Ship of Fools: The Queen, God Bless Her!

Thread: The Queen, God Bless Her! 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=028642

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

In a recent discussion about women bishops, the interviewed asked why, if we can have a woman monarch or prime minister, can we not have a woman bishop. None of the participants responded but the monarchicial case seems interesting and I'd like to know the Anglican position.

The monarch is after all annointed at her coronation by the Archbishop of Canterbury and is Governor of the CoE. While that is not a sacerdotal role, do those who do not accept women bishops on scriptural grounds see an inconsistency in a woman in this position?

Alternatively, suppose some future monarch chose to accept the eucharist (perhaps only sometimes) from a woman bishop, would traditionalists claim they were no longer in communion with the Church of England (as I believe the law requires).

I'm sure, not knowing much about constitutional law, there may be other issues. What do shipmates think?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

A-men

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

Look, if you're going to have women priests, there's no intellectually honest way to prohibit women bishops.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

I agree that it is bizarre to claim that women absolutely can be priests but not bishops.

It is, however, quite reasonable to accept an ACNA-like compromise for practical reasons, understanding that either

1. While women CAN be bishops, for the sake of church unity we are going to refrain from making them so.

or

2. While women cannot be priests in the sacramental sense, for the sake of church unity we are going to accept them as priests in the bureaucratic sense.

As for the Queen, well she may be ordained of God in a way, but it's the quasi-Sacrament of Kingship, not the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Yes I can see that the 'its not a sacramental role' might work with one section of the anti women priests, but how would it work with those who are against because the headship theology?

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

That kind of compromise is exactly why ACNA is not going to make it intact as a body for very long.

Look, CofE needs to either walk back women's ordination, period (not sure how one would put the toothpaste back in THAT tube), or start ordaining women bishops. It's going to end up being one or the other.

[ 10. July 2012, 17:56: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Maybe I'm not up on the nuances of Anglicans, but this sure looks like an OOW thread to me. Off to DH with you!

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I want women bishops but I'd rather the Queen was pensioned off - well, not a literal pension.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

As the Queen has no sacramental role, there is no connexion. If, as que sais-je suggests, the Queen take the sacrament from a women priest or bishop, this has no effect on her governorship, other than to compound her assent to the measure effecting this-- I think that her constitutional position under ecclesiastical legislation is that she signs what is sent to her by General Synod, much as is she does for parliamentary bills.

Any high Lutherans who use the Renaissance doctrine of the king as the bishop of his people might have more fun with this.

Mary I, Elizabeth, Mary II, Anne, and Victoria were all Supreme Governors of the CoE (admittedly, Mary I only for a few months) when nobody had women bishops. I doubt if anyone thought for a moment that there was any inconsistency.

To me, a more interesting question would be if HM take the sacrament from a woman priest outside England, where CoE rules do not apply.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As the Queen has no sacramental role, there is no connexion. If, as que sais-je suggests, the Queen take the sacrament from a women priest or bishop, this has no effect on her governorship, other than to compound her assent to the measure effecting this-- I think that her constitutional position under ecclesiastical legislation is that she signs what is sent to her by General Synod, much as is she does for parliamentary bills.

Any high Lutherans who use the Renaissance doctrine of the king as the bishop of his people might have more fun with this.

Mary I, Elizabeth, Mary II, Anne, and Victoria were all Supreme Governors of the CoE (admittedly, Mary I only for a few months) when nobody had women bishops. I doubt if anyone thought for a moment that there was any inconsistency.

To me, a more interesting question would be if HM take the sacrament from a woman priest outside England, where CoE rules do not apply.

Why would this differ from her taking it within the CoE from a female priest (or has she never done so or do we not know)?

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes I can see that the 'its not a sacramental role' might work with one section of the anti women priests, but how would it work with those who are against because the headship theology?

John Knox tried that line in his First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regimen of Women. His targets were the Catholic queens Mary Tudor and Mary of Guise, the Regent of Scotland, but his argument was that women should not have rule over men. When Elizabeth came to the English throne a little later he tried to ingratiate himself with her but not surprisingly was told to f%*# off.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I note that the monarch is "anointed, blessed, and consecrated" at the coronation. As far as I know, Queen Elizabeth II has never gone into detail on her views about the theology of coronation, but I suspect she would see the ceremony as one which imparts an ontological change in precisely the same manner as ordination.

I think at the very least she would see the rite as sacramental with a small s--a rite whereby grace is asked and imparted. It seems more probable to me that her view would be that monarchy (or Monarchy) is a full-blown Sacrament--specifically, the Sacrament of Holy Orders. She certainly seems to have tried to perform her duties as though that was the case.

It's just a short step from there to a full-blown doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. I'm not sure Her Majesty would carry it quite that far, but I'd be very surprised if Queen Victoria didn't believe it. Queen Mary seems to have had a fairly developed belief in Divine Right as well, and given the close relationship between her and her granddaughter, I'd be surprised if a little of it didn't rub off. Of course, I don't think she'd ever be so tactless as to let anyone outside the family know...

Given that this post is about 99% speculation*, I'm not going to get too bent out of shape if people disagree. Still, I don't think I'm suggesting anything that isn't at least plausible, and more frequently probable.

*"speculation" sounds so much nicer than "bs", doesn't it?

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I note that the monarch is "anointed, blessed, and consecrated" at the coronation. As far as I know, Queen Elizabeth II has never gone into detail on her views about the theology of coronation, but I suspect she would see the ceremony as one which imparts an ontological change in precisely the same manner as ordination.

I think at the very least she would see the rite as sacramental with a small s--a rite whereby grace is asked and imparted. It seems more probable to me that her view would be that monarchy (or Monarchy) is a full-blown Sacrament--specifically, the Sacrament of Holy Orders. She certainly seems to have tried to perform her duties as though that was the case.

The words of the coronation ceremony, in particular around the anointing would support this view. For example the Veni creator is sung just before the anointing just as it is at an ordination. Then there are the words in the prayer: "who by anointing with Oil didst of old make and consecrate kings, priests, and prophets, to teach and govern thy people Israel", which suggests a close connection between kingship and priesthood. Even one of the vestments donned later is the Stole Royal.

quote:
It's just a short step from there to a full-blown doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. I'm not sure Her Majesty would carry it quite that far, but I'd be very surprised if Queen Victoria didn't believe it. Queen Mary seems to have had a fairly developed belief in Divine Right as well, and given the close relationship between her and her granddaughter, I'd be surprised if a little of it didn't rub off. Of course, I don't think she'd ever be so tactless as to let anyone outside the family know...

Again the words: "so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God hath given thee to rule and govern", would suggest that it's indeed a very short step to the Divine Right of Kings.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It seems more probable to me that her view would be that monarchy (or Monarchy) is a full-blown Sacrament--specifically, the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

No, the heresy you describe is Caesaropapism, and its not typically an Anglican heresy. We tend to go for one of the opposite ones, Erastianism, giving the rule of the churches to the secular government. We still keep up the tradition (which goes back to before the Reformation) that clerical appointments at all levels are made by lay people - not only bishops but also parish priests.

Caesaropapism has another opposite of course, theocracy. Its one of the things that split the Eastern and Western churches in the Middle Ages. In the East the Emperor was a Bishop, in the West the Bishop was a Prince.

quote:

It's just a short step from there to a full-blown doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. I'm not sure Her Majesty would carry it quite that far, but I'd be very surprised if Queen Victoria didn't believe it.

I am about as sure as it is possible to be that Queen Victoria believed no such thing! Yes, she seemed to think that God had appointed her to her position, and that it was her duty to carry it out as best she could, but I expect whe would have believed the same about anyone given a position of power over others, from a field marshal to a country doctor. But she would definitely have acknowledged the right of the people, tthough their representatives in parliament, to make laws about who is or is not to be king. And probably that Parliament has a right to depose a bad King and appoint a new one. A full-blown believer in the Divine Right of Kings would not accept that.

Very few occupants of the English throne seem to have been hardline believers in the Divine Right of Kings. Maybe that's because the traditional English way of disabusing a monarch of that delusion is to kill them. (Somethimes they get to go to Pontefract first. That's one of the Lessons of History: never accept a polite but firm invitiation to go to Pontefract. And never trust anyone called Lord Rivers.)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

And more to the point (he says, missing the edit window), Victoria would very definitely not have believed that the King was above the law. The early modern Divine Right theorists did - there were sycophantic fans of James VI/I and and Charles I who thought that the King had a natural right to govern his people as a father had a natural right to govern his family, and that no law made by the King was binding on the King, and that the King was never in ant way subject to any lesser civil magistrate.

That had never been the consitutional position in England. Even kings like Richard II or Henry VIII would not have gone that far. Maybe Kings were allowed to make laws freely, but they were supposed to obey their own laws. (That's not to say every king did obey the laws of course, some of them were arbitrary tyrants - but that was because they could, not because they should)

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I'll grant that the hard-line, medieval doctrine of Divine Right had no place in England. Still, Queen Victoria was not above some very irregular relations with Parliament, as I think the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839 would demonstrate. Of course, after she came under the influence of Albert her views of her place in government seem to have matured a bit. Even at her most youthful self-absorbed insistences of her own prerogative, however, I don't think she had a view of her position that came close to that of Nicolas II in Russia (to name just one more recent example).

Perhaps something like "divine appointment" of Kings would be more in keeping--but from what one can glean from her speeches at the time, it seems Queen Elizabeth saw the Coronation/Consecration very much as a religious service as well as a political one. (Indeed, the religious aspect of the ceremony is discussed as an important part of the Coronation on the royal website). So I have little doubt she sees herself as "called" to the Throne, in the same manner a priest or bishop would view a call to vocation.

None of this, of course, would keep her from realizing that Parliament could effectively remove her if they wished. That business with Charles I has kept that plain to every Monarch since...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
So I have little doubt she sees herself as "called" to the Throne, in the same manner a priest or bishop would view a call to vocation.

Or perhaps as some might view themselves as called to the married state?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I note that the monarch is "anointed, blessed, and consecrated" at the coronation. As far as I know, Queen Elizabeth II has never gone into detail on her views about the theology of coronation, but I suspect she would see the ceremony as one which imparts an ontological change in precisely the same manner as ordination.

I think at the very least she would see the rite as sacramental with a small s--a rite whereby grace is asked and imparted.

Well, if the coronation is (in some way) sacramental, that doesn’t necessarily lead us to the ordination of women. No one is denying that women can get sacraments, which could be implied in such an argument. (I’m not saying that you deny that.) In the Catholic Church (and this also relates to some High Church anglicans too, I believe), the only sacrament which is restricted to men is ordination, while everyone can get baptised (which some see as a ‘ordination’ to Christian life), partake of the Eucharist, get confirmed, go to confession, marry and get extreme unction.

So the Queen (or anyone else for that matter) can believe that the coronation is a sacramental act (maybe not a Sacrament as such), but that will still have nothing to do with the priesthood. In the Old Testament, different people were annointed, for different tasks. Pre-cambrian cites the words of the coronation ceremony, which includes this prayer: “who by anointing with Oil didst of old make and consecrate kings, priests, and prophets, to teach and govern thy people Israel.” He believes this “suggests a close connection between kingship and priesthood.” But we then need to ask: Could the kings of Israel sacrifice in the temple? If not, the only connection seems to me to be that God is the one behind the anointing, and not that everyone who is anointed somehow has the same (or similar) tasks. And I highly doubt that the Queen can celebrate/administer the sacraments by virtue of her coronation.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I'll grant that the hard-line, medieval doctrine of Divine Right had no place in England. Still, Queen Victoria was not above some very irregular relations with Parliament, as I think the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839 would demonstrate. Of course, after she came under the influence of Albert her views of her place in government seem to have matured a bit. Even at her most youthful self-absorbed insistences of her own prerogative, however, I don't think she had a view of her position that came close to that of Nicolas II in Russia (to name just one more recent example).

Perhaps something like "divine appointment" of Kings would be more in keeping--but from what one can glean from her speeches at the time, it seems Queen Elizabeth saw the Coronation/Consecration very much as a religious service as well as a political one. (Indeed, the religious aspect of the ceremony is discussed as an important part of the Coronation on the royal website). So I have little doubt she sees herself as "called" to the Throne, in the same manner a priest or bishop would view a call to vocation.

None of this, of course, would keep her from realizing that Parliament could effectively remove her if they wished. That business with Charles I has kept that plain to every Monarch since...

I wonder if people are not confusing absolute rule with the idea of divine right. Maediaeval kings were generally of the opinion that they were there by divine right (dei gratia and all that) but almost all of them ruled with parliaments and/or operated within charters which they or their predecessors had granted. This was why coronation ceremonies AFAIK include an oath by the new monarch to do justice, preserve liberties, rights of the church etc (and in someplaces listed off their promises and the extent and limitations of powers).

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

This is, perhaps, only tangentially related to the thread, but it speaks to the idea of the Queen's coronation as a sort of ordination, but most certainly to her life and work as a holy vocation. Some of you may enjoy reading it.Sermon by the Very Rev. Joy Rogers, Dean of St James Cathedral, Chicago , on the occasion of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

[ 13. July 2012, 04:08: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

There is a precedent for a coronation being seen as the 'eighth' sacrament, but not in England.

Parts of the coronation rite resemble, but fall short of ordination imagery. Monarchs are certainly invested with a sort of stole and dalmatic. If ordination parallels are used at all, that of diaconal rather than sacerdotal ordination would be more appropriate.

It is true to say that the rite has changed over the centuries, has been adapted, has been lengthened, then shortened (for William and Mary), then lengthened again, and so on. Certain parts remain unchanged such as the anointing and crowning, but it is not a rite set in stone.

The present Queen is rumoured still to use the book of prayers that Archbishop Fisher had printed for her as a way of preparing herself for her conronation.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Look, if you're going to have women priests, there's no intellectually honest way to prohibit women bishops.

For "women" substitute "married" and ask the Orthodox.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

To me, a more interesting question would be if HM take the sacrament from a woman priest outside England, where CoE rules do not apply.
Why would this differ from her taking it within the CoE from a female priest (or has she never done so or do we not know)?

I think that this is an interesting question. HAS she taken communion from a woman priest or bishop? And if she has (or has not), does that make any difference at all to ideas about her role as the head of the C of E?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Look, if you're going to have women priests, there's no intellectually honest way to prohibit women bishops.
For "women" substitute "married" and ask the Orthodox.

Are the two comparable? What exactly is the argument for having women priests but not women bishops, apart from one of practice or practicality or 'not all at once'? I've never really understood it. And why do the Orthodox have only unmarried/ widowed Bishops (or I suppose more strictly speaking, why do they confine the episcopate to monks?)

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

quote:
What exactly is the argument for having women priests but not women bishops, apart from one of practice or practicality or 'not all at once'? I've never really understood it.

It would be illogical certainly to support the first and oppose the second. As I understand it, however, from an outsiders perspective the objection arises primarily from people who do not accept as valid the ordination of women to a ministerial role within the communion. They can, today, effectively ignore their existence by adhering to certain parish communities who share their belief's and have nothing to do with such apparent clerics or with those who have participated in apparently ordaining them. However, as Newman once remarked, within each Anglican Diocese the Bishop is what the Pope is in Rome. An Anglican parish within the diocese cannot ignore a Bishop and will be required to have some kind of relationship of obedience towards one. But they cannot give allegiance to one whom they believe to be an apparent but not a real Bishop. Therefore the opposition to the appointing or apparent appointing of women into such positions is that it will render the continuation within the Anglican communion of parishes not recognising women's ordination effectively impossible. Unless the practice of cobbling together compromises each more absurd than its predecessor is allowed to continue of course.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Women bishops will be ordaining priests which, for the opponents is not acceptable at all. The process of ordination must be done by a male, according to them.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Anyone wondering why the pews are empty should read the foregoing (and the even weirder thread about priestly genitalia).

Want to know how unappealing all this sounds to the un-churched? Try substituting the word "black" for "woman" and see how it reads.

And to those of you now foaming at the mouth and your perennial argument that ordaining/consecrating women "makes unity more difficult": the Church of Rome has NO INTEREST in church unity as you envisage it; their position is as it always has been: the only way forward for church unity is for the rest of Christendom to realise their error and accept the primacy of the pope.

Any deluded fool who thinks this line has softened at all should take off their collar and ask anyone at the Catholic Information Office the line on ecumenism.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Anyone wondering why the pews are empty should read the foregoing (and the even weirder thread about priestly genitalia).

Want to know how unappealing all this sounds to the un-churched? Try substituting the word "black" for "woman" and see how it reads.

Amen.

Well-educated, bright, unchurched people of my generation (i.e., in their 20s right now) are for the most part baffled by the idea that women shouldn't be able to hold leadership roles.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I'm not sure about the Communion thing, but she was quite comfortable talking to/going to service with a woman bishop.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Double-posting to say that this kind of activity only seems to be problematic to toddlers

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Anyone wondering why the pews are empty should read the foregoing (and the even weirder thread about priestly genitalia).

Want to know how unappealing all this sounds to the un-churched? Try substituting the word "black" for "woman" and see how it reads.

Yup. It was said on one of the threads that women bishops are no part of a church growth strategy. But in order to stop church shrinkage the Church needs to stop standing against justice.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0