Prince George Takes His Place in Royal Family, British History
. . . heralded the headline for a USA Today article, 10/24/13.
Columnist Mario Puente continued, “The Church of England rejoiced over its newest, youngest and most famous royal member, Prince George of Cambridge. The 3-month-old royal baby was christened Wednesday, ritually welcomed into the Anglican Church as George Alexander Louis, in a small, private ceremony. . . .”
Other assertions in the article included the fact that seven godparents looked on, and that the baby was baptized by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a 172-year old, silver baptismal font.
One onlooker, having waited for hours to be near this event, yearned, “My future king knows I’ve been here all night. It gives you a sense of pride.”
Another deluded follower claimed, “Princess Diana will be giving her special love today.”
~ ~ ~
This kind of balderdash plays an important role in the degradation of bona fide Christian faith. When the world sees this stuff asserted in the name of Christianity, it justifiably turns away in revulsion or mockery.
Let’s look now at some of the ridiculosities and falsehoods. I didn’t have the patience to read the entire article, but here are a few issues:
The baby prince didn’t “take his place.” He did nothing. “Take” is at least a somewhat active verb. He was passive and had no control over this particular “destiny.” This may seem like misplaced venom on my part, but falsely attributing choice to the infant is connected to another lack of choice: he did not make a believer’s choice to participate in this ceremony. Therefore, it is meaningless for him (although perhaps not so for the adults gathered there.)
By nature, a religious institution cannot rejoice.
I shan’t take exception to the word “christened” — but I could, since it has nothing to do with the Christ or anything he modeled or expressed desire for.
If the Anglican Church welcomed (again, I assert that an institution cannot do such a thing) a baby as a member, it should recognize that it has serious problems.
What is a godparent, really? I am caused to question the nature of the thing on grounds of blasphemy.
The baby most definitely could not have been, would never have been, and in all other ways was not, baptized. That would have been child abuse — or, if held under long enough, could have amounted to traitorous manslaughter, punishable by death.
Whatever a bishop is in the Anglican Church, an archbishop is the first, or chief, over the rest. I ask you, does this not fly in the face of the Messianic admonition against “lording it over” others?
“Font” is a term I’ve never really been able to define, although I’ve heard it used. Apparently this columnist used an inherently flawed word correctly. Only its archaic meaning is “fountain” (one of which an Anglican font is not). No, it appears this word came into being because of a need to describe the bowl or receptacle used for sprinklings and pourings, which are religious balderdash.
The onlooker-woman who believes the baby knows of her devotion probably doesn’t even have an Anglican brand of faith. More likely, she believes in the Great Pumpkin as much as in God — if she’s willing to go on record making such a ludicrous statement, that is.
- Finally, all the horror of Diana’s death aside, the notion that she has any posthumous power to “send love” speaks of wispy 21st-century-spiritism and betrays stupidity, not faith.