Non-catholic clergy titles

[FredM]

Hi,

Most protestants are happy with “Reverend” and the spouse can be simply Mr or Mrs.

The exception is the Anglican Churches, where “Father” is preferred by most catholic minded priests and protestant minded ones will prefer Dr or Mr. Likewise female priests are either “mother” or Dr or Ms. Also “Reverend” is always prefaced by “the”, as reverend is an adjective and not a title, (like Honorable is for a judge). Anglicans generally do not use “pastor”. Priests may be rectors, vicars, curates, canons, deans and some others.

It still strikes me as odd the catholic use “reverend” most often without the “the” or in front of most in the case of Most Reverend.

Fred

 

[Sixtus]

No matter how much purple finery and pectoral crosses the “archbishop” of Canterbury may wear, he is every bit as much a layman as you or I.

My friend, I said that ‘priest’ was strictly one who officiates at a sacrifice. That said, we have to be very carefull with the Lutheran/High Anglican. I ALWAYS genuflect before their tabernacle if they believe it to be the ‘real’ presence. Who am I to say.

Better to genuflect to a piece of bread than to be disrespectful to the Body of Christ

 

[sandmountainsli]

You attack my person by calling my post rude, yet you do not (or can not?) refute the point of my post: non-Catholic/Orthodox orders are invalid.

Why not address the validity issue instead of attacking me?

I did not attack you, I merely pointed out your rudeness.
I can and will address the issue and you (and others to whom I apologize if I offend) shall most likely not like the answer.
You see the Catholic orders as the sole valid orders in Christiandom however we see it entirely differently.
It is the opinion of most Protestant groups that the Reformation was a series of events ordained by the Spirit of The Lord to “reform” a church which had fallen into corruption.
The Church of England had, still has and always shall have Apostolic Succession and any church founded by a Bishop or ordained minister of said church is a valid church with succession going all the way back to the Apostles themselves.
My opinion and the opinion of many.
Sorry if I stomped on any toes.
WP

 

[franksta]

I have found that for those non-Catholic/Orthodox faiths that adopt titles of deacon, priest, or bishop, discussing those titles opens the door to discussing the issue of apostolic succession, and the apostolic Church in general. I know they don’t have valid orders, and they know I believe that, so I don’t have to beat it into the ground; it just provides an opportunity to talk about where the true Church is.

For congregationalists who don’t care about apostolic succession, I have no problem calling someone “Reverend,” “Pastor,” or “Doctor” as the case may be. They have earned those titles by their study and their position within their denomination. I think “apostle” and “prophet” are a little silly, but I’ve never met someone face-to-face who claimed those titles.

As far as wives of pastors, “first lady” does sound a little too governmental to me. But it should be noted that the Eastern churches have a long of tradition of honoring priests’ wives by calling them “presbytera” or the equivalent.

It’s also worth noting that Pope Benedict addressed the Archbishop of Canterbury as “Your Grace,” the English title for all bishops.

 

[Ghoti]

If I see a man in a Roman collar and don’t know if he’s a Catholic priest or a Presbyterian minister or whatnot, I just call him “Padre” – it’s a term of respect used by soldiers for chaplains. And if it just so happens to be a priest – well, it’s also Spanish for “Father.”

It can be confusing. Christian Brothers and other non-priestly orders seem to make use of the Roman collar, as did two Jesuit brothers at my high school. Usually they’ll kindly correct you to “Brother”, no harm, no foul.

I don’t know what you call bishops in the US – I’ve heard “Your Excellency”. It’s “Your Grace” in Newfoundland, but I don’t know if it’s the same in the rest of Canada or if they follow the US model.

So what do you call an ordained woman in the Anglican Church? “Mother”? (note no smiley – I am seriously ignorant of this, and “Father” seems a, well, *odd *thing to call a woman.)

Also – aren’t some Anglican bishops addressed as “M’Lord”?

 

[LRThunder]

Keep in mind that while some Protestant denominations have deacons along with the Catholic and Orthodox, those deacons aren’t ordained clergy.

My dad’s a deacon at his Presbyterian church, but he isn’t a member of the clergy. So, in this case, I am not sure if most Protestant deacons would just be called Mr. (so and so) or Deacon (so and so).

 

[Pious]

Also – aren’t some Anglican bishops addressed as “M’Lord”?

Anglican Bishops and even Catholic Bishops in the British isles are often addressed as My Lord or Your Lordship or simply Bishop.

I tend to keep the salutations of My Lord and Your Lordship for Catholic Bishops; as being Catholic I am subject to my Bishop.

I tend to address other clergy outside the Catholic church as Reverend, or if I know their title I’ll use that.

I bumped in to an Anglican Bishop getting fuel at the garage the other day and said hello Bishop how are you.

 

[reteeks21]

You attack my person by calling my post rude, yet you do not (or can not?) refute the point of my post: non-Catholic/Orthodox orders are invalid.

Why not address the validity issue instead of attacking me?

As was stated earlier, the priests in Judaism have the claim way before your church does because they presided over sacrifices before your church came along, and scripture speaks of the “priesthood of believers”. I know that is a point you will refute, but if you want us to take Christ’s words on communion literally, why take those words literally?

 

[Elzee]

I agree we should call them what their communities call them, but I have to admit, I would have a very hard time calling “Bishop” T.D. Jakes (a very prominent televangelist) “Bishop”. I’m not sure I could do it, to be honest.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Holy Orders outside of the Catholic and Orthodox churches are invalid.

-]“Sir” or “Mr.” is the appropriate title/-].

With respect, you are incorrect. Not incorrect according to me but according to the Catholic Church. This has been discussed many times here and Canon law posted.

The Catholic Church recognizes some other churches as having valid but illicit orders. Some examples (other than the Easter Orthodox Church) are the Polish National Catholic Church, the PIC and Old Catholic Church (the genuine ones in Utrecht not necessarily various US based groups). In fact, according to Canon law a Roman Catholic under certain cicumstances (ie emergency) can receive sacraments at one of these churches (valid scaraments). Similarly, your blanket statements about Anglicans is also incorrect as it is a generalization. There are various “Continuing Anglican” groups that derive orders from Bishops consecrated by Polish National Catholic Church Bishops/Old Catholic Church Bishops and therefore these Anglican priests would administer valid (but illicit sacraments). Also, in point of fact, some Anglican Communion Bishops and Priests have now got valid orders due to the infusion of Old Catholic lines since the 1940’s (Pope Leo was dealing with a judgement issue in the 19th century).

So, my notes above side with the Roman Catholic Church and Canon law in terms of the Polish National Catholic Church and certain Continuing Anglican denominations. I also side with the Pope in terms of charity.

 

[GKC]

With respect, you are incorrect. Not incorrect according to me but according to the Catholic Church. This has been discussed many times here and Canon law posted.

The Catholic Church recognizes some other churches as having valid but illicit orders. Some examples (other than the Easter Orthodox Church) are the Polish National Catholic Church, the PIC and Old Catholic Church (the genuine ones in Utrecht not necessarily various US based groups). In fact, according to Canon law a Roman Catholic under certain cicumstances (ie emergency) can receive sacraments at one of these churches (valid scaraments). Similarly, your blanket statements about Anglicans is also incorrect as it is a generalization. There are various “Continuing Anglican” groups that derive orders from Bishops consecrated by Polish National Catholic Church Bishops/Old Catholic Church Bishops and therefore these Anglican priests would administer valid (but illicit sacraments). Also, in point of fact, some Anglican Communion Bishops and Priests have now got valid orders due to the infusion of Old Catholic lines since the 1940’s (Pope Leo was dealing with a judgement issue in the 19th century).

So, my notes above side with the Roman Catholic Church and Canon law in terms of the Polish National Catholic Church and certain Continuing Anglican denominations. I also side with the Pope in terms of charity.

Old Catholic inter-consecrations started with Anglicans in 1932. PNCC in 1946. It is, in fact, hard to find Anglican bishiops untouched by the Dutch, by now.

Of course, these days, there’s also the matter of matter.

GKC

 

[Harpazo]

With respect, you are incorrect. Not incorrect according to me but according to the Catholic Church. This has been discussed many times here and Canon law posted.

The Catholic Church recognizes some other churches as having valid but illicit orders. Some examples (other than the Easter Orthodox Church) are the Polish National Catholic Church, the PIC and Old Catholic Church (the genuine ones in Utrecht not necessarily various US based groups). In fact, according to Canon law a Roman Catholic under certain cicumstances (ie emergency) can receive sacraments at one of these churches (valid scaraments). Similarly, your blanket statements about Anglicans is also incorrect as it is a generalization. There are various “Continuing Anglican” groups that derive orders from Bishops consecrated by Polish National Catholic Church Bishops/Old Catholic Church Bishops and therefore these Anglican priests would administer valid (but illicit sacraments). Also, in point of fact, some Anglican Communion Bishops and Priests have now got valid orders due to the infusion of Old Catholic lines since the 1940’s (Pope Leo was dealing with a judgement issue in the 19th century).

So, my notes above side with the Roman Catholic Church and Canon law in terms of the Polish National Catholic Church and certain Continuing Anglican denominations. I also side with the Pope in terms of charity.

I apologize if this comes off as rude, but you and some other Anglicans keep saying this same thing. The Catholic Church states that Anglican Orders are invalid, no matter how much you point to the PNCC or other schismatics. This isn’t really up for discussion. The point is the Catholic Church says that they aren’t valid. No one said anything about the PNCC or other schismatics, why bring it up?

Also to another poster who mentioned about a “first lady” in a Baptist community, the Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches with married priests refer to the priest’s wife as the presvytera (the priest is the presvyteros). She has a place of honor in those churches, but obviously does not participate in the liturgy any more than a layman.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[RevDrNorth]

I apologize if this comes off as rude, but you and some other Anglicans keep saying this same thing. The Catholic Church states that Anglican Orders are invalid, no matter how much you point to the PNCC or other schismatics. This isn’t really up for discussion. The point is the Catholic Church says that they aren’t valid. No one said anything about the PNCC or other schismatics, why bring it up?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

Don’t worry I do not take it as rude. With respect you do not quite understand the issues involved, the difference between Anglican Communion, Continuing Anglicans and other issues that GKC points out (with Old Catholic Orders). Much less Roman Catholic Canon law and how apostolic succession works.

There are Anglicans with valid orders (whole Anglican denominational groups called Continuing Anglicans). The PNCC have valid orders. This is valid (but illicit) from a **Roman Catholic **perspective.

If you search on this site you will get some information about transmission of Apostolic succession. It is complicated and that is why I do not fault you for not understanding or confusing generalizations about Anglican orders from Church officials with more complicated facts about Continuing Anglican groups and individual Anglican Communion clerics.

Of course from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, the Roman Catholic Church is schismatic and does not have valid succession (different concept of transmission).

 

[GKC]

I apologize if this comes off as rude, but you and some other Anglicans keep saying this same thing. The Catholic Church states that Anglican Orders are invalid, no matter how much you point to the PNCC or other schismatics. This isn’t really up for discussion. The point is the Catholic Church says that they aren’t valid. No one said anything about the PNCC or other schismatics, why bring it up?

Also to another poster who mentioned about a “first lady” in a Baptist community, the Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches with married priests refer to the priest’s wife as the presvytera (the priest is the presvyteros). She has a place of honor in those churches, but obviously does not participate in the liturgy any more than a layman.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

And I apologise if this comes off as rude, though it might not. I know what *Apostolicae Curae *says. I even know who wrote it, and who helped. And why it was written. And what went on before it, back to 1890, on the island of Madeira. And I constantly remind RCs that it is what they should believe about Anglican orders.

But what the RCC believes about Anglican orders doesn’t matter a lot to Anglicans, who know their orders are valid, hence their sacraments are valid, etc. We’re Anglicans. We get to do that. You’re RC. You should follow what the RCC teaches. As you are doing.

Good for you.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I apologize if this comes off as rude, but you and some other Anglicans keep saying this same thing. The Catholic Church states that Anglican Orders are invalid, no matter how much you point to the PNCC or other schismatics. This isn’t really up for discussion. The point is the Catholic Church says that they aren’t valid. No one said anything about the PNCC or other schismatics, why bring it up?

Also to another poster who mentioned about a “first lady” in a Baptist community, the Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches with married priests refer to the priest’s wife as the presvytera (the priest is the presvyteros). She has a place of honor in those churches, but obviously does not participate in the liturgy any more than a layman.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

Even on the strictest interpretation of “Apostolicae Curae”, a sizable number of Anglicans have valid orders. As has been said by OPs.​

It’s all very well for us to insist on referring to others in a way that is theologically accurate within Catholicism, even if it offends (let us say) Anglicans - but when certain Protestants refer to us in a manner that is faithful to their theological estimate of Catholicism, we tend to object, a great deal.** We** may not think the CC is the “whore” of Rev. 17, or that the Pope is the “man of sin” of 2 Thessalonians 2 - but many Christians do. They are not being harsh in using such language, but faithful to what they believe: just as some us are not being harsh but faithful to Catholic teaching.

We can be consistent, & take being called bad names just we call others bad names - or, we can call people what they are called in the Churches to which they belong, just as we want Catholic clergy to be given the titles the CC gives them. Why the double standard ?

 

[Harpazo]

And I apologise if this comes off as rude, though it might not. I know what *Apostolicae Curae *says. I even know who wrote it, and who helped. And why it was written. And what went on before it, back to 1890, on the island of Madeira. And I constantly remind RCs that it is what they should believe about Anglican orders.

But what the RCC believes about Anglican orders doesn’t matter a lot to Anglicans, who know their orders are valid, hence their sacraments are valid, etc. We’re Anglicans. We get to do that. You’re RC. You should follow what the RCC teaches. As you are doing.

Good for you.

GKC

I understand what you’re saying. However for you, as an Anglican to tell me, a Maronite Catholic (NOT Roman Catholic) to believe is a little silly, yes? I’m well aware what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject and quite frankly it seems like there is little room for argument on the matter. You can point at a cow all day and call it a duck, but at the end of the day it’s still a cow.

Also, to the Eastern Catholic brethren, it’s quite offensive to refer to whole Catholic Church as the RCC. Not sure if you realized this, I’m simply pointing it out. The Catholic Church is a communion of 22 Churches.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[GKC]

I understand what you’re saying. However for you, as an Anglican to tell me, a Maronite Catholic (NOT Roman Catholic) to believe is a little silly, yes? I’m well aware what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject and quite frankly it seems like there is little room for argument on the matter. You can point at a cow all day and call it a duck, but at the end of the day it’s still a cow.

Also, to the Eastern Catholic brethren, it’s quite offensive to refer to whole Catholic Church as the RCC. Not sure if you realized this, I’m simply pointing it out. The Catholic Church is a communion of 22 Churches.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

I thought it was 23 Churches.

Yep, I realized the possiblity that I mis-spoke on that, when I said RC. No offense intended.

And no, I’m not telling you to believe anything in particular, except to follow your Church’s teaching. If you don’t, nothing I can do about it.

Whether it’s a duck or a cow depends on what you think of Apostolicae Curae, and what the Church also teaches about Apostolic Succession, generally. But I’ll not tell you what you should think of it. As an Anglican, I’ve told you what I think.

GKC

 

[thirdn6]

Your post is the height of rudeness.
Our ministers are called “The Reverend”.
We have the courtesy to call your priests “Father so and so” rather than “Mr” and you should have the same respect. Not everyone agrees with your opinions.
It is attitudes like those Lepanto shows in his post which brings alot of Non-Catholics down on the RCC.
WP

You may say it is rude… but I definitely agree with what Lepanto posted.

As a Roman Catholic, I believe that the Catholic Church is the only Church established by Jesus Christ. She only then has the revealed Truths.

Anybody who teaches doctrines other that what She teaches become false teachers. They teach half-truths and lies. Confusion. Therefore, these non-catholic clergy are false teachers in my point of view. Because they must teach strange doctrines. And they know it! So how should I, as a Catholic, respect such people when I know that they’re just deceiving souls of innocent people? And maybe they’re using their very titles to deceive more?

You can dress up a monkey and it still looks monkey to me.

There is a difference between respecting a person as a human being and respecting him when it comes to the salvation of souls.

---

Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27 +

 

[panoikei]

Holy Orders outside of the Catholic and Orthodox churches are invalid.

No matter how much purple finery and pectoral crosses the “archbishop” of Canterbury may wear, he is every bit as much a layman as you or I.

-]“Sir” or “Mr.” is the appropriate title/-].

TaDa You get the grand prize. Yes. I’ve heard this on Catholic Answers Radio by several people. Catholic priests are sensitive to others not feeling comfortable with calling them Father or Reverend. The priest I called up on my reversion avoided his title of respect knowing where I was coming from. I grilled the poor man with all my hurts, troubles and sorrows…mostly anger. He was very shocked about the whole thing, that is what I was telling him happened to me in my youth. He was very gentle with me and had he flinched the wrong reaction I’m not sure I’d be here today. My former faith does not address ministers as Reverend or Pastor. A Pastor is different from a minister. We didn’t call anybody by titles other than Mister or Doctor. Ironically both of those titles really imply “teacher”.