Ecclesiantics 2023: Coronation Liturgy Thread

stonespringstonespring Shipmate
edited January 8 in Limbo
As a non-subject of any of the realms that have Charles III as sovereign, my main interest in the Coronation is in liturgy (mostly in the service in the abbey, but I suppose the processions to and from it constitute liturgy as well).

The Coronation thread that has moved to Purgatory is largely focused on the politics of Coronations and Monarchy, as well as local celebrations of the Coronation, so I thought maybe there should be an Ecclesiantics thread focused on the liturgy of the Coronation.

Here is a link the the liturgy that was used for Elizabeth II’s Coronation:

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

I don’t think the service sheet for Charles III’s Coronation is available
yet. How do shipmates think the liturgy will be different?

I already have read that peers will not be allowed to wear coronation robes or coronets, only the Prince of Wales will perform homage to his father rather than lots nobles (does this mean even the Queen will not?), and I have also read that the King may not wear breeches and stockings but may rather wear the formal military dress he wore to his mother’s funeral. We also know problematic ingredients such as musk from sea mammals are not part of the anointing oil this time.

How do people think the prayers and other religious aspects of the liturgy might be different?
«1345

Comments

  • edited April 2023
    Hopefully it will all be in modern english that an be easily understood with the broadcasters providing translations for the TV watchers

    It would also be helpful if the various bits were explained - ie why they are doing this. If unexplainable then cut it out and keep it short.

    As to what Charles wears - some sort of suit befitting the occasion like at a wedding? Please spare us though from clergy who will be turning out the dressing up box. Get over its not about you.
  • I read somewhere that Charles might wear some sort of military dress, as he did at the Queen's funeral. The clergy will doubtless be sporting copes of varying stages of hideousness...

    As to the actual wording of the service, I wonder if They'll use the Tudor English of the Prayer Book (outdated even in 1662...)?
    :grimace:
  • I read somewhere that Charles might wear some sort of military dress, as he did at the Queen's funeral. The clergy will doubtless be sporting copes of varying stages of hideousness...
    Don't they just love dressing up and drawing attention to themselves?

  • I expect the clergy will wear the set made for the 1953 coronation.
    Charles has said he's minded to wear military uniform but, bearing in mind the requirement for him to bare his throat/chest, the traditional shirt with either trousers or breeches might be more practical.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I expect the clergy will wear the set made for the 1953 coronation.
    Charles has said he's minded to wear military uniform but, bearing in mind the requirement for him to bare his throat/chest, the traditional shirt with either trousers or breeches might be more practical.

    Which is where the processional Corpus Christi canopy from Arundel RC cathedral will no doubt be brought into use again to preserve modedty. And their big six apparently for QE II.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I read somewhere that Charles might wear some sort of military dress, as he did at the Queen's funeral. The clergy will doubtless be sporting copes of varying stages of hideousness...
    Don't they just love dressing up and drawing attention to themselves?

    An interesting comment on a liturgy forum where raiding grandma's lace box isn't exactly unheard of.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Yes, but in English Baptist churches (which I believe to be Exclamation Mark’s tradition) any kind of formal robes have been a rarity for at least the last half century.

    Indeed, in the Baptist Church of my teens I recall a church meeting discussion about whether it was right for the church to be “decorated” with a plain wooden cross on the wall. The minister didn’t usually wear a clerical collar either, unless (e.g. for hospital visiting) it was helpful in enabling him to be identified as a minister.
  • It's largely a C of E liturgy (whatever final form it takes), so it's not entirely unreasonable for the clergy to robe in the traditional style.

    That said, I'm not a great fan of copes (they can be awkward and uncomfortable to wear), but it's quite possible for them to be relatively simple as regards adornment.

    There's some information on the Westminster Abbey website:

    https://www.westminster-abbey.org/about-the-abbey/history/vestments-and-frontals
  • Right, because the only possible reason he might have for wearing a uniform is to draw attention to himself. At an event where he is by definition already the center of attention.

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Hopefully it will all be in modern english that an be easily understood with the broadcasters providing translations for the TV watchers

    It would also be helpful if the various bits were explained - ie why they are doing this. If unexplainable then cut it out and keep it short.

    As to what Charles wears - some sort of suit befitting the occasion like at a wedding? Please spare us though from clergy who will be turning out the dressing up box. Get over its not about you.

    The whole point of vestments is that they are symbolic of equality - regardless of a member of the clergy's background or income, they are all equally clergy. Whereas wealthy megachurches that shun vestments are notorious for having pastors show up wearing very expensive sneakers/trainers and Rolex watches. Look at the plank in your own eye first.

    In any case, if someone wears a nice suit or dress to a wedding do you accuse them of trying to make it about them? Of course not, it's just a mark of respect for the importance of the occasion. It's the same here with vestments - everyone knows that the one with the crown is the central figure at a coronation, it's in the name.

    Furthermore, vestments usually belong to churches and not to clergy anyway. This is why even clergy from very humble backgrounds have vestments.
  • I read somewhere that Charles might wear some sort of military dress, as he did at the Queen's funeral. The clergy will doubtless be sporting copes of varying stages of hideousness...

    As to the actual wording of the service, I wonder if They'll use the Tudor English of the Prayer Book (outdated even in 1662...)?
    :grimace:

    Does anyone else (although I’m no Brit or monarchist) think that making military dress the official thing for the sovereign to wear at the religious ceremony blessing his reign is an unwelcome intrusion of militarism into both the civil aspects of monarchy and into the established church? I know the King already wore military dress, as is customary, to his mother’s funeral. But his coronation is another matter.
  • I agree, actually.

    A fairly recent accession - that of Willem-Alexander, of The Netherlands - broke with tradition. For the ceremony, the King chose to don, underneath the royal mantle, evening dress as opposed to a military uniform.

    No doubt there are those who would see The End Times™ as imminent if any break with tradition should be made here...
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    I expect the clergy will wear the set made for the 1953 coronation.
    Charles has said he's minded to wear military uniform but, bearing in mind the requirement for him to bare his throat/chest, the traditional shirt with either trousers or breeches might be more practical.

    Which is where the processional Corpus Christi canopy from Arundel RC cathedral will no doubt be brought into use again to preserve modedty. And their big six apparently for QE II.

    And it's a Protestant ceremony affirming the 39 articles?
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Hopefully it will all be in modern english that an be easily understood with the broadcasters providing translations for the TV watchers

    It would also be helpful if the various bits were explained - ie why they are doing this. If unexplainable then cut it out and keep it short.

    As to what Charles wears - some sort of suit befitting the occasion like at a wedding? Please spare us though from clergy who will be turning out the dressing up box. Get over its not about you.

    1. The whole point of vestments is that they are symbolic of equality - regardless of a member of the clergy's background or income, they are all equally clergy. Whereas wealthy megachurches that shun vestments are notorious for having pastors show up wearing very expensive sneakers/trainers and Rolex watches. Look at the plank in your own eye first.

    2. In any case, if someone wears a nice suit or dress to a wedding do you accuse them of trying to make it about them? Of course not, it's just a mark of respect for the importance of the occasion. It's the same here with vestments - everyone knows that the one with the crown is the central figure at a coronation, it's in the name.

    Furthermore, vestments usually belong to churches and not to clergy anyway. This is why even clergy from very humble backgrounds have vestments.

    1. That equality is long past. That mode of dress is long gone. Besides which there are grades of vestment depending on "status" - Welby will be vested differently from a Deacon. That knocks your point out I'm afraid.

    Try being a clergy member from another denomination in any public ceremony and see then how you are treated. Smartly dressed gets all sorts of so called jokes from the vestmented majority.

    I agree with the concern about megachurches. I have nothing to do with them anyway. This isn't my plank but what is is not the topic of this conversation..

    The best clergy IMHO are those, who on the public stage, call us to God and the event not to themselves. They aren't the ones standing on the steps after the event for a photo call with the posh guests but tend to be the ones helping the wheeler chair users, elderly ad the vulnerable. They don't need to be centre stage.

    2. No I don't but there is an increasing concern that a wedding is no longer a religious event (if ever it was) but a fashion parade where the church takes last place. There's dressing for respect and dressing to impress: it can be very hard to draw the line.

    This is a great corrective to those who are more impressed by dress than anything: I remember my dad reciting it from my childhood when kids and teachers (yes, them too) laughed because we couldn't afford the whole uniform at once

    https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/9506262/Stanley+Holloway/Brahn+Boots

    To this day I have one smart suit and a couple of ties. One pair of good shoes. Just enough shirts and other stuff. The rest is normal wear that goes in a cycle - smart: home: garden: rags to charity (sadly its always worn out so not suitable for others to wear after me).



  • BroJames wrote: »
    Yes, but in English Baptist churches (which I believe to be Exclamation Mark’s tradition) any kind of formal robes have been a rarity for at least the last half century.

    Indeed, in the Baptist Church of my teens I recall a church meeting discussion about whether it was right for the church to be “decorated” with a plain wooden cross on the wall. The minister didn’t usually wear a clerical collar either, unless (e.g. for hospital visiting) it was helpful in enabling him to be identified as a minister.

    Yes very true. I remember introducing an Advent Ring into one church and being accused of going over to Rome. Mind you it was in 2000 so ,,,,

    I have a clerical collar but it's only been worn for - 2 funerals (by request), hospital visits (seen straight away as a Chaplain - useful for out of hours) and a Victorian Carol presentation. Oh and once as a bit of market research: I wore it for a day out and about. People's attitudes were different: drivers let me out but the young ladies in the Co-op where I bought my morning paper were very subdued in conversation as compared to normal. They knew I was a Minister they said (the church was across the road) but the collar made it different. A barrier to conversation actually.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I expect the clergy will wear the set made for the 1953 coronation.
    Charles has said he's minded to wear military uniform but, bearing in mind the requirement for him to bare his throat/chest, the traditional shirt with either trousers or breeches might be more practical.

    Which is where the processional Corpus Christi canopy from Arundel RC cathedral will no doubt be brought into use again to preserve modedty. And their big six apparently for QE II.

    And it's a Protestant ceremony affirming the 39 articles?

    Organised by the Duke of Norfolk who is the most senior RC peer, and who's forbears built Arundel cathedral just across the road from their ancestral castle.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I expect the clergy will wear the set made for the 1953 coronation.
    Charles has said he's minded to wear military uniform but, bearing in mind the requirement for him to bare his throat/chest, the traditional shirt with either trousers or breeches might be more practical.

    Which is where the processional Corpus Christi canopy from Arundel RC cathedral will no doubt be brought into use again to preserve modedty. And their big six apparently for QE II.

    And it's a Protestant ceremony affirming the 39 articles?
    We’ll just have to hope the Roman Catholics don’t mind too much it being used for another purpose than it was intended for.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I expect the clergy will wear the set made for the 1953 coronation.
    Charles has said he's minded to wear military uniform but, bearing in mind the requirement for him to bare his throat/chest, the traditional shirt with either trousers or breeches might be more practical.

    Which is where the processional Corpus Christi canopy from Arundel RC cathedral will no doubt be brought into use again to preserve modedty. And their big six apparently for QE II.

    And it's a Protestant ceremony affirming the 39 articles?
    We’ll just have to hope the Roman Catholics don’t mind too much it being used for another purpose than it was intended for.

    I seem to remember my RC elders being quite smug about the Arundel bits and pieces being used at QE II's coronation.
  • What is the canopy used for, then?
  • SpikeSpike Ecclesiantics & MW Host, Admin Emeritus
    Pomona wrote: »
    Hopefully it will all be in modern english that an be easily understood with the broadcasters providing translations for the TV watchers

    It would also be helpful if the various bits were explained - ie why they are doing this. If unexplainable then cut it out and keep it short.

    As to what Charles wears - some sort of suit befitting the occasion like at a wedding? Please spare us though from clergy who will be turning out the dressing up box. Get over its not about you.

    1. The whole point of vestments is that they are symbolic of equality - regardless of a member of the clergy's background or income, they are all equally clergy. Whereas wealthy megachurches that shun vestments are notorious for having pastors show up wearing very expensive sneakers/trainers and Rolex watches. Look at the plank in your own eye first.

    2. In any case, if someone wears a nice suit or dress to a wedding do you accuse them of trying to make it about them? Of course not, it's just a mark of respect for the importance of the occasion. It's the same here with vestments - everyone knows that the one with the crown is the central figure at a coronation, it's in the name.

    Furthermore, vestments usually belong to churches and not to clergy anyway. This is why even clergy from very humble backgrounds have vestments.

    1. That equality is long past. That mode of dress is long gone. Besides which there are grades of vestment depending on "status" - Welby will be vested differently from a Deacon. That knocks your point out I'm afraid.


    Not really. Apart from the pointy hat and the way the stole is worn, there’s very little difference with what’s worn between bishops, priests or deacons
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    @ExclamationMark boasting about how humble you are and how little you care about clothes is not exactly a good thing. It's not a sin to want to look your best to honour both God and your guests. Also, a bishop and a deacon wearing different vestments isn't about status, but merely indicating different liturgical roles. There's also not that much difference between said vestments, aside from the headwear.

    It does strike me that it categorises clergy in the same category as women at formal events - men can wear the same suit again and again without comment, but women are expected to wear something new (especially to a public event with a lot of press attention) and look glamorous. And then they are judged negatively for wanting to look nice within the parameters imposed upon them. It does come across as more than a bit sexist to suggest that you can't be focused on God if you also want to wear nice clothes, because men don't get that criticism.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    @stonespring it's not something I like but I'm afraid the ship has long sailed on the military involvement in civil events hosted by the Church of England - it's not a coincidence that the monarch is both head of the armed forces and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is a strong link between Anglicanism as civil religion and the military, which you see particularly around Remembrance events.
  • We've had this argument many times before, I'm sure, but clerical vestments are really only a sort of working dress/uniform IYSWIM.

    Personally, I prefer the simpler styles of chasuble and/or stole, but no doubt They will dust off the really elaborate vestments and copes for May 6th...which, if it's a warm day, may give some cause for discomfort, especially around aged and reverend shoulders...
  • Pomona wrote: »
    @ExclamationMark boasting about how humble you are and how little you care about clothes is not exactly a good thing. It's not a sin to want to look your best to honour both God and your guests. Also, a bishop and a deacon wearing different vestments isn't about status, but merely indicating different liturgical roles. There's also not that much difference between said vestments, aside from the headwear.

    It does strike me that it categorises clergy in the same category as women at formal events - men can wear the same suit again and again without comment, but women are expected to wear something new (especially to a public event with a lot of press attention) and look glamorous. And then they are judged negatively for wanting to look nice within the parameters imposed upon them. It does come across as more than a bit sexist to suggest that you can't be focused on God if you also want to wear nice clothes, because men don't get that criticism.

    If in doubt or caught out Pomona, go on the attack? Boasting and sexism?

    You seem to see sexism in nothing here - nowhere did I suggest that wearing nice clothes means you can't be focused on God. As for men not being judged - read the link to the poem.

    FWIW (and it's not a lot tbh) I've been judged both ways - at school for having rough and ready clothes, later for having a decent suit which happened to have been adjusted for me by a tailor - my son in laws father.

    It is not any kind of boast to state what my attitude to clothes is. It is fact drawing a parallel to the experience of others - just like when you speak about those things, views, opinions and lifestyles that are important to you.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    I recall my sister specifically requesting her Minister to wear his clerical collar for her wedding. ( He readily agreed). She said that most relatives would not think she was properly married otherwise. Meaning, I think, that it identified his ordained status and his role as a clergyman.
    Quite why a clergyperson would not want to be identified as such is not something I understand. And within that, I don’t see a problem with identifying specific and separate roles within a liturgical setting by different apparel.
    The King encompasses several roles, constitutional monarch, head of the C of E, and head of the armed forces - and more. He can hardly change his clothes three times during the service. Or can he? I recall that the Queen changed into a simple white unadorned dress for the sacred moment of her anointing , duly shielded from view by the canopy.
  • The canopy is used at the ceremony of anointing the monarch. In medieval times a canopy was often carried ceremonially over the head of an important person. You often see pictures of queen Elisabeth I with a canopy. Originally it would have been some sort of sunshade or protection from rain,possibly even to spare the head of the VIP from bird droppings.
    In the RC liturgy,at least up to Vatican 2 a canopy was carried over the Blessed Sacrament during the Corpus Christi procession as also on the evening of Maundy Thursday.

    From a strictly religious point of view the anointing with holy oil is the most important point of the ceremony,but its significance will be lost on those who have little knowledge of Biblical history.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    What is the canopy used for, then?

    It was held over the queen when her chest was anointed. Presumably to prevent overhead TV cameras broadcasting rather more of the queen than expected.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    @ExclamationMark I was responding to your comment of "there is an increasing concern that a wedding is no longer a religious event (if ever it was) but a fashion parade where the church takes last place". You haven't quoted anyone else who has that concern so I had no alternative but to assume that concern is yours, which I felt was judgemental and particularly judgemental of brides and female guests (and their feelings about a religious wedding) who are generally the only ones who really dress up for weddings. Men may be judged for their clothing in general but it's expected that men only have a few formal suits and rewear them.

    Also I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be in doubt or caught out here. You are the one making connections between someone's religious belief/sincerity and their wearing of vestments or other formal clothing. It seems uncharitable to assume that the Archbishop only wears vestments to make it all about him, when it's his work uniform. I have no love for Justin Welby but that's based on his actions, not because he might want to wear a nice cope for a big event.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    What is the canopy used for, then?

    It was held over the queen when her chest was anointed. Presumably to prevent overhead TV cameras broadcasting rather more of the queen than expected.

    Thank you! Something new learned every day...
    :wink:
  • Pomona wrote: »
    @ExclamationMark I was responding to your comment of "there is an increasing concern that a wedding is no longer a religious event (if ever it was) but a fashion parade where the church takes last place". You haven't quoted anyone else who has that concern so I had no alternative but to assume that concern is yours, which I felt was judgemental and particularly judgemental of brides and female guests (and their feelings about a religious wedding) who are generally the only ones who really dress up for weddings. Men may be judged for their clothing in general but it's expected that men only have a few formal suits and rewear them.

    You had an alternative rather than jump to assumptions or conclusions - ask me why I felt that way or what evidence I have. Instead you jump to attack in response. It seems as if it's a very quick step for you to move from assumption to judgement. Are your feelings to be treated any different from mine? I have to say that I am very concerned about your allegations of sexism which are far far removed from the reality of my views, opinions and actions in real life.

    In the same vein I see your response as judgemental - who expects men to have a few formal suits and to rewear them? Lots of men I know buy new suits or clothes for weddings and special events.


  • Alan29 wrote: »
    What is the canopy used for, then?

    It was held over the queen when her chest was anointed. Presumably to prevent overhead TV cameras broadcasting rather more of the queen than expected.

    From what I have read, the anointing is considered the most sacred part of the service and the canopy is less to preserve the modesty of the sovereign than to not have the anointing be viewed by the public, in a similar way, I suppose, to the practice in which the sovereign tends to receive communion outside of public view when at worship.

    Speaking of communion, does anyone know if the Eucharistic prayer itself will be broadcast, seeing that the coronation liturgy, if it is anything like that used for the most recent coronation, incorporates a service of Holy Communion? The big Anglican church services that get put on Secular TV, at least here in the US, tend to not have communion as part of them so I’d be excited to see how they do it. The King will receive communion in private, I assume, but will the Archbishop or Dean or whoever is the celebrant at communion be shown on TV receiving? Will anyone else other than the celebrant and the King and maybe also the Queen receive communion at the service? If the congregation will not receive, will the other Anglican clergy present receive? Will Church of Scotland ministers and ministers of churches that would be willing to receive C of E communion be invited to receive? Or will this bring up echoes of enforced communion receiving by the established church in ages past and therefore not be done?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    The anointing seems to have a quasi-sacramental/ordination element. Among the traditional garments is something called the stole royal.
    Little wonder some monarchs had such an exalted view of their role - Kings touch etc. Or why QE II had such a sense of Christian vocation.
  • john holdingjohn holding Host Emeritus
    Stonespring - Historically the presiding receives as an unalterable part of the rite. And the King and Queen receive. No-one else. Like many many masses through the centuries, where the point for the congregation -- if any -- was to hear or see, not to participate. One has to consider this whole thing not at a thing in itself put together with modern theology and issues in mind, but as part of a 1,000-year old tradition. Designing it today would produce a vastly different rite, but in this case the King and Queen are participating in something that is not designed for them, so to speak, but has existed since before the WIndsors, the Hanoverians -- or the Stuarts for that matter, or the Tudors, were even thought of. One can have different opinions about how and why this is being done, but those issues are not part of the debate on this particular thread, which is about liturgy.
  • Having anyone other than the presiding priest, the King, and the Queen, receiving the Sacrament would present some logistical problems - the length of time it would take, and who should or should not be included being two that spring to mind!

    No, @john holding is right, inasmuch as this is by no means your usual Holy Communion service. As to the actual details of the liturgy, I haven't checked to see if an Order of Service has been publicised yet, but I don't expect it'll include all the words used...

    Presumably, the 1662 BCP service was used in 1953 more-or-less as it stands, but I did wonder if perhaps this time round it'll be a traditional-language rite following one of the Common Worship alternatives - that is to say, the usual Western Use format (Anglican/RCC/Lutheran), but with BCP-style wording. Given his role as Supreme Governor of the C of E, no doubt the King has the last word on this matter.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Hosting

    @ExclamationMark @Pomona if you want to get personal, take it to hell per commandments 3 & 4 @ExclamationMark if you want to rant about the coronation, start a hell thread - your contributions across multiple threads on different aspects of the coronation are starting to approach a commandment 8 issue. If you want a specific thread on whether the UK should become a republic, start it in Purgatory.

    /Hosting

    Doublethink, Temporary Hosting
  • Ok point taken. Thanks
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Having anyone other than the presiding priest, the King, and the Queen, receiving the Sacrament would present some logistical problems - the length of time it would take, and who should or should not be included being two that spring to mind!

    No, @john holding is right, inasmuch as this is by no means your usual Holy Communion service. As to the actual details of the liturgy, I haven't checked to see if an Order of Service has been publicised yet, but I don't expect it'll include all the words used...

    Presumably, the 1662 BCP service was used in 1953 more-or-less as it stands, but I did wonder if perhaps this time round it'll be a traditional-language rite following one of the Common Worship alternatives - that is to say, the usual Western Use format (Anglican/RCC/Lutheran), but with BCP-style wording. Given his role as Supreme Governor of the C of E, no doubt the King has the last word on this matter.

    Among the music commissioned by the King is a setting of the Agnus Dei, a text that doesn't appear in the BCP as far as I know. There's a Sanctus too, so the communion service element isn't going to be perfunctory.
  • Peter OwenPeter Owen Shipmate Posts: 14
    According to this page on the Church of England website, "Commissioned and authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the coronation liturgy will be available from 22:00 this Saturday." Presumably "this Saturday" means tomorrow (29 April).
  • Peter Owen wrote: »
    According to this page on the Church of England website, "Commissioned and authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the coronation liturgy will be available from 22:00 this Saturday." Presumably "this Saturday" means tomorrow (29 April).

    Thanks! Something to read over the Bank Holiday... :wink:
  • Forthview wrote: »
    The canopy is used at the ceremony of anointing the monarch. In medieval times a canopy was often carried ceremonially over the head of an important person. You often see pictures of queen Elisabeth I with a canopy. Originally it would have been some sort of sunshade or protection from rain,possibly even to spare the head of the VIP from bird droppings.
    In the RC liturgy,at least up to Vatican 2 a canopy was carried over the Blessed Sacrament during the Corpus Christi procession as also on the evening of Maundy Thursday.

    From a strictly religious point of view the anointing with holy oil is the most important point of the ceremony,but its significance will be lost on those who have little knowledge of Biblical history.

    In my experience, the canopy did not fall into disuse since Vatican 2 and is not uncommon for me to experience its use at processions of the Blessed Sacrament today. I am old enough to remember the Coronation in 1953 and that must have been the first time in my life that I had seen a liturgical canopy in use (then pre-Vatican 2, of course).
  • There are some nice pictures of various processional canopies here:

    https://www.liturgicalartsjournal.com/2019/06/three-varieties-of-processional-canopies.html

    There is also a smaller artefact, rather akin to an umbrella, known as an ombrellino, and I have seen one of these in use (many years ago now!) at the Maundy Thursday Mass in an Anglo-Catholic church in this Diocese. A server held it over the Blessed Sacrament during the Procession to the Altar of Repose.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    One of those looks like a four poster bed with the mattress removed.
    Ethiopian Coptic clergy seem very fond of the umbrellas. There are some very flamboyant examples here.
    https://agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/coptic-priest-umbrella.html
  • Stonespring - Historically the presiding receives as an unalterable part of the rite. And the King and Queen receive. No-one else. Like many many masses through the centuries, where the point for the congregation -- if any -- was to hear or see, not to participate. One has to consider this whole thing not at a thing in itself put together with modern theology and issues in mind, but as part of a 1,000-year old tradition. Designing it today would produce a vastly different rite, but in this case the King and Queen are participating in something that is not designed for them, so to speak, but has existed since before the WIndsors, the Hanoverians -- or the Stuarts for that matter, or the Tudors, were even thought of. One can have different opinions about how and why this is being done, but those issues are not part of the debate on this particular thread, which is about liturgy.

    How common is anointing at ordinations in the C of E nowadays? Does it occur at most ordinations, or is it seen as more A-C and/or High Church?

    Do ordinations in the C of E always include a communion service?

    I’m particularly interested in the ordination/consecration of bishops, since the anointing in that most resembles to me the anointing of the British sovereign in the coronation liturgy.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    How common is anointing at ordinations in the C of E nowadays? Does it occur at most ordinations, or is it seen as more A-C and/or High Church?
    According to the service notes, it's technically an optional extra at the ordination of a priest or a bishop but it's my impression, admittedly from very limited knowledge, that it's almost always included. It comes between the giving of the Bible and the Welcome.
    For the ordination of a priest, it is the hands that are anointed. For a bishop, it is the head.
    It isn't part of the ordination of a deacon.
    Do ordinations in the C of E always include a communion service?.
    Yes. It was also compulsory in the 1662 service
    I’m particularly interested in the ordination/consecration of bishops, since the anointing in that most resembles to me the anointing of the British sovereign in the coronation liturgy.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Anointing is also not uncommon at licensing and induction services.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    How common is anointing at ordinations in the C of E nowadays? Does it occur at most ordinations, or is it seen as more A-C and/or High Church?
    According to the service notes, it's technically an optional extra at the ordination of a priest or a bishop but it's my impression, admittedly from very limited knowledge, that it's almost always included. It comes between the giving of the Bible and the Welcome.
    For the ordination of a priest, it is the hands that are anointed. For a bishop, it is the head.
    It isn't part of the ordination of a deacon.
    Do ordinations in the C of E always include a communion service?.
    Yes. It was also compulsory in the 1662 service
    I’m particularly interested in the ordination/consecration of bishops, since the anointing in that most resembles to me the anointing of the British sovereign in the coronation liturgy.

    Is the oil used in ordinations consecrated by the diocesan bishop in t like a Chrism Mass during Holy Week, or is it just blessed for each particular ordination? Does it depend on the churchmanship of either the local bishop, the person being ordained, or the community they person being ordained is expected to serve?

    Do more “reformed” people being ordained request not to be anointed even if it is the bishop’s custom to do so?

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Is the oil used in ordinations consecrated by the diocesan bishop in t like a Chrism Mass during Holy Week, or is it just blessed for each particular ordination? Does it depend on the churchmanship of either the local bishop, the person being ordained, or the community they person being ordained is expected to serve?

    Do more “reformed” people being ordained request not to be anointed even if it is the bishop’s custom to do so?
    I think the oil is consecrated at the previous Chrism service on Maundy Thursday at the same time as the healing oil, but beyond that, I've no idea. Nor have I any idea whether there are any congregations or people being ordained who might want to opt out of part of the ceremony. I think there is usually one service for all the deacons being ordained that year and another for all the priests that year. It would strike me as very picky for anyone to think they should be entitled to opt in or out of what their fellows are doing. It also strikes me as an odd thing to be picky about.

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    In my experience anointing is not seen as a problem by more 'low church' clergy, and it's also a normal part of confirmation.
Sign In or Register to comment.