Gay Marriage conquers England. Pray for Mary's Dowry!
#1
WARNING: The link contains photos of public sensual embraces.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26793127

Last night the first "gay marriages" occurred in England. Who are some traditional English saints we can ask for help from?
What are some Anglo-Saxon and Medieval English penances we can do for the sake of poor old England?
I'm sure Thomas Becket - as dedicated as he was to keeping Church free of interference from the State - would be of great assistance here.

Didn't the old Tories often have Catholic sympathies? I can't believe the "Conservative Party" is their successor.

How could England fall so far? Is it mere rejection of the Faith? Can we say to Thomas Cranmer: "This is your doing", and to Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper, "You have done this"? Pray for Westminster Cathedral to grow a spine and oppose this blatant attack against Matrimony! Pray for England's conversion! At this point, even the acceptation of Eastern Orthodoxy would be a step up. :(

Hopefully our Holy Father will not say anything inopportune about this, and give more Ambiguity-Fuel to those opposed to God.
Reply
#2
DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.

The Book of Common Prayer, 1662

And the Anglican Ordinariate version:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of God and in the presence of this congregation, to witness the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God himself, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee, and is commended in Holy Writ to be honourable among all men; and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly; but reverently, discreetly, soberly, and in the fear of God, duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, it was ordained for the increase of mankind according to the will of God, and that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, it was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections, implanted by God, should be hallowed and directed aright; that those who are called of God to this holy estate, should continue therein in pureness of living.
Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
Reply
#3
Bravo, triumphguy. Good point.

In lieu of Catholic or even Orthodox re-establishment in England, basic conservative Anglicanism would even be preferred to all this nonsense.

Always it has seemed right that the best defense against women priesthood is the Trinity (Father & Son) and its oikonomia in the Incarnation. The best defense against gay marriage is the incarnate BrideGROOM, Christ, and His BRIDE, the Church.
Reply
#4
Churches are specifically exempt from being required to perform these faux 'marriages'. However, that has not stopped the unrepentant sodomites from suing to force the issue. This should convince those dense enough to buy the left-liberal line on 'if we give them "civil partnerships" they'll quit asking for "marriage"'. Britain had had, for, IIRC, nine years, 'civil partnerships' granting absolutely the same rights as marriage and it didn't stop the push for 'equality'!
Reply
#5
(03-30-2014, 11:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Churches are specifically exempt from being required to perform these faux 'marriages'. However, that has not stopped the unrepentant sodomites from suing to force the issue. This should convince those dense enough to buy the left-liberal line on 'if we give them "civil partnerships" they'll quit asking for "marriage"'. Britain had had, for, IIRC, nine years, 'civil partnerships' granting absolutely the same rights as marriage and it didn't stop the push for 'equality'!

This continued use of the word sodomite totally !@#$%% me off.

Which particular sodomites: men who have unnatural intercourse with animals, or the many heterosexual coupes who engage in anal sex, or a minority of homosexuals who, IF they are having a same sex relationship engage in the same said practice?

Why does it upset me? Because it reduces people made in the image and likeness of God to a sin.

We don't refer to teen boys as a group as masturbators;
Or married Catholics as a group as contraceptors;
Or men as a group as fornicators.

Just because we hear our favourite talking head on YouTube using this term, it doesn't mean that we have to. We can be big boys and girls who chose not to use demeaning language about others. 

We could in fact, talk as Christians, and avoid the banal and sneering tones of the videeo commentators..
Reply
#6
(03-31-2014, 12:58 AM)triumphguy Wrote:
(03-30-2014, 11:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Churches are specifically exempt from being required to perform these faux 'marriages'. However, that has not stopped the unrepentant sodomites from suing to force the issue. This should convince those dense enough to buy the left-liberal line on 'if we give them "civil partnerships" they'll quit asking for "marriage"'. Britain had had, for, IIRC, nine years, 'civil partnerships' granting absolutely the same rights as marriage and it didn't stop the push for 'equality'!

This continued use of the word sodomite totally !@#$%% me off.

Which particular sodomites: men who have unnatural intercourse with animals, or the many heterosexual coupes who engage in anal sex, or a minority of homosexuals who, IF they are having a same sex relationship engage in the same said practice?

Why does it upset me? Because it reduces people made in the image and likeness of God to a sin.

We don't refer to teen boys as a group as masturbators;
Or married Catholics as a group as contraceptors;
Or men as a group as fornicators.

Just because we hear our favourite talking head on YouTube using this term, it doesn't mean that we have to. We can be big boys and girls who chose not to use demeaning language about others. 

We could in fact, talk as Christians, and avoid the banal and sneering tones of the videeo commentators..

I apologise for offending you, but I neither own a TV nor do I have a 'favourite talking head on YouTube'. I first heard the term some thirty years ago used by a close friend. And if a group of teen boys were making public demands that their sin be given legal recognition in some form I certainly would refer to them as masturbators, just as I often refer to most Novus Ordo 'Catholics' as contraceptors.
Reply
#7
(03-31-2014, 06:30 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: I apologise for offending you, but I neither own a TV nor do I have a 'favourite talking head on YouTube'. I first heard the term some thirty years ago used by a close friend. And if a group of teen boys were making public demands that their sin be given legal recognition in some form I certainly would refer to them as masturbators, just as I often refer to most Novus Ordo 'Catholics' as contraceptors.

As much as I do sympathize with triumphguy's anger and frustration at the frequent and often-inappropriate use of the term "sodomite", I believe jovan is correct in this instance.

This case is clear: "gay marriage" can be legally consummated only by the act of sodomy. To call this particular set of gay-marriage-advocates "unrepentant sodomites" is perfectly clear and accurate.

More importantly, "sodomite" is the term passed down by tradition of the Catholic Church, east and west, to refer to the sin being engaged in by these people. They are sodomites, period - just like people who commit murder are murderers, and people who steal are thieves. Convenient labels are there because they are convenient; yes, they are not perfect, but they work. Catholics are practical.

In 1497 in Bruges, several friars were burned for SODOMY. The Church never shied away from this term before. It may not sound charitable, but when did our Lord Jesus Himself ever sound charitable? He referred to sinners by name right in front of everyone. We must be merciful and full of love, but also honest.
Reply
#8
Gay marriage can't be "consummated" at all, since the act of complementary union is not possible.

Wiki: "The British Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act of 2013 specifically excludes non-consummation as a ground for the annulment of a same-sex marriage. This is because there is no generally accepted legal definition of consummation for same-sex couples in the UK."

Jovan: since it's just a phrase you heard once 30 years ago, why not use other phrases that are far more accurate and less demeaning.

Using the term sodomite is not an accurate description of homosexuals, or even of those who want to enter gay marriage.

Plus, phrases like this demean the speaker/writer as much as the person they describe.

I'm "glad" you are consistent though.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)