St Edward’s Chair, with the Stone of Scone underneath
Now that a full week has passed and King Charles III has undergone the Rite of Coronation, I’ve had time to consider it more fully. Therefore I’d like to offer some additional thoughts.
Briefly put, it was thin gruel. Sadly, it could have been so much more. It was a liturgy, of this there can be no doubt, albeit a dessicated one. Let’s not be harsh however, what could we expect after half a millennium of Protestantism?
First the good points: the pomp and circumstance were executed splendidly. The trumpet fanfares were brilliant as was Handel’s “Zadok the Priest”. The Byzantine chant provided by Capella Romana was lovely, most appropriate and hopefully, portends a better future, ritualistically speaking. And of course the Chrism used for the oil of anointing, which was confected by the Patriarch of Jerusalem was a surprising touch.
The deficits unfortunately outweigh the credits. I’m sorry, but I just can’t take bishopesses seriously. It’s bad enough that a non-entity like Justin Welby is Archbishop of Canterbury, but why do we have to put up with female ordinands with shaved heads? (At least I think s/he was a woman.) As for the implements of State, they should have been handled by military men dressed to the nines, not old women whose only qualifications for this event were that they checked off the proper boxes of an American corporation’s human relations checklist.
Bottom line: the coronation offered some balm for those suffering Anglicans and High-Church Protestants who have seen solemnity stripped from their lives. Regrettably, its modernist contrivances solidified in the minds of Low-Church Protestants why they threw out the sacramental baby with the Catholic bathwater out in the first place.
I could go on and on. But there is more than enough despondency in the world today so I won’t add to it. Instead, I would like to speak about what I believe portends well for the future or at the very least, offers a glimmer of hope.
As I mentioned above, the Byzantine chant was more than a nice touch, I think it added a sacred tone not seen in a Western coronation since perhaps the High Middle Ages. Don’t get me wrong, Handel is glorious but Christian chant is eternal. By combining the two I believe that Charles’ coronation may –I stress the word may–have set in motion a sacral way out of the demonically ugly morass that presently engulfs the West.
As for the holy Chrism, this was the first time in history that a British king was anointed with a valid oil.* This was also the first coronation in British history in which the processional cross contained fragments from the True Cross. All of this was at the insistence of Charles himself.
There are other hopeful tidbits. According to the video below, Prince Philip discreetly returned to the Orthodox Church in 1992 for a variety of reasons, one of them being a protest over the ordination of priestesses in the Church of England. As for Charles, he refused to join the Masonic Lodge, thus becoming the first king in over a century to not be the honorary Grand Master of Freemasonry in Great Britain. In and of themselves, these are not insignificant phenomena.
I realize of course that many in our Church might object to all this folderol since King Charles is a Protestant. Nor should we forget that he is as much under the thumb of the globalists as any other modern head of state. What executive power he holds is attenuated at best. Regardless of how much he may agree with the international banking elites vis-a-vis their globalist agenda, he is nevertheless on as short of a leash as any other chief executive.
Some of us operate under the illusion that the King is a secret convert to Orthodoxy. I doubt this. This is a persistent rumor, one kept alive by his admiration for the Orthodox Church (which is exemplified by his frequent pilgrimages to Mt Athos). Who know? At the present trajectory the Church of England is going on, the spiritual apathy that afflicts the English people might allow Charles –or a successor–to openly embrace Orthodoxy at some future point. I mean, why not?
Bottom line? For those whose appetites were whetted by what they saw, I’m afraid that will have to look elsewhere to experience the grace that comes with authentic liturgies. I hate to say this, but they won’t be able to reclaim that which is sacral in the various Protestant denominations. Too much water has passed under that bridge. Yes, that means that it will be up to us –despite all our deficits–to throw out the only lifeline possible at this point.
And so I direct your attention to the video below. Although it is from a TradCat perspective, I believe that it’s worth a listen. I especially appreciate Charles Coulombe’s insight that the American Republic in its present form is untenable, in that it no longer represents the broader electorate. As he explains it, American presidents presently are essentially presidents only of those states which elected them. I therefore ask you to please put aside your prejudices and listen to Coulombe’s critique.**
*As for the pre-Norman, Anglo-Saxon kings (who were Orthodox), I can’t say for sure whether they received anointing during their coronations. As I understand it, the rite of anointing a monarch with Chrism first appeared in Byzantium in the 12th century.
**This process arguably began with the 2000 election of George W Bush which exposed not only the Red-State/Blue-State political divide but the stark cultural differences between the Red counties and the Blue ones. In essence, Republican presidents are elected from the 85 percent of the suburban, exurban and rural counties which color the vast majority of the continent red, while Democrat presidents are elected from isolated Blue counties which are overwhelmingly urban. Despite the best efforts of the Electoral College, this does not portend well for the future of a united Republic.
And so, I will come out with the first criticism of Charles’s globalist superstitions (just to get them out of the way):
https://theduran.com/towards-a-church-of-the-british-empire-world-government-as-british-empire-revivalism/
As I see it, the problem with Charles and the other Great Reseters is that despite their best efforts, the best-laid plans of mice and men have a funny way of following a different course.
What I’m trying to say is that God is the ultimate King. In the end, Charles’ main legacy might be restoring Christian liturgy in the West.
Did you observe … Bishop Niketas (an Orthodox Bishop) and a Papist stood in the cathedral with various other clerics and BLESSED the King of the Protestants … the King of the PROTEST against the early Church. Let that sink in.
The Protestants were not protesting against the Early Church
so much as against the abuses in the Roman Catholic Church;
but they got enthusiastic and tossed the baby with the bathwater.
Met. Niketas is an exarch of the EP and is acting not just on invitation from the British monarchy but also under obedience to his direct boss, the EP.
It is also not unusual for a bishop to give a blessing to the civil authorities, especially a king, especially upon request, I think. I dont know how I feel about it being in the context of the coronation, but I heard the blessing and it seemed a very general “may you lead the country and your people in mercy, toward God, etc.” kind of stuff.
Met. Niketas would probably benefit from our prayers regardless.
I seem to remember an Orthodox quote that was something to the effect of “the West will only return to its Orthodox roots when the Church venerates western saints.” Or something like that.
It’s worth noting that the Russian Orthodox Church (and ROCOR) has added many western Orthodox saints to its calendar. So, you never know, England may very well be on its way back to its Orthodox roots.
If Prince Phillip did indeed return to Orthodoxy, and with the affinity that Charles has for Orthodoxy, it very well might be.
It’s interesting to note that I’ve never heard of an Orthodox patriarch providing oil for a non-Orthodox coronation. Maybe Charles has secretly converted to Orthodoxy.
If he did then he isn’t king, because he swore an oath that he is a Reformed Protestant.
Exactly. Charles swore the following, loud and clear: “I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments
which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law. ”
There sure are a lot of Orthodox who SWOON when a protestant visits Mt Athos, when a relative WAS nominally Orthodox and then formally left it, his father quite publicly became a protestant to marry Elizabeth. HIS mother was Orthodox and an idiorhythmic monastic of sorts. There was an Orthodox private chapel in her Buckingham palace quarters. And it was dismantled and removed when she died.
Incidentally, the silly performance in Greek by Capella of a psalm was completely AGAINST the anglican “settlement” (an important word in the coronation oath! Orthodoxy is NOT a settlement!) the new king swore to uphold. The 39 articles of religion of anglicans include an important one, #24: “Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth. It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.”
Not one person in that building understood a word of the psalm that was sung. In fact, not a single person would have understood it if it was done in a parish of the Greek archdiocese. The use of Greek in a protestant anglican service was for show and nothing more. The Orthodox everywhere should take that article of religion to heart.
Forget imagining this king or most anglicans are somehow pining away for the True Church. The “settlement” precludes anything definite about God. It’s important to remember that every last bizarre thing that happened in the anglican world over the last 70 years happened under the supreme headship (that’s the language they use) of Elizabeth. The 8th grade graduate. The “reign” of Charles will not be any better.
Indeed. If Elizabeth had truly taken seriously her role as the Supreme Governor of the church, and didn’t just go along with everything to save her position, she would have fought it.
But like a permissive mother, she only wanted to be liked, so she went along with everything. And the UK has destroyed itself.
There’s a striking juxtaposition between King Charles’ coronation last Saturday morning, and Metropolitan Saba’s enthronement this morning for the Antiochian Archdiocese in North America.
And interesting, as I watch the enthronement on livestream, to hear Archbishop Elpidophoros’s greeting to Met. Saba (in which he took a moment to urge the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR to rejoin ACOB), immediately followed by a greeting from a Russian bishop on behalf of Patriarch Kirill.
Okay. I will bite. What liturgy are you talking about? And how is that going to help?
My observation over the years is that we need liturgy but don’t recognize that need.
Liturgy without belief is empty.
While liturgy can aid in conversion it is no substitute for making disciples.
Actually the Anglican liturgy is fuller than the Orthodox liturgy as I have experienced both.
The Anglican liturgy incudes a lesson from the Old Testament and a portion of the Psalms. Both are needed to comprehend the fullness of the Bible story.
My understanding of the Divine Liturgy and the Eucharist in western terms is that it is two services: the Jewish worship service and the Christian celebration, which at some point in time were merged. Early Christians attended both.
The first part consists of readings or in the Anglican Church, lessons. Lessons to be learned. The psalms and prayers. All this is still being done today in synagogues.
Then when the priest says “Lift up you heart!”
We are to hand our heart over to God, the good and the bad. Once we have handed our heart, our worries and concerns to God, we are free to worship God and concentrate only on Him.
Meanwhile the Orthodox liturgy goes right back into concerns and worries. We take them all back, so to speak, because we find the necessity to keep repeating them. Maybe God didn’t hear the first time.
So what does it mean to give God our heart?
Why does the Orthodox liturgy sing about laying aside all earthly cares, but launch right back into them?
Why do most Orthodox priests omit the story of why we are gathered together in the first place? The Jews celebrate Passover by retelling the story. The story becomes embedded in the brain. But the story of Jesus and the last supper is often omitted. I haven’t figured out why yet. But if we are celebrating that event why omit it? Why skip over it and go immediately to “take and eat”
Liturgy functions when based on understanding and belief, trust, and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
The Anglican Church has a perfectly good liturgy but it has lost its trust in God.
Other Protestant churches are really using the Jewish synagogue service.
Want the complete story? Go to Vespers, Matins, Vigil, etc.
You’re demonstrating a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of Orthodox liturgy and over-reliance on your Anglican background. The Orthodox liturgy lacks absolutely nothing. It is the worship of heaven brough to earth. The Anglican liturgy has its qualities, but it is far from perfectly good because it was composed by a heretic and, as such, contains heresies.
But really, your “review” of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is so far off the mark that it’s evident that you were not properly catechized.
They were actually the first. Saint Dunstan of Canterbury composed the rite of royal anointing.
Thank you for this clarification.
In 574 AD, St Columba of Iona ordained Áedán mac Gabráin
as King of Dál Riata by the laying on of hands.
Adomnán of Iona: Life of Saint Columba III (v)
Whether or not the holy man used oil
for anointing, St Adomnán doesn’t say.
The Old Testament is read at Vespers. The entire Last Supper narrative is read from all four gospels multiple times during Holy Week. Have you attended these services?
I never heard more scripture as a Protestant than I do in the Orthodox Church.
And there is no fundamental need to understand the liturgy. It happens with or without our brains. The entire plan of salvation is made present at every Liturgy.
Yes. I have attended all these services. Once a year is a long time to remember the reason why we are doing something.
I have also studied the history of liturgy in a seminary situation. And I do know that during the English reformation the leaders went back to their Orthodox roots.
At least the English didn’t make HenryVIII a saint as the Orthodox have made Constantine. His bio is rather bloody.
Amazing to think about it, but Jesus died for everyone. John :16. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. “.
God knows who and where his believers are. And Jesus has warned that some people who think they are ‘in’, may not be. He makes that judgment, not us.
A lot of what you say is true. However I must take issue with you regarding Constantine I. I don’t believe the Church “made him a saint” as I don’t believe the Church makes anyone a saint. Constantine I, the Great, was added to the roster of saints because God, in His providence, used him to uphold the Church. I can say the same thing as far as King David is concerned.
Forgive me, I mean no disrespect.
I have double checked English kings following Henry VIII. First of all, while Henry broke the relationship with the Pope, he maintained most of Catholic teaching. His young son, who ascended the throne at the age of 9, was managed by regents. He did institute some reforms, as the marriage of priests.
Upon his early death squabbling ensued as to who should follow. Finally his older sister, Mary was chosen. She returned the Church to Rome. And a bloody era followed as many reformers met untimely and brutal deaths.
She was known as Bloody Mary.
Upon her demise, her younger sister Elizabeth I became Queen.
She severed the relationship with the pope .
So if you want to blame someone for this state of affairs blame her.
Meanwhile on this blog I have read about the state of the Orthodox Church. There has been much lamenting and wringing of hands but little action. At least in the English reformation there were men who had the guts to stand up and do something. Several paid for this with their lives. But that didn’t stop them. That didn’t stop them from going out into the world taking the message of Jesus.
Thirdly. Words have meaning. We either mean what we say, or we are lying to God.
For instance, if we lift up our heart to God, to me that means giving Him access to everything in my heart. Every single care and woe and blessing. I have no worries. They are now His. And I am free to worship Him. The real question is, Do I trust God with my heart?
The Church falls down when we do not understand what we believe and practice it.
And we are in that state now.
I’m not sure having a “bloody bio” precludes one from being a Saint. This certainly wasn’t the case with St. Paul.
Or St Alexander Nevsky
King Charles and the Globalists set meeting for September at which they will plot how to accelerate goals of U.N. Agenda 2030 and the complete digitization of humanity
https://leohohmann.com/2023/05/02/king-charles-and-the-globalists-set-meeting-for-september-at-which-they-will-plot-how-to-accelerate-goals-of-u-n-agenda-2030-and-the-complete-digitization-of-humanity/
Indeed!
Charles is not a good man at all.
Look at the man’s face. Something is “off” with him. Yes, I am judging the book by its cover. I think it is valid to do so.
There is a story about President Lincoln, who interviewed someone recommended to him by Sectretary of War Stanton. Lincoln rejected the candidate. When asked why, Lincoln said, “I don’t like the man’s face.” When Stanton objected that the man could not help his face, Lincoln replied, “After the age of 40, every man is responsible for his face.”
I agree.
Satan is very cunning. Charles the new king globalist had a stunning “coronation.”
“ So don’t tell us about civic participation and sustainability and how you will give us a better world and all of the other lies. The globalists care about one thing: Domination. Control. They will do anything, tell any lie, to achieve it. And they wonder why there has been a breech of trust; why people around the world have had enough of the incessant lies, manufactured crises, arrogance and intolerance of dissenting views that come down from the globalists and their elitist institutions.”
Leo Hohmann
Dr Turley explains how the Evil/Stupid Duopoly works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zir66O8Y4_Y
All the pomp and circumstance can’t conceal the fact that the “other woman” is on the throne, one who is herself a divorcee. Edward VIII had to abdicate when he wanted to marry a divorcee! What changed between then and now? Yet it befits the Anglican church to have as Supreme Governor one who exhibits the marital indiscipline of its progenitor Henry VIII. A tree is known by its fruit indeed.
“What changed between then and now?”
In 1936, the monarch changed.
By 2023, the morals changed.
Jimmy Saville was apparently Charles’ best friend, had complete and free access to the palace, and was later revealed to be a notorious pedophile. Also, there is a photo of Nathan (if I remember) Rothschild putting his finger in Charles’ chest, as if ordering him or talking down to him. I don’t think Charles is his own man, simply a point man for other darker and hidden figures.
Both are correct, Fr.
In fact, Abp Nikitas did not bless anyone; he was merely part of the congregation. Nor was he the most senior Orthodox cleric there – that dubious distinction goes to Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem.