Ship of Fools: Eccles: Of Archdeacons

Thread: Eccles: Of Archdeacons Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000930

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

I'm giving an after-dinner speech next week at the UK national get-together of C of E Archdeacons, on a Ship of Fools ticket. I confess I don't know the breed very well and wondered if any kind souls would be willing to post any insider notes about these curious creatures... or even stories about Archdeacons you have known.

The two fictional Archdeacons who stick in my mind are Archdeacon Grantly of Barchester, and Archdeacon Robert of BBC TV's Rev, both of them darkly menacing. Presumably, they're caricatures, but caricatures of what, exactly?

Forgive me posting a request for help when I'm such an infrequent visitor to these shores.

[ 29. April 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Archdeacon: The crook at the head of the bishop's staff [Devil]

Posted by Cornish High (# 17202) on :

The most unedifying thing ever heard from the lips of a former Archdeacon of Aston at one of his visitations was, "gentlemen, you must look to your drains".I am sure he was not alone in his concern for churchwardens caring for the church's fabric but the point could have been better expresses.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think its a caricature because they are very often in the position feeling they should have been the Bishop - but they got the booby prize to keep them happy, or because they are the Bishop's rabid dog to do all the hard stuff he doesn't want to mess up his hands with. Sometimes - maybe even more often than not - the cap fits. Tread lightly or be mauled!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

At all the Archdeacons' Visitations I've ever attended, the sermon always includes jokes about every Archdeacon's obsession with guttering, pointing and dressed stonework. I think it's more an affliction that goes with the job, than a genuine enthusiasm about church architecture and the drains.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

In Joanne Trollope's The Rector's Wife the Rector very much wants to be Archdeacon and suffers a breakdown when he doesn't get the position. The man who does get the job is wonderful -- and has a sexy younger brother!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Giving workshops in my previous incarnation, I occasionally quoted Archdeacon Grantly who said, "Whenever I hear a man boasting of his honesty, I straightaway check to see if my pocketbook is safe." Other bon mots include: "The legal profession does not concern itself with morality"

In The Warden, Trollope describes him:

quote:
he looked like an ecclesiastical statue ... as a fitting impersonation of the church militant here on earth; his shovel hat, large, new, and well-pronounced, a churchman's hat in every inch, declared the profession as plainly as does the Quakers broad brim; his heavy eyebrow, large, open eyes, and full mouth and chin expressed the solidity of his order; the broad chest, amply covered with fine cloth, told how well to do was his estate; one hand ensconced within his pocket, evinced the practical hold which our mother church keeps on her temporal possessions; and the other, loose for action, was ready to fight if need be for her defence; and, below these, the decorous breeches and neat black gaiters showing so admirably that well-turned leg, betokened the decency, the outward beauty, and grace of our church establishment".

The Archdeacon combined "the dignity of an ancient saint" with "the sleekness of a modern bishop." and so forth. I think that there's quite a bit hear, along with references to Saint Lawrence, the martyred archdeacon of Rome, who went to the grill (patron of barbecues?) rather than show the authorities the diocesan books and given them the PIN. I find archdeacons always seem to be greatly affected by tales or archidiaconal martyrdoms.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I think some Archdeacons have a very hard time indeed. Our retiring Archdeacon, who has been absolutely fantastic and will be sorely missed, told us that on his very first day as Archdeacon he was rung by the police at about 7am and had to rock up at a local police station as one of the vicars under his jurisdiction had been arrested. The police had, apparently, rung the outgoing Archdeacon whose immediate response had been "Oh, ring X, he's in charge now"...

It's not all faculties for building new toilets!

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

Num archidiaconus salvari potest? (Can an archdeacon be saved?)
- John of Salisbury (1120-1180), Epist. CLXVI

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

In times of stress, Archdeacons are sometimes referred to as Archdemons, if that helps.

John

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

My father went hiking with an archdeacon for some years and heard plenty of good stories, none of which one is at all at liberty to divulge.

This notwithstanding ,the modern archdeacon is I believe a somewhat less draconian and more prosaically professional clergyman or woman. I'd be interested to know how they react after a few sherries though, I find the thought of them letting down their collective hair an amusing and slightly terrifying thought!

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
Num archidiaconus salvari potest? (Can an archdeacon be saved?)
- John of Salisbury (1120-1180), Epist. CLXVI

I think the Latin's a bit stronger than your translation: it's more like "Surely an archdeacon can't be saved?"

Though, to be honest, I don't think I've ever met an archdeacon I've disliked. They've all seemed good-humoured and pleasant people, with a healthy interest in all things alcoholic.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
Num archidiaconus salvari potest? (Can an archdeacon be saved?)
- John of Salisbury (1120-1180), Epist. CLXVI
I think the Latin's a bit stronger than your translation: it's more like "Surely an archdeacon can't be saved?"

Though, to be honest, I don't think I've ever met an archdeacon I've disliked. They've all seemed good-humoured and pleasant people, with a healthy interest in all things alcoholic.

Thinking on this with respect to the Summoner's Tale, I think the reason archdeacons used to be unpopular was that they were the ones who put people on trial in the ecclesiastical courts...

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

It's amazing to think people have been filling this office for such a long stretch of time, going back via Trollope and Chaucer to dear BBQ'd St Lawrence. Thanks for the wealth of detail and reference so far... all v. helpful for me, and hopefully entertaining as a thread.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Another admirer of Archdeacon Robert checking in!

Sorry to inject a nerdily serious note, but Archdeacons are of course familiar creatures in Anglicanism. According to the above references it seems they predate the Reformation, yet as far as I am aware they are unknown in the present day RCC. When did they disappear there? Or were they just an English phenomenon?

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

Though the phrase was well known, when I asked one archdeacon how he was he replied with a straight face - 'Venomous as ever' (playing, of course on their title, The Ven.).

Mind you, for reasons of financial constraint, THIS diocese has disposed of the servcices of all archdeacons - so maybe the question is 'Are archdeacons really required?' (only once in 20 years at a church did we ever had a proper archeaconal inspection of the peoperty, during a vacancy).

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

They are part-time positions in the Church of Ireland, held by experienced clergy in combination with their parish post. So as to necessity I guess it depends on how many parishes there are to be cared for - I think RC diocese in England and Wales have assign the same duties to vicar generals so there is clearly a need for the role, whatever it is called.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

One of the minor mysteries of the CoE is why, despite the title (and the custom of the early church), a deacon cannot become an archdeacon. It lays down that archdeacons have to be in presbyter's orders. [Confused]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Does it indeed? I thought that there were one or two female archdeacons before women were ordained priest.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

The requirement was introduced in 1662; in 1840 the additional requirement of having been in presbyter's orders for at least six years was made.

Add to the list of fictional archdeacons Robertson Hare in "All Gas and Gaiters".

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Angloid is correct. I met a female Archdeacon pre-1994 who was in Deacon's orders.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Another admirer of Archdeacon Robert checking in!

Sorry to inject a nerdily serious note, but Archdeacons are of course familiar creatures in Anglicanism. According to the above references it seems they predate the Reformation, yet as far as I am aware they are unknown in the present day RCC. When did they disappear there? Or were they just an English phenomenon?

IIRC most archidiaconal functions in the RCC are now performed by vicars general. However, Spanish dioceses still have archdeacons, and Cdl Alvarez, retired Abp of Toledo & Primate of Spain, went from canon to archdeacon at an early age--- he seems to have been the equivalent of the executive assistant or (in TEC-speak) the canon to the ordinary. I have seen a sign outside the office of the Archdeacon of Santander in the diocesan office when I went to get my pilgrim's credential stamped in 2011, so there is likely one there.

The last Cardinal Archdeacon of Rome, the reformer Hildebrand (S Gregory VII) suppressed his former dignity but there is still a Cardinal Protodeacon (Jean-Louis Tauran, titular Abp of Telepte), but he seems to be the senior cardinal deacon. Cdl Fesch, Napoleon's uncle, began his career as Archdeacon of Ajaccio. I telephoned my Usual Source on Trivia of the Scarlet Lady, and he told me that, while the office technically exists at the primatial cathedral in Québec City, he does not think that it has been filled for the past half-century. He tells me that there are occasionally mutterings of re-instituting the office to supervise permanent deacons, but it appears that people would rather be a Vicar General for Deacons, or a Diocesan Coordinator of Diaconal Ministries. I told him that I thought that the introduction of aprons and gaiters would stimulate ecumenical reflexions, but he didn't think that this was very amusing. O well.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
My father went hiking with an archdeacon for some years ...

They must have gone a terribly long way. (I'll get me coat.)

There is IIRC a splendidly villainous Archdeacon, the Abbe Troubert, in Balzac's Le Cure de Tours, which also has a comfortable but innocent little canon and a plot about ecclesiastical preferment, but which I think pre-dates The Warden by some years.

Our Archdeacon here (Llandaff) leads circle dancing: alas not as I had hoped on whirling Dervish lines, though.

Oh, and I think the Scottish Episcopalians don't have them. Does TEC?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Oh, and I think the Scottish Episcopalians don't have them. Does TEC?

Depends on the diocese. In dioceses that have them, they tend to be either the bishop's first assistant, or the overseer of the deacons that occupies his or her time emphasizing the distinction between vocational and transitional deacons.

[ 17. January 2013, 00:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

The Episcopal Diocese of Arizona has a Deacon as our Archdeacon. "As the Archdeacon, she is the overseer of the Deacons within the Diocese, and the Administrator for the Deacons' Formation Academy."

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The Sydney diocese has a woman archdeacon, she being responsible for the ministry of and to women. Of course, this being Sydney, she is not a priest but a deacon.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
It's amazing to think people have been filling this office for such a long stretch of time, going back via Trollope and Chaucer to dear BBQ'd St Lawrence.

Further than that - some, at least, would see Stephen as Protomartyr and Archdeacon. Clearly it was a tricky job back then, but perhaps a little less dangerous now?

I recall a story, which I probably read on the Ship, of a church that had the Archdeacon coming to lead Evensong. The printed order of service the church used indicated which parts were to be said by the 'Minister' and which by 'All'. For the occasion new versions were printed, using "Find and replace" to change 'Minister' to 'Archdeacon'. All was well until they found themselves with, apparently, a particular need to pray that God should, "Endue thy Archdeacons with righteousness".

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

You may find some helpful material in

this sermon

by the Bishop of Monmouth.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

One of the times when you are likely to regularly meet the Archdeacon is during a time of interregnum (or other problem with staffing in the parish, eg. sickness, breakdown) - although there is other help from assistant / retired priests or occasional help from nearby parishes, the Archdeacon will often oversee the change and start the ball rolling by presiding and preaching, and holding any necessary meetings, to encourage everyone at the start of this ministry. Some of them are very good at this ministry of Encouragement, and are not nasty or fierce, as in the popular image, at all.

And, of course, you should know that formally Archdeacons should be known as (The Ancient and) Venerable, but informally as 'Archie'. [Biased]

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Though, to be honest, I don't think I've ever met an archdeacon I've disliked. They've all seemed good-humoured and pleasant people, with a healthy interest in all things alcoholic.

Yup. At their best, Archdeacons are brilliant. They deal with all the muck and horror of parish life, make sure most laws are adhered to, and are attached to a drip that feeds them coffee at all times.

You remember that episode of Rev where Adam is having a nightmare? He dreams that the Archdeacon is sitting on his loo saying "I poo snakes". Put it like this - I think one Archdeacon was considering calling another AD conference "Pooing Snakes". They're good people to have around.

If they don't pay attention to legal matters and how to work with difficult people, they're of less use than a chocolate fireguard. They need to be tough buggers.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
are attached to a drip that feeds them coffee at all times.

The running joke that has Archdeacon Robert pouring away Adam's or Adoha's instant 'coffee' always amuses me.

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

One point that no-one has made yet is that several cathedral chapters have the Archdeacon of the city amongst their number. Canterbury is one such, and the Archdeacon of Canterbury (Ven Sheila Watson) enthroned the Bishop of Chichester, according to the Mystery Worship report.

It is definitely a preferment in the church. It can be a step on the way to greater things, such as a purple shirt, or it can be a way of a Bishop using the wide pastoral experience of a respected clergyperson as a safe pair of hands to deal with problems.

Archdeacons are usually involved in parish clerical appointments, and there is an interesting comment in the back page interview of the Church Times last week from a psychatrist who sits on clergy selection conferences: "I try to help the archeacons of the future by spotting the folk who will cause them sleepless nights in 15 years' time", which I thought was interesting.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Angloid is correct. I met a female Archdeacon pre-1994 who was in Deacon's orders.

Interesting. The Diocese of Chichester brought a motion to the ?July Synod (turns out it was originally meant for July 2011) to allow diaconal archdeacons and it was voted down, for some reason that I just do not understand.

More here.

Thurible

Posted by maryjones (# 13523) on :

My first sight of an Archdeacon disappointed me. He didn't look venerable at all!
In clerical murder mysteries, I notice that Archdeacons are generally hard-working, thoughtful and efficient - as opposed to Deans, who are are usually the victim

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

I'm starting to wish I could hear your talk! Looks like you are going to have some good material.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
One point that no-one has made yet is that several cathedral chapters have the Archdeacon of the city amongst their number. Canterbury is one such, and the Archdeacon of Canterbury (Ven Sheila Watson) enthroned the Bishop of Chichester, according to the Mystery Worship report.

I believe this is a role that the Archdeacon of Canterbury has in all English episcopal enthronements as a representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

That may be only in the province of Canterbury, basillica. I have an idea it is someone else (and not the Archdeacon of York) in the Northern Province. But I don't know of sure. (I have no experience arranging episcopal enthronements, but if someone would like to give me the chance, it would keep me off the streets.)

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Thanks, everyone, for all the info and gossip about the Venomous Ones. Especially like the story, Chapelhead about enduing archdeacons with righteousness, but even the more arcane details about the lives and works of archdeacons are great background too. 1,000 blessings for this, and any more postings welcome.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
That may be only in the province of Canterbury, basillica. I have an idea it is someone else (and not the Archdeacon of York) in the Northern Province. But I don't know of sure. (I have no experience arranging episcopal enthronements, but if someone would like to give me the chance, it would keep me off the streets.)

This may be so, although the previous Archdeacon of Norwich was also a canon of the cathedral so could have done the same thing with a +Norvic had one been appointed. I've never knowingly encountered the Archdeacon of Canterbury, however...

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I never understood why the Archdeacon of Canterbury enthroned the Bishop of Chichester (a different diocese) but I'm sure it makes sense really?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Because, as Basilica pointed out upthread, the Archdeacon of Canterbury is the Archbishop of Canterbury's representative and, as such, reads a greeting from the archbishop.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I've never knowingly encountered the Archdeacon of Canterbury, however...

Think Daphne Whitethigh (Round the Horne). Well the voice, anyway.
Very deep, and really quite marvellous.

[ 17. January 2013, 17:50: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Angloid is correct. I met a female Archdeacon pre-1994 who was in Deacon's orders.

If Angloid is correct, then the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (by which I verified my recollection) is in error. Or, dare I say it, vice-versa, though that would involve contradicting an administrator, the penalty for which is doubtless hair-raising ... [Ultra confused]

However, if there be no bar to a deacon being made archdeacon, why, as recently as 2011, should the question have been raised in the diocese of Chichester as to whether the practice be permitted? [Confused]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
If Angloid is correct, then the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (by which I verified my recollection) is in error. Or, dare I say it, vice-versa, though that would involve contradicting an administrator, the penalty for which is doubtless hair-raising ...

However, if there be no bar to a deacon being made archdeacon, why, as recently as 2011, should the question have been raised in the diocese of Chichester as to whether the practice be permitted?

Because... Anglicanism.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
If Angloid is correct, then the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (by which I verified my recollection) is in error. Or, dare I say it, vice-versa, though that would involve contradicting an administrator, the penalty for which is doubtless hair-raising ...

However, if there be no bar to a deacon being made archdeacon, why, as recently as 2011, should the question have been raised in the diocese of Chichester as to whether the practice be permitted?
Because... Anglicanism.

Because...Chichester.

Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Does it indeed? I thought that there were one or two female archdeacons before women were ordained priest.

Canon C22 as currently enacted states:

1. No person shall be capable of receiving the appointment of archdeacon until he has been six years complete in holy orders and is in priest's orders at the time of the appointment.

Earlier the canon specified a minimum period in priest's orders.

I am confident that it has never been possible for a person not in priest's orders to be an archdeacon. But I have a vague recollection (which may of course be mistaken) that at least one bishop appointed a women deacon to a post where she did as much of an archdeacon's normal duties as can be done without actually being an archdeacon. Perhaps this is what Angloid is thinking of.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Peter is very possibly right. I only thought that I had heard of a diaconal archdeacon; never to my knowledge have I met one so I bow to greater knowledge.

I suppose if the OoW as priests had not gone forward, there would have been pressure to amend the canons to allow deacons to serve as archdeacons, as seems fitting in any case. It is a diaconal sort of job, not a priestly one.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
If Angloid is correct, then the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (by which I verified my recollection) is in error. Or, dare I say it, vice-versa, though that would involve contradicting an administrator, the penalty for which is doubtless hair-raising ...

However, if there be no bar to a deacon being made archdeacon, why, as recently as 2011, should the question have been raised in the diocese of Chichester as to whether the practice be permitted?
Because... Anglicanism.
Because...Chichester.

Wasn't Charles Lutwidge Dodgson an Anglican deacon?

Perhaps by way of experiment someone might suggest the (re-)introduction of the office of archpriest into the CoE. If the powers that be agreed, but insisted that the office could only be held by one in episcopal orders, the underlying principle of this odd state of affairs would become apparent.

[ 17. January 2013, 21:56: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]

Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Wasn't Charles Lutwidge Dodgson an Anglican deacon?

Yes he was, but he wasn't an archdeacon. [Biased]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Wasn't Charles Lutwidge Dodgson an Anglican deacon?
Yes he was, but he wasn't an archdeacon.

No, but I didn't suggest that he was. What I had in mind is that the stories who wrote for Alice Liddell may have drawn their inspiration not only from the idiosyncracies of Victorian Oxford, but also from those of the CoE.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Does it indeed? I thought that there were one or two female archdeacons before women were ordained priest.
Canon C22 as currently enacted states:

1. No person shall be capable of receiving the appointment of archdeacon until he has been six years complete in holy orders and is in priest's orders at the time of the appointment.

Earlier the canon specified a minimum period in priest's orders.

I am confident that it has never been possible for a person not in priest's orders to be an archdeacon. But I have a vague recollection (which may of course be mistaken) that at least one bishop appointed a women deacon to a post where she did as much of an archdeacon's normal duties as can be done without actually being an archdeacon. Perhaps this is what Angloid is thinking of.

I do not know of this specific incident, does not but the Archbishop of Canterbury have powers of dispensation in such matters, provided that he does not interfere with an act of parliament?

Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :

I know two women Australian female Archdeacons who were Deacons on appointment.

One is in charge of the household of deacons in her Diocese ( Canberra and Goulburn) and remains a strong advocate for those called to the Diaconate and ministers as Deacon to the aged.

The other ( Tasmania) began focusing on Children and family ministry as deacon and Archdeacon and has since been priested and is involved in parish ministry.

These two are greatly loved and respected throughout their Diocese and in the wider church in Australia.

But of course a woman's place is everywhere.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
One of the minor mysteries of the CoE is why, despite the title (and the custom of the early church), a deacon cannot become an archdeacon. It lays down that archdeacons have to be in presbyter's orders.

One theory that I have read is that it is linked to the diminution of the order of the diaconate in the west, which started very early on for a number of reasons, and by late mediaeval times had reached the point at which the diaconate was essentially defunct as a part of the lived experience of church life. Few were ordained deacons to serve as deacons but rather the order of the diaconate was seen as a stepping-stone to the priesthood: a legacy that prevails in the Church of England today.

I have known a couple of Anglican deacons who had intended to remain as such, but who later were ordained to the priesthood. One of them was American and had originally been ordained and served in ECUSA (as it then was). Over a few years of diaconal service in the UK, it became apparent to her that there wasn't a consciousness of the diaconate in the CofE, and that most people - clergy and laity alike - didn't really understand what to make of her or her role, or understand how a deacon fitted into parish life. To many people's minds, an ordained person was a "vicar", and the concept of a deacon just didn't compute. I can see how that could be wearing after a while.

She found herself being asked to perform priestly tasks, for which she came to realise that she had an aptitude and love, so was eventually ordained to the priesthood.

Returning from the digression, this diminution meant that roles that had originally been assigned to deacons, who at one time had wielded immense ecclesiastical power, were transferred to priests, including the title of the office of archdeacon.

The factors leading to the fading of the diaconate seemed not to have affected the eastern part of the empire and elsewhere in quite the same way, to the point that the diaconate in the Orthodox Church remained a constant feature of church life (although that too, evolved), and an archdeacon is very much an archdeacon. In some of the non-Chalcedonian churches, the diaconate and expression of diakonia seems to have flourished and evolved in some quite interesting ways. There seem to be numerous ranks of deacon, to the point of complexity. I find it fascinating.

[ 18. January 2013, 07:59: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

Woman speak, I love your comment "a woman's place is everywhere" I wish I had thought o it first! If I had it would become my sig...

Re Archdeacons, I have only known one or two...

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Nice little pic in the Church Times today, of an archdeacon in the Truro Diocese, being given a present of a t-shirt. The slogan on the front reads I'm an archdeacon, get me out of here!

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
They are part-time positions in the Church of Ireland, held by experienced clergy in combination with their parish post.

Some are part time in England too.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And most or all in Wales are too. I think they all should be, actually, even if it's only a split of 80/20 between being an Archdeacon and other work.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Ours have just gone full-time after several years running a parish alongside archidiaconal duties. The problem there is that (unless they only have a tiny rural parish, rare in this diocese) they then need a full-time assistant priest, not a curate in training, who costs another stipend anyway so there is no financial saving.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And most or all in Wales are too. I think they all should be, actually, even if it's only a split of 80/20 between being an Archdeacon and other work.

Except that as in all these dual roles it ends up being a 110/50 split with the inevitable problems of either jobs not being done or individuals getting burned out.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Ours have just gone full-time after several years running a parish alongside archidiaconal duties. The problem there is that (unless they only have a tiny rural parish, rare in this diocese) they then need a full-time assistant priest, not a curate in training, who costs another stipend anyway so there is no financial saving.

Why can't the Archdeacon be assistant priest in a parish?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Quite.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yup. And/or residentiary canon of the Cathedral (I think they quite often are, aren't they?), DDO, that sort of thing. In fact, it'd be worth rejigging parish responsibilities to give them small parishes if necessary.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

The argument goes they should be free to go to different places on Sundays.

If they were in small parishes or assistant priests they would not then have freehold - common tenure style - but they are a freehold post. I speak of England.

Then some say they can't be parishe clergy as they would be in deanery synods or clergy chapters, but may also be disciplining officials, or local clergy may feel inhibited by their presence.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
I'm giving an after-dinner speech next week at the UK national get-together of C of E Archdeacons, on a Ship of Fools ticket.

How did it go?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Is it time to 'fess up that I'm an archdeacon?

And, to re-emphasize, deacon-archdeacons were and are a part of the Australian landscape; Melbourne Archdeacon Marjorie McGregor for example has I think remained "unpriested", and was made "Archdeacon Without Territorial Jurisdiction: by Keith Rayner in 1995.

[ 27. January 2013, 20:23: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Is it time to 'fess up that I'm an archdeacon?

And, to re-emphasize, deacon-archdeacons were and are a part of the Australian landscape; Melbourne Archdeacon Marjorie McGregor for example has I think remained "unpriested", and was made "Archdeacon Without Territorial Jurisdiction: by Keith Rayner in 1995.

O Venerable Zappa!

PS-- some of us have always liked the deacon archdeacon idea and I am glad that it flourishes (even in Australia!)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The Venerable Mr Zappa has a nice ring to it. No doubt you call on your pet croc to assist in maintaining discipline amongst the clergy. Does FD still talk to you?

With no women licensed as priests in Sydney, and a few other dioceses, there remains a need for non-priested archdeacons. 4 years ago, the chaplain at school retired and was replaced by 2 new chaplains. One was a deacon awaiting ordination as a minister (Uniting Church school) but the other was ordained as a deacon and intended to continue his ministry in that ordination. He did say that he was far from alone in his church in that intention. Both have since left, but AFAIK the deacon remains a Minister of the Word, not of the Table.

[ 27. January 2013, 22:56: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by cosmic dance (# 14025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Ours have just gone full-time after several years running a parish alongside archidiaconal duties. The problem there is that (unless they only have a tiny rural parish, rare in this diocese) they then need a full-time assistant priest, not a curate in training, who costs another stipend anyway so there is no financial saving.
Why can't the Archdeacon be assistant priest in a parish?

This has recently happened in one diocese in New Zealand.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
....
Then some say they can't be parishe clergy as they would be in deanery synods or clergy chapters, but may also be disciplining officials, or local clergy may feel inhibited by their presence.

Are the Welsh and Irish parochial clergy less well-disciplined than their English counterparts, then? Perhaps they may be, but I've never heard it said.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Hoping that this is not a tangent, has anyone in recent days heard the form of address-- "Mister Archdeacon"? I last heard it used in ca. 1980, by a retired cleric (field chaplain in WWII), but since then only in Trollope.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Ours have just gone full-time after several years running a parish alongside archidiaconal duties. The problem there is that (unless they only have a tiny rural parish, rare in this diocese) they then need a full-time assistant priest, not a curate in training, who costs another stipend anyway so there is no financial saving.
Why can't the Archdeacon be assistant priest in a parish?

Because the Incumbent would have jurisdiction over them, and they would have jurisdiction over the incumbent. Legally (and practically) not workable, at least in the CofE.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Wasn't Charles Lutwidge Dodgson an Anglican deacon?

At that time, Holy Orders were a prerequisite for holding a University fellowship (at least at the vast majority of colleges in proper Universities). Thus the CofE was blessed with a large number of permanent deacons at that time.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Hoping that this is not a tangent, has anyone in recent days heard the form of address-- "Mister Archdeacon"? I last heard it used in ca. 1980, by a retired cleric (field chaplain in WWII), but since then only in Trollope.

I'm fairly sure I've heard it in the context of an induction in the Church of England. I can't, however, find any orders of service to demonstrate this.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

My hunch also, basilica.

I've heard the Dean of Salisbury, when asked, say that the formal address in her case would be "Madam Dean".

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Wasn't Charles Lutwidge Dodgson an Anglican deacon?
At that time, Holy Orders were a prerequisite for holding a University fellowship (at least at the vast majority of colleges in proper Universities). Thus the CofE was blessed with a large number of permanent deacons at that time.

I think that it was always Priest's Orders within some specified time; somehow Dodgson dodged round the statute. There are traces in some college statutes eg insisting that the Chaplain "if in Deacon's Orders [he] shall proceed to take Priest's Orders with as little delay as possible."

I doubt if many remained deacons; one needed to be in priest's orders to escape to a college living and matrimonial bliss.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

In the circles I move in I don't often hear any honorifics addressed to anyone ... this being the nation in which his visiting Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury (Runcie) was addressed with a hearty "Gidday Bob".

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land, replying to my question:
Why can't the Archdeacon be assistant priest in a parish? Because the Incumbent would have jurisdiction over them, and they would have jurisdiction over the incumbent. Legally (and practically) not workable, at least in the CofE.

What is the difference in principle between this, and an Archdeacon as a cathedral canon (common in many places)?

[ 29. January 2013, 14:36: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land, replying to my question:
Why can't the Archdeacon be assistant priest in a parish? Because the Incumbent would have jurisdiction over them, and they would have jurisdiction over the incumbent. Legally (and practically) not workable, at least in the CofE.
What is the difference in principle between this, and an Archdeacon as a cathedral canon (common in many places)?

The difference is that the incumbent of a parish is responsible to the archdeacon, whereas the dean of a cathedral is not.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Not even if the cathedral is a parish church? (Several are)

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Not even if the cathedral is a parish church? (Several are)

No. The bishop is always the cathedral's visitor, and therefore personally responsible for the cathedral in extremis. In the regular course of events, the Cathedral Council takes the equivalent role to the archdeacon's. (It is, of course, not unusual for an archdeacon to be on the Cathedral Council.)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

So a cathedral parish is not part of its own archdeaconry! How bizarre.

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So a cathedral parish is not part of its own archdeaconry! How bizarre.

Why the surprise? This is the Church of England we are talking about - arcane minutiae 'R us. [Big Grin]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Hoping that this is not a tangent, has anyone in recent days heard the form of address-- "Mister Archdeacon"? I last heard it used in ca. 1980, by a retired cleric (field chaplain in WWII), but since then only in Trollope.
I'm fairly sure I've heard it in the context of an induction in the Church of England. I can't, however, find any orders of service to demonstrate this.

Yes. On May 30th last, to be precise - addressed to the Archdeacon of Cambridge in the context of an institution and induction.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Wasn't Charles Lutwidge Dodgson an Anglican deacon?
At that time, Holy Orders were a prerequisite for holding a University fellowship (at least at the vast majority of colleges in proper Universities). Thus the CofE was blessed with a large number of permanent deacons at that time.

Yes, being in holy orders was a prerequisite for holding a fellowship. However, with some exceptions of course, academia was not at that time reckoned a long term career. Colleges are still the patrons of many livings, but they held far more in the past. Many fellows were biding their time until an attractive living in the gift of their college fell vacant. They could then resign their fellowship, take up the living - and get married. To do this (the living bit, not the marrying) they would have to be in presbyters' orders. I am therefore a bit sceptical about any large pool of permanent deacons. That might have appealed to someone like Dodgson who was content to remain a student of The House, but I don't think that he would have been typical.

[ 29. January 2013, 20:01: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So a cathedral parish is not part of its own archdeaconry! How bizarre.
Why the surprise? This is the Church of England we are talking about - arcane minutiae 'R us.

Must not apply in the Colonies...then again, a certain Dean who is also Archdeacon would probably be very happy to be released from his secondary duties on a technicality.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Wasn't Charles Lutwidge Dodgson an Anglican deacon?
At that time, Holy Orders were a prerequisite for holding a University fellowship (at least at the vast majority of colleges in proper Universities). Thus the CofE was blessed with a large number of permanent deacons at that time.

Yes, I believe he was disinclined to become a priest because of his speech impediment. He rarely preached as a deacon.

It is often said that Dodgson (Lewis Carroll of course) became a deacon to be an Oxford fellow. Perhaps. But his father was an Archdeacon and more than one of his brothers were priests, and so he would have had some idea of what the clergy were about, and he was a devout man.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

[tangent]
Strictly, Dodson was not a Fellow of Oxford (the University doesn't have Fellows, most of its constituent colleges do), but a Student of Christ CHurch (which has never had Fellows). At that time he was indeed required to be ordained in order to keep his Studentship. He was a tutor in mathematics at Christ CHurch and in charge of the Senior Common Room wine cellar.
[/tangent]

John

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
[tangent]
Strictly, Dodson was not a Fellow of Oxford (the University doesn't have Fellows, most of its constituent colleges do), but a Student of Christ CHurch (which has never had Fellows). At that time he was indeed required to be ordained in order to keep his Studentship. He was a tutor in mathematics at Christ CHurch and in charge of the Senior Common Room wine cellar.
[/tangent]

John

The House is an oddity among Oxford colleges in that it is both a college and a cathedral. In consequence the titles of its senior members don't fit the usual Oxford pattern. Thus the Dean of other colleges is one of the fellows who has responsibility for discipline of junior members (unlike the Dean of a Cambridge college who will be in orders and "looks after" the chapel); the Dean of Christ Church has the same role as the Dean of any other cathedral. The disciplinary person is called the Censor (or one of them). The group who would be called fellows in any other college are called 'students'. Hence the hilarious misunderstanding a while back by a reviewer of a novel by J.I.M. Stewart (who also wrote who dunnits under the pseudonym Michael Innes), along the lines of "a fantastic book given that it has been written by an undergraduate". [Big Grin]

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

That's the present situation. But when Dodgson was alive the Student vs Fellow distinction was real. College Fellows *were* the college in the legal sense. But in Christ Church the corporate body was the Dean and Chapter, so the canons were the equivalent of the fellows.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Not quite right on the Cambridge front, Metapelagius. Some Cambridge Colleges have both a Dean of Chapel and a Dean of College, and it is the latter who is the Dean of Discipline (a title I've actually heard used). Occasionally the same person holds both briefs. And then there are the Colleges that have Chaplains but not Deans of Chapel, and a few that have neither.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Not quite right on the Cambridge front, Metapelagius. Some Cambridge Colleges have both a Dean of Chapel and a Dean of College, and it is the latter who is the Dean of Discipline (a title I've actually heard used). Occasionally the same person holds both briefs. And then there are the Colleges that have Chaplains but not Deans of Chapel, and a few that have neither.

Thank you: I stand corrected re the details of the position at Cambridge, having over-simplified matters. I should have said that the Dean of a college is often the 'Dean of Chapel' though there may be someone else who is called a chaplain. In Oxford the only ecclesiastical Dean is the Dean of Christ Church. The (disciplinary) Dean of a college could also be the chaplain, but that would be a matter of chance - the Dean of Teddy Hall when I was an undergraduate (whose name escapes me) was also the chaplain. One thing I do recall about him was that as the college statutes forbade the keeping of dogs in college he kept a highly unusual 'cat'. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

The name has come back to me - Graham Midgley. A carving of his head - and that of his labrador 'cat' Fred - figure as gargoyles on the tower of the college library.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

[Smile]

College Councils have been known to create a legal fiction whereby the Master's dog is deemed to be a cat. That was certainly the case with Rab Butler's poodle.

ETA To return this thread to the subject of the OP, legal fictions are an Archdeacon's stock-in-trade.

[ 24. February 2013, 17:52: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
College Councils have been known to create a legal fiction whereby the Master's dog is deemed to be a cat. That was certainly the case with Rab Butler's poodle.

ETA To return this thread to the subject of the OP, legal fictions are an Archdeacon's stock-in-trade.

The other such case I recall was that of Sir Morien (sp?) Morgan, master of Downing, who had a similar 'cat'. He arrived at the college to take up the mastership by helicopter, which looks to be unprecedented. <end tangent>

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Not quite right on the Cambridge front, Metapelagius. Some Cambridge Colleges have both a Dean of Chapel and a Dean of College, and it is the latter who is the Dean of Discipline (a title I've actually heard used). Occasionally the same person holds both briefs. And then there are the Colleges that have Chaplains but not Deans of Chapel, and a few that have neither.
Thank you: I stand corrected re the details of the position at Cambridge, having over-simplified matters. I should have said that the Dean of a college is often the 'Dean of Chapel' though there may be someone else who is called a chaplain.

No, at Trinity (Cambridge) we had a Dean of Chapel and a lay Dean of College, who was responsible for discipline. This is the normal arrangement there, I believe.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
That's the present situation. But when Dodgson was alive the Student vs Fellow distinction was real. College Fellows *were* the college in the legal sense. But in Christ Church the corporate body was the Dean and Chapter, so the canons were the equivalent of the fellows.

On the other hand, (some of) the Students (not the canons as such*) did the teaching and were the tutors, which were the duties of (some of) the Fellows of the other colleges. And you have to differentiate between the pre-1867 and post-1867 regimes at Christ Church.

For that matter, the corporate body of Christ Church is still described as the Dean and Canons, even though the Students have been members of the governing body since, I believe, the 1867 reforms.

* those canons who also held chairs gave their statutory lectures qua professors, not qua canons, but did not tutor undergraduates at the House.

John

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Thank you for this JH it clarifies something I was unclear about.

I take it the Canons were of the college and cathedral, but was there ever ecclesiastical hierarchy like Archdeacons within the canons?

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Thank you for this JH it clarifies something I was unclear about.

I take it the Canons were of the college and cathedral, but was there ever ecclesiastical hierarchy like Archdeacons within the canons?

The Archdeacon of Oxford is a canon, and has been (I think) since the foundation.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

The last Archdeacon of Canterbury to actually be a Deacon was a certain Thomas A Beckett. Does anyone know what happened to him?

Once upon a time Archdeacons were Deacons. Until the 19th Century they were parish priests. When I was a curate my incumbent was appointed as an Archdeacon. At the time he had been about to embrace the religious life (much to the chagrin of his parish) and was somewhat surprised to be offered the job. This was in Holy Week. I was being taught how to celebrate the Eucharist at the time and I hooked up with our head server. Twenty minutes late my incumbent turned up, having been to a good lunch with a clergy friend of his and flashing his new mobile phone. I remember thinking "This is not a man who is about to swear vows of poverty, chastity and obedience". Lo and behold, on Easter Sunday, after the vigil he told me he was taking the Archdeacons job. I told him he would be a good Archdeacon. "You are ruthless enough to take difficult decisions but not enough of a bar steward to enjoy it". The parish were so pleased he wasn't going to become a monk they completely forgave him for leaving them.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Not quite right on the Cambridge front, Metapelagius. Some Cambridge Colleges have both a Dean of Chapel and a Dean of College, and it is the latter who is the Dean of Discipline (a title I've actually heard used). Occasionally the same person holds both briefs. And then there are the Colleges that have Chaplains but not Deans of Chapel, and a few that have neither.
Thank you: I stand corrected re the details of the position at Cambridge, having over-simplified matters. I should have said that the Dean of a college is often the 'Dean of Chapel' though there may be someone else who is called a chaplain.
No, at Trinity (Cambridge) we had a Dean of Chapel and a lay Dean of College, who was responsible for discipline. This is the normal arrangement there, I believe.

Yep. Still is. Trinity Cambridge has, in addition, two chaplains.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Certainly did in my time.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

At one time (don't know if it's still true) the TEC Diocese of Western North Carolina had a deacon in every parish. The recently deceased deacon on the Cathedral staff was also Archdeacon of the Diocese, and managed a fairly extensive training and continuing ed program for his fellow deacons.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0