The Coronation and Christianity

[Comfreyandstingingnettles]

Putting this here instead of under Royal Family section because I was hoping for a particular religious perspective or explanation please?

If you are C of E, I would be particularly interested in your views.

Personally I found the ceremony today problematic from two positions:

1. the anointing of kings aspect but I obviously understand the historical reasons behind this and also the principle of an established religion

1. the anachronistic nature of serving the poor and disenfranchised from a position of great wealth and power.

I should say too that as a Catholic I noted the words "protestant succession" in the ceremony

In fairness, the Creed is only usually recited on Sundays and solemnities (the highest rank of celebration, I don't know what it's called in Anglicanism but I know the same rule applies as in the RC, I think they might be called 'major feasts'). There were some who felt that the Coronation amounted to a solemnity, but as it's a singular event it doesn't have an official rank in the table of church feast days. You wouldn't have the Creed, for example, at a wedding or a funeral, even a state funeral, so there's a reasonable case for saying that it's not an integral part of a coronation either.

You wouldn't have the Creed, for example, at a wedding or a funeral, even a state funeral, so there's a reasonable case for saying that it's not an integral part of a coronation either.

Because neither of those contain a eucharist. It's an intrinsic part of the eucharist and (as far as I can tell) has always been part of the coronation because it's the statement of faith which the new monarch is supposedly the defender.

I struggle to see why anyone interested in the Christian aspect of the service would cut the creed- even cutting the eucharist makes more (theological) sense to me.

Apologies, I meant you wouldn't have the Creed at a nuptial Mass or funeral Mass. I was assuming that both of those services were Eucharists. Of course, many people have them without a holy communion service. But if you have a Eucharist, you only get the Creed on Sundays and major feasts. Go to a normal weekday Eucharist in the Anglican or Catholic churches, or any of the in-betweeny days that aren't a major feast or Sunday, and you won't get the Creed recited.

A Catholic Reqium mass has the Eucharist Prayer. ( and Holy Communion ) But not the Creed.
Only Sundays and Holy Days have the Creed

Everyone reciting “ I believe in one God, the Father of the Almighty “ etc etc. Would, I think, be a little odd at the Coronation.

Should have said a Reqium mass is a funeral….
Also Catholic weddings ( if the couple want to ) also have the Eucharist but not the creed.

I thought this as I watched it.
I also thought Charles looked profoundly uncomfortable at times.
I wonder if he has made his peace with God?
I like the term 'religious cosplay'.
I thought Welby did a decent enough job, though I did wonder if Charles' famous temper might snap when he tried to screw the Crown onto his head.
I was disappointed to hear that Charles complained of 'being bored'.
I appreciate that it was a stressful day, & that many families might say: 'can we never be on time' etc but a 70+ year old complaining of being bored for having to wait all of 5 mins to become anointed by God to be King of the UK & Commonwealth didn't sit well with me. I wonder how small-c christian he really is?

I’ve found the reaction to the ritual extremely interesting. I think so many are totally detached from the value of ritual and understanding symbolism that they feel very uncomfortable with it when presented with it. I think what people don’t understand they seek to undermine it.

it was so important that at least the important parts of the ritual
were carried on in the same manner as with previous monarchs. The rituals are part of the continuity of the office of monarch, the same thing happening over and over again keeps the office of monarch alive. The coronation of Charles merges the (theoretically) eternal office of monarch and all the power from earthly means and god of the office with the person who is monarch at this time (Charles).

There was so much symbolism with so much meaning it was beautiful. Charles looked nervous, he was participating in something which carried the weight and power of centuries or even millennia.

I loved the fact that the anointing was hidden, in these days where we think we have access and rights over everything, it reminded us that the ultimate spiritual moment was between king and God,

The bits referring to the Protestant religion were again important, where there had been so much turbulence going back and forth between Protestant and Catholic monarchs and the deaths and turmoil that resulted in. Declaring allegiance to the Protestant faith is as much about promising things should be kept stable - other faiths were mentioned and embraced.

there’s a preoccupation these days with forgetting tradition and demanding change it creates instability, It doesn’t mean things can’t change but change should be slow and considered and not just done for its own sake.

I know some don’t agree but the above is my take on it.

People understand ritual perfectly well

But unfortunately for Charles and Camilla the general public know far too much about them

Just the week before someone reiterated how Camilla used to leave her underwear for Diana to find

It's jarring

And why was Charles hidden and Camilla anointed in public ?

@OMG12 Yes, I agree with you

I'd always assumed that when the CoE talks about the catholic church, it meant catholic with a small C, rather than "The Catholic Church", with capital letters - am I wrong then?

I also think it's important to understand that Charles was being celebrated as head of the CoE as part of the coronation - specifically the CoE, and not of all protestant churches (of which there are many). It was CoE ceremony, not a protestant ceremony.

And I think it is possible to be the "defender of all faiths", even whilst being a member of (and head of) only one of them.

How peculiar! On one hand you are claiming the public perfectly understand ritual then you have difficulty understanding a very simple aspect of it.

Re the rights and wrongs of their personal lives it’s completely irrelevant within the system of monarchy they are not running for election. They occupy an office they are born or married into.

Thank you for these insights OMG12! As someone who attended Latin Mass from the age of about three, I like to think I am pretty well versed in ritual 😀. I think it is the theoretical point some of us are struggling with but that’s a very interesting take on the reasons behind the private anointing, thank you.

Yes I take your point about C of E v Protestantism as a whole KnickerlessParsons

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254247/a-guide-to-the-christian-and-catholic-symbolism-in-king-charles-iii-s-coronation

this might help fill some of the gaps.

Probably because it was written when the Church of England was THE official Protestant religion in England with others being seen as dissenters/non conformists I guess

So the Archbishop had to appeal to the Catholic Church for suitable robes for the ceremony ?

Really? Is the COE that hard up?
Charles doesn't put a fat envelope their way every so often ?

Actually not one but 10 matching vestments were borrowed from the Catholic Church for the COE clergy to wear

How strange that they don't have their own

I was wondering why the anointing. If the Kimg is considered more holy than the anointing of a priest, or bishop. It's the same oil. And as we are all anointed priest, prophet and king at our own baptisms. Why this needed to be shielded from view.

Well the service was obviously recognisable as what I assumed to be a high Anglican mass (this article has been written a certain way).

I would argue that it was only recognisable as a Catholic ceremony in as much as every high Anglican mass is based on the Catholic mass ifyswim and it was a shame therefore that few of the commentators seemed to
be well versed on the Catholic aspects specific to the Coronation with a capital C!

I also clocked Vincent Nichols but thought he was relegated to “bidding prayer status”.

However, pondering this, I had previously read about the Pope’s present and had subsequently forgotten about it so that was obviously a strong (perhaps surprisingly so?) signal of approval from the RCs.

@Novella4 Just the week before someone reiterated how Camilla used to leave her underwear for Diana to find

That's gross, who said that ??

Not only gross, but it sounds quite improbable: surely they have plenty of staff who would tidy away any stray underwear long before a princess got to it!

I really enjoyed the service and the singing. I noticed that ++Justin was concentrating very hard at Holy Communion as it was the traditional form that we don't use that often anymore. It is really easy to slip into more familiar words and mess up. He didn't.

The C of E is a bit of an odd place. We are a reformed church which explains the words at the beginning of the service about maintaining the Protestant faith but for historical reasons we kept bishops, cathedrals and choirs which some of our continental neighbours didn't. We then had the Oxford Church movement in the 19th century which brought back some of the Roman Catholic elements. We are however a very different church and those traditional male Anglo Catholic clergy who love all the ritual and vestments, incense don't all rush off to Rome with the requirement for celibacy and a very different ecclesiology. No looking for a next job in the Church Times if you are RC. You largely go where you are sent and the parishes are huge.

I liked the copes. I think I'm in a minority but they didn't fight for attention with everything else.

I find the whole idea of religion having any role in public life ludicrous. But if we're going to have a king at all it's quite fun to leap through anachronistic hoops. Adds to the gaiety of nations, I suppose.