.

3.) Transubstantiation is rejected within the 39 articles of religion, but a small minority of Anglo-Catholics accept this position and reject some pieces of the 39 articles. Outside of saying that, I'll let others answer this one because I'm not super educated.

4.) This is a great question. One thing that drew me to Anglicanism (I came from an Evangelical background as opposed to a Catholic one, so for you this may be less relevant) was the Book of Common Prayer. Just forcing myself to do the daily office every morning and every evening regardless of whether I feel like it is a tremendous spiritual benefit. It instills a discipline that is much needed. I also, earlier in the year, read The Cloud of Unknowing, a work of apophatic theology, which I thoroughly enjoyed and have really benefited from. This book has inspired individuals like Thomas Merton and others who write about 'centering prayer.' I find this mode of prayer to be worthwhile, especially when I have run out of words to say. Using this, or even just repeating the Jesus Prayer as I do dishes or ride the train has been a good thing for me, and keeps me grounded on God.

5.) Absolutely not. If you had a Trinitarian baptism with water than you had a valid baptism. We believe in ONE baptism for the remission of sins. You are already saved through Christ Jesus.

6.) Answers will vary. I believe that the church constitutes all of those who are under a valid bishop with a line extending to the apostles. If Catholics begin to worry you about the validity of our orders, I've been recommended this book but have yet to read it myself. I have yet to read it myself. I would note though that the RCC has to my knowledge never addressed the ordination of Anglican bishops by Old Catholic bishops, the latter of whom they do believe to have apostolic succession.

7.) Answers will vary. We take the parts that are meant to be taken literally, literally, and the other parts we don't take literally. I think you can find some contradictions if you read the gospel stories side-by-side, but I don't believe they are central enough to the gospel message to make Christianity irrelevant.

Please feel free to ask any follow-up questions.