|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: MW: Addressing a female Anglican priest
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I always feel a bit tongue-tied when I greet a female Anglican Priest. I would never, of course, say, "Hello, Rev. Jones", but what is the alternative? "Hello, Father Jane" sounds silly, possibly even offensive. "Hello, Jane" sounds far too casual, almost flippant. I don't want to get into the whole Miss, Mrs., Ms. thing either. "Mother Jones" (no pun intended) also has some drawbacks.
There must ba a Rev./Mother/Father/Dr./Ms./Mrs./Miss Manners of the cloth who can help me out.
I have been tempted to use the word 'Mater'. The Latin origin seems nice although 'Mater Jane' is a bit awkward. If its use became common, it might seem qite natural however.
Please, let's keep the discussion (if any) polite.
Greta
[ 29. March 2004, 19:42: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ultraspike
Incensemeister
# 268
|
Posted
In New York the usual reference is Mother or Mo, although it is not really correct. Reverend Jones sounds too formal and Barbara sounds too casual, so what's a parishioner to do?
--------------------
A cowgirl's work is never done.
Posts: 2732 | From: NYC | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
One of my fellow -chaplains is a female Anglican priest, and she only responds to her Christian name, as in "Hello Jane".... maybe it reflects our more casual Australian lifestyle?
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
We just call ours Mother Patricia. It seems to fit.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
CorgiGreta has a good point, as there really doesn't seem to be any satisfactory nomenclature in place. Our southern neighbours in ECUSA are beginning to use Mother (a point verified in US-origin clerical detective stories, as mystery-writers tend to be good interpreters of social trends) but I've never heard that here. In the Ottawa Valley, the nigh-universal address to a cleric is the incorrect "Reverend Jones."
One is really only on safe ground in addressing women canons and archdeacons, so perhaps a rapid enlargement or multiplication of cathedral chapters and collegiate churches so as to include all women priests might solve the problem.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Is a male priest addressed as Father, in the Anglican church? What about "Vicar", as in "Vicar Jones"?
Sieg
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Yes, male priests are called Father. I've never met a vicar, only rectors.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Our vicar has a wicked sense of humour - when our female trainee priest was ordained, he introduced her to us during the party afterwards to welcome her, as 'Father Julie' - we all laughed but she tends to get called Reverend Julie or just Julie. A fellow priest remarked, 'I like her, she's a good bloke'.
Perhaps friendly humour is more important than getting uptight about these things....... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
Indeed Chorister. I call the priest at my former Parish 'Motherette Anne', just for the lighthearted comic value. Seriously, I call her just 'Anne'.
Though I do quite like your suggestion of 'Mater', CorgiGreta. (Thanks for the PM BTW ![[Wink]](wink.gif) , I couldn't reply though ![[Frown]](frown.gif) )
Ah well. xxx
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
Afterthought,
What d'you call a female bishop?
m'Lady?
Perhaps some of you folk across the pond could give some advice here.
Thx
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
I know the proper title of a Mother Superior in religious orders is "Rev. Mother." Would it be inappropriate to adopt it into usage for female priests?
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I have yet to find uniformity in addressing male priests (in general - it usually is standard within a particular parish.) I've had certain times when I have addressed a clearly Low Church vicar as "sir" just not to employ the incorrect term. Yet I must confess to a brief giggle when I saw an Internet site where a female priest was referred to as "Father Catherine." I personally prefer "Mother," which (as with "Father") has a warm, familial aspect.
I came from a Franciscan tradition, where a priest would be addressed as "Father Ignatius," not "Father Smith." I like referring to bishops as "Bishop David" - because, in my rather mystical head, our name, either in religion or in baptism, means more than that of our family. Yet I would hesitate to use such forms unless I knew they were previously accepted, because to do so could appear to be inappropriate familiarity (and disrespect). (Minor digression: even newspaper editors seem unaware that, in almost every congregation, nuns are never referred to as "Sister Walsh.")
Perhaps I am a dinosaur, but I would not be one to address either a priest or anyone who is a generation older than I am as "Nancy" or "John" unless I was invited to do so. (Then again, I often have a backache from being forced into semi-Anglican crouch when a priest who sees me rising when s/he enters the room says "don't get up." ) Are there places where it is the usual custom to address the clergy in this fashion?
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Is a male priest addressed as Father, in the Anglican church? What about "Vicar", as in "Vicar Jones"?
In the CofE 'Father' tends to be used by the High-Church and Anglo-Catholic parts of the Church. Those of a lower-Church tradition tend to use just 'Reverend' (or drop titles altogether and simply use names). 'Vicar' and 'rector' are posts to be held, rather than titles.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I've never met a vicar, only rectors.
How do the parts of Anglicanism other than the CofE determine who is a vicar and who is a rector? In the CofE it is a matter of history (and who, in the 'old days' got the income from the parish), with all new parishes having a vicar (except, I think, where it is a team ministry).
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
In the CofE 'Father' tends to be used by the High-Church and Anglo-Catholic parts of the Church. Those of a lower-Church tradition tend to use just 'Reverend' (or drop titles altogether and simply use names).
According to the CE Year Book, 'Reverend' would be the correct, or at least official title, but yes, as Chapelhead states, 'Father' does tend to be used more among the spikey sorts, though not exclusively so.
quote:
'Vicar' and 'rector' are posts to be held, rather than titles.
Thank you.
I wish people would realise this. I can't stand it when I refer to some preiest or another as such, and someone points out to me that I must mean the vicar, because priests are Roman Catholic, not Anglican.
A priest is a priest, whether (s)he be a vicar, rector, priest-in charge, chaplain, canon, dean, or whatever else they do. For these are job titles, for which one must first be a priest.
quote:
...with all new parishes having a vicar (except, I think, where it is a team ministry).
Isn't it vicars that are dying out, and priests-in-charge that are becoming more common? Rectors are still about where there's a separate place of worship attached to the parish (I think) such as a school or university chapel, or what have you.
In a team ministry (again not sure), I think there's the team rector, who sort of oversees everything, and then team vicars who have individual parishes within the team.
Still though, we can't call female bishops 'My Lord', so for those who have had to tackle this, what do you call them?
RC x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
How do the parts of Anglicanism other than the CofE determine who is a vicar and who is a rector? In the CofE it is a matter of history (and who, in the 'old days' got the income from the parish), with all new parishes having a vicar (except, I think, where it is a team ministry).
In the ECUSA every church has a rector. However, the rector of a mission church is the bishop, himself, so that a bishop may be rector of several churches.
The hands-on pastor of a mission church is a vicar, i.e. he serves vicariously for the bishop.
One important difference between a rector and a vicar is the amount of authority they have vis-a-vis the vestry. The vicar has more authority than the rector.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
It took me a few months after moving back here, so to clarify for those who don't know, the 'vestry' on the Western side of the pond isn't a room of any sort (though it might be), but is the equivalent to the PCC.
I don't know why this is so though, unless it's from the tradition that they often meet in a vestry. I know lots of PCC's over here do that.
But again, what to call a female bish.
RC x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
You're right, Regina - priests in charge do seem to be becoming the norm. (I still call them vicars... ) I have noticed that even the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are generally referred to as "Archbishop Rowan or David" by most - so I'll ask - on this thread, are we referring to formal address, or that used in conversation?
I'm enjoying this thread (warming up for Your Grace and My Lord... if I'm ever a bishop, perish the thought, you may address me as My Lady the first time) ... so I'll ask: isn't "The Reverend" (where I worked, perish the thought one forgot the "The"!) a written, rather than spoken, form of address? I've known Low Churchmen here and there who made absolutely certain that, if one referred to an Anglican priest as Father, he, in the response which immediately followed, called said priest "Mr."
"It is my honour to be, Your Excellency,
Yours most respectfully," ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Newman's Own, p.p.1
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
With respect to women bishops in Canada, Victoria Matthews of Edmonton is normally called Bishop Matthews or Bishop Victoria. I am reliably informed that the few clergy in the diocese who have difficulty with the concept of or who do not accept women priests apparently quite like her and call her Bishop Victoria or Bishop Matthews, presumably accepting her enthronement and authority, if not her orders. Anne Tottenham of Credit Valley (suffragan of Toronto) gets the same treatment although, as the daughter of the Marquis of Exeter, she could legitimately be called Your Ladyship (as with most Persons of Title in Canada, she doesn't use the dignity).
The Canadian Government Style Manual still hasn't adjusted to the woman bishop phenomenon and is, as of yet, little help to us.
While archbishops still get Your Grace thrown at them, My Lord or Your Lordship tends only to be used by Anglicans of a certain generation, or those who wish to really annoy the bishop in question.
Thank you for allowing me to provide some further ecclesiastical trivia to the board. Must dash -- the Pope is on TV for the World Youth Day mass...
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
You're right, Regina - priests in charge do seem to be becoming the norm.
I thought so, cos they don't have the freehold, do they? Vicars do, which has caused problems when they've been doing bu***r all for the parish and there's been nothing that can be done to move them on.
quote:
...(I still call them vicars... )
Stoppit!
quote:
I have noticed that even the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are generally referred to as "Archbishop Rowan or David" by most - so I'll ask - on this thread, are we referring to formal address, or that used in conversation?
I suppose more formal. I call our rector and assistant curate Bill and Edmund (respectively), but outside of groups who also call them that informally, I will always say Fr Bill and Fr Edmund. In writing, always Fr x.
Diocesan Bishops usually get 'His Lordship', when refering to them or 'My Lord' if speaking to them.
Suffragans get 'Bishop n' in both situations.
The arch always gets 'His Grace' if being referred to, and 'Your Grace' on the one occasion I conversed with an archbishop.
quote:
...isn't "The Reverend" (where I worked, perish the thought one forgot the "The"!) a written, rather than spoken, form of address?
This is how I've taken to referring to female priests, but I never never never use the 'The'.
quote:
I've known Low Churchmen here and there who made absolutely certain that, if one referred to an Anglican priest as Father, he, in the response which immediately followed, called said priest "Mr."
I will use all the titles I mentioned above as 'default', if you will, and if the cleric in question introduces him/herself as 'Richard', then I would see it as being rude to then call him 'Fr Richard'. However, until I am asked to call a priest otherwise, he is 'Fr n', as he is a priest.
I know I hate 'Mr Johnson', and I hate it when people call me that after I specifically introduce myself as 'Michael', or 'Mike'.
Ah well M'Lady, I'll talk to you later.
xxx
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While archbishops still get Your Grace thrown at them, My Lord or Your Lordship tends only to be used by Anglicans of a certain generation, or those who wish to really annoy the bishop in question.
Oi!
Which generation would that be?!
...and the second reason, only with +Christopher of Manchester, but then he needs a good winding up every now and then.
x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Heavens, Regina Coeli, you are making me feel old! (Teasing tag on) I never thought I'd see the day when Father Bill was formal address. In fact, I'm old enough to remember (though not to have used) the term "Your Reverence" for Roman priests. (I'm a transplant.) It led to all sorts of highly amusing combinations, such as hearing a lady refer to "I'm going to see his Reverence your Uncle Liam." Normally, of course, families who used such terms had the informal "my son Tommy-the-priest." (Hand on heart, I'll reveal that I knew of a priest who had, below his name on his gravestone, "Tommy the Priest.") And, naturally, those who address you as Mr are not protesting against popery...
(Yes, I am risking having one of the hosts scold me for being off topic, but for some reason I am enjoying this thread enough to risk it.)
You missed the fun, being so young, Regina. Parishioners, unused to Franciscan parishes, thought the very traditional "Father Francis" was disrespectful. (I'll not even get into the "Don" business in Italy - where His Holiness is referred to as "Papa," bishops as "Bonelli.") Of course, some intricate arrangements exist to this day. For example, if there were curates as well as a vicar in a parish, the usual form of referring to the absent vicar (who, rather like the Holy Ghost, is an omnipresent but generally unseen force) as "Our Vicar," not by name. Here and there one can still find an archbishop or two who likes to be invariably referred to as "His Grace." Written address, for those who dealt with very formal correspondence, could be very intricate as well.
Of course, I am just about old enough to remember when, amongst just about everyone, to address someone as "Michael" or "Elizabeth" meant either that the parties were family or close friends.
So, do we leave it up to the lady vicars to tell us how they prefer to be addressed, or is there any standard underway? (Never heard of "Mo" - reminds me of what my perpetually hungry nephew used to say, when he was just beginning to talk, when he wanted another banana.)
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Do diocesen bishops who do not sit in the House of Lords get styled 'My Lord Bishop'? I suppose they do.
If the CofE had women bishops, and they sat in the House of Lords, I presume the correct form of address would be 'My Lady Bishop' - the House of Lords having Lords and Ladies.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
in country areas, at least round my way, Vicar is used as a name, and is suitable for male or female.
As in: ev'nin' Vicar
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
Not just in country areas either Chorister.Mine answers to both Vicar and Father....
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
As female protestant clergy.... if I wear a cross anywhere, I regularly get called "Sister" and asked about the pope! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Whatever is the matter with the use of the baptismal name(or the name in religion)?-without Father, sister, brother etc.
I find that for a priest/minister whom I don't know well that Rev Whoever is fine-works for rabbis and imams,too.
Our parish is franciscan and most of us call the local clergy by their baptismal names, the sisters ditto except for one Sister Mark who was baptized Norma 70 years ago and gets Mark.
I once met a very earnest and very young Tridentine priest who introduced himself as Father Terence Mary, and I explained gently that my late earthly father was the only father to me and G'day Terence Mary. Once he had recovered from such modernist impertinence we got on fine.
Or how about "Ma'am" for the lady bishops?
Nunc, I've been around a lot of nuns and the only Reverend Mother I've met in the last 30 years is the Reverend Mother Inferior of the traditionally attired Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence-and she bore a striking resemblance to my 2nd grade teacher of 44 years ago.
These days, the vast majority of femal religious who are congregational leaders (i.e. of their respective Orders) are just plain Sister Kafoops or just plain Kafoops.
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corpus cani
Ship's Anachronism
# 1663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
...so I'll ask: isn't "The Reverend"... a written, rather than spoken, form of address?
Not necessarily. What about the formal (spoken) greetings "Reverend Sir" and "Reverend Father in God". The important thing to remember is that 'Reverend' is just an adjective preceding the usual courtesy title.
'Father' works fine for me, although it's very odd to hear one of my youthful years addressed as Father by an old dear of eighty plus. I'm always reminded of Kenneth William's line in 'Round the Horne' - "Ooh, you don' 'alf 'ave to use your imagination..."
Posts: 4435 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
multiprea asks: "Whatever is the matter with the use of the baptismal name(or the name in religion)?-without Father, sister, brother etc."
I hope the Hosts refrain from labeling this a tangent, because I think it is an interesting point, and I would like to see it discussed. I think it is within the scope of my original question.
Here are my initial feelings. I think priests deserve a special form of address in recogniton of their calling and of the sacramental nature of the priesthood. This is not to say that they are holier, better, or closer to God than the people in the pews, but priests have been called, trained, and ordained to a unique and crucial role in the Church. A special title and/or form of address acknowledges and shows respect for this role.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
multipara,
My Latin teacher and my typing teacher are turning over in their graves.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
I am happy with Mother and Father, although there is that problematic:
quote:
MT 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Can anyone defend our tradition?
One big question. I have many friends who have just been ordained Deacon. Er, what do we call them?
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
miss jane
Apprentice
# 3107
|
Posted
Edward,
I'm glad you brought up that quote from Matthew, because as I was reading this thread I was thinking exactly this. I've always been uncomfortable with the address 'Father', and I must say I haven't come across it much in the Anglican circles I inhabit. The big-cheese at my church is the vicar (job title) and he is refered to officially from the front during services, most commonly as 'Full Name, our vicar'. When speaking to him personally I (and most everyone) call him by his first name. It seems to me that this mode of address is
a) entirely appropriate; surely what ever name you take at baptism is your name? If Stephen (Acts 7) is 'Stephen', and Philip (Acts 8) is 'Philip', why should anyone else be 'the very reverend such and such'?
b) transparently transferable to women.
BTW in other diocese in Australia they don't have vicars they have rectors. I've never been able to work out what the difference is, except that people get upset if you get it wrong. I must say, rector does tend to 'sound a bit funny/rude' if you're not used to it, but then vicar is all a bit 'Carry on up the Khyber' as well, isn't it?
cheers...
Posts: 50 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
I know a priest who would use a title if she had invited another priest to celebrate eg. calling them 'Celebrant: Father Fred Bloggs', 'Preacher: Mother Mary Smith', but not otherwise (For uniformity and equality I believe). Mother [firstname] in speaking.
Most definitely Archbishops should be addressed as 'Your Grace' and bishops 'My Lord' (though I did recently see a bishop looked startled when someone incorrectly addressd him as 'Your Grace'. Mind you, he would have been startled if they had addressed him as 'My Lord' as well). 'Your Grace' I hear quite a bit in reference to +Peter by divine providence Archbishop of Perth and Primate of Australia, but I think in the entire diocese it is only an 83 year old Sarum gentleman priest and I that call the bishops 'My Lord'.
I think 'Vicar' is perfectly acceptable as a form of address and more desirable than 'Reverend'. 'Mornin' Vicar!', mostly said by ex-UK people as we only have Rectors in this diocese also. Similarly Verger, Dean, Archdeacon, Canon, Deacon. It's a bit like saying 'Thankyou, Driver' when alighting from a bus.
Women bishops will be problematical. 'My Lady' I expect.
[tangent]I find bishops tend to get alarmed when you make to kiss their ring. So far I have only managed one.[/tangent]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Well to answer my own question on Matthew ...
Having done some quick research the general consensus is that Jesus was referring specifically to the Phariseeical abuse of titular authority. If I survive my training and am ordained Priest I will not take the title of Father to myself, it is the Church which makes me Father, a representative in a Spiritual sense.
The term Father is used regularly in the New Testament in this sense - as is also Teacher, which Jesus also criticises. The early church seems to have continued this practice. More Here ...
Within the Anglican Church, where Father is used but is not a convention this line of reasoning does raise a further question. I would not go into a Parish and demand to be called Father, but if I am regarded as such by the Congregation I will accept that 'title'. I will see it not as a statement of my greatness but my role as servant and representative.
The appellation Father also seems to have monastic roots, and certainly in England this matches the spiritual role of Priest in Parish community.
So calling Women Priests and Deacons Mother (it self with religious community background) seems a natural extension of this line of origin.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
It's an worthwhile tangent, Greta, and one which makes points with which I agree. So much depends on perspective as well. A few months ago, I had the strong impression that someone who, in Purgatory, kept referring to Father Gregory as "Greg" was doing so purposely to show he did not accept the idea of ordained priesthood or the title itself.
This reminds me of the familiar and polite forms of address in other languages. If I address another in the familiar, it may mean we are close - or it could be a "put down." I've noticed, on this thread, that customs vary greatly between parishes (and, perhaps, between regions.) During my convent days (when addressing another Sister without a title was matter for Chapter of Faults... and convenient, since it prevented having to get into any meaningful violation of the Rule!), I found calling friends "Sister" to be as stilted and formal as if I called my mother Mrs M - yet there were others who saw this as an affectionate way of addressing the others.
Part of my concern about (what could appear to be) familiarity is that it can make people, perhaps new to a parish, who are from an area or church where the custom of using the baptismal names for the clergy is unusual, feel distance. If the priest is addressed as "Jane," and one is unused to this, it can make it appear that other parishioners are her close friends. Somehow, being new to a church, in a group where one believes one is the odd one out where everyone else is close, can be staggering.
Of course, we have an added problem here! If a previous, male vicar was addressed as Father Smith, and the lady vicar is now called Jane, it can appear to be condescending, unless the former priest was much older.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
When I was a school chaplain (private church girls' school), I was called Rev. Rowe, or more familiarly, just plain "Rev".
Some staff would call me padre...
The principal was very formal and she wanted me called Reverend Harris.... I just felt that it was a tad too much for our culture today.
Rev was fine.
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
Bishops in the United States (being democratic and levelling and suspicious of corrupt, poncy, feudalistic titles) are never referred to as "My Lord" or "Lord Bishop". And since the ECUSA does not have an Archbishop, but merely a boring old Presiding Bishop, he oughtn't really to take "Your Grace" either, but some people do ignore this.
I refer to my diocesan as plain old "Bishop". Most ECASAns would say "Bishop Octavian" or "Bishop Augusta".
Lady vicars are more complicated and seem to take "Mother Jones" or "Mother Anne" in liberal catholic circles. The common convention in most other places is just plain "Anne".
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Just a small point that I hope our ordained shipmates will either back me up on or correct me.
My understanding is that to andress a member of the clergy as "Rev Smith" (or whatever) is incorrect as "Reverend" (or more correct, The Reverend) is a description as opposed to a title. Father/Mother is correct in traditions where those terms are used, otherwise the proper way to address a member of the cloth is Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms etc. Which is why newsreaders refer to the current ABpC as "Dr Carey" rather than "Most Rev and Rt Hon Carey".
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In Orthodox parlance (not that anybody asked) the tradition is to call bishops, "Bishop Firstname" when talking about them, and "Your Grace" when talking to them.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Just a small point that I hope our ordained shipmates will either back me up on or correct me.
My understanding is that to andress a member of the clergy as "Rev Smith" (or whatever) is incorrect as "Reverend" (or more correct, The Reverend) is a description as opposed to a title. Father/Mother is correct in traditions where those terms are used, otherwise the proper way to address a member of the cloth is Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms etc. Which is why newsreaders refer to the current ABpC as "Dr Carey" rather than "Most Rev and Rt Hon Carey".
I'm not ordained (yet?) I'm afraid Spike , but the Church of England Yearbook states the 'correct' titles to be given to the clergy of differing office, and Reverend (not preceeded by 'The') seems to be the norm for most priests and deacons. It goes into too much depth for me to be able to recall all of it, but if I pop into church in the week, I'll borrow the copy from the bookstall, and post here.
RC x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
<Tangent>
How reverend is a retired Dean?
A retired Bishop clearly remains a Bishop (without being the Bishop of anywhere in particular), and thus presumably continues to be a Right Revd. Does a retired Dean (who will, I presume, no longer be a Dean) continue to be Very Revd, or does (s)he revert to being merely Revd, as any other Priest?
</Tangent>
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I have encountered people (even an Anglican or two) who apply the title 'Dr.' to all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox clergy, regardless of whether or not they have an earned or unearned doctorate.
Also, some clergy are themselves fond of using the title 'Dr.' even though the doctorate is in a field other than theology, divinity, or church studies. (Shades of Dr. Laura, whose degree is not in the area of psychology?). It may be technically correct but seems to border on a slight deception.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Well, Greta, nothing wrong with using the title doctor (as long as it is earned...), whatever the field. However, since RC bishops (any variety) have the honorary "D.D. degree", I always found that particular addendum to signatures and addresses very annoying. (Though I have never heard one of them addressed as doctor.) There is no D.D. degree in the Roman Catholic Church - the genuine doctors of theology are either J.C.D. (canon law) or S.T.D. (sacred theology). The Most Reverend Anthony Patrick Whosoever is quite a penful in itself without adding fiddle-DD.
Dr. Elizabeth (humanities - working on that D.D. nonetheless!) ![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
Footnote: Hooker's post reminded me of an article I read some years back, when Princess Anne married Mark Philips, which, in the name of American democracy, kept referring to Her Royal Highness as Mrs Phillips.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corpus cani
Ship's Anachronism
# 1663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
.. Which is why newsreaders refer to the current ABpC as "Dr Carey" rather than "Most Rev and Rt Hon Carey".
Surely no newsreader worth his scriptwriter would ever dream of addressing His Archiepiscopal Munificence as "Most Rev and Rt Hon Carey" because
(a) it would be most improper for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.
(b) it would be a hideous mouthful and they'd keep tripping over their tongues.
(c) it would sound grovelly and just plain silly.
"Dr Carey", "Archbishop", "Archbishop Carey" and "Your Grace" are all grammatically and socially proper, respectful and courteous, easy to say and often heard in interviews.
...or at least as often as one ever gets to hear such a marginalised and insignificant figure as the leading Churchman in England speaking across the airwaves. (Why is there no "smiley" to denote "speaking with tongue in cheek through gritted teeth?!?!)
Corpus (who's devastated that they didn't ask him to take the Throne of St Augustine. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) )
Posts: 4435 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I fear that the only time I have ever heard "Your Reverence" used was in the context of walking over the O'Connell Street bridge many years ago, when a priest passed by a beggar who acknowledge this by saying, "God bless Your Reverence" in a way which suggested that he meant no such thing. I have, from time to time, used this for of address to our raised-Baptist rector, who regards me with a certain nervousness on that account.
In Ireland, newspapers had long delighted in using Doctor in referring to all bishops of any stripe, as it provided them with a respectful and dignified means of address while avoiding issues of validity of orders or right to particular titles (as both RC and C of I prelates claimed the same ancient sees, with varying degrees of seriousness). I asked of a learnèd C of I cleric about this, as not all bishops had doctorates (usually only one or two, and they generally mad or unbalanced), and he said that all bishops were teachers of theology (doctores divinitatis) by virtue of their apostolic office. Therefore, Trinity College would award some of them DDs jure officio (just to make certain??).
Bishop Tikhon's notes on clerical address were indeed interesting and I am circulating it to my colleagues in hopes that we may start signing our letters "The Unworthy Acting Senior Program Officer X."
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
The lavatory attendant of a club I occasionally visit always calls me 'Your Reverence' and it makes me feel like the Vicar in Dad's Army. Needless to say I quite enjoy it.
Spike is quite correct to draw attention to the appallingness of the way so many clergy are addressed in these degenerate times. The only safe guide to this is found at the beginning of Crockford (I'm sorry Regina Caeli, but you ought to cast your Church of England Yearbook into the canal).
It clearly states that one addresses an envelope to 'The Reverend J Smith', that when one starts a letter or in speech one referes to 'Mr Smith' and that in referring to a member of the clergy one writes 'The Reverend J Smith' first and then referes to 'Mr Smith' after that. It notes that the form 'Reverend Smith' or 'The Reverend Smith' are never used this side of the Atlantic and that the word 'Reverend' should always be preceded by the definite article.
There are of course other rules for addressing Archdeacons or Canons or Bishops of Titled Clerics.
I have a slight disagreement with Crockford (note the lack of 's by the way) when it states one can use the abbreviation 'Rev'd' or 'Rev'. I was always taught that to use the abbreviation 'Rev' was as bad a solecism as saying 'Reverend Smith'. I understand that Fowler backs me up on this vital point. I must check in an elderly copy of Crockford and see what it says, if indeed it does, (although it is probably a mark of the times that we now have to be told these things than just know them automatically).
If in doubt just use 'Father'. It works for me.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I'm certainly aware that affirming catholic parishes with women clergy have started to adopt the term Mother, just as they would call male priests Father.
I like that, personally
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I thought the correct mode of address for any woman in church was "luv", as in the phrases:
Make the tea please, luv.
Scrub the floor please, luv.
Do all the back-breakingly servile and menial tasks whilst we swan about at the front please, luv.
There is more - however, upon previewing the post, I think it better to post that in Hell. See you there, my cherubs
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Also, some clergy are themselves fond of using the title 'Dr.' even though the doctorate is in a field other than theology, divinity, or church studies. It may be technically correct but seems to border on a slight deception.
There is no maybe about it! Most people have to work damned hard to get a PhD. They are most worthy of using the title "Dr" as and when they choose. The fact that the doctorate is not in Theology does not matter in the slightest. If someone is really interested they will ask.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
