THE LEGITIMATION OF AUTHORITY
DIVINE AND HUMAN
Twenty-first century Americans are accustomed to separate the religious and civil spheres of human activity. Some speak of a “Wall of Separation” of what we call “Church” and “State.” This apparently simple “wall” occasionally becomes porous. In the national community disagreement occurs on issues such as prayer in public schools. There are apparent contradictions in law. Prayer is prohibited in public schools but is allowed in the Congress.
Before 312, when Constantine gave Christians freedom to
practice their religion, Christians interacted with a Roman Empire that often
was unfriendly to them. Thereafter,
Christianity became more and more involved with the government of the Roman
Empire and its successor states.
Emperors and kings had a stake in doctrinal decisions that could effect
civil order. Popes and bishops took on
civil and judicial responsibilities. In
the “Christian Empire” all agreed that the ultimate source of power and authority
on earth was Christ. Disagreements
arose over to whom Christ had given ultimate power, the religious authority or
the civil authority. Today we refer to
these conflicts as Church-State disputes.
The separation of Church and State into distinct spheres is a modern
concept. One thousand years ago it
would have been incomprehensible.
Emperors convoked Church councils and appointed bishops; bishops and
popes were territorial princes and civil judges.
Christian
Europe in the thousand years before the French Revolution of 1789 often is
called “Christendom,” a society united by faith in Christ. Before the Reformation of the sixteenth
century the Roman Catholic Church determined the definition of society’s faith
in Christ. Membership in the Catholic
Church was equivalent to membership in society. Non-Catholics were sometimes tolerated and occasionally
persecuted. Within Christendom there
were, however, two distinct “spheres.”
The Sacerdotium was the
religious sphere, comprising the clergy and Canon Law, the law of the
Church. Sometimes it was called the
“Spiritual Arm” of society. The Imperium was the civil sphere,
comprising the civil rulers, emperor, kings, princes, and the civil law of the
various states. It was often called the
“Temporal Arm” of society.
The
members of each sphere had different views concerning their
interrelationship. Each believed that
their respective authority, and the power derived from it, directly came from
God. They differed on the extent and
limitations of that authority and power.
Advocates of the “Spiritual Power” contended that only they could
legitimate the authority of the “Temporal Power.” After all, they were the custodians and interpreters of the Law
of God, which was the basis of civil order.
Proponents of the “Temporal Power” said that it was their responsibility
to provide protection and security for all Christendom, thus ensuring that the
“Spiritual Power” could exercise its responsibilities for the salvation of
souls.
These
differing views provoked many crises of authority that threatened the stability
of society. Each side struggled for
supreme power. For short periods one or
the other would triumph; a pope deposing an emperor, an emperor deposing a
pope. The conflict was often played out
in symbolic actions. An emperor would
prostrate before a pope seeking absolution from excommunication; a pope would
seek confirmation of his office from an emperor. Nowhere is this intricate dance more apparent than in the
ceremony of royal coronation, the ritual in which a monarch’s assumption of
legitimate authority and power is enacted.
The ceremony of royal coronation as
it developed in Europe from the ninth through the fifteenth centuries
expresses, in ritual form, the often-contradictory understandings of
society. It combines elements drawn
from Roman, Germanic and Christian ceremonial and law. This combination of cultural and religious
traditions exemplifies the integration of the Roman and Germanic cultures with
the Christian religion. This order dominated
Europe from the time of Charlemagne through the Reformation, and according to
some, until the French Revolution.
Such a world is very different from
our own although some of the issues it addressed resonate in our own time. What is the supreme guide of human activity,
the civil law or the law of the Church?
How can we understand this world of the past and thereby better
understand our own?
The great moments in the lives of individuals and
societies are marked by ceremonies. The
most significant ceremony in the society of Christian Europe was the coronation
of the monarch. The ceremony itself is
filled with symbols. Symbols should not
be understood as mere signs, but as signs that effect an underlying
reality. The symbolism in the coronation
ceremony is “sacramental” in the full sense of the word as understood in
Catholic sacramental theology. It is an
outward sign of a hidden reality. The
enacting of the ritual is not simply ceremonial but causes a change to take
place in the participants. It is not
surprising that the ceremony is very similar to Catholic sacramental rituals.
The film of the coronation of Queen
Elizabeth II may be recent. The
coronation took place in 1953. However,
this ceremony contains the same elements as a coronation that might have taken
place in France, Germany, or England in the eleventh or the fourteenth
centuries. Some obvious differences are
the language. In pre-Reformation times,
the entire ceremony was in Latin. In
post-Reformation England, the relationship of the Church and State had
radically changed due to the separation of the Church of England from the Roman
Catholic Church.
What are the origins of this very complex ceremony?
The fiction of a republican form of government was maintained in the
Roman Empire.
“Emperors” occasionally succeeded their fathers but their legitimacy
came not from blood descent but from the acclamation of the Senate and the Roman
People. This acclamation eventually was
reduced to acclamation by the army. The new emperor was acclaimed as "Caesar" and “Imperator”
while the soldiers
implored the gods to grant him Salus et Victoria,
“Health and Victory.” Emperors were
not crowned, as were monarchs in Egypt and Persia, because, in theory, they were
not kings, but the “First Man” of the republic. The early emperors often
wore a
golden
laurel wreath that was a sign of military triumph rather than of royal
status. As the Eastern Empire became
more “oriental,” its emperors
assumed the title of “Basileus” or king and a ceremony of coronation
developed in which the emperor crowned himself. Among
the Germanic peoples, the soldiers acclaimed kings and chiefs, but this was
simply recognition of their legitimacy.
Legitimacy was based on their accepted and proven “blood descent”
from the previous monarch. As the
Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire they retained their traditional method
of “legitimizing” a
ruler. He was the son or
the grandson of the previous monarch who was then recognized by the army.
As time
passed in the Frankish kingdom, a system developed whereby the king was a mere
figurehead and the “Mayor of the Palace,” not related to the king, exercised
the real authority. This was due to an
inherent weakness in the system of inheritance. There was no way mere inheritance could guarantee a good, wise,
or strong ruler. Other, more qualified
or merely stronger, figures entered the picture. In 749 Pepin
asked Pope Zachary whether it was correct that the one who
exercised the royal power should have the royal title, he was asking the pope
to legitimize a “coup d’état.”
This overthrow required a symbolic
act. This act of legitimization was
“anointing.” Anointing had a clear
religious symbolism. In the Hebrew
Scriptures, the Prophet Samuel anointed Saul as king. The ritual of anointing was
symbolic of the divine conferral of royal power on Saul. He then transferred the divine legitimacy to
David
by anointing. This was not merely symbolic. The act of anointing meant that God
conferred power. Anointing would now be
used as a Christian sign of royal power coming from God. This is not surprising. By this time, anointing had been added to
the laying on of hands in the sacraments of Initiation and Holy Orders. In both instances it symbolized the
conferral of the power of the Holy Spirit.
The anointing of Pepin symbolized and effectuated the conferral of royal power from God to the new king. The anointing and crowning of the king by a pope or bishop created a problem that would plague the relation of church and state. Did the pope or bishop confer the power in the name of God or did they merely act as intermediaries through whom the legitimate power was conferred?
As a sidelight, Childeric III, the king whom Pepin
replaced, was ritually deposed. Among
the Frankish monarchs of the Merovingian dynasty, the royal status was
symbolized by the wearing of long hair.
Childeric’s hair was cut off as a sign he was no longer king! Other monarchs lost their heads. Pepin soon rewarded the pope by confirming
him as civil
ruler
of central Italy, the Papal States.
The coronation of Charlemagne
was
imitative of the acclamation of a Roman Emperor with the addition of the crown
that had become customary in the Eastern Empire. The accounts of the coronation
differ. Einhard, Charlemagne’s
biographer, gives the impression that Charlemagne was unwilling to be crowned. This is unlikely. What angered Charlemagne was the method of coronation. The bestowal of the crown by the pope
indicated that the crown came through the mediation of the pope. Eastern emperors crowned themselves to show
that their authority came directly from God.
Charlemagne believed that God directly bestowed his authority as
well. One thousand years later, to
avoid any ambiguity, Napoleon brought Pope Pius VII to Paris for his coronation
as Emperor of the French. Napoleon
took the
crown from the hands of the pope, crowned himself and then crowned his empress.
In Christendom, the combination of Roman, Germanic and Christian symbols was exemplified in the ritual of coronation. The roles of Church and State were acted out in the ceremony through words, vestments, and instruments.
Before the ceremony, the monarch
informs
the people of her accession and intent to be crowned. This notification gives those who might
challenge the legitimacy or rights of the monarch to be heard – at their peril.
The ceremony takes place in a church. Traditions developed in most countries
linking the coronation ceremony to a particular church. In England the traditional coronation church
is Westminster Abbey. In France it is
the cathedral of Rheims. The monarch proceeds
with great pomp
and ceremony from the royal residence to the
church of coronation.
The coronation ceremony takes place within a Mass. As the Queen processes into the abbey, the choir sings a traditional entrance hymn, Psalm 122. She is escorted by the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London, the second and third-ranking clergymen of the Church of England. She proceeds through a “rood screen” into the choir area that has been arranged as the site for the coronation ceremony. The elaborate rood screen separates the area of the abbey reserved for the monks from that allowed to other clergy and laity. It is so-called because it is toped with a cross, “rood” in old English.
The choir area is filled with the “Lords Spiritual,” the
bishops of the church and the “Lords Temporal,” the peers of the realm. As the Queen enters the choir, choristers
greet her with the words “Vivat Regina,” “Long live the Queen.” This first acclamation recalls the
acclamation given to a newly chosen Roman emperor.
Before proceeding further, the Queen presents a
Bible
and a Chalice to be used in the celebration of the Mass. From the very beginning the civil and
religious are interchanged.
The monarch is presented, in this instance as “undoubted
Queen,” to the assembled people, in this case the Lords Spiritual (bishops) and
the Lords Temporal (peers). Their
acclamation recognizes her as such. The
acclamation is a reflection of the Roman acclamation as well as the Germanic
recognition of the birthright of the legitimate heir to the throne. The presentation by the Archbishop of Canterbury indicates the Church’s
role in this recognition.
A Christian monarch was not an
“absolute” ruler. He was required to
rule in accord with the laws of God and of the state. In fact, monarchs could be deposed based on accusations that they
had betrayed their oath and obligation to rule with justice and according to
the laws of God.
In the English coronation oath, the monarch promises
to maintain the
current post-Reformation relationship of church and state.
In Roman Catholic ceremonies, the monarch would be
required to promise to protect the Church and respect its rights as guaranteed
in law. When Charles V was crowned as
King of the Romans in Aachen in 1520, he too took an oath, responding “I will”
to the questions
asked by the Archbishop-Elector of
Cologne.
The taking of the oath upon assuming office by
presidents of republics is the sole surviving element of this ritual. In the United States, the new president
customarily concludes the oath
with the words “So help me,
God,” but this is not required by the constitution.
At this point the “Communion
Service,” which in a Roman Catholic ceremony would be a Mass, begins. Like episcopal and priestly ordination, the
coronation takes place within Mass.
After the creed, the monarch is vested in a simple white
linen robe similar to an alb.
It covers
the jewel-encrusted coronation dress. The hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus, “Come, Holy Spirit,” is sung. This hymn is sung in ordination rites for
priests and bishops just before the anointing. The connection to
the Kings of Israel and their divine power is made very clear in the prayer.
Under a canopy she is anointed on the
hands, breast and head. The oil is
poured from an ampule shaped like an eagle. As she is anointed the choir sings a selection from I Kings
recalling the anointing of Solomon by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet. The act of Anointing is not filmed.
The vestments appear similar to
those of a bishop. This is no
accident. What we perceive as
exclusively ecclesiastical vestments originated in secular society. Western or Latin bishops and priests wear vestments derived from the street dress of Romans of the early
Christian era. Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic
bishops wear vestments derived from the court dress of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire
Swords
are symbols of
power and of justice. The sword is used
to inflict various forms of punishment, including capital punishment. Swords are presented
to the Queen and in the
prayer she is told to distribute justice equally
and to “protect the holy church of God.
In a ceremony of priestly or episcopal ordination, the chalice and the
crosier, or pastoral staff, and ring would be presented.
Next the Queen is vested with a stole, originally a symbol of civil authority and today a symbol of priestly power, and the “robe royal,” similar to a cope. To all appearances, at this point she is vested like a contemporary bishop. It is little wonder that many theologians of the period considered coronation to be a sacrament. It has all of the external elements, including anointing and vesting.
The orb, symbol of the world under Christ, is presented.
The ring is placed on her finger, symbolizing her wedding with the
kingdom. This ring
is called the “Wedding Ring of
England.” Similarly, in the ceremony of
episcopal ordination or consecration, the ring symbolizes the bishop’s
marriage to
his diocese.
The scepters or rods, symbol of royal power to judge and to discipline, are presented to the Queen. The resemblance to the presentation of a bishop with the crosier, or pastoral staff, is clear The ancient use of such instruments as symbols of power dates back to the pharaohs.
For
more than a millennium, popes were crowned as well. In
1978, Pope John Paul I refused the coronation ceremony and was installed in a
simplified ceremony marking the inauguration of his service as Supreme Pastor
of the Church. His predecessors, among
them Boniface VIII, Innocent III,
John XXIII, and
Paul VI wore a variety of crowns. Paul
VI was the last pope to be crowned and later donated his crown to the poor of
the world. It currently is on display
in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC.
Before
crowning the Queen, the archbishop blesses the crown.
The archbishop then blesses the Queen with a prayer that indicates the divine origin of her
power:
The peers of
the realm, the “Lords Temporal” immediately place their coronets on their heads. Representatives of the peers then pass by
the crowned Queen. Each peer wears
a coronet that
indicates his rank: duke, marquess, earl, viscount, baron. Before the French Revolution, European
society was organized according to a strict hierarchy of rank, civil and
ecclesiastical. This hierarchy was seen
by some writers to parallel the ‘heavenly hierarchy’ of the angels. Thus, the “City of Man” reflected the “City
of God.”
The act of coronation that we have witnessed can be interpreted in many ways. Does the monarch receive divine authority from God through the mediation of the Church or does the monarch rule by direct commission from God? A gospel book illustrates the belief of Holy Roman Emperor Henry II (1002-1024) that his power comes directly from God. Emperors and kings also claimed the authority to invest bishops with the regalia signifying their episcopal office. These claims set off a long struggle with the papacy. On the other hand many Church leaders maintained that a ruler received legitimacy only through their intervention, as successive Archbishops of Mainz demonstrated in art they commissioned.
The monarch is
“lifted up” to her throne by the bishops and the lords. Both church and state are the foundations of
her power. In this moment, the two
“Powers” act in unison. However, as she
is enthroned, the prayer indicates the role of the Church in the ceremony:
The first to pay homage is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Here the ambiguity of the relationship is evident. The archbishop has anointed her, has placed the crown on her head, has assisted in “lifting her up” to her throne. Now he pays homage to the Queen. Of course, in post-Reformation England, his subservient position is clear, but it was not always so.
The manner in which homage is offered is significant. The bishops and the lords place their hands in the Queen’s as they promise obedience. It is exactly the same ceremony as the Promise of Obedience in priestly and diaconal ordination ceremonies. In both instances, the ceremony is based on the public act of fealty of a vassal to a feudal lord.
The
rubrics and the words of this ceremony clearly indicate the subjection of the
Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal to the monarch.
The Mass continues. We see only the Offertory. In 1953, the Anointing, the Eucharist
and the Communion were considered so sacred that it was considered to be an
invasion of the sacred realm, and of the private realms of the participants, to
photograph them. At the end of the
Eucharist, the Queen removes her royal coronation robes and, wearing her velvet
and ermine train, recesses from the abbey.
This ceremony has shown us the sacramental and the
symbolic. Society is one. There is no distinction between the
religious and the civil aspects of society. They are inextricably intertwined.
The ceremony can be reviewed through the eyes of participants.