Diocese of Kentucky: Bishop Gulick Quietly Approves Of Same Sex Blessing at St. Matthews, Louisville

Sarah,
What you reported is typical of Ted Gulick. He talks about a “middle way” while pursuing a radical liberal social agenda. St. Martin’s in the Field in Mayfield, Kentucky was closed in 2005. The closure was attributed to demographic changes in the community. While these changes may have contributed to St. Martin’s demise, Ted Gulick’s leadership of the Diocese of Kentucky was the major contributing factor. Before Gulick became bishop of Kentucky, the Episcopal churches in western Kentucky were thriving or holding their own. The Jackson Purchase where Mayfield is located is in the westernmost part of Kentucky and is one of the most socially conservative if not the most socially conservative parts of the state. Gulick appointed an openly lesbian deacon to pastor St. Martin’s in the Fields and two other churches in the region. To turn around a declining church needs a pastor who can build relationships with the community. An openly lesbian deacon was not the right person for the job in this particular community. The result: one dead church and two small churches struggling to survive.

I remember 2 or 3 years ago working with Kendall and the elves, helping them with some research as they were trying to establish a clear list of which bishops / dioceses allowed SSBs.  I recall we thought Gulick was allowing or moving towards “private blessings” but we couldn’t prove anything, and we eventually took that diocese off the list since there was no “proof”.  I guess KY can now go back on the list.

This is the thread I’m remembering:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/6780

(That whole thread provides further ample evidence of the deceit and word-games and duplicity of various bishops and dioceses re: the whole matter of SSBs.  It’s well worth rereading.)

I guess the ordination vows don’t specifically call for not being sneaky. The closest the BCP appears to get is this,

Bishop:  Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God?
Answer:  I will, for the love of God.

It all depends on what the meaning of “guard” is.

Unfortunately, the dichotomy between the public and private actions is rather typical among southern Episcopal Bishops.

Slimey buggers.

Wonder when Ted will institute SSBs in the Fort Worth rump? Rump diocese I meant. Freudian slip.

A close friend/TEC priest who attended VTS with Gulick characterized him succinctly as “an idiot”. We can now add devious to the characterization. Small wonder he was the PB’s choice for the reconstituted Ft. Worth diocese.

Pewster #3—I have to admit that the liturgical response you cited—”...for the love of God”—played in my head in a non-intended way. I don’t think I have to confess being profane; it really was a very short prayer about the church.

It all depends on what the meaning of “guard” is.

For the new breed of TGC bishop, guard == undermine.

Bishop Ted Gulick is no longer the provisional bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth, Bishop Wallace C. Ohl is now provisional bishop of that diocese.

What seems to be up everyone’s nose here are matters of distinction. I think that the point +Ted made in his report from GC ‘09 was that Res C056 did not establish official rites for TEC. It encouraged pastoral generosity toward same sex couples in the different legal jurisdictions in which TEC dioceses are located. That generosity will obviously take different shapes in the various dioceses. In dioceses of conservative bishops nothing may change. In dioceses located in legal jurisdictions where domestic partnerships or civil unions are legal, bishops may authorize a blessing of the couple after the fact. In legal jurisdictions where legal marriage is permitted there may still be a variety of accommodations permitted by the bishops of the dioceses in those jurisdictions. For example, +Gene did not perform the legal aspect of a marriage he recently blessed, that was performed at the doorway of the church by two legal authorities of the State of New Hampshire. +Gene then blessed an already existing civil marriage. However I believe that I heard another bishop has authorized clergy to actually act as the legal representative of the state and officiate the marriage in conjunction with a church wedding.

Granted that nothing mentioned makes you folks happy, my point is that TEC has done nothing as a national Anglican church but authorize pastoral generosity. That generosity is taking a hodgepodge of different forms in different dioceses, if any form at all. Any “rites” are being developed locally and perhaps shared across diocesan lines as the resolution encouraged development of resources.

However, this hodgepodge is indeed slowly walking the path in both TEC and the ACoC to full matrimonial inclusion of same sex couples in the ritual life of both churches with recognition of their marriages.

#10 writes, “Granted that nothing mentioned makes you folks happy…”
I’m happy. Sarah, Greg, Matt, etc. - are we happy? Just because this or that bishop wants to flush TEC down the sewer, does that make me unhappy? I’m glad that the word is out about another shiten shepherde. I’m sorry that he has done this, and other immoral things, and I would pray for his soul.

Who authorized Aaron, the High Priest, to build the golden calf? “Holy Matrimony” for same sex couples? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Anyone who wants to build THAT golden calf will have some ‘splainin to do some day. This or that bishop might end up authorizing it, but it won’t be “for real,” just as the Golden Calf was not the God that brought Israel out of Egypt.

That’s what Redding+ should have said, “Hey Bishop Wolf, do you think you could authorize a little theological generosity my way?” Thanks for the chuckle, David.

IMO sharing the gospel with such couples to bring them to repentance and faith in Christ is the only generous pastoral response. Anything else would be a self serving attempt to hold onto a position in a corrupt institution and to lie to people he should be preaching to in order to get their approval.

Wow, a bishop that DOES one thing and SAYS another!  Typical episcopalian bish, wouldn’t ya say?  I do note the similarity between Gulick and Gollum.  The question of course is which Gulick is which Gollum or are both one and the same in each instance?

Resolution C056, he stressed, recommits the Episcopal Church’s support of the Anglican Communion while addressing the new reality that civil unions of same-sex couples are now legal in six states…. “Naturally Anglicans in those jurisdictions will ask what the church is going to do to recognize that relationship in some sort of liturgical way.”

Yes, Bishop, SSU’s are legal in some states.  But I’m willing to bet that, apart from it becoming federal law, Kentucky will never be one of them.  So where does C056 give you the license to do what you are doing?

Sorry Bishop Gulick your comment about the Provence of Australia   is up the pole( ( if you know what that means) .
You ought to take this up with the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd,  whose party stands firm on   what Marriage is all about,
You really shouldn’t make sweeping statements that aren’t true.
Brian+

Actually Brian+, it is you making untrue statements. The bishop did not use the term marriage, he used the blanket term civil union and mentioned a number of legal jurisdictions that have differing laws using differing names for the concept, but all of them, either the entire nation or individual jurisdictions have some sort of legal same sex unions, including Australia. South Australia has legal domestic partner agreements, Tasmania has legal registered partners, Victoria has legal domestic relationships and the Australian Capitol Territory has legal civil unions. As a side, gay couples are considered legally de facto couples on equal footing with unmarried heterosexual couples in all the rest of Australia. 57% of Australians favor same sex marriage.

David,
Marriage is marriage, one man, one woman, same-sex unions, partnerships or whatever are not marriage.. You use   “marriage” (same-sex) at No 10, do you not mean the same things as Bp Gulick?.My assessment of australia is that some states have pseudo unions, but don’t call them marriage please.
I think you are using a masterful play on words, I give you that,
Where did you drag the 57% from? that’s pretty good guesswork.
I’m endeavoring to follow Matthew 5:43=45 (below)

The bishop - or David really - is half right and half wrong about Australia.
The state based registries recognise same sex relationships. but they do not provide for civil unions (legally binding ceremonies). The Australian Capital Territory however has recently passed legislation which allows SSU’s.

The Australian Government has passed laws that recognise same-sex couples in federal law, offering them the same rights as unmarried heterosexual couples in areas such as taxation, social security and health, aged care and employment. These changes were supported by the “Australian Christian Lobby”. (Which is the main group in our “religious right).
Some same sex couples on pensions were disconcerted to find the couples rate is less than two single pensions.

Moving from the secular legal situation in Australia to the position of the Anglican church, I think that General Synod (i.e. the Synod of the Anglican Province of Australia) last considered the issue in 2004:

Recognising that this is a matter of ongoing debate and conversation in this church and that we all have an obligation to listen to each other with respect, this General Synod does not condone the liturgical blessing of same sex relationships.

I don’t think the liberals have tried again since 2004. My guess is they were probably waiting to see what happened in America first, and that hasn’t turned out as well as they hoped/expected.

The majority rules? A majority of Israel wanted the Golden Calf. Germans voted in the Enabling Act that consolidated you-know-who’s power. True democracy only works as a form of government when the people are virtuous and fully-informed.

That being said, we have to remember that a majority of informed Christian leaders throughout the world agree with Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, that homosexual practice is sinful. Not one of the Patriarchs has affirmed homosexual practice, same sex blessings, same sex marriage, or same sex Holy Matrimony. A majority of the Anglican Communion agrees with the position of the Patriarchs.

A minority of the Anglican Communion, and a tiny minority of Christianity believes otherwise.

Several TEC dioceses are in schism with the Anglican Communion, and with Christianity. Add DioKY to the list!

This was my parish church before I left TEC in ‘96, one year before Laird came.  St. Matthews is a good example of what happens when the Faith delivered to us by the Apostles is lost.  Slowly and almost imperceptibly, over the years, the Faith was worn away and was gradually replaced with the false gospel of radical inclusivity.  Looking back, I can now see that it was done almost seamlessly.  I deeply regret raising my children in this church and beg their forgiveness.  I do pray for the individual members of St. Matthews that the darkness that has descended upon them be lifted and that they find the true freedom of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Dear Bishop,

Make a close reading of Zechariah 11:15-17.

Blessings,
Ole Rafe

Sorry Brian+, the polling I used last night was from 2007. The most current Galaxy Poll from 2009 places it at 60% of Australians in favor of same sex marriage.

Regarding my post at #10, I used all the terms currently followed; domestic partner, civil union and same sex marriage. The laws recognizing same sex couple’s relationship are not currently the same. The goal is legal marriage for same sex couples everywhere. Something at which your grandchildren’s generations will probably not bat an eye. I intend, as I believe that the bishop intended, to represent the situation as it is currently legal in the various jurisdictions mentioned, no more and no less.

David, I’m just curious, don’t you follow your own advice?  “Certain trolls have posted here many times … Troll at home ... you add nothing original to the conversations here. You are just a broken record of the same trolling we hear from all the others. You just come with a different accent.”

Sound familiar?

To be clear, I’m not making the same request of you as you made of Peter Carrell; I’m probably alone in not really accepting the concept of “trolling.”  Hypocrisy, however, is another matter.

Given the marriage penalty amounting to thousands of dollars should Obamacare get enacted, will we start seeing opposite sex partners approaching their priest for a blessing that is short of a legal marriage?

Details: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126281943134818675.html

Hello Phil.

I do not believe that what I commented at #10 meets the criteria of “you add nothing original to the conversations here. You are just a broken record of the same trolling we hear from all the others. You just come with a different accent.” Although I certainly bring a different accent!

In my comment I believe that I responded to the post from Sarah with a different understanding of what the bishop said and wrote. My other comments have been in direct response to comments from others regarding Sarah’s post or my own post.

Peter Carey does not comment with anything either regarding Mark Harris’ actual post or in actual response to the comments of others, he posts the same party line talking points no matter the topic at hand. If Peter actually had something that reflected the real conversation I would not object.

I believe when Jesus said to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and give to God what is God’s, he was responding to more than just monetary offering.  We have two sets of laws: man’s laws and God’s laws.  If the government wants to allow same-sex unions, that is the government’s perogative.  These unions will carry legal benefits to the partners.

However, I don’t believe the Church is obligated to follow the same path.  I believe the Bible (i.e. God’s Word) clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman.  It also states that homosexuality goes against God.  Therefore, I don’t believe the Church should bow down to liberal pressure to recognize same-sex marriage, civil unions, or whatever people want to call it.  Same sex marriage is a violation of God’s law.  The Church should stand for God’s law and not recognize these unions.

Furthermore, a democratic form of government based on majority rules is fine for government.  The same does not apply to the Church.  We do not have the right to vote on God’s law.  It simply is what it is.  All He wants us to do is follow it.  When we start meddling with it, we dissapoint Him and fall into the same trap we read about with the Israelites in the desert.

All I can say is: Please Church, follow and uphold God’s law.  Do not lead your congregations astray.

I disagree, David.  I don’t know him, but he seems to be a pretty irenic guy who makes substantive points.

Even if you were to direct that kind of a comment at somebody like me, who writes with a sharper edge, it still seems that “troll” has to mean someone who drops in a zinger and doesn’t bother sticking around to answer for him/herself, not simply “someone with whom I disagree.”

Personally, I like to see opposing views get into the fray.  I wish those on the Left did, also.

Ya’ll I don’t think DavidH is a troll.  Is anyone calling him that, though?

What am I missing?

Is there someone available for me to ban?

Sarah, I don’t either.  It’s a little off-topic, extramural stuff between David and me, so the only one to ban would be me.  (Please don’t, though.  I’ll stop now.)

Y’all should check out the slogan on the Dio. of Ky’s website: “Engaging Christ, Embracing the World”—I kid you not. It doesn’t say, “Embracing Christ; Engaging the World,” which is what the Gospel calls us to do.
And the scuttling of St Martin’s, Mayfield, KY, was painful for me too, since that’s where I trained as an acolyte under the very godly vicar, Fr Lord, in the 70s, when the building was brand new and full of promise.
Ian+

Something at which your grandchildren’s generations will probably not bat an eye.

Personally, I find it very unlikely I will have grandchildren, but…

If you knew what I don’t bat an eye at (morally disapprove of, yes, but I’m long past eye batting), what I think my grandchildren’s generation will not bat any eyes at, or what I know my distant ancestors in Pagan Europe and Pagan North American did not bat any eyes at (or disaprove of), you’d be horrified.  But you and I don’t seem to share the same assumptions about the relationship between God’s morality and public approval, or eye batting.

David, there is much debate over the “clobber phrases” about homosexual activities and homosexual blessings and such. 

However, when you bring matrimony into the conversation, the “clobber phrases” change.  Because both the old and new testaments tell us unequivocally what a marriage is.  There is no room for shadings of grey.  Marriage is between a man and a woman. 

Unfortunately, when you mention marriage and blessings in the same post, you starkly lay out the fact that if a homosexual couple can’t get married because it isn’t “authorized” by God, then why in the world would God approve of a civil union or life-long partnership?  That would be inconsistent, wouldn’t it?

[26] David |däˈvēd|

The goal is legal marriage for same sex couples everywhere. Something at which your grandchildren’s generations will probably not bat an eye.

On the other hand, they probably won’t bat an eye at a mother having sex with her daughter either.  So what does that prove?  This of course all presumes that civilization can survive the progressive dismemberment of public sexual norms, upon which rests the nuclear families, upon which rests the ability to successfully civilize children.  Everything is so easy once you assume that morality progresses in the direction you are traveling.  It means that progress can never be labeled degeneracy.

carl

I love how Gulick views the mission and purpose of his diocese.  As he sees numbers decline and funds dry up, he appeals to the people in the pews to increase their giving.  Why?  Because the churches in his diocese are “the only alternative to fundamentalism in the communities they serve.”

“...recommits the Episcopal Church’s support of the Anglican Communion while addressing the new reality…”

And by the word “addressing,” of course, he means to conform to the world on this matter.  Wonder why he neglects to mention that the latter vitiates the preceding.

On the other hand, they probably won’t bat an eye at a mother having sex with her daughter either.

Why do you lot always go for the cheap shot. I know of no one advocating sexual relations between parents and children here. Not straight folks nor gay folks. And I think statistically what of it that does occur is fathers with their daughters. If you were to study pheromones, you would also know that biology has a way of weeding out most sexual relations between close relatives.
•••••
Phil there are various types of trolls. Try concern troll.

[37] David |däˈvēd|

Why do you lot always go for the cheap shot.

It’s not a cheap shot.  It exposes the fundamantal emptiness of your argument.  Morality is never determined by what people will ‘not bat an eye at.’  Your argument can just as easily be used to justify mother-daughter sex as it can any other act of homosexuality.  And your hostile reaction is intended to cover up your complete inability to differentiate the two cases. 

I know of no one advocating sexual relations between parents and children here.

But you don’t have any consistent reason to oppose it either.  By legitimizing homosexuality, you have already thrown out the structural barriers that restrict such a practice.  It’s simply cultural inertia and your own ‘ick factor’ that prevents you from accepting loving mutual consensual monogamous intergenerational inter-family sex. 

carl

I am sorry Carl, but I did not intend the batting of eyes comment to be part of my argument for or against anything. It was a casual comment that meant to point out that with the attitudes of the youth today that same sex unions would probably not be an issue for them in the future.

I think that loving mutual consensual monogamous intergenerational inter-family sex will still be an issue for them.

David (#39),

I think that loving mutual consensual monogamous intergenerational inter-family sex will still be an issue for them.

I would be interested in why you think that.  Where is the line drawn?  What is the difference? Both are “loving mutual consensual monogamous ... sex.”  What distinguishes them?  Why is one ok and the other is not?

It was a casual comment that meant to point out that with the attitudes of the youth today that same sex unions would probably

Perhaps you underestimate the strength of natural moral law (written on hearts, as it were). On the other hand, if you have such a low view of human morality that you think people can eventually be conditioned into accepting anything, then why not submit yourself to the external moral standards of society, which still consider such behavior to be wicked?

The bishops are encouraged to support clergy in pastoral generosity to persons who have chosen to marry in these states, and pastoral generosity is not defined specifically.”

“pastoral generosity” This phrase is an absolute green light for providing anything. It reminds me of the “gracious restraint” comment which is not a red light. In the perception is reality world of TEC, people can define things as it suits them. How does this go now? Scripture, Tradition, Reason, no Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience, no Scripture, Reason, Experience, no Reason and Experience, no subjective experience, yes, that’s it.

It was a casual comment that meant to point out that with the attitudes of the youth today that same sex unions would probably not be an issue for them in the future

Nah, I’ve known some pretty homophobic youth, as well as morally conservative youth (the first is not the same at the second) as well as some pretty libertine youth that would have no problem with things that I imagine you find shocking.  But that is neither here nor there, and has nothing to do with that the Espicopal Diocese of KY is or should be doing.

“It means that progress can never be labeled degeneracy”.

Or devolution, for that matter.

Unfortunately, when you mention marriage and blessings in the same post, you starkly lay out the fact that if a homosexual couple can’t get married because it isn’t “authorized” by God, then why in the world would God approve of a civil union or life-long partnership?  That would be inconsistent, wouldn’t it?

There does seem to me to be a difference between a blessing and a sacramental blessing of a same sex union. In the latter, there is an exchange of vows and rings with the ceremony copied from the Sacrament of Marriage clearly approving of a homosexual physical relationship with the idea of consummation. This runs directly counter to Paul’s words in Romans 1. A mere blessing would seem to leave the physical aspect of the relationship behind closed doors where God alone judges its sinfulness.
Mike

[39] David |däˈvēd|

It was a casual comment that meant to point out that with the attitudes of the youth today that same sex unions would probably not be an issue for them in the future.

Disingenuous.  The only reason to make such a statement as this…

Something at which your grandchildren’s generations will probably not bat an eye.

... is to imply the historical inevitability of that which you consider moral progress.  You were as good as stating that those who resist these ideas are on “the wrong side of history” and “clinging desperately to a dying worldview.”  That you attached moral content to their judgment is proven by the hostile reaction you provided to my analogizing this shift with a crude form of incest. 

I think that loving mutual consensual monogamous intergenerational inter-family sex will still be an issue for them.

Homosexuality is still an ‘issue’ for me, and I am told I am a reactionary pre-modern bigoted homophobe as a result.  The question is not whether people have “issues”, but the standard by which they determine those “issues.”  Why should you (or anyone) have any issues with consensual sex between two adults who happen to be mother and daughter?  I have actually never heard a revisionist answer this question.  They generally do just what you did - they divert the question by expressing shock that anyone would ask such a thing, and then pretend that the question needs no answer because the answer is obvious. 

The answer of course is obvious.  The specified relationship is structurally defective.  Mothers and daughters were never intended to have sex within the confines of the natural created order.  But of course that is the exact same argument used to condemn homosexuality.  We have already dispatched the idea that structural defect can delegitimize a consensual sexual relationship on the altar of autonomous will.  You can’t re-establish the barrier you have already overturned, and you know it.  So you feign shock, and shake your head.  “Who would ever approve of mother-daughter sex!  No revisionist wants that!”  Well, not yet anyways.  But the laws against incest are already giving way.

Besides, we already have the example of Woody Allen and his step-daughter.  No, some people will want it.  And other people will find it just a difficult to resist the progressive normalization of incest as modern culture has found it difficult to resist the progressive normalization of homosexuality.  It’s just that ‘ick factor’ after all.  People just think that mothers having sex with their daughters is ‘icky.’  But they’ll get over their prudish mentalities.  After all, they did before…

carl

I am at a point Carl where whatever I say will be misconstrued. You read much more into my comments than is there, or at least what was intended by me. It has now become an untenable situation, and has meandered way far from the topic of the thread. I can truthfully say that incest is not something I have thought much about. Nor is the usual sex with animals red herring something which I have thought much about. I can only tell you that it is humorous at best and hurtful at worst when straight folks presume to tell us about who we are. Something they can never possibly know. So I with draw from this side issue. Assume what you will.

David (#47) I have only commented on SF a couple of times and am not a regular here.  In one sense I can very much relate to your frustration in having your comments misconstrued - the conversation led to a place you never had in mind originally - but the logical part of me (perhaps the merciless part of me), is interested in how you would logically respond to Carl’s comments.  As painful as it may be, it may be a road worth going down.

I agree with WarrenS, that you should logically answer Carl’s comments. This is a logical problem, not an “ick” factor one. Incest and homosexuality do share one thing: decades ago, these two subjects were met with horror and disgust.  Western culture appears to be slowly changing it’s mind about one: homosexuality. So why not the other? If you put aside your disgust, why is incest wrong? Especially in Carl’s example. If a mother-daughter relationship is mutually consenual and loving and no genetically deformed children can be born, and its monogamous, why not? Only the ick factor remains, but it can be dispensed with. I think carl is trying to tell you that the reasons used to dismantle arguments made against homosexuality can now be used to dismantle arguments about many other things. Something to think about, anyway.
Jennifer

As to Jennifer’s comment…...Ick!!!!!

AS a descendant of those who were at one time cruely and wrongfully enslaved in the Americas by reason of the purposeful misinterpretation of scripture as justification for it, I am glad to see this wise man of GOD lovingly allowing for same sex unions(marriage)in the state of Kentucky. I hope more persons are as courageous as he has been in leadership of loving by example. We are, indeed, capable of carrying out our familial duties in every way in the 21st century as Christian-Homosexuals. Thank YOu Jesus

See them churin dressed down in pink theyve been washed in the blood of the LAMB and they no longer stink. Go Head live yo life children be FREE.

[51] Calhoun

AS a descendant of those who were at one time cruely and wrongfully enslaved in the Americas by reason of the purposeful misinterpretation of scripture as justification for it ...

Nice play of ‘Guilt by Association’ there, Calhoun. 

We are, indeed, capable of carrying out our familial duties in every way in the 21st century as Christian-Homosexuals.

Except perhaps for that command to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’  But then the world has too many people anyway.  By the by, would you be able to tell us who isn’t capable of “meeting their familial duties in the 21st century”, and why?  There are lots of potential ‘family arrangements’ out there.  Sexual organizations are becoming as varied as the human imagination can devise.  And their practitioners all say exactly the same thing as you. 

carl

This is exactly what is happening in the Diocese of West Missouri.  Bishop Howe announced his retirement this summer, we had diocesan convention in October, and THEN he sent out a memo to all clergy authorizing same-sex blessings, but asking everyone not to talk about it.  Or if we did—specifically, if the press somehow found out—to present it in a positive light, focusing on the inclusive love of God, yada yada.  So, we didn’t discuss it as a diocese at convention, we’re not supposed to talk about it, and if someone finds out about it, we have to speak of it in affirming terms.

I don’t have a lot of respect for someone who announces his departure, and THEN creates a mess for the next guy/gal to clean up.  Let the new bishop make his/her OWN mess.  Have the courage to face the consequences of your own actions.

If you’re in Kentuckiana, you do NOT have to put up with this. You have options. St. Stephen Anglican Church is an AC-NA parish, continuing in the faith and order and mission we received from Jesus through the Apostles. We’re on the south side of Louisville. It’s not a “St. Matthew’s” address ... and as you can tell from what they do at St Matt’s, that’s a good thing.

Find out more about Orthodox Anglicanism in Louisville.
http://www.ststephenlouisville.org

PhillipsBrooks at #54, thanks for telling us about +Howe’s attempt to bring in liberalism “by stealth” as it were. I trust the Lord will bless you as you continue to do what you can within TEC to resist the encroaching liberal tide.

FrChris at #55, thanks for sharing about the ACNA parish. For those who need a place where they can grow and disciple in peace, it is important that they know that this parish is there.

May God bless both of you in your witness against apostasy.

Someone inquired on a related site what was up with Texas, as in the DioTX.  Here ... like this ... again.  I have lived in the Diocese of Texas, albeit 5.25 years ago and under the +Wimperly, the Blowin’ in the Winds(or) and Camp(y) Allen responses to EcUSA/TEc.  Same modus operandi.

I have been baptized.