Thread: Queen Elizabeth and Communion 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=030344
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
On Friday I watched on TV some parts of the State
Funeral of the recently deceased Queen Fabiola of the Belgians.
A state ceremony with lots of music but at the same time a simple and dignified Funeral Mass.
Very moving were the prayers offered by three very young members of the Royal family,one in Dutch,one in French and one in English.
At the appropriate moment the Royal family received Communion.
I understand that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England does not normally receive Communion in public. Since the eucharist is considered to be the most important part of the Anglican liturgy ,I think, why is it that the eucharist is never ? a part of Anglican Royal ceremonies ?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
It is part of the Coronation, isn't it? But was it then administered out of public view?
I don't know why the Queen does not communicate in public, especially as she is in other ways very willing to witness to her faith. I wish she would.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
I have heard it said that our present Monarch prefers Morning Prayer as her chosen worship service, rather than Holy Communion. I cannot say how often she receives Communion. A future British Monarch will not necessarily take the same point of view regarding their preferred worship service.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Until well on in the current reign, Morning Prayer was the normal Sunday morning (ie the one starting between 10 and 11 in the morning)service in the CofE. As it had been for a century or more, since monarchs started attending SUnday service in public. For all we know, she routinely attends an earlier said service of Holy COmmunion -- which would again be in line with practices in the church from the 1870s on to at least when she was growing up and in her young adulthood.
We know nothing at all about her faith or her worship preferences from this custom. As HM is notoriously conservative when it comes to changing things from the way they have been, I suspect the custom of HM not receiving is a habit and a hang over from earlier times.
John
[ 13. December 2014, 14:03: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
from the late John Betjeman on the death of King George V
"Old men who never cheated, never doubted,
Communicated monthly, sit and stare
At the new suburb stretched beyond the runway
Where a young man lands hatless from the air."
I can't answer the question but one should not forget that HMQ was born as long ago as 1926. She grew up in the days when all services were 1662. The normal morning service was Morning Prayer. Holy Communion was celebrated at 8 am without music, and probably without a sermon.
The Belgian royal family is Catholic. Belgium is traditionally defined as a Catholic country, the provinces that remained Hapsburg, in contrast to Holland which speaks the same language but became independent as Protestant. The House of Windsor is Protestant.
The CofE has not traditionally understood Holy Communion as a mass that can be offered on behalf of someone or something else. So a CofE funeral is not a requiem.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I have heard it said that our present Monarch prefers Morning Prayer as her chosen worship service, rather than Holy Communion. I cannot say how often she receives Communion. A future British Monarch will not necessarily take the same point of view regarding their preferred worship service.
It wouldn't seem to be primarily about personal preference, though, since it's not just the Queen but the royal family as a whole who don't (normally) receive the Sacrament in public. I was at St James' Cathedral in Toronto on a Sunday when the Earl of Wessex read the first lesson, and the 11am service was replaced with Mattins. At half past noon those who wanted to make their Communion gathered in the choir stalls for a low mass at the high altar.
We have had a couple of threads on royal churchmanship in the past. It was suggested that there is a more high-church strain through the Scottish influence of the Bowes-Lyons, and that the late Queen Mother and Princess Margaret were known to buck the foregoing trend.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I have to say that if I lived in the public eye (as unlikely a thought as it would be unwelcome!) and was frequently filmed or photographed, I would much prefer to keep Holy Communion a private thing as well. Yes, it publically witnesses to one's faith but it is also a very intimate act.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Nor would I want my tongue photographed whilst sticking it out, either to receive the Most Precious Body or otherwise.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
With regard to some remarks made about Holland and Belgium I have to correct some information.
Holland or better the Netherlands has never become a full Protestant Country,about 40% of its population has remained Roman-Catholic.The Southern part has always been predominantly Catholic.]
Furthermore, Belgium is a bilingual country 60% is Dutch speaking,and 40% is French speaking.
I was not so amazed to learn that Toronto Cathedral replaced its customary Choral Eucharist with Mattins, because of the visit of Prince William.The same decision was made a few years ago when Prince Charles visited St.George's Cathedral in Caoe Towwn.
Frankly is it not a weird or arrogant attitude of the Britsh Royal family not to accept the tradition of the Cathedral/Church they attend for the Sunday Worship ?
If they are unwilling to receive, they can stay in their pews.
I have never heard of these strange conditions made by other Royal families.
I watched too the whole funeral mass for Queen Fabiola and I was deeply moved by the beautiful liturgy, sermon and its music.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
May I suggest you might be reading too much into the situation? I suspect no demands/requests were made at all. But it is a tad awkward to have Holy Communion when some of your most, er, visible guests cannot participate, and would not be permitted to receive even if they wished to--and perhaps the planners (NOT the guests) chose to alter things to avoid this.
A similar problem comes up for my own congregation occasionally, though more to do with Buddhist visitors than with another Christian denomination.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Utrecht Catholic writes:
quote:
Frankly is it not a weird or arrogant attitude of the Britsh Royal family not to accept the tradition of the Cathedral/Church they attend for the Sunday Worship ?
Not necessarily, and in my former RL when I was on the fringes of state ceremonial activities, there were three reasons which came up at planning sessions. A non-Communion services encourages the participation of other Christians outside the denomination in question. It is shorter and easier to schedule details-- remember that public worship at which a monarch or president assists ends up being a public and official act, no matter what the local establishment-of-religion rules might be and their time is so tightly scheduled that it is borderline unbelievable. And, perhaps most seriously, it is much easier for security considerations, as there are fewer people moving in and around and about; with people going up to receive, it is difficult to provide control of access and protection to the VIP, and ensure rapid exit should a situation require it.
My own preference is that presidential and royal types should worship in private chapels away from the public gaze, but I was never at a level where my opinion was going to be sought.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I watched too the whole funeral mass for Queen Fabiola and I was deeply moved by the beautiful liturgy, sermon and its music.
It is not too late to file a Mystery Worship report if you remember enough details of the service.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Amanda wrote:
Nor would I want my tongue photographed whilst sticking it out, either to receive the Most Precious Body or otherwise.
Especially when you consider headlines like this...
Duchess Of Cambridge Roles Eyes After Being Told To Keep Wrapping Presents
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Nor would I want my tongue photographed whilst sticking it out, either to receive the Most Precious Body or otherwise.
I'm sure Her Majesty would never do something as Romish as to receive on the tongue.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I watched too the whole funeral mass for Queen Fabiola and I was deeply moved by the beautiful liturgy, sermon and its music.
It is not too late to file a Mystery Worship report if you remember enough details of the service.
I thought you were supposed to actually be at the service to submit a report.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I thought you were supposed to actually be at the service to submit a report.
We've made several exceptions in the case of noteworthy services that it would have been difficult or impossible to attend: for example, here, here and here.
It strikes me that this service would have been a good candidate, but I don't mean to derail the thread with this tangent.
[ 14. December 2014, 10:50: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
For anyone interested in the funeral ceremonies for Queen Fabiola,one can find a number of short clips with commentary in Dutch under the rubric Kon Fabiola at De Redactie.BE.
There are full videos of the RTBF coverage in French,but they are not authorised for viewing in the UK at the moment
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Must have a look at them. On a slight tangent, who could fail to have a soft spot for a Queen whose name sounds like a piece of Polari?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Must have a look at them. On a slight tangent, who could fail to have a soft spot for a Queen whose name sounds like a piece of Polari?
Or sticky-backed plastic à la Blue Peter.
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
I understand, from someone well placed to be right and have knowledge of such things, that Her Majesty regularly receives communion, but usually within the royal residence and at the private chapel therein.
It is also correct that Holy Communion forms an integral part of the Coronation Service.
That our monarch quietly gets on with her faith and work, and that we know little about the intimate details thereof, says much about her and perhaps something else about our prurience.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
... That our monarch quietly gets on with her faith and work, and that we know little about the intimate details thereof, says much about her and perhaps something else about our prurience.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I understand, from someone well placed to be right and have knowledge of such things, that Her Majesty regularly receives communion, but usually within the royal residence and at the private chapel therein.
I have similar information from someone close to the Queen.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I'll back that view as well.
The Windsor fire in 1992 destroyed the private chapel and HM was most distraught that she lost the book of devotions she had been given by Geoffrey Fisher before her coronation.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
Queen Elizabeth II attended my parish church (St. John's Episcopal) in Versailles, Kentucky (USA) one Sunday in the 80s when I was there. All 3 services on Sunday were always Holy Eucharist, but when HM came it was changed to one service of "Mattins", since she did not receive Communion in public. St. John's was about halfway up the candle, but when the Queen came, they pulled out all the stops! The rector even wore a biretta (!), which he never did, before or since. I still have the program from the day, and I can scan it in if anyone wants to see it.
If I remember correctly, HM was visiting a horse farm in the area. She entered the church in the back entrance, to avoid the paparazzi, and was going to sneak out the same way, but I guess she changed her mind, because her procession went on out the main door of the church, where she passed right by me on her way. There was a huge crowd of people outside, new crews, etc. They all let out a magnificent cheer!
I will never forget it!!!
My mother said that it was ironic that I saw the Queen when I lived in Kentucky, but not when I lived in London.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Rowan Williams commented, in his latest book,Being Christian, that Queen Victoria couldn't understand why such a morbid service as Holy Communion should be compulsory on Easter Day.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
In my experience the Anglican Church has changed over the years in relation to Communion services. In my youth my church only celebrated Communion once a month and Mattins on all the other Sundays. I'm not sure at what stage or why this changed to the point that Communion is now obligatory and Mattins is viewed as an anachronism. Many younger people in my church have never experienced Mattins even though the service appears in print in the prayer book.
I would think that the Queen would certainly have experienced predominantly Mattins services from early childhood and I can understand why she would then want to keep this tradition. She is of the same generation as my late parents who very much favoured the Mattins service.
I admire the fact that she keeps her participation in the Eucharist private. Why should she be treated as though she is in a goldfish bowl for all occasions? She is entitled to some personal privacy.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Do you think those changes arose as a result of the "Parish Communion" movement in the 1950s?
Certainly the Low Church CofE in which I was brought up moved from having 11 am "Matins" as its main service (probably with an 8 am Communion), to having 9.30 am "Family Communion" on a weekly basis. That would have been around 1962 I guess, and it provoked mixed reactions. It still seems to have much the same pattern, although Matins seems to have vanished completely.
Conversely, a local "civic" church I know has 8 am Communion, 9.30 am Choral Matins and 11 am Parish Communion each week (usually sung, too). I don't know the relative numbers at the two later services.
[ 02. July 2015, 14:02: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Not just Low Church. 8 am HC & 11 am Mattins was pretty well the definition of Middle of the Road.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The attitude of the CofE towards communion has changed, or at least the attitude of the clergy.
Back in the day when the BCP first appeared (I'm talking 1549) the habit of taking one's communion daily was a fairly new one that arrived in court circles in England with Catherine of Aragon.
Before that, if you read contemporary records of people like Erasmus, Thomas More, John Colet, etc, although the service of the Mass might be celebrated daily, that didn't mean that everyone at the service took communion. When Catherine arrived she brought the habit of daily communion within the Mass with her.
The BCP had the service of Matins placed in such prominence because the morning offices were usually well-attended before the daily celebration of the Mass.
You could argue that the loss of Matins is, in fact, taking the CofE away from its roots.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Do you think those changes arose as a result of the "Parish Communion" movement in the 1950s?
Absolutely. What I find funny/ironic now is that this change has been so completely accepted that people can really get huffy if you suggest doing a non-Eucharistic service for any reason. And I am not talking about particularly "high" Anglicans either.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Queen Victoria couldn't understand why such a morbid service as Holy Communion should be compulsory on Easter Day.
Well, I agree with her. Communion on Maundy Thursday evening - absolutely.
Early on Easter Day - perhaps.
As the culmination of a service celebrating Jesus' risen life - no way. (But not all my congregation would agree).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I understand, from someone well placed to be right and have knowledge of such things, that Her Majesty regularly receives communion, but usually within the royal residence and at the private chapel therein.
It is also correct that Holy Communion forms an integral part of the Coronation Service.
That our monarch quietly gets on with her faith and work, and that we know little about the intimate details thereof, says much about her and perhaps something else about our prurience.
Communion is just that: communion. It's designed to be shared with others in public. faith is personal but never private.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As the culmination of a service celebrating Jesus' risen life - no way. (But not all my congregation would agree).
Nor would I. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
"As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes again." There is no coming again without the resurrection. There are a number of stories in the NT, starting with the Emmaus story, that show the early church clearly associated the breaking of bread with the risen Christ.
I welcome Easter communion as a chance to counter that tendency all too common, at least in Protestantism, to see Jesus's crucifixion and his resurrection as two separate things rather than as part of the one paschal mystery.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Rowan Williams commented, in his latest book,Being Christian, that Queen Victoria couldn't understand why such a morbid service as Holy Communion should be compulsory on Easter Day.
Typical of that queen's screwed-up Hanover/Coburg theology! (At least IMNSHO)
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The attitude of the CofE towards communion has changed, or at least the attitude of the clergy.
Back in the day when the BCP first appeared (I'm talking 1549) the habit of taking one's communion daily was a fairly new one that arrived in court circles in England with Catherine of Aragon.
Before that, if you read contemporary records of people like Erasmus, Thomas More, John Colet, etc, although the service of the Mass might be celebrated daily, that didn't mean that everyone at the service took communion. When Catherine arrived she brought the habit of daily communion within the Mass with her.
Indeed, well into the 20th century in Anglo-catholic parishes it was not unusual to attend Mass and not receive Communion. We referred to it as 'hearing Mass.' One typically received Communion only when fasting (from midnight! in those days), and of course having been to Confession.
This was, I admit, in a rather high-up-the-candle situation.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Rowan Williams commented, in his latest book,Being Christian, that Queen Victoria couldn't understand why such a morbid service as Holy Communion should be compulsory on Easter Day.
Typical of that queen's screwed-up Hanover/Coburg theology! (At least IMNSHO)
I have heard that she preferred the CoS*. But she did take a serious interest in the CofE, as, come to think of it, have most of our Queens- Elizabeth I, Anne, and of course Her present Majesty.
*Another trait of hers against which her eldest son reacted. Insofar as he had any religion it was, AIUI, a long way up the candle, and there were rumours in the 1940s/50s that he had been received into the RCC on his deathbed. But perhaps this just reflected Victoria's love of all things Scottish and Edward VII's of all things French. BTW I wonder what kind of churchman Dean le Breton- Lily Langtry's father- was.
[ 02. July 2015, 21:21: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
The BCP Holy Communion going on and on and on about sin may be morbid.
The Christian Eucharist (of which it is a decadent variant) certainly isn't as it celebrates Christ's risen presence among us in word and sacrament.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The reason why in more normal parishes Holy Communion was at 8 am was so that people could receive before breakfast, and without having to go without their breakfast.
As I mentioned on 13th December, the usual pattern in the CofE from the mid C19 until well after the 2nd World War, was Holy Communion 8am, Matins 11 am, Evensong 6 or 6.30 pm. The more pious tended to take Communion once a month and at big festivals.
As the 1950s moved into the 1960s churches gradually began to introduce a monthly Family Communion.
Old men who never cheated, never doubted,
Communicated monthly, sit and stare
At the new suburb stretched beyond the runway
Where a young man lands hatless from the air.
John Betjeman on the Death of King George V.
I hope that quotation doesn't infringe ship rules. It complies with s 30 of the UK Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 as amended.
[ 02. July 2015, 21:55: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Do you think those changes arose as a result of the "Parish Communion" movement in the 1950s?
Yes, though the parish communion movement dates to the 1920s, with the Anglo-Catholic Congresses.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Communion is just that: communion. It's designed to be shared with others in public. faith is personal but never private.
While I agree with this, I don't have to contend with the problem that my mere presence may be a significant distraction to others from what ought to be their focus at communion, and where the details of how I participate may be a matter of public scrutiny, and attract the intrusive interest of others.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Utrecht Catholic writes:
quote:
Frankly is it not a weird or arrogant attitude of the Britsh Royal family not to accept the tradition of the Cathedral/Church they attend for the Sunday Worship ?
Not necessarily, and in my former RL when I was on the fringes of state ceremonial activities, there were three reasons which came up at planning sessions. A non-Communion services encourages the participation of other Christians outside the denomination in question. It is shorter and easier to schedule details-- remember that public worship at which a monarch or president assists ends up being a public and official act, no matter what the local establishment-of-religion rules might be and their time is so tightly scheduled that it is borderline unbelievable. And, perhaps most seriously, it is much easier for security considerations, as there are fewer people moving in and around and about; with people going up to receive, it is difficult to provide control of access and protection to the VIP, and ensure rapid exit should a situation require it.
My own preference is that presidential and royal types should worship in private chapels away from the public gaze, but I was never at a level where my opinion was going to be sought.
Organizing timing and security sounds like the best explanation of Her Majesty's custom of attending services of the Word. And making it a standard MO avoids people analysing why she would receive Communion at one church event and not another.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Organizing timing and security sounds like the best explanation of Her Majesty's custom of attending services of the Word. And making it a standard MO avoids people analysing why she would receive Communion at one church event and not another.
It may also suggest that the Queen is not as enamoured of her subjects as is sometimes pointed out. What, share with all those unwashed people? They're not wearing gloves!
In today's world it is perfectly possible to fit communion within security and time constraints. The Queen and others simply chose not to - thereby making a very profound statement.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Organizing timing and security sounds like the best explanation of Her Majesty's custom of attending services of the Word. And making it a standard MO avoids people analysing why she would receive Communion at one church event and not another.
It may also suggest that the Queen is not as enamoured of her subjects as is sometimes pointed out. What, share with all those unwashed people? They're not wearing gloves!
In today's world it is perfectly possible to fit communion within security and time constraints. The Queen and others simply chose not to - thereby making a very profound statement.
I suppose it would be possible to jump to those conclusions, but I can't help feeling that one would have to be standing on a springboard which was biased towards ungenerosity of spirit and ingrained snarl to do so.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Ouch!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It might be a bit contentious if the Queen suddenly allowed herself to be filmed taking Communion in public now, but it might have been constructive earlier in her reign, when the nation was more comfortable with displays of Christian faith.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I think that if anything she has become more publicly explicit about her faith as time has gone on- look at the content of her Christmas addresses in recent years, for example. I've never heard that this makes anyone particularly uncomfortable.
Of course there's communcating in public, and being filmed doing so. I don't care how many people see me receiving the Sacrament but I think I'd draw the line at being filmed doing so except perhaps very incidentally- just wouldn't seem right, for some reason.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
If other kings and queens e.g.the Scandinavian
Lutherans, of Denmark,Norway and Sweden and the Catholics of Belgium and Spain,receive communion during public celebrations of the Eucharist then I am wondering why does the Britsh Monarch not do the same ?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Organizing timing and security sounds like the best explanation of Her Majesty's custom of attending services of the Word. And making it a standard MO avoids people analysing why she would receive Communion at one church event and not another.
It may also suggest that the Queen is not as enamoured of her subjects as is sometimes pointed out. What, share with all those unwashed people? They're not wearing gloves!
In today's world it is perfectly possible to fit communion within security and time constraints. The Queen and others simply chose not to - thereby making a very profound statement.
Having had to work IRL with security and scheduling of state ceremonial, I will assure any reader, and do so with strength of expression, that this is not so. While it is not impossible, it requires other layouts (such as seating the King & Queen of Spain in the chancel and ensuring a security barrier between them and the congregation) or placing communion stations well away from the seated VIP. It also creates a 5-10 minute period beyond control, which with these events is too great and makes an emergency exit much more difficult.
A further consideration for a ceremonial event is that Communion is highly exclusive, not only of RCs, but of Jews and Muslims, as well as a big chunk of non-religious citizens-- this was something Edward VII figured out a century ago. In planning state ceremonial occasions, Muslim and Jewish representatives told me of their relief when they learned a service was to be Morning Prayer.
Coronations include a communion service, but then the day is set aside for the Coronation, and schedules can accommodate it. That's not so easy when you're squeezing 4-8 events for a woman in her late 80s.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
A further consideration for a ceremonial event is that Communion is highly exclusive, not only of RCs, but of Jews and Muslims, as well as a big chunk of non-religious citizens-- this was something Edward VII figured out a century ago. In planning state ceremonial occasions, Muslim and Jewish representatives told me of their relief when they learned a service was to be Morning Prayer.
I don't know about other events, but when Queen Elizabeth came to St. John's, only parishioners were allowed to attend, and we had to sign up well in advance. So it was all just us Episcopalians/Anglicans.
I wonder if the Queen receives on the tongue or in the hand? I suppose there might be a worry that some crazy person would try to poison HM. I wonder if they did background checks on the rector, or even me?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
If other kings and queens e.g.the Scandinavian
Lutherans, of Denmark,Norway and Sweden and the Catholics of Belgium and Spain,receive communion during public celebrations of the Eucharist then I am wondering why does the Britsh Monarch not do the same ?
Because they're different people following different denominations in a different country; with different historical traditions and indeed present contexts that govern how they behave in every area of their life?
You may just as profitably ask why all those monarchs feel they can when the British monarch doesn't?
[ 03. July 2015, 15:12: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?
Nevertheless Vidi Aquam, as to how she receives the bread, the normal and long hallowed CofE way is that you hold out your hands with one placed over the other in the form of a cross. The priest places the bread or wafer in your hand. You then transfer it to your mouth. It is very unlikely that she receives any other way. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world, but in the UK, placing it on the tongue is an exclusively RC custom.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh yes. I would put money on it that when Princess Elizabeth (as she then was) was prepared for Confirmation (by ++Lang? can't remember) that was how she was taught to receive and that is how she has continued to receive.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nevertheless Vidi Aquam, as to how she receives the bread, the normal and long hallowed CofE way is that you hold out your hands with one placed over the other in the form of a cross. The priest places the bread or wafer in your hand. You then transfer it to your mouth. It is very unlikely that she receives any other way. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world, but in the UK, placing it on the tongue is an exclusively RC custom.
At Anglo Catholic Episcopalian parishes in the USA, people receive on the tongue on in the hand. Some people feel that the laity touching the host with the hand is a denial of the Real Presence, and is to be avoided.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't speak for elsewhere in the world, but in the UK, placing it on the tongue is an exclusively RC custom.
Not so. I know plenty of Anglo Catholics who receive on the tongue.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
If other kings and queens e.g.the Scandinavian
Lutherans, of Denmark,Norway and Sweden and the Catholics of Belgium and Spain,receive communion during public celebrations of the Eucharist then I am wondering why does the Britsh Monarch not do the same ?
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.
What happened?
I know most Novus Ordo clerics dislike when the laity receive on the tongue and/or kneeling. Such reverence has no place in the spirit of Vatican II.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.
What happened?
I know most Novus Ordo clerics dislike when the laity receive on the tongue and/or kneeling. Such reverence has no place in the spirit of Vatican II.
Her Majesty stood and received in the hand, disregarding the wishes of the Pope. Devout and respectful as always, but you can imagine the fuss the Krazies made.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.
What happened?
I know most Novus Ordo clerics dislike when the laity receive on the tongue and/or kneeling. Such reverence has no place in the spirit of Vatican II.
Her Majesty stood and received in the hand, disregarding the wishes of the Pope. Devout and respectful as always, but you can imagine the fuss the Krazies made.
Well, I didn't see that coming! I thought it was standard Novus Ordo procedure to stand and receive in the hand everywhere (since the iconoclasts destroyed the communion rails), and that Francis (or was it Benedict XVI?) would be for that 100%. Of course there are high church parishes (and also wherever the Latin Mass is said) where they always kneel and receive on the tongue, but these places are few and far between.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't speak for elsewhere in the world, but in the UK, placing it on the tongue is an exclusively RC custom.
Not so. I know plenty of Anglo Catholics who receive on the tongue.
Hello, did someone call?
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.
What happened?
I know most Novus Ordo clerics dislike when the laity receive on the tongue and/or kneeling. Such reverence has no place in the spirit of Vatican II.
Her Majesty stood and received in the hand, disregarding the wishes of the Pope. Devout and respectful as always, but you can imagine the fuss the Krazies made.
Well, I didn't see that coming! I thought it was standard Novus Ordo procedure to stand and receive in the hand everywhere (since the iconoclasts destroyed the communion rails), and that Francis (or was it Benedict XVI?) would be for that 100%. Of course there are high church parishes (and also wherever the Latin Mass is said) where they always kneel and receive on the tongue, but these places are few and far between.
I think this must be regional. I always received on the tongue as a kid because it was the simpler of the two methods I was taught. (The other was hands out, left on top, and pick up the host with the right). When I visited Poland, I screwed up all my courage to try what I assumed must be the more "formal" way - i.e. the more complicated way. I was quietly but firmly rebuffed, so I gather that the permission for in the hand does not exist in the Polish episcopal conference.
On the other hand, at a Reformation Sunday service in a German-Canadian Lutheran church last year, I was surprised to see a parishioner receive on the tongue. (We were in a circle around the altar so he was quite visible to me).
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm an LCMS Lutheran and we always received on the tongue at my first church. No doctrinal reason, it was just the thing we did. Now it is more common to receive in the hand, but there are still those who prefer the old way, and IME they are accommodated.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm an LCMS Lutheran and we always received on the tongue at my first church. No doctrinal reason, it was just the thing we did. Now it is more common to receive in the hand, but there are still those who prefer the old way, and IME they are accommodated.
How was the Precious Blood received? Or did people only receive in one kind?
At the Old Catholic church I used to attend, the priest would intinct the Host into the Precious Blood and give communion to the congregation on the tongue. I think this is the best way, since the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
From the chalice or wee cuppies, depending upon custom / preference / occasion and convenience. We do not make a big difference between pastor and people, holding that all are priestly by virtue of their baptism. Difference in function is primarily a matter of good order.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
... the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.
Why not? Sounds rather idolatrous (of the vessels) to me, but perhaps you can provide an explanation which will change my mind.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
... the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.
Why not? Sounds rather idolatrous (of the vessels) to me, but perhaps you can provide an explanation which will change my mind.
I'm with Albertus on this one. The sacred vessels cannot be more holy than the precious body and blood which they contain and which go into our mouths.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
... the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.
Why not? Sounds rather idolatrous (of the vessels) to me, but perhaps you can provide an explanation which will change my mind.
I'm with Albertus on this one. The sacred vessels cannot be more holy than the precious body and blood which they contain and which go into our mouths.
Of course the sacred vessels are not more holy than the Eucharist, but they are still holy.
From The Catechism of the Council of Trent issued by order of Pope Pius V circa 1556:
quote:
The Laity Prohibited To Touch The Sacred Vessels
To safeguard in every possible way the dignity of so august a Sacrament, not only is the power of its administration entrusted exclusively to priests, but the Church has also prohibited by law any but consecrated persons, unless some case of great necessity intervene, to dare handle or touch the sacred vessels, the linen, or other instruments necessary to its completion.
Priests themselves and the rest of the faithful may hence understand how great should be the piety and holiness of those who approach to consecrate, administer or receive the Eucharist.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Nope, not convinced, except to say that I now think that it might be more about hyper-clericalism than idolatry. As Enoch says, I can eat and drink (and, I might add, therefore later excrete and urinate) what is in the communion vessels, but I must not touch the vessels themselves? Cobblers.
BTW does this mean that RC clergy are/ were supposed to do the laundry of the altar linen themselves?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
... BTW does this mean that RC clergy are/ were supposed to do the laundry of the altar linen themselves?
I'm sure they don't/didn't. What are pious ladies for? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Besides, two other things:-
First, is that rule still in force in the RCC? In many places in the RCC now, all receive under both kinds. It is impossible to receive from the cup without one's lips touching it. I believe normal RCC practice is to give the cup to the person receiving, who partakes and then gives it back. There was a discussion about this on the Ship a few months ago which suggested that cupbearer's gripping onto the cup and tipping it, rather than distributing the wine the normal way, is an exclusively Anglo-Catholic practice.
There are other rules in that source which don't still apply.
Second, it's clear from the source that it's a rule not a doctrine. Either way though, even if RC clergy and laity were still supposed to follow it, it's not relevant for other ecclesial communities.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Nope, not convinced, except to say that I now think that it might be more about hyper-clericalism than idolatry. As Enoch says, I can eat and drink (and, I might add, therefore later excrete and urinate) what is in the communion vessels, but I must not touch the vessels themselves? Cobblers.
Once the Holy Eucharist has been digested in our bodies, then it is no longer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW does this mean that RC clergy are/ were supposed to do the laundry of the altar linen themselves?
Priests rinse off the altar linen in the piscina, the water goes down the sacrarium into the earth. Then the altar guild take it away to be laundered.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
....
Besides, two other things:-
First, is that rule still in force in the RCC? In many places in the RCC now, all receive under both kinds. It is impossible to receive from the cup without one's lips touching it. ...
Perhaps that's why the porron was invented ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[qb] Nope, not convinced, except to say that I now think that it might be more about hyper-clericalism than idolatry. As Enoch says, I can eat and drink (and, I might add, therefore later excrete and urinate) what is in the communion vessels, but I must not touch the vessels themselves? Cobblers.
Once the Holy Eucharist has been digested in our bodies, then it is no longer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
/QB]
Are you quite sure about that? I mean, if it becomes in reality the body and blood of Christ, outward appearances to the contrary, then surely any remnants that are expelled from the body after digestion continue to be the blood and body of Christ. Or is there some process of reverse transubstantiation somewhere in the digestive tract?
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
As Max. once memorably said to me, "Jesus does not come out in poo; he just keeps piling up."
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[qb] Nope, not convinced, except to say that I now think that it might be more about hyper-clericalism than idolatry. As Enoch says, I can eat and drink (and, I might add, therefore later excrete and urinate) what is in the communion vessels, but I must not touch the vessels themselves? Cobblers.
Once the Holy Eucharist has been digested in our bodies, then it is no longer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
/QB]
Are you quite sure about that? I mean, if it becomes in reality the body and blood of Christ, outward appearances to the contrary, then surely any remnants that are expelled from the body after digestion continue to be the blood and body of Christ. Or is there some process of reverse transubstantiation somewhere in the digestive tract?
The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Once that appearance has ceased, so does the True Presence.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Besides, two other things:-
First, is that rule still in force in the RCC? In many places in the RCC now, all receive under both kinds. It is impossible to receive from the cup without one's lips touching it. I believe normal RCC practice is to give the cup to the person receiving, who partakes and then gives it back. There was a discussion about this on the Ship a few months ago which suggested that cupbearer's gripping onto the cup and tipping it, rather than distributing the wine the normal way, is an exclusively Anglo-Catholic practice.
There are other rules in that source which don't still apply.
All rules still apply and have never been abrogated. I don't consider anything the Vatican II Church says or does to have any affect on the RCC whatsoever.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, it's clear from the source that it's a rule not a doctrine. Either way though, even if RC clergy and laity were still supposed to follow it, it's not relevant for other ecclesial communities.
Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, it's clear from the source that it's a rule not a doctrine. Either way though, even if RC clergy and laity were still supposed to follow it, it's not relevant for other ecclesial communities.
Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Once that appearance has ceased, so does the True Presence.
So the reality is dependent on the external accidents? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Of course I can see that if you do believe in transubstantiation then you need some sort of get out so that you're not considering yourself to be depositing particles of TMBBABOOLJS into the sewers. Still, seems a bit odd.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
All rules still apply and have never been abrogated. I don't consider anything the Vatican II Church says or does to have any affect on the RCC whatsoever.
If one is an RC, that is untenable. None of the Holy Fathers since Vatican II would agree with you.
quote:
Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.
Why?
Furthermore, that is untenable for anyone who is not an RC. If they really were to believe that, there would be no option but to go and be received immediately.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.
Hardly. At best such things are things we should be aware of, if only to know why we think they're wrong.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
All rules still apply and have never been abrogated. I don't consider anything the Vatican II Church says or does to have any affect on the RCC whatsoever.
If one is an RC, that is untenable. None of the Holy Fathers since Vatican II would agree with you.
That's because there have been no Holy Fathers since Vatican II. There has been an interregnum since Pope Pius XII died in 1958.
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why?
2000 years of tradition is a good reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Furthermore, that is untenable for anyone who is not an RC. If they really were to believe that, there would be no option but to go and be received immediately.
Not everyone believes in the totality of what the RCC teaches.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Now I'm mystified. The present Pope is called Francis. He is the sixth since Pius XII.
The Council of Trent isn't 2,000 years of tradition. It's a snapshot taken in the C16. It made a number of major changes. There have been other changes since. Vatican II made a lot too.
If one believes that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is authoritative, then that has to be because it takes its authority from being issued by the Pope. One cannot go on from there to pick and choose according to one's own private judgement which Papal rulings are binding. It is saying 'I accept the Catechism of the Council of Trent not because it has the papal imprimatur, but because I agree with it'. That's logically fine if one is a Protestant, though it isn't a document most Protestants would rate. But it isn't if one is a Catholic. It is setting oneself up in judgement over the church.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Now I'm mystified. The present Pope is called Francis. He is the sixth since Pius XII.
But sedevacantists would hold that Vatican II was formally heretical, and therefore anyone who accepts it cannot be Pope, whatever rites of inauguration (or coronation) he might have undergone.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Whenever I see little groups like this claiming that they and they alone are the true Church, I'm reminded of the lovely Robb Wilton monologue about the Home Guard:
quote:
She said,"What are you supposed to do?"
I said, "I'm supposed to stop Hitler's army landing."
She said, "What! – you?"
I said, "No – there's Charlie Evans, Dick Roberts...I said, "There's seven or eight of us, altogether."
[ 07. July 2015, 17:22: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
since the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.
The Book of Common Prayer seems to disagree with you.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Ah ... Protestant heresy!
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
I have to say, I go to a fairly self-consciously Anglo-Catholic parish where very many people receive on the tongue, me included. Those same people, however, usually guide the base of the chalice and help tip the wine into their mouths. This isn't so much a gross, mishandling of the vessels as just a natural necessity of drinking from a cup.
Also, it's very difficult to pour the wine into somebody's mouth when he or she isn't helping guide the chalice at all. This greatly increases the chances of spillage, which is a much greater concern to a Catholic than light contact with the chalice.
One might counter and say, "aha! That's precisely why you should receive in one kind only!" My response would be, okay, sure, but the people's reception of the chalice is really a cornerstone of Anglicanism, and we aren't so ultramontane as to do away with it.
Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
I have to say, I go to a fairly self-consciously Anglo-Catholic parish where very many people receive on the tongue, me included. Those same people, however, usually guide the base of the chalice and help tip the wine into their mouths. This isn't so much a gross, mishandling of the vessels as just a natural necessity of drinking from a cup.
Also, it's very difficult to pour the wine into somebody's mouth when he or she isn't helping guide the chalice at all. This greatly increases the chances of spillage, which is a much greater concern to a Catholic than light contact with the chalice.
One might counter and say, "aha! That's precisely why you should receive in one kind only!" My response would be, okay, sure, but the people's reception of the chalice is really a cornerstone of Anglicanism, and we aren't so ultramontane as to do away with it.
I totally agree with everything you said, having communicated the same way at Anglo Catholic parishes in the 80s and 90s. I have only received at traditional Roman Catholic chapels since 2000, where the chalice is never offered to the laity.
I like how the Old Catholics do it, the priest intincting the Host into the Precious Blood and then placing it on the tongue of the communicant.
At any rate, I will be abstaining from receiving Communion for the time being as I visit various AC/RC/Old Catholic chapels in my area.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
HMQ is at all times highly conscious of the sacred nature of her office and seems keen to avoid any instance where her own personal habits/preference might become "the issue".
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
Well I am afraid that I do not share this view on the Queen of the U.K.
I have to conclude that the Queen is quite Low Church.
And as I already said before, I find her attitude unwilling to accept the tradition of the church or cathedral she visiting,during her trips abroad rather arrogant.
She could have learned a lot from the deceased Monarch of Belgium, King Boudewijn/Baudouin. Like her also a member of the House of Saxen Coburg.
He was a devout Catholic,and for him there was only one liturgy on Sunday,the Holy Eucharist.
If this King received communion,wherever he was,why should the British Queen as a devout Anglican not do the same. ?
After all for the Anglicans the Eucharist is also the main service on Sunday,and not Morning Prayer or Choral Mattins.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
For very many Church of England Anglicans of her generation, that is simply not true. The regular main Sunday service would have been choral martins, with communion probably once month.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I repeat my previous question,
quote:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?
That's so for those who are both her subjects and members of the Churches of England, Wales and of Ireland resident in the six counties.
It's unwarrantably intrusive for those who are not her subjects or are not members of those churches. It is doubly so for those who meet neither of those tests.
Is it any of my business whether, when or how, President Obama or Vladimir Putin takes Communion?
[ 16. July 2015, 21:54: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Utrecht Catholic --
To give this a bit more detail. EII is in her late 80s. She is reportedly somewhat conservative in her approach to things (though not, I believe on social issues, which is a different matter). Her mother and sister were certainly on the AC end of the CofE, and I expect she is towards that end if not as extreme as they were (they having the luxury of not always being on show, except on official business, unlike HM).
When she was being raised, most of the CofE did not take communion weekly. Even (and especially) the most Anglo-Catholic Anglicans did not normally communicate at the "main service of the day", but at early said services. The "main service of the day" was usually Morning Prayer -- either simple or very elaborate depending on the resources of the place. In a very few places it might be a very elaborate high mass, at which only the sacred minsters communicated. (and in this, was very like traditional PC practice up to Vatican II).
If she has chosen to continue the practice of her upbringing and make her weekly SUnday communion at an early, said, service, what's that to you? If you are going to criticize an 80+ year old woman for not going against her upbringing and for not changing the habits of a lifetime (shared to this day by many in the CofE, though probably not most), then I'd suggest you undertake a little historical research first, to find out what you're talking about.
John
[ 16. July 2015, 21:55: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
There is a private chapel in Buckingham Palace and may well be at other of the residences. AIUI, HM does in fact attend a Eucharist at the Palace chapel on Sundays when she's in London, and also through the week. John Holding's suspicion as to her place on the candle is correct also. Not at the heights of All Saints Margaret St or some others, but certainly not Holy Trinity Brompton either. However, taking her duty as she sees it, she attends whatever church is on the itinerary - the Cathedral here in Sydney for example.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?
Yes. She is the head of the Church of England and, as such, sets an example to the members of said church. We know how Justin takes it - so why not Elizabeth Windsor?
Restricting herself to private communion removes her from the "communion of saints" gathered at or around the table. If there's no actual choice then fine - commune privately: but, at the last count, there were/are lots of churches where anyone can partake without recourse to privacy.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
But she is also a full member of the CofS.
Jengie
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?
Yes. She is the head of the Church of England and, as such, sets an example to the members of said church. We know how Justin takes it - so why not Elizabeth Windsor?
Restricting herself to private communion removes her from the "communion of saints" gathered at or around the table. If there's no actual choice then fine - commune privately: but, at the last count, there were/are lots of churches where anyone can partake without recourse to privacy.
Restricting herself to non-public-access communion does not at all remove herself from the communion of saints. The saints are there whether or not anyone else happens to be at the rail (and I gather that they normally are, just without cameras on them).
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Quite right, that's absolute rubbish
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I repeat my previous question,
quote:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?
That's so for those who are both her subjects and members of the Churches of England, Wales and of Ireland resident in the six counties.
It's unwarrantably intrusive for those who are not her subjects or are not members of those churches. It is doubly so for those who meet neither of those tests.
Why should members of the Church in Wales or the Church of Ireland care any more than those of the Anglican Church in Canada?
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
They shouldn't, because they'll all disestablished.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
HM is not alone when she does take communion in the private chapel. There are often members of her family there, along with guests. Through the week, Palace staff attend. And as has been noted, there is the communion of saints from times past as well.
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
Without wishing to make any direct comparison to the Bishop of Rome, I would point out that, while he communicates in public when he is on duty, so to speak, he also has a private chapel to which he has recourse during such times as he is not on public display, and celebrates Mass daily as he is mandated to do.
HM has no such mandated duty and her private devotions are just that - private.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The Queen is welcome to attend any Church od Scotland service she wishes and to receive Communion if she wishes.I don't know whether there are any Communion services in Crathie Kirk when the Queen is present.
As to whether she is a full member of the Church of Scotland,I think there is some doubt about that.She cannot be both Episcopalian and Presbyterian at the same time.
The most we can say is that in England she is committed to defending the rights and privileges of the Church of England and is also committed to defending the rights and privileges of the Church of Scotland when in Scotland.
Her own personal beliefs are her own but without considerable mental gymnastics she cannot fully believe in both of the two systems at the same time.
She is encouraged to attend the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,but she is not allowed to take part in it - nor is her Lord High Commissioner.
Of course she can recognise the common Christian commitment of both communities,as indeed I hope she recognises the Christian commitments of other Christian communities within her realms.I am equally sure that she treats with respect the other faith communities in her territory.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
You may be right, although I suspect that some of the more pedantic of your fellow countrymen would point out that Her Majesty is not 'Episcopalian' at all. A member of the Church of England, certainly; but while we have episcopalians south of the Tweed- lots of them- we don't have Episcopalians (unless they are individual visitors). And in Scotland she is certainly not an Episcopalian.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
She is the head of the Church of England then fine - commune privately: but, at the last count, there were/are lots of churches where anyone can partake without recourse to privacy.
No she is not. Jesus is the Head. She is the 'supreme governor'.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Correction - I should have written 'episcopalian' rather than 'Episcopalian'.
Surely members of the CofE are expected to believe that episcopal government is of the 'bene esse' of the Church,if not indeed essential to the government of the Church.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
I'm not sure about the CoS, but in the US, their closest descendents, the Presbyterians, by and large have an Open Table practice, so HM would be welcome to partake.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I am quite willing to be corrected by someone who actually knows rather than is conjecturing, but I've always understood that HMQ is Church of England when in England and Church of Scotland, not Piskie, when in Scotland.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Neither are mutually exclusive within their own frames of reference.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
You are quite right.The Queen does not normally attend Scottish episcopal churches when in Scotland. (Why does she normally attend Episcopalian churches in her other realms ? ) Of course the Queen is always welcome to receive Communion in the Church of Scotland as indeed is,if I am correct ,'anyone who loves the Lord Jesus'.
What I doubt is whether she is a full member of the Church of Scotland.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
Please allow me to remind the readers that the Anglican Church/Church of England and the Episcopal Church,are similar,in full communion with each other.
They are all part of the Anglican Communion.
So,the Queen is expected to receive communion in the Episcopal Church, when she is in Scotland or in the USA,like her late mother used to do.
That she is also Head of the Church of Scotland, has more historical reasons than theological ones.
Because of , serious differences in matters of doctrine,e.g. de Apostolic Ministry, the two national churches are not in communion with each other.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Now the CofE has proceeded to ordain women bishops, yes they are once again full communion.
The doctrinal differences between the CofE & CofS in no way prevent a person being in communion with both, despite the fact that the ecclesial bodies are not.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
The Church of Scotland has not even Bishops,that is why their ministry is not being recognized by the Anglican Communion,Church of England, Scottish Episcopal Church,
So if a Church of Scotland minister would like to become an Anglican/Episcopal priest he has to be re-ordained by a bishop,standing in the Apostolic Succession.
I have to tell the former contributor, in matters of Ecclesiology,there are serious differences between the two national Churches, so no full communion between the two bodies.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by Utrecht Catholic:
That she is also Head of the Church of Scotland, has more historical reasons than theological ones.
No, HMQ is NOT Head of the Church of Scotland. There is no "head" of the Church of Scotland. It's Presbyterian, which, according to their
own website states that " that no one person or group within the Church has more influence or say than any other. The Church does not have one person who acts as the head of faith, as that role is the Lord God's. "
[ 17. July 2015, 19:07: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
However it remains that diplomatic problems have arisen when a monarch of the Kingdoms of the United Kingdom has shown preference in partaking of communion in CofE rather than CofS.
The monarch was Queen Victoria.
Jengie
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The Church of Scotland has not even Bishops,that is why their ministry is not being recognized by the Anglican Communion,Church of England, Scottish Episcopal Church,
So if a Church of Scotland minister would like to become an Anglican/Episcopal priest he has to be re-ordained by a bishop,standing in the Apostolic Succession.
I have to tell the former contributor, in matters of Ecclesiology,there are serious differences between the two national Churches, so no full communion between the two bodies.
Read my response carefully - & welcome to the world of Protestantism.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, the CofE and the CofS are not in communion with each other. The CofE and the SEC are. You may think- is this what you're suggesting?- that once an episcopal church ordains women to the episcopate it is no different from a non-episcopal church, but you'd be wrong. I'm sure that not even all non-episcopal protestant churches are in full communion with each other.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
They are all part of the Anglican Communion.
So,the Queen is expected to receive communion in the Episcopal Church, when she is in Scotland or in the USA,like her late mother used to do.
That's... not even remotely true. In Scotland the Queen is a member of the Church of Scotland. The SEC is not the established church and hasn't been since the Dutch invasion the 17th Century. Who is doing the expecting in your understanding?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And of course the late Queen Mother was (i) not Supreme Governor of anything and (ii) IIRC a cradle Scottish Episcopalian. So her practices are not really relevant here. The current Queen, as Queen regnant rather than consort, is in a quite different position in respect of the CofE and CofS.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, the CofE and the CofS are not in communion with each other. The CofE and the SEC are. You may think- is this what you're suggesting?- that once an episcopal church ordains women to the episcopate it is no different from a non-episcopal church, but you'd be wrong. I'm sure that not even all non-episcopal protestant churches are in full communion with each other.
These denominations are not in communion with each other but individuals may still be in communion with both - because the systems in use are not universally definitive within their frames of reference.
Obviously sections of the Anglican Communion who do not ordain women bishops are out of communion with those who do.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
These denominations are not in communion with each other but individuals may still be in communion with both - because the systems in use are not universally definitive within their frames of reference.
I don't think I have a clue what this means. It is the case that the C of E, C of S and SEC all practice an open table, offering to share the sacrament with any Christian (the precise formula is a little different but the meaning is similar).
quote:
Obviously sections of the Anglican Communion who do not ordain women bishops are out of communion with those who do.
Why is this obvious? It's wrong. TEC has had women bishops since 1989, but C of E hasn't had them until this year. These two churches remained in communion with each other throughout the period 1989-2015. The difficulties between TEC and C of E surround gay bishops, not female ones.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As to whether she is a full member of the Church of Scotland,I think there is some doubt about that.She cannot be both Episcopalian and Presbyterian at the same time.
And yet she is. From royal.gov.uk:
quote:
The Church of England, and the monarch's relation to it, was established through a series of Parliamentary Acts in the 1530s, which brought about the English Reformation.
Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic Church by denying papal claims to ecclesiastical or any other jurisdiction, and by declaring himself rather than the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church in England.
The Sovereign's relationship to the Church of Scotland is different. Since 1707, the British Monarch has been required by the Treaty of Union to preserve the Church of Scotland, Scotland's established Church.
The Queen is therefore not the Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but an ordinary member.
The way I have always heard it explained is that when in England she in Anglican, and when in Scotland she is Presbyterian. Her Majesty's Household in Scotland (Ecclesiastical) is composed of Church of Scotland clergy.
quote:
Her own personal beliefs are her own but without considerable mental gymnastics she cannot fully believe in both of the two systems at the same time.
Unless, of course, she holds the traditional Presbyterian position that the presbyterian form of church government, while Scriptural, is not necessary to the nature of the church but rather is a matter left to the judgment of particular church communities. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
That is okay as far as the Church of Scotland is concerned.
However,if the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, accepts the general Anglican position of the importance ,if not indeed necessity, of episcopal governance and of Apostolic Succession, as Anglicans generally understand this, then she must surely accept that there is something lacking in the Church of Scotland.
Either that or she is not a full Anglican ?
I am glad that the Queen attends Presbyterian worship while in Scotland and acts as if she were a member of the Church of Scotland.
For almost two hundred years the Catholic Kings of Saxony were the 'supreme governors' of the established Lutheran church there and were able to carry out all their functions as regards appointments to church offices etc.
Living in Scotland I am well aware of the relationship between the monarchy and the National Church - namely that the National Church is completely independent of the Crown but that respect is shown mutually one to the other.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
However,if the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, accepts the general Anglican position of the importance ,if not indeed necessity, of episcopal governance and of Apostolic Succession, as Anglicans generally understand this, then she must surely accept that there is something lacking in the Church of Scotland.
The Sovereign is obliged to take certain oaths to defend the true protestant religion and presbyterian government of the church established in Scotland. The propriety of of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England doing this has not (I think) ever been challenged, and at any rate [acting under the advice of her ministers as s/he must] s/he has always done so since 1707.
From this I deduce that it is not essential for a member of the Church of England to hold any stronger position than this: "episcopacy is the form of church government current in the Church of England".
(I have tried to dig out, but failed to do so, a reference to a book by Ian Maclean on the UK/Scotland constitutional question, where he has a section on the apparent contradictions arising from the oaths taken by the monarch in respect of the C of E and the C of S.)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I understand that the Supremem Governor of the Church of England has to be a communicant member of the Church of England.
Is one not obliged to hold certain views if one is a communicant member ?
I can understand that one does not ,per se, need to hold the same views to be the Supreme Governor.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I understand that the Supremem Governor of the Church of England has to be a communicant member of the Church of England.
Is one not obliged to hold certain views if one is a communicant member ?
I can understand that one does not ,per se, need to hold the same views to be the Supreme Governor.
There are two perspectives on this: in the best post-Reformation manner, how one views a range of things will change when one moves from one territory to another which is why (e.g.) a cleric from the church of Hanover or the Minister of Leith could hold preferment from George II there, but would need to be episcopally ordained for a CoE post. The other is that a particular view on episcopacy as essential to Anglicanism is not required as long as one accepts the practice (the old esse, bene esse, plene esse formula).
I think that there be stronger contradiction between the XXXIX and the Westminster catechism, but as assent was only required of ordinands, sovereigns got away with being as elastic as they wished.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Thank you,Augustine,for that clear exposition.
To me it begs a question about the position of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
If the position of the Church of England/(Anglican ?) is that episcopacy is only of the 'bene esse',why should the Scottish Episcopal Church have/be a separate organisation from the National Church of Scotland ?
Or does the Scottish Episcopal Church have a different view of episcopacy from that of the Church of England,with which it is in full communion ?
I accept that these differences are usually just ignored. I go back to my original doubt about 'full' membership on a personal belief basis.
It may be once again a case of talking beyond each other. As a Catholic I perhaps have a different understanding of what 'full' membership means.
The Queen's personal beliefs and personal religious practices are hers and hers alone.
I am simply pleased that she associates with the Christian community in Scotland.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Forthview, perhaps a member of the Kirk can answer your question about "full membership" better, but I can speak from the perspective of an American Presbyterian, so a member of the "daughter" church.
There is no requirement in Presbyterianism that one is expected to believe everything that the church teaches. All that is strictly required for membership is to confess the Jesus is Lord. Someone joining a Presbyterian church, at least here, would be expected to make such a confession in a Trinitarian context ("Believing in one God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—do you confess that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and will you be his disciple?" or words to that effect) and to promise to participate in the worship and work of the church.
The ordained, on the other hand, are expected to subscribe, in some fashion, to the teachings of the church as expressed in its confessions.
[ 18. July 2015, 12:36: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Forthview I think you're looking at how Protestants think, as though they were Catholics, and then adjudging them mistaken because they are not 'thinking with the church' in the way you or another good Catholic would. Like it or not, that just isn't how most of us approach these things.
I'm not Scottish, but my impression is that just as the Baptists and URC in England derive from divisions in the C17, so in Scotland, the Piskies derive from Charles I's failed attempt to introduce the English prayer book in Scotland in 1637.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
It is a well known fact that Soottish Episcopal Church is rather High Church and its Eucharistic Liturgy,as contained in its Prayer Books of 1637,1929, has always been richer and far more catholic than the 1662 BCP.
Furthermore,it has never had all those problems on vestments as the Church of England had in the past.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
However,if the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, accepts the general Anglican position of the importance ,if not indeed necessity, of episcopal governance and of Apostolic Succession, as Anglicans generally understand this, then she must surely accept that there is something lacking in the Church of Scotland.
I think this overstates what the BCP 1662 (still the official doctrinal standard for the Church of England) has to say about the threefold order of ministry and episcopacy. It argues that the threefold order is ancient and deserves respect, and that, therefore, the ordering of deacons and priests and the consecration of bishops requires proper discernment and preparation, and an appropriate liturgical form. It doesn't, however, go beyond that to assert any kind of exclusive validity of that order.
The 39 Articles (principally Arts 19-26) have a fair amount to say about the church and its ministers, but are agnostic as to ecclesial polity. Their fundamental definition of the Church is in Article 19 quote:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Forthview asks: quote:
If the position of the Church of England/(Anglican ?) is that episcopacy is only of the 'bene esse',why should the Scottish Episcopal Church have/be a separate organisation from the National Church of Scotland ?
Well, it didn't used to, but doubtless one of our Kirk shipmates will be along to point out the difficult history of that period.
But as BroJames points out, the exact position of the CoE has some ambiguity/room for interpretation built in. Anglicans can hold (and do) various positions on whether or not the esse (essential being), bene esse (for the well functioning) or plene esse (for the fulness of the apostolic heritage). Mind you, when a certain senior clerical acquaintance was told that bishops were there for the health and well being of the church, he responded that he knew too many bishops to believe that. And Her Majesty likely knows more bishops than almost any shipmate.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
It has become clear to me, that most contributors hardly know the Scottish Episcopal Church, which has been strongly influenced by the Tractarians in the 19th century.
It stands for a Catholicism of the the Undivided Church, just like the Continental Old-Catholics.
So, the differences with the Church of Scotland,are not only about the Government of the Church.
I remember 1960,when its Bishops decided not to take part in the 400th Anniversary of the Reformation in Scotland,as they said we have a different vision on the Reformation.
I do not think that the C.of S.was pleased with this decision.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The reformed Church of Scotland was greatly influenced by the teachings of Calvin and early on developed the idea that the king,while supreme in earthly governance,had no special place in the Church.
At the same time the bishops, mainly as statesmen and supporters of the monarch were retained with seats in the Scottish parliament and the pensions/apanages which the pre Reformation bishops had enjoyed. With the departure of the kings to England in 1603 they were only with great difficulty able to 'control' the Scottish church. Again due to the absence of the king the Presbyterians were more able to guide the Church along the lines which they wanted.
The Stuart kings tried to enforce the use of the Prayer book of Charles I which led to a riot in St Giles' and to the signing of the National Covenant and eventually the English Civil War.
The return to power of the Stuarts in 1660 brought enforced episcopacy to Scotland and the 'killing times' between supporters of episcopacy and Presbyterianism.
The Glorious Revolution and the Scottish settlement in its wake brought the expulsion of supporters of episcopacy from the parish churches and manses as well as the penal laws which severely limited the celebration of Episcopalian services.
Since then the Church of Scotland has been 100% Presbyterian and we had the creation of a separate Episcopal Church of Scotland which claims to be the succession to the pre Reformation church in Scotland.
This community may (or may not) value episcopacy more highly than the Church of England which, I am told, only sees episcopal governance of the Church as the form which is current in the Church of England.This is something new which I learned.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
This community may (or may not) value episcopacy more highly than the Church of England which, I am told, only sees episcopal governance of the Church as the form which is current in the Church of England.This is something new which I learned.
That's highly debatable. The difficulty within the Church of England is that it was conceived as the church for all the people of England, and so aims to include as many as possible. In terms of polity, that means including those who think Episcopal polity is the only way to govern a church (otherwise it's not a church, doesn't have valid sacraments etc.), those who think that Episcopal polity is preferable but not essential, those who are indifferent, and those who would prefer something else but put up with Episcopal polity for the sake of unity. Those who couldn't put up with it left/were expelled in the 17th century. Which of those 4 represents the broadest view in the Church of England is open to question. I fall somewhere between the first two, which is why I am an Episcopalian now I live in Scotland. Plenty of others, particularly on the evangelical wing of the church, would fall into the latter category. The Scottish Episcopal Church is made up of the former two for the most part, because the latter two are generally part of the Church of Scotland.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And I think that it is perfectly possible for committed member of the CofE to say 'it is for each nation to decide how its church is best ordered: we are episcopal but we pass no judgement on other nations who have chosen to order their church otherwise'. That would be rather Low Church and I don't know whether or not that is the view that Her Majesty holds, but I think it is a possible one within the range of CofE ecclesiology.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
Indeed, I think that was the basic position of the English Reformers (who would certainly be considered "low church" today!) on continental Protestantism - just as Calvin didn't rule out episcopacy. (In the Unitarianism thread in Purg, I noted the Episcopal Reformed churches - both Calvinist and Unitarian - in Hungary). [pdf]
[ 18. July 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by Utrecht Catholic:
It is a well known fact that Soottish Episcopal Church is rather High Church and its Eucharistic Liturgy,as contained in its Prayer Books of 1637,1929, has always been richer and far more catholic than the 1662 BCP.
Furthermore,it has never had all those problems on vestments as the Church of England had in the past.
Some Scottish Episcopal churches are "rather High Church", some are very definitely not. Within walking distance of my home, I can certainly attend a rather High Church Eucharist. I can also attend another Episcopal Church where they are very definitely NOT high church. They don't do robes and they don't really do much beyond what the rubrics say thou shalt do. The occasion I attended a communion service there, not only did they not do robes, the celebrant was in mufti and there was absolutely nothing to tell a visitor he was the priest. And their main Sunday morning service is not a Communion every week - it alternates week on week morning to evening.
And most Episcopal churches are probably somewhere between the two.
How each church uses the liturgies available to it varies too (which don't include 1637 or 1929, though there is an updated and adapted translation of the 1929 Eucharistic prayer which is a very recently permitted variation within the 1982 liturgy). The High Church I mentioned above makes the most Catholic use possible of the liturgy, as you might expect. Most of other Episcopal Churches in which I've worshipped do it by the book, with a range of what you might call churchmanship and wearing (or not) of vestments.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I think the general ethos of the SEC tends to be more 'catholic' than the C of E as a whole. Certainly an evangelical clergyperson I know who ministered in Scotland saw himself as very much in a minority (though not uncomfortably so I think).
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
I'm sorry I didn't see this thread before it got so complicated! If I am repeating anyone else's point, I apologise. But to clarify a few things from the C of S perspective:
The Queen is most definitely a full member of the Church of Scotland - no 'acting' involved. She is not merely 'welcome' to receive communion, but is expected and entitled to, as are all members. She is not 'expected' to receive communion in the Scottish Episcopal Church in any kind of similar fashion, although no doubt she would if the occasion arose. When in Scotland, the Queen mostly attends her parish Church: Canongate Kirk in Edinburgh when she stays at Holyrood, and Crathie Kirk when she stays at Balmoral. I know of no Episcopal Church which she attends regularly.
As others have correctly stated, the Queen is not head of the Church of Scotland, that being the role of Christ alone. Nor is she any kind of supreme governor. She is a member only, like the rest of us. She attends the General Assembly in her role as Head of State. The Church of Scotland, while disestablished, is nevertheless the National Church, and mutual promises have been made back in the mists of time for the monarch and the Kirk to uphold one another. The Queen addresses the Assembly at the Assembly's invitation, but she has no ecclesial authority, and she does not take part in its decision-making, any more than the Kirk takes part in the government, having no seats in the House of Lords.
So the Queen is indeed both Anglican and Presbyterian at the same time - or at least successively, depending which country she is in! There are actually a few others around the world who share this distinction. I personally know a minister who is (somewhat controversially) ordained into both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, according to some special arrangement! And someone else might be able to comment on arrangements in South India.
The Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion with, but it is otherwise entirely independent of the Church of England. When Henry VIII was doing his thing in England, Scotland was still an independent country. It remained a Roman Catholic country until 1560 - a generation longer than England. After the Reformation in Scotland, it took another century before the Church of Scotland settled on a Presbyterian governance, and for a time it swithered back and forth between bishops and no-bishops before plumping firmly for no-bishops in the 1689 settlement. Indeed, neither Calvin nor Knox were opposed to bishops as such, at least for practical administrative purposes. So both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland are the direct products of the 1560 Reformation, and have pretty much equal claims to continuity with the pre-Reformation church. But the Scottish Episcopal Church is no kind of 'daughter' of the Church of England.
Lastly, while the churches are not in full communion, Anglicans and Episcopalians are allowed to take communion in the Church of Scotland according to memorialist theology. I am not fully confident about this, and would appreciate correction from others who know, but as I understand it, Anglicans and Episcopalians can partake in The Lord's Supper in the Church of Scotland, but should not understand themselves as consuming the Body and Blood along transubstantiation/consubstantiation lines. So an Anglican or Episcopalian can in good conscience partake in a Church of Scotland communion, but a Church of Scotland minister cannot preside at an Anglican or Episcopalian Holy Communion. That might be one way the Queen resolves this for herself as well.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
The Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion with, but it is otherwise entirely independent of the Church of England. When Henry VIII was doing his thing in England, Scotland was still an independent country. It remained a Roman Catholic country until 1560 - a generation longer than England. After the Reformation in Scotland, it took another century before the Church of Scotland settled on a Presbyterian governance, and for a time it swithered back and forth between bishops and no-bishops before plumping firmly for no-bishops in the 1689 settlement. Indeed, neither Calvin nor Knox were opposed to bishops as such, at least for practical administrative purposes. So both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland are the direct products of the 1560 Reformation, and have pretty much equal claims to continuity with the pre-Reformation church. But the Scottish Episcopal Church is no kind of 'daughter' of the Church of England.
I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but I've always understood that the Scottish Episcopal Church was actually a direct descendent of the American Episcopal Church
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
The Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion with, but it is otherwise entirely independent of the Church of England. When Henry VIII was doing his thing in England, Scotland was still an independent country. It remained a Roman Catholic country until 1560 - a generation longer than England. After the Reformation in Scotland, it took another century before the Church of Scotland settled on a Presbyterian governance, and for a time it swithered back and forth between bishops and no-bishops before plumping firmly for no-bishops in the 1689 settlement. Indeed, neither Calvin nor Knox were opposed to bishops as such, at least for practical administrative purposes. So both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland are the direct products of the 1560 Reformation, and have pretty much equal claims to continuity with the pre-Reformation church. But the Scottish Episcopal Church is no kind of 'daughter' of the Church of England.
I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but I've always understood that the Scottish Episcopal Church was actually a direct descendent of the American Episcopal Church
I think you could make a case for it being the other way around actually. Quite apart from anything else, the SEC has been around since 1712.
There have certainly been strong Scottish links with TEC (particularly in its formative years) thanks to the non-jurors doing a couple of the ealry consecrations because the CofE wouldn't, but it would (I think - like Spike I'm more than happy and indeed would like to be corrected) be a stretch to say the SEC was a descendent of an organisation it predates!
The first bishop was consecrated for America in 1784, and the first *in* America in 1792 - so the SEC had been kicking around for a couple of generations by then.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
The Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion with, but it is otherwise entirely independent of the Church of England. When Henry VIII was doing his thing in England, Scotland was still an independent country. It remained a Roman Catholic country until 1560 - a generation longer than England. After the Reformation in Scotland, it took another century before the Church of Scotland settled on a Presbyterian governance, and for a time it swithered back and forth between bishops and no-bishops before plumping firmly for no-bishops in the 1689 settlement. Indeed, neither Calvin nor Knox were opposed to bishops as such, at least for practical administrative purposes. So both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland are the direct products of the 1560 Reformation, and have pretty much equal claims to continuity with the pre-Reformation church. But the Scottish Episcopal Church is no kind of 'daughter' of the Church of England.
I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but I've always understood that the Scottish Episcopal Church was actually a direct descendent of the American Episcopal Church
I think you could make a case for it being the other way around actually. Quite apart from anything else, the SEC has been around since well before its incorporation in 1712.
There have certainly been strong Scottish links with TEC (particularly in its formative years) thanks to the non-jurors doing a couple of the ealry consecrations because the CofE wouldn't, but it would (I think - like Spike I'm more than happy and indeed would like to be corrected) be a stretch to say the SEC was a descendent of an organisation it predates!
The first bishop was consecrated for America in 1784, and the first *in* America in 1792 - so the SEC had been kicking around for a couple of generations by then.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Probably more accurate to say that the C of E bishops could not consecrate anyone from the US, rather than would not. Their own oaths forbade their consecrating someone who would not take an oath of loyalty to the monarch - something Bp Seabury was not about to do. Accordingly, he took himself off to Scotland where SEC bishops were not bound the same way, and they consecrated him.
AIUI, the then Abps of Canterbury and York would have been very happy to consecrate Bp Seabury had they been able to do so. Several of he Bps would have also been happy to join in.
An aside - the flag of TEC includes a cross of St Andrew - this is a deliberate remembering and recognition of the support the SEC gave to the fledgling PECUSA.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
For American colonists George III refused to allow the consecration of a bishop outwith English territory.
American advocates of episcopacy Samuel Seabury to Scotland where he received episcopal consecration at the hands of three bishops of the Episcopal church in Scotland. The consecration took place in Aberdeen.
There is a very nice window in Old St Paul's episcopal church in Edinburgh, where Seabury at earlier worshipped,showing the consecration.
It is anachronistic as the prelates are shown in full Catholic vestments which would not have been
the case on the day.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Whether it was George III or (as I would have tthought more likely) the actual law of the land that forbade the consecration by CofE bishops of a bishop who would not or could not take the oath of allegiance, within quite a short time the law or practice was changed and American bishops were being consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact William White, the first Presiding Bishop, who was consecrated in 1787 (four years after Seabury) was one such.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
St Andrews Cathedral, Aberdeen has very close links with the Episcopalian church in America; it has crests of (AFAIK) all the American states incorporated into its ceiling. Within the church is an American flag, presented by General Eisenhower and I have seen red, white and blue floral displays in honour of the American connection.
I have posted photos of some of the state crests on the Ship FB page; if any American shipmate would like a specific photo of their state crest within the church, just pm me.
I have never worshipped there, but have attended lunchtime concerts.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Interesting archive footage (1938) from St Andrew's Cathedral
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Whether it was George III or (as I would have tthought more likely) the actual law of the land that forbade the consecration by CofE bishops of a bishop who would not or could not take the oath of allegiance, within quite a short time the law or practice was changed and American bishops were being consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact William White, the first Presiding Bishop, who was consecrated in 1787 (four years after Seabury) was one such.
It was the law of the land, and the archbishops were warned by the law officers that it might have opened up to them the prospects of treason charges, and few bishops were interested in going to the stake for TEC (the penalties as exacted on Mel Gibson in Braveheart were still available), however well-disposed they might be. The delightfully-named Ordination of Aliens Act 1784 (24 Geo 3, c.35 as well as the Act of 1786 (26 Geo 3, c.84) were brought in to permit the consecration of Bishop White.
While these were (for the time) speedily implemented collateral measures to the Treaty of Paris recognizing the independence of the colognies, the uncertainty and dynamics of ecclesiastical events in the 13 breakaway colonies of the 17 had moved things along before then. I gather that Seabury had understood from senior CoE types that they had no objection to him obtaining consecration in Scotland, and so off he went.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
These historical diversions are all very well, but I think we are drifting from the question of public communion (which I think is best kept as a general questions, rather than making it about anyone in particular, even a public figure).
Many thanks!
di_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
As I recall the only condition the Scottish Bishops laid on Seabury was that he push for the use of the Scottish prayer book, in particular the Scottish communion office, and he duly returned with a stack of them for use in the US.
EDIT: apologies, crossposted with host text.
[ 19. July 2015, 12:42: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Looking again at the OP - the eucharist is historically one of the most controversial things in the CofE. It's potentially exclusive/division-making & so largely avoided at official ceremonies - whether you're talking Royal Family, Government, the military, or whatever.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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".
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
It looks like Her Majesty attended and received Holy Communion at Westminster Abbey yesterday at the Synod service.
Details here, including order of service:
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/2015/november/hm-the-queen-and-hrh-the-duke-of-edinburgh-attend-synod-service
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
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!
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Why jarring?
I.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
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.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
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?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
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.
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on
:
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?!
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Albert Ross (# 3241) on
:
Re the coat of arms. See here Complete Guide to Heraldry (Fox Davies) the similar blazons for ABs Canterbury, Armagh and Dublin.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is impossible to receive from the cup without one's lips touching it.
I'm sure this could be overcome
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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...
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.")
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
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
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
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.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0