John's point is well made. Regardless of one's personal opinion as to their ecclesiastic status, the faith each represents, or even them as persons, one could hardly greet the Dalai Lama as Mr. Thondup, Archbishop Desmond Tutu as Mr. Tutu, His All-Holiness Bartholomew as Mr. Archontonis, or Pope Benedict as Mr. Ratzinger, and claim to be representative of civil, polite society.

Many years,

Neil

When addressing people, or even in their presence, that is a proper way to behave. Should the Panchen Lama visit and one find oneself at the reception, one bows politely and says something like "We do hope that Your Serenity will enjoy visiting our city." (Incidentally, I would enjoy having the title of "His Serenity" myself, although I have no desire to be the Panchen Lama!)

Under other circumstances, standards are apt to change to a degree. There used to be a notorious episcopus vagans in Brittany who used the awe-inspiring title of "His Whiteness". He is now deceased, but this dubious if awe-inspiring sobriquet has been pressed into service as a title for almost any ecclesiastic who fails to inspire religious awe!

Another now-deceased acquaintance would refer to almost any hierarch in the absence of that hierarch as "the Great Toad".

My own favorite was used quite seriously until somebody pointed out how it could be mis-construed a few decades ago: Your Amplitude. Nowadays, it could get you a slap across the face.

When Patriarch Joseph found that some Cardinal was annoying him, it was easy to tell from the complimentary close of the Patriarch's letter of complaint: the more annoyed the Patriarch was, the more elaborately deferential the complimentary close was (perhaps on the premise that some people simply do not realize when they are being insulted).

Myself, if I am merely annoyed by some such nuisance, my letter concludes: "beseeching Your Eminence's holy and righteous prayers". But if I am seething with frustration and fury, my letter concludes "yet nourishing at the breasts of Holy Mother Church, I lie prostrate at the feet of Your Benignitude". Imagine the gymnastics! (I've only used that one twice in my life - and on neither occasion did the recipient show any signs of having grasped the point). I learned it from a Professor who told me to use it sparingly, so as not to cheapen the coinage, so to speak.

Fr. Serge

Linguists who specialize in pragmatics have a name for either a mistake or an extraordinary politeness. They call it a conversational implicature.

It is commonly used when giving a back-handed reference or comment. Yes, it employs sarcasm.

"I cannot recommend him enough."

or

"That was the most brilliant idea to have ever come out of his mouth."

Hopefully they will enter the Church in hordes.And perhaps start a whole host of people thinking.
Stephanos I
I am using the Year Of St Paul as a great evangelization tool.

I am praying for hordes of good people to enter the Church and be done with this schizophrenia.

I don't say priestess because here it's an insult that means non-Christian, and I call clergy what they want to be called. The Episcopal priest, like the Methodist bishop.

Why would "priestess" be a non-Christian term (apart, of course, from the obvious fact that until the mid-20th century the mainline Christian Churches had nothing of the sort)?

Fr. Serge

I think that despite what the PC crowd would like to hear, "priest" is a word in English that has a gender - male. Of course, I suspect one could ordain a dog and call it either a priest or a priestess, if so desired. However, one could reasonably question the validity of the ordination. The Anglican/Episcopalians seem to waffle back and forth on the priesthood anyway. I remember 40 years ago when an Episcopalian minister would have resented being call a "priest." So I tend to believe their views vary depending on whether they are currently in a more Catholic mode, or a more Presbyterian mindset.

I suppose he threw out the Scriptures, in that it says God abandon them to their fleshly desires. So very sad!
This ought to push more along in their journey.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece?&EMC-Bltn=OIUDD9

Yes, indeed, St George's is a lovely church - I've visited a couple of times (it's not far from where I work).

It is true that the CoI is, generally, "low church" in Anglican terms, and as Fr.Serge says, the only real high church presence would be St Bartholomews and St John the Baptist in Dublin. In Belfast, though, there is also St John the Baptist on the Malone Road, and I think also St Nicholas on the Lisburn Road - they (I believe) are considered "middle to high".

To be honest, I've never really grasped the whole Anglo-Catholic thing. I lived briefly in Manchester, England some years ago, and not knowing the area, I went looking for the nearest church to my digs for Sunday mass. I came across one (dedicated to St John Chysostom) whose notice board advertised mass at various times on Sunday, duly went along...and found that I was actually in a CoE church. The interior of the building looked familiar, the service was pretty well identical with mass in a Catholic church, but there was a definite (but indefinable) difference; despite the similarities, I knew I wasn't in a Catholic church.

Now jump forward a couple of years to my first trip to Greece, and my first time inside an Orthodox church. There, the differences in physical aspect were many and obvious, BUT...I've never forgotten the sight of old women just dandering into church, lighting candles and venerating the icons, and I felt more in tune with them and what they were doing than I did in that Anglo-Catholic church in Manchester. I suppose I had the same sense of timelessness that I get when I see the older ladies in our parish come in to light candles, or do the stations of the cross.

It's from then that I date my interest in Eastern Christianity.

Incidentally, there is an active Orthodox presence in Northern Ireland - the parish of St Ignatius, on the Antrim Road in North Belfast (parish priest is Fr Irenaeus - I've exchanged emails with him, and he's a lovely man).

Is mise le meas.

Craig

The Anglo-Catholic thing is based on several loopholes in Anglican doctrine like claiming to retain apostolic succession (bishops, priests and deacons) and, in the 1662 and later Books of Common Prayer, a backhanded belief in the Real Presence because the leftover Communion elements don't revert to secular use but are to be eaten and drunk. ACism as such - churches and services that intentionally resemble RC ones - dates from the mid- to late 1800s.

In England it often uses the same service book as RCs but yes, you can tell it's different. It's got a trace of its 1920s ceremonial/theatrical panache/good taste.

Sometimes compared to an old-country/ethnic Orthodox or RC church it can seem put on.