Newlyweds: When Prince Charles married Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, he had to repent for his past 'sexual sins'
The Right Reverend Stephen Platten, Bishop of Wakefield and head of the CofE committee in charge of liturgy, said that the element of repentance by parents that has always been part of baptism was enough for the new services.
The CofE's current Common Worship liturgy asks parents of children who are being christened: 'Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?' Parents reply: 'I repent of them.'
“Hatch n’ Match” ping
How people even consider the CoE a real church anymore?
the Archbishop of Canterbury is an ass.
The Church of England might as well fold up shop and hand their property over to the muzzie hordes.
AND, when you get your card punched on the 10th visit, the next wedding is 100% guilt-free!
Sorry, but what is “acting improperly?” Does that mean holding hands? Kissing? Feeling her breasts? Massaging her vulva? Inserting a finger? A BJ? Having sex?
I realize Christ condemned “fornication,” Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, but where is the line drawn?
If a relationship is moving towards marriage, does one condemn any act of impulse that has a “hint of impurity.”
Just asking. Go ahead and state your opinion. I'm flame retardant.
Keep in mind that the word “virgin,” is euphemistic. Clearly, women who converted during the Roman Empire were probably ‘less than pure.’
If I became a Christian and wondered away from the truth and had children out of wedlock, and I then got married in the church and had my children baptized, what would be wrong with that, that is, if I repented?
Seriously, are you that unforgiving? Come on, answer me!
The Church of England couldn't overthrow a coffee cup. Ridiculous Potemkin 'church'.
Woe to those who call evil good. The sin of fornication is now unweded bliss; and sodomy has become an acceptable chosen lifestyle. When man has lost belief in sin [and he has], he therefore no longer believes in The Last Four Things: death, judgment, heaven, and hell.
As I recall it, there were some parishes in England back in the 17th and 18th centuries where the rector would refuse to baptize a "base born" child, but they were in the minority even then. No law of the Church of England required refusal, although it had been discussed at length by the Puritans (who did refuse when they were in power, but I don't think it was ever made law).
All you have to do is look at a parish register and see the number of children baptized and registered as "base born" or "bastard". Any genealogists out there can probably back me up on this.
I think what's going on here is just the silliness of officially having the belated marriage and the baptism performed in the same service, without any specific acknowledgement of the sin of fornication.
But of course there's been General Confession in the Anglican Church for years and years, so not having to make a specific confession of sin is not news.
Much ado about nothing here, in my opinion.
I think the issue is registration on the rolls of the parish, not baptism per se. Now THAT might make sense, but of course nobody uses the parish rolls for taxes or anything else any more. And they won't be much use for future genealogists, because hardly anybody gets baptised in CofE any more.