Can anyone explain the difference in The Very Reverand, The Right Reverand, etc? It’s been bugging me for years.
IIRC the style of the Lords Spiritual in the Church of England runs something like:
Archbishop - the Most Reverend and Right Honourable the Lord Archbishop of …
Bishop - The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of …
Moving down the food chain, we have the Dean of St. Paul’s, the Very Reverend …
What johncole said applies (without “the Right Honourable” and “Lord”) to the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and (to the best of my knowledge) to the Anglican Churches of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as well (and presumably other branches). (The Episcopal Church does not have an Archbishop; the chief executive of the church, the Presiding Bishop, is “the Most Reverend Frank Griswold.”
An archdeacon, FWIW, breaks the pattern; he’s “The Venerable NN.”
I’m not familiar with the designation for Catholic Deans and such; all their bishops and archbishops are “The Most Reverend.” Exception: if an archbishop is a cardinal, he is “His Eminence, Francis, Cardinal O’Reilly.”
They’re merely courtesy honorifics used in salutations.
And while we’re at it, strictly speaking, “reverend” is an honorific, not a form of address. The Rev. Robert Brown is addressed as Mr. Brown, Dr. Brown, or Fr. Brown.
And you must also include the “The” at the beginning. Too many newcasters make this mistake with The Reverend Jesse Jackson and just call him Reverend Jackson. This is incorrect.
I’m not a fan of Jesse’s but I do like to nitpick.
thanks all, I figured it was probably something in the Protestant Church. Here’s a follow up. I was ordained by the Universal Life Church. now, first don’t let my priest know about this (I’m Catholic), and second, I called the County Courthouse, and yes, I can legally sign marriage, death, etc certificates. I’m legally an ordained minister, with the title of Reverand. What shall I call myself? Right Reverand, Very Reverand, please advise. I’m suffering this damn flu right now and stoned out of my gourd on codeine to kill the cough. Will check in tomorrow when I have a more solid grip on reality
You might want to make sure you spell reverend correctly.
See Psalms 111:2-9 for the context of:
Psalms 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
“Beware of the Cog”
Well, sir, first, there’s no such thing as “the Protestant Church” – there are a large number of Protestant churches of a variety of denominations and beliefs.
I don’t know but suspect that accepting ordination from a church not in communion with Rome makes you automatically excommunicated as a Catholic – check Cecil’s column and the extensive discussions on it on this MB.
What you should call yourself is, in essence, the victim of a ripoff. “Reverend” is a courtesy appelation attached to the full name of people who are actual clergy in the sense of ministering to congregations, being chaplains to military groups or colleges, etc. Whatever the ULC calls you on your paperwork is the formal title you ought to use – but you aren’t “a reverend” any more than a lawyer is “an honorable.” (By the way, can I interest you in Polycarp’s Mail Order Law School? For a mere $25, I’ll send you a beautiful certificate that entitles you to hang an “Esq.” after your name, to represent yourself in court, and to accept power of attorney from other people. And it’s every bit as valuable as your ULC “ordination.”)
After checking with the 1983 edition of the Code of Canon Law…
It certainly would be possible that being ordained in a Protestant church with clearly heretical beliefs (from the point of view of the RCC) would classify a baptized Catholic as a heretic. But it would be easier to show the canonical crime of schism for joining a different ‘christian’ denomination. Either case would be grounds for automatic excommunication. Although, unless one is a Catholic clergyman or a prominent member of the RCC in some way (like a politician or theologian), the RCC isn’t going to be chasing the offender down to pronounce an excommunication. It would certainly be an obstacle to ordination in the RCC.
There is a specific canon, #1384 which states, “…a person who illegitimately performs a priestly function or another sacred ministry can be punished with a just penalty.” A just penalty is whatever the offender’s local bishop decides (or, upon appeal, a church tribunal). But again, if your just some schlub in the pews, no one’s going to do anything.
===========
To the OP, as for as titles, how about “The Very Questionable Reverend”? Or, “The Pseduo Reverend”? Or, “The Self Reverendtial” Or, how about “Some Deluded Jerk Looking to Get Out of Paying His Fair Share of the Tax Burden”? Because, while the RCC may not seek to try you for your ecclesial crime, the IRS may not be that negligent.
Not to mention how God feels about it.
Peace.
So, maybe I should change my username!
- Reverend Tim
Is there any reason to assume that someone who has chosen to accept ordination by the ULC has done so in order to commit tax fraud or some other dishonourable act?
Well, one could be in it to belong to a church which has no real structure so that you can practice a faith that has no real beliefs in order to minister to a congregation that doesn’t really exist.
In that case, sure, it’s perfectable honorable.
Oh, yeah, it’s so honorable, that one might proudly declare “don’t tell my priest.”
Their FAQ has lots on the tax exempt status of the incorporated not-for-profit religious ‘congregation’ that a ‘minister’ can form.
Peace.
The ULC is one of the specific groups mentioned in this DoJ discussion of Tax Protestor schemes. So, while ordination in the ULC is no guarantee that one is intending to commit tax fraud, I would hazard to guess that it will draw the scrutiny of the IRS.
In a related question, what are the formal titles for the various types and levels of clergy in the Roman Catholic Church?
well, since it was free I don’t see how it was a rip-off. Anyway, I did it more for taunting my co-workers by insisting they call me Reverend.
BTW, I’ve never even given consideration to trying some tax dodge, though with all the tax loopholes, I suspect it wouldn’t be too difficult.
And who’s to say that dodging taxes is really a bad thing?
The entire “I’m a church so you can’t tax me” cop-out is absurd. Churches today are run like corporations and should be taxed as such.
It’s only fair if, after pumping millions into some fundamentalist’s election campaign, the churches hand over some tax dollars to pay for the legislation they sponsor.
With the churches paying their fair share we will start to see less “Fort Gods” being built and more “Adequate Schools” in their place.
1700 acres directly behind my land is owned by a new wave church group. They pay no property taxes, don’t properly manage the land and all for the outdoorsy enjoyment of maybe 50 families.
With the way things are run now, I could become an ordained minister and create a congregation of investors. We could meet every Sunday so things look legit and we steadily buy up land.
If anyone asks why we’re buying so much land, we can say we don’t know- God told us to do it.
SeekingTruth, to amend my earlier post, I think an attempt to use your new-found clerical status to avoid a portion of income tax would draw the attention of the IRS; using it to tweak your co-workers is a different matter entirely.
Billdo, the short answer is:[ul][li]Pope - Your Holiness[/li][li]Cardinal - Your Emminence[/li][li]Patriarch - Your Beatitude[/li][li]Archbishop or Bishop- Your Excellency[/li][li]Monsignor - Monsignor[/li][li]Priest - Father[/li][li]Deacon - Deacon[/li][/ul]These two sites go into more detail.
zabrain, the issue of tax-exempt status for churches (and other non-profits, such as colleges, museums, etc.) is a hot topic for many taxing authorities, especially given the budget problems that states and cities are facing. I think it might just make for a good Great Debate thread.
JohnM is correct as far as direct address goes, and (with appropriate modifications) this would be true for Episcopalian and Anglican clergy as well.
What I originally understood the OP to be asking was, “When do you use the modifications on ‘Reverend’?” – and this would only be in formal correspondence or in third person, as when introducing him formally.
In such cases it would be:
His Holiness The Pope
Vatican City
Dear Pope John Paul:
His Eminence Frederick, Cardinal Brown
Archdiocese of Baltimore Offices
121 St. Marys Ave.
Baltimore MD 2xxxx
Dear Cardinal Brown:
Catholic: The Most Rev. Francis X. Sheeney
Anglican: The Right Rev. Winston Spencer-Browne
Diocesan House
18 North Church Street
Anytown, ND 688xx
Dear Bishop Sheeney/Spencer-Browne:
The Very Rev. Maurice T. Moose
Dean of the Cathedral
St. Ignatius Cathedral
750 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA 9xxxx
Dear Dean Moose:
The Venerable J. Paul Axholt
Archdeacon of the Diocese of South Virginia
2112 U.S. Hwy. 301
Emporia, VA 24xxx
Dear Archdeacon Axholt:
The Rev. Monsignor Wladislaw Paderewsky (Catholic only)
St. Peter’s Rectory
775 Ugly Street
Wherever, CA 92xxx
Dear Monsignor Paderwsky:
The Rev. John Jones
St. Thomas Church
9115 Old Wurtsburg Pike
Pottsboro, PA 18xxx
Dear Father Jones:
The Rev. Deacon Hugo White
Midtown Towers, Apt. 43
Metropolis, IL 63xxx
Dear Deacon White:
SeekingTruth, how about “Quite Reverend”?