A brief understanding of Deacon's outside of episcopalian settings.
The traditional stance in Protestant churches is to ordain to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament in a single step although at least the Methodist Church in Britain does have probationary ministers. I will let a Methodist explain what their status is.
There are three different groups of individuals who are sometimes referred to as Deacons with the term sometimes being applied without distinction to the first two.
Volunteers who look after the practical and charitable side of the church life
Volunteers (non-clerical) who provide recognised spiritual leadership within a local congregation. These are also sometimes referred to as elders.
Stipendiary individuals who are part of a diaconal orders. This grew out of the 19th Century Deaconesses which was largely an attempt to give women an authoritative role in the church which was not that of being a Minister of Word and Sacrament. As gradually more and more denominations started ordaining women the need for such roles ceased. In my denominations, they died out (URC included) but in others (Methodist in Britain, Church of Scotland) they morphed into a form of ministry often focused on community development and social outreach.
Options 1 & 2 cover a wide range of different organisational ideas. To give you one such we could look at one reading of John Calvin's which can give a six-fold pattern of ministry
Focus of Ministry
Status Church World
Occassional Apostle Prophet
Regular Minister Doctor/Teacher
Local Elder Deacon
All these levels can be ordained and it is common for people to hold a bi-vocation to two of these roles. The Elder and Deacon roles are rarely paid, the Ministers tend to be paid with the Doctor/Teacher role being a proper mixed bag (stidendiary, related secular employment, unpaid and any mix of those three) . Apostle and Prophet only arise in times of crisis (or chairos) and usually are bi-vocational and take their income according to the other vocation.
There are several thousand other ways that Nonconformist in England alone have interpreted the manner in which the Church should be governed.
If I remember my church law from the PC(USA) the way that that denomination defines a deacon is in line with what was one of the older uses of the Church of Scotland (and is still used in a very few CofS congregations) and what you find in Baptist Union of Scotland churches. The deacons are a court or a board and deal with temporal matters of the congregation. But what @Jengie Jon is referring to is the use of a deacon, also found in the CofS, as a paid (usually) pastoral worker for a congregation. Hence the term Church related community worker - though it would also work as community related church worker!
If I remember my church law from the PC(USA) the way that that denomination defines a deacon is in line with what was one of the older uses of the Church of Scotland (and is still used in a very few CofS congregations) and what you find in Baptist Union of Scotland churches. The deacons are a court or a board and deal with temporal matters of the congregation.
Historically, that is more or less correct, and it still is largely correct in some places. But there has been a move for the last 20+ to emphasize more the ministry of service and compassion. The Book of Order currently says:
The ministry of deacon as set forth in Scripture is one of compassion, witness, and service, sharing in the redeeming love of Jesus Christ for the poor, the hungry, the sick, the lost, the friendless, the oppressed, those burdened by unjust policies or structures, or anyone in distress. . . . Deacons may also be given special assignments in the congregation, such as caring for members in need, handling educational tasks, cultivating liberality in giving, collecting and disbursing monies to specific persons or causes, or overseeing the buildings and property of the congregation.
The specific vow taken by deacons at ordination (as opposed to the vows common to deacons, elders and ministers) is: “Will you be a faithful deacon, teaching charity, urging concern, and directing the people’s help to the friendless and those in need, and in your ministry will you try to show the love and justice of Jesus Christ?”
There’s been some talk of eliminating the transitional diaconate altogether, but that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.
If what you mean is ordaining people directly to the priesthood without, at the very least appending the ritual aspect of diaconal ordination beforehand in the same liturgy, wouldn't this be alarming to Anglo-Catholics?
First, Anglo-Catholics might worry about the validity of the Holy Orders of any priest who was not ordained deacon beforehand. Second, Anglo-Catholics might worry that any bishop who was not ordained deacon before being ordained priest would not have valid Holy Orders herself and therefore any priest ordained by that bishop might not be validly ordained.
Or am I not understanding the catholic understanding of Holy Orders? Are there churches in Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy or other ancient churches that do not ordain priests to the diaconate before ordaining them to the priesthood?
I'm supposing this sequence of ordinations did not exist in the earliest days of the church but a move like this might even further widen the divide between the Episcopal Church and non-protestant episcopal churches, and I don't see any valid reason of fairness and equality for doing so (as there was with women's and LGBT ordination) other than signaling to permanent deacons that their ministry is more unique.
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.
The traditionally formed amongst us would wet our chazzies at the thought of severing the great and wise tradition. We have enough problems with bishops (and presbyters) who have forgotten their primary diaconal call without removing that call from them altogether.
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?
I’d agree with both of those, but I don’t know about the formality of addresses in the C o E. In the Episcopal Church we just use “Bishop X.” Problem solved.
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.
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.)
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.
Comments
The traditional stance in Protestant churches is to ordain to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament in a single step although at least the Methodist Church in Britain does have probationary ministers. I will let a Methodist explain what their status is.
There are three different groups of individuals who are sometimes referred to as Deacons with the term sometimes being applied without distinction to the first two.
Options 1 & 2 cover a wide range of different organisational ideas. To give you one such we could look at one reading of John Calvin's which can give a six-fold pattern of ministry
All these levels can be ordained and it is common for people to hold a bi-vocation to two of these roles. The Elder and Deacon roles are rarely paid, the Ministers tend to be paid with the Doctor/Teacher role being a proper mixed bag (stidendiary, related secular employment, unpaid and any mix of those three) . Apostle and Prophet only arise in times of crisis (or chairos) and usually are bi-vocational and take their income according to the other vocation.
There are several thousand other ways that Nonconformist in England alone have interpreted the manner in which the Church should be governed.
If what you mean is ordaining people directly to the priesthood without, at the very least appending the ritual aspect of diaconal ordination beforehand in the same liturgy, wouldn't this be alarming to Anglo-Catholics?
First, Anglo-Catholics might worry about the validity of the Holy Orders of any priest who was not ordained deacon beforehand. Second, Anglo-Catholics might worry that any bishop who was not ordained deacon before being ordained priest would not have valid Holy Orders herself and therefore any priest ordained by that bishop might not be validly ordained.
Or am I not understanding the catholic understanding of Holy Orders? Are there churches in Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy or other ancient churches that do not ordain priests to the diaconate before ordaining them to the priesthood?
I'm supposing this sequence of ordinations did not exist in the earliest days of the church but a move like this might even further widen the divide between the Episcopal Church and non-protestant episcopal churches, and I don't see any valid reason of fairness and equality for doing so (as there was with women's and LGBT ordination) other than signaling to permanent deacons that their ministry is more unique.
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.
I’d agree with both of those, but I don’t know about the formality of addresses in the C o E. In the Episcopal Church we just use “Bishop X.” Problem solved.
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.