About the coronation

Answers Prof. Marek Kornat




The coronation is connected to the Roman Church, not to the assemblies created by Marcin Luther, John Calvin or others. In Protestantism, the coronation was preserved as a substitute only to satisfy human sensitivity. People wanted to have it, and the ruler wanted it, too," says Prof. Marek Kornat in an interview with Tomasz Kolanek.

Dear Professor, I have met respective times with the message that the coronation is simply a sacrament. Is it a metaphor, or is coronation truly a sacrament?

If the coronation were a sacrament, it would should be any formal act of the Church, and it was an act of doctrinal rank, not e.g. free speech of the Pope in any letter or even sermon. Then we would have 8 sacraments of saints. possibly in the opinions of the mediate Ages (I am talking about the elites of Christian states), the coronation claimed to have specified a role. Many approached it as if it were actually an additional sacrament, but it had nothing to do with the formally defined doctrine of the Church on sacraments. There is undoubtedly a situation akin to medieval learning about the knight's duties in defence of faith. The solemn fit of knight and performing this function in medieval imagination was understood as if it were a quasi-sakrament. However, we have only 7 sacraments. Coronation and knighting are not like that. The Church has never defined it that way.


How was coronation defined? Just as a quasi-sakrament?

No, she wasn't that defined. The coronation was explained in the simplest way, namely, anointing with the holy oil of a royal person, due to the fact that that is the essence of this ceremony. This involves taking an oath from the monarch-elect, who thus obtained the spiritual sanction of his power. spiritual sanctioning of royal power is nothing but an institution that incorporates the monarch-elect into the service of the Church and people like Christ. The king is the alter Christus, the second Christ. This is simply a advanced - flying word and, of course, very fewer monarchs have come to know that it has so held office. But it was an idea. Not the practice, but the idea, for all man sins, and politics is simply a unique incentive to sin. Not for nothing did Max Weber, a German sociologist, say that whoever wants to practice in virtue should not practice politics. Of course, he said it as a liberal, so it was easy for him to say that, but I think Mr. Editor will agree that there is something. Politics is unfortunately conducive to sin. Nevertheless, the perfect of the Christian ruler is the thought of his service in the teaching of Christ, of serving men and the Church in the example of Christ.

The medieval theology of power went peculiarly far. It proclaimed the explanation of “two bodies of the king.” He described this phenomenon with an unparalleled erudition liberal historian Ernst Kantorowicz (leading from Poznań, but he was German, or more specifically German hebrew from an assimilated family). We have 2 bodies of the monarch. 1 physical, the another spiritual is the state. So the state is the king's mystical body, which imitates Christ's attitude toward the Church. After all, the Church is his mystical body, which was taught to people until the present time, erstwhile the explanation of the alleged People of God began to be preached as a consequence of the liberal upheaval in the Church, but it was in the margins. The explanation of the 2 bodies of the king has, of course, tremendous consequences for legitimacy of power as based on supernatural force, i.e. divine sanction.

Are sacred oils more crucial than a crown?

Yeah. They are more crucial due to the fact that they complete the ceremony of anointing the body of the monarch. This is what makes the grace of the Holy Spirit work through holy oils. Holy oil is the instrument of the Holy Spirit. There is 1 fundamental difference in the celebration of coronation rites, namely: catechumen oil and oil, which serves for ordination, to execute all degrees of ordination – these 2 oils were utilized in France. In specified a country as Poland, only 1 oil was used, which serves as a saint. The 3rd oil of course cannot be utilized due to the fact that it is sick oil for the sacrament of the last rite.

The usage of catechumen oil in the coronation ceremony of the French monarchs (since the Carolin times in Reims) derives from the stories that the Holy Spirit brought the alleged Holy Ampulka and anointed Chlodwig's head in 496 erstwhile his baptism was carried out.

I would add that in the Carolin coronation litianism is of large importance to all saints with calls changed. alternatively of “ora pro nobis” we have “tu illum adiuva”. It expresses well the intentions of the Church fighting on earth at the historical time of the anointing of the fresh monarch. But even more clearly I am expressing the king's power. We call them “laudes regiae”.



Who does the coronation? I mean Catholic coronation, not Protestant or secular coronation. At 1 time prof. James Polit said very clearly: “As it is well known, there is no specified individual as a lay king, for if 1 is called a secular king, as in Scandinavia, he is not a king but a clown, who most likely does not believe himself to be a king.”

Strong words, but true. The coronation is connected to the Roman Church, not to the assemblies created by Marcin Luther, John Calvin or others. In Protestantism, the coronation was preserved as a substitute only to satisfy human sensitivity. People wanted it, and the ruler wanted it. This is the same fairy tale as Luther, who opposed to tearing churches, for example, from images of saints and throwing them into the garbage. As a heretic, he felt that then people would bounce back from religion, they would believe in nothing. We request to change discipline (theology), but leave as much as we can with old beauty, so people can see that nothing large has changed.

The answer to your question does not should be 2 parts. As for the imperial coronation, which after the translation of the thought of the empire on the Carolinas and then on the German kings, could only be completed by the pope as Head of the Church and Patriarch of the West. However, erstwhile it comes to royal coronation, only the Archbishop, who must be a metropolitan in the territory of this ruler's country, can complete it. A simple bishop can't complete that.

This requires the coronation carried out by the Archbishop of the Metropolitan and thus the average of the main ecclesiastical capital in the country of origin of the ruler, the consent of the Roman Bishop, or apostolic mandate. Without the approval of the Holy See, the coronation is not invalid in itself, but falls under excommunication of the 1 who gave the king's sakra, as well as the 1 who accepted the sacred anointing during these ceremonies. Both take excommunication without the necessity of ruling the Holy See. Thus, an apostolic mandate is needed as a sine qua non condition.

In the case of Poland, of course, the establishment of the Gniezno metropolis is of tremendous importance, due to the fact that if the Gniezno metropolis was not established in 1000 by Otto III's will, and if this did not win in winning this exaltation of the Polish Church, which is its own metropolis, the coronations would be impossible. The German Church wanted to make the Polish ecclesiastical state dependent, and that is why Otto I established a missionary bishopric in Magdeburg (even against his hierarchy) so that it would watch over the Polish ecclesiastical state as superior. This implied the thought of not allowing the creation of fresh metropolises east of the German Kingdom.

Here, let me ask myself: did Otto I want Poland to become a lord of Germany like the Czech Republic?

Yes, sir! Otto I wanted to subjugate Poland as a lenna and regulation it at his discretion, and besides to fill the posts with a German cleric who would supply service and sacramental as well as a teacher of the local population. However, this was unsuccessful for Germany. In my opinion, it was 1 of the biggest successes of Poland in our 1000-year history. Of course, we can always imagine that if the martyrdom of St. Wojciech and the Gniezno legislature and Otto III's generous gestures had not taken place, possibly a 100 years later it would have been successful to get the metropolis. But it might as well not be that long... Otto III favored us. As emperor, he had a universal imagination of Christian Europe. In the imagination of this Galia, i.e. the French, Italia of course, his own nation, i.e. Germany and besides Slavs, i.e. Poles and Czechs, would make this Europe. Pope Sylvester II warmly supported these plans. He was French, as we know.

Obtaining the right to establish its own metropolis in Poland was implemented by 2 acts. First, the Emperor agreed to come to Gniezno, and the phenomenal event of St. Wojciech's martyrdom made it easier. The Emperor wouldn't come to Gniezno due to the fact that there wouldn't be a chance. Even if Boleslaw Chrobry invited him, I don't think he would have found the time, but to bow to the martyr Wojciech and his relics Otton III considered it an work of the Christian ruler. And that was the first act. The second act is simply a synod in Rome. (Of course, the synod was normal, not something like masquerade in today's Church). The pope then confirmed the imperial decision. We must remember, of course, that in the 11th century there was a dependence of Papacy on German kings, up to a phenomenal uproar in defence of the freedom of the Church, which will take place through Gregory VII. All popes were approved by the emperor.

You called the Czech Republic, so let me say that the Czechs were on a different path, due to the fact that there are 3 ways of gaining a crown in our part of Europe. Stefan of Hungary won his crown straight from the Pope. Bolesław Chrobry obtained it due to rather random complications, specified as the death of the emperor and the death of the pope almost simultaneously. It is then that the Duke of Poland makes a decision about coronation. He demands coronation and achieves his goal. The coronation completed and was then someway silently approved. Besides, the king shortly died.

The Czech prince Wratislav was given a crown in the 3rd way, not due to accidental complications specified as Bolesław in 1025 and not due to direct action of the Holy See like King Stefan, only as a consequence of the fight against Pope Gregory VII on the side of Emperor Henry IV. As a reward, this emperor, as his most faithful vassal, gave him a royal crown. And so the Czech Republic became a kingdom. The Czechs walked here on the smallest line of resistance, but effectively.

The exceptional circumstances, as we can see, were accompanied by the first coronation of the Polish monarch. Later Polish kings did not gain a crown in specified complications. Mieszko II and Bolesław Bold, as all points to it, surely received an apostolic mandate to be crowned. Until the tragic action of the assassination of the Bishop of Kraków Stanisław, he was the most faithful Allied of the large Pope Gregory VII in Central Europe, and this Pope, as it all points out, appreciated it. From the fewer information that has been preserved for us, we know that he sent 2 legates to Poland to visit the local state of the Church. The king agreed to this, and erstwhile these legates uncovered any dishonest acts of local bishops and 2 of them filed for office, after which they left for Rome, the king absolutely did not argue it, although he appointed them.

Professor, was there 1 coronation ceremony, or did all country have a ceremony?

The coronation ceremony was different in Byzantium, and another was in the West. In the East, he was subject to the doctrine of the Byzantine theocracy, and in the West there was no theocracy, for neither king nor emperor declared himself a advanced priest. It never occurred to anyone to do this. Theology, on the another hand, defined royal authority as a participation in the priestly authority of Christ the Lord. Participation and identity – it is not the same.

The Carolin ceremony had to be very modest and not yet as developed as later. Coronation at the Christmas of Charles the large in the year 800 in Rome in the old Basilica of Constantine at the Vatican by Pope Leon III had to take place in a simple way. There could not have been larger, more developed ceremonies, due to the fact that the sources mention the surprise of King Frank, who entered this church to perceive to the shepherd. And there he put the pope on his head of the crown. In Ottoen times, however, after the transfer of imperial power to German kings, this was developed as a spiritual ceremony. Notabene coronations of German kings were not carried out through an "automat". Each of them had to make a peculiar journey to Rome, where a synod had to be performed, which the pope called. On this synod the coronation was decided and the Coronation Mass was celebrated, necessarily on the holiday.

During the coronation of Otto I, then Otto II, Otto III, etc., a ceremony was already created and this ceremony consisted of elements specified as the procession introducing the elect, then reading the apostolic mandate in the presence of the Pope. 1 bishop read this text stating that the advanced Priest agrees to establish the Emperor of the German King. Then there was the alleged religion exam. He relied on the coronator, or pope, to ask 3 questions, and actually four, due to the fact that the 3rd 1 was double. He asked whether the emperor wanted to service the Catholic faith, whether he wanted to strengthen the Holy Church, finally, whether he wanted to regulation reasonably and whether he wanted to care for the peace and safety of the state. He answered these questions, crowned in Latin, 3 times “Volo, volo, volo” or “I want, I want, I want”. There was anointing with holy oil (head, breasts, and hands), and after the anointing the Holy Mass continued.

When the Queen was crowned with the king, she was not tested by a consecrator of faith, but by anointing and putting the crown on her head. The queen's separate coronation was similar, and she was dismissed when, for example, the king married any time after joining the throne as a bachelor or widower.

It should be stressed that the dress of the crowned monarch imitates the bishop's dress for Mass in an outstanding way. The king was given an alba. The coronation coat was simply a cap – identical to the 1 that the bishop assumes for ceremonial liturgical activities. The cap was white. The golden colour should be understood as a white variant. The king, of course, was not wearing an ornament due to the fact that he did not go down to the altar to sacrifice. He didn't have an infusion on his head due to the fact that he wasn't a priest. They're fundamentally the only differences.

The coronation ceremony was distinguished by the privilege of royal communion. The monarch didn't come to the altar. He reigned, and the body of the Lord was brought to him. The king, of course, accepted communion on his knees. Carolin forms were kept here. This rite was preserved in the papal coronation mass. The Pope was given communion to the throne by the cardinals, although he consecrated himself.

The coronation required mass. During Mass, the main act was situated between the lesson and the Gospel. Before the Gospel, the king-elect was anointed. After attending all the fixed parts of the Mass, it was only at the very end that the crown was inserted. Later, Te Deum laudamus was sung and finished the ceremony. The consecrator is chanting this Ambrosian anthem.

This ceremony was later transferred to national coronations, specified as ours in Poland, but with us, it is that we have b. inexpensive news about the form of the Piast coronations (I mean the alleged ordo coronationis). It is known that erstwhile he came to power and marked his presence so powerfully in our history, 1 of the biggest husbands of the states of Poland, or Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki, he contributed to the improvement of a fresh Polish ordo. After the death of Władysław Jagiełła (1432), at the coronation of Władysław, who was later called Warneńczyk, his efforts were marked by his efforts to codified in a circumstantial way these rites, which were then not altered deeper until the demolition of the partitions. The Polish ordo coronationis, or order of coronation, Zbigniew Oleśnicki improved, but did not violate its fundamental structure, that is, he did not move, for example, the coronation before Mass, he did not lead it out of Mass. He surely utilized the ordo coronationis of the Czech kings. (At the time, the Charles Luxemburg monarchy was surely a model of excellence for Central Europe.) For he knew that it must necessarily be Mass and must necessarily be a vacation of at least the second class as Sunday, but it could be a vacation of the first class, Christmas, for example. Notabene Christmas due to the liturgy and the royal dignity of Christ was especially attended in the event of specified a ceremony as a very good moment.



The coronation of Live II was held at Christmas, right?

At least that's the way to say it, due to the fact that it's not rather clear. If we presume that Bolesław Chrobry died in June, the essential circulation of information followed, that is, the news of the king's death had to scope Lateran, and then the messengers had to bring a letter with an apostolic mandate from there – it is not possible that this would not require about six months under the conditions. So that's the way to think. But, for example, Władysław Elbows was crowned on 20 January (1320). It was a large coronation, wonderful due to the fact that Poland was reborn by it as a united state after this tragedy of the territory crash. But it was not a celebration in the Church greater than the "ordinary" Sunday (one of the Sundays after the Lord's Revelation according to the Mass).

In the large Post there was no crown in principle, due to the fact that you would gotta wear purple. That doesn't precisely fit. The same applies to Advent. Besides, all Sundays are good.

During the coronation, the king was to catch the sword and make cuts on 4 sides of the world, which meant he would defend his subjects...

Subjected and holy Catholic faith.

What if they didn't defend their faith? Could he have been subject to any sanctions including excommunication?

The past of the mediate Ages knows, as much as possible, the cases of criminal sanctions of the Holy See (up to and including excommunication) against Christian rulers dwindling before embarking on a crusade (for example Frederick II as emperor in the 13th century). It's nothing revealing.

Napoleon Bonaparte put a crown on his head. How was this motion interpreted? In breaking the ceremony, is he rightly called emperor?

He emphasized that he did not take the crown from the hands of the pope (Pius VII), but put it on his head. The Pope only assisted this coronation in the Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris on 2 December 1804. It was a motion – I think – to reconcile the rule of monarchism with the revolution. The full first and second French empires were specified an effort to compromise between these concepts. delight note that Napoleon I proclaimed himself Emperor of France and not France. He wanted to emphasize that he was by the will of the nation, not by the grace of God. He was a prominent man, but a man of revolution. So did Napoleon III.

Is there another Catholic monarchy in the modern world? Until recently, I thought that was the Vatican, but now I have serious doubts...

After the revolution has been founded – as a consequence of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council – the Holy See, with the mouth of popes and the highest hierarchs denies the monarchial explanation of the authority of the Roman Bishop. The abandonment of the tiara, sold by Paul VI, expresses this most strongly. Worse still, the ministry of the Roman Bishop is spoken of as if it were simply a teaching and mediation service in the Church, alternatively than expressing itself in exercising the highest authority, of course in persona Christi.

Why do you think the planet is so delighted with the British monarchy and only with the British monarchy, not, for example, Belgian, Spanish or Norwegian?

The British Monarchy retained the coronation rite. There's quite a few tradition in this ritual. It's very valuable. Spain or Belgium do not execute it deliberately. alternatively of coronation, a king's oath is held in front of the combined chambers of parliament. The point is to cut off from the Church and emphasize the laity nature of the state. That's a very bad idea. Both were Catholic. Belgium was created in general only to break distant from the Netherlands, in which Protestantism prevailed. This was the sense of the revolution launched in 1830, which brought a fresh state on the map of Europe, and its existence was confirmed by 5 then powers (the alleged Pentarchy) 7 years later.

Who was the last king of Poland? The votes here are powerfully divided. any will say that Stanisław August Poniatowski, others that Francis Joseph, others that Alexander I, and I besides know those who point to Ferdinand August Wettin.

Well, the second was only the Duke of Warsaw. Of course, if Russia were defeated in 1812 and a large Polish state was created, it could have been a candidate for the Polish throne, although, as the sources indicate, Napoleon I alternatively planned to insert his brother Jerome on the throne.

Alexander I has indeed declared himself king of Poland. This was an crucial addition to the resolutions of the Vienna legislature on the creation of the Polish state (the alleged Kingdom of Poland), which was to be connected with the eternal, personal, dynastic union with Russia. In fact, it was the sealing of the partitions, due to the fact that this motion convinced Europe that in total, any Poland is created, that it deviates from trying to erase its name from history. But for Poles it was a "bite" of the erstwhile Republic, as was said about the Congressional Kingdom. Of course, the situation would have changed in reality if Alexander I had attached the east territories, or Lands taken (as the Poles said) to the Kingdom, which he clearly did not reveal. However, there is simply a transmission of sources that he considered doing this and for this occasion he reserved for himself to execute a coronation ceremony in Warsaw. The fierce opposition of the Russian state elite had a disheartening effect on the Tsar. It was expressed by the manifesto of historian Nikolai Karamzin. The coronation of Alexander – a man personally friendly to Poles – never occurred.

The coronation of Nicholas I was a Napoleonic coronation. The Tsar took the crown out of the hands of Archbishop John Paul Voronicz and put it on his head. He most likely didn't want it on his head with the Catholic hierarchy. Voronicz sang a prayer for the reigning – according to the Roman Pontifical. It was inspired by Archbishop Te Deum. No anointing of the Orthodox Tsar-king of speech could have been. That's all.

Francis Joseph or his successor Charles I (notabene beatified by Pope John Paul II) could complete the coronation as King of Poland, but there would should be a merger of a country or a country of Poland (the torn-out Russia) with Austro-Hungarian during planet War I. This thought was expressed by a program of alleged triism, or the transformation of the Habsburg monarchy into a three-member. The task was not realistic from the beginning, although it was supported by Polish Conservatives. It wasn't realistic for 3 reasons. Germany was against him. They disliked Hungarians due to the fact that they wanted to keep a privileged position in a dualist state. Last but not least, there was a weakness and interior breakdown of Austro-Hungarian, which Charles I could not remedy.

The thesis that the Tsars (Aleksander and Nicholas) were Polish kings is so not good, due to the fact that it suggests that we accept the undress. Anyway, we affirm the order they created. That can't be supported. I'm against it.

We see clearly that the democratic strategy is burning out. People are looking for a strong leader for hard times, and these are undoubtedly coming. Why not consider restoring the Catholic monarchy? Is specified an thought even feasible and feasible?

Power without supernatural sanctions comes down to governments on the basis of a social contract within the meaning of Rousseau (not Hobbes). It's very fragile power. Its justification is liberalism. In our time, however, liberalism has created a alleged multicultural society. In turn the Church founded an interior revolution and no longer preaches discipline and a Catholic state. That's how it came about. The authority taking the title to regulation from the explanation of the sovereignty of the people, and in practice drawing its justification from the vote – must conduct a policy of "the wishes concert", that is, fulfilling all possible demands that come from the people, or its representatives having media or money, due to the fact that they shout loudest. frequently even questionable or perverse demands are made. He frequently turns distant from ruling those who have an thought of governing it. In Poland, for example, in the fall of 2023, the population in the general vote rejected the moderately conservative government of Law and Justice, giving up what we have, that is, the regulation of raging liberalism, under the signs of rage and retaliation, the fight against the Church, and, above all, the resignation of almost all ambitious state projects.

Conference programme
9.30 – 10.30
Registration of participants

10:30
Opening of the conference by Mr Krzysztof Bosak, Deputy talker of the Polish Parliament

11.00 – 11.45
Lecture by prof. Grzegorz Kucharczyk
Holiness and sovereignty.
How and why was the Kingdom of Poland created a 1000 years ago?

11:45 – 12:30
Lecture: Prof. Jacek Bartyzel
Political Theology of the Kingdom of Poland.

12:30 – 1:00 p.m.
Coffee break

13:00 – 13:45
Lecture by Piotr Doerre
Monarch – the culmination of the state and nation.

13:45 – 3:00 p.m.
Lunch break

15:00 – 4:30 p.m.
Discussion panel on
The king never dies – why does coronation from 1000 years ago substance to Poles surviving in the 21st century?

Participation shall be given to:
Prof. Anna Labno; ed. Sławomir Skiba; Prof. G. Kucharczyk;
Prof. Jacek Janowski.
Moderator: ed. Arkadiusz Stelmach

Conduct of the conference: ed. Paweł Chmielewski

Details and REGISTRATION – click HERE

***

As early as 12 April 2025, peculiar celebrations of the 1000-Lecia Coronation of Bolesław Chrobry will be held in Krakow.

The peculiar guest of the conference will be Fr. prof. Tadeusz Guz. In addition to the priest, they will give their lectures: Sławomir Skiba; Piotr Doerre; Marcin Śrama; Sergiusz Muszyński; Tomasz Goździk; Aleksander Kowaliński; Krzysztof Kaniewski and Mateusz Kofin.

The Holy Mass will be celebrated by Fr Grzegorz Śniadoch.

Click HERE and aid us organize the Krakow event

12 April 2025 – Kraków
Programme:

10:00 – Holy Mass
Church of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 19 Copernicus Street

12:00 – Millennium March
Start at Matejka Square, ending: Napoleon's large Army Square

13:00 – household picnic
Napoleon's large Army Square

16:00 – Historical conference
Hotel Golden Tulip, ul. Krakowska 28

Click HERE and aid us organize the Krakow event










What truly is coronation? Answers Prof. Marek Kornat - PCH24.pl