IIRC, the late Queen sometimes attended what used to be referred to in parts of the C of E as *The Early Service* - BCP Communion at 8am, with no hymns, but usually including (as per rubric) a short homily.
Few other people would have been present, I guess.
I'm not sure what business this is of anyone, other than the Queen herself.
It matters if it is considered a norm that the Sovereign does receive communion in public (which in previous threads I have heard Shipmates argue or at least suggest). If the late Queen considered her reception of communion to not be any of the public’s business, or perhaps damaging to the public’s understanding of private devotion in worship in general and of the Queen as being, before God, anyone other than a private individual that has her own private devotions in worship, then if the current King feels differently (or does not have an opinion of the matter), or if the television crews weren’t even aware that this was ever an issue for any Sovereign, than this is significant.
Does anyone know enough about the late Queen’s coronation to know if the public in the abbey (or at least those whom were actually able to see her, who may have all been nobles and dignitaries) were able to see her receive communion at that event, even if it was not shown on TV?
The late Queen was never photographed or filmed receiving communion.
So is this a big change in terms of how public the reception of communion by the Sovereign and their spouse is (not sure about what Prince Phillip did)?
Time will tell whether it signals a change or is a one-off. Though to say you could see them take Communion on camera is, perhaps, technically accurate but not much more. They were shown from a distance, and at an angle where the King, at least when taking Communion, was only partially visible beyond the Queen. Faces couldn’t really be made out, unless perhaps one was watching on a really big TV. It seemed to me more that I could see that it happened rather than actually seeing it happen, if that makes sense.
I was watching on a very big TV, and I was very carefully watching to see if it was visible. It looked to me like I could see the King receive (as well as the Queen).
I could see they received. But that they received was all I could see—I couldn’t, for example, facial expressions.
But fwiw, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip receiving Communion was also televised, and closer up, as this video shows. Apparently her desire not to be seen taking Communion did not extend to her coronation.
During the pandemic - and still today, to some extent - many church services were livestreamed. It's very rare to see people actually receive the Sacrament - the camera goes off, and focuses on a wall-painting, or a window, or some such - in order to preserve people's privacy.
I don't see that the King and Queen should be any different, but it may well be that they agreed that their reception of the Sacrament should be visible, perhaps making the point that the King is head of the C of E, and thereby setting an example to others. YMMV.
During the pandemic - and still today, to some extent - many church services were livestreamed. It's very rare to see people actually receive the Sacrament - the camera goes off, and focuses on a wall-painting, or a window, or some such - in order to preserve people's privacy.
Mileages may vary on that one. In my experience, it’s not rare at all for the camera(s) to show people receiving. (In fact, glancing at the clock and seeing the time, I turned to a station I knew would be showing an RC Mass, and I am at this moment watching people receive, though faces cannot be seen.) I wish I was more rare than my experience bears out.
But in this instance, the late Queen’s desire not to be seen taking Communion has been discussed numerous times on the Ship. Given that, I don’t think it’s too surprising that some might find it interesting that Charles and Camilla were shown taking Communion.
Indeed there is a striking parallel with the ordination of priests .Handel's music for the royal coronation 'Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon King' recalls
this link with the biblical kings.
Since the coronation of Charlemagne there have been arguments as to who was the supreme protector of the Church. Was it the pope who was its spiritual head or the Holy Roman Emperor (of which there was one in the West and one in the East) .The Emperor was thus invested with a quasi spiritual role.
Not all countries of Western Europe were officially parts of the Holy roman empire but the rulers of those other countries similarly acquired quasi ecclesiastical status and the coronation of the English King mirrored and still does the ceremonies of the Holy Roman Empire, thus the giving of a priestly stole to the monarch.
Theoretically all Christians,by virtue of their baptism ,are priest,prophet and king.
If I remember correctly the late Queen was not given a priestly stole at her coronation,but it was and is customary for kings.
Under the ancien régime (and well before that) the King of France at his coronation was vested in tunic, dalmatic, and chasuble, representing the three ordained orders. I don't know if this was followed for Charles X in 1830.
Thanks @Nick Tamen - I should perhaps have said that the services I've seen on video sometimes do show people receiving (no faces, as you point out), but from behind, so to speak.
A few of the services which Our Place livestreamed, early on, showed people going up for Communion, but apparently someone objected to that, so the camera (Smartphone) was adjusted to focus elsewhere.
I've made the point before about the Eucharist being a communal act as intended. It seems very strange that anyone should chose to receive privately when there is accommodation to receive publicly.
Wouldn't that say a lot about service (as publicly touted by Justin Welby) if a sovereign partook with his/her people?
I've made the point before about the Eucharist being a communal act as intended. It seems very strange that anyone should chose to receive privately when there is accommodation to receive publicly.
Wouldn't that say a lot about service (as publicly touted by Justin Welby) if a sovereign partook with his/her people?
For many centuries it was common for communion to be received by only one or some members of the congregation. It was certainly common in recent decades if there was a nuptial mass for only the bride and groom to receive -- when my wife and I married 45 years ago it was a matter of some surprise to the priest that we wanted all in attendance to be able to receive -- and I'm sure he had officiated at dozens of weddings, some at least which would have included eucharist.
Just because now something is taken for granted, doesn't mean it always was (even if we think it ought to have been). Just because something doesn't accord with my theology, doesn't mean it is somehow a wrong thing for anyone else.
I've made the point before about the Eucharist being a communal act as intended. It seems very strange that anyone should chose to receive privately when there is accommodation to receive publicly.
Wouldn't that say a lot about service (as publicly touted by Justin Welby) if a sovereign partook with his/her people?
For many centuries it was common for communion to be received by only one or some members of the congregation. It was certainly common in recent decades if there was a nuptial mass for only the bride and groom to receive -- when my wife and I married 45 years ago it was a matter of some surprise to the priest that we wanted all in attendance to be able to receive -- and I'm sure he had officiated at dozens of weddings, some at least which would have included eucharist.
Just because now something is taken for granted, doesn't mean it always was (even if we think it ought to have been). Just because something doesn't accord with my theology, doesn't mean it is somehow a wrong thing for anyone else.
It does seem very strange to do it like that given Jesus and Paul's teaching on it. Is there a reason why only one or two received, especially when others were in good standing to do so too?
Maybe the Queen's churchmanship didn't place much emphasis on communion, so she didn't go.
I'm more interested in the theological and political message being sent to other church members by not having the sovereign be seen to receive even by other people in church, let alone on camera, unless it is a very small, intimate service, and not so much on the sovereign's personal beliefs regarding the Eucharist.
@Bishops Finger , I don't think for your usual televised Eucharist that it is a good idea to show the faces of the congregation as they receive, but if it is a televised service about a key life (or public event) involving key personalities (such as a wedding, ordination, institution of ministry, or a coronation), and if the Eucharist, including those personalities' reception of communion at/in a special time, place and manner that is different than the rest of the congregation is a part of that service, then it makes sense to show those personalities receiving communion, just as you show the ministers receiving communion. It seems that the Queen was shown on TV receiving communion at her own coronation, so I guess nothing new happened with King Charles' Coronation in terms of this aspect of it.
Wasn't it the norm in most of the C of E until some point in the twentieth century for Holy Communion to not be the main service most weeks and to only be attended by the most devout? If this is the environment in which the Queen was raised, maybe it would explain why she preferred her own experience of Holy Communion to be private and intimate.
I wonder if Charles' attitude to the Eucharist is any different? Has he been affected by what he has learned about Orthodoxy, which his father was born into? Or by some of the other mystical and spiritual pursuits he has had?
Total side note: Do people here think Charles allowed to receive Orthodox communion when he visited Mount Athos? Would his father have been allowed to after he became a member of the Church of England? I'm sure individual Orthodox priests might have exercised considerable discretion in this matter but, is there a general policy for situations like that?
Final side note: I think having top political leaders receive communion at very small intimate services might be preferable to the current situation in the US, where right-wing Roman Catholics try to secretly take pictures of liberal RC politicians at the moment they receive communion at large masses in order to post online and demand that bishops declare that these politicians are to be refused communion in their dioceses (because of their stance on reproductive and marriage issues).
I've made the point before about the Eucharist being a communal act as intended. It seems very strange that anyone should chose to receive privately when there is accommodation to receive publicly.
Wouldn't that say a lot about service (as publicly touted by Justin Welby) if a sovereign partook with his/her people?
For many centuries it was common for communion to be received by only one or some members of the congregation. It was certainly common in recent decades if there was a nuptial mass for only the bride and groom to receive -- when my wife and I married 45 years ago it was a matter of some surprise to the priest that we wanted all in attendance to be able to receive -- and I'm sure he had officiated at dozens of weddings, some at least which would have included eucharist.
Just because now something is taken for granted, doesn't mean it always was (even if we think it ought to have been). Just because something doesn't accord with my theology, doesn't mean it is somehow a wrong thing for anyone else.
It does seem very strange to do it like that given Jesus and Paul's teaching on it. Is there a reason why only one or two received, especially when others were in good standing to do so too?
I've made the point before about the Eucharist being a communal act as intended. It seems very strange that anyone should chose to receive privately when there is accommodation to receive publicly.
Wouldn't that say a lot about service (as publicly touted by Justin Welby) if a sovereign partook with his/her people?
For many centuries it was common for communion to be received by only one or some members of the congregation. It was certainly common in recent decades if there was a nuptial mass for only the bride and groom to receive -- when my wife and I married 45 years ago it was a matter of some surprise to the priest that we wanted all in attendance to be able to receive -- and I'm sure he had officiated at dozens of weddings, some at least which would have included eucharist.
Just because now something is taken for granted, doesn't mean it always was (even if we think it ought to have been). Just because something doesn't accord with my theology, doesn't mean it is somehow a wrong thing for anyone else.
It does seem very strange to do it like that given Jesus and Paul's teaching on it. Is there a reason why only one or two received, especially when others were in good standing to do so too?
Well you'd have to explore the reasoning of people somewhere after about 500 up until around the early 20the century. The idea that all, or even many, would partake dates to around the time of the reformation...but even then that was a theoretical position, not one in common use. Communion, for one thing, was too important and precious to be wasted on just anyone who showed up. The BCP (either 154x or later) makes clear that one should only communicate if in a specifically described state of freedom from sin -- a position I believe still practiced in some of the stricter parts of the presbyterian churches in Scotland. If you read Parson WOodford's diary, you will discover that despite the clear intention of the 1662 BCP that communion should be celebrated weekly, quarterly was more common and that many or most who attended service left before the eucharist (after Morning Prayer, the Litany and the sermon).
Your (and my) understanding of Paul and Jesus is a modern one -- but it's a modern revision of the faith as frequently practiced for many centuries, I'd agree it's what should have been in use all along, but any church historian will tell you it simply wasn't.
@stonespring it's standard Church of England practice not to receive communion more than once per day. The Queen was known for preferring what was known as 'Early Service' which is a short Sunday morning Eucharistic service held before the main Sunday service, historically for Anglicans this was Mattins. The pre-Eucharistic fast was also more heavily emphasised so it was more important to receive before breakfast. To me it seems quite logical for practical as well as spiritual reasons to receive before an event if you're not going to eat beforehand. I seem to recall that the Queen received daily but I may be misremembering.
@ExclamationMark 'private' isn't the same thing as 'solitary' - there would be others in her private chapel. Historically it has also been extremely normal for royalty and nobility to have private chapels, and if you are someone who doesn't eat breakfast before receiving in the morning - especially an elderly person - it makes sense to me that receiving at home would be seen as better (I have no idea what Charles' views are on this subject and I expect we will never know). To me the monarch is just another person, and I wouldn't see it as inappropriate for anyone else to have a practical or spiritual reason as to why private communion might be a better option. It also seems a bit of a waste of time to discuss the possible thoughts of a dead old woman as to why she did or didn't do something.
@stonespring it's standard Church of England practice not to receive communion more than once per day. The Queen was known for preferring what was known as 'Early Service' which is a short Sunday morning Eucharistic service held before the main Sunday service, historically for Anglicans this was Mattins. The pre-Eucharistic fast was also more heavily emphasised so it was more important to receive before breakfast. To me it seems quite logical for practical as well as spiritual reasons to receive before an event if you're not going to eat beforehand. I seem to recall that the Queen received daily but I may be misremembering.
@ExclamationMark 'private' isn't the same thing as 'solitary' - there would be others in her private chapel. Historically it has also been extremely normal for royalty and nobility to have private chapels, and if you are someone who doesn't eat breakfast before receiving in the morning - especially an elderly person - it makes sense to me that receiving at home would be seen as better (I have no idea what Charles' views are on this subject and I expect we will never know). To me the monarch is just another person, and I wouldn't see it as inappropriate for anyone else to have a practical or spiritual reason as to why private communion might be a better option. It also seems a bit of a waste of time to discuss the possible thoughts of a dead old woman as to why she did or didn't do something.
I agree on the point of discussing the point of a dead person's thoughts.
However, I wonder why anyone would choose to commune in private. I accept the fasting bit but that's what I was taught at confirmation, hence the visit for early morning communion. I often kept to that as a student and even occasionally now, even though I left the CofE many years ago. I have taken communion to people confined to home or hospital and there's a reason there.
I wonder why anyone would not seemingly want to join others in a communal meal which acknowledges the presence of God and binds community.
In the case of the monarch, them going anywhere is always going to involve a level of disruption - security, press etc and I imagine that effects decisions about what they choose to do publicly (in terms of the parts of their lives which are not official events).
In the discussion about frequent,even daily, reception of communion as opposed to infrequent reception it is sometimes difficult for us nowadays to accept that people often thought in different ways in the past.
Over the 'Christian' centuries there grew up a professional clergy whose job was to do the praying in the name of the community.
The professional clergy,bishops,priests and deacons would celebrate and sing the various hours of prayer decided by the Church,including the Eucharist.
There was a belief that the Eucharist re-presented to the community the penitential death of Jesus and his sacrifice for the salvation of humanity. The bishop,or priest who acted in his name,read the Gospel,took bread and wine,followed the command of Jesus and offered the bread and wine to God partly as a memorial of the death sacrifice of Jesus,but also for the faithful as a link to that sacrifice of Jesus from which Christians benefit down to the present time. This is the reason for the Catholic term of the 'Holy Sacrifice of the Mass'
Just as the priest prayed on behalf of the community he also received Communion on behalf of the community.
Yes indeed there were the fasting laws which only allowed one to receive Communion as the first food of the day. Yes there were laws which only permitted one to receive Communion if one was in a 'state of grace' but on the whole people felt that they had done all that was needed by participating in the Divine Service.
Whilst the Western Latin Church gave detailed directions about what to do regarding regular attendance at the eucharist,much is more fluid in the Eastern Church which had many of the same laws though it was not considered necessary to attend all of the long eucharistic liturgy.
Most of the new Protestant communities founded at the time of the Reformation kept for various reasons to infrequent reception of Communion. In Presbyterian Scotland communion might be celebrated up to four times a year (with no regard to ecclesiastical seasons which simply did not exist)
Over the last few centuries have grown up what many ,but certainly not all,Christians agree with that regular reception of Communion is a 'good thing'.
To link my previous comments about Communion to the Coronation of King Charles we see in that liturgy ,which follows the ideas dating back many centuries, that all who are present are part of the liturgy but only the King and Queen along with the principal celebrants actually receive Communion.
Communion was so infrequent in the RCC up until the 20th century that there was an obligation to receive once during Eastertide to remain in communion with the Church.
It was a decree of Pius X in 1905 that encouraged more frequent, even daily, communion.
Most of the new Protestant communities founded at the time of the Reformation kept for various reasons to infrequent reception of Communion.
Despite the insistence from some of the Reformers (such as Calvin) that Communion should be celebrated (at least) weekly. Long-held habits of infrequent Communion were hard to break.
However, I wonder why anyone would choose to commune in private. . . .
I wonder why anyone would not seemingly want to join others in a communal meal which acknowledges the presence of God and binds community.
It seems to me that there is an underlying assumption here about the meaning of the Eucharist and of receiving Communion, such that the question almost reads like “I don’t understand why Anglicans don’t have the same understanding of Communion Baptists do.” A few thoughts come to mind:
First, not all traditions see reception of Communion as participation in a communal meal, or at least not primarily so. Receiving Communion in some traditions is seen much more in terms of the communicant and God, while the communal aspect is seen more as arising from participation in the overall liturgy together.
Second, I would not call what happened at the coronation “private Communion.” It was very public. Reception by only a few isn’t the same thing as “private.”
And third, the understanding of the communal meal that binds the community makes sense in the context of gathered Christians. I’m not sure it makes sense in the kind of primarily civic gathering that the coronation involved—a variety of people, including government officials and international dignitaries, who may or may not be Christian.
I think,that the eucharistic part of the Coronation goes back to the time when everybody would be considered as a member of the Church.
The only outsiders would be the Jews. Other religions would be seen so rarely that they would not count.
If HM the Queen only received the Sacrament at an *Early Service*, she probably would not have been the only person there apart from the priest.
The point was made, when Parish Communion became the main (or only) Sunday service, that those who preferred the 8am service were by no means some sort of inferior Christian. Those whose spirituality was fed by attendance at a quiet service, with perhaps not all that many others present, was (and is) just as valid as that of the larger congregation at the later Parish Communion.
I think,that the eucharistic part of the Coronation goes back to the time when everybody would be considered as a member of the Church.
The only outsiders would be the Jews. Other religions would be seen so rarely that they would not count.
Sure, but that also goes back to a time when only a few people receiving would have been totally unremarkable. So even as understandings and practices regarding receiving Communion have changed, so have the realities of British society and of who is present at the coronation, and in ways that have implications for wider reception of Communion.
During my bureaucratic years, one of my cubicle-proximate friends had many many years in State Ceremonial and attended on various royal types. He told me that in Canada the Queen preferred Matins as many attending would be RC or other Xns or Jews or Muslims, and having an Anglican Eucharist might make people uncomfortable. Security precluded sneaking off to an 8.00 am service-- the Vaniers built a small chapel at Rideau Hall (GG residence) but it was strictly RC until the 1980s. He did not know if the Queen used it during visits.
Ottawa lore has it that Princess Margaret attended early morning communion services at Saint Bartholomew's during her visit in 1958 to preside at the Renfrew Centennial (we are still wondering what she did to deserve to be sent to the Ottawa Valley in blackfly season).
@Nick Tamen sorry for any confusion but the private communion was referring to the late Queen's practice not to the Coronation.
I’m not sure it’s that straightforward. In some cases, it was, but in other posts, not as much. The conversation has gone back and forth between the late Queen’s practice, the coronation and Communion practices (current and historical) in general.
The whole discussion of Communion in private started with this:
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?
My post above on the topic was a response to @ExclamationMark, who said,
I agree on the point of discussing the point of a dead person's thoughts. (Responding to your point that “It also seems a bit of a waste of time to discuss the possible thoughts of a dead old woman as to why she did or didn't do something.”)
However, I wonder why anyone would choose to commune in private. . . . .
I wonder why anyone would not seemingly want to join others in a communal meal which acknowledges the presence of God and binds community.
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I read this to be a shift from “why the late Queen received Communion in private” to “why would anyone—including the King and Queen at their coronation—not want to join with the rest of the gathered church in receiving Communion?”
The logistics of arranging for everyone at the Coronation who wished to receive Communion are frightful to contemplate...
FWIW, My Old Mum (1912-2004, so not quite the same generation as HM the Queen) was in the habit of receiving Communion once a month (usually the first Sunday thereof) at the BCP 8am service at her local church.
This had been her practice since her youth, the village church of her childhood not having embraced the Parish Communion movement until many years after she had left the parish. In earlier days, she attended Mattins as well, but in her later life she attended Evensong weekly at a nearby Mission church (*Tin Tabernacle*).
I appreciate that this has nothing much to do with the Coronation liturgy, but it may help to explain the mindset of a previous generation of faithful churchgoers, of whom HM the Queen was one.
Just chiming in to say I've been overdosing on the spectacular Walton Coronation Te Deum, which was done after Their Majesties had left the Abbey (I presume) and I missed it on the day. Fascinating to watch and hear the piece in its intended place with the intended musical forces positioned as intended, on the intended sort of occasion. While that's true of other musical works done during the service, I imagine the Walton is done either reduced or mangled from time to time in other places. This is the time and place it was written for.
Just chiming in to say I've been overdosing on the spectacular Walton Coronation Te Deum, which was done after Their Majesties had left the Abbey (I presume) and I missed it on the day. Fascinating to watch and hear the piece in its intended place with the intended musical forces positioned as intended, on the intended sort of occasion. While that's true of other musical works done during the service, I imagine the Walton is done either reduced or mangled from time to time in other places. This is the time and place it was written for.
We did at at Liverpool Met Cathedral when Pope JPII came. It was the recessional. A really splendid piece.
Incidentally the orchestration was reduced for the coronation. Skilfully done by John Rutter.
Comments
It matters if it is considered a norm that the Sovereign does receive communion in public (which in previous threads I have heard Shipmates argue or at least suggest). If the late Queen considered her reception of communion to not be any of the public’s business, or perhaps damaging to the public’s understanding of private devotion in worship in general and of the Queen as being, before God, anyone other than a private individual that has her own private devotions in worship, then if the current King feels differently (or does not have an opinion of the matter), or if the television crews weren’t even aware that this was ever an issue for any Sovereign, than this is significant.
Does anyone know enough about the late Queen’s coronation to know if the public in the abbey (or at least those whom were actually able to see her, who may have all been nobles and dignitaries) were able to see her receive communion at that event, even if it was not shown on TV?
But fwiw, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip receiving Communion was also televised, and closer up, as this video shows. Apparently her desire not to be seen taking Communion did not extend to her coronation.
During the pandemic - and still today, to some extent - many church services were livestreamed. It's very rare to see people actually receive the Sacrament - the camera goes off, and focuses on a wall-painting, or a window, or some such - in order to preserve people's privacy.
I don't see that the King and Queen should be any different, but it may well be that they agreed that their reception of the Sacrament should be visible, perhaps making the point that the King is head of the C of E, and thereby setting an example to others. YMMV.
Mileages may vary on that one. In my experience, it’s not rare at all for the camera(s) to show people receiving. (In fact, glancing at the clock and seeing the time, I turned to a station I knew would be showing an RC Mass, and I am at this moment watching people receive, though faces cannot be seen.) I wish I was more rare than my experience bears out.
But in this instance, the late Queen’s desire not to be seen taking Communion has been discussed numerous times on the Ship. Given that, I don’t think it’s too surprising that some might find it interesting that Charles and Camilla were shown taking Communion.
Under the ancien régime (and well before that) the King of France at his coronation was vested in tunic, dalmatic, and chasuble, representing the three ordained orders. I don't know if this was followed for Charles X in 1830.
A few of the services which Our Place livestreamed, early on, showed people going up for Communion, but apparently someone objected to that, so the camera (Smartphone) was adjusted to focus elsewhere.
Wouldn't that say a lot about service (as publicly touted by Justin Welby) if a sovereign partook with his/her people?
For many centuries it was common for communion to be received by only one or some members of the congregation. It was certainly common in recent decades if there was a nuptial mass for only the bride and groom to receive -- when my wife and I married 45 years ago it was a matter of some surprise to the priest that we wanted all in attendance to be able to receive -- and I'm sure he had officiated at dozens of weddings, some at least which would have included eucharist.
Just because now something is taken for granted, doesn't mean it always was (even if we think it ought to have been). Just because something doesn't accord with my theology, doesn't mean it is somehow a wrong thing for anyone else.
It does seem very strange to do it like that given Jesus and Paul's teaching on it. Is there a reason why only one or two received, especially when others were in good standing to do so too?
I'm more interested in the theological and political message being sent to other church members by not having the sovereign be seen to receive even by other people in church, let alone on camera, unless it is a very small, intimate service, and not so much on the sovereign's personal beliefs regarding the Eucharist.
@Bishops Finger , I don't think for your usual televised Eucharist that it is a good idea to show the faces of the congregation as they receive, but if it is a televised service about a key life (or public event) involving key personalities (such as a wedding, ordination, institution of ministry, or a coronation), and if the Eucharist, including those personalities' reception of communion at/in a special time, place and manner that is different than the rest of the congregation is a part of that service, then it makes sense to show those personalities receiving communion, just as you show the ministers receiving communion. It seems that the Queen was shown on TV receiving communion at her own coronation, so I guess nothing new happened with King Charles' Coronation in terms of this aspect of it.
Wasn't it the norm in most of the C of E until some point in the twentieth century for Holy Communion to not be the main service most weeks and to only be attended by the most devout? If this is the environment in which the Queen was raised, maybe it would explain why she preferred her own experience of Holy Communion to be private and intimate.
I wonder if Charles' attitude to the Eucharist is any different? Has he been affected by what he has learned about Orthodoxy, which his father was born into? Or by some of the other mystical and spiritual pursuits he has had?
Total side note: Do people here think Charles allowed to receive Orthodox communion when he visited Mount Athos? Would his father have been allowed to after he became a member of the Church of England? I'm sure individual Orthodox priests might have exercised considerable discretion in this matter but, is there a general policy for situations like that?
Final side note: I think having top political leaders receive communion at very small intimate services might be preferable to the current situation in the US, where right-wing Roman Catholics try to secretly take pictures of liberal RC politicians at the moment they receive communion at large masses in order to post online and demand that bishops declare that these politicians are to be refused communion in their dioceses (because of their stance on reproductive and marriage issues).
Well you'd have to explore the reasoning of people somewhere after about 500 up until around the early 20the century. The idea that all, or even many, would partake dates to around the time of the reformation...but even then that was a theoretical position, not one in common use. Communion, for one thing, was too important and precious to be wasted on just anyone who showed up. The BCP (either 154x or later) makes clear that one should only communicate if in a specifically described state of freedom from sin -- a position I believe still practiced in some of the stricter parts of the presbyterian churches in Scotland. If you read Parson WOodford's diary, you will discover that despite the clear intention of the 1662 BCP that communion should be celebrated weekly, quarterly was more common and that many or most who attended service left before the eucharist (after Morning Prayer, the Litany and the sermon).
Your (and my) understanding of Paul and Jesus is a modern one -- but it's a modern revision of the faith as frequently practiced for many centuries, I'd agree it's what should have been in use all along, but any church historian will tell you it simply wasn't.
@ExclamationMark 'private' isn't the same thing as 'solitary' - there would be others in her private chapel. Historically it has also been extremely normal for royalty and nobility to have private chapels, and if you are someone who doesn't eat breakfast before receiving in the morning - especially an elderly person - it makes sense to me that receiving at home would be seen as better (I have no idea what Charles' views are on this subject and I expect we will never know). To me the monarch is just another person, and I wouldn't see it as inappropriate for anyone else to have a practical or spiritual reason as to why private communion might be a better option. It also seems a bit of a waste of time to discuss the possible thoughts of a dead old woman as to why she did or didn't do something.
I agree on the point of discussing the point of a dead person's thoughts.
However, I wonder why anyone would choose to commune in private. I accept the fasting bit but that's what I was taught at confirmation, hence the visit for early morning communion. I often kept to that as a student and even occasionally now, even though I left the CofE many years ago. I have taken communion to people confined to home or hospital and there's a reason there.
I wonder why anyone would not seemingly want to join others in a communal meal which acknowledges the presence of God and binds community.
Over the 'Christian' centuries there grew up a professional clergy whose job was to do the praying in the name of the community.
The professional clergy,bishops,priests and deacons would celebrate and sing the various hours of prayer decided by the Church,including the Eucharist.
There was a belief that the Eucharist re-presented to the community the penitential death of Jesus and his sacrifice for the salvation of humanity. The bishop,or priest who acted in his name,read the Gospel,took bread and wine,followed the command of Jesus and offered the bread and wine to God partly as a memorial of the death sacrifice of Jesus,but also for the faithful as a link to that sacrifice of Jesus from which Christians benefit down to the present time. This is the reason for the Catholic term of the 'Holy Sacrifice of the Mass'
Just as the priest prayed on behalf of the community he also received Communion on behalf of the community.
Yes indeed there were the fasting laws which only allowed one to receive Communion as the first food of the day. Yes there were laws which only permitted one to receive Communion if one was in a 'state of grace' but on the whole people felt that they had done all that was needed by participating in the Divine Service.
Whilst the Western Latin Church gave detailed directions about what to do regarding regular attendance at the eucharist,much is more fluid in the Eastern Church which had many of the same laws though it was not considered necessary to attend all of the long eucharistic liturgy.
Most of the new Protestant communities founded at the time of the Reformation kept for various reasons to infrequent reception of Communion. In Presbyterian Scotland communion might be celebrated up to four times a year (with no regard to ecclesiastical seasons which simply did not exist)
Over the last few centuries have grown up what many ,but certainly not all,Christians agree with that regular reception of Communion is a 'good thing'.
It was a decree of Pius X in 1905 that encouraged more frequent, even daily, communion.
It seems to me that there is an underlying assumption here about the meaning of the Eucharist and of receiving Communion, such that the question almost reads like “I don’t understand why Anglicans don’t have the same understanding of Communion Baptists do.” A few thoughts come to mind:
First, not all traditions see reception of Communion as participation in a communal meal, or at least not primarily so. Receiving Communion in some traditions is seen much more in terms of the communicant and God, while the communal aspect is seen more as arising from participation in the overall liturgy together.
Second, I would not call what happened at the coronation “private Communion.” It was very public. Reception by only a few isn’t the same thing as “private.”
And third, the understanding of the communal meal that binds the community makes sense in the context of gathered Christians. I’m not sure it makes sense in the kind of primarily civic gathering that the coronation involved—a variety of people, including government officials and international dignitaries, who may or may not be Christian.
The only outsiders would be the Jews. Other religions would be seen so rarely that they would not count.
The point was made, when Parish Communion became the main (or only) Sunday service, that those who preferred the 8am service were by no means some sort of inferior Christian. Those whose spirituality was fed by attendance at a quiet service, with perhaps not all that many others present, was (and is) just as valid as that of the larger congregation at the later Parish Communion.
Ottawa lore has it that Princess Margaret attended early morning communion services at Saint Bartholomew's during her visit in 1958 to preside at the Renfrew Centennial (we are still wondering what she did to deserve to be sent to the Ottawa Valley in blackfly season).
The whole discussion of Communion in private started with this:
My post above on the topic was a response to @ExclamationMark, who said, Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I read this to be a shift from “why the late Queen received Communion in private” to “why would anyone—including the King and Queen at their coronation—not want to join with the rest of the gathered church in receiving Communion?”
FWIW, My Old Mum (1912-2004, so not quite the same generation as HM the Queen) was in the habit of receiving Communion once a month (usually the first Sunday thereof) at the BCP 8am service at her local church.
This had been her practice since her youth, the village church of her childhood not having embraced the Parish Communion movement until many years after she had left the parish. In earlier days, she attended Mattins as well, but in her later life she attended Evensong weekly at a nearby Mission church (*Tin Tabernacle*).
I appreciate that this has nothing much to do with the Coronation liturgy, but it may help to explain the mindset of a previous generation of faithful churchgoers, of whom HM the Queen was one.
We did at at Liverpool Met Cathedral when Pope JPII came. It was the recessional. A really splendid piece.
Incidentally the orchestration was reduced for the coronation. Skilfully done by John Rutter.