|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Queen Elizabeth and Communion
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Yes, and however central an act of worship it may be, for two to three centuries, running well into the first half of the twentieth century it was not principal act of worship in the Church of England in terms of frequency.
Further the spiritual and devotional focus around communion taken monthly or more infrequently was around careful and devout personal spiritual preparation. The predominant axis was between the individual worshipper and God.
The corporate nature of eucharistic participation was much less in focus, and IME this is still true for many of the older generation of worshippers today, especially that section of the Church family who are sometimes referred to as the "eight-o'clockers".
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you for the link. I assume that HM took communion at her place, which would minimise the security problems that A the A referred to earlier on the thread.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thank you for the link. I assume that HM took communion at her place, which would minimise the security problems that A the A referred to earlier on the thread.
No! According to the order of service both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh received communion. Might this public reception be a first? I am most curious!
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Not a first - they regularly receive if it is a communion service at St George's Chapel, Windsor.
The service was OK - apart from one jarring Kendrick hymn, which was not sung with unalloyed enthusiasm by anyone, least of all the choir.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Why jarring?
I.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
By the order of service this looks like one of the most well-done "church-wide" services I've ever seen? Mozart and Palestrina?!
What is the bottom-right shield on the front cover, however? The top one, of course, is the abbey's. The bottom left, with four crosses on the pallium, is the Archbishop of Canterbury's. What's the other one with five crosses on the pallium? I thought it might be the Archbishop of York's, but it's not.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not a first - they regularly receive if it is a communion service at St George's Chapel, Windsor.
Now my curiosity has turned to confusion. This whole thread was about the fact that Queen never makes her Communion in public. Does this mean that the thread and subsequent discussion were misinformed?
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thank you for the link. I assume that HM took communion at her place, which would minimise the security problems that A the A referred to earlier on the thread.
No! According to the order of service both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh received communion. Might this public reception be a first? I am most curious!
When I said "at her place", I meant that she stayed where she was for the remainder of the service, the Host and chalice being brought to her, and that she did not go to a communion rail - assuming there be one at the Abbey of course.
Intersting choice of preacher. I wonder what link, if any, there may be to the comments made recently by Pope Francis and the subject of a DH thread.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thank you for the link. I assume that HM took communion at her place, which would minimise the security problems that A the A referred to earlier on the thread.
No! According to the order of service both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh received communion. Might this public reception be a first? I am most curious!
When I said "at her place", I meant that she stayed where she was for the remainder of the service, the Host and chalice being brought to her, and that she did not go to a communion rail - assuming there be one at the Abbey of course.
Intersting choice of preacher. I wonder what link, if any, there may be to the comments made recently by Pope Francis and the subject of a DH thread.
Apologies for the misunderstanding,it would be interesting to know. Normally Communion is received standing at the Abbey when the high altar is used, though rails are used elsewhere.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
To change tack slightly, I was talking to a good friend of mine who worships at one of the Church of Scotland churches in London. Apparently, HM the Queen will be visiting it next year.
I'm familiar with the Queen's denominational duties north and south of the border. But what denomination is the Queen when she visits this church?!
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Depends which one. There are two CofS in London and they have different histories.
If this is Crown Court then she is in church of the Scottish Embassy in London. If she is at St Columbas then there are no such complications as it was Free Kirk before the merger.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Depends which one. There are two CofS in London and they have different histories.
If this is Crown Court then she is in church of the Scottish Embassy in London. If she is at St Columbas then there are no such complications as it was Free Kirk before the merger.
Jengie
The Queen has no denomination, as the concept of of a monarch precedes the notion of denomination or nation; but in Scotland she has responsibilities with respect to the CoS, and so if the church in question is in Scotland, that's what's in play. If the church in question is in England, she is the Supreme Governor. If the church is anywhere else (Bosnia, Cyprus, Rwanda, etc), she is a Christian in communion with the Church of England and relates to the local church accordingly.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The Queen has no denomination, as the concept of of a monarch precedes the notion of denomination or nation; but in Scotland she has responsibilities with respect to the CoS, and so if the church in question is in Scotland, that's what's in play. If the church in question is in England, she is the Supreme Governor. If the church is anywhere else (Bosnia, Cyprus, Rwanda, etc), she is a Christian in communion with the Church of England and relates to the local church accordingly.
I'm not sure this is quite right. She's Supreme Governor if the church in question in England is in fact the Church of England. But I'm not sure how she can be Supreme Governor of the CofE unless she is a member of it; indeed, my recollection is that the law requires she be a member of it as a condition of being queen.
As for the Kirk, the website of the monarchy clearly states that the Queen is an "ordinary member" of the Church of Scotland.
So, it seems that aside from having certain official responsibilities in both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, she is a member of both bodies.
And so, when she visits the London church in question—whether Crown Court or St. Columba's—she does so as an "ordinary member" of the Church of Scotland, albeit one who is simultaneously a member (and Supreme Governor) of the Church of England.
[ 01. December 2015, 01:44: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The Queen has no denomination, as the concept of of a monarch precedes the notion of denomination or nation; but in Scotland she has responsibilities with respect to the CoS, and so if the church in question is in Scotland, that's what's in play. If the church in question is in England, she is the Supreme Governor. If the church is anywhere else (Bosnia, Cyprus, Rwanda, etc), she is a Christian in communion with the Church of England and relates to the local church accordingly.
I'm not sure this is quite right. She's Supreme Governor if the church in question in England is in fact the Church of England. But I'm not sure how she can be Supreme Governor of the CofE unless she is a member of it; indeed, my recollection is that the law requires she be a member of it as a condition of being queen.
Is this correct? I thought the only rule was that she must NOT be a Roman Catholic? After all, the early Georges were Lutherans...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
And the first King of the Belgians, Leopold, who was Queen Victoria's dearest Uncle, was a Lutheran Prince. His heirs slipped into the Roman maw and have been there since.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The rule is that the Queen must be in communion with the Church of England, not that she is necessarily a member thereof. This is what was once called the Billy Clause, which permitted the Reformed William III to take the throne with Mary II. William III was never confirmed into the CoE, nor was George I-- I am not 100% certain about George II.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But I'm not sure how she can be Supreme Governor of the CofE unless she is a member of it; indeed, my recollection is that the law requires she be a member of it as a condition of being queen.
Is this correct? I thought the only rule was that she must NOT be a Roman Catholic? After all, the early Georges were Lutherans...
Excluding Roman Catholics was certainly the goal. But Section III of the Act of Settlement, which as I understand it is still in force, says "That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established."
Meanwhile, royal.gov.uk says in the section titled Queen and the Church of England: "The Sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, that is, a full, confirmed member." (Here is the page where royal.gov.uk says "The Queen is therefore not the Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but an ordinary member.")
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The rule is that the Queen must be in communion with the Church of England, not that she is necessarily a member thereof. This is what was once called the Billy Clause, which permitted the Reformed William III to take the throne with Mary II.
Except that the Act of Settlement was enacted in 1701, in the last year of William's reign, and applied to his successors, not to him.
[ 01. December 2015, 13:07: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The rule is that the Queen must be in communion with the Church of England, not that she is necessarily a member thereof. This is what was once called the Billy Clause, which permitted the Reformed William III to take the throne with Mary II.
Except that the Act of Settlement was enacted in 1701, in the last year of William's reign, and applied to his successors, not to him.
ah my source was a now-expired Irish constitutional historian, and I did not double-check the legal text. The website's statement that to be in communion with the Church of England requires that she be a member is a bit at odds with the Porvoo agreement, no?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The website's statement that to be in communion with the Church of England requires that she be a member is a bit at odds with the Porvoo agreement, no?
Interesting question (tangent?), and I'm not sure I know the answer. I guess the three questions that are immediately raised for me are:
(1) What was meant by "join in communion with the Church of England" in 1701?
(2) Is there a difference (legally, at least) between an individual being in communion with a specific church body (such as the Church of England) and various church bodies being in communion with one another?
(3) How was confirmation practiced in the Church of England in the 18th Century, and what was its significance in terms of being considered a "member" of the Church of England?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I have a bio of George I handy (doesn't everyone?) and it doesn't mention any rite of confirmation. The one I've just finished of George III does refer to his confirmation but he was essentially an Englishman rather than a German.
For 1 & 2), I would imagine that this would involve the individual taking the sacrament. The RCs had a rite of abjuration of heresy (fans of the film La Reine Margot can watch Henri IV abjuring) but the CoE did not. There was baptism and confirmation-- I am not certain if confirmation was used to receive foreigners-- there were several Huguenot congregations around at the time and it appears that practice varied.
At that time, churches were not independent bodies and their relationships were usually determined by the state (Acts of Supremacy and all that) rather than by bilateral agreements.
In the 18c, I believe that confirmation was required to be a churchwarden but, while some bishops were heroic in their visitations, frequently parishes would be a decade or so between opportunities for parishioners to be confirmed. As well, in areas where the CoE did not supply bishops (i.e., the colonies, they used the rubric "desirous of being confirmed"). In short, lots of people thought that they were full members of the CoE and were believed to be full members without having been confirmed.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I don't know whether the practice in the 1500s and 1600s sheds light on the situation. Certainly confirmation was not required to be in communion with the CofE for adult members of continental protestant churches. Nor, I suspect, immediately after the restoration, for adult members of the CofE which had been without functioning bishops for a couple of decades.
And in the 18th century, notoriously, the availability of confirmation in dioceses such as Lincoln and York was, at best, limited. A frequently referenced story is of the vicar who heard that his bishop would be attending a hunt in the vicinity and lined up the whole parish, from babes in arms to a couple of over-70s along the road. The bishop laid hands on the lot as he rode by -- it is not clear whether he got off his horse or donned a surplice -- and that was it for the next 30-40 years.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... The website's statement that to be in communion with the Church of England requires that she be a member is a bit at odds with the Porvoo agreement, no?
Why? And anyway, is there any reason why this might be relevant or why anyone should resolve any dilemma to which it might give rise until such time as it does arise?
Although the royal family are quite closely related to the Danish and Norwegian royal houses, though less so to the Swedes, the way they are related means one of them would only succeed to the UK throne in very exceptional circumstances.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... The website's statement that to be in communion with the Church of England requires that she be a member is a bit at odds with the Porvoo agreement, no?
Why? And anyway, is there any reason why this might be relevant or why anyone should resolve any dilemma to which it might give rise until such time as it does arise?
Although the royal family are quite closely related to the Danish and Norwegian royal houses, though less so to the Swedes, the way they are related means one of them would only succeed to the UK throne in very exceptional circumstances.
Why? In the case of a member of the Church of Norway succeeds to the throne and wants to stay Lutheran-- by the website, they would have to be accepted into the CoE, but by the law, they might not have to be, provided that they are in communion with the CoE, which they would be.
Why bother about it? Administrative tidiness and coherence. In the admittedly unlikely event that (no 73 in line) King Harald succeeds, things might be so messy that those dealing with the machinery of state would not want any possible grounds of dispute to arise.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I thought Porvoo proceeded on the basis that the local churches had never declared themselves out of communion with each other, rather they had just drifted away due to history, and like the father of the Prodigal Son, were welcoming each other back.
The UCCan's recent intercommunion agreement with the United Church of Christ proceeded on the same basis.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I don't know whether the practice in the 1500s and 1600s sheds light on the situation. Certainly confirmation was not required to be in communion with the CofE for adult members of continental protestant churches. Nor, I suspect, immediately after the restoration, for adult members of the CofE which had been without functioning bishops for a couple of decades.
My suspicion is that the royal.gov.uk website is paraphrasing somewhat and actually means HM must only be s 'full, confirmed member' of a church which allows its members to be in communion with the Church of England. (Inaccurate information on a government website? Oh, surely not!)
I remember Ken of Blessed Memory who often cite the fact that Lutherans in England and Anglicans in Protestant parts of Germany never stopped attending each others services, nor taking communion from each other. The fact that there is dispute over full inter-convertability of Orders is therefore in this instance a Red Herring.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
