That wretch (like his fellow “liberal” COMMIES) has forgotten that homosexuals are welcome to REPENT their sinful and evil “lifestyle”!!

You can’t have it both ways: either stay in your sin and out of the door, OR renounce it (completely!!) and then you’re more than welcome!! Jesus, although meeting and walking with sinners, did NOT tell them to stay the way they were – they had to repent in order to really receive the Good News!!!

That Rome has had her problems with homosexuals sneaking into her seminaries and posts is what now gives her the chance to both share the knowledge gained AND also the choice it has undertaken – to ROOT THEM OUT the way they should and MUST be!!!!

Otherwise, I’d openly rejoice with all my heart if those wretches who want things both ways (endorsement of their sin, regardless of what the Bible and tradition both say!!!) would ALL leave Rome and all the other faithful branches of God’s Faith – let them join “The Episcopal ‘church’” – GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!

An awful lot of the current Episcopal Church is comprised of refugees from other churches’ repressive and unenlightened policies. This seems particularly true of the leadership. Which explains the hostility such people display whenever the church they fled from does something nice.

Ecumenism in any meaningful sense is dead and buried in the Episcopal Church.

Oh, my, my! Paulie is “concerned.” I’ll bet he is also “dismayed.” Probably “agog,” too. Maybe Benedict XVI should take a second look at his idea for Anglicans. After all, Paulie is concerned! Heavens! Oh, the humanity!

So why is Bresnahan not aware that the church that brings you celibacy is also the church that brings you married priests in several of the Eastern rites?

Once you realize that even the Dominicans have had their own Mass for centuries, you get a lot more relaxed about all the various Rites and Forms and Uses and structures; and the essentials and disciplines become a lot clearer.

Makes me wonder if some of these liberal folks think that the Anglican schism is solely about sexuality, and not about doctrine.

Of course they are “not welcomed” to continue their shameless, lustful behavior and expect to be blessed for it, Paulie. The Roman Catholics, unlike the Episcopalians, actually do have some discipline when it comes to fornication, sodomy, etc., etc.. Sorry you don’t appreciate that, and I am sorry you have to sons who claim to be “oriented” that way. But instead of affirming them in their sinful behavior, you could be throwing them the saving grace of God.

But you will not do that, will you, Paul? You would rather sacrifice your sons on the altar of Political Correctness rather than see them turn from their sinful ways and repent and begin to be healed of thier perversion.

Way to love your family, Dude!

Mr. Bresnahan won’t be taking Pope Benedict up on his offer? Quelle surprise. But he shouldn’t be closing doors. He’ll be looking for a job soon. The parish attendance is down to ~60 and P&P giving is down to only ~$75k.

http://themoynihanreport.com/

(Letter #44)

An interesting take on the larger picture of what may be going on in the pope’s mind. It establishes an interesting context. If it’s true, it certainly explained a lot of the liberal rage.

They finally put this up on the website:

http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=47832@ktvt.dayport.com

For those who don’t know, St. Timothy’s is the ultra high church in a high church diocese.

Rev. Paul Bresnahan of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Salem, Massachusetts “I must respectfully decline that invitation.”

Oh Paulie, Paulie Paulie: and we went to soooooooooo much trouble just for YOU, and only YOU, did you hear: YOU, YOU, YOU: we are going to be absolutely devastated if YOU decline; we will have to withdraw everything and start again and come up with a plan that YOU cannot resist; without YOU the Catholic Church has no future.

P.S. You need to do some homework about the Catholic church and its teaching about gay orientation as against practice, matter of lack of authority for the ordination of women, and the celibate priesthood (will all eastern Rite Catholic married priest and ex Anglican married priest divorce their women forthwith!!! by order!!) and the long history of inclusion of all three groups within the structures of the Catholic church.

Paulie: name one significant Christian church/religious group that has grown in number or even retained its size and influence after it accepted and put into practice women’s and gay ordination and also raising them to episcopal status? Even those whom you seek to please are laughing at you.

P.S. How many Women Doctors of THE church have you got in your Canon of Saints?

Is it compulsory for ALL your ministers to be married? If yes, why do you allow the ordination of celibate men?

As for women in the Ministry, we had “Pope Joan” a long time ago, well before you got Schori,or have you forgotten? We have even granted another one woman, Mary, “Divine Status” and that’s why you regard Catholic Mariology as heresy and cannot accept it. Can you compete with that?

YAH BOO SUCKS!!!

They have the audacity to put this on their website:

“We are a small but growing congregation with a sense of mission and vitality…”

As mentioned above, their numbers are dropping and will hit ASA 50 probably by next year. From the looks of it, they either have all 225 baptised members giving a grand total of $300.00/year or the 55 actual Sunday attenders are giving about $1350.00+/year ($26.00 per week per person.)

So, SEE!! When you look at it that way, all this “inclusiveness” stuff really starts to make sense.

BTW, is it just me or does having 2 gay sons indicate some sort of odd family dynamic?

What is it about a “Christian” pastor that leads two of his sons into perversion?

Let’s hope that both are led out of it before they end up dead because of it.

Yeah, his declining the invitation was eaten up with respect.

Their numbers may decline, but their self-satisfied preening grows apace.

“Curiously enough, the church that brings you celibacy will allow married Anglican/Episcopal Church clergy to return, as well.”

*sigh* It’s because we have this weird thing about the indissolubility of marriage, Rev. Bresnahan. If we told them to get divorced beforehand, we’d be contradicting ourselves. As the old Catholic Encyclopaedia defines it:

“Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament; but every one can contract it who has been validly baptized, whether he has remained true to the Christian faith, or become a heretic, or even an infidel. Such has always been the teaching and practice of the Church. Through baptism one “becomes a member of Christ and is incorporated in the body of the Church”, as declared in the Florentine Decree for the Armenians; so far as law is concerned, he remains irrevocably subject to the Church, and is therefore, in legal questions, always to be considered a Christian. Hence it is a general principle that all baptized persons are subject to universal ecclesiastical laws, especially marriage laws unless the Church makes an exception for individual cases or classes. Hence not only the marriage between Catholics, but also that contracted by members of the different sects which have retained baptism and validly baptize, is undoubtedly a sacrament. It matters not whether the non-Catholic considers marriage a sacrament or not, or whether he intends to effect a sacrament or not. Provided only he intends to contract a true marriage, and expresses the requisite consent, this intention and this expression are sufficient to constitute a sacrament.”

So even these heretical schismatic Protestants are sacramentally married, and can’t be divorced. See?

What Fuinseoig says is, as usual, to the point; I would add that, in the Catholic Church, priestly celibacy is not a matter of universal dogma, but of ecclesiastical discipline (which is to be obeyed, it is a voluntary vow) oriented to the best service before God and for the church, along the line of what Paul suggests in 1Cor7,6-7: this explains why we have celibate priests and also married priest in various particular churches.
By the way, I’ve always been puzzled by so many protestants’ attitude towards indissolubility: Jesus does speak about it in several places in the Gospels and the matter – I’d think – should be settled rather clearly for anyone who affirms “sola scriptura”. Any one can offer me an explanation (I live in a country where non-Catholics are very few)?

Yeah. You have a point. They’re afraid of losing numbers…but there’s a larger problem here, that has become evident in the wake of Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution:

IT’S ALL ABOUT CONTROLLING WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND BELIEVE.

They’re less upset at the possibility of losing members than they are at having people go to a church where they’re still free to believe in a fixed doctrine. Which is why tons of Anglicans feel free to call the Catholic Church “homophobic” and “sexist” and continue to comment on how WE need to change our theology.

They don’t want different churches to cater to different spiritual and religious beliefs: they want us to believe what THEY believe and will do what it takes to remake us all in their image.

They know what they’re doing is a fraud. They know very, very few people care what they think. They know they have no core belief and are, as a result, a dying church of nothing. Yet they have erected a huge, complicated facade to hide those facts. And the facade is fine day to day, but one minor announcement from the Vatican, and the difference between illusion and real gravitas and real authority becomes plain. And they don’t like it. They don’t like it at all, not after spending thirty or forty years playing dress-up over what is, as they know, just a project to institutionalize Woodstock. Thus, they become very, very angry.

I thought the name Bresnahan rang a bell. Here is a quote from the bio on his website: “I did spend about nine months in South Carolina at Pawley’s Island working with a predominantly African American congregation. Unfortunately the mix between me and the leadership, especially the Bishop did not go at all well there. We parted company.”

I remember that incident well. He swanned in like the Great White Father. The congregation did not appreciate his theology at all and they loathed his condescension. The conflict was that Holy Cross was a mission so the congregation couldn’t fire him or adjust his salary negatively. The Bishop counselled him to leave. He left. Since his departure, Holy Cross has grown dramatically.

So you see, he is an expert on evangelism.

I’m not going to pile on the guy because both his sons are gay; but I will point out that this is just ONE of the reasons why priestly celibacy is sensible. I’ve seen many, many cases of married clergy with offspring who, when push comes to shove, will sell out the Church rather than their own blood. Find me a clergyman with a gay child, and I will show you someone who has “become convinced” that God loves homosexuality and gay marriage. I’ll be generous, and say that the pressure to cave in order to preserve family ties is just too great – maybe we should entertain the possibility that the Church, in all her centuries of experience, figured out early that this divided loyalty would ALWAYS be too great a burden for a priest to carry, and decided that it would be better not to put them to a test that they would fail.

We can pile on the guy for being one more Episcopalian priest who thinks it’s still 1968 in Haight-Ashbury.

You know, I’m good with married clergy. Had ‘em all my life. Lots of my family (including a great-great-grandfather) are clergy. So I’m glad that (Mennonite) Bishop Elias L. Frey wasn’t a celibate.

That said, anyone who thinks that having married clergy is just puppies and ice cream and doesn’t come with it’s own peculiar problems is… unacquainted with the reality of it.

Married men being fallen, too, you know (even if they are “good” men.) The tension between “taking care of my church” and “taking care of my family” is real. And let’s not forget the phenomenon of the “Preacher’s Kid” (PK).

peace,
Zach

peace,

As someone born and bred in Boston and environs — of Irish-Italian parentage — I am guessing that Mr. Bresnahan was one Catholic. Brought up that way, I mean. As my late mom would say, the name “Bresnahan” is as Irish as Paddy’s pig.

If my assumption is true, it explains a lot. Them-there ex-Catholics are often the orneriest.

Why must they construe things like the paragraph below?

“It sends a terrible message to the gay community,” said Bresnahan, the father of two gay sons. “It says, in effect, you’re not welcome here. To me, that slams the door shut in your face.”

Homosexuals are welcome in church just like any other sinner as we all are. Their life style is not welcome in a way that we lift it up, bless it, make them leaders-deacons-priests-bishops and say “It’s okay you don’t have to change and leave your sinful life style and be transformed by Jesus Christ like the rest of us sinners.” I resent that.

Ah! But TLDillon, they refuse to separate desire from behavior, and positively deny that a “lifestyle” exists, at least when talking to the breeders. It’s essential to their sense of self-worth to deny the disordered nature of their desires, or the sinful nature of same-sex acts.

Dr. Mabuse,

I’m sure you knew that this would happen, and I hate to be the one to be all contrary because in general I agree with you on: “show me a clergyman with a gay child, and I will show you someone who has “become convinced” that God loves homosexuality and gay marriage.”, but I do happen to know a wonderful clergyman who is the exception to that statement.

Strange but true.

FW Ken, I’ve always wondered why Fr. Stainbrook didn’t swim the Tiber years ago. I would tend to agree more with Abp. Duncan’s assessment that, even in North Texas, the number of Anglicans taking advantage of the new Personal Ordinariates will be “a trickle,” primarily because, in the United States, they’ve already had the option of the Anglican Use or, for clergy, the Pastoral Provision. While there were theological issues that steered us towards New Rome rather than Old Rome, a practical issue that kept our parish from considering the Anglican Use was that, at the time, several of our parishioners were former Roman Catholics who had become Episcopalians when they remarried.

What has been omitted by many stories reporting on this development is that the Personal Ordinariates are desgined not so much for those in the larger Anglican bodies but for those in the “Continuing” Churches, especially those in the Traditional Anglican Communion. If Pope Benedict can create a unity amongst those groups under Rome where they have not been able to create it amongst themselves, God bless him.

Peter C -

I would say that particularly in North Texas the movement will be a trickle, primarily because, as you note, the options have been available for awhile now and those inclined to move will have done so. not only is an AU parish conveniently located in the mid-cities, but both Dallas and Fort Worth have former Anglicans restoring decent liturgy in their parishes so you don’t even need a specialized parish to hear decent music.

not only is an AU parish conveniently located in the mid-cities

Speak for yourself…

I would say that particularly in North Texas the movement will be a trickle

I think this will be true in all of the US, to be honest. The Anglican Use has been around long enough that if anyone wanted to take advantage of it, they could have.

…a practical issue that kept our parish from considering the Anglican Use was that, at the time, several of our parishioners were former Roman Catholics who had become Episcopalians when they remarried. – Peter C.

I find it rather telling that a practical issue for not becoming Catholic is that the Anglicans will condone adultery while the Catholics will not.

James G

I know you live halfway to Oklahoma, Mark…

James G, the Anglicans aren’t the only ones who condone adultery (divorce/remarriage), but let’s not go there.

“For those unhappy over the Anglican/Episcopal Church’s ‘liberal’ stance on the ordination of gays and their inclusion in our leadership and membership, there is room in Rome. For those unhappy about the ordination of women, there is spiritual refuge in the purview of the Holy See.

Cool. I’m all in.

So, how’s New Mexico these days, Ken? Got any snow yet?

Wow, James, way to reduce a complex theological issue down to a one-line insult.

My intent in saying what I did was not to denigrate Old Rome’s stand on divorce and remarriage, but only to point out that there would have been resistance to us moving towards the Anglican Use from what was then a significant number of parishioners.

[...] why folks like the Rev. Paul Bresnahan of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Salem, Massachusetts are so angry about the possibility of getting rid of their “bigots.” …. [...]