Archbishop Justin Welby on Prince George's christening
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- In this short film the Archbishop of Canterbury talks about the baptism of HRH Prince George of Cambridge, as well as the broader significance of baptism.
Archbishop Justin will baptise Prince George on Weds 23rd October at the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace, London.
The film features footage from an interview with Archbishop Justin Welby conducted at Lambeth Palace, along with shots illustrating what happens during a baptism, and scenes from a community Eucharist in the Crypt Chapel at Lambeth Palace.
The film was produced in association with Torpedo Factory Films.
There's a difference between god's love and following god. God's love has no cost, following god can be tough.
No wonder the theology is off. No mention of Christ, who offers redemption through the cross. Therefore no mention of a changed heart, only empty tradition and formality.
The Agape is about UNITY. Paul was preaching against factions in the community, judgmentalism, and the consumption of the food in factional isolation rather than sharing in Unity.
To discern the body of Christ is to discern Unity.
Selfish consumption is a sin.
The churches these days rarely encourage mindfulness and real introspection.
Any drunken sop is welcome to receive holy communion in an Anglican church on Christmas Eve. In one church I attended even the vicar was pissed up..
I'm not bothered what version it is, so long as it gets the point across.
No, I would not go up for a blessing. In fact, I wouldn't attend an Anglican service in any event.
God's love is offered without cost? How does this fit with Matthew 16:24 :
[Jesus said] If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
This was a key pillar of the Reformation: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9. I think this is what he is referring to.
So you would go for a blessing, seeing as you see formal communion as pointless, correct? Is that
Why do you use the old King James Version of the bible BTW? That one dates back to 1611, it's way outdated. There is a New King James Version, you know.
It is not an act of charity to operate an open table. We need to know the persons with whom we share the Agape and make eucharist. Otherwise the whole thing is likely to degenerate into little more than a community barbecue. Purely mundane.
In the past Anglican clergy have given notice of when they intend to celebrate the supper, and it has been required of those who wish to partake that they register this intention with the celebrant.
Things are now very slack.
The BCP of the Anglicans teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and applies it to babes. Anglican "baptism" is clearly wrong, and you can't get round it by claiming that the christening is a simple blessing and dedication.
Go back across the River.
Wow, "I make assertions, ego, they are correct!" Nice syllogism.
"All things Roman are evil. This looks like its Roman, ego evil!"
Blackbeard: Clearly you've never met Justin Welby or spoken with him and I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. Blind Saklas??? I am a serving Anglican minister and proud to proclaim the Gospel of the resurrected Christ. For those like rg31404 who say Christ isn't mentioned: God's love is mentioned several times, the cross is mentioned several times and from 4:50 onwards it's all Christ. Absolute rubbish saying that Jesus isn't mentioned.
I couldn't care less if you are a serving Anglican minister. The Anglican Church is owned by the Establishment. The Queen is the head of your church, and we all know just how the Anglican Church got started; something about Henry VIII and his sexual proclivities.
Infant "baptism" is a farce. According to your BCP babies are "born again" and made regenerate in the font. This is garbage. It is nothing but the Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
And as to your "Gospel of the resurrected Christ"....what are you on about? What do you mean by "resurrected Christ"? How was Christ resurrected?
Your Church is the Church of Constantine the Great. It is a mix of old Jewish legalism; (your "bishops" are always on hand to bless a corrupt and plundering Judiciary), and the old Roman State religion. You people pay lip service to Christ, but you do not operate in the spirit of Jesus at all. The evangelical wing of your church is all about the promoting of blind belief in ludicrous stuff like virginal conceptions and the like.
Your Christianity is mere tokenism and cosmetics. Your cathedrals were erected on the basis of slave labour and indulgences. It costs thousands of pounds to keep those memorials to the "great and good" of the Establishment up and running. Walk round Westminster Abbey. What the f**k does this have to do with Jesus??? Your religion is an inversion of true religion.
I too used to be an Anglican; that is till I woke up and saw the light.
Blind Saklas is the gnostic demiurge, which is exactly what you people worship.
Your religion is of help to none. You are like quack doctors treating a dis-ease which you yourselves have created. It's what keeps you in a job and soft life.
Welby worships a false Christ.
I wish you well and hope you have a wonderful and blessed Christmas.
***** Thanks mate :) but I don't celebrate Christmas....Xmas is a Christianized Pagan Feast cum Consumer Fest.
I wish you well. Please research Primitive Buddhism and Gnosticism. You may be surprised by what you find. The road to a-theism was agony for me, but one I had to travel. I am now a Christian A-theist. I try to live by the teachings of Christ with no hope of heaven, but equally, no fear of hell.
Cheers.
03Blackbeard I was under the impression you worship a false Christ, seeing as you seem to believe that the thing that makes Jesus "Christ" (the Crucifixion and Resurrection) is a allegory, i.e. a false story to represent a true message.
I would disagree than Justin Welby worships a false Christ, but I guess you're a fan of Welby in that case?
What struck me, in the video, was at the EXACT moment that the Archbishop says "God's love is offered without qualification" the image (3:23) is of the Church of England practice of a priest refusing someone communion and giving a blessing instead.
The bible teaches the order of things differently. The scriptural command made by Peter in Acts 2:38 is 1) repent, 2) believe and 3) be baptised. How can a baby do 1 & 2? Whilst not 'wrong', Christenings are not biblical baptism. The origin of Christenings comes from the example in Luke 2:22-23 which tells of the Dedication of Jesus in the temple. A child that is Christened/Dedicated is so thru its parents' choice. Those who are baptised, repent & believe, then are baptised - their choice!
I think a lot of those instances are bad examples to the case at hand, I see your point. But I think Jesus's attitude to the Pharisees and conversely to people like zacchaeus and the woman who washed him with oil says enough about whether the elitist attitude you are proposing is a good idea
When it comes to water into wine, are you referring to an allegory by john or an acted out allegory by Jesus? The latter shows Jesus not being shocked by the drunkenness and the former implies john approved
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For all who eat and drink* without discerning the body,* eat and drink judgement against themselves. 30For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.* 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. etc.
Is not my quality in unto itself a thing of wonder... Can a woman oversee communion? Which would human man affirm... a woman of the priesthood, or a priest who is of womanhood? The feminine have I put into the church, whether in woman or in man, the feminine has been placed into the church... and so through this feminine, shall it be brought down... this is the cycle of my bride, in all womb, that my child be born. There is no greater destructive act toward human system, than feminine cycles.
I don't believe the Gospel to be history. It is allegory from start to finish, (a pseudo-history).
I believe that true spirituality is elitist. Christ condemned the hypocrisy and legalism of the Pharisee, not his elitism.
Paul was elitist in certain respects.
There are Gnostics, and there are those who, as yet, do not know.
I have been both Anglican and RC. Not any more. I saw the light, and renounced my Infant Baptism.
I simply make the point that there is no sacerdotal priesthood in the C of E, despite what the Anglo-Catholics maintain, unless, of course, you have received a clandestine ordination at the hands of some wandering bishop. But, it's all bunk. Rome, Anglo......the lot..
Get yourself a copy of the Didache. In my view the earliest Christian document, along with Q. Look at the section which deals with the Eucharist. See how simple it is. I personally doubt that the Last Supper ever took place. But it doesn't matter. The Agape is the true sacrament.
The turning of water into wine is an allegory, not an invitation to get blotto.
What Jesus meant by "Judge not..." is that we should not act as someone's Judge, Jury and Executioner, not that we should never pass judgment upon the ideas and acts of another. That would be absurd.
I don't deny the bare fact in what you say, but I would seriously question the motive. Why is there an emergency? Why does a baby in danger of death need to be "baptized"? There is no justification for the practice once you have discarded the idea that baptism in some way puts the baby right with God.
You guys need to listen more carefully. He says really clearly this is about spirituality life, not a naming ceremony. And if a baby cannot do '1 and 2' how did Jesus know his heavenly father as a baby? Or was he only the Word made flesh once he became an adult?
I apologise for my hypocritical behaviour. Now *I've* been acting in an elitist way. But I will say this: if there are ever criteria for taking communian in the Anglican church, one of the main ones will be the belief the original communian actually happened.
I said that I DON'T go (present tense) and WOULDN'T attend an Anglican service. In fact, I was an Anglican minister (priest) for 9 years, so I conducted thousands of services. But then I saw the light and left the Church. I am a non returner.
Already this child has been elevated to celebrity status, HRH indeed. Yes all babies are special yet this one will be accorded privileges far beyond all others. Sorry Archbishop I find the whole thing nauseating in the extreme!
Outstanding video. Great stuff from ABC Welby. Might need to download this to show in church, or to our toddler group parents...
And there's nothing stopping you from being both drunken and mindful about god. I've had some very good theological conversations with drunk people, and jesus did turn water into wine at a party, however you interpret that.
It doesn't LOOK Roman. It IS Roman. Anglicanism is, in certain respects a prolongation of Romanism. In the domain of Baptismal Theology, certainly. In other respects, not. eg: priesthood and the Mass. Read your 39 Articles.
That does not need to be proven. The biblical pattern is that the head of the household received Christ and their household entered the covenant with the head of the house. That is easily proved from Gen Rev.
It is interesting to me that you assert that you want proof, but then push it off as Romanish Dogma. Just because Roman holds to a teaching does not automatically make it errant. Bad logic.
Baptism by midwife in an "emergency" belongs to an age when people thought that children dying un-"baptised" would go to Hell or Limbo. That kind of teaching is REPUGNANT.
For the C of E churches I've been to, this does not happen. They give people the *option* to have a blessing without taking communion but anyone who wants to, can.
Are you and RC? and if not, why are you arguing for them? Since when do Anglicans bow to Rome. This is why we are Anglicans and not Roman.
No, I do not believe that Paul was a literalist. He was a proto-gnostic.
Of course, the gospels were written after the Pauline epistles.
does yer opinion refer to those whom are stating what they think as per statements online, or do yer opinions mean something else
Water also kills in tsunamis! how is a naming ceremony any different apart from the fact that a non-existence being is invoked?
God bless George with Love, Hope and Faith x
It's all pious claptrap from a man who makes a very good living as a professional deceiver.
Entire households were Baptized during the Apostolic Age. This certainly not exclude babies.
Woman Anglican priests are called "Mother" It is the proper term, not priestess.
Jesus said, "Call no man FATHER...." All ecclesiastical titles are wrong.
Wow. That's deep. We never heard that before. How wise you are!
I don't mean to be in anyway rude but that's total nonsense!!!
You'd be better off reading Hans Hut, "On the mystery of baptism".
And can you prove that there were babies in the household? No.
I don't understand this comment. Can ye elaborate?
what does this mean, unworthily..........
I think it'd be wonderful if the outcome of this Christening is a mass inquiry about baptism and what it means. It'll present many opportunities for people to give a reason for the hope that they have. I recommend people read up on the reasons and facts behind the Christian faith. Check out historian John Dickson's videos on here, and his books. Then look to John Lennox and Ravi Zacharias. From there William Lane Craig and Timothy Keller, etc... It's fascinating and great to have some info.
Their only god is the STATE.
Oh wait no you've explained yourself now, I see what you are trying to say here. Well just because it would be personally wrong for someone to misuse communion in that way doesn't mean they should refuse it, the vicar can't read their mind, so unless god specifically told them not to (as he can) they should offer it in case their case is genuine. It also says in the new testament in many places not to judge people.
What if a friend took you, during some kind of church event? That is one of the main reasons for people taking a blessing instead of a communion, apart from planning on joining and just don't feel ready yet. And if you haven't been to an Anglican service, why do you claim to know so much about them?
Repent and be baptised. In that order.
I am responding to what I find online or elsewhere. Ye will have to take from my "opinions" what ye think is right for ye to take, whatever that may be. Same for everyone.
so if even the vicar was pissed up.........ive been waiting a long time to hear what ye think. Tho Im well sure yer opinion may mean nothing....
Merry Christmas to Justin welby and god bless you all
(cont yet yet again)
Also, do you not think that paul, whom you cite, thought of the gospels as actually happening?
Wow...I would love to share this video far and wide, but the priestess prevents me from so doing.
It does not INCLUDE them. You can't argue from silence.
They peddle cheap grace.
You peddle Rome
Forget the Creeds. You don't need them.
Thankyou
Very Cherry
"he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself"....1 Cor 11.
Anglican "priestly blessing" is worthless.