www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A Question regarding Her Majesty the Queen in the Liturgy

There used to be a YouTube video (now removed) of Father Serge serving the Divine Liturgy in Singapore in September 2007. I remember watching it and noticing the commemoration of Cardinal-King Henry IX.

Actually, I have been wanting to ask Father Serge about this, since obviously there was never any connection between Cardinal-King Henry IX and Singapore, and I don't think it was his anniversary either.

In the Melkite Church in Australia, we pray for "the Sovereign" before the government and the armed forces.

Actually it was Henry IX's 200th anniversary of repose. Memory Eternal. Listen to what I said and you will find that I prayed for his eternal rest - which does not require that one be in his territory!

Fr. Serge

Dear Misha,

The title "Defender of the Faith" was bestowed upon Henry VIII by the Pope in recognition of his treatise on the Defense of the Seven Sacraments. Since the present crop of usurpers neither recognize the Pope nor defend the Seven Sacraments it takes a brass neck for them to use that title!

Leaving that title to one side for the moment, one would not normally worry about acknowledging some public official who, for his "other" employment, is a member or the head of some other denomination. But the situation of the throne of the Three Kingdoms is rather more serious. Hence the preference for a more general prayer for "our civil authorities", which cannot either give offense or cause confusion.

I have nothing against the government of Australia and no wish to show disrespect for that government. But it seems highly unlikely that Ms. Battenberg had any connection with extricating the Old Ritualists from China. One might remember, though, that the English government back when Kerensky was running the Provisional Government of Russia was offered the opportunity to rescue Nicholas II and the Imperial Family from Russia. Time was of the essence; Lloyd George immediately dispatched a British vessel to Saint Petersburg to collect the Tsar and the family. "King" George countermanded the prime minister and ordered that the boat turn back at once - with results with which all of us are only too familiar (the Windsors also managed to steal most of the jewels which belonged to the Dowager Empress). There has never been any apology for this outrage.

The Tsar and his family were actually close blood relatives of the Windsors, who abandoned them to their terrible fate.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge,

The commemoration of the head of state does not in any way imply approval or endorsement of that head of state, but rather is a prayer that the head of state be guided by the Holy Spirit that he might rule in peace and justice, and that we will share in his tranquility.

The early Christians, while not offering sacrifice to the Emperor, did in deed pray for the Emperor, even though he was a pagan and their persecutor. The Jews in the same way did not sacrifice to the imperial cult, but prayed for the health and safety of the Emperor. The main difference between the Christians and the Jews was the latter were considered a religio licita, while the former were considered an illegal cult or superstitio. Lacking the legal protection afforded the Jews on account of the antiquity of their faith (and their cussedness when challenged about it), the Christians could be charged with "atheism", since they did not recognize or participate in the state religion.

I should also point out, for the benefit of Americans, that in most parliamentary systems, the Head of State and the Head of the Government are two distinct persons. The former, who serves as a focus of national unity, is either a monarch or a (largely ceremonial) president, while the latter is the prime minister. Under the U.S. Constitution, the President is both Head of State and Head of the Government.

*Thinks this is an interesting topic and hopes he hasn't opened a can of worms!*



Father Bless!

I would doubt that Her Majesty has even heard of the Old Ritualists I am not so fanciful as to think that she had any direct involvement. However, the people of my parents' and grandparents' generation (I refer to all Russians that escaped China, not just Old Rite, ROCOR, UGCC, etc) saw the Queen as the figurehead who represented their salvation. When they became citizens, they recived a citizenship certificate with a picture of the Queen who 'let them' move to their new home. For them - she may as well have come into Manchuria on a white horse and slayed the Communists herself, carrying them to the Terra Australis on her bosom! I know many churches have a small picture of the Queen in their church hall - trying to remember if we do in Sydney??? - I think you will find most of my generation are in fact Republicans (the British definition, not US) - though as you may have guessed - I am not!

It is true that the British Royals had a lot to answer for in regards to the eventual deaths of the Romanovs. Had they been more hospitable to their cousins - there could have been a revival years later - or at least the true remnants of a family in Exile - not the groups of claimants we have now. Still, on that note: bringing it back to the Old Ritualists: this will sound horrible - but I don't think there was a lot of love lost for the Russian Royals for some years when it came to the Old Rite - Just a feelign I may get

Still, Queen Elizabeth isn't seen as guilty for actions of past monarchs, just as Pope Benedict isn't responsible for his predecesors, any more than I am to blame for my paternal grandfather having been such a miserable old git!

She is, as I mentioned regarding my parent's view, a figure, a symbol of hope. In secular countries (Australia has no formal religion) having a symbolic head of state who is at least a pracitcing Christian (let's not get into definitions of 'practicing' ;)) is better than having a head who is for all intents and purposes, an athiest.

Father, I have no doubt that my children (should I have any) will be citiziens of an Australian republic (Lord knows, that sounds more attractive than King Charles!) and at that time I would expect there to be no mention of the monarchy in the Litrugy. Perhaps there is no academic base for acknowledging the Queen, particularly based on those articulate points you put across, but I think it does no harm either. - Probably a parish by parish issue - it doesn't seem here that any Bishops have requested it. I even have a sneaking suspicion that most Church of England (Anglican) parishes in Australia wouldn't do it. That however, would be political and nothing else.

Yours,

Misha


PS: As a side note - I may be quite strange - or at least my family is. Apart from the fact that being half-English with a father who has never taken citizenship up in Australia (doesn't want to lose his British identify!), which already makes me somewhat Windsor-sympathetic - I come from an Old Rite family that were great fans of the Tzars and Royals in general. I don't know why - perhaps because many of the family were soldiers. To this day, my mother has a framed picutre of The Tzar Nicholas II and his wife in her loungeroom. It is the same picture that hung on my Baba's wall for 40 years. Outside of post-Nikonian Russians - you don't see that much. We don't see them as Saints - but there they are in prime position. . . I think people like to have a figure-head to look up to. Some of us don't have well-known Presidents or Popes after all! For some it's the Queen, for others it's Mick Jagger. If it comes between those two - I'll take the former any day!

Actually the Old-Ritualists had a serious appreciation of Tsar Nicholas II - because he had the Altars unsealed in the Holy Protection Cathedral and other churches of the Rogozhskoie Cemetery, and proclaimed freedom of religion after the long years of persecution.

The Tsar's personal guards were all Old-Ritualists. When he was brought the instrument of abdication, the Old-Ritualist guards fell to their knees and begged the Tsar not to abdicate.

It is not impossible that Ms Battenberg has heard of the Old-Ritualists; as I mentioned that family were close relatives of the Romanovs and when Elizabeth came to Canada she would visit "Aunt Ol'ga" - the Grand Duchess Ol'ga, sister of Tsar Nicholas II, who in turn would have been well aware of the connection of her brother with the Old-Ritualists and might easily have mentioned this to Elizabeth. Grand Duchess Ol'ga is reposed, so we have no particular way of knowing.

The Old-Ritualists do not, of course, recognize the canonization of Tsar Nicholas II and his family, but they remain well disposed to him and well aware of what he did for them.

I've been quite strange since I was a teen-ager, so you are welcome to join our ranks!

Fr. Serge

The Australian government had for many years an open door policy in regard to Russians from China and was not too caught up in how Russian anyone had to be to qualify to be relocated. There are a number of Uighars near Melbourne who are part Russian who were allowed in in the late 80s. The open door was only closed when they realised anyone who was going to use it had already done so. Some Russians from China arrived via south American countries. The old Russian settlements in Australia did not always mix well with the new arivals from China and one congregation in Melbourne is still under the Greek Archdiocese.

The Windsors were not the only relatives with ships who could have helped the Tsar and his family. Mrs Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg whose children use her husbands maternal surname anglised to MountBatten as part of their own surname, is held in high regard by many in Australia by many of non Anglo Saxon back ground. You might wonder why the prince prefered to use his maternal name when he had to choose a surname on taking out Uk citizenship. The answer is simple when the poor lad was homeless it was the maternal side of the family that provided for him in exile.

I voted for the version of a republic when we had the referendum that failed.

Hello everyone!

Since I live in the bit of Ireland which (whether I like it or not!) is presently part of the UK, I'd thought I'd toss a slighlty mischievous coin into the discussion.

It will come as no surprise when I tell you that I have never heard the British monarch commemorated specifically (and as such) in any way at mass in the North of Ireland.

We do, however, regularly pray in the bidding prayers for those charged with our governance, and since the prayer is couched in those general terms, I guess by default that it picks up anyone of whatever political shade who finds himself or herself involved in running our system - and that's fine by me, because they really do need all the help they can get!!

BTW (and strictly, I suppose, unconnected with the foregoing), it occurs to me that the late Queen Mother was the last queen of Ireland (that is, all of Ireland), as she was in situ before the declaration of the republic - a fact I don't remember being picked up anywhere at the time of the lady's demise (may she rest in peace).

Best regards to all

Craig

Pre Vatican II the Monarch was prayed for at Benediction in England.

Stuart: We here in Australia address bishops as "my lord". However we have had the era of call me "Bishop", or call me "Mike", so many of the younger generation would have no idea what to do and say if a bishop turned up.

I thought all Australians were named "Bruce".

Dear Craig,

I also live in the part of Ireland which is part of the UK and like you have never heard the Queen commemorated at the Mass. However, I can confirm that she was commemorated at the Orthodox Divine Liturgy each week at the former ROCOR parish in Belfast.

Brigid