|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Addressing clerical persons
|
Peter Owen
Shipmate
# 134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Really? The Revd Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch KB did a few weeks ago. At Windsor, IIRC.
I think that you will find that he received the badge of a knight bachelor, but not the tap on the shoulder with the sword. It is this latter which is the accolade.
And the abbreviation is Kt, not KB (or KT).
--------------------
Πετρος
Posts: 266 | From: overlooking Liverpool Bay | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
The eminent musician Thalben Ball was once asked if he had ever thought of becoming a church minister. He replied that it could create difficulties if he was to be made a canon of the Anglican Church as he would be known as Canon Ball.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As for it being a class issue. I'm not aware that class has anything to do with however each and every individual priest and parishioner chooses to name themselves or each other.
I think (S)c's comment about class was rather less straightforward than the 'middle class prefer to say Fred'; 'working class prefer Father' sort of thing. His (his?) point was more that class snobbery affects many Anglican (especially MOTR Anglican) attitudes towards RCism and customs perceived as being RC: not because in themselves they are theologically suspect but because they are associated with the 'ignorant working-class Irish.' I'm not sure that I buy this entirely, but there is a grain of truth there somewhere.
Yes, exactly. It's really extremely noticeable in the Church of Ireland, which has historically been a church of the élite (I know I'm simplifying terribly) and which has a tendency to extravagant lengths to separate itself from the more common (in all senses of the word) Roman Catholicism. The same thing seems to play out in a (slightly) more subtle way in England. It's also worth noting that Evangelical and MotR parishes tend to be middle class (although there are obvious exceptions), whilst A-C parishes are much more mixed, although still not as mixed as R-C parishes. To take things to extremes, the Brompton Oratory (now filled with former A-Cs) is much more socially mixed than its famous Anglican neighbour, which seems to filled almost entirely with well-groomed and middle to upper-middle class young people. To be quite honest, only one of them feels like a church of the people — as opposed to of a party or class — and it's not the one with which I am in full communion.
As a general rule, it seems that there is a certain class stratification in English Christianity:
Roman Catholicism is truly 'catholic' in the sense of encompassing a representative sample of society. It is probably the religious affiliation with the most working class members.
Non-conformism is largely lower-middle class: shopkeepers and the like.
Anglo-Catholicism shares its core with Non-conformism. It is probably ever so slightly more socially mixed, but the lower middle classes and 'respectable' working classes still predominate.
MotR and Evangelical Anglicanism is middle class or higher. The Royal Family has historically been quite low, although the infusion of Scottish Piskie heritage by late Queen Mother did a little bit to change that, to the extent that the late Princess Margaret was a bit of a spike and the Prince of Wales seems higher than MotR.
This can be seen all over the country. In London, it's particularly marked, but even in a little market town, I notice that the Anglicans and Non-conformists are all overwhelmingly middle class, with the one Anglo-Catholic parish being the most 'mixed' and the evangelical parishes being the least 'mixed'. The only truly 'mixed' parish, however, is the Roman Catholic one.
Other people's experience may differ, but it does actually seem to me that, the posher English Christians get, the less likely they are to call their priest 'Father' (allowing for obvious exceptions like the Duke of Norfolk).
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Roman Catholicism is truly 'catholic' in the sense of encompassing a representative sample of society.
I think the issue is complicated by the fact that in England one RC parish usually covers several Anglican ones.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
The area where I used to live had several RC churches around. The working class tended to go to one and the middle class to another - they did not particularly mix..
As has just been said above RC churches tend to have large parish sizes covering very mixed areas so get a mixed congregation, where they don't cover mixed areas they don't get mixed congregations.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Round here, if many of the evangelical churches weren't working class they wouldn't exist: there are whole swathes of the city, whole deaneries, with virtually no middle class people. Though (and there is probably no connection) evangelical parishes also dominate the middle class areas whereas the poorer districts tend to have more Catholic and MOTR ones.
And to get back on topic, the clergy in the former are well used to being addressed as Father except by their own churchpeople. Even some of the female ones I don't doubt.
[ 29. July 2012, 12:40: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As for it being a class issue. I'm not aware that class has anything to do with however each and every individual priest and parishioner chooses to name themselves or each other.
I think (S)c's comment about class was rather less straightforward than the 'middle class prefer to say Fred'; 'working class prefer Father' sort of thing. His (his?) point was more that class snobbery affects many Anglican (especially MOTR Anglican) attitudes towards RCism and customs perceived as being RC: not because in themselves they are theologically suspect but because they are associated with the 'ignorant working-class Irish.' I'm not sure that I buy this entirely, but there is a grain of truth there somewhere.
Yes, exactly. It's really extremely noticeable in the Church of Ireland, which has historically been a church of the élite (I know I'm simplifying terribly) and which has a tendency to extravagant lengths to separate itself from the more common (in all senses of the word) Roman Catholicism.
Yes, the CofI was historically the Church of the 'Ascendancy' in the days before 'Faith and Fatherland' established the new Republic. And one can hear a couple of anachronistic echoes of that in old buildings and long-faded family histories. There certainly still exist some old prejudices - on both sides - from past privileged times.
However I don't think that it 'IS' still noticeable in the Church of Ireland in the way you suggest; or that the CofI 'HAS' a tendency to separate itself from its Catholic brothers and sisters.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Anglo-Catholicism shares its core with Non-conformism. It is probably ever so slightly more socially mixed, but the lower middle classes and 'respectable' working classes still predominate.
MotR and Evangelical Anglicanism is middle class or higher.[...]
This can be seen all over the country. In London, it's particularly marked, but even in a little market town, I notice that the Anglicans and Non-conformists are all overwhelmingly middle class, with the one Anglo-Catholic parish being the most 'mixed' and the evangelical parishes being the least 'mixed'. The only truly 'mixed' parish, however, is the Roman Catholic one.
This really isn't true about inner London churches now, if it ever was. There might be something in the idea that the low-church liberal parishes are posher than the others, but that is I suspect because they are whiter and have fewer recent immigrants. Doesn't apply to evangelicals though. They tend to the same "respectable working class/lower middle class" background that you described for the nonconformists. Where I live the small minority of audibly RP accents is larger in the Anglo-Catholic parishes than the Evangelical ones but not large anywhere.
And our local RC churches seem to divide up on ethnic lines. One almost entirely Irish and West African, one with lots of Poles, one with a very mixed congregation but who go to different language masses so don't meet each other as much as you might think - there is a Tamil mass and a Spanish mass and do on.
But then all membership organisations and community groups tend be dominated by "respectable working class/lower middle class" people. Political parties, trade unions, clubs, train-spotting societies, football fans, even regular drinkers at pubs. Its kind of inevitable. The upper middle class and the rich have their own separate amusements and cultural life safely away from the gaze of the rest of us. The genuninely poor and uneducated find participation more difficult for the obvious reasons that they are poor and uneducated.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Mrs. Malaprop enquires about:
clergy persons
On to three fussy pages on class and forms of address and not one person (clerical or laic) has fussed that cleric a perfectly good noun.
[ 29. July 2012, 19:51: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Mrs. Malaprop enquires about:
clergy persons
On to three fussy pages on class and forms of address and not one person (clerical or laic) has fussed that cleric a perfectly good noun.
I have used 'cleric', 'clerical person' and 'clerk in holy orders' as synonyms. I plead guilty to that Fowlerian vice of 'elegant variation'.
ETA: I don't know what you mean by 'fussy', but if you mean 'paying due attention to seemingly minor but in fact vitally important aspects of the Christian faith as we in the present day have received it', then I suppose I should plead guilty to that as well.
[ 29. July 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
vital
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Where I live the small minority of audibly RP accents is larger in the Anglo-Catholic parishes than the Evangelical ones but not large anywhere.
Probably because RP-speaking middle class evaangelicals are well accommodated in posh central London conventicles so that they don't need to go slumming in the inner suburbs. Anglo-catholics seem happier to go wherever they can get a good fix of incense irrespective of the neighbourhood. There's probably a long waiting list to be thurifer at ASMS and the like, so more chance of getting a go in St Spike's-of-the-backstreets.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Where I live the small minority of audibly RP accents is larger in the Anglo-Catholic parishes than the Evangelical ones but not large anywhere.
Probably because RP-speaking middle class evaangelicals are well accommodated in posh central London conventicles so that they don't need to go slumming in the inner suburbs. Anglo-catholics seem happier to go wherever they can get a good fix of incense irrespective of the neighbourhood. There's probably a long waiting list to be thurifer at ASMS and the like, so more chance of getting a go in St Spike's-of-the-backstreets.
That's rather nasty, don't you think?
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Against whom? I welcome social mobility and it's rather good to hear posh voices in a backstreet church. No malice intended.
But seriously, for evangelicals (of any class) the social aspect of church ... by which I mean what is often described as 'fellowship', and the opportunity to study together, not tea and buns... is as important as the worship, and obviously people prefer to mingle with their own kind. A working class evangelical would be as uneasy sharing a bible study with a group of barristers as vice versa. Whereas for an anglo-catholic, it's the mass that matters and popping in for a cup of instant coffee for ten minutes afterwards is the only social mixing they need to do.
A minority of posh people have always gravitated to working-class churches out of a sense of mission, solidarity, or whatever. If they show they mean business and are not just 'slumming it' , they will be accepted. I'm not sure that it is as easy for a working class person to be accepted in many middle or upper class churches. Or perhaps I should say 'feel' accepted, because the willingness to accept might well be there.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
Thanks. That explanation makes a bit more sense. Your previous post seemed to me to suggest that you thought A-C types were just interested in performing and that lesser known parishes were filled with people who were something like actors who, having been rejected from the major London theatres, spend their lives in second-rate touring productions. You can see how that wouldn't be considered a particularly charitable view! I'm glad to see that I misunderstood you.
[ 29. July 2012, 21:40: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Well you didn't entirely misunderstand me because I was being a bit naughty! But as a (sort of) anglo-catholic myself I thought a little jibe would not be out of place. I don't of course believe that a-cs are only interested in dressing up and play-acting, and my second post represents what I really think. So sorry to have offended you and I take back any unjust slurs.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I don't know what you mean by 'fussy', but if you mean 'paying due attention to seemingly minor but in fact vitally important aspects of the Christian faith as we in the present day have received it', then I suppose I should plead guilty to that as well.
You think what terms of address we use for people with various qualifications and positions is a 'vitally important aspect of the Christian faith as we in the present day have received it'?
Would you mind explaining this for me, as I'm really not getting why it's so important!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I'm with South Coast Kevin. Please, eddyfy us some more on this vital issue.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I don't know what you mean by 'fussy', but if you mean 'paying due attention to seemingly minor but in fact vitally important aspects of the Christian faith as we in the present day have received it', then I suppose I should plead guilty to that as well.
You think what terms of address we use for people with various qualifications and positions is a 'vitally important aspect of the Christian faith as we in the present day have received it'?
Would you mind explaining this for me, as I'm really not getting why it's so important!
I hope this makes sense (I haven't had my porridge and tea yet, so it may not):
It's part of our tradition. We didn't receive our faith by personal revelation or on a mountaintop: we received and receive it as it has been passed down from generation to generation by our earthly mother the Church. Within that context, we have received it within several different traditions — of which the Roman Rite and its variations (including Anglicanism) and the Byzantine Rite rank amongst the most important. We are, therefore, called to worship Almighty God according the norms of our own rite as we have received them, ideally in a spirit of humility. We cannot, therefore, make it up as we go along. This applies even to things that might seem like minutiae, such as the presence of an amice or maniple or the manner in which we address clerics. I would even argue that more practical theology — and certainly far more RELIGION, as that term is understood by anthropologists and other informed observers — is expressed in the seemingly minor aspects of our worship than in a great treatise of systematic theology. Christians are not a people of the Book, we are a people of liturgy. It is the liturgy — the opus Dei, the collective and hierarchical offering of the faithful people of God — that defines us, and the variations of rite and ceremony within that define us further. It is not, I think, too much to say that Christianity — or Catholic Christianity, at any rate — is a religion of minutiae. By such minutiae do we fulfill our purpose, and when we consider ourselves too important to care about such things, then we neglect our bounden duty toward our creator and sanctifier. It is the presence or absence of care, rather than that of resources, that is important here.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
TSA,
Not everyone around here may have been around long enough to get that reference, but I most certainly have. Insinuating that someone is a troll or crusader is a personal attack. Don't do it again.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Thanks for trying, (S)pike couchant, but I still really don't get it. I guess I don't share so many of your assumptions, which leads to my simply not thinking of these things in the way that you think of them. For example: quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
We didn't receive our faith by personal revelation
There's certainly an element of personal revelation in how I received my faith, although I do acknowledge the passing down from generation to generation.
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
our earthly mother the Church
I'm uncomfortable with such language and prefer to think of the church (deliberately with a small 'c') as the worldwide community of Jesus-followers, across all denominations and traditions. 'Earthly mother' implies - to me, at least, an institution, and I'm deeply uneasy with the notion of 'the church' in the broad sense being an institution.
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
We cannot, therefore, make it up as we go along
But we can change things, surely. And I just don't see why all this stuff about titles is necessary to the practising of our faith. My view is that we should think about dropping it because (a) it can constitute a barrier for those who don't have any kind of background in Christianity, and (b) it sends the between-the-lines message that some people (those we call 'clergy') are more important in some way, or have a bigger role to play, or are the doers of the faith while everyone else watches them perform (analogous to actors and an audience, although I know some might be offended by this analogy).
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
By such minutiae do we fulfill our purpose, and when we consider ourselves too important to care about such things, then we neglect our bounden duty toward our creator and sanctifier.
Sorry, I don't understand this at all. Isn't our purpose as Christians better summed up by sentiments such as 'love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength', 'love one another' and 'as much as depends on you, live at peace with everyone'.
And it's not that I consider myself too important to care about such things as titles, not at all. It's that I consider them, at best, to be a distraction, and at worse a hindrance to people in their realisation that they're supposed to carry God's image into the world and do His works.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Well, I admire (sort of) (S)pike C's attempts at applying an involved theological and social apologia for whether Joe Bloggs decides to call his vicar 'Vicar', 'Fred' or 'Fatty-bum-bum'. But frankly I don't give a damn what the hell anyone calls me so long as it's not after 11 at night or before 9 in the morning (except in emergencies).
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
(S)pike couchant: there is something glorious about the mishmash of traditions and cultures and customs that makes up the Catholic (in its broadest sense) Church. Much more human and Christian than some logical and purist attempt to create a theologically correct Church. Think of the contrast between the London and Beijing Olympic opening ceremonies.
But that doesn't mean (in fact, it probably means more or less the opposite) that every detail of that mishmash is sacrosanct. Especially as in its passage through history the Church has absorbed many customs and attitudes and even theological perspectives that are far more influenced by contemporary secular culture than by the Gospel. Sometimes they need to be deliberately pruned back so that the new life can grow (as at the time of the Reformation or the Second Vatican Council); at other times it happens more naturally. The growing informality in contemporary Western culture is bound to influence the way we address the clergy.
At the same time we should be alert for the way in which the 'call me Dave' approach can sometimes be manipulative and in fact maintain power structures. I'm thinking of a caricature evangelical* pastor such as 'Darren' in the Rev episode: there is no way such a big ego saw himself as an equal to his squealing flock of groupies, whereas diffident 'Father' Adam was much more democratic.
[*balance alert: I'm not in any way getting at evangelicals in general. There are many equally insidious ways in which clergy of other traditions can be manipulative. But the informal approach seems to be more common amongst the former.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
our earthly mother the Church
I'm uncomfortable with such language and prefer to think of the church (deliberately with a small 'c') as the worldwide community of Jesus-followers, across all denominations and traditions. 'Earthly mother' implies - to me, at least, an institution, and I'm deeply uneasy with the notion of 'the church' in the broad sense being an institution.
It's difficult for me to answer this without lapsing into purgatorial matters, but let's just say that this reflects a very different conception of the Church. For Catholic Christians, the Church (even in her as yet imperfect Militant form) is indeed our earthly mother. This is nicely expressed in this wonderful hymn, which is one of my favourites, although sadly neglected these days. Particularly noteworthy are the lines 'Hands that fling to heaven the censer/ Wipe away the orphan's tears', which expresses the unity of the Church's liturgical and social missions.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
We cannot, therefore, make it up as we go along
But we can change things, surely.
Change happens. That much is inevitable. I do not think, however that changes to the sacred liturgy should be entered into unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy man's lust for novelty, as it were. Organic change is one thing and is not something always to be resisted (although some changes, particularly those that seem to stem from laziness or inadequate devotion, must be resisted). I happen to believe that most of the changes to the liturgy of the Western Church undertaken in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council were inorganic, ill-advised and ultimately damaging to the Church's mission. However, I am also of that school that believes that allowing evening masses served a real pastoral need given modern working conditions.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
it sends the between-the-lines message that some people (those we call 'clergy') are more important in some way, or have a bigger role to play, or are the doers of the faith while everyone else watches them perform (analogous to actors and an audience, although I know some might be offended by this analogy).
I mentioned previous that we worship God hierarchically. Now, hierarchy gets a bad name, but its root is the Greek ἱεράρχης, meaning a leader of sacred rites. When Christians gather, their worship is led by a cleric, who is either a bishop or a representative of a Bishop. It is not that clerics are more important than other Christians, but they do have a defined role in leading worship. This, I feel, is much more clearly expressed in parishes that celebrate facing the liturgical East: the people of God face in a common direction — Godward, if you will —, the priest or bishop is not himself the centre of attention but focuses the attention of the people toward God. It is a role that, over the years, has inevitably achieved a certain level of prestige, but it is ultimately a position of great humility: bishops are servi servorum Dei — the servants of the servants of God. This is wonderfully shown in this picture (which comes, incidentally, from what was perhaps the finest act of Christian worship that I have ever personally witnessed): the bishop, having led the congregation in offering the salutary sacrifice, pronounces the blessing of the Triune God upon them. He does this not out of any worthiness of his own (for he is, of course, unworthy, as are all clerics), but because of his position within the Christian community as a legitimate successor to the Apostles to whom Christ himself entrusted the task of evangelizing the world.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And it's not that I consider myself too important to care about such things as titles, not at all. It's that I consider them, at best, to be a distraction, and at worse a hindrance to people in their realisation that they're supposed to carry God's image into the world and do His works.
You'll have to forgive me, but it sounds like you're saying that such things aren't important enough to merit your attention, which sounds awfully like saying that you believe yourself too important to care about them.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Informal address amongst the clergy and laity I deal with seems to be Father John or Father Doe or occasionally Pastor John or Pastor Doe. Bishops tend to get Bishop John after an initial 'Your Grace' for the Presiding Bishop, or 'My Lord' or 'Your Excellency' for the other bishops.
Of course in the UK I was used to Mr <Surname> or "Vicar." It took me about five years to getting addressed as 'Father' when I moved to the USA. My churchmanship was Prayerbook Catholic, but rural, so Father was not much used - that was more of an Urban thing.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, I admire (sort of) (S)pike C's attempts at applying an involved theological and social apologia for whether Joe Bloggs decides to call his vicar 'Vicar', 'Fred' or 'Fatty-bum-bum'. But frankly I don't give a damn what the hell anyone calls me so long as it's not after 11 at night or before 9 in the morning (except in emergencies).
I like this. I used to insist on "Father", really as a party badge, but now I don't care either.
But, from a personal point of view, unless you've been called that (or Mother) frequently, you might not be aware of the healthy sense of unworthiness and the call to duty this style engenders. Pastor probably brings the same, so it's not just about ACs. "Vicar" means very little really, being a legal term, and it's worth remembering that how you address you clergy does affect how they see themselves in the long run.
Older chaps used to snigger at the idea of calling me "Father" at 26, but AC bishops routinely call their priests & even deacons so.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, I admire (sort of) (S)pike C's attempts at applying an involved theological and social apologia for whether Joe Bloggs decides to call his vicar 'Vicar', 'Fred' or 'Fatty-bum-bum'. But frankly I don't give a damn what the hell anyone calls me so long as it's not after 11 at night or before 9 in the morning (except in emergencies).
Really? Today is the feast of St Leopold Mandic. He was only four feet five inches tall and suffered poor health and an appalling stutter all his life. He became a Franciscan priest had an uncanny ability to 'read hearts' and was detailed to spend his entire life hearing confessions from early in the morning until late at night wthout a break. He was regarded as rarher a sweetie, often accused of being too lenient.
In the end he killed himelf with work: 'there is no other death worthy of a priest' he said.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
He sounds great, I like him already - what's his number? I'll put it on my answer phone.
Seriously, though, clergy are professionals and are expected to behave as such, especially by those of their laity waiting to smack them down. I know plenty half-dead, worn-out, very-holy-clergy. I also know those who keep sensible, safe working practice and good personal/family time. All cool chaps in their own ways.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Thanks for your entire reply, S(pike) couchant, but I wanted to address these particular parts of what you said:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
]When Christians gather, their worship is led by a cleric, who is either a bishop or a representative of a Bishop. It is not that clerics are more important than other Christians, but they do have a defined role in leading worship.
Not when my church gathers. Our worship is led by whichever of our home groups is on the rota to lead the meeting that Sunday. It's fine that your church does things a certain way (although clearly I think there are issues with that certain way) but please would you recognise that some other churches do things very differently? Such sweeping statements as 'When Christians gather...' are both unfair and unhelpful, in my view.
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And it's not that I consider myself too important to care about such things as titles, not at all...
You'll have to forgive me, but it sounds like you're saying that such things aren't important enough to merit your attention, which sounds awfully like saying that you believe yourself too important to care about them.
No, that's really not it. I think using titles is in contradiction to the New Testament teaching that all Christians are priests who represent God in the world. I disagree with the whole notion of having a group of people (vicars, priests, bishops or whoever) who have special power or permission from God to do certain of the things that happen in our church services.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
I don't think Spike is representing the tradition particularly effectively. It's the proverbial "if you really want to know about Catholics, don't ask one".
What the Catholic faith does have going for it, in a nutshell, is that it was born into an age of hostility, with the Blood still fresh on the ground. Reformed practices (by definition) developed in times when Christianity was universally assented to, at least nominally. And in my experience today, the majority of Reformed speakers are indeed "preaching to the converted" and feels like an inside job.
More significantly, I reckon that Catholic faith and practice fundamentally depends upon the reality of the Christ-event in time, and its effectiveness in eternity. Reformed doctrines seem to me to lack that dependency, and to regard the Christ-event as simply narrative about God, which used to be called Docetism. One among many Biblical narratives.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Quite right, South Coast Kevin. And those of us who believe in the importance of an ordained priesthood need to get in our heads the fact that this is subordinate to the priesthood of the whole People of God, and that if a title gives us the sense of superiority or importance, rather than reminding us of our role and calling, it is best abandoned.
That's why I prefer Father (implying a family relationship) rather than Reverend (implying a closer relationship with God) and certainly rather than Sir (implying a higher social status). But I'm sure those terms can be interpreted another way and I'm not suggesting mine is best. If we are all Christians there shouldn't be anything wrong with Christian names anyway.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
An eminently sane and mature response, Angloid, as was Anselmina's. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Being a priest does, necessarily, imply taking on a leadership role, but that role is a leadership of service, which does not necessarily imply we laity should treat our clergy either as superiors or our individual "servants" - the service being to Almighty God, not the Lady Catherine de Burghs of this world. Perhaps we should see and treat clergy like people? With the normal courtesy and consideration that requires?
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin - 'the priesthood of all believers' I remember reading in a letter by someone called Haffner I think in the Church Times, is not quite the same thing as 'the pristhood of every believer'. The former is the doctrine that the whole church is the priestly body, the latter a misinterpretation of this, that every individual is a priest. Haffner implied this was not quite what Paul meant.
Interestingly, and I am not saying this is my opinion merely an observation, but in the liberal days when it was vaguely tolerated to disbelieve in the resurrection in some circles, or to pick and chose from the New Testament at whim and be defended by the Sea of Faith network, I can imagine the shock and outrage there would have been if someone had been 'liberal' enough to say 'I disbelieve in the priesthood of all believers'.
I suspect this would have been totally unacceptable in the way that disbeleif in the resurrection wasn't, quite.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
[QUOTE] In Canada, "My Lord" stems originally from the dioceses established by Letters Patent (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Québec, Montréal and Toronto) which authorized the consecration of the Lord Bishops of X. Bishops of dioceses erected by provincial or general synods got "My Lord" by custom but my memory of provincial acts establishing dioceses as entities is uncertain. [/QB][/QUOTE}
The same situation applies here in Australia. The Dioceses of Sydney, Newcastle, Tasmania etc where consituted under Letters Patent during the reign of Queen Victoria, and hence many of their early bishops did make use of the term Lord Bishop (with rare exceptions the Bishop/Archbishop of Sydney has not used the title due to the Evangelical establishment of the diocese).
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas Aus
Shipmate
# 15869
|
Posted
In formal documents such as licences, the Bishop of Newcastle is still referred to as the Lord Bishop, but that has dropped from the other usages. In orders of service and other documents he is usually referred to as the Bishop. In informal situations he is generally called Bishop Brian. The communities of the diocese have a strong egalitarian tradition, so pompousness is soon pricked.
Posts: 375 | From: Hunter Valley NSW | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
South Coast Kevin - 'the priesthood of all believers' I remember reading in a letter by someone called Haffner I think in the Church Times, is not quite the same thing as 'the pristhood of every believer'. The former is the doctrine that the whole church is the priestly body, the latter a misinterpretation of this, that every individual is a priest. Haffner implied this was not quite what Paul meant.
Hmm, I see what you mean. I've just looked up the the Greek of 1 Peter 2 (and all references to priest / priesthood) and I still think I'd go with the 'you are all priests' interpretation, on a plain reading of the text. But I expect someone who knows NT Greek and the context would be able to offer a rather more informed view than I can!
1 Peter 2:5 says this (in the New Living Translation):
quote:
And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are his holy priests. Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God.
Even if 'holy priesthood' is a better than translation than the 'holy priests' here, the context seems to imply it's about all believers in general. It's 'you are his holy priests / priesthood', not 'the church is his holy priesthood' or suchlike.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Yes but surely all the beleivers together are the church of God?
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, I admire (sort of) (S)pike C's attempts at applying an involved theological and social apologia for whether Joe Bloggs decides to call his vicar 'Vicar', 'Fred' or 'Fatty-bum-bum'. But frankly I don't give a damn what the hell anyone calls me so long as it's not after 11 at night or before 9 in the morning (except in emergencies).
Really? Today is the feast of St Leopold Mandic. He was only four feet five inches tall and suffered poor health and an appalling stutter all his life. He became a Franciscan priest had an uncanny ability to 'read hearts' and was detailed to spend his entire life hearing confessions from early in the morning until late at night wthout a break. He was regarded as rarher a sweetie, often accused of being too lenient.
In the end he killed himelf with work: 'there is no other death worthy of a priest' he said.
And? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm being exceptionally dim. I'm sure there's a reason why you posted this as a reply to my quotation?
Is being 4' 5" an argument for being called something ecclesiastical as per the topic of this thread - I'm 5' 4", does that mean something?
Or should I, too, be striving for suicide by clergy work? Perhaps I already am, though obviously not in the admirable fashion of St. Leopold.
In answer to your question: yes, really. I don't mind what I'm called (I suppose within civil bounds), and I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that late-night/early-morning calls are generally of a more urgent nature than something that can wait a couple of hours.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
You have to hit a balance. Being from the more Reformed side of the Church I tend to think of a parish minister as being a bit like an old-fashioned country doctor. There is an expectation on my part that routine matters will be dealt with during "surgery hours." If it is an emergency I frankly do not mind someone calling me at 2am, but it has to be a real emergency. What gets up my snout when folks phone me about trivialities on my day off. We used to have one Dear Old Thing who used to buy the parish supplies and always rang me at 7.30am on my day off to ask if the church needed something! That was a definite ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) moment.
I find I have to prioritize quite rigidly. In among hands I have to prepare my sermons, Bible Study and Prayer Meeing; do the sick communions; visit the shut-ins at least once a month; stop the vestry from lapsing into complete inertia at their monthly meetings; deal with (impliment, sabotage or forget about) their bright ideas; deal with pone inquiries (usually salesmen); get things repaired around the church, etc., etc.. Added to which is the problem that my parish is assessed as requiring 0.6 of a clergyman according to the diocese. I end up being full-time as I have other duties which involve diocesan and provincial planning meetings, visitations,etc.. Given the calls on one's time it is pretty easy to kill oneself with stress in the ministry if you do not watch it. I think that these days, paprt from being able to largely run one's own timetable, clergy are as stressed out as anyo other professional.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Actually, at least among RC priests in the US, priests are less stressed than your typical person. In a large study by Stephen Rossetti (published as "Why Priests are Happy"), he found the following average scores for priests on the Maslach burnout index: emotional exhaustion, 13.57; depersonalization, 4.07; personal accomplishment, 37.62.
That beats the general population comfortably, and other males in the helping professions in all categories except personal accomplishment, which comes out about the same.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
sebby and South Coast Kevin -
tangents concerning the use of the term 'Father' are clearly okay on this thread, but I think in-depth discussion of New Testament terms of priesthood are probably better discussed in Kerygmania. Please help us to keep Eccles tidy!
Thanks.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I have found Your Reverence to be useful, first having heard a beggar on Dublin's O'Connell bridge use the term, saying "God bless Your Reverence," after a priest passed him by without a donation. It seems to puzzle and disconcert clergy when I use the phrase.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have found Your Reverence to be useful, first having heard a beggar on Dublin's O'Connell bridge use the term, saying "God bless Your Reverence," after a priest passed him by without a donation. It seems to puzzle and disconcert clergy when I use the phrase.
'Your Reverence' is the phrase Anthony Trollope liked to use in his Irish books, whenever the locals addressed the Protestant clergy!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
and is gender free!
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
Shades of Dad's Army! - doesn't the verger always address the vicar thus?
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Pity "parson" went out of use.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
What's wrong with 'vicarage'? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Pity "parson" went out of use.
I've heard it in Devon
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
and is gender free!
On that ground it was commended to me by a theologian friend in Toronto, who holds (a position once more popular than nowadays) that there is no question of the ordination of women to the diaconate, but that the OWP can be queried. This way, he felt, respect was provided to the clergy without him having committed himself to an assessment of their priestly orders. I told him that deacons should always receive more respect and encouragement than priests, a notion which intrigued him (and might still, but in another sphere, he having gone on before us all).
But, as pointed out, it was used in an ironical manner by the tithes-paying RC Irish peasantry. This alone might justify and encourage its use.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
The use of 'Dr' in academic circles and also 'Professor' has beem gender free and used for years.
Where a cleric hold this title, its use on formal occasions tends not to be ironic and to address both male and females. But then its not a stricly clerical title, so the problem remains.
As most things that happen in the US eventually happen here, there should be abandonment amongst purists of their dislike of being addressed as 'Reverend' as this happens anyway.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
