A random Anglican thought to re-kick things off...
In the Anglican church, the way that doctrinal purity is meant to be maintained is via the system of appointment for its leadership. Written in 1550 and published ongoingly in the Anglican Prayer Books, the 'Ordinal' presents the rites for the making of Deacons, Priests and Bishops in the Anglican Church. Basically, it provides the way that a bishop can make a lay person into a deacon or make a deacon into a priest and the way that three bishops can make a priest into a bishop. The services contain examinations of the candidates and are highly regulated so as to safeguard these orders of ministry from false teachers, people of unfit character, etc.
However, here's the interesting thing. Since the Reformation (and indeed a key tenet of the English Reformation under Henry VIII and Edward VI), the Church of England recognises the reigning monarch as the supreme head of the church on earth, second only to Christ. But while the monarch is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, there's no officially established liturgy for the coronation service as far as I can see. I'm wondering about the sense of this.
On the one hand, the monarch is above all other church authority so perhaps it's appropriate that they're not subjected to any orders of the church. But on the other hand, this means that the supreme head of the church could be a total heretic, and if they were, there's no system in place that would prevent them from taking up their position over the church.
Practically, it probably matters very little given that the monarch doesn't really exercise much leadership in the church (and heresy has found it's way into the other orders of ministry anyway). But nonetheless, it's a thought for those who think about the Anglican Church.
I'll be interested to see what liturgy is used for Charles' and Camilla's coronation when the day comes.
PS. If Elizabeth II lives and reigns until 10 Sept 2015, she will become the longest serving monarch in the history of England.
The last time I asked about this - during I might add the previous kerfuffle about women in ministry - I was told that for the Anglican Church in Australia, that is was the Governor General. So the Australian Anglican Church as far as I can tell has had at least a Jew, an Atheist, and a Catholic as their head of church (which some people prefer to a female Christian). So does the Anglican leadership derive it's authority from head of church? And if so, how does that stand up with the type of leaders we've already had?
ReplyDeleteAny time you want to come around and watch 'A Queen is Crowned' - the film of Elizabeth II's coronation, just let me know. Narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier, and starring her Majesty QEII.
ReplyDeleteI must re-watch it myself as I recall one or two moments in her vows that gave me pause.
Btw, would it be Charles' and Camilla's coronation? Wouldn't it just be Charles' coronation? I don't recall Philip having much to do in Elizabeth's coronation.
@ Kiri.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Australia goes, I'm not really sure if the GG is the Queen's official representative in matters of church. It may be that the 'chain of command' actually goes from the Primate to the Abp of Canterbury to the Queen. It's a good question but probably overridden by other mechanisms.
International Anglican authority is greatly complicated by the fact that the Church of England was fundamentally established as a national church, not an international church. How it works across political boundaries has necessarily been worked out on the go.
Formally, there are four 'instruments' of unity in the Anglican Communion: The Primates' Meeting, The Abp of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lambeth Conference.
@Dandiel C.
Yes, Camilla will be Queen Consort. And yes, Philip is only Prince Consort, not King. Simple reason being that the heredity of the English crown carries primarily down the male line.
Film sounds good. I knew Elizabeth's coronation was filmed, but I didn't know the film was available.