Thursday, March 21, 2013

The Enthronement of the Most Reverend Justin Welby - the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury

With a direct, unbroken lineage going right back to Augustine in AD 597, Archbishop Justin Welby is today enthroned/installed/inaugurated as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury. His Grace's ashes will not only be celebrating his own Feast Day in the Church's Calendar (..that fateful day..) but will be reconstituting themselves at Canterbury Cathedral for this momentous and joyous event, which represents the ministerial culmination of a quite remarkable journey of an undoubtedly remarkable man.

There are not many bishops of the Church of England who may claim to have real-world experience - not only of big business and oil finance, but also of spreading the gospel in Burundi, Iraq and Nigeria, where he confronted competing war-lords and stared down the barrel of a gun. He twice phoned his wife to tell her that he was about to die.

Lambeth Palace explains some of today's proceedings:
First, the Archbishop will be installed on the Diocesan throne as the Bishop of the see of Canterbury, the oldest diocese in the English church. He will then be installed on the chair of St Augustine as Primate of All England – the ‘first bishop’ in the country. This latter enthronement has also come to respresent the Archbishop's inauguration as the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The ceremony will be attended by Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, the Prime Minister, and archbishops and bishops from around the world. Representatives of many other faiths will also be present.

Two seats

The notion of a ‘seat’ dominates the ceremony enthroning an Archbishop of Canterbury. The very word cathedral comes from the Latin cathedra, for the seat where a bishop would sit to teach the faith to the people of the diocese. Another word for diocese is See, from the Latin, sedes – seat or chair.

While a cathedral plays many roles, essentially it is the church where the bishop’s seat is – the particular church of which he is appointed bishop and pastor.

In this respect, the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury has much in common with that of any bishop in any cathedral.

But what is especially important about this Thursday’s ceremony is the seat in question: the chair of St Augustine is the primatial seat of the Church of England – a primacy in the English church which has lasted since St Augustine came to preach in England at the orders of Pope St Gregory the Great in the 6th century, and has had significance almost from the beginning far beyond the shores of the British Isles.

Three knocks on the door

At 3pm on Thursday, while Archbishop Justin waits outside the cathedral’s west door, the Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, Robert Willis, will be inside reading out a letter from the Queen, Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This letter authorises the Dean and cathedral community representatives to go to the church’s west door to greet the Archbishop.

In the famous tradition, the Archbishop will then strike the door three times with his pastoral staff, and the Dean will open the door to greet him. The Archbishop will be led up to the nave altar, where the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, will ask him to swear an oath of faithfulness to the statutes of the Church of England and an oath of faithfulness to the Queen of England.

The Dean then presents the Archbishop with the ancient Canterbury Gospels, brought to England by St Augustine in 597, on which he will swear faithfulness.

The Archbishop is then enthroned on his seats, marking the core of the ceremony.

First he is led to the Diocesan throne and installed by the Archdeacon of Canterbury as Bishop of the See of Canterbury. He is then led to the chair of St Augustine where the Dean installs him as Primate of All England.

Having been installed, Archbishop reads the Gospel and preaches a sermon from St Augustine's chair.

The service will feature music chosen by Archbishop Justin, including hymns marking Passiontide and looking forward to Holy Week, which starts next week. It will also include an African song, and improvised organ music following the Archbishop’s sermon.

Lambeth Palace notes (and the Anglican Communion does not):
The date of the ceremony resonates in several ways: March 21st is the day when the church remembers the martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1556. It is also the feast day of St. Benedict of Monte Cassino, a significant figure for both Canterbury Cathedral and Archbishop Justin himself, who is an oblate of the Order of Benedict.


Blogger Emlyn Uwch Cych said...

Your Grace may spare yourself the effort of scanning in the order of service:


21 March 2013 at 08:49  
Blogger Pétrus said...

I thought Vincent Nichols was the defacto primate of England?

21 March 2013 at 08:53  
Blogger Zauq said...

@ Petrus

According to the Law of the land, which is constitutional, the Primate of All England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the Archbishop of Westminster.

21 March 2013 at 09:28  
Blogger Gary said...

But still they will not obey God's word. Welby is being enthroned today by a woman! More capitulation to the world, the flesh and the devil.

21 March 2013 at 09:40  
Blogger John said...

I have a great deal of respect for ++Welby.

But unbroken succession from Augustine? There is of course unbroken succession of bishops, but not of Archbishops of Canterbury. Laud was executed in 1645, and his successor was not appointed until 1660...

21 March 2013 at 09:53  
Blogger Nick said...

I just discovered the BBC site has a page for "religion". The link isn't on the main news page - you have to type it in manually. Typical of the BBC to try to sweep Religion under the carpet.

The Beeb says Whelby will have an impossible job because of issues of falling attendance, women bishops and homosexuality. The latter shouldn't be aproblem if he follows the scriptures.

if there is one thing we need to see from him it is LEADERSHIP. That will take courage, as the CofE is riven with secualr ideas and attitudes and has lead to a stale and anodyne church that, of course, appeals to nobody.

I wish him well and I wish him courage

21 March 2013 at 11:00  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I do hope that we receive from the new ++ Welby a clear expression of The Gospel and not a, let's paper over the cracks and pretend that all are reconciled, because it will not work and will please nobody. Whereas an accommodation between Evangelicals and the more Catholic elements was just workable before, I believe that no reasonably orthodox Christian, High or Low now, can reach an accommodation with the political correctors, the cultural Marxists. Anglicans of the global south are far more right than wrong. Orthodox Christians have no choice about the vital need to defend the essential equal but different understanding of men and women and the nature of true marriage. Of course we can do it politely, but it must be clearly as well, otherwise Anglicanism will continue to shrink, rapidly. A clear stance will pay off, once the world sees the inevitable results of the other paths that are being presented as normative to young people.

21 March 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Having been handed one or three poisoned chalices in my life I feel for him.

The only future for the CofE is to split up and then each part hold true to its beliefs.

A previous post said "The Beeb says Whelby will have an impossible job because of issues of falling attendance, women bishops and homosexuality".

Add to that the secularisation of the Church, its political leanings and its lack of mission and the future does not look bright.

Despite being a Catholic myself I take no pleasure in seeing the State Church having sunk to such a low point as the lack of leadership and profile of the church over the last 40 years or so has contributed much to the empty, aimless and hopeless lives that so many Britons now live.

Once Christianity falls in the West the prospect of a soulless, empty existence for our people focused upon having and getting, atomised families and communities and conflicting, alien, cultures fills me with dread.

21 March 2013 at 11:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The archbishop will never have a better opportunity to look Cameron in the eye and explain to him the consequences of redefining marriage, and how the legalese meant to protect the Church isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Will the archbishop have Dave squirming in his seat? I have no great hope of it.

21 March 2013 at 11:52  
Blogger Corrigan said...

With a direct, unbroken lineage going right back to Augustine in AD 597

Are you trying to wind up the Catholics?

21 March 2013 at 12:30  
Blogger James said...

and has had significance almost from the beginning far beyond the shores of the British Isles.

Dream on; his writ stops at Portsmouth Harbour these days.

21 March 2013 at 13:22  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

The Primate's enthronement is attracting Bishops, clergy and lay people from all over the world, together with leaders from many other denominations- including I am delighted to see,Rick Warren. It suggests that the rather more narrow and self sure critics here may need to reflect a little deeper.

Many are gathering to put aside difference and celebrate the enthronment of our new Archbishop. If you cannot wish him well on this day, your vision of growing the Kingdom seems decidedly sour and unattractive.

21 March 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Didn't say I didn't wish him well; I asked if Cranmer was winding up the Catholics - again

21 March 2013 at 14:01  
Blogger Flossie said...

How TYPICAL of the BBC! The ghastly Giles Fraser and Christina Rees as 'special guests' to pontificate (sorry!) on the proceedings. The only acceptable face of Anglicanism, as far as the Beeb is concerned.


21 March 2013 at 14:35  
Blogger Nick said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 March 2013 at 14:49  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Blessings on the Archbishop!
He will need them.
As for David Cameron, what is the use of telling him anything? He is just a puppet, a stuffed shirt. His strings are pulled by the EU or by the Europhiles behind the scenes in his own party - Ken Clarke, Heseltine and that lot.

21 March 2013 at 15:46  
Blogger PeterB said...

Depressingly protestant.

21 March 2013 at 16:33  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 March 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 March 2013 at 18:23  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

Let's all write to the Archbishop of Canterbury immediately and tell
him not to confer importance on the ghastly Peter Tatchell by meeting him.
Tatchell is an unelected, unqualified, self-appointed nobody who goes around pretending to represent a lot of people and being rude and obnoxious. A meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury will only flatter his self-esteem.
Better to give him a firm and public snub.

His e-mail is :
contact [at]

Postal address -
Lambeth Palace

or phone the switchboard:

020 7898 1200

21 March 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

++Welby is on record as having problems on how to deal with homosexuality in the church. My dear chap, the answer is easy. Look upon homosexuality as a mental handicap. A disability of sorts, and then everything falls into place. Now, that means when the afflicted talk about wanting to get married to each other, you say “You silly sods, people of the same sex can’t get married”. Do not deny them the Eucharist as they are just as unworthy as the best of us. And always be pleasant to them. If you are lucky, you might even get one of those inane smiles from the fellow who takes the, er, ‘duties’ of the ‘wife’. {…AHEM…}

Now, the role of the ladies in the church is equally as simple to resolve. Remind them that they are not as men, and have no right to consider themselves as priests. RC’s don’t see them as priests, so why should anyone else. As for the ridiculous idea that they should become bishops, well, humour them, but be firm. Episcopalism is firmly in the hands of men. Jesus implied that by giving the women in his life nothing more evangelising than the cooking, washing and cleaning. Childbirth and nurture of the young and BBC Radio 4’s ‘Womans Hour’ is in the hands of women – it’s nature’s way. We men wouldn’t have it any other. Well, obviously men who see themselves as transsexuals might, but we are back to mental handicap again, sure you’ll agree.

Well, carry on that man. And don’t drink too much tonight…

pip pip !

21 March 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, ++Welby, one reads you are going to meet Tatchell. Isn’t he the fellow who wants to lower the age of consent to God knows what.

Your first dragon to slay, Sir. Make sure the TV cameras are there, and keep the young folk well away from him.

Word of warning though. The blighter used to go on about gay rights, but he’s calling them human rights now. The problem is, he doesn’t think much about the human rights of a child not to be brought up by two fruits. A slippery bleeder if ever there was…

Julia. Wrong approach dear. Why should just those in the know only know Tatchell. He has so much to tell the un-informed, don’t you think. (Inspector knows best...)

21 March 2013 at 19:06  
Blogger David B said...

For the benefit of Inspector, and with the assistance of Google, I quote something of what Tatchell actually said about the age of consent.

"One option would be to keep the age of consent at 16, but decriminalise sex involving youths aged 14-16, providing both partners consent and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages.

This would, for example, end the criminalisation of two 15 year olds, while continuing to prohibit sex between 15-year-olds and 50-year-olds.

Even then, I would favour a reduction to 14 only if it was backed up with assertiveness training and earlier, better quality sex and relationship education in schools, to help young people make wise, responsible sexual decisions, including the choice to not have sex.

Such measures are likely to have the knock-on effect of helping cut the rate of teenage pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

I don’t advocate that young people have sex before the age of 16. It is best if they wait. But if they do have sex before they are 16 they should not be criminalised. Criminalisation is not protection.

Adults should never have sex with children. Abuse is always wrong. This is a legitimate concern."

It is a problem, I think, that people below the current age of consent are criminalised for de facto if not de jure consensualsex with their peers, and this quote from Tatchell seems sensible enough to me - it was the first thing I found on google by the way, so it is hardly obscure.

It is hardly lowering "the age of consent to God knows what."

Some years ago I used to find Tatchell very annoying, but in recent years I have found his courage, and his commitment to freedom of speech, which he and I share with His Grace and it seems to me the bulk of those who comment here, have given me a considerable respect for him.


21 March 2013 at 19:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Lord knows, you’ve come out with some bull shit since you arrived here but this ?

”Some years ago I used to find Tatchell very annoying, but in recent years I have found his courage, and his commitment to freedom of speech, which he and I share with His Grace and it seems to me the bulk of those who comment here, have given me a considerable respect for him.”

What next ? Rudolf Hess and the Nuremburg race laws...

21 March 2013 at 19:45  
Blogger Humble Queen said...

Peter Tatchell - a human right's campaigner? He might believe he is, but he actually campaigns against the rights of humans. Marriage (the legal institution) promotes and endorses parenthood. This gives every human the right to their natural mother and father legally. By actively campaigning to change the definition of parenthood legally, he actively promotes the denial of human rights by legally hiding children from biological ancestry. I don't find this particularly admirable.

21 March 2013 at 19:59  
Blogger David B said...

Humble Queen, it appears that the Argentinian military regime was not strong on giving every human being the right to their natural mother and father, and furthermore there is some evidence to suggest that the new Pope told a mother whose child had been taken that it was a done deal with nothing to be done. This at a time when he denies he had any knowledge of the theft of babies.

It is a mistake to think that marriage is about one thing and one thing only. It is about a loving relationship, it is about inheritance, it is about a legal next of kin, it is about who makes funeral arrangements - much more than parenthood, as any heterosexual couple past childbearing age, or with a medical condition that prevents conception or carrying a foetus to term would, I am sure, be happy to testify.

Perhaps, though, you would deny that sort of heterosexual person the right to marry?


21 March 2013 at 20:10  
Blogger David B said...

Inspector, I invoke Godwin's Law.


21 March 2013 at 20:11  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

How sad that the Most Rev Justin Welby, installed as Archbishop of Canterbury, told BBC News, on this of all days, "You see gay relationships that are just stunning in the quality of the relationship", adding that he had "particular friends where I recognise that and am deeply challenged".

When Archbishop Welby says these things he is treading a dangerous path; a path trodden by his recent predecessors. As a Christian he must know that a sin is such because it offends God, not man. When a Christian leader knows a behaviour is gravely sinful they can never feel "challenged" by this behaviour; because if they are it is tantamount to being "challenged" by God's revealed wisdom.

And, to compound matters, he offered to meet with Peter Thatchell who, in a open letter, said, "You claim that you are not homophobic but a person who opposes legal equality for LGBT people is homophobic – in the same way that a person who opposes equal rights for black people is racist".

The Anglican communion must welcome sinners; it must not befriend sin because it wants to show "compassion" and "understanding". It is a misguided shepherd who permits his sheep to stray ino the mire of abortion, remarriage, abortificia contraception, IVF and stem cell research and now homosexuality.

I pray that Archbishop Welby does not join the ranks of the modern apostles of the new religion of tolerance.

21 March 2013 at 20:16  
Blogger Humble Queen said...

David unfortunately, nature does not take account of emotive arguments, as much as we would like it to. Marriage gives strength to humans by allowing our ancestral ties to remain ours. There is only removal of children from parents in unfortunate circumstances at present, that is always a misfortune. For the state to allocate children and to get involved in its own form of parenthood weakens our rights as humans. I like your phrase 'theft of babies' that describes the redefinition of parenthood very clearly, albeit emotively.

21 March 2013 at 20:20  
Blogger Nick said...

It may not be a bad thing for Archbishop Welby to meet Tatchell, depending on how he (the Archbishop) appraoches the encounter. God forbid that Tatchell should have any influence on the Church. So he should just listen politely to what Tatchell says, then go off and forget everything he heard.

We all know that Tatchell is a pretty vile person, not because of his sexuality, but because he is one of the "equality bullies" and has an abusive and destructive attitude to all Christians. He may think that Welby is a "soft touch", I hope he is wrong. The last thing we want to see is Tatchell coming away from this meeting with any concessions towards homosexuality in the church

21 March 2013 at 20:29  
Blogger Humble Queen said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 March 2013 at 20:35  
Blogger Humble Queen said...

To answer your question, the ECHR gives the right to marry and found a family to every man and woman in Europe. :) The institution (legally and naturally) belongs to you and I. It is a dual right which can not be separated from the dual aspect of consummation (to marry) and found a family (procreate). Once the legal definition of marriage changes, the right to found a family will still exist, even if consummation is no longer required. This essentially means that you can legally have a child by law, and the child has no legal rights to their biological ancestry. Levels of fertility or age or use iof contraception are irrelevant, the right to found a family still remains within the institution but removes the male and female principle.

21 March 2013 at 20:41  
Blogger len said...

May God Bless Justin Welby and direct him on the course to follow through the stormy waters that lie ahead.

21 March 2013 at 21:47  
Blogger len said...

We should always remember the martyrs who died rather than renounce the true faith.There are many in this situation Worldwide today..Cranmer was amongst the many who made a stand for the true faith against all odds when the truth meant more than life itself. May we all show such courage in the face of intimidation and threats even against our very life itself.

21 March 2013 at 21:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Godwin’s law indeed ! Those disastrous 12 years of NAZI existence has shaped Europe for ever.

For those who find Tatchell a vile creature, for God’s sake, get the cameras on him and a microphone at his mouth. The people need to hear and see him !

21 March 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

We agree! Thatchell does not interview well and, under proper questioning, cannot help reveal his character. He and his ideas should be put under closer public scrutiny. The man appears to hate our Church with a passion.

Maybe Justin Welby is wiser than I gave him credit for. Perhaps agreeing to meet Thatchell, after receiving this open letter, was a shrewd move.

However, I still find his comments about being stunned over the quality of the homosexual relationships, and, most especially, him saying this deeply challenged him, disturbing. There would be no challenge to a true Christian pastor. He would have to disown the relationship, if it was sexual, as intrinsically sinful and morally evil. How he explained this and validated non-sexual care and affection, is another matter. How should he negotiate the individuall friendships? And at what point, if ever, should he break off contact with such friends?

In some way these mirror the issues facing the Church.

Jesus was friends with sinners, it is said and it is true. He sought them out, he eat, drank and joked with them. One suspects however, He knew in advance whether they would respond to Him and, once given sufficient chances to change, He would move on. At some point a man of God has to brush the dust from his feet too.

21 March 2013 at 23:52  
Blogger val said...

A gift is now delivered and proven to the whole world as a witness. Satan has deceived the whole world until the woman of Rev 12 delivers the true word of God. This woman is not a church, nor Mary, nor Israel, she is the prophet like unto Moses and Elijah Matt 17:3, Acts 3:21-23, Luke 1:17 commanded to restore the true word John 1:1 from the wilderness Rev 12:6 to prepare a people. God our true Father will not put any child of his into a hell fire no matter what their sins, no matter if they repent in this life or not. It never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer7:31, Jer 19:5. Turn your heart to the children of God. Begin here The proof is in the hearing; prove all things, God chose a woman.

21 March 2013 at 23:58  
Blogger David B said...

@ Peter Damian who said -

" One suspects however, He knew in advance whether they would respond to Him and, once given sufficient chances to change, He would move on. "

If he knew in advance that they would not change, then there would be no sufficient chance to change, since the chances of changing would be nil.

What you say is silly.


22 March 2013 at 06:34  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

David B

How so? Because God, who transcends time, knows the outcome in advance this doesn't mean He withholds opportunities for change. I believe there always exists room to change; its down to the free will and responsibility of individuals to respond to the offer of Grace.

22 March 2013 at 10:23  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

David B
On reflection, you are correct. Let's replace the word "sufficient" with "necessary" - or delete it all together - and I trust it makes logical sense. Thank you.

22 March 2013 at 14:07  
Blogger len said...

Salvation is offered to everyone...whether they accept or not is entirely their decision.

If God knows beforehand whether they will accept or deny Him is not the point...everyone is given the chance so none can complain afterward.

22 March 2013 at 22:14  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

The issues under consideration are how one evagelises in the face of grave sin, and how the Church should react to seemingly intransigent sinners.

23 March 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger len said...

How can anyone continue in sin if they have died to sin?.How many sins can a corpse commit?.

The answer to your question is either they have not' died to sin' or they are unaware of the fact that they have died to sin (in Christ Jesus)

We can only die to sin IN Christ Jesus .If we are not IN Christ Jesus we cannot die to sin.

That is why Jesus said we MUST be born again .When we are born again we are connected to the Spirit of Christ and we partake of HIS Death and HIS Resurrection.

IF we are merely doing' good works'(which in themselves are good no problem with that) these 'good work's will not buy us salvation however hard we try.Jesus has accomplished salvation for us we must partake of the work He HAS done through being connected to His Spirit.

Imagine two trees condemned on full of life.take a cutting from the condemned tree and graft it onto the tree full of life.'The cutting' partakes of all of the history of the tree to which it is now attached.The cutting does not have to try to be part of the tree full of life all it has to do is receive the Life that is within the tree it has become part of.

God is' the Gardener' he does the grafting we cannot make Him do anything He does all He does out of Love and to remove all who desire from the tree of condemnation and death to the tree of Life.

24 March 2013 at 09:41  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

I'm sorry, to me this just sounds like a recital of disjointed phrases. Apologies, I know you mean all you say, it just does.

You've answered the question "how one evagelises in the face of grave sin, and how the Church should react to seemingly intransigent sinners", thus:

"The answer to your question is either they have not' died to sin' or they are unaware of the fact that they have died to sin (in Christ Jesus)."

Are you suggesting a person living a sexually active homosexual lifestyle can have been "born again" (according to your understanding of this concept)?

Translate all this into language someone unfamiliar with Scripture might understand. Just what would you say to a woman contemplating an abortion or to a homosexual living with another man? How, in your other option, where they have not been "born again", would you move them towards Christ?

24 March 2013 at 23:33  
Blogger len said...


You are unfamiliar with scripture?.

Can one be born again and continue in a life of sin ?.IF one continues in a life of sin(after procliming themselves' born again') I would seriously question whether they were saved at all.

To your second question ...Preach Christ because in Him are all God`s solution to the problems of humanity.
WE do not save people God saves people all we can do is point them towards Christ.

29 March 2013 at 21:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older