Ship of Fools: Just In

Thread: Just In Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025781

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Well, come on then, what do you think?

Impressive service in many ways: good mix of music (I liked the African dancers but it's a pity about the Wrath of God hymn). Powerful sermon; good international feel about the congregation and Anglican Communion representatives. The Archbishop's cope was not as OTT as I had feared (and I know why he wore it) but the mitre was much more elaborate than the Pope's. As was the liturgy, in a strange sort of way; I suppose because it was not eucharistic it didn't have the shape to it that the Pope's did.

I thought Giles Fraser was going to have a much bigger role in the commentary than turned out: I suppose the Beeb thought they were in safer hands with Huw Edwards (and they were probably right).

Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on :

I was going to start this thread if you didn't, thanks. I watched parts of it online with no sound, at work. I hope to watch the rest later. It seemed rather low-key, certainly less grand than some of the recent Royal services I've seen televised from St Paul's or The Abbey. Canterbury is not terribly easy to stage something like this in, being divided as it is. I had seen the cope/mitre on the "Bad Vestments" site and think it wasn't as bad as all that, and he had a good pragmatic reason for wearing it. I have a pet peeve about stubby little altar candles and missing altar crosses, it's just bad art, deprives the church of a focal point, makes the altar look pokey and forlorn, especially if you aren't going to even celebrate the Eucharist. At least dress up the altars properly. Otherwise I think it all seems to have gone well, at least no bendy poles or giant puppets of doom as we'd have here in the US.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Why did he wear it?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Because it was left to him by his former teacher, the late Bishop Ian Cundy.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
(I liked the African dancers but it's a pity about the Wrath of God hymn).

Mm, it got used at the deaconing here last year, and it was a pity then too.

I thought the choice of lectors was a brilliant turn myself!

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

(Oh bollocks, now the damned thing's stuck in my head!)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Repeating what i said on the Heaven thread:

Wasn't Rowan's enthronement done in the context of a eucharist?

Did I see Mgr. Newton, former PEV, there?

Thankfully Welby wore his mitre properly, not thrown back on his head liker a comic

Fraser made a comment about how people sit on Augustine's chair - some apprehensively. Welby looked confident and at home there.

Shame on the choice of 'In Christ alone' with its heretical words about the wrath of God being satisfied - many alter to 'the love of God'. Poignant in that Welby was shaking hands with rabbis and an iman during it.

Runcie was enthroned on the day Romero was shot. Welby on the day Cranmer was burned at the stake. Food for thought.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Rowan's enthronement was not eucharistic. It was on the commemoration of George Herbert, another poet with Welsh and Cambridge roots.

Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on :

I do find it odd that it was not a Eucharist, however I can see with the quasi-State nature of something like this why they decided upon that, however with all the warring factions under one roof one would hope that breaking bread together might have helped in a positive way, although I'm probably being naive.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
I do find it odd that it was not a Eucharist, however I can see with the quasi-State nature of something like this why they decided upon that, however with all the warring factions under one roof one would hope that breaking bread together might have helped in a positive way, although I'm probably being naive.

Unfortunately some of those factions refuse to break bread with others.

[deleted duplicate post]

[ 21. March 2013, 21:43: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Rowan's enthronement was not eucharistic. It was on the commemoration of George Herbert, another poet with Welsh and Cambridge roots.

Thanks. I am surprised but my memory obviously failed me. I was working full time back in that time so had other things uppermost on my mind.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

I've only seen highlights of the event, but it looked like bad vestments, dreadful choice of hymn, stupid faux-humble bit with the questions to ++Welby at the start (he's been well out-humbled by the new Pope) and African drums because we have to have African drums - it's expected. It looked pretty poor to me, and I would really have liked it to look good.

BTW, how recent is the 'ancient' tradition of knocking on the cathedral door? It looks like a bit of meaningless fake-medievalism nicked from Parliament (where it at least has some historical significance).

[ 21. March 2013, 22:59: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Oh, one bit I did like was the fanfare when ++Welby entered, which at one point sounded like it was segueing into the Imperial March from Star Wars.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
(Oh bollocks, now the damned thing's stuck in my head!)

Same here.

CURSE YOU, ANGLOID!!!

[ 21. March 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I've only seen highlights of the event, but it looked like bad vestments, dreadful choice of hymn, stupid faux-humble bit with the questions to ++Welby at the start...

It sounded to me like an excerpt from a low-budget UFO movie "Who are you and where do you come from?" ... "Take us to your leader" [Biased]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
BTW, how recent is the 'ancient' tradition of knocking on the cathedral door? It looks like a bit of meaningless fake-medievalism nicked from Parliament (where it at least has some historical significance).

It's been around since the mid-C20 I'd have thought at least. Sounds like a medieval revival, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

My Google fu is a bit week at this stage in the week, but the date of publication of this book suggests it was already an established custom by 1934.

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

Well, I liked it, overall.
Not too sure about the drummers at the gospel procession, and although I like the tune of the "penal substitution song" I have a deal of difficulty with that as the dominant picture of the Atonement, but I liked the whole service as televised, and it made me glad to be a Christian.

Pity about the BBC commentary, though.

(I did wonder if anyone was going to trip and fall on those endless steps...and I noticed the majority of people present were...ahem...graced with years. Apart from the girl in a pink dress next to the BSL signing person, who was clearly wishing she was somewhere else!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
BTW, how recent is the 'ancient' tradition of knocking on the cathedral door? It looks like a bit of meaningless fake-medievalism nicked from Parliament (where it at least has some historical significance).
It's been around since the mid-C20 I'd have thought at least. Sounds like a medieval revival, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Except the symbolism seems to express the distorted (solely English?) medieval idea that the Bishop is a visitor to his cathedral and not the chief minister of it. I know that is probably the legal position, but it's bad theology IMHO.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

I thought the service was great. Particularly good bits:

second hand robes
picking a passage about doing the impossible
resolving to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified
hymns by Townend and Wesley (and it seems churlish to challenge Townend's perfectly sound theology, especially when it stems in large part from a former occupant of Augustine's Seat)
dropping the filioque and quoting Pope Francis

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I've only seen highlights of the event, but it looked like bad vestments, dreadful choice of hymn, stupid faux-humble bit with the questions to ++Welby at the start...
It sounded to me like an excerpt from a low-budget UFO movie "Who are you and where do you come from?" ... "Take us to your leader"

I always thought it was like a seance - "Is there anybody there? Knock once for yes, twice for no, and three times for 'Let me in, I'm your sodding archbishop'."

I haven't seen the service yet - I hope it's on iplayer. But, regarding the filioque, isn't it about time the CofE worked out what it actually believes about the Holy Spirit? She's going to be awfully miffed if we procrastinate much longer.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But, regarding the filioque, isn't it about time the CofE worked out what it actually believes about the Holy Spirit? She's going to be awfully miffed if we procrastinate much longer.

Indeed. The Pick and Choose Approach to the Creed seems a bit much, even for our beloved Church of the P&C.

Thurible

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

We believe, along with the main body of the Western Church, that (S)He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Nothing to 'work out' about that. And if the Orthodox contingent at the Enthronement didn't want to say that, they could just have drawn breath at that point, couldn't they?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
We believe, along with the main body of the Western Church, that (S)He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Nothing to 'work out' about that. And if the Orthodox contingent at the Enthronement didn't want to say that, they could just have drawn breath at that point, couldn't they?

But the point is, as I understand it, the filioque was omitted from the text of the creed, as is permitted in Common Worship for ecumenical events.

It seems to be the caricature of the CofE at its worst - "We'll change what we say we believe, depending on whom we're talking to at the time."

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Filioque was omitted at ++Rowan's enthronement too. Though both had Cosin's Come Holy Ghost, which implies it (thee of both). I liked it on the whole, but agree abo utilities the lack of shape.

Carys

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Does CW contain the filioque in the modern-language order? We don't have it in the BAS (except for the "prayer book"-esque rite), only BCP.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
We believe, along with the main body of the Western Church, that (S)He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Nothing to 'work out' about that. And if the Orthodox contingent at the Enthronement didn't want to say that, they could just have drawn breath at that point, couldn't they?

That's part of the point that I think that others are making. After all, The "main body of the Western Church" believes that He, not (S)He, proceeds from the Father.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Does CW contain the filioque in the modern-language order? We don't have it in the BAS (except for the "prayer book"-esque rite), only BCP.

Yep.

Thurible

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Even if it is true (and who knows?) the Western Church had no authority to introduce it into the Nicene Creed.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
[QUOTE] After all, The "main body of the Western Church" believes that He, not (S)He, proceeds from the Father.

I am not aware that the supposed gender of any person of the Trinity (except the Second Person, as regards his human nature) is a matter of orthodox belief.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
I do find it odd that it was not a Eucharist, however I can see with the quasi-State nature of something like this why they decided upon that, however with all the warring factions under one roof one would hope that breaking bread together might have helped in a positive way, although I'm probably being naive.
Unfortunately some of those factions refuse to break bread with others.

That may not actually be the reason.

Outside rather niche areas of the CofE, it is not usual to have a Communion Service at which only a very limited number of people are allowed to communicate. Those 'in good standing' normally expect to receive. Indeed in a longish lifetime, I can only think of two examples otherwise, and both were for unusual pastoral reasons. Receiving is a more fundamental part of most CofE lay peoples' understanding of the nature of the Eucharist than is the case in some other ecclesial communities.

Including an episcopal enthronement in a Eucharist, would mean one of the following options:-

- a very brief enthronement part of the service;
- some way of communicating a large number of people very quickly without its becoming undignified and without making non-communicating persons feel uncomfortable; since that might include widely respected and welcomed ecumenical guests who would feel constrained by their own disciplines not to receive, cardinals, patriarchs, moderators etc, it would draw attention to our differences;
- a very, very long service; or
- only the new Archbishop and perhaps one or two other key people communicating, which really isn't good CofE theology or tradition.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Even if it is true (and who knows?) the Western Church had no authority to introduce it into the Nicene Creed.

That may or may not be true but it's neither here nor there. That's the version of the Nicene Creed which we have. Perfectly possible to be friendly to the Orthodox while respecting their right to omit filioque and ours to include it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Outside rather niche areas of the CofE, it is not usual to have a Communion Service at which only a very limited number of people are allowed to communicate. Those 'in good standing' normally expect to receive. Indeed in a longish lifetime, I can only think of two examples otherwise, and both were for unusual pastoral reasons. Receiving is a more fundamental part of most CofE lay peoples' understanding of the nature of the Eucharist than is the case in some other ecclesial communities.

I think you are generally right. But it's not that long ago (well, 30 years or so I suppose) I recall attending an episcopal consecration at which it was made clear that only the newly-ordained bishops and their families would be allowed to receive. 'Unusual pastoral reasons' maybe, but not a 'niche area' unless any Establishment service counts as that.
It used to be common at a 'nuptial mass' (despite its name, not unusual in MOTR circles too) for communion to be given to the couple alone.

quote:
Including an episcopal enthronement in a Eucharist, would mean one of the following options:-

- some way of communicating a large number of people very quickly without its becoming undignified and without making non-communicating persons feel uncomfortable; since that might include widely respected and welcomed ecumenical guests who would feel constrained by their own disciplines not to receive, cardinals, patriarchs, moderators etc, it would draw attention to our differences;

This did not seem to be a problem at St Peter's the other day. Admittedly communion under one kind (which I assume is what they did) is marginally quicker, but enough ministers and communion stations should ensure it is done efficiently, reverently and reasonably quickly. I doubt if the many representatives of other faiths and communions felt uncomfortable there; why should they at Canterbury?

Having said all that, maybe a eucharistic enthronement at Canterbury would not be a good idea for other reasons.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

It was a little bit incoherent and all over the place. A bit of Cranmer here, a bit of African dancing there (what on earth does that have to do with the English Protestant church?), no communion, Common Worship sort of... and the 'symbols on the altar' was a farce with nothing to do with Jesus Christ. And a pointless ecumenical gesture to the Orthodox who we ruined any chance of unity with twenty years ago.

So really a perfect ceremony for today's Church of England.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
a bit of African dancing there (what on earth does that have to do with the English Protestant church?)

the English Protestant church that's quite big in Africa?

Thurible

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Confused. In the C of E, anyone of good standing in their own church may receive communion.

At the Coronation (the ultimate establishment service, surely), only the Queen and Prince Philip communicated.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

A PDF of the Order of Service is available here.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
A PDF of the Order of Service is available here.

Who is the Ostiarius? (page 6). What a splendid job title.

[ 22. March 2013, 17:07: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Who is the Ostiarius? (page 6). What a splendid job title.

Basically an "usher" or "doorkeeper."

[ 22. March 2013, 17:11: Message edited by: Oblatus ]

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :

I found the whole service rather disappointing, and a chance to communicate something of the Christian faith to the wider world sadly missed. Too many words - any service which has a lawyer reading out a declaration towards the start is not going well.

Here was an opportunity to have a lively, engaging, accessible service to persuade anyone tuning in that there is more to the C of E than long, wordy services crammed with formality and where the only music is from choir and organs. It came across to me as a rather joyless affair without much warmth or personality, and the fidgeting choirboys and rather bored children in the congregation only re-inforced that. Given the contrast with the new Pope getting out into the crowds, shaking hands, speaking informally off the cuff, I think we have confirmed some unfortunate sterotypes about stuffy old Anglicanism.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Does CW contain the filioque in the modern-language order? We don't have it in the BAS (except for the "prayer book"-esque rite), only BCP.
Yep.

Thurible

And CW contains the Nicene Creed omitting the filioque with a note specifying that

quote:
[The] text of the Nicene Creed, which omits the phrase 'and the Son' in the third paragraph, may be used on suitable ecumenical occasions

Reading around, it seems that the CW provision reflects where the Church of England and wider Anglicanism stands on the question.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
I found the whole service rather disappointing, and a chance to communicate something of the Christian faith to the wider world sadly missed. Too many words - any service which has a lawyer reading out a declaration towards the start is not going well.

..... Given the contrast with the new Pope getting out into the crowds, shaking hands, speaking informally off the cuff, I think we have confirmed some unfortunate sterotypes about stuffy old Anglicanism.

The unfortunate consequence of Establishment I'm afraid. Those who defend it as 'keeping the Church in touch with the people' need a reality check.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Except the symbolism seems to express the distorted (solely English?) medieval idea that the Bishop is a visitor to his cathedral and not the chief minister of it. I know that is probably the legal position, but it's bad theology IMHO.

But isn't this true of any parish church, where the incumbent technically owns the building? Surely the Dean is a Priest answerable to the Bishop, just as any parish Priest is.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
I think you are generally right. But it's not that long ago (well, 30 years or so I suppose) I recall attending an episcopal consecration at which it was made clear that only the newly-ordained bishops and their families would be allowed to receive. 'Unusual pastoral reasons' maybe, but not a 'niche area' unless any Establishment service counts as that.
It used to be common at a 'nuptial mass' (despite its name, not unusual in MOTR circles too) for communion to be given to the couple alone.

How does that work theologically?
And would the president omit the "draw near with faith ...." bit?

quote:
the Orthodox who we ruined any chance of unity with twenty years ago.

As adorable as our Eastern brethren (and sister-en) are I suspect that bridges may have been burnt aprox 1000 years previously?

Was the NF hymn a political choice in any way?

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

But I do love a great number of the old hymns that were sung. 'And can it be' can near enough stir me to tears.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
How does that work theologically?
And would the president omit the "draw near with faith ...." bit?

As venbede points out, at the Coronation, only the bishops, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh received. You'll find the order of service here, which does indeed contain the usual exhortation to draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort, and the usual post-communion prayer. It's standard 1662 BCP, with a coronation added to it.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

What confuses me is that in these examples the exhortation is addressed to everyone (a great many of whom would normally communicate) but not actually meant for them all - would a modified wording be a better fit?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Modify the 1662 BCP!!! [Eek!]

if it was good enough for St. Paul…

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:

Was the NF hymn a political choice in any way?

NF=??

I suspect "In Christ alone" was chosen precisely because of that Christocentric theme. Many people who don't find PSA a big problem don't even really notice the 'wrath of God' line.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many people who don't find PSA a big problem ...

With so many (presumably theologically trained) bishops and senior clergy in one place, there should have been plenty about who did!

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

What, St. Trudeau has a thread in Eccles now? [Ultra confused]

.
.
.
I'll get my tuque....

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
a bit of African dancing there (what on earth does that have to do with the English Protestant church?)
the English Protestant church that's quite big in Africa?

And not forgetting the very large number of Africans who make up a significant proportion of the congregation in many churches in this country!

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many people who don't find PSA a big problem ...
With so many (presumably theologically trained) bishops and senior clergy in one place, there should have been plenty about who did!

Yes but about an equal number would have issues with any hymn. Let me be honest now, for those of 39 article persuasion, "And Can it Be" is not without problems. For those who seem to think PSA is modern I had a more explicit reference to it in a hymn written between 530 and 609 AD.

Jengie

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... At the Coronation (the ultimate establishment service, surely), only the Queen and Prince Philip communicated.

That was one of the two occasions to which I was referring.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

I enjoyed the African dancing during the Enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But what is meant by the English Protestant Church ?
Protestant Churches do not have Archbishops, who are vested in Cope and Mitre or who celebrate the Eucharist while using chasuble and incense, as the previous Archbishop Dr.Rowan Williams did.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Look Protestant is not a synomyn for Reformed, the Lutherans are definitely Protestant, they seem to use them.

The Lutherans would be most upset if you suggested they were Protestants after all it is Martin Luther who actually put the match to the dry tinder of the Western church that created the Reformation.

Jengie

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

A couple of things:

1. Discussion as to the nature of Protestantism belongs in Purgatory.

2. We have left the phrase "English Protestant Church" unremarked on so far. However, the atmosphere of respect for different churches and traditions that we seek to engender in Ecclesiantics will normally require that a church or tradition is referred to by the term it uses of itself. So, if you mean the Church of England, say the Church of England.

Please continue to discuss the enthronement service of the new Archbishop of Canterbury.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on :

Well, I watched it with joy and delight.
It was similar to the licencing and installation of your local CofE vicar; lawyer bit, leading to the stall, and at the same time it reflected global Anglicanism; drummers, symbols from various provinces.
Plus it included influences from various musical worship traditions.
I enjoyed the blend of tradition and formality with the more personal choices of ++Justin. Who wants a mindless observance of 'tradition' without some elements reflecting the modern context?
It's a 10 from me

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The 'lawyer' bit is the bit that jarred, for me. I recall the way parish priests' inductions are (or at least were) dealt with in the diocese of Southwark: all the legal formalities are got out of the way quietly in the vestry beforehand (with the requisite witnesses of course) so that the public service is a celebration of the new ministry. +Justin's legal bit mostly took place in St Paul's a few weeks ago; the bit that remained could surely have been dealt with in a similar way at Canterbury.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Where bishops are elected on the basis of the conge d'elire, it is necessary that there be public recognition that those electing proceeded grateful that they did not have to think hard before casting their vote; thus the lawyerly parts. In the remainder of the communion, the lawyerly bits can be reduced drastically.

[Apologies for the lack of accents - I know deep down how to do them, but not at this hour on a Sunday morning.]

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

The service was incoherent and mindless. You did not know what was coming next and it did not hang together at all. I also do not appreciate Anglican bishops dressing like Roman princely prelates. In fact, why was there a round of applause? What theological sense does that make? I witnessed a similar phenomenon at recent adult baptisms - as if they were saying "Well done for getting yourself saved!"

I mourn every day that the 1928 Prayer Book was not legalized by the House of Commons, a most woeful blunder. But since it isn't, they should have set the Enthronement in the context of a 1662 Communion service (in the modern style) and been done with it. When Pope Francis said 'Carnival time is over' he meant it. Justin's sermon was great, if subtle, in chastising our establishment for abandoning God with their wicked schemes, but Christianity is truly in the wilderness in modern England, and we need to start behaving like it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I also do not appreciate Anglican bishops dressing like Roman princely prelates.

Which Anglican bishops were dressed as Roman princely prelates? There were a number of RC bishops so dressed.

quote:
In fact, why was there a round of applause? What theological sense does that make? I witnessed a similar phenomenon at recent adult baptisms - as if they were saying "Well done for getting yourself saved!"

This is a perennial topic in Ecclesiantics. Firstly, it's a natural human response to show joy and welcome. Secondly, it can be justified theologically as an acclamation of God's presence in the newly-instituted, newly-baptised, or whatever. But any arguments for or against tend to be a rationalisation of one's aesthetic instincts about the practice.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

I liked the enthronement, at least what I've seen of it (no-one has put the full service on Youtube, just a BBC "highlight reel". However, I am disappointed that the Royal Family was represented by Prince Charles and Camilla rather then the Queen herself, or one of the younger princes. Quite frankly I think that Charles' continued relationship with Camilia ought to lead him to renounce any claim to the throne. Even if he doesn't, the Royal Family ought to have the good taste to not let him do any of the bits involving the Church. If the Queen could not come herself, she could have sent one of her grandsons.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Quite frankly I think that Charles' continued relationship with Camilia ought to lead him to renounce any claim to the throne.

Why? If you believe in a hereditary monarchy (which I don't) you can't pick and choose; you have to accept the one next in succession. If a monarch has to be subjected to popular approval why not go the whole hog and have a proper democratic election for the head of state?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I think Charles has a long way to go before he'll reach, say, Henry VIII's standard on such things...

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I found the service rather over-long, considering it was not a Eucharist and it was the pageantry that made it all. But it was powerful enough in its own way and the sermon was equally powerful and inspiring and time will tell, how this sermon is lived up to.

I recall that the Filioque clause was dropped when ++Robert Runcie was installed on 25 March 1980 (presumably for the first time). This was an ecumenical gesture because of his involvement with the Eastern Orthodox churches. I do not recall whether this happened when ++George Carey was installed c1990.

I will find out in due course whether or not the quarter-peal attempt of gransire cinques was successful.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Charles' continued relationship with Camilia

You do realise they are married?!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
... However, I am disappointed that the Royal Family was represented by Prince Charles and Camilla rather then the Queen herself, or one of the younger princes. Quite frankly I think that Charles' continued relationship with Camilla ought to lead him to renounce any claim to the throne. Even if he doesn't, the Royal Family ought to have the good taste to not let him do any of the bits involving the Church. If the Queen could not come herself, she could have sent one of her grandsons.

I realise this might be pushing the limits of Ship rules, but I can't let that affront to my sovereign and her family pass unremarked. Permit me to ask.

Are you a subject of HM Queen Elizabeth II? If not, for those of us that are, it's a fair question whether Prince Charles's choice of life partner is, for you, a matter of any legitimate concern whatsoever.

[ 27. March 2013, 23:03: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

It was a little bit incoherent and all over the place. A bit of Cranmer here, a bit of African dancing there (what on earth does that have to do with the English Protestant church?) ...

Are you not aware that the archbishop of Canterbury is much more than an English metropolitan archbishop?

[Disappointed]

He holds a unique place of honor within the
worldwide Anglican Communion of churches. Among those churches, of course, are the African national provinces. So it was very much in keeping with the nature of the enthronement to have music from Africa and other parts of the Anglican Communion.

*

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Try:
[qb]... I realise this might be pushing the limits of Ship rules, but I can't let that affront to my sovereign and her family pass unremarked. Permit me to ask.

Are you a subject of HM Queen Elizabeth II? If not, for those of us that are, it's a fair question whether Prince Charles's choice of life partner is, for you, a matter of any legitimate concern whatsoever.

Well, I certainly didn't want to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if I appeared to be rude to the Queen. I have more to say but I don't want to start a tangent in Ecclesiantics.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Not a problem, Try, and possibly a topic worthy of consideration elsewhere - but indeed tangential to this discussion!

Let's see if we can draw a line under the matter now...

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Charles' continued relationship with Camilia
You do realise they are married?!

Define 'married'.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
However, I am disappointed that the Royal Family was represented by Prince Charles and Camilla rather then the Queen herself, or one of the younger princes.

The Monarsch never attends the Archbishop's enthronement as it is regarded as taking away his limelight. Traditionally, it is the Prince of Wales who attends on the Monarch's behalf.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Charles' continued relationship with Camilia
You do realise they are married?!
Define 'married'.

In the eyes of the Law.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Charles' continued relationship with Camilia
You do realise they are married?!
Define 'married'.
In the eyes of the Law.

"For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful."

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

May I draw your attention to my esteemed hostly colleague's post above? The validity or otherwise of the marriage of their Royal Highnesses is not a subject for this thread.

seasick, Eccles host

[ 30. March 2013, 23:39: Message edited by: seasick ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0