When I was first ordained, more than 30 years ago, I was taught that, if writing to a Bishop formally, the correct opening was, "My Lord Bishop". Back then the CoE didn't even have women deacons. What would be the correct way to address a woman Bishop formally?
Crockfords says either "Dear Bishop" or "My Lord/Lady"* is acceptable. "Your Grace" is reserved for Archbishops in the Church of England, although it is used for Roman Catholic Bishops in England and Ireland (I don't know about Scotland or Wales). I wonder if this isn't a bit of one-upmanship on their part, though, as RC bishops elsewhere in the Anglophone world are more usually addressed as "Your Excellency."
The Irish Times used to and may still refer to all bishops, whether Church of Ireland or RC, as "Dr. X." This was done because, traditionally, all bishops were assumed to be doctors (DDs for the Anglicans, STDs or JCDs for the Roman Catholics). And, at a time when it could be contentious to appear to make a judgment on who was a "real" bishop, the academic title was seen as the least likely to offend any party.
*Choose one as appropriate. I would not recommend addressing any singular bishop as "My Lord/Lady," as many bishops are sensitive creatures and likely to take offense.
If you had to choose such an outdated manner of address, bishops would be My Lady/Lord. Archbishops are at least the non-gender specific Your Grace. I don't know about the Presiding Bishop of TEC but that position should rank as an archbishop. Next to no-one in the Anglican Church here would use those terms though, it's simply Bishop or Archbishop. One, only on, of the St Sanity congregation retained use of the appellation though, but he also knelt before bishops and tried to kiss the episcopal ring.
Catholic Church here keeps the old formalities though and adds Your Eminence to the rankings.
If you had to choose such an outdated manner of address, bishops would be My Lady/Lord. Archbishops are at least the non-gender specific Your Grace. I don't know about the Presiding Bishop of TEC but that position should rank as an archbishop. Next to no-one in the Anglican Church here would use those terms though, it's simply Bishop or Archbishop.
Per the style guide of The Episcopal Church (which does indeed call for capitalization of “The”), the presiding bishop is addressed simply as “Bishop.” He or she, however, is styled as “the Most Reverend” rather than “the Right Reverend.”
Strictly speaking, ++Kay of Perth was the first woman Anglican Abp, but that overlooks Bp Katherine's election as presiding bishop - surely the equivalent of Abp.
According to the then current ECUSA canons, yes, the equivalent of an Archbishop, but in earlier time (1950s) the PECUSA was chairman of the House of Bishops and ex-officio chairman of a helluvalot of committees, but not technically primate. The role changed fairly slowly. I think a start was made in the 1940s when St George Tucker became the first full-time PB when he resigned as Bishop of Virginia. Henry Sherrill's tenure saw a good deal of centralisation in PECUSA, but I think the Primate issue did not come up until the 1970s.
I would not recommend addressing any singular bishop as "My Lord/Lady," as many bishops are sensitive creatures and likely to take offense.
Indeed. In my experience Bishops are as unpredictable as the rest of us. Some are genuinely relaxed; others quick to take offence if they feel they are not being treated with enough respect.
Crockfords says either "Dear Bishop" or "My Lord/Lady"* is acceptable. "Your Grace" is reserved for Archbishops in the Church of England, although it is used for Roman Catholic Bishops in England and Ireland (I don't know about Scotland or Wales). I wonder if this isn't a bit of one-upmanship on their part, though, as RC bishops elsewhere in the Anglophone world are more usually addressed as "Your Excellency."
The Irish Times used to and may still refer to all bishops, whether Church of Ireland or RC, as "Dr. X." This was done because, traditionally, all bishops were assumed to be doctors (DDs for the Anglicans, STDs or JCDs for the Roman Catholics). And, at a time when it could be contentious to appear to make a judgment on who was a "real" bishop, the academic title was seen as the least likely to offend any party.
*Choose one as appropriate. I would not recommend addressing any singular bishop as "My Lord/Lady," as many bishops are sensitive creatures and likely to take offense.
I was pleased to see the reference to The Irish Times practice, which saved many trees from dying as Outraged Papist would reply to the claims of Supercilious Rector for letter after letter (I recall one cleric being described having chosen to be a Column of the Times given that he was incapable of being a Pillar of the Church).
I am old enough to recall My Lord being frequently used of Canadian bishops but it can only be found among those who are fond of archaic forms or who want to annoy the bishop in the best passive-aggressive manner possible. I have only heard of women bishops being called Bishop, and I suppose that our two women metropolitans get Archbishop rather than Your Grace in these days of informality. Now that we have a woman primate, I imagine that she will get Archbishop or Primate, but we might get an occasional Your Grace.
When I was first ordained, more than 30 years ago, I was taught that, if writing to a Bishop formally, the correct opening was, "My Lord Bishop". Back then the CoE didn't even have women deacons. What would be the correct way to address a woman Bishop formally?
My Lord Bishop.
There are some titles that are as they are, regardless of the gender of the person holding them. So HMQ (female) is Duke of Lancaster.
Of course, because of the age of her uncles she was never heir apparent: however, had she been she would have been Prince of Wales and Lord of the Isles.
When I was first ordained, more than 30 years ago, I was taught that, if writing to a Bishop formally, the correct opening was, "My Lord Bishop". Back then the CoE didn't even have women deacons. What would be the correct way to address a woman Bishop formally?
My Lord Bishop.
There are some titles that are as they are, regardless of the gender of the person holding them. So HMQ (female) is Duke of Lancaster.
Of course, because of the age of her uncles she was never heir apparent: however, had she been she would have been Prince of Wales and Lord of the Isles.
She is also Duke of Normandy, as evidenced by the traditional version of the loyal toast used in the Channel Islands — "The Queen, our Duke."*
A female Lord Mayor is indeed referred to as "Lord Mayor." "Lady Mayoress" always and only refers to the female companion of a Lord Mayor ("Mayor's Consort" for a male companion).†In some ways, I like this system, as it suggests that the office is more important than the gender of the occupant. However, it does fall prey to the insidious suggestion that the female form is always inferior in dignity. This insidious tradition is deeply built into our culture, which is why there can be Queen consorts but not King consorts. The unspoken assumption being that kings are always superior to queens.
In this tradition, there is some limited precedent for the title "Lady Bishopess" — referring, naturally to the wife of a Lord Bishop — but this seems to have been more popular in novels than in actual official use.
German, of course, is very precise, if a minefield for the uninitiated. "Frau Pastor" refers to the wife of a Protestant pastor, whilst "Frau Pastorin" refers to a female pastor. Whether the Old Catholics follow the same logic with "Pfarrer," I do not know.
This all goes to show how many different approaches there can be, and have been. Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States were traditionally addressed as "Mr. Justice," but when Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed as the first female justice, they all dropped the "Mr." and just used "Justice." Although I doubt anyone thought of it at the time, this does make it easier to imagine a non-binary justice. In contrast, Nancy Pelosi is "Madam Speaker" and, as Secretaries of State, Hilary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, and Madeline Albright were each addressed as "Madam Secretary" within the United States.‡
And no discussion of the matter would be complete without mentioning Girton College, Cambridge (historically, but no longer, a single-sex women's college). I believe it has been decided that the head of house will always be known as "Mistress" regardless of gender. The rationale being that, if Peterhouse and Christ's can have female Masters (which they both do at present), then Girton may have a male Mistress, although to date they have all been women. I like Girton's solution very much, as it comes across as both deeply traditional and rather radical.
*In Jèrriais, "La Reine, not' Duke," which to a confused Anglophone might sound like a denial of the Queen's Dukedom, until one realizes that "not" in this case is cognate of "notre."
†Not necessarily a spouse in either case. I was once at a small supper in the Deanery of an English Cathedral with the Lord Mayor and her Lady Mayoress, and was very surprised when each mentioned that she wanted to get back to see her husband!
‡Outside of the United States, each was appropriately addressed as "Your Excellency" according to diplomatic protocol.
Catholic Church here keeps the old formalities though and adds Your Eminence to the rankings.
Your Eminence for a Cardinal; Your Excellency for a bishop, which I always find a bit odd, but there you go. I have had my share of bishops for whom 'Your Excellency' would have been ironic or sarcastic.
In contrast, Nancy Pelosi is "Madam Speaker" and, as Secretaries of State, Hilary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, and Madeline Albright were each addressed as "Madam Secretary" within the United States.‡
. . . .
‡Outside of the United States, each was appropriately addressed as "Your Excellency" according to diplomatic protocol.
[tangent]
FWIW, there are about a dozen states in the US—mostly states that were among the original 13, which would have had colonial governors prior to independence—where the governor is properly styled His/Her Excellency. In practice, this often seems to be done only on formal occasions; at least, that's the case here.
Odd thing in the RCC where informally bishops are referred to as Bishop Eric, and deacons are referred to as Deacon Joseph, but priests are referred to as Father Tom - ie not by their rank but by their pastoral role. I found it clunky when permanent (rather than transitioning <snigger>) deacons came upon the scene to see chaps referred to as Deacon Frank.
We don't have excellencies in the UK unless they are Papal Nuncios and get the diplomatic monicker. Lordships, Graces and Eminences - but pretty much fallen into disuse.
The whole thing is changing. Our PP is vicar general (number two in the diocese) and a canon. Never seen him in purple trimmings and he would give you a thick lip if you called him Canon Jack. Yet the bishops MC who is a humble Father Bill likes to wear full episcopal purple cassock and cumerbund when he assists the bish at mass.
Yet the bishops MC who is a humble Father Bill likes to wear full episcopal purple cassock and cumerbund when he assists the bish at mass.
Properly, he should wear the purple cassock with no fascia (which is what I assume you mean by "cumerbund"). This is indeed a mark of humility — he dresses in purple, because it is the livery color of bishops, and he is the servant of the bishop. No different than the Queen's footmen and grooms (and, indeed, her chaplains) wearing scarlet, which is her royal livery color.
FWIW, there are about a dozen states in the US—mostly states that were among the original 13, which would have had colonial governors prior to independence—where the governor is properly styled His/Her Excellency.
I've called our governor many things, but none of them is a variation of "excellent" in any form.
(I think our Bishop prefers being addressed as "Bishop Jennifer.")
FWIW, there are about a dozen states in the US—mostly states that were among the original 13, which would have had colonial governors prior to independence—where the governor is properly styled His/Her Excellency.
I've called our governor many things, but none of them is a variation of "excellent" in any form.
It is about this point when I my Congregational antecedents were right in arguing against even the use of Rev and referring to all clerics as Mr$. Yes I know it comes from Reformed egalitarianism but I just like the simplicity of it.
$ 19th century or earlier largely so there were not female clerics, at least officially
It is about this point when I my Congregational antecedents were right in arguing against even the use of Rev and referring to all clerics as Mr$. Yes I know it comes from Reformed egalitarianism but I just like the simplicity of it.
$ 19th century or earlier largely so there were not female clerics, at least officially
I believe RC priests were called Mr in the UK until relatively (in RC terms) recently.
The correct title for a Male priest in the CoE is still Mr Jones, the Reverend Mr Jones, or the Reverend John Jones. Reverend Jones is technically incorrect, although widespread thanks to American media.
The correct title for a Male priest in the CoE is still Mr Jones, the Reverend Mr Jones, or the Reverend John Jones. Reverend Jones is technically incorrect, although widespread thanks to American media.
I'm not sure that "Reverend Jones" is actually correct anywhere. I've been corrected before, including on the Ship, by people who insist that this is correct in their tradition. Fine, maybe it is. But my mother, who was raised as a super-observant Methodist, grew up believing that all Protestant ministers were referred to in writing as "The Rev. John Jones" or "The Rev. Mr/Dr Jones." And, for what it's worth, Emily Post (which is to etiquette in the US what Debrett's is to it in the UK) agrees with her.
My own practice, based on quite extensive international experience combined with general Anglo-Catholic curmudgeonliness, is to use "The Rev'd Mr/Ms/Mrs/Dr" for Anglican Deacons and Methodist, Presbyterian (etc) ministers, and "Fr." for Roman Catholic and male Anglican priests (I will use "Mthr." for female Anglican priests who prefer it, or simply when I feel like it).
But I have to admit there is often a subtext. Addressing a letter to priest as "Dear Father" may be my standard, but using the older and "more correct" form of "Reverend and dear Father" implies either that my tongue is in my cheek or that I am annoyed with the recipient. And I was roundly criticized for over-doing it when I, as a non-Roman-Catholic, signed off a letter to an Apostolic Nuncio with "kissing the sacred ring and asking Your Excellency's blessing. I have the honour to remain Your Excellency's Most humble and obedient servant."
Truth be told I’ve not spent much time thinking about the theology of Holy Orders. I’ve also not heard from anyone else in the Anglo-Catholic world that they’re concerned about it; those I’ve spoken to have either approved it or been indifferent. This may be an indication of a lack of consistency on our part, or they may have some theology to back it up.
I will say that my current priest is in favor of it, and for the very simple reason that he feels it takes too long for one to become a priest in the Episcopal Church. This is pretty much the only reason why the Church has talked about getting rid of the transitional diaconate. Between applying, having endless meetings, doing endless paperwork, and then finally seminary, and then! finally ordinals the process can be a cool 5 years until a body is actually ordained. I’ve begun the process to seek ordination, and even just getting the paperwork together to apply is a headache. So the thinking is this would be a way to streamline the process. As the Episcopal Church increasingly has a clergy shortage, addressing that issue is becoming more critical.
That being said, I’d never thought about the theology behind it. I’m also not intimately familiar with the history of Holy Orders. So you raised some good questions for me to think about! I should also note that I am not aware of any serious attempts to get rid of the transitional diaconate. It’s more one of those things that gets batted around every couple years at the General Convention.
What the RCs do is ordain seminarians to the diaconate before their last year of seminary so that they can be ordained priests when they graduate. Doesn’t that solve the problem?
In contrast, Nancy Pelosi is "Madam Speaker" and, as Secretaries of State, Hilary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, and Madeline Albright were each addressed as "Madam Secretary" within the United States.‡
. . . .
‡Outside of the United States, each was appropriately addressed as "Your Excellency" according to diplomatic protocol.
[tangent]
FWIW, there are about a dozen states in the US—mostly states that were among the original 13, which would have had colonial governors prior to independence—where the governor is properly styled His/Her Excellency. In practice, this often seems to be done only on formal occasions; at least, that's the case here.
[/tangent]
The oddities of federal constitution, as opposed to confederal (such as Canada) sees State Governors and the Governor-General as Excellencies - a title well earned by all Governors of my State in my lifetime at least, if not by all Governors-General. But the spouse of a Governor-General is also Excellent while that of a State Governor does not have that status.
Truth be told I’ve not spent much time thinking about the theology of Holy Orders. I’ve also not heard from anyone else in the Anglo-Catholic world that they’re concerned about it; those I’ve spoken to have either approved it or been indifferent. This may be an indication of a lack of consistency on our part, or they may have some theology to back it up.
I will say that my current priest is in favor of it, and for the very simple reason that he feels it takes too long for one to become a priest in the Episcopal Church. This is pretty much the only reason why the Church has talked about getting rid of the transitional diaconate. Between applying, having endless meetings, doing endless paperwork, and then finally seminary, and then! finally ordinals the process can be a cool 5 years until a body is actually ordained. I’ve begun the process to seek ordination, and even just getting the paperwork together to apply is a headache. So the thinking is this would be a way to streamline the process. As the Episcopal Church increasingly has a clergy shortage, addressing that issue is becoming more critical.
That being said, I’d never thought about the theology behind it. I’m also not intimately familiar with the history of Holy Orders. So you raised some good questions for me to think about! I should also note that I am not aware of any serious attempts to get rid of the transitional diaconate. It’s more one of those things that gets batted around every couple years at the General Convention.
What the RCs do is ordain seminarians to the diaconate before their last year of seminary so that they can be ordained priests when they graduate. Doesn’t that solve the problem?
But some would think that diminishes the diaconate by turning it into a stepping stone en route to the real thing.
And I was roundly criticized for over-doing it when I, as a non-Roman-Catholic, signed off a letter to an Apostolic Nuncio with "kissing the sacred ring and asking Your Excellency's blessing. I have the honour to remain Your Excellency's Most humble and obedient servant."
We have a new Bishop, whom I already know slightly. The temptation to use this formula is great, but I don't think it would be wise....
Historically training for ordination took around seven years. This seems to be across traditions. So five years is really quick. Even when I was in my twenties ordination in the CofS took six with a probationary year. I think in Europe Roman Catholicism still kept to seven years training at the time as well. In my thirties, other European Reformed Churches start asking questions about whether they would recognise URC ministers simply because of lack of time spent in training.
The problem with doing it quicker is actually we think of it as 'training'. When we use the word 'training' we see it as time spent learning skills. However, the process is actually called 'formation'. Formation (or transformation involves candidates engaging very deeply with your own identity and inevitably when doing that candidates go through has some really murky stages particularly early in training. In these murky stages, most candidates would be well advised to stay away from any pastoral work. This is compounded in the US where they expect trainee clerics to pay for their training.
It seems to me, Columba_in_a_Currach, that you are close indeed to the Kingdom of God.
When I am Supreme Dictator (or as a friend once malapropped, "Dicktaker") of the World any one who addresses me as "Reverend" or "Rev Zappa" vocally or in written form will be fed to the lions. "It's a bloody adjective, okay?" will be the last words they hear as the meet their by then furious, disinclined to grace, Maker.
It seems to me, Columba_in_a_Currach, that you are close indeed to the Kingdom of God.
When I am Supreme Dictator (or as a friend once malapropped, "Dicktaker") of the World any one who addresses me as "Reverend" or "Rev Zappa" vocally or in written form will be fed to the lions. "It's a bloody adjective, okay?" will be the last words they hear as the meet their by then furious, disinclined to grace, Maker.
Continued use of that signature will see Columba_in_a_Currach in God's presence very quickly, much sooner than expected.
The ABC here used be reliable, but that went some time ago. Not just Reverend Zappa, but "the Reverend at the church"!
But some would think that diminishes the diaconate by turning it into a stepping stone en route to the real thing.
You could conversely argue that having priests not be ordained into the diaconal ministry diminishes the priesthood by having priests no longer participate in the service-focused diaconal ministry.
Some seminaries offer tuition waivers, but it is true that most don’t. I agree that ideally the formation process would essentially take as long as it needs to; the problem is the church needs clergy in the interim, and along with the general shrinking of the church is the shrinking of the clergy. Clergy are increasingly working until the mandatory retirement age, and then often asking Bishop’s for approval to continue serving. The sheer amount of time it takes to become ordained may also be daunting to some. (Not that such is a good reason to change, but here we are.)
I agree that we need to remove more barriers from ordination (in the RCC as well). Frankly, I think most priests should be volunteers without a complete seminary education and with their own secular vocations. There can be stipendiary expert preachers (including deacons and laypeople) that rotate between parishes, stipendiary experts in finance and administration who need not be ordained and can work with multiple parishes, as well as an increased number of bishops who visit regularly.
With the increased number of priests, I think there should be an even greater increase in the number of deacons. Basically, anyone who is called to deep service in any form of parish ministry should be ordained a deacon and should take turns with the various other deacons in a parish in fulfilling the role of a deacon in worship and in the community. There would no longer be any discernment of a vocation to the priesthood among anyone who has not already served as a deacon for some time so the whole division of permanent and transitional deacons would be irrelevant.
Seminary education would be about training good preachers, good theological scholars and teachers, and good church administrators, all of which being roles that deacons and the laity can fulfill just as well as any priest.
But some would think that diminishes the diaconate by turning it into a stepping stone en route to the real thing.
You could conversely argue that having priests not be ordained into the diaconal ministry diminishes the priesthood by having priests no longer participate in the service-focused diaconal ministry.
Some seminaries offer tuition waivers, but it is true that most don’t. I agree that ideally the formation process would essentially take as long as it needs to; the problem is the church needs clergy in the interim, and along with the general shrinking of the church is the shrinking of the clergy. Clergy are increasingly working until the mandatory retirement age, and then often asking Bishop’s for approval to continue serving. The sheer amount of time it takes to become ordained may also be daunting to some. (Not that such is a good reason to change, but here we are.)
I agree that we need to remove more barriers from ordination (in the RCC as well). Frankly, I think most priests should be volunteers without a complete seminary education and with their own secular vocations. There can be stipendiary expert preachers (including deacons and laypeople) that rotate between parishes, stipendiary experts in finance and administration who need not be ordained and can work with multiple parishes, as well as an increased number of bishops who visit regularly.
With the increased number of priests, I think there should be an even greater increase in the number of deacons. Basically, anyone who is called to deep service in any form of parish ministry should be ordained a deacon and should take turns with the various other deacons in a parish in fulfilling the role of a deacon in worship and in the community. There would no longer be any discernment of a vocation to the priesthood among anyone who has not already served as a deacon for some time so the whole division of permanent and transitional deacons would be irrelevant.
Seminary education would be about training good preachers, good theological scholars and teachers, and good church administrators, all of which being roles that deacons and the laity can fulfill just as well as any priest.
Re Transitional Diaconate discussions above: I think it is very necessary. My reasoning follows.
I have served on one of the committees required under TEC: the Commission on Ministry, which does most of the interviewing and assessing at the Diocesan level. We interview once the applicant is approved to begin, before ordination to the transitional diaconate, and again shortly before approval for ordination as priest. In that last I have repeatedly seen amazing growth in the individual's understanding of ministry, of call, of service to the community following that Transitional Diaconal year. That year, that service focus, appear to have opened the eyes of those I had the pleasure to interview. No matter what their age, they appeared to have 'grown up' in many ways. On that alone I would strongly support the requirement of Transitional Diaconate.
Re priests as volunteers, with secular vocations: I have been one, and can affirm that it is a killer of a solution, both for the individual and the congregation. For close to 10 years I worked full time in health care administration, and was non-stipendiary priest in a parish. Preaching went with that, so sermon prep tended to be done at 4AM, so I could get to work by 7. Major hospitals near the parish were about 50 miles north. My job was 20 miles south. So I had the unique 'pleasure' of leaving my job at 3pm, roaring up the highway for 70 miles to minister to hospitalized parishioners. (Yes, there were hospital chaplains, but people want "my own priest". ) I would then drive back home the 50 miles for a late supper. I was paid for mileage, but then the Vestry cut that to make the budget work. It wore me out, it wore my husband out..... it wore the parish out since they didn't want to 'bother' me.
Oh, and ministering to the dying who had the temerity to die at night? Don't get me started....
I loved my parishioners, but after 10 years I 'retired' from that non-stipendiary position with my bishop's blessing. I then retired from my paid employment. And I once again could laugh easily with husband and friends, and come closer to God in many, many ways.
I was originally ordained as an Non-Stipendiary and after a brief period of in service train - the eighteen months I had as an assistant curate - I was then assigned to a small parish. Technically as "Fr. Assistant" but in practice I was the one in charge down there. I had four years in the trenches of trying to work a theoretically part-time, but in practice full-time job (27.5 hr contract but work at least 40 situation) and a church to ride herd on. I survived three years then went down to depression and had to take time out from both. Thank God I was not married at the time because I probably would have ended up divorced too.
For non-stipendiary ministry to work the laity probably need at least as much training as the poor bugger with their collar backwards. The laity reflexively dump a lot of responsibilities, niggling little jobs, and non-core activities on the priest - whether or not the priest has time to do it or not - and unless they are biffed on the nose repeatedly their spouse as well. Coupled to that is that not every clergyperson is an hyper-energetic extrovert, so the ones that are not need time for ourselves to recharge, in addition to time for work, parish, God, and family. It is pretty easy to stretch so far that you break.
I have been in full time ministry for nigh-on eighteen years, and although it can be extremely demanding it is nowhere near as draining as being a NSM in charge of a small parish. You just have the usual problems, not the usual problems plus secular job with its truckload of issues.
Re Transitional Diaconate discussions above: I think it is very necessary. My reasoning follows.
I have served on one of the committees required under TEC: the Commission on Ministry, which does most of the interviewing and assessing at the Diocesan level. We interview once the applicant is approved to begin, before ordination to the transitional diaconate, and again shortly before approval for ordination as priest. In that last I have repeatedly seen amazing growth in the individual's understanding of ministry, of call, of service to the community following that Transitional Diaconal year. That year, that service focus, appear to have opened the eyes of those I had the pleasure to interview. No matter what their age, they appeared to have 'grown up' in many ways. On that alone I would strongly support the requirement of Transitional Diaconate.
Re priests as volunteers, with secular vocations: I have been one, and can affirm that it is a killer of a solution, both for the individual and the congregation. For close to 10 years I worked full time in health care administration, and was non-stipendiary priest in a parish. Preaching went with that, so sermon prep tended to be done at 4AM, so I could get to work by 7. Major hospitals near the parish were about 50 miles north. My job was 20 miles south. So I had the unique 'pleasure' of leaving my job at 3pm, roaring up the highway for 70 miles to minister to hospitalized parishioners. (Yes, there were hospital chaplains, but people want "my own priest". ) I would then drive back home the 50 miles for a late supper. I was paid for mileage, but then the Vestry cut that to make the budget work. It wore me out, it wore my husband out..... it wore the parish out since they didn't want to 'bother' me.
Oh, and ministering to the dying who had the temerity to die at night? Don't get me started....
I loved my parishioners, but after 10 years I 'retired' from that non-stipendiary position with my bishop's blessing. I then retired from my paid employment. And I once again could laugh easily with husband and friends, and come closer to God in many, many ways.
A would be priest could just as easily do a pastoral year in order to learn to serve parishioners without being made a deacon, though I am sure parish priests like to have another pair of hands around when it comes to preaching.
In my (RC) church deacons also baptise, bury and wed people, but they cannot anoint the sick or "do" Mass and confessions. Same for permanent members of that order.
How does that compare with transitioning deacons in other churches?
Anglican deacons usually baptize, preach, do sick communion from the reserved sacrament, and bury. Legally speaking they can solemnize marriages, but they cannot pronounce the nuptial blessing. Around these parts you will occasionally get a Sunday liturgy where communion is administered from the R.S., but you have to tread lightly there as the bishop does not approve of it being done except in quasi-emergency.
There is talk of reviving the old Canon 9 programme in the diocese by which older candidates are trained part-time over a three to four year period gradually moving up through reader, to diocesan reader, to deacon, and finally to priest. It is my pet project as I am on the Orders Commission, and I am trying with the help of others to head off something of a manpower crisis which will hit in about five years. Whether the PTBs will allow it to happen is another issue!
Anglican deacons usually baptize, preach, do sick communion from the reserved sacrament, and bury. Legally speaking they can solemnize marriages, but they cannot pronounce the nuptial blessing. Around these parts you will occasionally get a Sunday liturgy where communion is administered from the R.S., but you have to tread lightly there as the bishop does not approve of it being done except in quasi-emergency.
There is talk of reviving the old Canon 9 programme in the diocese by which older candidates are trained part-time over a three to four year period gradually moving up through reader, to diocesan reader, to deacon, and finally to priest. It is my pet project as I am on the Orders Commission, and I am trying with the help of others to head off something of a manpower crisis which will hit in about five years. Whether the PTBs will allow it to happen is another issue!
Yes ours can lead services of communion outside Mass too .... but then so can lay eucharistic ministers. This happens weekly in our place on the priests day off - better homilies than on Sunday too, and led by ladies. Eucharistic ministers are also given consecrated hosts at Sunday Mass to take to the sick, they are sent out before the blessing. A lovely thing.
We are very cautious about LEMs, and the usual drill when the priest is away is to have MP or Liturgy of the Word (Ante-Communion to old farts like me). They are occasionally used in the bigger parishes. Sick communions would be seen as the backbone of a deacon's work with us, so the LEMs don't get into that. In smaller churches, one or more of the lay readers are licensed to administer the chalice.
@PDR what does LEM stand for in your part of the world? Is it the local term for an Ordained Local Minister (a non-stipendiary priest licensed just to their home parish), for Lay Reader/Licensed Lay Minister (the same thing here but different dioceses will prefer one or the other), or for cup-bearer.
I've commented before but in the way the CofE functions, unless you've got a particular hang up about orders and clerical/lay as such, I can't really see what the point is in letting someone be a permanent deacon. The only things a deacon can do which a Lay Reader/Licensed Lay Minister can't are to baptise and to take weddings. However, because they can't pronounce blessings, the diocese here doesn't encourage them to do weddings. Talking about 'works of service' and 'reaching out into the world' as specifically diaconal roles is more than a bit of a nonsense because not only can everybody do all of those but they should be doing them.
Having somebody whose been trained, probably expects to be paid by the diocese, but who has permanently excluded themselves from celebrating Holy Communion strikes me as a waste of time and a nuisance. It would also make them unavailable to be deployed to multi-parish benefices.
I don't know about other dioceses, but both a Reader and a Deacon automatically has authorisation to preach, to lead a non-eucharistic service, to assist in leading a eucharistic one, to administer Holy Communion (already properly consecrated) by extension and to be a cupbearer. Deacons can automatically take funerals, but Readers can only take them if they've done a special course first on how to do so.
There's an important practical difference between sick communion by extension and a Sunday service which includes distribution by extension, in that the former is normal but the latter has to be specifically authorised by the diocese, usually as a one-off and very reluctantly.
Until recently parishes had to send the diocese a list of the people they would like to have authorised as cup-bearers and wait for it to come back. It also had to be renewed each year. However, this has now been delegated to parishes.
Cupbearers can only do precisely that. They cannot take out sick communions for example.
Also, people in training for ordination automatically have the same authorisations as a Reader. This is important here as the local theological college likes to get as many parishes as possible to take on at least one student and get them involved in church life as part of their training.
@BabyWombat I agree with what you said about the value of transitional diaconate. It's like a sort of apprenticeship. I'd also be very hostile to anyone who suggested that once a person was a priest they were above 'works of service', 'reaching out into the world' etc.
Enoch, what do you mean by 'cupbearer'? Do you mean what PDR calls LEMs (which I assume stands for Local Eucharistic Minister)? I don't think the C of E uses either such term officially, but what people are authorised to do is actually the latter. I've never heard of people being given permission to administer the chalice and not the Bread: if you are authorised (not usually licensed, it's done by a fairly informal letter from the Bishop or archdeacon) to administer the (consecrated, of course) Sacrament it must involve both kinds. Similarly, unless diocesan regulations vary, the same people are authorised to take communion to the sick, subject of course to safeguarding checks. Things may have tightened up in the latter respect since I was last in full-time ministry, but I don't think the basic principles have.
LEM - Lay Eucharist Minister in this neck of the woods, they can administer the Cup and also take Communion to the sick. Cup-bearers are more widespread, are usually the same folks as your Readers, and have no authorization to administer communion to the sick. One of these days we need to sort out the incoherent pile of lay ministries into something that makes sense*, and make the set-up a bit more welcoming for permanent deacons.
While Deacons and LEMs can indeed being communion to the sick and shut in, our local bishop is very, very clear that they may not lead nor distribute communion as part of MP or any other service, Sunday, week day or any other day. They may only lead MP or EP, no distribution of the Sacrament in a public service.
Now..... one parish I know of got around that one Christmas Eve when they could not get a priest. They celebrated Lessons and Carols, lead by a LEM, and then invited any members of the congregation who might have wished home communion on the feast to please come to the parish library, where communion was distributed from the Reserved Sacrament and recorded in the service book as a rather long series of one line entries noting "Home Communion" done by a LEM. Yes, at Bishop's Vistation the service book is supposed to be reviewed, but said bishop seldom did.
Naughty? Yes. Did it meet a need? Maybe, but IMO it was a sort of "Need a shot of Jesus" spirituality.
WE have a minute silver chalice, paten and flagon (hallmarked for London 1882) and a similarly minute corporal and pall that were presented to a departing locum in 1882. After having passed through many clerical hands the set was returned to us in 2016 by the daughter of its most recent recipient.
The chalice in the sick communion kit in my old parish was fairly small. I doubt it would have held more than the two tablespoons of wine mentioned above. I actually found it almost too small for the stated purpose, but got used to it in the end.
Comments
The Irish Times used to and may still refer to all bishops, whether Church of Ireland or RC, as "Dr. X." This was done because, traditionally, all bishops were assumed to be doctors (DDs for the Anglicans, STDs or JCDs for the Roman Catholics). And, at a time when it could be contentious to appear to make a judgment on who was a "real" bishop, the academic title was seen as the least likely to offend any party.
*Choose one as appropriate. I would not recommend addressing any singular bishop as "My Lord/Lady," as many bishops are sensitive creatures and likely to take offense.
If you had to choose such an outdated manner of address, bishops would be My Lady/Lord. Archbishops are at least the non-gender specific Your Grace. I don't know about the Presiding Bishop of TEC but that position should rank as an archbishop. Next to no-one in the Anglican Church here would use those terms though, it's simply Bishop or Archbishop. One, only on, of the St Sanity congregation retained use of the appellation though, but he also knelt before bishops and tried to kiss the episcopal ring.
Catholic Church here keeps the old formalities though and adds Your Eminence to the rankings.
I was pleased to see the reference to The Irish Times practice, which saved many trees from dying as Outraged Papist would reply to the claims of Supercilious Rector for letter after letter (I recall one cleric being described having chosen to be a Column of the Times given that he was incapable of being a Pillar of the Church).
I am old enough to recall My Lord being frequently used of Canadian bishops but it can only be found among those who are fond of archaic forms or who want to annoy the bishop in the best passive-aggressive manner possible. I have only heard of women bishops being called Bishop, and I suppose that our two women metropolitans get Archbishop rather than Your Grace in these days of informality. Now that we have a woman primate, I imagine that she will get Archbishop or Primate, but we might get an occasional Your Grace.
There are some titles that are as they are, regardless of the gender of the person holding them. So HMQ (female) is Duke of Lancaster.
Of course, because of the age of her uncles she was never heir apparent: however, had she been she would have been Prince of Wales and Lord of the Isles.
She is also Duke of Normandy, as evidenced by the traditional version of the loyal toast used in the Channel Islands — "The Queen, our Duke."*
A female Lord Mayor is indeed referred to as "Lord Mayor." "Lady Mayoress" always and only refers to the female companion of a Lord Mayor ("Mayor's Consort" for a male companion).†In some ways, I like this system, as it suggests that the office is more important than the gender of the occupant. However, it does fall prey to the insidious suggestion that the female form is always inferior in dignity. This insidious tradition is deeply built into our culture, which is why there can be Queen consorts but not King consorts. The unspoken assumption being that kings are always superior to queens.
In this tradition, there is some limited precedent for the title "Lady Bishopess" — referring, naturally to the wife of a Lord Bishop — but this seems to have been more popular in novels than in actual official use.
German, of course, is very precise, if a minefield for the uninitiated. "Frau Pastor" refers to the wife of a Protestant pastor, whilst "Frau Pastorin" refers to a female pastor. Whether the Old Catholics follow the same logic with "Pfarrer," I do not know.
This all goes to show how many different approaches there can be, and have been. Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States were traditionally addressed as "Mr. Justice," but when Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed as the first female justice, they all dropped the "Mr." and just used "Justice." Although I doubt anyone thought of it at the time, this does make it easier to imagine a non-binary justice. In contrast, Nancy Pelosi is "Madam Speaker" and, as Secretaries of State, Hilary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, and Madeline Albright were each addressed as "Madam Secretary" within the United States.‡
And no discussion of the matter would be complete without mentioning Girton College, Cambridge (historically, but no longer, a single-sex women's college). I believe it has been decided that the head of house will always be known as "Mistress" regardless of gender. The rationale being that, if Peterhouse and Christ's can have female Masters (which they both do at present), then Girton may have a male Mistress, although to date they have all been women. I like Girton's solution very much, as it comes across as both deeply traditional and rather radical.
*In Jèrriais, "La Reine, not' Duke," which to a confused Anglophone might sound like a denial of the Queen's Dukedom, until one realizes that "not" in this case is cognate of "notre."
†Not necessarily a spouse in either case. I was once at a small supper in the Deanery of an English Cathedral with the Lord Mayor and her Lady Mayoress, and was very surprised when each mentioned that she wanted to get back to see her husband!
‡Outside of the United States, each was appropriately addressed as "Your Excellency" according to diplomatic protocol.
Your Eminence for a Cardinal; Your Excellency for a bishop, which I always find a bit odd, but there you go. I have had my share of bishops for whom 'Your Excellency' would have been ironic or sarcastic.
FWIW, there are about a dozen states in the US—mostly states that were among the original 13, which would have had colonial governors prior to independence—where the governor is properly styled His/Her Excellency. In practice, this often seems to be done only on formal occasions; at least, that's the case here.
[/tangent]
We don't have excellencies in the UK unless they are Papal Nuncios and get the diplomatic monicker. Lordships, Graces and Eminences - but pretty much fallen into disuse.
The whole thing is changing. Our PP is vicar general (number two in the diocese) and a canon. Never seen him in purple trimmings and he would give you a thick lip if you called him Canon Jack. Yet the bishops MC who is a humble Father Bill likes to wear full episcopal purple cassock and cumerbund when he assists the bish at mass.
Properly, he should wear the purple cassock with no fascia (which is what I assume you mean by "cumerbund"). This is indeed a mark of humility — he dresses in purple, because it is the livery color of bishops, and he is the servant of the bishop. No different than the Queen's footmen and grooms (and, indeed, her chaplains) wearing scarlet, which is her royal livery color.
I've called our governor many things, but none of them is a variation of "excellent" in any form.
(I think our Bishop prefers being addressed as "Bishop Jennifer.")
$ 19th century or earlier largely so there were not female clerics, at least officially
I believe RC priests were called Mr in the UK until relatively (in RC terms) recently.
I'm not sure that "Reverend Jones" is actually correct anywhere. I've been corrected before, including on the Ship, by people who insist that this is correct in their tradition. Fine, maybe it is. But my mother, who was raised as a super-observant Methodist, grew up believing that all Protestant ministers were referred to in writing as "The Rev. John Jones" or "The Rev. Mr/Dr Jones." And, for what it's worth, Emily Post (which is to etiquette in the US what Debrett's is to it in the UK) agrees with her.
My own practice, based on quite extensive international experience combined with general Anglo-Catholic curmudgeonliness, is to use "The Rev'd Mr/Ms/Mrs/Dr" for Anglican Deacons and Methodist, Presbyterian (etc) ministers, and "Fr." for Roman Catholic and male Anglican priests (I will use "Mthr." for female Anglican priests who prefer it, or simply when I feel like it).
But I have to admit there is often a subtext. Addressing a letter to priest as "Dear Father" may be my standard, but using the older and "more correct" form of "Reverend and dear Father" implies either that my tongue is in my cheek or that I am annoyed with the recipient. And I was roundly criticized for over-doing it when I, as a non-Roman-Catholic, signed off a letter to an Apostolic Nuncio with "kissing the sacred ring and asking Your Excellency's blessing. I have the honour to remain Your Excellency's Most humble and obedient servant."
What the RCs do is ordain seminarians to the diaconate before their last year of seminary so that they can be ordained priests when they graduate. Doesn’t that solve the problem?
The oddities of federal constitution, as opposed to confederal (such as Canada) sees State Governors and the Governor-General as Excellencies - a title well earned by all Governors of my State in my lifetime at least, if not by all Governors-General. But the spouse of a Governor-General is also Excellent while that of a State Governor does not have that status.
But some would think that diminishes the diaconate by turning it into a stepping stone en route to the real thing.
The problem with doing it quicker is actually we think of it as 'training'. When we use the word 'training' we see it as time spent learning skills. However, the process is actually called 'formation'. Formation (or transformation involves candidates engaging very deeply with your own identity and inevitably when doing that candidates go through has some really murky stages particularly early in training. In these murky stages, most candidates would be well advised to stay away from any pastoral work. This is compounded in the US where they expect trainee clerics to pay for their training.
When I am Supreme Dictator (or as a friend once malapropped, "Dicktaker") of the World any one who addresses me as "Reverend" or "Rev Zappa" vocally or in written form will be fed to the lions. "It's a bloody adjective, okay?" will be the last words they hear as the meet their by then furious, disinclined to grace, Maker.
Continued use of that signature will see Columba_in_a_Currach in God's presence very quickly, much sooner than expected.
The ABC here used be reliable, but that went some time ago. Not just Reverend Zappa, but "the Reverend at the church"!
You could conversely argue that having priests not be ordained into the diaconal ministry diminishes the priesthood by having priests no longer participate in the service-focused diaconal ministry.
I agree that we need to remove more barriers from ordination (in the RCC as well). Frankly, I think most priests should be volunteers without a complete seminary education and with their own secular vocations. There can be stipendiary expert preachers (including deacons and laypeople) that rotate between parishes, stipendiary experts in finance and administration who need not be ordained and can work with multiple parishes, as well as an increased number of bishops who visit regularly.
With the increased number of priests, I think there should be an even greater increase in the number of deacons. Basically, anyone who is called to deep service in any form of parish ministry should be ordained a deacon and should take turns with the various other deacons in a parish in fulfilling the role of a deacon in worship and in the community. There would no longer be any discernment of a vocation to the priesthood among anyone who has not already served as a deacon for some time so the whole division of permanent and transitional deacons would be irrelevant.
Seminary education would be about training good preachers, good theological scholars and teachers, and good church administrators, all of which being roles that deacons and the laity can fulfill just as well as any priest.
deleted
I have served on one of the committees required under TEC: the Commission on Ministry, which does most of the interviewing and assessing at the Diocesan level. We interview once the applicant is approved to begin, before ordination to the transitional diaconate, and again shortly before approval for ordination as priest. In that last I have repeatedly seen amazing growth in the individual's understanding of ministry, of call, of service to the community following that Transitional Diaconal year. That year, that service focus, appear to have opened the eyes of those I had the pleasure to interview. No matter what their age, they appeared to have 'grown up' in many ways. On that alone I would strongly support the requirement of Transitional Diaconate.
Re priests as volunteers, with secular vocations: I have been one, and can affirm that it is a killer of a solution, both for the individual and the congregation. For close to 10 years I worked full time in health care administration, and was non-stipendiary priest in a parish. Preaching went with that, so sermon prep tended to be done at 4AM, so I could get to work by 7. Major hospitals near the parish were about 50 miles north. My job was 20 miles south. So I had the unique 'pleasure' of leaving my job at 3pm, roaring up the highway for 70 miles to minister to hospitalized parishioners. (Yes, there were hospital chaplains, but people want "my own priest". ) I would then drive back home the 50 miles for a late supper. I was paid for mileage, but then the Vestry cut that to make the budget work. It wore me out, it wore my husband out..... it wore the parish out since they didn't want to 'bother' me.
Oh, and ministering to the dying who had the temerity to die at night? Don't get me started....
I loved my parishioners, but after 10 years I 'retired' from that non-stipendiary position with my bishop's blessing. I then retired from my paid employment. And I once again could laugh easily with husband and friends, and come closer to God in many, many ways.
For non-stipendiary ministry to work the laity probably need at least as much training as the poor bugger with their collar backwards. The laity reflexively dump a lot of responsibilities, niggling little jobs, and non-core activities on the priest - whether or not the priest has time to do it or not - and unless they are biffed on the nose repeatedly their spouse as well. Coupled to that is that not every clergyperson is an hyper-energetic extrovert, so the ones that are not need time for ourselves to recharge, in addition to time for work, parish, God, and family. It is pretty easy to stretch so far that you break.
I have been in full time ministry for nigh-on eighteen years, and although it can be extremely demanding it is nowhere near as draining as being a NSM in charge of a small parish. You just have the usual problems, not the usual problems plus secular job with its truckload of issues.
A would be priest could just as easily do a pastoral year in order to learn to serve parishioners without being made a deacon, though I am sure parish priests like to have another pair of hands around when it comes to preaching.
In my (RC) church deacons also baptise, bury and wed people, but they cannot anoint the sick or "do" Mass and confessions. Same for permanent members of that order.
How does that compare with transitioning deacons in other churches?
There is talk of reviving the old Canon 9 programme in the diocese by which older candidates are trained part-time over a three to four year period gradually moving up through reader, to diocesan reader, to deacon, and finally to priest. It is my pet project as I am on the Orders Commission, and I am trying with the help of others to head off something of a manpower crisis which will hit in about five years. Whether the PTBs will allow it to happen is another issue!
Yes ours can lead services of communion outside Mass too .... but then so can lay eucharistic ministers. This happens weekly in our place on the priests day off - better homilies than on Sunday too, and led by ladies. Eucharistic ministers are also given consecrated hosts at Sunday Mass to take to the sick, they are sent out before the blessing. A lovely thing.
I've commented before but in the way the CofE functions, unless you've got a particular hang up about orders and clerical/lay as such, I can't really see what the point is in letting someone be a permanent deacon. The only things a deacon can do which a Lay Reader/Licensed Lay Minister can't are to baptise and to take weddings. However, because they can't pronounce blessings, the diocese here doesn't encourage them to do weddings. Talking about 'works of service' and 'reaching out into the world' as specifically diaconal roles is more than a bit of a nonsense because not only can everybody do all of those but they should be doing them.
Having somebody whose been trained, probably expects to be paid by the diocese, but who has permanently excluded themselves from celebrating Holy Communion strikes me as a waste of time and a nuisance. It would also make them unavailable to be deployed to multi-parish benefices.
I don't know about other dioceses, but both a Reader and a Deacon automatically has authorisation to preach, to lead a non-eucharistic service, to assist in leading a eucharistic one, to administer Holy Communion (already properly consecrated) by extension and to be a cupbearer. Deacons can automatically take funerals, but Readers can only take them if they've done a special course first on how to do so.
There's an important practical difference between sick communion by extension and a Sunday service which includes distribution by extension, in that the former is normal but the latter has to be specifically authorised by the diocese, usually as a one-off and very reluctantly.
Until recently parishes had to send the diocese a list of the people they would like to have authorised as cup-bearers and wait for it to come back. It also had to be renewed each year. However, this has now been delegated to parishes.
Cupbearers can only do precisely that. They cannot take out sick communions for example.
Also, people in training for ordination automatically have the same authorisations as a Reader. This is important here as the local theological college likes to get as many parishes as possible to take on at least one student and get them involved in church life as part of their training.
@BabyWombat I agree with what you said about the value of transitional diaconate. It's like a sort of apprenticeship. I'd also be very hostile to anyone who suggested that once a person was a priest they were above 'works of service', 'reaching out into the world' etc.
* - scrub that comment - we are Anglicans!
Now..... one parish I know of got around that one Christmas Eve when they could not get a priest. They celebrated Lessons and Carols, lead by a LEM, and then invited any members of the congregation who might have wished home communion on the feast to please come to the parish library, where communion was distributed from the Reserved Sacrament and recorded in the service book as a rather long series of one line entries noting "Home Communion" done by a LEM. Yes, at Bishop's Vistation the service book is supposed to be reviewed, but said bishop seldom did.
Naughty? Yes. Did it meet a need? Maybe, but IMO it was a sort of "Need a shot of Jesus" spirituality.
(This in reference to the Moon Landing thread and the Communion in the Lunar Module by Buzz Aldrin)
They lost their good Religion [sic] Department staff, you see 🙄