Thread: Terms of address for people in ministry 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=030426
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'm going to assume that your church has someone who is in some form of leadership position - even if you're an anarcho-syndicalist commune taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week.

I know we all use different words to describe these people - priest, pastor, minister etc (and, these all have slightly different meanings in regard to the "job description"). I'm not really interested in the job title we use.

What do you call "people in ministry" in different circumstances? If your leader is John Smith or Jane Smith, what terms of address do you use?

Would you be comfortable talking to them and simply calling them John or Jane? Would there be times when you would be more formal, and times when less formal. "That was a good sermon there Mr Smith" as you leave the church, but maybe over tea it would be "John, what did you think of the game last night?".

In your bulletin, would you have "Worship this morning will be led by Rev Smith", or "by Jane Smith"? Does your website say "Our vicar [replace as appropriate] is John Smith", or "Rev Smith" or "Mrs Smith" or "Rev Mr John Smith"?
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
In the Untied Methodist Church convention and practice are two different things.

The Conference usually refer to a clergy person in print as "The Rev. Soandso," pastor of Podunk UMC. Superiors and peers will address us by first name.

The congregations vary as to form of address, but here in the South most pastors are referred to as "Brother Soandso" (if a male) or by first name (either male or female). In print it may often be "Bro. Soandso."

I like for mine to call me "Pastor" and to refer to me in print as "the Rev. Circuit Rider" or "Pastor Circuit Rider."
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
At my church, when you address clergy directly, it is usually by first name only. We live in a casual part of the world, it doesn't take long for any professional relationship to get to a first name basis.

When speaking of clergy to someone else, it is either only the first name, or "Mother first name" or "Father first name." Usually the first, but in the announcements, if anyone interested in a retreat or book group is to talk to a clergy member, it is the latter.

Although occasionally, when I feel that the occasion requires a tongue in cheek mock formality, I have been known to go for "Mother Rector."
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
At my place the clergy are normally Father or Mother Firstname. We have a retired priest on the team who is also a Minor Canon. He is usually addressed as Father Firstname, but occasionally simply by his first name. If we're being formal, then we call him Canon Surname and if being really formal then it's The Rev'd Canon Firstname Surname.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
We're on a first name basis. Most sermons will be delivered by Debbie, Roger, Faith, Steve or Abby.

The only time a more ecclesiastically conservative title would be used is if that is preferred by a visiting speaker (e.g. if they prefer to be called Canon Joe Richardson).
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Occasionally tempted by a Mr Yeatman-style 'Your Reverence'. Always think of our female vicar as Father Firstname but she is slightly eccentric and I don't know whether anyone else does or whether anyone has ever actually called her that.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Our church caretaker calls me "Your Lordship" and has even bought a mug to match.

However her tongue is kept very firmly in her cheek!

Otherwise I am just "Andrew" or "our Minister" to all and sundry (especially sundry!)

[ 06. November 2015, 09:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
It isn't simply the preferences of leaders, is it?
At the church where Mrs Wuntoo attends, the minister is often introduced at the start of the service as 'Revd Firstname Surname'. The majority of the congregation and most of the lay leadership are of African / Caribbean / Asian background and it is my impression that this determines their more formal acknowledgement. For most other activities the minister is simply known by Firstname.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
It took me quite some time before I was comfortable calling the new rector by his first name without a Father ahead of it - and longer after that before I'd address him without the Father on the hand-shaking line. A bishop is Bishop Firstname when being referred to, and just plain bishop otherwise.

Never, never is it the Reverend Surname. The Reverend Ms/Mr Surname, the Reverend Jane Surname are both right. I can't tell you why, it just is.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
Title: The Rev. Fr. John Doe (followed by initials of order, if appropriate)

Address: Father Doe
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Would you be comfortable talking to them and simply calling them John or Jane? Would there be times when you would be more formal, and times when less formal.
Our recent priests have been Father Firstname (male) and Pastor Firstname (female). (We had a visiting priest who was Mother Firstname once; to me that seems less common in the US than the UK.)

I refer to the priests as "Father John" and "Pastor Jane", but address them as "John" and "Jane" in person. The last person I called "Father Surname" was my school chaplain.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Never, never is it the Reverend Surname. The Reverend Ms/Mr Surname, the Reverend Jane Surname are both right. I can't tell you why, it just is.
Heh... at the infant school where I go and take assemblies from time to time (and where I'm a governor), I'm known as "Reverend Smith". I did once suggest to the head that it should be something else, but she screwed her face up like that. So Reverend Smith has stuck, even if it's wrong.

At church, I'm "Stephen", "Steve-O" (my mum would be very cross if she heard someone call me that) or "Oi, you!". If they're being polite...
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
He's Father + first name. Some older parishioners address him as "Rector".

He gets cross when called Reverend + surname.

He tries to explain this to people by saying that 'Reverend' works (grammatically) like 'late'. When he is dead he will be "the late John Doe" not "the late Doe'.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
When I was in parish ministry, "Father firstname" was the standard address. It didn't really bother me if people left off the title, which some did sometimes. Now I'm back in the university world, I have an odd double existence. Faculty universally call me by my first name (one asked permission to do this); students I'm in classes with are a mix between calling me just by my first name and by father; undergrads that I know through campus ministry contexts mostly seem to want to call me "Father lastname." I do all I can to drop hints that "Father firstname" would be more appropriate, but most don't pick up on it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
On an envelope: The Rev'd name name (or whatever).
In person: Father name.
Our local bishop is a friend so he is X unless there are unknowns or parishioners around.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
And in a newspaper article, shouldn't it be "Mr. X" etc.?

i.e. "The service was conducted by the Revd. John Smith. In his address, Mr. Smith said ...".
 
Posted by gog (# 15615) on :
 
The folks at Crockford give some ideas [Ultra confused]

Here it tends to be first name in general, at start of service Rev. Firstname Lastname (or if a lay leader Mrs/Ms/Mr/Dr/Prof Firstname Lastname as appropriate) often with a quick note as to who we are if clearly visitors in.

Though one place it is Rev. Firstname Lastname when been spoken about, and Mr. Lastname when spoken to, some places maintain traditions. [Cool]
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And in a newspaper article, shouldn't it be "Mr. X" etc.?

i.e. "The service was conducted by the Revd. John Smith. In his address, Mr. Smith said ...".
When the Church Times stopped being a (high church) party paper it rather controversially began referring to all priests as 'Mr' - even those who preferred, and were usually known as, 'Father'. It seems now to have reinstated 'Father' - at least in the case of disgraced clergy from the Diocese of Chichester.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
In my ecclesiastical life, I introduce myself to people as Father Weber. In practice, I accept being called just about anything but "Reverend."
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And in a newspaper article, shouldn't it be "Mr. X" etc.?

i.e. "The service was conducted by the Revd. John Smith. In his address, Mr. Smith said ...".
When the Church Times stopped being a (high church) party paper it rather controversially began referring to all priests as 'Mr' - even those who preferred, and were usually known as, 'Father'. It seems now to have reinstated 'Father' - at least in the case of disgraced clergy from the Diocese of Chichester.
In my previous diocese, the diocesan paper used Mr and Ms, which always "sounded" strange in my ears. My current diocese's paper uses "Fr" for male priests, though "Mother" doesn't seem to have caught on (although there is or was one "Amma"). They aren't consistent, though, and I have seen stories where they refer to evangelical clergy as "Mr". (Deacons are always "Deacon").
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
At my joint it's strictly first-name basis. In conversation, or if you look at our website (for example), all clergy are referred to by first names. (As am I, as a staff person.)

Our rector is a woman. When she arrived, we had some conversations about what children should call her. She settled on Rev. Firstname, which she agrees isn't ideal, but Mother just isn't a fit for our church (her male predecessor was also Firstname, not Father). And she doesn't care for Pastor, as a couple of female priests in our diocese have chosen for titles.
 
Posted by Crucifer (# 523) on :
 
In our parish, it's currently Fr. 'Firstname' for the rector, whether addressing him or in conversation about him. The previous rector was always Fr. 'Surname' as are the honorary assistants.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
Currently Fr. Firstname OR Fr. Lastname for the priest-in-charge; Fr. Lastname for the assistants. Mother Lastname for female priests at other parishes (we haven't got one). Superior of the convent at our parish is Reverend Mother or Sister First Two Names. Priests often called simply "Father" in person. "The peace of the Lord be always with you." "And also with you, Father."
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Inevitably when I'm in evangelical circles, all clergy go by their first name - I know a (female) Baptist pastor is known as Pastor Jane (not her real name!) when in the local community and I know some churches especially in the US use Pastor Firstname, but it's not something I've come across often here.

All the high church male clergy I know go by Father Firstname. I've not known a Mother Firstname in the UK - all the high church female clergy I know go by their first name.

All clergy are addressed officially as The Revd Firstname Surname, or The Revd Dr Firstname Surname. Ordained religious are The Revd Sister (or Brother) Religiousname.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
A now-retired Bishop totally ignored all customary usage and made his own rules (he knew more about everything than anyone else!). Priests were called either by their order (Priest Smith) or by their position (Rector Jones). It drove everyone in the Diocese crazy.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
... All the high church male clergy I know go by Father Firstname. I've not known a Mother Firstname in the UK ...
No. I've not encountered that usage in the UK either. I'm not suggesting it's unknown, but I think it's rare. I also suspect it isn't catching on.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
Among American Presbyterians, at least in my experience, ministers are typically addressed by their first names. Some people, including children, may use Mr./Ms. Smith or Dr. Smith. I am hearing "Pastor Firstname” more and more often, particularly from children or in a context where just a first name may seem too informal or unclear, e.g., "Those wishing to participate, please speak to Pastor Chris after the service."

In a worship bulletin, ministers and staff are typically identified in a separate section in ways such as "Pastor: Rev. Chris Smith." (Sadly, "the Rev." is rarely seen anymore.) Which minister is leading what parts of the service is rarely identified, with one exception. If a congregation has more than one minister, the one preaching will be identified.

There is one Presbyterian peculiarity: at presbytery , synod and General Assembly level, a minister will often be identified as "TE Chris Smith." "TE" stands for "teaching elder," the technical term for one ordained to ministry of Word and Sacrament. By contrast, I would be "RE Nick Tamen," "RE" standing for "ruling elder."
 
Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :
 
In our Diocese of polar opposites officially they are "Fr. Christian name" or "Rvd. Surname", and that's what you would use on anything official like pewsheets, websites and press releases. The press usually alter it into something totally unheard of in the Diocese like "Father + Surname". I've only come across one "Mother" in our neck of the woods, women are either Christian name only, or Revd. Christian name. Personally I address them with what I am comfortable with, and this can be anything from first name only to "Reverend Sir/ Ma'am" or "Padre" & "Vicar". When I'm feeling mischievous I call them "FB" or "FT" for Fathers T & B. In writing it is "Fr.T" or "Fr.B". These were not very popular with the gentlemen in question who felt themselves addressed as "Farty" & "Furby". And to wind them up I will call them by the opposite of what they prefer: e.g. "Father" or "Padre" for an Evangelical, Methodist, Baptist or Lutheran, and "Pastor" or "Minister" for a Catholic. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh yes. Just as I am tempted on the very rare occasions that I meet a particularly chummy dignitary to come out with 'My Lord Bishop', 'Mr Dean', etc.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Never, never is it the Reverend Surname. The Reverend Ms/Mr Surname, the Reverend Jane Surname are both right. I can't tell you why, it just is.
I was given this explanation many years ago: reverend is an adjective, so to call someone simply Reverend Smith is like calling him Small Smith or Handsome Smith, while the Reverend John Smith or the Reverend Mr Smith is correct. You would then address him as Mr Smith – but never, of course, just Reverend, which I think is a tendency of non-church people being a bit confused, especially if what comes out in referring to him is Reverent Smith.
First names are normal here at all levels – I would probably feel able to address the Moderator of Assembly by his/her first name.
On notices of forthcoming services we do list Rev Firstname Surname.

GG
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Never, never is it the Reverend Surname. The Reverend Ms/Mr Surname, the Reverend Jane Surname are both right. I can't tell you why, it just is.
I was given this explanation many years ago: reverend is an adjective, so to call someone simply Reverend Smith is like calling him Small Smith or Handsome Smith, while the Reverend John Smith or the Reverend Mr Smith is correct. ...
Reverend is similar in usage to Sir. As indicated, you can add an additional title (like Mr) and then forego the first name, like the Rev. Dr. Jones.
 
Posted by aig (# 429) on :
 
I have noticed that clergy who call each other Father are reluctant to acknowledge that some women would like to be called Mthr. Not an issue for me due to my previous profession - people who don't want to use my first name can address me as Dr aig. This works well in schools too.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've noticed that in all but the spikiest CofE churches these days, the clergy are known by their first names - at least among their own congregations. The same applies with non-conformist churches, of course.

Even in snake-belly low Anglican settings - like the one in which my wife was brought up - this is a comparatively recent development. When she was a girl the vicar's wife used to refer to him as 'vicar' in public. 'More tea, vicar?'

My wife used to wonder whether she called him that in private. She wouldn't have been surprised if this had proven to be the case.

The only exceptions I've found are among the RCs and the Orthodox and very spikey Anglo-Catholics where it's always 'Father This ...' or 'Father That ...'

Conversely, of course, in those 'new church' and restorationist settings which were very proud of their informality, the use of first-names for the 'apostles' and elders could lull you into a false sense of security.

The leaders in these set-ups didn't have mitres, copes and fancy titles but the apparent bon-homie and mateyness could belie an authoritarianism more rigid than anything I've seen across the more sacramental end of things where fancy titles abound.

It's often not about how you label things but the underlying reality.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Never, never is it the Reverend Surname. The Reverend Ms/Mr Surname, the Reverend Jane Surname are both right. I can't tell you why, it just is.
I was given this explanation many years ago: reverend is an adjective, so to call someone simply Reverend Smith is like calling him Small Smith or Handsome Smith, while the Reverend John Smith or the Reverend Mr Smith is correct. ...
Reverend is similar in usage to Sir. As indicated, you can add an additional title (like Mr) and then forego the first name, like the Rev. Dr. Jones.
It's not really like 'Sir". You can't say Reverend+first name as you would in 'Sir John'. Its exactly like 'The Honourable' or 'The Right Honourable'. The catch is most people are not very familiar with these. As I suggested above 'The Reverend' works the same was as 'The Late'.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
I have noticed that clergy who call each other Father are reluctant to acknowledge that some women would like to be called Mthr. Not an issue for me due to my previous profession - people who don't want to use my first name can address me as Dr aig. This works well in schools too.
Not my experience at all of liberal A-C male clergy. But then again 'Mother' is so uncommon in the UK - I just remembered that I've heard it once, but not from the priest in question.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Even in snake-belly low Anglican settings - like the one in which my wife was brought up - this is a comparatively recent development. When she was a girl the vicar's wife used to refer to him as 'vicar' in public. 'More tea, vicar?'

My wife used to wonder whether she called him that in private. She wouldn't have been surprised if this had proven to be the case.
IIRC Trollope has Mrs Grantly addressing her husband as 'Archdeacon' even in private. Though how he would know whether or not this was true to life, I don't know.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Never, never is it the Reverend Surname. The Reverend Ms/Mr Surname, the Reverend Jane Surname are both right. I can't tell you why, it just is.
I was given this explanation many years ago: reverend is an adjective, so to call someone simply Reverend Smith is like calling him Small Smith or Handsome Smith, while the Reverend John Smith or the Reverend Mr Smith is correct. ...
Reverend is similar in usage to Sir. As indicated, you can add an additional title (like Mr) and then forego the first name, like the Rev. Dr. Jones.
It's not really like 'Sir". You can't say Reverend+first name as you would in 'Sir John'. Its exactly like 'The Honourable' or 'The Right Honourable'. The catch is most people are not very familiar with these. As I suggested above 'The Reverend' works the same was as 'The Late'.
That's right – 'late' is also an adjective. So:
The Late Mr Smith
The Reverend Mr Smith
The handsome Mr Smith.

GG
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Even in snake-belly low Anglican settings - like the one in which my wife was brought up - this is a comparatively recent development. When she was a girl the vicar's wife used to refer to him as 'vicar' in public. 'More tea, vicar?'

My wife used to wonder whether she called him that in private. She wouldn't have been surprised if this had proven to be the case.
IIRC Trollope has Mrs Grantly addressing her husband as 'Archdeacon' even in private. Though how he would know whether or not this was true to life, I don't know.
I recall a retired Archdeacon of Cornwall telling me that he liked being retired as people now used his first name again. His wife called him by his name, but pretty well everyone over the previous ten years had called him archdeacon, with the exception (natch) of other archdeacons.

Perhaps I move in different circles, but I have not heard the term Mother used of clergy in Canada. Father is not universally used, given the low/middle nature of Canadian Anglicans, but it is usually as Father Firstname. Reverend Secondname is so common that it is quite impossible to fight it-- it has even entered circles where it shouldn't have been thought of: one of my first acts as a public servant in 1980 was to change a ministerial letter addressed to Reverend Scott to Archbishop Scott, referring the startled correspondence writers to The Canadian Style for how to address a primate.

I usually try to find out what would most annoy the cleric involved, then use that style.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
Some friends of mine live in a small village in darkest Northants. The vicar is also chaplain of the local school, and they refer to her as 'Revd Jacqueline.' I assumed this was a joke until I had occasion to enquire about Advent Sunday. I emailed he church and the reply was signed 'Reverend Jacqueline.'

As far as I can tell, Father/Bishop firstname are common in England 9if 'father' is au courant) and Father/Bishop lastname standard in the US.

Places that don't use 'father' tend to unvarnished fistname on both sides of the pond as far as I can tell.

Does anyone refer to the Cathedral dean as 'Dean firstname?'
 
Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Among American Presbyterians, at least in my experience, ministers are typically addressed by their first names. Some people, including children, may use Mr./Ms. Smith or Dr. Smith. I am hearing "Pastor Firstname” more and more often, particularly from children or in a context where just a first name may seem too informal or unclear, e.g., "Those wishing to participate, please speak to Pastor Chris after the service."

[...]

There is one Presbyterian peculiarity: at presbytery , synod and General Assembly level, a minister will often be identified as "TE Chris Smith." "TE" stands for "teaching elder," the technical term for one ordained to ministry of Word and Sacrament. By contrast, I would be "RE Nick Tamen," "RE" standing for "ruling elder."
Brazilian Presby here.

We aren't a "last name culture" at all, so the clash with styles, titles and forms of address begins right there. Rev. Firstname is considered a perfectly correct and respectful way of orally addressing a minister. Rev. Lastname may sound like a foreign affectation.

Also, if there is any difference between styles and titles in Portuguese, we don't learn it. We use Rev. (Anglicans only - Revd.) as we would Mr., Ms. or Dr. (actually, instead of them, except for those who make a point of signing "Rev. Dr."). It is also used often as a noun: "Go talk to the Reverend!"

"Pastor" describes the position a minister holds when in charge of a congregation: Rev. Firstname Lastname, Pastor, 1st Presbyterian Church. It gets used as a title (Pr.) in "lower" churches and the ones influenced by Baptists and Pentecostals.

Methodists use Rev./Pr. in the the same way and conditions as the Presbyterians.

German Lutherans will also use Pastor (P.) as a title, and LCMS Lutherans are pretty much divided between P. and Rev. AFAIK.

As for Presbytery, Synod and GA meetings, we usually stick to "Rev." and "Presb." for TEs and REs. We're not much into that equality business Westminster was all about.

[ 10. November 2015, 01:36: Message edited by: Episcoterian ]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It tends to change over time according to how high church the incoming vicar is - it used to be 'Father' but currently tends to be Christian name, with perhaps 'Revd.' tagged on the front for children and slightly more formal occasions.

At the recent APCM, when the chairman thought he ought to be even more formal, the poor man got accidentally upgraded to 'Rt. Revd' and his wife wondered whether she should start to make him a Hat.

When my b-in-law was Archdeacon, it was family humour to call him 'Archie' - rather fitting in an informal occasion, don't you think?
 
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :
 
If I know them, first name. Otherwise, Mr (or Dr or Mrs) surname or Bishop first name as the case may be.

Bishop firstname also extends to those members of the House of Bishops whom I didn't know when they were parish clergy or haven't otherwise obtained permission to dispense with the title.

To an extent, when you hit your 40s and enter the world of having a minister/teaching elder/rector/pastor younger than you, you have an increasing right to use first names.

It is also worth recalling that if you can't speak to someone respectfully using their first name, using a more formal title isn't going to make you any more respectful!
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Episcoterian:
Brazilian Presby here.

...

"Pastor" describes the position a minister holds when in charge of a congregation: Rev. Firstname Lastname, Pastor, 1st Presbyterian Church.
It's the same here. It's only been within the last few decades that I've heard ministers addressed as "Pastor Firstname." Interestingly, I've tended to hear it in what might be called "higher" churches. And I've rarely heard it outside a congregational context—that is to say, I sometimes hear members of a congregation call their own pastor (or more likely, encourage their children to call their own pastor) "Pastor Firstname," but I don't hear people use that style of address for other ministers, nor do I usually hear it in non-church settings. So, I might ask my child if she talked to "Pastor Chris" about something, but when I see the pastor, I'm going to say "Hello, Chris."

I do wonder if a Lutheran influence is at work, as "Pastor Firstname" is very common among Lutherans in these parts.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Nick Tamen: I do wonder if a Lutheran influence is at work, as "Pastor Firstname" is very common among Lutherans in these parts.
Yes. In agreement with what Episcoterian has already said, this is the only thing I hear among IECLB ("German") Lutherans in Brazil. In fact, I don't think I've ever encountered the term Rev. there.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In my experience the term 'Pastor' being used in front of someone's name - as in 'Pastor Joe' or 'Pastor Freda' is more of a Pentecostal thing - and although it seems to have died out to a large extent within the older Pentecostal denominations - the AoG, Elim and the Apostolic Church here in the UK - it seems to have had a resurgence among the more health/wealth fraternity - and it also seems common across the board in black-led and black majority churches.
 
Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
As a School Chaplain, one of my students was the grandson of a (retired) bishop. One time I referenced his grandfather in conversation and said 'Oh, what do you call him? Grandpa, Pop?'. 'Bishop' was his reply.

I later heard his own daughter quite routinely address him as Bishop. I found it creepy.

In other news, here are the titles I have been given:
1. Deacon Jugular - As a deacon. Also Brother Jugular by some older clergy (apparently it had been the custom in the Diocese at one stage). Once I went to teach a fill-in RE class for my Rector and the teacher asked me my Christian name then introduced me as Father Jugular.
2. Reverend Surname - When I was first ordained priest I was appointed to a new school as the first full-time Chaplain. I was very uncomfortable being addressed as Father, being not yet 25. Also a previous part-time Chaplain had been addressed as Reverend Surname. Soon the children called me Rev. I would have made different choices today, but I was young and needed the money.
3. Father Jugular - on arrival at a new school appointment, I was, without consultation, introduced in the the school newsletter and at assembly as Father Jugular. There had been several previous Chaplains addressed in this way, though female clergy had tended to go for Reverend.
4. Jugular - most of my parishioners call me by my first name. I sign things as The Reverend Jugular Surname, and in the newsletter it will say 'for more information please talk to Fr. Jugular'. The children call me Father Jugular. One of them, aged around 13, said 'how old do I have to be to call you Jugular?' and I said something like 'There's no rule. We address each other by our baptismal names. Some adults always call me Father, and many parents want their children to address adults with a title. So its up to you and your parents, really.' He said 'righto Jugular'. Then he went red and silent like he had done something very naughty.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
LOL I'm definitely not clergy, but I often work with groups associated with the Catholic Church in Latin America, giving trainings etc. It happens rather often that these people call me padre [Smile]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Keith Jones, when Dean of Exeter, used to tell a funny story about when he was in conversation with a workman who clearly wasn't sure how to address him. To put him at his ease, Keith said 'Call me Dean'. 'OK, Dean,' came back the response, 'Call me Wayne'.

And all was well from then on.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
There's an interesting diversity in our congregation ... to most people (including young and old), I'm Mark. That's the same at the school in my capacity whether leading assemblies or as a Governor.

For a few people in the New Jerusalem - predominantly friends from Africa or the Caribbean, I'm Pastor mark. To one dear old lady from the carribbean to standard greeting is "Reverend" (just that) followed by a massive hug. To friends from Asia I'm Pastor (just that).

English less formal, others much more so - esp the Polish ladies who are RC but come to our Toddler/Parent Group. They are used to strict RC Priests I guess and It always surprises them that I talk to them! That's true even for those who have been in England for a long time, speak excellent English and better educated than I am.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
It seems the word "reverend" is found once in the KJV, Psalm 111:9 and it is talking about God, not someone else. So, I won't call someone that.

That and probably because of Matthew 23 and Mark 12:38-39 we keep it on a first name basis unless we are being introduced to someone new or you need to use the last name to specify which Bill, David or Matt you're talking about. While we have elders, deacons and a preacher, I'd expect any and all of them would feel like they are not doing a good job if someone feels so distant from them that the first name is not used.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Does anyone refer to the Cathedral dean as 'Dean firstname?'
It's certainly how we address our Dean in this lower right-hand corner of Wales. 'Father' is limited to the more Catholic clergy, 'Mother' is never used afaik. The only time I have been known as Reverend M is in the local primary school, where all the teachers are 'Miss/Mrs Lastname' (the only male teacher is the head...) and so using Rev Firstname wouldn't fit.

I do have colleagues who call me Padre and Your Reverence (Dad's Army throws a long shadow). I have been called Vicarage, but not by drunken homeless Mancunians. I'm not exactly anonymous on these boards, so I can say that if I were known as Father Lastname there could be a confusion with a TV character from the days when we had proper television shows... (continued p94)
 
Posted by Incensed (# 2670) on :
 
In the Church of England it should definitely be: The Reverend John Smith and not Reverend Smith etc. Speaking to him it would be Fr John, Fr Smith, Mr Smith, but not Rev John or Rev Smith!Lots of people have already dealt with this.

What infuriates me is the BBC removing the definite article. So you get Rev John Smith appearing under his face on the news, for example. Sadly, one even sees this approach from people who work/serve in the Church themselves.
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Incensed:


What infuriates me is the BBC removing the definite article. So you get Rev John Smith appearing under his face on the news, for example. Sadly, one even sees this approach from people who work/serve in the Church themselves.
I cannot understand this. Surely "Rev" is the absolutely standard abbreviation for "The Reverend"? I don't know anyone who pronounces it any other way. [Smile]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
It's the omission of the definite article, I think, that's objected to.
 
Posted by Incensed (# 2670) on :
 
yes - the lack of definite article in both written and spoken version is a matter of huge distress to me!
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Actually I object to both: for a start, "Rev" is the abbreviation for the Book of Revelation; second, the lack of definite article is jarring.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I do prefer 'The Revd....' if the abbreviated form is to be used. I think that last d may be a pond thing.
Tangent: The BBC does seem to be getting very sloppy with its use and misuse of ecclesiastical titles, but it's getting sloppy in lots of ways- e.g. hanging participles and a very frequent failure to differentiate between 'may' and 'might'. I had understood that jobs at the BBC were quiet fiercely competed for. If that is so, you'd have thought they could at least recruit a few people who knew how to use the English language properly and conventionally. But then I remember when I used to teach mixed seminar groups at a Russell Group university. If you ever came across a piece of written work that was egregiously sloppy in its grammar, syntax and use of sources, you could be almost certain that it came from one of the students on the journalism course.

[ 13. November 2015, 21:09: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually I object to both: for a start, "Rev" is the abbreviation for the Book of Revelation; second, the lack of definite article is jarring.
St is an abbreviation for both Saint and street - I can see no reason why Rev cannot be an abbreviation for both Revelation and reverend, just as rev is a common abbreviation for revolution as in revs per minute. A former and very popular chaplain at the school I and later Dlet attended was commonly known as Rev. Previously from the Methodist tradition, he was a muscular Christian. On his retirement, he was presented with a rugby jersey with REV in place of the usual number.

You are on stronger ground with the lack of the definite article.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
One of my acquaintances, very long active in the NDP, addresses one of his clerical fellows as Comrade Priest.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I do prefer 'The Revd....' if the abbreviated form is to be used. I think that last d may be a pond thing.
I think it is. I've never seen "Revd" used in an American context.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I do prefer 'The Revd....' if the abbreviated form is to be used. I think that last d may be a pond thing.
I think it is. I've never seen "Revd" used in an American context.
In Canada Revd is sometimes seen in Anglican circles (and once was among Presbyterians) and is found in older versions of The Canadian Style.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One of my acquaintances, very long active in the NDP, addresses one of his clerical fellows as Comrade Priest.
And his bishop?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One of my acquaintances, very long active in the NDP, addresses one of his clerical fellows as Comrade Priest.
And his bishop?
I think that his bishop had sympathies toward another party (I believe the Liberals) but in any case was not a party member and so therefore could not rate Comrade.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

Does anyone refer to the Cathedral dean as 'Dean firstname?'
It's bog standard in this province.
 
Posted by Cranmer's baggage* (# 4937) on :
 
I'm quite happy to be known by my first name.

I've discovered, to my chagrin, that you can't turn back the tide of popular (mis)usage. I'm scrupulous in using "The Rev'd" in formally addressing others, and on my own stationery. It is an adjective, not a noun! However, it has been adopted as a noun in these parts. Frequently, both in person and in the media, I hear a cleric described as "A reverend". It makes me shudder, but gives me something else to be vexed about when people refer to me as "Rev'd Firstname".

In my current situation things are further complicated because I have an associate priest working with me who shares the same first name. So I am frequently known as "Vicar firstname" or simply "Vicar".
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
In the little non-denom where I grew up, the pastor was "Rev. First Last" in writing (bulletin, sign out front) but always called "Pastor"--usually with no last name. Some fund. folk have problems with "Reverend", because only God should be revered.

I used to go to an Episcopal church with both male and female priests. One of the women wrote in the church bulletin that if you're going to call a male priest "Father", you should call her "Mother". Small problem: I never heard any of the male priests called "Father", only "Reverend". I presume someone had said something, and she felt disrespected.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
TBH, "The Reverend" and "The Very Reverend" have always sounded rather fussy and (sorry!) pompous to me. (FWIW, I also feel that way about "Very Special Agent" in FBI speak.)

Similarly with "Rev. Dr. First Last".
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
(FWIW, I also feel that way about "Very Special Agent" in FBI speak.)
OT, but I think it's only Anthony DiNozzo on NCIS who refers to himself that way.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Here's one for Francophone shipmates- is 'Abbé'/ 'M l'Abbé' still used? Who would you use it to, if anyone? Are there differences between different Francophone countries (e.g. France and Quebec)?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I remember hearing "Monsieur le curé" when visiting an island in the French West Indies.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Monsieur l'abbe' might be used by someone who is a regular or occasional churchgoer and respects the clergy.
Most people would have heard of Abbe'Pierre, a priest who worked with the poor.
Cure' which means parish priest is a word which is used a bit like English 'vicar' more or less to refer to any 'reverend'.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
(FWIW, I also feel that way about "Very Special Agent" in FBI speak.)
OT, but I think it's only Anthony DiNozzo on NCIS who refers to himself that way.
I'd thought so, too, but I've heard it elsewhere.
 
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :
 
There is no doubt that the omission of the 'The' from The Revd is an abomination. I was once most amused to be addressed on a west London street (by a lady asking for directions) as 'Your Reverence'.

I have noticed that the once respected newspaper The daily Telegraph has taken to referring to bishops as 'Mr Smith' (or Mr Ball, more recently), which just shows how ignorance is generally spreading.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Welcome, Bibaculus
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
There is no doubt that the omission of the 'The' from The Revd is an abomination. I was once most amused to be addressed on a west London street (by a lady asking for directions) as 'Your Reverence'.

I have noticed that the once respected newspaper The daily Telegraph has taken to referring to bishops as 'Mr Smith' (or Mr Ball, more recently), which just shows how ignorance is generally spreading.
But what do you call a Bishop who has no doctorate? In the good old days before ++Ramsey ended the practice because he couldn't bear to be handing out more Cambridge DD robes than Cambridge did (actually, I think, a piece of academic snobbery not out of character from a man who could be a little more snarky than people nowadays think) diocesans at least got Lambeth DDs with the pointy hat and that was nice and straightforward. But what now? 'Bishop Smith', I suppose. But when the Revd John Smith - correctly referred to as Mr Smith- gets elevateed to the episcopal purple, does it actually cease to be correct to call him 'Mr'? It sounds wrong, certainly, but is it? Is it permissible to refer to Deans and Archdeacons as 'Mr'? I can't remember.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Since one of the major roles of a bishop is to be a teacher or 'doctor', surely the use of Dr as a courtesy title is legitimate - more so than medics who only possess a MB degree. But within church circles Bishop Christian-name, or more formally Bishop Surname, should be acceptable. And in the media, simply surname – that is the Guardian house style outwith the leader columns, though I can't be sure I have seen them refer to a bishop by surname alone. Logical though.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I do prefer 'The Revd....' if the abbreviated form is to be used. I think that last d may be a pond thing.
I think it is. I've never seen "Revd" used in an American context.
When I'm typing the clergy's names in formal circumstances (in posh orders of service, on the back of the Cathedral bulletin, etc.) they get the full war-paint: "The Very Rev'd. [Christianname Surname]"; "The Rev'd. Dr. [Christianname Surname]".

In the ordinary order of service, when they're listed as the celebrant, officiant or preacher, they're "Dean [Christianname Surname]", "Fr. [Christianname Surname]" or "Dr. [Christianname Surname]". When it's the Bishop, he's "Bishop [Christianname Surname]".

In more informal bits of the bulletin, the Dean is usually styled "Dean [Surname]" while the Curate is "Fr. [Christianname]".

In a formal conversational setting I'd address the Curate as "Father" and the Dean as "Mr. Dean"; in informal conversation I address them by their Christian names.

[ 21. December 2015, 23:33: Message edited by: Piglet ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But what do you call a Bishop who has no doctorate?
"My Lord" [Biased]
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Is it permissible to refer to Deans and Archdeacons as 'Mr'? I can't remember.
"Mr Dean" and "Mr Archdeacon" to their faces, and "Dean of X" or "Archdeacon of Y" behind their backs? Where of course X /= Oxford or London.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
"My Lord"? Of course. I should have said 'how do you refer to?'. Mr Dean etc certainly; but having referred to 'The Dean of Barchester', could we then go on to refer to him as 'Mr Arabin'? I don't know.
the Guardian's practice of referring to people by their surnames only is I imagine rooted in some kind of deluded belief that it is the egalitarian thing to do (rather like their practice of not capitalising titles of offices of state and so on, so that 'foreign secretary' could refer equally to Mr Hammond or a Belgian PA). In fact it strikes me as oafish and ungainly; but then I adhere to the belief that in newspapers, pretty much the only people you should refer to by surname only are criminals (and only then really after conviction) and professional sportsmen/women.
If the teaching role of bishops is to be acknowledged by a courtesy title of doctor- an ingenious suggestion- the let it be accompanied by a Lambeth degree- perhaps not a DD for every bishop, but I'm sure a Doctorate in Ministry or some such could be devised, for which the very fact of being chosen and consecraated as a Bishop would be sufficient qualification, by way of recognition of existing learning andd practice.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The surname thing is an import from media practices in the USA (ie AP style). It is very common to introduce someone in a story by their full name, then refer to them hereafter as surname only. Most/many also do not include any titles, because this is considered to be confusing to readers (the famous AP "alphabet soup") and titles are hard to verify by hard-pressed journalists.

In the UK it used to be the practice to refer to everyone by a shortened version of their title (so the Rt Hon David Cameron was referred to as Mr Cameron or the Prime Minister) - but the fashion in many publications today is also to refer to the person by the surname.

In my small part of Anglicanism, the bishop is often referred to as "Our Bishop, firstname". I'm not sure I've heard anyone talk of the Dean as anything other than "The Dean", but other Canons usually have their full titles printed but are referred to as "Canon firstname". I received an email from one yesterday which was just signed - firstname.
 
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :
 
Gosh, I am beginning to think the Quakers have got the right idea....

Bishops, I think, should be 'My Lord' to their faces. When the Bishop of Gloucester took her seat in the House of Lords recently, I notice she called herself 'Rachel, Lord Bishop of Gloucster', when taking the oath, though (according to Giles Fraser on Thought for the Day) she declined to be called Right Reverend Father in God.

I think it appropriate to call a bishop Doctor (Doctrix?) regardless of academic degree possessed, for reasons stated. They are teachers, they once all got DDs on appointment. I think they can be considered doctors jure officii, if not jure dignitatis.

What I find most objectionable, maybe even more so than the omission of the definite article from 'The Reverend', is the modern roman Catholic use of Excellency for bishops. this, I think, was an early 20th century innovation. Apostolic Nuncios were 'Your Excellency' and diocesan bishops objected to not having the style. American Roman Catholic bishops seem to love it.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
In England, middle- and upper-class men used to habitually refer to their friends by surname alone (no forename, no "Mr.").

E.g. as in "The Diary of a Nobody": "My clear wife Carrie and I have just been a week in our new house, "The Laurels," Brickfield Terrace, Holloway--a nice six-roomed residence, not counting basement, with a front breakfast-parlour. We have a little front garden; and there is a flight of ten steps up to the front door, which, by-the-by, we keep locked with the chain up. Cummings, Gowing, and our other intimate friends always come to the little side entrance, which saves the servant the trouble of going up to the front door, thereby taking her from her work".

I seem to think that the Vicar here is always referred to by title alone.

[ 22. December 2015, 09:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
That's a feature of private education in England, where boys were not referred to by their first names until they were 16.

At my grammar school, which sought to ape private schools, my own classmates did not know or ask my first name until in the latter years of being there.

At my daughter's school, also coincidentally a grammar, boys and girls are all called by their first names - so that fashion seems to have been dispensed with.

On a slightly tangential note, it is interesting to think about the use of initials and titles in cricket teams. It used to be that the "Players" were referred to in one way and the "Gentlemen" another. Reflecting class and private school education, I guess.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's a feature of private education in England, where boys were not referred to by their first names until they were 16.
Yes, that was my experience in the late 60s/early 70s, although things got more informal towards the end of that period.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I haven't heard the title 'Excellency' being used for RC bishops in the UK,or certainly at least in the Scottish part of the UK.

'Eccellenza' is the usual form of address for bishops in Italy and is used in a number of other countries in the standard translation of the word.

I can see that as Americans don't have 'Lords'
(loaf guards) it would not be appropriate to address a bishop as 'My Lord'

In my experience in Scotland the title 'my Lord' is rarely used now for a bishop ,be he Catholic or Episcopalian,though archbishops are referred to as 'Your grace'.

Secular newspapers here often refer to bishops or archbishops as 'Mr'. I always assumed that it was simply a part of the way that important/wellknown clerics of the Church of Scotland are referred to.

In Scotland neither Catholic bishops nor indeed Episcopalian bishops have any legal title,their offices are not recognised by the state,though they are not denied either. Most of them, for what it is worth, do have the rights granted to them by the Lord Lyon King of Arms to have armorial bearings.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
That's interesting, I hadn't picked up that there was a difference between Scotland and England.

But I don't think this is about the "legal title", is it? I'm guessing that an Anglican bishop is only a Lord (officially?) if he is sitting as in the Lords Spiritual.

I'd have thought that all of these titles are honorific, rather than a legal title. Maybe there is a difference in the established church in England by law.

Anyway, I think all of these titles are pretty ridiculous. I'd never call anyone "honorable", unless they were, "your worship", which is ridiculous, "the reverend", because I don't consider it to be a given, or "my Lord" because he isn't.

I would only use titles which were actually applicable to the job they were doing - Canon, Dean, Archdeacon, etc. Vicar is the only exception for me, because it sounds silly to call someone Vicar Surname etc. I don't think I've ever used the formal title of any vicar I've ever had. Almost always Rev Surname or simply firstname.

When my daughter was tiny we were struggling to know what to call our vicar, but he insisted on being called by his firstname, even by the tiniest tots. In the end the school compromised and said they should call him Rev firstname.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Here's one for Francophone shipmates- is 'Abbé'/ 'M l'Abbé' still used? Who would you use it to, if anyone? Are there differences between different Francophone countries (e.g. France and Quebec)?
I'm not certain of practice in France, but in Canada M le Curé seems to have been preferred over M l'Abbé, but in practice it seems to be replaced by Père Marc or Père Malenfant. I had to address the former Archbishop of Ottawa at an event and he started laughing when I called him Votre Grandeur (your greatness), which our forms and titles book called for. Excellence is generally used more, and in writing Msgr Marc Malenfant-- the francophone press is fairly correct in its usage. The few occasions on which Anglican bishops are referred to in French (generally their existence is ignored), the RC forms are used.

Anglican bishops in Canada were once upon a time universally addressed as My Lord, as such was the practice from colonial times, but this now rarely happens. I was once told that one should distinguish between the bishops of Letters Patent dioceses (founded by the royal will, such as Québec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Montréal, Toronto, Rupertsland, and British Columbia) and those which were not but I do not know if anyone ever observed this distinction.

Current practice is Firstname Lastname, Bishop of Place, then aferward by Bishop Lastname unless the speaker wants to be more folksy, and then calls them Bishop Firstname.

For those interested in heraldic practice (both of you), the Canadian Heraldic Authority accords both RC bishops and Anglican bishops the usual mitres and tasselled hats. I once saw achievements for a rabbi, with cantor's hat, and of a Presbyterian minister, with a soft academic cap with the tassels of a DD, but cannot now find the website.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Baptist Trainfan
quote:
In England, middle- and upper-class men used to habitually refer to their friends by surname alone ...
To this day I still think of and refer to my oldest chum by surname. I was the youngest of 3 at the same school so I was XX minimus - so I have some friends who refer to me as that too.

But I'm not so old-fashioned that I expect wives to refer to their husband by surname alone, although I have a cousin who does just that.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
In Orthodoxy (at least in my experience in the US) a priest is referred to as "Father" or "Father firstname" both in second person and informally in third person. In third person, formally, a priest is "the Reverend" and an archpriest "the Very Reverend." A bishop is "Your/His Grace," an archbishop is "Your/His Excellence" and a metropolitan "Your/His Eminence." I believe a patriarch is "His Holiness" but since we (in the OCA) don't have one, I can't be sure of that.

What you don't call a priest is "Daddy-O" (or for those having women priests, "Mamacita"). And I don't believe we call anybody "His Nobs."

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In the little non-denom where I grew up, the pastor was "Rev. First Last" in writing (bulletin, sign out front) but always called "Pastor"--usually with no last name. Some fund. folk have problems with "Reverend", because only God should be revered.
People never take such logic-chopping to its natural conclusion. The Psalm says "the Lord is my shepherd" and not any human person. So "Pastor" is contraindicated. On the other hand Paul claims to be a "father" to his flock, yet these people reject that title. [Two face]

quote:
Originally posted by Incensed:
yes - the lack of definite article in both written and spoken version is a matter of huge distress to me!
Surely of all the things in this world to be distressed about....
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Actually, the aged Dragon Lady who used to run our Altar Guild used to refer to me in the third person as "His Nibs Fr Weber." It was, I'm sure, meant mostly affectionately.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Baptist Trainfan
quote:
In England, middle- and upper-class men used to habitually refer to their friends by surname alone ...
To this day I still think of and refer to my oldest chum by surname. I was the youngest of 3 at the same school so I was XX minimus - so I have some friends who refer to me as that too.

But I'm not so old-fashioned that I expect wives to refer to their husband by surname alone, although I have a cousin who does just that.
Mrs A refers to me by my surname, and so, therefore, do people who know me through her. One of my best friends and I have always called each other by our surnames, and his children now call me by it too. So when I write birthday cards and so on to them I sign them with my surname, but of course I put my initials in very small letters in front because I do not wish it to be thought that I am trying to pass myself off as a Peer of the Realm.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Baptist Trainfan
quote:
In England, middle- and upper-class men used to habitually refer to their friends by surname alone ...
To this day I still think of and refer to my oldest chum by surname. I was the youngest of 3 at the same school so I was XX minimus - so I have some friends who refer to me as that too.

But I'm not so old-fashioned that I expect wives to refer to their husband by surname alone, although I have a cousin who does just that.
Don't you address one another as Mr and Mrs L'organist respectively. After all, the Bennets did. Shouldn't they be a proper guide to behaviour everywhere?. [Razz]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm guessing that an Anglican bishop is only a Lord (officially?) if he is sitting as in the Lords Spiritual.
You'd think so, but when I worked for the Church Commissioners some 25 years ago, letters to diocesan bishops, whether they were in the Lords or not, were all addressed to e.g. 'The Lord Bishop of Barchester'; suffragans were e.g. 'The Right Reverend the Bishop of Silverbridge'. That was our practice but whether or not it was technically correct, I don't know.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
In a church near me, one of the wardens calls the vicar 'Father Boss.'
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
In NZ about .0001% of the Anglican clergy use "father"
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
In TEC, forms of address are all over the place, varying from just Bill or Sally at the bottom of the candle, up through Father Whose-Last-Name-Is-Spike at the peak. In some parts of the country, those parishes with female clergy refer to them as Mother, but other places seem to mumble and fight shy of it. [Big Grin]
Slightly down the candle one hears most frequently Father First-Name. Moving on down, address is usually Mister X, or Doctor if appropriate. Canons and Archdeacons are sorta rare.

Bishops are universally granted an honorary DD by the seminary from which they graduated at the first opportunity after their consecration. (Earned doctorates among the clergy are thin on the ground.) A bishop friend of mine referred to it as his 'donated divinity.' (The hood only made appearances at Evensong.)
Bishops seem most frequently to be addressed as Bishop Last-Name. (And also in writing, as the English custom of +Joseph See-name-in-Latin didn't make the ocean crossing, except for a few of the spikiest of the hierarchy. [Devil]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

At my daughter's school, also coincidentally a grammar, boys and girls are all called by their first names - so that fashion seems to have been dispensed with.
I spent some time at a formerly male establishment that was struggling with co-education. Boys were known by their surnames, and girls by their forenames, which always struck me as peculiar.

I assume the situation does not persist, by haven't been back to check.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Anglican practice here:

Use of Father/Mother First-name in Sydney is, as you might expect, not the style in every parish. In most, just the first name, or perhaps Rector, would be used in conversation with him (as it most certainly in those parishes not be with her). Outside Sydney, Father/Mother would be commonly used formally In daily practice, First-name alone would be the rule.

I think the last person in Australia who would address an Archbishop as Your Grace, or a Bishop as My Lord, died about 4 years ago. In my lifetime it's not been common. It is inappropriate. The usual these days in conversation with one would be simply Archbishop or Bishop. Writing or conversation about one, the common practice would be Archbishop Glenn, Bishop Greg and so forth. Deans the same. The recently retired Bishop Robert Forsyth, the Regional Bishop of South Sydney, was very popular and highly respected throughout the entire diocese. He was usually referred to as Bishop Rob.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I spent some time at a formerly male establishment that was struggling with co-education. Boys were known by their surnames, and girls by their forenames, which always struck me as peculiar.

I assume the situation does not persist, by haven't been back to check.
I agree. That is peculiar. It isn't, though, all that surprising. I can imagine it arising without anyone having thought about it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I spent some time at a formerly male establishment that was struggling with co-education. Boys were known by their surnames, and girls by their forenames, which always struck me as peculiar.

I assume the situation does not persist, by haven't been back to check.
I agree. That is peculiar. It isn't, though, all that surprising. I can imagine it arising without anyone having thought about it.
I'm not sure it is so surprising: my boys school had a "sister" school down the road. As I said, most of the school was known by their surname. In casual conversation, boys were known just by their surname, in formal situations it was Mr Surname. At the girls school, firstnames were used and in formal situations it was Miss Firstname Surname.

A joined school with staff from both former schools likely continued with the tradition. Again, this is the situation with my daughter's school also, but everyone now seems to be referred to as Firstname Surname. It wasn't so long ago that they joined, and perhaps the boys school tradition had already depreciated.

[ 23. December 2015, 09:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
My school was simply firstname (sometimes firstname surname if there were two people present with the smae firstname and it wasn't otherwise obvious who was being addressed). If Mr/Miss Surname was used it was often accompanied by "report to the headteacher immediately".

Teachers were always addressed Mr/Miss/Mrs Surname, or Sir/Miss.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In casual conversation, boys were known just by their surname, in formal situations it was Mr Surname.
We never used "Mr", although we did use first names in more casual contexts. It was quite a shock when I went to University for my interview and we were all referred to as "Mr" and "Miss£".

[ 23. December 2015, 10:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Yesterday in Glasgow cathedral a special service was held in commemoration of the victims of a horrific accident which took place in the city one year ago.

The cathedral, which is the only pre Reformation cathedral in mainland Scotland still in one piece, more or less as it was before the Reformation, is in the care of Historic Scotland and used by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

I quote now from 'The Scotsman' which claims to be 'Scotland's National Newspaper' :

'Yesterday's service was led by the Right Reverend Dr Gregor Duncan, Scottish Episcopal Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway. Mr Duncan said ...........'

Now I was not at the service but I believe that it was 'led' ( a good Presbyterian term) by the cathedral's minister ,Dr Laurence Whitley.

The good bishop gave the sermon.

Again I have no idea of the bishop's academic distinctions , but at one time he was said to be Dr Duncan and then described as 'Mr'Duncan.

Even if the reporter was unable to call him Bishop Duncan you might have thought that she would have written of him as 'Dr' Duncan, that is unless she knows something about him, which I don't.
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
quote:
posed by Forthview:
'Yesterday's service was led by the Right Reverend Dr Gregor Duncan, Scottish Episcopal Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway. Mr Duncan said ...........'

Now I was not at the service but I believe that it was 'led' ( a good Presbyterian term) by the cathedral's minister ,Dr Laurence Whitley.

The good bishop gave the sermon.

Again I have no idea of the bishop's academic distinctions , but at one time he was said to be Dr Duncan and then described as 'Mr'Duncan.

Even if the reporter was unable to call him Bishop Duncan you might have thought that she would have written of him as 'Dr' Duncan, that is unless she knows something about him, which I don't.
Yes, I noticed this similarly in Metro. Bishop Gregor has a PhD from Cambridge, awarded I'm pretty sure before he was ordained. So, yes, Dr Duncan would indeed be correct if one felt unable to use the full ecclesiastical title.

(and yes, we usually refer to him as Bishop Gregor in the third person or just Bishop or Gregor to his face depending how well you know him!)

[ 23. December 2015, 13:38: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I once heard a story, possibly apocryphal:

In England and most of the world, earned doctorates are considered to be more significant than honorary ones.

In Scotland the reverse is true: better to be to be recognised and honoured for your contribution as the "true" doctorate, the other is a scummy thing that someone has tried to earn.

[Big Grin]

[ 23. December 2015, 14:39: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I see that the Church Times, which ought to get things right, refers to the PB of TEC in a headline this week as 'Archbishop Curry'. Surely this is incorrect- or is it an accepted if anomalous usage? TEC shipmates please advise!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

At my daughter's school, also coincidentally a grammar, boys and girls are all called by their first names - so that fashion seems to have been dispensed with.
I spent some time at a formerly male establishment that was struggling with co-education. Boys were known by their surnames, and girls by their forenames, which always struck me as peculiar.

I assume the situation does not persist, by haven't been back to check.
For the sake of equality, i know a maths teacher who decided to call the girls by their surnames too.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
For the sake of equality, i know a maths teacher who decided to call the girls by their surnames too.
I am myself a maths teacher. At our school it is customary to call the students by their first names, but last year in one of my classes there were two students with first names with the same first syllable, and when I would start to say one of their names the other one would get ready to answer, and then be frustrated when it was not them. So they asked me to call them by their last names. Which I did.

[ 23. December 2015, 15:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I see that the Church Times, which ought to get things right, refers to the PB of TEC in a headline this week as 'Archbishop Curry'. Surely this is incorrect- or is it an accepted if anomalous usage? TEC shipmates please advise!
Well, his office is certainly analogous to that of Archbishop. But TEC, in its founding, determined not to use that title and created the title of "Presiding Bishop" instead, so that's the one that should be used.
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
It is only recently that folks in TEC have begun to title the Presiding Bishop 'Most Reverend,' although 'Right Reverend' is still technically correct. It is a logical extension, as the PB acts as head of the province.
It is also within living memory that the PB has had a primatial cross carried before him/her. And it's a rather paltry item, IMO, looking more like a verge than a cross. YVMV, of course.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, his office is certainly analogous to that of Archbishop. But TEC, in its founding, determined not to use that title and created the title of "Presiding Bishop" instead, so that's the one that should be used.
I've always thought "Presiding Bishop" to be deliberately a temporary-sounding title: this is the bishop who is currently presiding; later he or she will no longer be presiding (although of course continuing to be a bishop). Or perhaps it was an attempt to parallel the USA government by having a president, except in this case they wanted to keep the word "bishop" in there. So it's an episcopal form of "president." I suppose the simple "president" title might leave the impression it's open to a non-bishop, which it isn't, currently.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I've always thought "Presiding Bishop" to be deliberately a temporary-sounding title: this is the bishop who is currently presiding; later he or she will no longer be presiding (although of course continuing to be a bishop).
Well no bishop presides forever. All of them eventually die. And, once a bishop in Narnia, always a bishop in Narnia.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
but last year in one of my classes there were two students with first names with the same first syllable, and when I would start to say one of their names the other one would get ready to answer, and then be frustrated when it was not them. So they asked me to call them by their last names. Which I did.
When Mrs C taught in a primary school, she had two pairs of children in one class who had the same forenames, and had to go to the fourth letter of their surnames to find a distinction (so no John A and John B for her...)

The odds of that happening twice in one class (of 30-ish kids) have to be pretty slim.

[ 24. December 2015, 04:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I am 'the Officer' when referred to by other parties. To my face I am Major Antony or just Major. Formally I am Major Mugford. My full title is, of course, Major Antony Mugford.

I am called Antony in private.

My wife is the same - just with Fiona.

Until about 20 years ago we were officially designated Lieutenant, Captain or Major AND MRS Mugford, even though the MRS was a Lieutenant, etc, in her own right.

Her official designation was Mrs Lieutenant Fiona Mugford, Mrs Lieutenant (Captain or Major). This was because the woman always took on the rank of her husband - even if it meant a demotion.

At that time it was never Rank + Christian name.

To complicate matters, some people were not Mrs Major Smith, but Major Mrs Smith! That happened if Mrs X was a retired Major and then married a non-officer Mr Smith.

If an officer has a doctorate, he is Major Dr Smith but always called Major Smith.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Small tangent- reminded of the story of the German refugees who joined the British Army in the Pioneer Corps in WW2- all highly educated academics, lawyers, etc, all punctilious in correctly addressng each other- 'herr doktor professor' and so on. Then one of tthem is promoted and when his friend addresses him as 'herr doktor professor' he reprovingly taps the single stripe on his sleeve: 'no no, if you please now it is herr lance-corporal doktor professor!'

[ 27. December 2015, 14:47: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
Those from Germanic lands/universities were/perhaps still are quite punctilious about their 'herr doktor' address.

A holder of a doctorate from a German (or perhaps Austrian) university emigrated to the US in the 1930s. In his book 'Best Regards to Aida' he tells of frequently being asked for medical advice in NYC until he gave up the use of the title.

BTW it is a great book. IIRC the author is Hans Heinsheimer.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
And Italians. I know Catarella is an effusive caricature, but his insistence on addressing Montalbano as 'Dottore" reflects a general tradition.

Does anybody know why 'Doctor' in anglosaxon lands is most commonly used for medical practitioners, even if they don't possess a doctorate?
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Does anybody know why 'Doctor' in anglosaxon lands is most commonly used for medical practitioners, even if they don't possess a doctorate?
On this side of the pond, physicians and dentists do possess doctorates.

"Doctor" is commonly used for anyone in academia or in the church with a PhD or other doctorate. (On the other hand, lawyers with a JD are hardly ever addressed as "Doctor.") However, referring to someone as "a doctor" always means a physician/medical doctor.

Which makes me think I see how we got to calling someone "a reverend."
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
On this side of the pond, physicians and dentists do possess doctorates.
Or, at least, degrees that are called doctorates. [Two face]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
On this side of the pond, physicians and dentists do possess doctorates.
Or, at least, degrees that are called doctorates. [Two face]
True enough. [Big Grin]

But they are post-baccalaureate degrees that require more in terms of time and study than a master's degree would, so I'm not inclined to question the appropriateness of calling them doctorates.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Does anybody know why 'Doctor' in anglosaxon lands is most commonly used for medical practitioners, even if they don't possess a doctorate?
On this side of the pond, physicians and dentists do possess doctorates.

"Doctor" is commonly used for anyone in academia or in the church with a PhD or other doctorate. (On the other hand, lawyers with a JD are hardly ever addressed as "Doctor.") However, referring to someone as "a doctor" always means a physician/medical doctor.

Which makes me think I see how we got to calling someone "a reverend."
Canada still has a thousand or so Irish & UK immigrant physicians without doctorates-- but even in Ireland my MB BCh BAO friends were called Doctor socially and professionally, but they all definitely enjoyed calling surgeons Mr or Mrs. I tried it here with a thoracic surgeon (Bombay-trained) and he accused me of having gone native when I was in Ireland.

As a bureaucrat at academic meetings I was often addressed as Dr Aleut, only to cause consternation by noting that federal government practice was that public servants only used scientific doctorates. Even PhD ministers ended up being called Mr/Ms while our scientific or medical ministers were Dr Bennett or Dr Philpott.

As far as JDs are concerned, some of us find the degree too embarrassing to speak of. What was wrong with an LLB?

But back to the clergy-- the Irish Times practice was to always use Dr of a bishop-- on the grounds that a chunk of their readership would cheerfully quote Apostolicae Curae if the CoI prelate was referred to as Bishop Brabazon of Kilmacduagh, while another chunk would quote Saepius Officio if he were not. However, nobody minded bishops being called doctor-- usually they were given DDs with a few years of consecration but there were also letters (the Irish Times had the best, although the late Canon Brown criticized a certain dean for being a column of the Irish Times rather than a pillar of the church) suggesting that bishops were doctors by the nature of their teaching office.

The use of reverend in the semi-literate manner now even features in academic work and popular history (a recently-found in public transit bodice ripper about the Empress Josephine tells us how the reverend performed the secret marriage of Caroline Bonaparte). The need for vigilance never ends.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Those from Germanic lands/universities were/perhaps still are quite punctilious about their 'herr doktor' address.
Ditto in Portugal, where, 30 years ago anyway, Ph.Ds still weren't considered to be "proper" doctorates (as used to be the case in Oxbridge).

So a Ph.D. would be called "Doutor" (abbreviated at Dr.) but a Doctor of (say) Science would be addressed as "Senhor Doutor" and always written as "Doutor" in full.

Things may be more relaxed today.

[ 29. December 2015, 08:30: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
In Austria where titles are,I think, still important ,Herr Professor is the ordinary title for a secondary school teacher.If also a Doktor then Herr Doktor is preferred.

The Head teacher of a secondary school may still have the title of Herr Hofrat (adviser to the court) going back to imperial times.

In my time the bishop of Klagenfurt was addressed as Herr Doktor Doktor because he was a doctor of both state and canon law.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As far as JDs are concerned, some of us find the degree too embarrassing to speak of. What was wrong with an LLB?
Two baccalaureate degrees back-to-back? Injury to pride? What I find humorous is that the "advanced" degree after a JD is an LLM.

JDs have been the norm in the US long enough that there are relatively few practicing LLBs left. But I've only known one JD who wanted to be addressed as "Dr.," and only a handful who put "JD" after their names. The rest of us find that laughable.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

JDs have been the norm in the US long enough that there are relatively few practicing LLBs left. But I've only known one JD who wanted to be addressed as "Dr.," and only a handful who put "JD" after their names. The rest of us find that laughable.
The main use of putting JD after your name seems to be if you haven't passed the bar, and are working in a role where you don't need to but your legal training is still relevant.
 
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As far as JDs are concerned, some of us find the degree too embarrassing to speak of. What was wrong with an LLB?
Two baccalaureate degrees back-to-back? Injury to pride? What I find humorous is that the "advanced" degree after a JD is an LLM.

JDs have been the norm in the US long enough that there are relatively few practicing LLBs left. But I've only known one JD who wanted to be addressed as "Dr.," and only a handful who put "JD" after their names. The rest of us find that laughable.
When I lived in the US, much merriment was caused by a man with a JD who was, after serving in a post in the George W Bush White House, appointed President of a small Catholic college, and wished, on the strength of his JD, to be called 'Doctor'.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
]When I lived in the US, much merriment was caused by a man with a JD who was, after serving in a post in the George W Bush White House, appointed President of a small Catholic college, and wished, on the strength of his JD, to be called 'Doctor'.
The lawyers I've known of who put "JD" after their names have been in academia (though not in law schools), and it seemed they felt the need to keep up with their colleagues withs PhDs and the like. Odd, but at least they never asked to be called "Doctor."

I've known one practicing attorney who did want to be addressed as "Doctor." Unfortunately, his legal skills fell far short of his self-image.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
The relatively new dean for religious life at my nearby American non-denominational university had/has been having trouble finding a reasonable title (or at least a good handful have been seen). Qualifications:

1. Anglican/Episcopal priest (ordained in England but works in the US).
2. Former dean of a US Episcopal Cathedral
3. Ph.D. in history
4. Current status is as a university dean (for religious life) and professor in the religious studies at the same university.

So what would be the appropriate title and terms of address especially given the university is non-denominational (the dean for religious life need not be Christian)?
 
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
]When I lived in the US, much merriment was caused by a man with a JD who was, after serving in a post in the George W Bush White House, appointed President of a small Catholic college, and wished, on the strength of his JD, to be called 'Doctor'.
The lawyers I've known of who put "JD" after their names have been in academia (though not in law schools), and it seemed they felt the need to keep up with their colleagues withs PhDs and the like. Odd, but at least they never asked to be called "Doctor."

I've known one practicing attorney who did want to be addressed as "Doctor." Unfortunately, his legal skills fell far short of his self-image.
Of course in Italy, the holder of any university degree is Dottore. So a lawyer is Dott. n or m. A PhD is Dottore di Ricerca
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The relatively new dean for religious life at my nearby American non-denominational university had/has been having trouble finding a reasonable title (or at least a good handful have been seen). Qualifications:

1. Anglican/Episcopal priest (ordained in England but works in the US).
2. Former dean of a US Episcopal Cathedral
3. Ph.D. in history
4. Current status is as a university dean (for religious life) and professor in the religious studies at the same university.

So what would be the appropriate title and terms of address especially given the university is non-denominational (the dean for religious life need not be Christian)?
A straightforward response is difficult without knowing more detail, but I would suggest that if a dean for religious life (a tangent on this designation is possible...) is primarily pastoral in role, then Dean X (Mr Dean is likely too 19c/20c) or Fr/women equivalent X in speech, and in writing Revd Firstname Lastname, Dean for Religious Life. If they were i/c of an ecclesiastical establishment of several chaplains, one could argue for Very Revd, but as a non-ecclesial office, then not. Unless the job is scholarly in nature, forget the Dr or Prof unless in academic committees, where the absence of Dr leaves him troglodytic in status.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I'd have thought The Revd Professor would be all you need. In British usage, academic deans (including deans of chapel) are IME sometimes addressed as 'Dean' and are certainly referred to as 'The Dean' but it's not a title as such, just a job title.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
Interesting. So former cathedral deans don't retain 'the very reverend'? I note the dean has dropped to just

The Reverend Professor firstname lastname, Dean for Religious Life

(less formally as Dean firstname lastname [they already have another Dean with the same lastname])

though started her tenure with 'the very reverend' which was highly confusing to many who were unfamiliar with that term. On her academic department web page, it is just "Professor firstname lastname" (which fits with the university's practice for other academic officers in their roles as professors).

As for 'Dean for Religious Life', originally the university church had a pastor, the first one lasted about 4 months before apparently clashing with the university founder (no one was really willing to say what happened exactly though the choir was mentioned by one side and denied by the other) and was never replaced. His second in command continued to be in charge for the next 33 years before retiring and was referred to as 'University Chaplain'. At some point the title became 'Dean of the Chapel' (or 'Dean of the Church', there seems to have been no real consistency). In the 1990s a rabbi was hired as an associate dean and it was felt that the title should change to reflect that the dean and the associate deans were responsible for all religious life on campus and not just those who used the church.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Perhaps one could refer to her as the Abbess or the Chapel Lama. This would avoid so many complications.
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Here's one for Francophone shipmates- is 'Abbé'/ 'M l'Abbé' still used? Who would you use it to, if anyone? Are there differences between different Francophone countries (e.g. France and Quebec)?
I'm not certain of practice in France, but in Canada M le Curé seems to have been preferred over M l'Abbé, but in practice it seems to be replaced by Père Marc or Père Malenfant. I had to address the former Archbishop of Ottawa at an event and he started laughing when I called him Votre Grandeur (your greatness), which our forms and titles book called for. Excellence is generally used more, and in writing Msgr Marc Malenfant-- the francophone press is fairly correct in its usage. The few occasions on which Anglican bishops are referred to in French (generally their existence is ignored), the RC forms are used.

Anglican bishops in Canada were once upon a time universally addressed as My Lord, as such was the practice from colonial times, but this now rarely happens. I was once told that one should distinguish between the bishops of Letters Patent dioceses (founded by the royal will, such as Québec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Montréal, Toronto, Rupertsland, and British Columbia) and those which were not but I do not know if anyone ever observed this distinction.

Current practice is Firstname Lastname, Bishop of Place, then aferward by Bishop Lastname unless the speaker wants to be more folksy, and then calls them Bishop Firstname.

For those interested in heraldic practice (both of you), the Canadian Heraldic Authority accords both RC bishops and Anglican bishops the usual mitres and tasselled hats. I once saw achievements for a rabbi, with cantor's hat, and of a Presbyterian minister, with a soft academic cap with the tassels of a DD, but cannot now find the website.
I know only that recent Anglican bishops of Montréal (of whatever gender) have been Mgr in French. Abbé seems to be favoured by the traditionalist FSSP parish in Ottawa. "Père" is properly for a religious priest.

[ 30. December 2015, 06:59: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Interesting, thank you. I had thought that Abbe might be quite a conservative usage.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Mgr + name of bishop used to be very common for RC bishops in the UK.Sometimes also spelled as Msgr or even occasionally. as Mons,which is the usual Italian abbreviation for Monsignor.
 
Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :
 
Your dean would probably be, from my experience with academic titles and US Episcopal etiquette, most formally "The Very Reverend Doctor Johanna Cerva, Dean for Religious Life and Professor of Religious Studies."

Whether her present deanship confers Very Reverend status is a matter of debate (it's similar in some ways to both cathedral and seminary deanships, but also to secular academic deanships which typically wouldn't), but I've seen a number of cathedral and rural/urban deans continue to use the title (and in certain cases a monsignor's cassock) when their time is up so I'd consider her justified in using it if desired. Of course this can be condensed depending on the desired emphasis - since it's a ministerial appointment I wouldn't lose The Reverend, but Very and Doctor are both optional and using both at once might be a bit overwhelming. Whether to use Dean and Professor together depends on the extent to which a dean identifies with the department in which he or she holds an appointment (and typically tenure); I've known a lot of academic administrators who will continue to assert Professor, especially if they are fully promoted and tenured, to emphasize their status as members of the faculty.

The most appropriate formal spoken address is Dean Cerva. All college and university deans are properly so addressed, and I have a hard time imagining another title that would take absolute precedence over it (maybe Your Holiness). Dr. Cerva is not incorrect but is more likely to be seen off campus, particularly by those uncomfortable with religious titles or in situations where they don't seem appropriate. As the person in question is an Anglican priest, Mother is an appropriate title particularly in the context of pastoral relationships, but it doesn't take precedence over Dean in an academic context.

The Reverend Professor is an interesting choice of written title, but one that makes a lot of sense in respecting her dual vocation as priest and scholar. I know that some universities tend to prefer Professor as the title for all professors regardless of degree held since not all have a doctorate (in fine arts, architecture, and my own library science, the master's degree is ordinarily terminal and tenurable, and in other fields such as journalism, professional experience plus an MA can suffice), and under the theory that the job is more prestigious than the degree required to get it.

Of course, religious titles especially are quite nebulous. I know a retired Episcopal deacon whom everyone at church calls Father. He was ordained relatively early in the recent history of the permanent diaconate and I presume the title came about by Orthodox analogy.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JeffTL:
I know a retired Episcopal deacon whom everyone at church calls Father. He was ordained relatively early in the recent history of the permanent diaconate and I presume the title came about by Orthodox analogy.
In my experience of UK Orthodox priests are Father Costas, deacons are Deacon Costas and quite right too.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I couldn't believe my ears when I heard a reporter on the 8 am National news programme this morning speak of 'an Anglican reverend' who had given his opinion on standardising the date of Easter.
I've just sent them an explanation of the usage of 'Reverend' alone as a term of address (or reference in this case) being jocular, informal, most often used by people who have little acquaintance with the church and the formality of its titles. I suggested that she could have spoken of 'an Anglican clergyman/spokesman/vicar''
Since the news item then referred to 'Reverend Whatever' I added a bit about why it should have been 'the Reverend Mr Whatever'.
They may not know what an adjective is.

GG

[ 17. January 2016, 19:19: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
GG - I wish you had contributed to this thread where the same issue came up.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
GG - I wish you had contributed to this thread where the same issue came up.
Of course it has been thoroughly thrashed out here, though I didn't have time to read the lot and see whether the solecism of referring to a clergyman as 'a reverend' had been recorded. I was too staggered to do anything but sit down and express my horror in an email to National Radio.

GG
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0