Ship of Fools: Sextons and vergers and canons

Thread: Sextons and vergers and canons - oh my! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024868

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Alright, silly title.

But I'm curious to know what different titles staff or volunteers at your place (cathedral or parish or other) and what they actually do. These things vary so much from place to place.

To start, I'm a verger, on staff at a cathedral, and most of my duties have to do with preparing for services - setting out vestments and books, and moving furniture. But I also help care for the cathedral (e.g., straightening out stuff in the pews, dusting or polishing as needed) and maintain a presence in the cathedral (both for welcome and security). We vergers also have a ceremonial role, and though there are paid vergers on staff, we also have volunteer ceremonial vergers, who do nothing but participate in liturgies.

I'm especially curious, of course, what vergers elsewhere do - or what the person(s) who do my job at your place are called; but the broader topic of who does what and how it's all divvied up at different places is really fascinating to me.

'Cause I'm a church geek. [Big Grin]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

In my village there is a verger. He has a little cottage near the church called 'Verger's Cottage' and, although part time as he has a another job, his commitment is total. His duties are larely what you describe. The job has passed through the same family since 1440.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Wow, cool! That whole passing a job down through a family is so unusual now, but it must be really traditional - what with job-related family names and all. (Including the name Sexton!)

I forgot to mention that I also say Evening Prayer on Saturdays (whether or not anyone else shows up), and during the week, we vergers serve as lay assistants at the noon Mass. We also seem to fill in for officiants or lectors at Evening Prayer during the week if they don't show. Also, sometimes we vergers lock up the cathedral at night, sometimes the sextons do. And we replace votive candles, stuff like that. I like that task, I think of it as tending people's prayers.

Apart from my job as a verger, I also direct the Altar Guild. Because we have paid staff vergers, our Altar Guild really only sets up the vessels and linens for services and cleans them up after. We vergers put the linens (and frontal if used) on the altar and credence/oblations tables, and wash and iron the larger linens as well. When vestments need attending to, we do it - minor stuff like removing wax or stitching something back together/replacing buttons, we do ourselves; more intense stuff we take to professionals.

Where I'm at, a Canon is essentially a department head - with the exception of Honorary Canons. The Sextons do both set-up (mostly for non-liturgical functions) and janitorial work. We have a Clerk of the Works who fixes stuff (and has a workshop in the bowels of the cathedral).

But at my home church (also a cathedral), the Clerk of the Works seems to be roughly the equivalent of our (paid staff) vergers, and I'm not clear on what a Canon is. When I was there, it seemed to just be the priests on staff were all called Canons, but I think there's more to it than that. I also never quite understood what a sexton was; they seemed to maintain a presence for the sake of security and hospitality, and to lock up the building at night. The Provost seems to do lots of what the Canon Sacrist and Clerk of the Works do at the place I work right now, although I don't really know everything he does - or why he's called a Provost!

Maybe I should ask questions next time I'm home.

[ 24. July 2012, 08:30: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

Officially at my church I am the PCC Treasurer; which really speaks for itself.

Unofficially, I do the verging for weddings and funerals, although I decline the fee because I am not the Verger and don't want to be. I do some other bits and pieces when needed, such as washing altar linens, repairing vestments etc, but I decline to have any other job titles.

I tried to turn down the job title with the treasurer stuff as well, but sadly people have to know who the treasurer is so I couldn't get away with that one.

I really don't like job titles.

All I wanted was a church to go along to and attend Mass once in a while ...

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
In my village there is a verger. He has a little cottage near the church called 'Verger's Cottage' and, although part time as he has a another job, his commitment is total. His duties are larely what you describe. The job has passed through the same family since 1440.

Wow; twenty to three; that is a long time.

I wonder if I should call my house 'Treasurer's Cottage' and turn it into a magnet for burglars.

[Smile]

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

I'm especially curious, of course, what vergers elsewhere do - or what the person(s) who do my job at your place are called; but the broader topic of who does what and how it's all divvied up at different places is really fascinating to me.

'Cause I'm a church geek.

I didn't address this bit, really.

When we have a wedding I collect and bank the fees as treasurer, hand bits to the relevant people; organist and florist, and sort out the Diocesan fees, eventually.

Then, as verger, on the day of a wedding I usually come to Mass in the morning and then stay around for the couple of hours until the wedding to sort out whatever needs to be done.

I usually bring clean hand towels for the loo, and clean in there, including the floor. If there is any dusting needed, or sweeping, then I will do that as well. I may also make sure the kitchen area is clean for Sunday, empty the bins and generally make the whole church tidy and inviting.

During the service I help to make people feel welcome and at home, hand toys to parents if their children look a bit stressed, and stand next to the organ to sing along with the hymns so that the organist knows when we get to the last verse. Then I ring the bell at the end.

After the service I straighten chairs, put out the candles and get everything other than in the sanctuary ready for Sunday morning. Father does the sanctuary bit.

Then I may bring towels or tea towels home to wash again, along with any altar linens that need doing, and anything that needs to be repaired.

Our church is very high, so I don't help out in services; Father wouldn't ask, and I wouldn't accept if he did. But I have been known to read a lesson once in a while.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

One verger I know is both the son and the grandson of vergers. I don't see too much of what he does behind the scenes, but he performs his liturgical role with great dignity and is always there to welcome visitors.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
But at my home church (also a cathedral), the Clerk of the Works seems to be roughly the equivalent of our (paid staff) vergers, and I'm not clear on what a Canon is. When I was there, it seemed to just be the priests on staff were all called Canons, but I think there's more to it than that. I also never quite understood what a sexton was; they seemed to maintain a presence for the sake of security and hospitality, and to lock up the building at night. The Provost seems to do lots of what the Canon Sacrist and Clerk of the Works do at the place I work right now, although I don't really know everything he does - or why he's called a Provost

Traditionally, canons of a cathedral are the clergy assigned to the cathedral parish (or a collegiate parish), as full-time, paid staff. They would recite the office and attend Mass together, and in some ways function as a sort of miniature religious community.

Honorary canons are generally clergy that are not assigned full-time or paid as cathedral clergy; they tend to be long-serving or even retired clergy who have made important contributions to the cathedral or diocese, and have been honored with the title. They may or may not even assist at the cathedral on a regular basis. The naming of honorary canons is more common in Anglican circles, as RCs tend to honor such clergy by having Rome name them as monsignors.

See here for provost.

A sexton is traditionally the one who, above all, rang the bell. In practice this often also meant overseeing the physical plant of the church (often as a handyman or maintenance person), and often assisting at funerals, small weekday services, etc. In the USA, the term survived the twentieth century primarily in TEC parishes.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Traditionally, canons of a cathedral are the clergy assigned to the cathedral parish (or a collegiate parish), as full-time, paid staff. They would recite the office and attend Mass together, and in some ways function as a sort of miniature religious community.

Honorary canons are generally clergy that are not assigned full-time or paid as cathedral clergy; they tend to be long-serving or even retired clergy who have made important contributions to the cathedral or diocese, and have been honored with the title.

In the Church of England, many cathedrals are extra-parochial and have no territorial responsibilities. This tends to be the older cathedrals, but newer ones such as Liverpool and (?) Guildford are the same. This means that the residentiary canons have either got [a] cushy sinecures (unlikely these days), or [b] diocesan or other posts such as Missioner or - as at least used to be the case in Durham - university professor, or [c] the cathedral is so well-endowed and busy that there is need for a number of full-time priests on the staff.

I wonder what the general policy is for awarding honorary canonries? In this diocese, recent custom is to make Area Deans Canons for as long as they hold the post; they revert to normal 'reverend' status when they relinquish it. I think a few canonries are reserved as distinguished service awards in addition.

The chief priest of a cathedral, in the C of E and (by imitation?) in the English RC church, is now styled Dean. Formerly there were Deans (of the non-parochial cathedrals) and Provosts (of the parochial ones). RCs made do with Administrators.

[ 24. July 2012, 20:03: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wonder what the general policy is for awarding honorary canonries? In this diocese, recent custom is to make Area Deans Canons for as long as they hold the post; they revert to normal 'reverend' status when they relinquish it. I think a few canonries are reserved as distinguished service awards in addition.

I am accustomed in the USA to seeing deans titled "The Very Reverend" and canons titled "The Reverend Canon." Both would relinquish the extra honorific upon completion of term, unless the bishop decreed otherwise. Both of these honorifics would entitle the holder to some colored piping on their cassocks and birettas (not that one would see these worn very often).

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The chief priest of a cathedral, in the C of E and (by imitation?) in the English RC church, is now styled Dean. Formerly there were Deans (of the non-parochial cathedrals) and Provosts (of the parochial ones). RCs made do with Administrators.

Here, a RC cathedral is headed by a rector. (The implication is that the bishop is the pastor, so a different term is used for the priest who really runs the cathedral. Rectors also are in charge of seminaries, as well as large basilicas or shrines.) Deans are titled The Very Reverend Father (or Very Rev. Msgr., if such is the case), though in some dioceses, instead of that, the priests just have the initials V.F. (Vicar Forane) after their names).

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Not bothering to quote the many bits I'm responding to...

I forgot to mention among my verger duties all the stuff I do at weddings! I emcee the rehearsal and wedding service, and handle the paperwork (including mailing the marriage license back to city hall), as well as setting up the liturgical space with any furniture and altar cloths/frontals are needed, laying out the officiant's vestments, and preparing the booklet s/he will use in the service (writing in the names, marking options we're using and options we're not using, etc.).

RE: Canons - in my experience, both canons and honorary canons can be both lay and ordained. And yes, they make up the Chapter which, together with the Dean, handle the business of the cathedral.

Thanks for the info on Provosts - I'd also heard that a Provost is someone appointed by the Bishop to serve in the absence of a Dean, but I never quite understood that. Mostly 'cause I've never seen that in action.

I've always wondered why deans are called "Very Reverend," since "Reverend" and "Most Reverend" indicate different orders, but Dean is not something you're ordained/consecrated to. I've also heard deans of seminaries called "Most Reverend," which is also weird, IMO.

Is it related to "Right Reverend" for an Archbishop not indicating a new order but a hierarchical status? (We don't have Right Reverends in the US Episcopal Church.)

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

The use of 'The Very Reverend' is also used by some holders of deaneries other than cathedral ones. The Dean of St George's College, Jerusalem, when a cleric, is so styled.

It in incorrect in the UK according to Crockford to use 'Reverend' without the article in front. So it is always THE Reverend.

Interestingly one of the abuses of the pre-Reformation church was the holding of canonries by lay people.

The present holdier of the almost hereditary postion of verger in my home village wears a cassock and gown edged in the CEGV colours. We are trying to get him to wear bands. Would this be correct?

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
[QB] [QUOTE]I am accustomed in the USA to seeing deans titled "The Very Reverend" and canons titled "The Reverend Canon." Both would relinquish the extra honorific upon completion of term, unless the bishop decreed otherwise. [QB]

I address our Area Dean as the Blessed Stephen, because he has been Canonised. He rather likes it, I think. [Smile]

Posted by 21stcenturyAnglican (# 17197) on :

In my parish, the Verger is essentially the Master of Ceremonies, responsible for acolyte training, and a chalice-bearer. He also fills in when lectors, intercessors, etc don't show.

[ 24. July 2012, 22:30: Message edited by: 21stcenturyAnglican ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
It in incorrect in the UK according to Crockford to use 'Reverend' without the article in front. So it is always THE Reverend.

That's also true in the US, with the exception of some colloquial uses (addressing a minister as "Reverend" or "Reverend So-and-so" is not uncommon in some places, but I would assume NOT in Episcopal or Catholic churches. I think it's a substitute for "Father" or similar in churches that would never in a million years use such titles).

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

On another note, I've heard that in some places, paid staff vergers wear their cassock and vest all day. Is that very common? If it's the case where you are, how does it affect/influence the verger's duties? 'Cause I would imagine a vested verger would tend more toward being a visible presence in the cathedral or church and less toward moving furniture or dusting (or any heavy-duty cleaning).

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

My this thread is Anglican. Time for some Reformed input. [Snigger]

Of course there is the Minister. We used to have Elders who sat on the Session and Stewards who look after property and temporal matters. They also took up the Offering. Now we have a newer format, a Church Council, where the Team Leaders are Elders. We also have Trustees who actually hold title to the property and do some other legal things. That person who hands out bulletins is greeter. Some places call them ushers.

In the UCCan all ministers are Rev. which is the correct abbreviation. Ordained Moderators of the United Church of Canada are Right Reverend, Rt. Rev. while in office for their three year term between General Councils and Very Rev. for the rest of their lives. The same applies to the Church of Scotland.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
It in incorrect in the UK according to Crockford to use 'Reverend' without the article in front. So it is always THE Reverend.
That's also true in the US, with the exception of some colloquial uses (addressing a minister as "Reverend" or "Reverend So-and-so" is not uncommon in some places, but I would assume NOT in Episcopal or Catholic churches. I think it's a substitute for "Father" or similar in churches that would never in a million years use such titles).

Technically, 'The Rev'd' should always be followed by an honorific as well. Thus, Roman Catholic Priests and many Anglican priests are usually 'the Rev'd Fr' (except where they are Canons, Prebendaries, Monsignori, etc). Deacons in those traditions and most Protestant ministers are 'the Rev'd Mr'. Sober Preacher's Kid seems likely to come and correct me on the latter style for Protestant ministers, but it is proscribed by etiquette guides on both sides of the Atlantic, and comes up regularly in historical records. I don't know what the equivalent for a female Protestant should be, although a comparison with secular sources suggest 'the Rev'd Madam'.

'The Rev'd Dr' is properly reserved only for someone with a Doctor of Divinity. A priest with a PhD (whether it be in theology or any other discipline) should be 'The Rev'd Fr Learned Presbyter, PhD'. Priests with higher doctorates other than the DD follow suit. This nicety seems to increasingly ignored, however, even in Roman Catholic theological colleges.

All of this is relatively recent: in the Middle Ages, priests were normally addressed as 'Sir' or even as 'Dominus (m'Lord)'. Indeed, they still are in certain liturgical settings, although increasingly rarely in my experience.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

The present holdier of the almost hereditary postion of verger in my home village wears a cassock and gown edged in the CEGV colours. We are trying to get him to wear bands. Would this be correct?

Noting your location, as long as they are brass ones, yes.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

'The Rev'd Dr' is properly reserved only for someone with a Doctor of Divinity. A priest with a PhD (whether it be in theology or any other discipline) should be 'The Rev'd Fr Learned Presbyter, PhD'.

Really? I've never heard of this rule before and it is certainly never observed. From where does it derive?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

'The Rev'd Dr' is properly reserved only for someone with a Doctor of Divinity. A priest with a PhD (whether it be in theology or any other discipline) should be 'The Rev'd Fr Learned Presbyter, PhD'.
Really? I've never heard of this rule before and it is certainly never observed. From where does it derive?

If one takes the style for addressing clergy of the CofE from Crockford, then it is not correct. There is also no mention in the latest edition of the use of 'Fr' either.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

'The Rev'd Dr' is properly reserved only for someone with a Doctor of Divinity. A priest with a PhD (whether it be in theology or any other discipline) should be 'The Rev'd Fr Learned Presbyter, PhD'.
Really? I've never heard of this rule before and it is certainly never observed. From where does it derive?

I am a protocol geek and had many fun times in the Canadian government over many years correcting forms of address and this is a totally new one for me. Where is this done? I know that QCs in the House of Commons are "my learned friend" but that is the closest I've seen.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I think what (S)Pike Couchant was referring to was the use of PhD after the name for Dr. before it - as I read it, 'Mr. Learned Friend' was the name of the clergyman being used as an example!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think what (S)Pike Couchant was referring to was the use of PhD after the name for Dr. before it - as I read it, 'Mr. Learned Friend' was the name of the clergyman being used as an example!

ah..... That makes much more sense.

I thought that this was along the lines of the Reverend Canon Doctor AB, where dignities are piled up like an unfortunate automobile accident.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Is it related to "Right Reverend" for an Archbishop not indicating a new order but a hierarchical status? (We don't have Right Reverends in the US Episcopal Church.)

Actually, all bishops of the Episcopal Church in the USA are styled "The Rt. Rev. ______." The Presiding Bishop, being the Primate (and basically the equivalent of an archbishop), is the only one titled "The Most Rev. ________."

Archbishops elsewhere in the Anglican Communion are also titled "The Most Rev. ______." In the UK and possibly elsewhere, if they are also Lords, then they are "The Most Reverend and Right Honorable______."

RC bishops and archbishops are all titled "The Most Rev. _____," so there is no way from just that to tell if a specific one is a bishop or achbishop. Usually the next line will say "Bishop/Archbishop of ________," and one will know from that. Of course, if he is a cardinal, he is "His Eminence __________ Cardinal _______," although the practice of placing Cardinal in the middle of the first and last names is increasingly being used only in the most formal of circumstances. Otherwise "His Eminence Cardinal __________ ____________" seems to be more common.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

'The Rev'd Dr' is properly reserved only for someone with a Doctor of Divinity. A priest with a PhD (whether it be in theology or any other discipline) should be 'The Rev'd Fr Learned Presbyter, PhD'.
Really? I've never heard of this rule before and it is certainly never observed. From where does it derive?
If one takes the style for addressing clergy of the CofE from Crockford, then it is not correct. There is also no mention in the latest edition of the use of 'Fr' either.

Crockford is terribly modernist and is also (and always has been) rather low church. This means that it presumably follows the conventions of Protestant clergymen. My reference was to the usage suited for Roman and Anglo-Catholic priests. I believe, although I'm not certain about this, that for Roman Catholic clerics to be 'the Rev'd Dr', they most hold a doctorate of divinity from a Pontifical University.

There is a school of thought (rather excessively precious in my view) that people with PhDs should not be styled as 'Dr x' and that this style should be reserved for those holding higher doctorates (e.g. Letters, Music, Medicine, Divinity, etc.).

As usual, nothing is actually set in stone for Anglicans. I suspect that nothing other than common sense and the prospect of a bishops severest disapproval actually prevents an Anglican Priest from styling himself 'His Beatitude the Most Reverend and Rt Worshipful Prof Dom'. As it is, such styling are usually confined to the more exotic of the Episcopi vagantes.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Presumably it would not be approved of by this logic for a clergyman who is or was a GP to be styled 'The Rev Dr' would not possess a doctorate at all?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

RCs in the USA never use "The Rev. Dr." at all. Whether the cleric be bishop, priest or deacon, and regardless of where or in which discipline his doctorate is achieved, the letters Ph.D., D.D., S.T.D., J.C.D., Ed.D., etc. all appear after the name, with the honorific Doctor not being used at the front, since his status as a cleric takes precedence.

Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on :

In Greek Orthodox churches the caretaker is called a neokoros, a sexton. He usually is in charge of all maintenance of the temple: narthex, nave and Altar. During divine services, the neokoros will look after the censer and carry a lamp, if there are no altarboys available. He is also the only layman who can assist the clergy in changing the Holy Table coverings. The position corresponds to the ancient office of doorkeeper or porter. During services he wears a black outer cassock (similar to a chanter).

Women, of course, can also have this position, although by tradition, only in a women's monastery would they do the ceremonial actions within the Altar.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I have seen Jesuit priests in an academic context who possess a doctorate to be styled 'Dr Jonathan Smith SJ' without 'The Rev'. I have seen 'Rev Dr' also used by such individuals.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
RCs in the USA never use "The Rev. Dr." at all. Whether the cleric be bishop, priest or deacon, and regardless of where or in which discipline his doctorate is achieved, the letters Ph.D., D.D., S.T.D., J.C.D., Ed.D., etc. all appear after the name, with the honorific Doctor not being used at the front, since his status as a cleric takes precedence.

The Irish are, of course, different. RC diocesans and auxiliaries are Rt Revd, and usually are referred to in the 3d person as Dr, even if they have no doctorates-- one theory for this is that bishops are always doctores fidei (teachers of the faith). So one will see (e.g) Seamus Murphy, Bishop of Inchicore described as The Right Reverend Seamus Murphy, Bishop of Inchicore, and thereafter as Dr Murphy, even his scholarly achievements are but Leaving Cert and a backalley JCL. This is also an Irish RC way of addressing CoI bishops, as calling the CoI Abp of Dublin and Primate of Ireland by Archbishop Jackson would be a recognition of his orders; to call him Dr Jackson would respectfully acknowledge his scholarly nature and public responsibilities.

With respect to PhDs and DMins, there is a (possibly precious) school of thought which deems them to be the academic and/or clerical equivalent of trades union certifications and best not mentioned in refined circles or noticed in protocol.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
With respect to PhDs and DMins, there is a (possibly precious) school of thought which deems them to be the academic and/or clerical equivalent of trades union certifications and best not mentioned in refined circles or noticed in protocol.

With D.Min. I can sort of understand that mindset when compared to other degree programs, but how could a Ph.D. be considered in that category? It is the terminal research degree in most fields here in the USA. Most of the respected academic experts in fields outside of medicine and law are Ph.D. holders.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Is it related to "Right Reverend" for an Archbishop not indicating a new order but a hierarchical status? (We don't have Right Reverends in the US Episcopal Church.)
Actually, all bishops of the Episcopal Church in the USA are styled "The Rt. Rev. ______." The Presiding Bishop, being the Primate (and basically the equivalent of an archbishop), is the only one titled "The Most Rev. ________."

Oops, I slipped up and got that backwards (yeah, I knew better). I still wonder, though, about "The Very Reverend." So one is "reverend" in virtue of ordination, and "right reverend" in virtue of consecration, but the others are in virtue of a particular job - why is that? I'm looking at these titles as adjectives here, I guess. Why does becoming a dean or being elected Presiding Bishop increase your reverendness?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
[Oops, I slipped up and got that backwards (yeah, I knew better). I still wonder, though, about "The Very Reverend." So one is "reverend" in virtue of ordination, and "right reverend" in virtue of consecration, but the others are in virtue of a particular job - why is that? I'm looking at these titles as adjectives here, I guess. Why does becoming a dean or being elected Presiding Bishop increase your reverendness?

These are merely titles and are intended as a reflection of greater responsibility and honor that goes with certain offices, rather than personal sanctity. They originate in an age when titles were of a fare greater social concern than they may be now. Anglican archdeacons are still styled as "The Venerable" (which takes some RCs aback, as they are accustomed to Venerable being used to refer to candidates for beatification.) [Angel]

, and we all know that some Easter prelates have equally exalted titles.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
With respect to PhDs and DMins, there is a (possibly precious) school of thought which deems them to be the academic and/or clerical equivalent of trades union certifications and best not mentioned in refined circles or noticed in protocol.
With D.Min. I can sort of understand that mindset when compared to other degree programs, but how could a Ph.D. be considered in that category? It is the terminal research degree in most fields here in the USA. Most of the respected academic experts in fields outside of medicine and law are Ph.D. holders.

Perhaps I wrote too quickly. Currently I am surrounded by friends doing doctorates... according to them, much of it seems to have become a hoop-jumping exercise rather than a scholarly pursuit. But they may be jaundiced.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
With respect to PhDs and DMins, there is a (possibly precious) school of thought which deems them to be the academic and/or clerical equivalent of trades union certifications and best not mentioned in refined circles or noticed in protocol.
With D.Min. I can sort of understand that mindset when compared to other degree programs, but how could a Ph.D. be considered in that category? It is the terminal research degree in most fields here in the USA. Most of the respected academic experts in fields outside of medicine and law are Ph.D. holders.
Perhaps I wrote too quickly. Currently I am surrounded by friends doing doctorates... according to them, much of it seems to have become a hoop-jumping exercise rather than a scholarly pursuit. But they may be jaundiced.

Sadly, this is true in many of the online and other upstart for-profit universities. However, in terms of state universities and the respected private colleges that have been around for some time, true research programs are alive and well. Most doctorates that priests would have certainly would fit into the latter category.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Indeed. The PhD is a highly sought after research degree awarded (at least in the UK) only after rigorous and - most importantly - original research.

To see them as leaving certificates not to be mentioned in polite society smacks a little of 'I couldn't do it myself' or even 'To be honest, I'm not quite sure what polite society is, never having been invited there'.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
It in incorrect in the UK according to Crockford to use 'Reverend' without the article in front. So it is always THE Reverend.
That's also true in the US, with the exception of some colloquial uses (addressing a minister as "Reverend" or "Reverend So-and-so" is not uncommon in some places, but I would assume NOT in Episcopal or Catholic churches. I think it's a substitute for "Father" or similar in churches that would never in a million years use such titles).
Technically, 'The Rev'd' should always be followed by an honorific as well. Thus, Roman Catholic Priests and many Anglican priests are usually 'the Rev'd Fr' (except where they are Canons, Prebendaries, Monsignori, etc). Deacons in those traditions and most Protestant ministers are 'the Rev'd Mr'. Sober Preacher's Kid seems likely to come and correct me on the latter style for Protestant ministers, but it is proscribed by etiquette guides on both sides of the Atlantic, and comes up regularly in historical records. I don't know what the equivalent for a female Protestant should be, although a comparison with secular sources suggest 'the Rev'd Madam'.

'The Rev'd Dr' is properly reserved only for someone with a Doctor of Divinity. A priest with a PhD (whether it be in theology or any other discipline) should be 'The Rev'd Fr Learned Presbyter, PhD'. Priests with higher doctorates other than the DD follow suit. This nicety seems to increasingly ignored, however, even in Roman Catholic theological colleges.

All of this is relatively recent: in the Middle Ages, priests were normally addressed as 'Sir' or even as 'Dominus (m'Lord)'. Indeed, they still are in certain liturgical settings, although increasingly rarely in my experience.

This is a difference between Anglicanism and Presbyterianism, from which the United Church of Canada draws its protocol.

The correct abbreviation for Reverend is Rev., not Rev'd. Mr. is not used with Rev. One may use The Rev., The Rt. Rev. or The Very Rev., but never, ever use the "d".

Crockford can pedal its Anglican views all its wants, it does not make them correct for non-Anglican churches.

Augustine, if you wrote the Heritage Canada guidelines on honorifics and titles then I am coming after you for imposing Anglican views on non-Anglican churches.

(S)pike Couchant is also wrong about Rev. Dr. That is used as the correct form for an ordained minister with a Ph.D. Canadian universities do not in general award any other degree for post-graduate work. My own university ranks the M.D. as an undergraduate program.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
With respect to PhDs and DMins, there is a (possibly precious) school of thought which deems them to be the academic and/or clerical equivalent of trades union certifications and best not mentioned in refined circles or noticed in protocol.
With D.Min. I can sort of understand that mindset when compared to other degree programs, but how could a Ph.D. be considered in that category? It is the terminal research degree in most fields here in the USA. Most of the respected academic experts in fields outside of medicine and law are Ph.D. holders.

Yes, and therefore it is assumed that everyone in such a position has a PhD. Thus, it is treated as not worth mentioning. It's not that the PhD is esteemed lightly, it's just that they would never be so rude as to assume that someone might not have one (for the record, I don't).

More importantly (much more importantly), the PhD is a newcomer to the Anglophone world. Especially in the UK, one can still find senior academics without one. Such new degrees are obviously not treated as 'real doctorates', unlike the higher doctorates (which, unlike the PhD, do not usually require any specified amount of work). None of this makes sense, of course — that's the beauty of it. There is certainly no correlation between the amount of work required for a degree and its position in terms of protocol! The (essentially honorary) MAs given by the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin outrank research masters (whether from those universities or any other), and the BD ranks higher than the PhD and vastly higher than the lowly BTh (which ranks below even the BA!).

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

The correct abbreviation for Reverend is Rev., not Rev'd. Mr. is not used with Rev. One may use The Rev., The Rt. Rev. or The Very Rev., but never, ever use the "d".

Crockford can pedal its Anglican views all its wants, it does not make them correct for non-Anglican churches.

I'll defer to you on the normal abbreviation, but a little Googling can reveal that 'the Rev. Mr' is a perfectly normal Presbyterian (and Methodist) usage. A few examples will, I trust, suffice:

quote:
Thereafter, it was moved by the Rev Mr. Allan, seconded by Mr Andrew Johnson, elder, and agreed by the presbytery that ...

— Home and Foreign Missionary Record for the Church of Scotland 1838–1839, pg. 57

quote:
The Clerk of the Presbytery read the minutes of yesterday's proceedings, which were sustained. The Rev. Mr. Mackersey suggested that the gentlemen who dissented from the resolution yesterday should withdraw their dissent.

— From the Launceston Examiner, 12 November, 1863

quote:
The opening ceremony took place at 3:30 in the afternoon. This was performed by the Right Rev. Dr M’Kichan, Principal of Wilson College, Bombay, and Moderator of the United Free Church of Scotland, assisted by the Rev. Dr Martin, convener of the Church of Scotland Home Mission Committee. They were supported by the Rev. Mr Mackie, the Rev. A Sinclair Nicol, Cummertrees, the clerk of Annan Presbytery; the Rev. J. O. Stafford, Gretna; Rev. J. A Robertson, Dornock;
and Rev. D. Eaglesham, Chapelknowe; and other
ministers of the respective Presbyteries. The musical part of the service was sustained by a well-balanced choir led by Miss Sedgewick.

— From an article describing the dedication of a new church in Gretna Green. The article appeared in The Annandale Observer, 8 March, 1918.

quote:
After a largely attended and impressive sacramental service in Knox church in the morning, at which Rev. Mr. Lowry presided and Rev. Dr. Carmichael of King preached, the people assembled in large numbers in the afternoon beside the ruins of the Old Kirk on the seventh line of Beckwith, where for a generation the worship was conducted according to the principles and usages of the Church of Scotland.

— From an account of a service in 1961

I can supply numerous (innumerable, actually) examples of this usage in other sources of impeccable Presbyterian heritage.

[ 25. July 2012, 21:22: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

RC deacons, particularly transitional ones, are titled "The Rev. Mr."

When our parish had a transitional deacon a year or so ago, the pastor was fond of ribbing him (and many others, too, but that's another story). When the altar servers and their parents were taken on a bowling outing with the clergy, whenever the deacon would come up to take his turn, the pastor would cry out, "Reverend Mister, Reverend Mister...don't bowl like my sister!" [Eek!]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

No, it does not suffice. The Kirk began to ordain women in 1968, which would explain why your latest example is 1961. The United Church of Canada began to ordain women in 1936. It follows that "Mr." dropped out of usage, it's no longer the current standard. Anglicanism is a latecomer in the OoW movement.

Further, Canada does not use the British system of degrees, we use the American. The Ph.D. has been the standard here since the 1850's.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
No, it does not suffice. The Kirk began to ordain women in 1968, which would explain why your latest example is 1961. The United Church of Canada began to ordain women in 1936. It follows that "Mr." dropped out of usage, it's no longer the current standard. Anglicanism is a latecomer in the OoW movement.

I fail to see how this is relevant. The existence of women does not negate the use of the honorific 'Mr' for men, nor (as far as I know) does the appointment of women to any office or offices have this effect. I would presume that women would use 'the Rev. Ms/Miss/Mrs' as they saw fit, or else 'the Rev. Madam' (it is curious that English has really only one respectful form of addresses for a mature woman, and it borrowed from French).

It is, however, manifestly true that, when considering the ordination of women in the Anglican church, nobody seemed to consider how a female priest should be addressed. I am, to this day, perplexed as to how one correctly and politely addresses a female clerk in holy orders. I've actually searched the archives of this board in search of that information and the general consensus seems to be that there isn't a correct form of address for a cleric who is also a woman. 'Your Reverence', being gender-neutral, is perhaps the only real contender, but I suspect one really needs to be Irish to get away with it.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I am, to this day, perplexed as to how one correctly and politely addresses a female clerk in holy orders. I've actually searched the archives of this board in search of that information and the general consensus seems to be that there isn't a correct form of address for a cleric who is also a woman. 'Your Reverence', being gender-neutral, is perhaps the only real contender, but I suspect one really needs to be Irish to get away with it.

How about simply addressing her by her name? After all, that's how the majority of Anglicans address their male clergy.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

The PhD/DPhil is not quite a newcomer in the UK. Although it was certainly true in former years that many senior academics did not possess one (my own tutor was a Fellow of All Souls) and did not, it would now be almost impossible to be considered for even a junior academic position without one. For those not familiar with Oxford, a quick glance at the list of Fellows of various colleges will convince them of the truth of this. It depends on how you define 'newcomer' but it has been growing, and rather common for the last sixty years.

The post graduate BD is no longer awared at TCD, and as far as I am aware, no-one has supplicated for the BD at Oxford for quite a while. It is a most distinguished degree, but now just about obselete. This is not to be confused with another type of degree called BD and awarded by the universities of London and Wales and Scottish universities. Those who might have considered the Oxford, Cambridge, or Dublin BD would now almost automatically attempt the DPhil/PhD

It is the custom at the ancient universities to address clerical doctors in possession of a DPhil (Cambridge PhD) as 'Doctor', and a number of RC priests who are Members as so styled. To restrict its useage to those with the Higher Doctorates would appear a little precious and not just a little silly.

In a previous century but one, it was the custom for universities to admit bishops and Public School headmasters who were clergy and members of that university to the DD on appointment. Hence the famous headmaster of Rugby, Thomas Arnold 'The Doctor' of Thomas Hughes novel, was an Oxford DD and also a BD (who received his BD the same day as John Henry Newman). They stood on either side of the fireplace at Oriel unable to speak to each other after the Provost had left.

When the custom to award bishops automatic DDs started to dry up, a Lambeth DD was often awarded instead.

In summary:

(1)The possession of a PhD is almost (to the extent that one might say 'is') a standard requirement for an academic postion in the UK.

(2) It is a highly desirable and sought after degree requiring orginal research and most certainly not to be regarded lightly. Possession of this degree denotes membership of the academic community. Possessors of this degree are entitled, whether clerical or lay, to be styled 'Doctor'.

(3) Clergy and lay people working in the universities are just about always called 'Doctor', and this refers to the PhD. This applies equally to all denominations with the slight exception of some Dominicans who reside in Blackfriars, although a number of Benedictines at St Benet's are happy to be 'Dcotor' I am told. Perhaps more commonly than 'Doctor' would be the use of the first name these days. A former Dean of St Edmund's Cambridge, a RC priest and academic, formerly a professor at Tubigen and the Gregorian, was always called 'Dr Winter'. He was the possessor of a British PhD.

(4) There is no reason why those not working in the universities should not use the title 'Doctor' if so entitled. The DPhil/PhD does so entitle. For CofE shipmates, the reference in Crockford to the use of 'Doctor' almost certainly refers to the PhD as well as Higher Doctorates

(5) Some may prefer it otherwise, or may hanker after the days when the MA was sufficent for an academic post, or when the PhD didn't exist, or when the submission of a handful of sermons in the 18thC granted the supplicant a DD. However, this is the situation as it IS.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I'm curious to know what different titles staff or volunteers at your place (cathedral or parish or other) and what they actually do...
To start, I'm a verger, on staff at a cathedral, and most of my duties have to do with preparing for services - setting out vestments and books, and moving furniture...

I'm especially curious, of course, what vergers elsewhere do - or what the person(s) who do my job at your place are called; but the broader topic of who does what and how it's all divvied up at different places is really fascinating to me.

Very different church tradition, I suspect, but the people who do all the setting up before our Sunday morning services are collectively called 'the housegroup whose turn it is on the set-up rota that week'!

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
No, it does not suffice. The Kirk began to ordain women in 1968, which would explain why your latest example is 1961. The United Church of Canada began to ordain women in 1936. It follows that "Mr." dropped out of usage, it's no longer the current standard. Anglicanism is a latecomer in the OoW movement.

I fail to see how this is relevant. The existence of women does not negate the use of the honorific 'Mr' for men, nor (as far as I know) does the appointment of women to any office or offices have this effect. I would presume that women would use 'the Rev. Ms/Miss/Mrs' as they saw fit, or else 'the Rev. Madam' (it is curious that English has really only one respectful form of addresses for a mature woman, and it borrowed from French).

It is, however, manifestly true that, when considering the ordination of women in the Anglican church, nobody seemed to consider how a female priest should be addressed. I am, to this day, perplexed as to how one correctly and politely addresses a female clerk in holy orders. I've actually searched the archives of this board in search of that information and the general consensus seems to be that there isn't a correct form of address for a cleric who is also a woman. 'Your Reverence', being gender-neutral, is perhaps the only real contender, but I suspect one really needs to be Irish to get away with it.

It certainly does make a difference. It is a most important point that there are no differences between Ministers of Word and Sacrament, except those who hold or have held the office of Moderator. When one believes that there are no differences between men and women who are Ministers of Word and Sacrament, it follows that the honorific should be identical, hence Rev. Further there is no make title to indicate marital status, while female forms of address do. There is no difference in terms of being a Minister between a married woman and a single woman. Hence the honorific is universal and gender-neutral.

The honorific is about the office carried out by a person, not the person. Much as Ma Preacher believes in the indelibility of ordination (she certainly does, believe me), the honour accords to the instance of being Minister of Word & Sacrament, not Rev. XX or XY who just happen to be very nice people. The honour goes with the collar which goes with the ordination, which is universal across gender.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
With respect to PhDs and DMins, there is a (possibly precious) school of thought which deems them to be the academic and/or clerical equivalent of trades union certifications and best not mentioned in refined circles or noticed in protocol.
With D.Min. I can sort of understand that mindset when compared to other degree programs, but how could a Ph.D. be considered in that category? It is the terminal research degree in most fields here in the USA. Most of the respected academic experts in fields outside of medicine and law are Ph.D. holders.
Perhaps I wrote too quickly. Currently I am surrounded by friends doing doctorates... according to them, much of it seems to have become a hoop-jumping exercise rather than a scholarly pursuit. But they may be jaundiced.
Sadly, this is true in many of the online and other upstart for-profit universities. However, in terms of state universities and the respected private colleges that have been around for some time, true research programs are alive and well. Most doctorates that priests would have certainly would fit into the latter category.

Sadly, these voices I am hearing at first hand are not at online etc universities. They are (variously) Carnegie-Mellon, Toronto, Northwestern, SUNY, Windsor, York, and UPenn. There is a vigorous debate on this in scholarly circles, especially as job prospects in the academic world diminish. I know some older academics who tell me that contemporary doctoral coursework detracts greatly from the quality of the scholarship.

@SPK. The Government of Canada stylebook was outsourced during the Mulroney years to Dundurn Press so I maintain nothing, but just corrected the more obvious errors of correspondence writers who didn't even look at the older texts (my favourite was writing to the Dalai Lama as Dear Reverend).

@SPK as well: you speak of English-language universities in Canada. In francophone ones, the LèsL (Licentiate in Letters) and the occasional Agrégé is still to be found and was nigh-universal in academic circles before the late 1960s. Doctorates as the rule then came, apparently partly in response to US guidelines on university ratings in terms of doctorates per student and partly on account of the return of many Québécois scholars who had studied elsewhere during the Duplessis years.

@sebby. At Dublin in 1979, only two of the divinity/theology/Biblical studies full-time staff had doctorates (one an Oxford DPhil and the other a TCD one). Two very learned staff were fellows of the college and had but MAs and BDs on top of a list of books as did two other non-fellow non-doctors. Admittedly, this was the tail end of that period.

For further trivia, the Canadian government practice is that public servants with non-scientific doctorates do not use the title in their professional context (as opposed to the Irish practice, where many officials and politicians such as Taoiseach and historian Garrett FitzGerald, always denominated Dr FitzGerald). The only Canadian Prime Minister to have a PhD (Harvard, I believe) was Mackenzie King, who did not use the Dr. Of our former university staff become PMs, Mr Pearson had an MA, Mr Trudeau his LèsL and Harvard MA (and later, FRSC), Mrs Campbell an LLM, and Mr Harper his MA.

An Australian Carmelite friend told me that he had colleagues who disapproved of him using his PhD as they thought that it was spiritually unhealthy. He apparently strongly replied that, while he was an arrogant p**** and needed correction as well as a f***ing load of humility, this had nothing to do with his academic qualifications. Certainly all of the clergy with doctorates of my acquaintance use Dr-- my only reservation is that it should not become part of an honorific cavalcade such as in Reverend Canon Doctor AB or Very Reverend Dean Doctor AB, but that is more an aesthetic aversion on my part.

We've come a long way from sextons and vergers.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
We've come a long way from sextons and vergers.

Well, yes, quite, and I hope we might be getting back to that soon.

The OP is a rather broadly-worded question, but in my reading of it, the interest in job titles goes hand-in-hand with the question of job duties and how responsibilities are assigned. I think this thread has wandered a bit into the (often unresolvable) minutae of ecclesiatical nomenclature. And the recent tangent about universities is just way off base. So let's rein it in a bit, OK?

Many thanks.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Naturally, since I am a verger, I'm interested in what vergers do in other places, but I don't want to limit it to my own interests. I'm sure every church has its own way of defining roles, including some obscure, strange ways to name the roles. I'd love to hear more of that sort of thing!

For example, looking across the wide, wide range of the various denominations, there are huge differences in what deacons and elders (and other offices) are and what they do and whether or not they're ordained. I'm Episcopalian, so I'm familiar with the Western catholic traditions, but not so much with Presbyterian, Baptist, and other similar traditions. I can't even recall if in the Assemblies of God (which I grew up in) if we had such things; but I think either deacons or elders tended to be sort of a board that ran the church, and they served as ushers on Sunday mornings. I just don't remember which they were called - elders or deacons.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Right Reverend AND Right Honourable is the prefix for the Bishop of London and not necessarily other C of E bishops.

The Rt Hon bit is because he is ex-officio a member of the Privy Council.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Right Reverend AND Right Honourable is the prefix for the Bishop of London and not necessarily other C of E bishops.

The Rt Hon bit is because he is ex-officio a member of the Privy Council.

Really? I thought that like all other members of the Privy Council the Archbishops and the Bishop of London continued members for life, even after demitting office.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Right Reverend AND Right Honourable is the prefix for the Bishop of London and not necessarily other C of E bishops.

The Rt Hon bit is because he is ex-officio a member of the Privy Council.
Really? I thought that like all other members of the Privy Council the Archbishops and the Bishop of London continued members for life, even after demitting office.

The do. Davvid Hope (retired, York) is now The Right Reverend and Right Honorable David Hope KCVO. (His award of Knight Commander of the Victorian Order was the personal gift of the Sovereign, as the Victorian Order is not givwen automatically and is totally within the Queen's gift without the need to consult. I cam as a great surprise to him).

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Our verger wears a black gown for weddings and funerals and carries a wand. He used to walk ahead of the choir as we processed up the aisle before the bride and groom, but that practice has now been discontinued. Certainly he is always there before the service to welcome people and prepare / tidy before and after the services. Usually the verger duties are combined with cleaning duties of the church and hall, although sometimes it is divided into two less onerous jobs of verger / cleaner if people don't have so much time to spare.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

It's shame the proactice of Vergering ahead of the choir is discontinued. I rather like ours carrying the verge in the front.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Davvid Hope (retired, York) is now The Right Reverend and Right Honorable David Hope KCVO.

But who prefers to be known as Father David. (Good for him!)

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our verger wears a black gown for weddings and funerals and carries a wand. He used to walk ahead of the choir as we processed up the aisle before the bride and groom, but that practice has now been discontinued. Certainly he is always there before the service to welcome people and prepare / tidy before and after the services. Usually the verger duties are combined with cleaning duties of the church and hall, although sometimes it is divided into two less onerous jobs of verger / cleaner if people don't have so much time to spare.

Does he still lead the choir on Sundays?

I have, on occasion, led the procession for a wedding (usually it's congregation members who request that, and it seems to only work if everyone's processing from the back - groom and all), and we usually have a verger lead the procession for a funeral (if for no other reason than to ask everyone to stand, since there's no opening music as in other services).

Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :

In my strange little part of the world the Sexton is the grave digger.

We don't have a verger but I used to be the Rector's Apparitor which is much the same thing. A jolly title too!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Sounds very spectral.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0