Thread: Addressing clerical persons 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=024869
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
On a previous thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
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.
I would be very surprised to discover that 'the majority of Anglicans address their ... clergy' by name alone. I can well believe that this is the case in England (although many of us would never dream of doing so!), but given that the majority of Anglicans live in societies that, as a general rule, place a higher importance on titles and honorifics than our own, I suspect most use some honorific for their clergypersons. I also believe that 'Fr' is nearly universal amongst North American Anglicans.
How do you address clerical persons of your acquaintance? I generally use 'Fr' for priests and 'M'Lord' for bishops. I rarely meet an Archbishop, but when I do it's obviously 'Your Grace'.
On a related note, I'm sure I'm not alone in kissing bishops' rings, but does anyone other than Italian widows kiss priests' hands? I think it's a good practice after the ordination/first mass, but perhaps a bit excessive in other contexts.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I subtly discouraged people from calling me Father as soon as we had a woman priest on the staff who recoiled at the thought of being Mother. Then I moved to another parish with no women priests and became Father again.
There are some (maybe many) women priests who are happy to be addressed as Mother. It might seem a novelty but it has a long tradition in Religious orders. Better that than the message sent out when male priests are Father and the women simply Ms or Janet.
Informality seems to be the trend, but there is often a need for a marker of role. Father/Mother suggests a pastoral relationship within the Christian family; Reverend without the full name (Christian and surname) seems wrong to Anglican/English ears, and with it is impossibly over-formal in normal conversation; Sir/Madam is even worse since it implies social superiority rather than a distinction of role.
'Father' only ever caught on in a minority of C of E parishes anyway. So I suppose the answer is most likely to be 'just Christian name'. 'Vicar' as a form of address makes me cringe!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
I don't often interact with titled people but when I do, my approach is to start formal (i.e. Reverend whatever, Lady so-and-so) but then as soon as they address me by my first name I'll do the same with them. I don't do deference; respect, yes, but not deference.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
I call a female cleric of my acquaintance by her Christian name because that is her preference. I address envelopes to her as 'The Rev'd Christianname Surname'. I call, and always have called, all male priests 'Father' and refer in formal written contexts as 'the Rev'd Fr Christianname Surname'. I'm not entirely happy with this situation, as it could be read as a slight against the female priest, but I don't really know what else to do. What I absolutely will not do is to adopt a new style for male priests. Not in a million years. That may seem stubborn and petulant, but any other style would seem false to me.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Society has become more casual and informal. Does anyone nowadays call anyone "Mr or Mrs so-and-so" other than in school?
For me, I tend to call priests "Father or Mother" more if they were performing a liturgical role.
Outside the liturgy, I'm fine with calling them by their Christian name.
As well, it is always a good idea to check with the priest if he or she feels comfortable with it. Outside AC circles, it is rare for people to say "Father" or "Mother" when referring to clergy.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
On a related note, I'm sure I'm not alone in kissing bishops' rings,
Every bishop's ring? I'm pretty sure only your own ordinary is supposed to get that treatment.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Rev in speech is correct in the US, but not in the UK, when it should only be used in writing. Prior to the AC revival, all clergy would be addressed with secular styles anyway.
In the streets abroad, my hands have been kissed by Mediterraneans of both/all genders.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't often interact with titled people but when I do, my approach is to start formal (i.e. Reverend whatever, Lady so-and-so) but then as soon as they address me by my first name I'll do the same with them. I don't do deference; respect, yes, but not deference.
I usually refer to me (relatively few) titled friends by their titles in the third person (i.e. as 'Sir Christianname' or 'Lord Title'), but by their Christian name in the second person. In the third person, I usually refer to priests as 'Fr Christianname Surname' or else simply 'Fr Surname', except for my own parish priest, who gets 'Fr Christianname'.
Academic titles seem to have died out more or less entirely in British English (as opposed to German, where they are still observed with an attention to detail that strikes English-speakers as vaguely ridiculous — 'Herr Prof. Dr. Dr.' and similar styles are not uncommon). British Academics these days seem to be 'Dr' or 'Prof' only in the third person, and then usually only in writing.
I have to say that this whole 'just call me "Bruce"' (or whatever) culture is not wholly to my taste.
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on
:
quote:
Vacitanchic declared:
Rev in speech is correct in the US
Common, yes. Correct ... not really.
In some Protestant denominations, calling someone "reverend" in place of their name has become standard practice ("Welcome to breakfast, Reverend. More bacon?")
In Anglican circles, you'll get a cringe almost every time from the clergyperson thus addressed. They'll probably grin and bear it, but cringe nonetheless.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
quote:
Vacitanchic declared:
Rev in speech is correct in the US
Common, yes. Correct ... not really.
In some Protestant denominations, calling someone "reverend" in place of their name has become standard practice ("Welcome to breakfast, Reverend. More bacon?")
In Anglican circles, you'll get a cringe almost every time from the clergyperson thus addressed. They'll probably grin and bear it, but cringe nonetheless.
Precisely.
I tend to refer to clergy in denominations that don't have priests as "Pastor X" unless otherwise requested, and always avoid the "Reverend X" solecism.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I call my vicar 'Richard', my bishop 'Mike' and my archbishop, whom i have known for years, 'Rowan'.
Is that a problem?
They know that if i use the term 'Father' that I am annoyed with them.
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on
:
I once (in an official capacity) had to ring up a CoE clergyman I didn't know. I understood correct form was 'Mr Bloggs' but he clearly wasn't happy with that, so I changed to 'Reverend Bloggs' which made his tone much more pleasant. He wasn't a 'Father' by the way, so that wasn't the error.
The problem is correct form can give offence, so can informality, so can the 'wrong' form of address. At best one can be thought ignorant, at worst, downright rude.
Frankly I prefer not to phone clergypersons I don't know, unless, like an RC priest or a Jewish rabbi, they have a clear and obvious form of address, which I will respect.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I heard of an AC priest who received a phone call from someone who asked to speak rather pointedly to 'Mr Titcombe'. The priest replied 'I'm sorry, my dad isn't at home. This is Father Titcombe.'
The caller, clearly of a more protestant bent, said in a voice rising in tone: 'I call no man 'Father!'
Father Titcombe replied: 'Oh really? I'm sorry I didn't realise I was speaking to the Immaculate Conception.'
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I heard of an AC priest who received a phone call from someone who asked to speak rather pointedly to 'Mr Titcombe'. The priest replied 'I'm sorry, my dad isn't at home. This is Father Titcombe.'
The caller, clearly of a more protestant bent, said in a voice rising in tone: 'I call no man 'Father!'
Father Titcombe replied: 'Oh really? I'm sorry I didn't realise I was speaking to the Immaculate Conception.'
The Immaculate Conception is Our Lady. I apparently don't get it.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
'Father' only ever caught on in a minority of C of E parishes anyway. So I suppose the answer is most likely to be 'just Christian name'. 'Vicar' as a form of address makes me cringe!
As cringey as it may be, I suspect it is the form of address that most people in England might be comfortable with. We are thinking of the majority - who don't go to church.
I heard the bishop tell our village that it would be quite in order for them to address our house-for-duty priest as 'vicar' even though he isn't, technically. Similarly some students at Cranmer Hall last year spoke about 'becoming vicars'.
About 20 years ago I also heard the then Bishop of St Albans tell a village that it was in order to call their house-for-duty priest 'vicar'.
It is easy for us 'in the know' to cringe, but to show this would make someone unacquainted with ecclesiastical style and preferences uncomfortable. Now tongue in cheek - to make someone uncomfortable socially would not be the mark of a true gentleman!
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I heard of an AC priest who received a phone call from someone who asked to speak rather pointedly to 'Mr Titcombe'. The priest replied 'I'm sorry, my dad isn't at home. This is Father Titcombe.'
The caller, clearly of a more protestant bent, said in a voice rising in tone: 'I call no man 'Father!'
Father Titcombe replied: 'Oh really? I'm sorry I didn't realise I was speaking to the Immaculate Conception.'
The Immaculate Conception is Our Lady. I apparently don't get it.
The same priest was accosted at the door by a woman who strongly objected to being called 'Joyce' when the notices were read. Even though she was one of the most forward in calling him 'Peter' very loudly in front of everyone, she said
'How`dare you call me 'Joyce' in front of the congregation? I am Mrs Hammett'.
'And I am Father Titcombe'
'Bah', she said, 'I'm old enough to be your grandmother.
'Madam, when I wear this stole, I am two thousand years old,'
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I once (in an official capacity) had to ring up a CoE clergyman I didn't know. I understood correct form was 'Mr Bloggs' but he clearly wasn't happy with that, so I changed to 'Reverend Bloggs' which made his tone much more pleasant. He wasn't a 'Father' by the way, so that wasn't the error.
The problem is correct form can give offence, so can informality, so can the 'wrong' form of address. At best one can be thought ignorant, at worst, downright rude.
Frankly I prefer not to phone clergypersons I don't know, unless, like an RC priest or a Jewish rabbi, they have a clear and obvious form of address, which I will respect.
Any minister should be ashamed of being fussy about titles when phoned up as s/he doesn't know what distressed person it might be on the other end.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Here at my Scottish Episcopal Church, we refer to our clergy as John, Fred, Jane etc. Definitely not as Fr (still less Mother) unless you're teasing them or extracting the michael. And mostly I've heard the Bishop referred to as just "Bishop" other than by those who know him well enough to call him by his first name.
And I refer to the priest at the decidedly more AC Piskie church up the road by his Christian name as well. Mind you, I have been known to call him Reverend Canon Bloggs when he's addressed me as Dr Smith, but that's again more in fun. I think a fair number of his parishioners call him Fr Firstname. But he was introduced to me by his first name so...
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I tell people to call me 'Christian Name' (I have a long version and a short version of my name, and usually offer them the short version as that is what I have been called since birth; though some go for the longer).
In the CofI I am variously addressed as 'Reverend', 'Reverend Christian-name', 'Rector', and my name. Sometimes 'Reverend Surname' or 'Minister'. I personally don't care which it is. One lady in a nursing home calls me 'Sister' without fail, probably assuming I'm a nun of some sort.
When speaking to Anglican clergy it wouldn't occur to me to call them in the first instance 'Father'. I grew up in an Anglican tradition - and until ordination worshipped in Evo/MOTR traditions - where 'Father' applied to Roman Catholics. If I know someone is customarily addressed, or wants to be addressed, as Father, I'll happily do so, no problem. But 'Father' is definitely not my first thought for an Anglican male priest.
I usually call clergy colleagues by their first names. New/unknown clergy, I would try to find out how they like to be addressed. I either call my Bishop by his first name or 'Bishop First-name'. Again, I would try to find out his preference of address.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
It is easy for us 'in the know' to cringe, but to show this would make someone unacquainted with ecclesiastical style and preferences uncomfortable. Now tongue in cheek - to make someone uncomfortable socially would not be the mark of a true gentleman!
Well I'm not sure how much of a 'gentleman' I am, but I only cringe inwardly. I hope I don't show it. Though I hardly ever get called vicar now that I've retired, and not much before: in this part of the world where Catholics are the default (f not established) church it's likely to be Father.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I heard of an AC priest who received a phone call from someone who asked to speak rather pointedly to 'Mr Titcombe'. The priest replied 'I'm sorry, my dad isn't at home. This is Father Titcombe.'
A former colleague of mine - let's call him Father Fred Bloggs - lives with an aged but formidable aunt who frequently answers the phone on his behalf. One day this conversation ensued:
'Is Fred Bloggs at home, please?'
'There's no Fred Bloggs lives here.'
[caller, bewildered] 'I'm sorry, I'm sure I had the right number.'
'There's a Father Fred Bloggs lives here. Who is that calling?'
'oh... please tell him the Bishop rang.'
'Well, if you're the Bishop you should know better. I'll tell Father Fred that you called.'
Posted by Polly Plummer (# 13354) on
:
At my previous church some people called the vicar "Vicar", some called him Fred, some called him Mr. Smith, some Reverend Smith. Then he was made a canon and we could all call him Canon Fred!
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
If a priest corrected someone who called them Mr., Rev, Ms, or anything else, and said they wanted to be addressed as Father or Mother or anything else, it would be received as rude, and depending on the circumstance of it, extremely rude in Western Canada. Handshaking is usual with everyone, though younger people seem to be moving away from.
Most priests are called in the third person "the Reverend [name]" if being very formal. If a bishop or arch (only met 2 arches so a small sample), it is "Bishop [first name]" and usually first names after that. If introducing a priest, the usual would be "Firstname Lastname, priest at St. Whomever's".
In a slightly different situation, one of the siblings of Prince Charles came to visit a number of years ago, and there was a dinner. There was specific direction not to approach the royals, speak only if spoken to, not to try to shake their hands etc. Well, the crowd was disobedient. And the royals got it immediately and adapted. Handshakes, and amusement with questions like "how do you like being a princess?". Lots of credit to them. I enjoyed especially the comment "it's probably much like being a chief".
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I heard of an AC priest who received a phone call from someone who asked to speak rather pointedly to 'Mr Titcombe'. The priest replied 'I'm sorry, my dad isn't at home. This is Father Titcombe.'
The caller, clearly of a more protestant bent, said in a voice rising in tone: 'I call no man 'Father!'
Father Titcombe replied: 'Oh really? I'm sorry I didn't realise I was speaking to the Immaculate Conception.'
The Immaculate Conception is Our Lady. I apparently don't get it.
The same priest was accosted at the door by a woman who strongly objected to being called 'Joyce' when the notices were read. Even though she was one of the most forward in calling him 'Peter' very loudly in front of everyone, she said
'How`dare you call me 'Joyce' in front of the congregation? I am Mrs Hammett'.
'And I am Father Titcombe'
'Bah', she said, 'I'm old enough to be your grandmother.
'Madam, when I wear this stole, I am two thousand years old,'
He sounds like an incredibly rude and arrogant man. I'm glad he's not my Parish Priest.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I either call my Bishop by his first name or 'Bishop First-name'. Again, I would try to find out his preference of address.
Knowing the present encumbent, he has never objected to 'My Lord' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I heard of an AC priest who received a phone call from someone who asked to speak rather pointedly to 'Mr Titcombe'. The priest replied 'I'm sorry, my dad isn't at home. This is Father Titcombe.'
The caller, clearly of a more protestant bent, said in a voice rising in tone: 'I call no man 'Father!'
Father Titcombe replied: 'Oh really? I'm sorry I didn't realise I was speaking to the Immaculate Conception.'
The Immaculate Conception is Our Lady. I apparently don't get it.
The same priest was accosted at the door by a woman who strongly objected to being called 'Joyce' when the notices were read. Even though she was one of the most forward in calling him 'Peter' very loudly in front of everyone, she said
'How`dare you call me 'Joyce' in front of the congregation? I am Mrs Hammett'.
'And I am Father Titcombe'
'Bah', she said, 'I'm old enough to be your grandmother.
'Madam, when I wear this stole, I am two thousand years old,'
He sounds like an incredibly rude and arrogant man. I'm glad he's not my Parish Priest.
Some people forget that a little humility enhances the dignity of their office rather than reducing it. Uriah Heapishness, of course, emphatically doesn't, but neither does this punctiliousness in its defence.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
I'm reminded of a rather wonderful Alan Bennett sketch on this subject:
'Well, vicar...'
'Don't call me "vicar"! Call me "Dick", that's the kind of vicar I am.'
'Well, Dickar...'
It does seem to me that priests who insist on first names must be trying to make some kind of point, and I'm pretty certain that most congregants who insist on addressing their parish priest that way are as well.
It's interesting that, for a period of time in the aftermath of the War, the closest thing to an 'unmarked' form of address for a priest was 'padre', which is of course simply 'Father' translated into Spanish (for reasons passing understanding, or at least my understanding).
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
It does seem to me that priests who insist on first names must be trying to make some kind of point, and I'm pretty certain that most congregants who insist on addressing their parish priest that way are as well.
Or it could be that that's all they've ever known as it's how they were brought up.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
It does seem to me that priests who insist on first names must be trying to make some kind of point, and I'm pretty certain that most congregants who insist on addressing their parish priest that way are as well.
What point do you think these priests and congregants are trying to make? As for me, I'd be making the point that we either use titles for everyone (so I'm 'Mr', my married female friend is 'Mrs', and so on) or for no-one.
I think singling out certain people for special modes of address is cutting across the priesthood of all believers concept, which is a concept I hold very dear.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
It does seem to me that priests who insist on first names must be trying to make some kind of point, and I'm pretty certain that most congregants who insist on addressing their parish priest that way are as well.
Or it could be that that's all they've ever known as it's how they were brought up.
Is there perhaps an element of class prejudice at work here? I've heard it said that it's generally middle class patients who are more reluctant to call their GP 'Dr X'. When it comes to clerics, this reluctance could easily combine with the usual English snobbery about anything 'Catholic' and particularly 'Irish'. So, if the working class Irish people refer to the priest at Our Lady of Perpetual Succour as 'Fr Joseph' (even to his family, to whom he will be known as 'my son/brother/nephew Fr Joseph', the staunchly middle class congregation at St Ethelburga's feel that they really must make a point of calling their vicar 'Dick', for the same reason that their main service should be styled in polysyllabic Greek as 'Sung Eucharist' rather than in vulgar Latin as 'Parish Mass'. It all seems a bit precious — at best — to me, and I'm glad that I've always managed to be associated with Anglican parishes that aren't quite so tribal in their ways.
ETA: it is, perhaps, no coincidence that Anglican priests serving in deprived areas and amongst immigrant communities are, at least in my experience, invariably called 'Fr' (they also very often have 'SSC' after their names, which really puts them beyond the middle class pale of the New Labour at Prayer).
[ 26. July 2012, 21:19: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
It's interesting that, for a period of time in the aftermath of the War, the closest thing to an 'unmarked' form of address for a priest was 'padre', which is of course simply 'Father' translated into Spanish (for reasons passing understanding, or at least my understanding).
Military tradition.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
"Reverend" is widely --- if not almost ubiquitously --- used as a noun in the U.S. ("I'd like to introduce Reverend So-and-so"; "How are you, Reverend?") As in the U.K., it makes a lot of clergy cringe (myself included), but it's so common there is little point in disabusing people of its misuse.
What is more egregious, and far more irritating, is the manner in which the honorific is misused by the media. I have seen in newspapers, and have heard from news reporters, such horrid gaffes as "The reverend of the Episcopal Church said . . .". I am never surprised by this sort of idiocy, however; it has become increasingly apparent in recent years that proper grammar is not taught in journalism classes.
There is a trend in the States toward more frequent use of the term "Pastor", which in the past was used mostly by Lutherans and fundamentalists. I don't care for it (personal prejudice on my part, as it was never used in the churches of my background), but I have to admit that it's better that "Reverend".
Posted by Tina (# 63) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
It does seem to me that priests who insist on first names must be trying to make some kind of point, and I'm pretty certain that most congregants who insist on addressing their parish priest that way are as well.
Or it could be that that's all they've ever known as it's how they were brought up.
Well, quite. I grew up attending an open evangelical Local Ecumenical Project where the incumbents were Anglican priests. I always called them by their Christian names, as I did the Vicar of the evo Anglican church I went to for a while as a student.
Since moving to London, I've been attending Anglo-Catholic churches. Most of the female priests I've known have preferred to be known by their Christian name, but a few have liked 'Mother Christianname'. The male ones all seem to like being called 'Father Christianname', so that's what I call them, although they don't worry if people just call them by their Christian names.
And how is it more 'tribal' to call services and priests by the catch-all terms used in official CofE liturgy and directories, rather than borrowing terms from one's preferred alternative denomination? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I also believe that 'Fr' is nearly universal amongst North American Anglicans.
How do you address clerical persons of your acquaintance? I generally use 'Fr' for priests and 'M'Lord' for bishops. I rarely meet an Archbishop, but when I do it's obviously 'Your Grace'.
Fr Firstname is certainly known in North America, but it would be stretching a point to the point of losing elasticity to say the practice is nearly universal. I'd think it pretty common at the 1-2 per cent of Anglican/Episcopalian parishes that are high to Anglo-Catholic, not uncommon in a band of perhaps another 10-15 per cent, and unknown otherwise.
As for "Mylording" and "Your Gracing" bishops and archbishops, that was once the habit more widely than in England, but has largely disappeared elsewhere.
"My Lord" strictly derives from a bishop's standing as a member of the House of Lords, where he (and soon she) ranks behind such earls as may be left, and "your grace" derives from York and Canterbury's standing just ahead of such dukes as may be left in the Lords. In England, if you were being logical, you might well address Canterbury and York in that fashion -- but not the Primus of Scotland, or Armagh, or the Archbishop of the CHurch in Wales. And certainly not any archbishop from elsewhere in the communion. And addressing any bishop who does not sit in the Lords as "My Lord" would seem to me to be more than slightly obscurantish...especially if you're talking to a suffragan. Unless you're talking to Baron Carey or Baron Harries.
John
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I call a female cleric of my acquaintance by her Christian name because that is her preference. I address envelopes to her as 'The Rev'd Christianname Surname'. I call, and always have called, all male priests 'Father' and refer in formal written contexts as 'the Rev'd Fr Christianname Surname'. I'm not entirely happy with this situation, as it could be read as a slight against the female priest, but I don't really know what else to do. What I absolutely will not do is to adopt a new style for male priests. Not in a million years. That may seem stubborn and petulant, but any other style would seem false to me.
Well coming from the evangelical wing of the church I know several male clergy who dislike being 'fathered.' I also know female clergy who would rather be 'fathered' than 'mothered' and are so addressed.
But mainly the clergy around get called vicar/rector or the dreaded Reverend. In my group the clergy get 'Reverend' they dislike it but have given in to local custom, as the older generation refuse to call the clergy by their first name alone.Interestingly the younger adult shave no problme with just using firstname.
Te most common way of strangers addressing them on the phone is to say 'are you the vicar?'
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
It might be argued that the 'my Lord' and 'Your Grace' have more to do with ecclesistical rank that being a Lord Spiritual in the Upper House. Hence RC bishops are often addressed as 'My Lord' or 'Your Excellency' in the US. This clearly does not mean membership of the Upper House.
There is also a custom that abbots are also 'My Lord' - although they ceased to be members of the Upper House after the dissolution of the monasteries.
++Michael Ramsey used to answer to 'Father' after his retirement from Canterbury, and probably when in office. It seems perfectly natural to use it to a CofE bishop - who is described both in the BCP and the revised ordinal as a 'Father-in-God'.
++Michael's preference seemed far more dignified, personal, and loyal to his calling than those who might prefer to be called 'Lord Carey' or 'Baron Whatever'
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
There is a trend in the States toward more frequent use of the term "Pastor", which in the past was used mostly by Lutherans and fundamentalists. I don't care for it (personal prejudice on my part, as it was never used in the churches of my background), but I have to admit that it's better that "Reverend".
Pastor is the way I have been addressed throughout my ministry. This has been common among Lutherans, particularly of German heritage. But it does work very well for either gender. Over here in the states, I do hear the word "Mother" used more and more frequently in Episcopal churches. I believe it has the force of logic behind it, in a church which increasingly calls its male clergy "Father."
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Is there perhaps an element of class prejudice at work here?
No
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I also believe that 'Fr' is nearly universal amongst North American Anglicans.
How do you address clerical persons of your acquaintance? I generally use 'Fr' for priests and 'M'Lord' for bishops. I rarely meet an Archbishop, but when I do it's obviously 'Your Grace'.
Fr Firstname is certainly known in North America, but it would be stretching a point to the point of losing elasticity to say the practice is nearly universal. I'd think it pretty common at the 1-2 per cent of Anglican/Episcopalian parishes that are high to Anglo-Catholic, not uncommon in a band of perhaps another 10-15 per cent, and unknown otherwise.
As for "Mylording" and "Your Gracing" bishops and archbishops, that was once the habit more widely than in England, but has largely disappeared elsewhere.
"My Lord" strictly derives from a bishop's standing as a member of the House of Lords, where he (and soon she) ranks behind such earls as may be left, and "your grace" derives from York and Canterbury's standing just ahead of such dukes as may be left in the Lords. In England, if you were being logical, you might well address Canterbury and York in that fashion -- but not the Primus of Scotland, or Armagh, or the Archbishop of the CHurch in Wales. And certainly not any archbishop from elsewhere in the communion. And addressing any bishop who does not sit in the Lords as "My Lord" would seem to me to be more than slightly obscurantish...especially if you're talking to a suffragan. Unless you're talking to Baron Carey or Baron Harries.
John
John Holding may have taste in beer, but he is wrong on several counts.
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. It is now never used officially (ref The Canadian Style, mentioned briefly in a nearby thread), and almost never unofficially save by those few remaining who somehow see this as a manifestation of monarchy or who wish to annoy the bishop (among which group I usually find myself). Dublin and Armagh get "Your Grace"d, both in synods and from the state -- I was standing with the unwashed when President Childers welcomed Dr Buchanan with "Your Grace."
Anyone trying to "Your Grace" the Canadian Primate will just get a "Call Me Fred" in response, but do not let that hold you back.
Male priests as Father is more an urban phenomenon, to my knowledge, even in non-spiky circles but I think not found much in smaller centres or rural areas.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Bit of a tangent, but how do those of you who use the term 'Father' deal with Matthew 23:9 where Jesus says 'don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father' '? I'm sure everyone's well aware of this verse (it's hardly in an obscure corner of the Bible) and yet millions of Christians happily refer to their church leaders as 'Father'. What gives?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
"Reverend" is widely --- if not almost ubiquitously --- used as a noun in the U.S. ("I'd like to introduce Reverend So-and-so"; "How are you, Reverend?") As in the U.K., it makes a lot of clergy cringe (myself included), but it's so common there is little point in disabusing people of its misuse.
What is more egregious, and far more irritating, is the manner in which the honorific is misused by the media. I have seen in newspapers, and have heard from news reporters, such horrid gaffes as "The reverend of the Episcopal Church said . . .". I am never surprised by this sort of idiocy, however; it has become increasingly apparent in recent years that proper grammar is not taught in journalism classes.
There is a trend in the States toward more frequent use of the term "Pastor", which in the past was used mostly by Lutherans and fundamentalists. I don't care for it (personal prejudice on my part, as it was never used in the churches of my background), but I have to admit that it's better that "Reverend".
The word "Pastor" has appeared in Canada in the same sorts of churches, much to my regret. I forthrightly hold to the historic use of "Minister". That's the Scots dialect of the UCCan for you.
Reverend Lastname has been in use in the UCCan since Methuselah was a lad.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Bit of a tangent, but how do those of you who use the term 'Father' deal with Matthew 23:9 where Jesus says 'don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father' '? I'm sure everyone's well aware of this verse (it's hardly in an obscure corner of the Bible) and yet millions of Christians happily refer to their church leaders as 'Father'. What gives?
Primarily because Jesus was speaking hyperbole in condemning self-aggrandizement. We also don't fuss about people calling their biological male-identified parents "Father", but strictly thinking, the same logic applies to biological fathers as well as to fathers in the spiritual sense.
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on
:
Also, taken literally and strictly, this verse would forbid mister (master), And St Paul himself breaks this "law" at Acts 22:1. Moreover my ancstral scot non-conformist (Secession) minister wrote from Nova Scotia to his ecclesiastical supporters in Glasgow, he addressed them as "fathers and brethren".
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
"Reverend" is widely --- if not almost ubiquitously --- used as a noun in the U.S. ("I'd like to introduce Reverend So-and-so"; "How are you, Reverend?") As in the U.K., it makes a lot of clergy cringe (myself included), but it's so common there is little point in disabusing people of its misuse.
What is more egregious, and far more irritating, is the manner in which the honorific is misused by the media. I have seen in newspapers, and have heard from news reporters, such horrid gaffes as "The reverend of the Episcopal Church said . . .". I am never surprised by this sort of idiocy, however; it has become increasingly apparent in recent years that proper grammar is not taught in journalism classes.
There is a trend in the States toward more frequent use of the term "Pastor", which in the past was used mostly by Lutherans and fundamentalists. I don't care for it (personal prejudice on my part, as it was never used in the churches of my background), but I have to admit that it's better that "Reverend".
The word "Pastor" has appeared in Canada in the same sorts of churches, much to my regret. I forthrightly hold to the historic use of "Minister". That's the Scots dialect of the UCCan for you.
Reverend Lastname has been in use in the UCCan since Methuselah was a lad.
"Minister" was, and largely still is, the term found in Congregational church bulletins and on Congregational signboards here in the States (at least in New England). But "Pastor" is becoming increasingly common, particularly as a form of direct address. We always called our minister "Mister" when I was a boy, which I still prefer, although many of my parishioners simply call me by my first name, to which I have no objection.
It shall always be "Minister" in the bulletin and on the sign --- and I shall continue to wear my Geneva gown and bands, thank you. None of this cassock-alb stuff for me!
Posted by jugular (# 4174) on
:
I have a common name, which can apply to a male or female. There are several people in the parish with the same name. As such, in written form I am always referred to as Father Jugular, e.g 'For more information, please see Father Jugular'.
The children of the parish universally address me as 'Father Jugular'.
However, my philosophy is that we are a baptismal community and we therefore address one another by our baptismal names. When I meet people I usually say something like: 'Hello. I'm jugular. Some people call me Father Jugular - mostly the children'.
There was a time when I resisted being addressed as 'Father'. During that time, when I was a School Chaplain, I was addressed as Reverend Lastname, which was inevitably shortened to Rev in conversation. I then moved to another school with a tradition of addressing clergy as 'Father', and I did not have a choice. So I became Father Jugular and I'm now fairly comfortable with it. I even have a Facebook fan page in that name.
Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on
:
Current North American Orthodox practice is: a) priest and deacon, Father n.; b) bishop, Your Grace; c) metropolitan and archbishop, Your Eminence.
Written style for priests and deacons is "Rev. Father (or Deacon) nn." Abbots, archimandrites and cathedral deans are all "Very Rev." Hierarchs are "Most Rev."
Rather than getting offended, I find it rather quaint when someone calls me Reverend: very mainline Protestant, very Victorian, very Hollywood!
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I don't think I could call a female priest Mother (don't really know why) but I guess I could call her Sister. I find it quite offensive when young people call an elderly person by their Christian name without permission. My late mother at age 94 was approached by a young nurse more than 70 years her junior who used Mum's first name to ask very personal questions. My mother was horrified as she was from the old school where you used formalities with people to whom you hadn't been introduced. I think she viewed it as disrespect. I tell my staff to always enquire how the person likes to be addressed and not to presume anything.
Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
an elderly person by their Christian name without permission.
Part of the local tradition here forbids younger people from calling adults by their first name unless told to. Even in the very, very close knit evangelical church of my childhood where everyon knew each other very well, the clergy were always pasto so-and-so, minister so-and-so, or deacon/deaconess so-and-so.
Sometimes you could address them by pastor/minister/deacon/deaconess, but there was never any addressing anyone by first names. And fellow congregants were brother/sister last name. I guess that's why addressing clergy as Fr. so-and so or just Fr. is natural to me. I don't even address my close friends who are priests by first names.
Posted by Fradgan (# 16455) on
:
St. Silas,
I would glory in the uniqueness of being addressed as "Pasto".
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Ask the one addressed their preference, listen, smile, and use their choice of address.
Even if he were to go by Bishop Precious Precious Sweet Sweet Daddy Madison. (RIP ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
)
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Is there perhaps an element of class prejudice at work here?
No
Do you care to elaborate on that point? I think my theory is a very probable one. Irish travelers call their priest 'Father', nice respectable English middle class MotR Anglicans couldn't possibly do something so 'Romish' — which in fact means 'Irish', which in fact basically means 'working class'— anymore than they could decorate their homes with pictures of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that light up at night. So, they develop an exaggerated distaste for these things, based on supposedly theological grounds but in fact on a desire for class distinction.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Is there perhaps an element of class prejudice at work here?
No
Do you care to elaborate on that point?
No, I don't believe there is any element of class prejudice.
I am of the Anglo Catholic tradition where we routinely call our male priests "Father". The church I attend at the moment is predominently middle class, but the church I used to attend was also Anglo Catholic but in a more urban area where the congregation was more of a multi-racial working class demographic. The priest there was also addressed as "Father"
The majority of Church of England churches probably don't identify themselves as Anglo Catholic and don't address their priests as "Father", instead calling them by their Christian name. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with class.
Maybe in the past such clergy would have been addressed as "Mr" but those days are long gone.
[ 27. July 2012, 08:07: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
It's churchmanship, not class that is the decider.
Coming from the evangelical wing of the church I have been in churches in very middle class areas and also areas as working class as you can get.
Inside the church the vicar was always 'firstname' or 'vicar,' historically they had been 'Mr lastname'
However in the working class area which had a strong RC influence, outside of the church he was often known as father. However inside the church nobdoy would have dreamt of 'fathering' him
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
When I was minutes secretary to a Deanery Synod, I tried referring to all priests as "Pastor" to be non-gender specific. I believe it is the form used by German RC priests.
Unfortunately it never caught on.
Reverend Christianname is just ghastly. The Reverend Miss Surname is the usage, and far too pompous nowadays.
I can imagine the use of Christian names all round being slightly patronising - but equally it could be friendly.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Bit of a tangent, but how do those of you who use the term 'Father' deal with Matthew 23:9 where Jesus says 'don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father' '?
Primarily because Jesus was speaking hyperbole in condemning self-aggrandizement. We also don't fuss about people calling their biological male-identified parents "Father", but strictly thinking, the same logic applies to biological fathers as well as to fathers in the spiritual sense.
I'd hesitate to apply this passage to biological relationships as Jesus is clearly talking about spiritual relationships and the unholy practices of the religious teachers.
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
Also, taken literally and strictly, this verse would forbid mister (master), And St Paul himself breaks this "law" at Acts 22:1.
So he does! Hmm, what do I make of that...? Just because Paul used the term once, does that mean it's okay for us to use it? Maybe Paul made a mistake. And I'd take the the wider point from Jesus' command, which I'd say is about not using titles of deference, because 'all of you are equal as brothers and sisters'.
Anyhow, sorry for the tangent but I just wanted to acknowledge these replies. I'll shut up about this now....
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on
:
Perhaps I am naïf, but it has never seemed to me that complicated.
On an envelope I am the Reverend John Smith; to people who know me I am John; and to people who do not know me (and, in the parish, children and one or two people who prefer a more formal relationship) I am Mr Smith.
I always thought that was pretty universal.
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
Perhaps I am naïf, but it has never seemed to me that complicated.
On an envelope I am the Reverend John Smith; to people who know me I am John; and to people who do not know me (and, in the parish, children and one or two people who prefer a more formal relationship) I am Mr Smith.
I always thought that was pretty universal.
Not quite universal. In this parish - and most of the others round here - you would be Father John rather than John, and Father Smith rather than Mr Smith. Calling the Vicar Mr would almost certainly lead to a correction.
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on
:
If a clergyman corrected me for calling him Mr <Surname>, I would report him to his archdeacon.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
When I was in a parish everyone called me by my Christian name, from toddlers upwards. And that was what I was used to in every type of church I'd worshipped in before I was ordained. It was only when I started working in schools that I had to have a title, and I found that very hard to adjust to.
In my experience "Rev Smith" is now almost universal. Very few people know it should be "Rev John Smith", and even fewer use it.
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
If a clergyman corrected me for calling him Mr <Surname>, I would report him to his archdeacon.
It's not the Vicar himself who would correct you. Many people think (wrongly of course) that it's somehow disrespectful or even wrong to call a clergyman 'Mr' so they (also wrongly) use 'Reverend' instead. Here they would be 'corrected' to 'Father'.
Anyway my point was that it's not quite universal to call the clergy 'Mr', and in these parts 'Father' is usual.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
If a clergyman corrected me for calling him Mr <Surname>, I would report him to his archdeacon.
Better just to laugh. Systematically used that curbed the controlling instincts of even a former Principal of ****.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Clerical memoirs of Stalinist repression are now making their way into English. Fr Vinkentiy Frolov tells how, when he had been drafted into the Red Army during the war, some of his fellow recruits, on learning that he was a cleric, began to call him "comrade priest."
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Bit of a tangent, but how do those of you who use the term 'Father' deal with Matthew 23:9 where Jesus says 'don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father' '?
Primarily because Jesus was speaking hyperbole in condemning self-aggrandizement. We also don't fuss about people calling their biological male-identified parents "Father", but strictly thinking, the same logic applies to biological fathers as well as to fathers in the spiritual sense.
I'd hesitate to apply this passage to biological relationships as Jesus is clearly talking about spiritual relationships and the unholy practices of the religious teachers.
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
Also, taken literally and strictly, this verse would forbid mister (master), And St Paul himself breaks this "law" at Acts 22:1.
So he does! Hmm, what do I make of that...? Just because Paul used the term once, does that mean it's okay for us to use it? Maybe Paul made a mistake. And I'd take the the wider point from Jesus' command, which I'd say is about not using titles of deference, because 'all of you are equal as brothers and sisters'.
Anyhow, sorry for the tangent but I just wanted to acknowledge these replies. I'll shut up about this now....
Presumably those with such scruples about 'Father' would never dream of using it to the person who slept with their mother?
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on
:
I suppose I am really quite happy to call anyone by whatever title pleases them, but the trouble is these days there is no 'correct form' you are just expected to know. And I don't always.
Generally society has become much more informal in the last 40 years. When I first started work I would have never have dreamed of calling my boss by his Christian/first name. It would have been disrespectful. But by the time I left the world of offices, even 14 year olds on work experience had no hesitation in using my Christian name. (Not that I minded - I'm not even a bit precious about such things.)
All I am saying is it's far harder to 'get it right' now than when titles and forms of address were codified. And, sadly, some people, even clergypeople, get their feelings hurt because evidently these things *do* matter to them, even if they shouldn't.
[ 27. July 2012, 16:29: Message edited by: Sighthound ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I don't really care what people call me as long as it's not offensive. But two points come to mind:
There is a trend in secular society for anonymous people (especially cold-callers selling gas, electricity or whatever over the phone) to address one by one's first name. This I hate. At the very least they should say 'May I call you Fred?' or whatever. They rarely do.
In a church context, especially when there is a long tradition for clergy to be addressed as 'Father', 'Pastor' etc, some people can take to addressing the clergy by first name as a way of manipulating. 'We treat you as a friend'. If it had always been first names between Christians - no doubt the ideal - there wouldn't be a problem. It's when such informality is taken to imply a special relationship that there can be.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
And it can go the other way.
Think of a secular context. The bastard of a boss makes you redundant at no notice, he (or she) tells you you're moving to their Scunthorpe office next week, s/he tells you that you are working for the next four weekends with no overtime...
And s/he expects you to call him Mike (or Sheila), rather than Mr/s Gradgrind.
It's not friendly. It's manipulative.
Formality can encourage forelock tugging servility, but it can also allow for personal distance.
[ 27. July 2012, 16:57: Message edited by: venbede ]
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
I usually tell people I'll answer to anything if it's not rude. If people ask what to call me, I tell them to call me Mark. Out and about, I get the whole range of Vicar, Father, Minister, Reverend, Priest and so on... I do inwardly cringe at misuse of reverend but I don't correct people.
Posted by aig (# 429) on
:
I am a medical doctor so known as Dr Aig. If I become an ordained minister, what should my formal title be?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
The Reverend Doctor Aig, surely?
(Incidentally, CofE bishops are Lords even if they don't have a seat in the House of Lords. I have a Victorian Crockfords or other directory that calls all the American bishops Lord Bishop of Mid Western Minnesota or whatever.)
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Thwe Reverend Doctor Aig most certainly.
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on
:
Are there any Anglican Archpriests other than the one of Haccombe?
[ 27. July 2012, 17:39: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Gosh I remember an individual who held this post. he wore a fur cape that came with it.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have a Victorian Crockfords or other directory that calls all the American bishops Lord Bishop of Mid Western Minnesota or whatever.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
I know a bishop or two who probably wouldn't mind it.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I usually tell people I'll answer to anything if it's not rude. If people ask what to call me, I tell them to call me Mark. Out and about, I get the whole range of Vicar, Father, Minister, Reverend, Priest and so on... I do inwardly cringe at misuse of reverend but I don't correct people.
My practice and experience are the same, only, in addition, I occasionally hear 'Mother' as well as 'Father.'
[ 27. July 2012, 18:29: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
I am a medical doctor so known as Dr Aig. If I become an ordained minister, what should my formal title be?
There was a Baptist minister from Nova Scotia who served in the First World War as an officer. He was the Rev. Capt. William A. White.
He was also the first black officer in the Canadian Army.
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on
:
Sebby, answering Aig, said: quote:
Thwe Reverend Doctor Aig most certainly.
Pretty certainly in America where Aig is. Not so certainly if he were in the UK as (I imagine) Sebby is.
Medical doctors in America hold the MD degree and are therefore doctors by qualification. General practitioners in the UK do not usually hold a doctoral degree, though they have had to put in many years' study. They are called Doctor by custom - although if they go on to specialise in surgery they revert to Mr for historical reasons.
A cleric who holds a PhD or other doctoral degree is The Revered Dr, but I'm not sure if this applies to medical doctors. I know one; he has not practised medicine after his ordination and has never used that title.
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on
:
Maybe this is the right time and place to ask. I once had occasion to shake the Rev. Jesse Jackson's hand at Trinity Wall Street. All I really had to say was, "Pleased to meet you, ______," but I wasn't sure what to insert. "Reverend" probably would have worked, though not stictly speaking correct. So what else is there? "Mr."? "Pastor"? What would have been correct, or best practice? Whatever I actually did say, I don't think he noticed or cared.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Hence RC bishops are often addressed as 'My Lord' or 'Your Excellency' in the US.
I'm not aware of any Catholic bishop in the US who is addressed as "My Lord".
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I have a history of the Benedictine nuns of Dunkirk/Teignmouth.
Each chapter, IIRC, is named after the Abbess of the day as "The Right Reverend Lady Abbess Smith".
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by aig:
I am a medical doctor so known as Dr Aig. If I become an ordained minister, what should my formal title be?
See, according to the Ceremonial Forms of Address listed in the back of my dictionary (Collins, for those who are up on such matters) The Rev'd. Dr is strictly reserved for a Doctor of Divinity and I suppose one's title should therefore be Dr. The Rev'd. Bloggs. Which does sound really rather painful... Though Crockfords woudl seem to suggest that the Ecclesiastical title takes preference, hence Rev'd Dr....
I did once have to address an envelope to a married couple, both of whom were PhDs, as well as the female half of the partnership being an ordained minister. That made for an interesting time...
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The appoinmtents section of the Church Times refers to 'Rev Dr' and one assumes this is PhDs.
I'm not so sure of the correctness of 'Canon Dr' which one hears from time to time introducing speakers on Thought for the Day.
Might it not be 'Canon John Smith PhD' or 'The Rev Dr John Smith, Honorary Canon of Hereford Cathedral' or just settle for 'Canon' or 'The Rev Dr'. 'Canon Dr' sounds just plain daft IMO.
Posted by aig (# 429) on
:
I am a jobbing paediatrician so no MD. Revd Dr Aig sounds like someone I'm not. How about Dr the Revd Aig?
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
Maybe this is the right time and place to ask. I once had occasion to shake the Rev. Jesse Jackson's hand at Trinity Wall Street. All I really had to say was, "Pleased to meet you, ______," but I wasn't sure what to insert. "Reverend" probably would have worked, though not stictly speaking correct. So what else is there? "Mr."? "Pastor"? What would have been correct, or best practice? Whatever I actually did say, I don't think he noticed or cared.
That last sentence is probably the most sensible I've read on the entire thread
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Here, a new late vocation was ordained to the priesthood. Previously, he had been a medical doctor.
He chooses The Reverend John Smith, MD.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
I am a jobbing paediatrician so no MD. Revd Dr Aig sounds like someone I'm not. How about Dr the Revd Aig?
Never. 'Dr Aig' is perfectly acceptable, but — if used at all — 'the Rev'd' comes before all other titles (there's an exception for archbishops who are 'His Grace, the Most Rev'd', but I take it you're not one of those). Furthermore, styles like 'the Rev'd' and 'the Hon.' go before ones like 'Dr'. The correct order if 'Major-General the Hon. Sir George Stoddart', or 'the Rev'd the Hon. Fr Hugh Chantry-Pigg'. Incidentally, the only case in which 'The Rev'd Sir XX' is correct is when the holder is a baronet (I've seen this once or twice in the archives of the Society of Mary). The combination of secular and religious titles is complicated, because it really shouldn't happen, although it has at all times in Christian history, as in the case of Rt. Rev. Frederick Augustus Hervey 4th Earl of Bristol DD PC, the Bishop of Cloyne from 1767 to 1768 and Bishop of Derry (both in the then-established Church of Ireland) from 1768 to 1803.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Incidentally, the only case in which 'The Rev'd Sir XX' is correct is when the holder is a baronet (I've seen this once or twice in the archives of the Society of Mary).
I was, for some years until his death in 1997, a friend of one such. The Reverend Sir David Gibson, Baronet.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
Maybe this is the right time and place to ask. I once had occasion to shake the Rev. Jesse Jackson's hand at Trinity Wall Street. All I really had to say was, "Pleased to meet you, ______," but I wasn't sure what to insert. "Reverend" probably would have worked, though not stictly speaking correct. So what else is there? "Mr."? "Pastor"? What would have been correct, or best practice? Whatever I actually did say, I don't think he noticed or cared.
This reminds me of what the late Duke of Norfolk used to say when advising individuals who were meeting the Queen and were nervous about getting the protocol wrong: "Those who mind, don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on
:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
The combination of secular and religious titles is complicated, because it really shouldn't happen, although it has at all times in Christian history . . .
The Rev Canon Lord Pilkington of Oxenford (life peer 1985) was not I think the only example of a cleric made a life peer in recent years.
[ 28. July 2012, 08:14: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
I am a jobbing paediatrician so no MD. Revd Dr Aig sounds like someone I'm not. How about Dr the Revd Aig?
Never. 'Dr Aig' is perfectly acceptable, but — if used at all — 'the Rev'd' comes before all other titles (there's an exception for archbishops who are 'His Grace, the Most Rev'd', but I take it you're not one of those). Furthermore, styles like 'the Rev'd' and 'the Hon.' go before ones like 'Dr'. The correct order if 'Major-General the Hon. Sir George Stoddart', or 'the Rev'd the Hon. Fr Hugh Chantry-Pigg'. Incidentally, the only case in which 'The Rev'd Sir XX' is correct is when the holder is a baronet (I've seen this once or twice in the archives of the Society of Mary). The combination of secular and religious titles is complicated, because it really shouldn't happen, although it has at all times in Christian history, as in the case of Rt. Rev. Frederick Augustus Hervey 4th Earl of Bristol DD PC, the Bishop of Cloyne from 1767 to 1768 and Bishop of Derry (both in the then-established Church of Ireland) from 1768 to 1803.
There was also 'The Reverend the Earl of Devon'. He was rural dean of Powerham at some stage. I think parishoners called him 'Your Lordship' or 'My Lord'.
Fictionally there was 'The Reverend Lord Henry D'Gascoyne' a younger brother of the Duke of Chalfont. He was known simply as 'Lord Henry'.
There was also a former Bishop of Exeter - Lord William Cecil, whose brother was the Marquis of Salisbury. He was affectionally regarded in the diocese most notably for his appalling memory and bad cycling skills.
Whilst at Exter station fumbling for his train ticket, the collector said 'it's quite all right My lord, we all know who you are.' The bishop replied 'yes but until I find the ticket I don't know where I should be going.'
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
The combination of secular and religious titles is complicated, because it really shouldn't happen, although it has at all times in Christian history . . .
The Rev Canon Lord Pilkington of Oxenford (life peer 1985) was not I think the only example of a cleric made a life peer in recent years.
The mingling of secular (noble) titles and ecclesiastical ones has always been around, certainly as the notion of post-Roman hereditary nobility developed from the mediaeval period. Perhaps we could distinguish secular titles as a peculiar form of family name and a secular title or distinction as an office of state, as in a life baron of the UK (effectively, a senator) or a mayor or member of a legislature. As an example, if Prince Harry takes orders, he would simply be His Royal Highness the Reverend Prince Harry of Wales, unless he preferred to take a name similar to his military usage of Captain Harry Wales, such as the Reverend H. Wales. In the latter case, the late Archdeacon Ken Bolton, when a member of the Ontario assembly, signed as Ken Bolton MLA, but manifested himself on the diocesan list of licensed clergy as the Venerable Ken Bolton.
Current RC practice seems to discourage the use of noble titles by clerics. No coronets or supporters or distinction of civil rank are permitted in ecclesiastical heraldry. While European clerics bear titles (as have many popes, most recently Count Mastai-Ferreti aka Pius IX), I have not seen them used officially (e.g, Count von Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, does not) in current usage.
I think that the Orthies drop noble titles entirely, as Count Boris Bobrinskoy became Archpriest Boris Bobrinskoy of the S Sergius Institute in Paris and Prince Dmitri Shahovsky became the monk John (later Bishop of Brooklyn and then Abp of San Francisco).
Anglican challenges of addressing bishops of noble birth would be greatly reduced if we simply restricted the episcopacy to members of the older religious orders.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I either call my Bishop by his first name or 'Bishop First-name'. Again, I would try to find out his preference of address.
Knowing the present encumbent, he has never objected to 'My Lord'
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
It does seem to me that priests who insist on first names must be trying to make some kind of point, and I'm pretty certain that most congregants who insist on addressing their parish priest that way are as well.
Or it could be that that's all they've ever known as it's how they were brought up.
Rather boringly - and perhaps disappointingly for (S)pike C - that's the answer in my case. I can't answer for every priest of course. But I like to be called by the name by which I am known. I have no problem with titles either, if parishioners like to use them. Funnily enough, the situation I find strangest is when people 'insist' on using the long-form of my name, as it's fairly alien to me. But I know they prefer it, so I don't mind.
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. Churchmanship, tradition, custom certainly comes into it. I guess if one has a deep knowledge of an individual's class prejudices it might be possible to guess why they prefer to call their clergy, or be called, by some particular title. But as a generalism, I can't see how one would even begin to prove that.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Incidentally, the only case in which 'The Rev'd Sir XX' is correct is when the holder is a baronet (I've seen this once or twice in the archives of the Society of Mary).
I think this is wrong... A person who is ordained after receiving a knighthood also becomes 'the Revd Sir' or 'the Revd Dame', it is only if they receive their honour post-ordination that the title is not used.
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on
:
I remember some discussion about clerical knighthoods when Grahmam Leonard got one.
The argument against was that knights by definition are 'warriors' which clerics obviously are not, and are/were, in fact, in English law not allowed to bear arms (I think this is why British military chaplains unlike American ones cannot carry guns).
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But I like to be called by the name by which I am known. I have no problem with titles either, if parishioners like to use them. Funnily enough, the situation I find strangest is when people 'insist' on using the long-form of my name, as it's fairly alien to me. But I know they prefer it, so I don't mind.
At the local TEC place, when a new [female] cleric was to show up, they did something very simple and very effective: in the newsletter, the other priest ("Father X") simply wrote something like, "People will certainly wonder what to call our new one. She simply wishes to be called Vicky." It worked.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Knighthoods AFTER ordination are noted by abbreviation only. So When the former Dean of St Paul's was 'knighted' (rather prestigiously in the Royal Victorian Order, so the personal gift of the Sovereign) he became 'The Very Reverend Alan Webster KCVO'. 'Sir' is never used.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Knighthoods AFTER ordination are noted by abbreviation only.
And the recipient does not receive the accolade.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Really? The Revd Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch KB did a few weeks ago. At Windsor, IIRC.
Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on
:
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).
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
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.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
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).
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on
:
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.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
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 ]
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
vital
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
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?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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!
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I'm with South Coast Kevin. Please, eddyfy us some more on this vital issue.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
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.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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).
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
(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.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
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.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
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.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
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.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
An eminently sane and mature response, Angloid, as was Anselmina's.
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?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
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.
Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on
:
[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).
Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Yes but surely all the beleivers together are the church of God?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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?
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.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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!
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
and is gender free!
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Shades of Dad's Army! - doesn't the verger always address the vicar thus?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Pity "parson" went out of use.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
What's wrong with 'vicarage'?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Pity "parson" went out of use.
I've heard it in Devon
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0