The Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla was within the context of the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England which King Charles is the Sovereign Head.
The Liturgy of the Eucharist is quite truncated even compared to the Modern Roman Missal. There are no offertory prayers, mingling of water and wine in the chalice, the lavabo. There are no elevations and only a bow of the head at the consecrations. The Lord’s Prayer is said seated.
But, now for the moment of stunning clericalism! I wonder what liberal Anglican liturgists are saying about this. Can you imagine Catholic liturgists publicly going apoplectic if the Pope and four others only received Holy Communion at the “Installation” of a new pope?
But this Anglican Liturgy only had the Archbishop of Canterbury, two priestesses (or are they bishopesses, and the King and Queen receiving Holy Communion and no one else, Anglican or whatever religion or no religion they profess.
Should there be outrage??????
24 comments:
I believe the Anglican bishops receiving communion are The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullaly, Bishop of London and the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Bishop of Dover and Bishop in Canterbury.
Should there be outrage? No. It's their liturgy, they can do as they feel is necessary.
The Roman Church has taken Participation with a capital "P" to an extreme such that all expect something each and every time.
If I'm not mistaken, in the old books, perhaps prior to the Holy Week reforms in the 1950's, communion during the presanctified liturgy on Good Friday was limited to the priest celebrants.
Beautiful music during the service.
Byz - Andrew Lloyd Webber's new composition "Make a Joyful Noise" was quite good!
The women are not bishops - they are pretend bishops. That is why pursuing Ecumenism with the Anglican Church is a fools errand and a waste of time, energy, and money. Benedict handled it the correct way - Anglicorum Coetibus - something the current loons in Rome are likely not happy about
ByzRus,
I don’t know the Anglican practice concerning reception of communion at a Coronation - it may be just a practical concern about adding time to an already long ceremony or it may be a security concern. But as you say, it is theirs to set the rulles
Who cares? It's a fake form of Christianity anyway.
The music was stunningly fitting and beautiful. And yes, Make a Joyful Noise was absolutely delightful!
I don’t think i have have seen an Anglican Liturgy where the celebrant wears a cope. Not sure why the Archbishop of Canterbury did not change to a chasuble. Maybe a tip of the hat to the Lebanese Maronite Liturgy.
Fr. MJK, Agree. The copyrights aside, I hope this becomes part of church music somewhere and somehow.
Regarding Anglican copes: https://www.moosoneeanglican.ca/anglican-vestments-clericals-explained/
The chasuble is also mentioned, but its not clear to me when/who uses. It seems bishops will mostly vest in cope for solemn liturgies.
I can't find what I found before regarding Anglican liturgy more generally - I went looking during Queen Elizabeth's funeral rites. What I recall being suggested, and is likely obvious to all here was that sometime back, decades to hundreds of years, Anglican liturgy was revised removing elements similar to the Roman mass. It was simplified regarding the "bells and smells" yet their choral tradition, among other things were retained. At that time, I was simply curious having found their funerial rites to be difficult to follow. Perhaps there's a specific ordering/office; however, one wasn't evident to me (nor does it have to be). Today's liturgy had elements that were obviously identifiable from a Roman perspective and to a more limited degree, the Byzantine East.
Indeed, elaborate, colorful, at times beautiful, empty, meaningless pageantry in service of a lie.
I think, in Anglican circles, the cope is considered the more solemn vesture, even when celebrating Holy Communion. Found this from an Anglican diocese: "Copes are a very formal, ceremonial vestment. The Cope is used both during and outside Holy Communion."
I attended a friend's sister's wedding in a "high" Episcopal church here in Savannah years ago. I don't remember what the celebrant wore, but I do recall that only the bride and groom received communion. I asked an Episcopalian priest friend about this and he was of the opinion that it was totally against their usual practice...
The Cope was restored when the Anglicans moved towards High Church under Archbishop Laud. It was considered very “popish” by the “reformers.” The chasuble returned in the 19th century during the time of the Oxford Movement
It was unfortunate that Henry VIII split with the papacy occurred about the same time as the Protestant Reformation. If Protestantism’s heresies had not infiltrated the schismatic Church of England, it would have remained in full sacramental union with Rome, similarly to Eastern Orthodoxy. But alas, the Protestant Reformation wreaked havoc on the Church of England. No such thing, though, happened with Eastern Orthodoxy.
Nonetheless, the high church aspect of Anglicanism is tasteful and their English music is grand and quite comparable with the Modern Missal’s ethos. It is far better than the silly stuff written post-Vatican II for the Mass, especially folk and contemporary sounds.
I was grateful that the Coronation stuck with traditional hymnody and did not venture into jolting contemporary sounds (although Weber’s piece was classical contemporary). I feared that Elton John might have made an appearance with a reworded hit of his! Ugh!
I think we should respect the Anglican Communion’s High Church desire for a more Catholic liturgy and the fact that the coronation aspect of the Liturgy is basically from the pre-Vatican II Roman Pontifical.
What pomp and precision!
Did anyone spot “ginge and cringe” ?
I can remember being taught by lecturers and a tutor at university over 40 years ago, while studying early modern Europe and Reformation England, that under ordinary circumstances, Pope Clement VII would quite probably have agreed with Henry VIII and annulled his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, had Catherine been anyone else but the aunt of the VERY powerful Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.
Queen Elizabeth I's coronation in January 1559 took place only two months after her accession and was of course according to Catholic rites. The only bishop willing and able to crown her was Oglethorpe of Carlisle, and he had to be more or less coerced into doing it. It was recorded that at the coronation Mass she withdrew before the elevations - she didn't want to imply that she accepted Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist.
The actual coronation followed the Abbey's Liber Regalis, first used in 1308. After the Elizabethan settlement it was Protestantized and put into English. It has been modified over the years. Since 1953 the House of Lords has been reconstituted so the feudal elements were largely discarded. Although the monarch has to swear to preserve 'the true Protestant religion' there were ecumenical gestures even in the Communion service, which began with Byrd's setting of the Gloria (in Latin).
Copes are not Eucharistic vestments so are acceptable to sincere Protestants (there aren't many left in the CofE, although Queen Elizabeth II was one) who might balk at chasubles.
Paul - no pope, Clement VII included, could accept Henry's argument, which in Canon Law and precedent was palpably false.
John,
Great to see you back here.
Regarding the matter in question, I am not merely referring to the claims of popular, but respected, historians like the Catholic Paul Johnson, but such Cambridge historians as the late and great G R Elton, whose lectures I attended over 40 years ago.
John,
Also see the more recent “magisterial and eloquent “ “Reformation: Europe’s House Divided” winner of the Wolfson prize for history by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University.
I am pretty sure, without rereading for the third time all 830 pages of the above text (and other texts) that in the early 16th century, Henry’s argument was in Canon Law and precedent supported by many ( but obviously not all) honest scholars, bishops and theologians in THAT specific era, in that relevant decade in the 16th century..
P.
PS - John, have you enjoyed, like me and mine, reading Fr Hunwicke’s blog at this time of the coronation - the wit and learning and the insights of Fr H and the people who comment and contribute to this blog are often profound…and occasionally hilarious!
John Nolan,
Good to see your post! Elizabeth was interesting on matters of religion - it has been said that she kept a silver crucifix in her private chapel and did not like married bishops. Too bad she did not follow her father’s liturgical practices and the Six Articles because it may have made re-union with Rome feasible at some point.
Jerome:
I will address your comments even though others have not.
Being baptized in the Church of England, as well as growing up and attending state schools (what are here called public schools, but not there) in England in the 1950s and 60s, I attended an Anglican service every morning before classes, with hymns, readings, and prayers. Even though my parents at that time did not attend church (and therefore nor did I), this experience was an important part of my spiritual formation and my journey toward the Roman Catholic Church. It was not a fake form of Christianity or a lie. Please open your heart.
And today was magnificent!
Beautifully put, Mark.
Well done!
Mark,
My great-great grandfather was an Anglican priest in London in the late 19th century. He converted to Catholicism and because he was married with children, his ministry ended. Too bad Anglicorum Coetibus was not in effect then!
Post a Comment