www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Minor Orders?

Does the Byzantine church have any Minor Orders?
Just wondering.

Christ is ascended!

Clark,

Yes, the Byzantine Churches retained the minor orders. In fact, I guess one could also claim that the Latin Church still does as well, since Paul VI only suppressed them and not abolished them (and, as far as I know, the Tridentine groups in communion with the Holy See still ordain men to the minor orders before the diaconate).

--Mark

Ah, thank you.

Clark, Mark is correct. In some Churches the minor orders are still used to perform the appropriate liturgical functions, i.e. readers are tonsured to be readers, subdeacons to serve the Bishop and lead the acolytes, etc. without moving on to deaconate or priesthodd.

Some, however, have unfortunately lost the minor orders and these are conferred the day of or just before ordination to the deaconate.

Yes, the Fraternity of St. Peter and some of the traditional monastic orders in the West still also confer the minor orders.

The Latin Rite still elevates men to minor orders while in seminary. So, I think you get acolyte in your 2nd College, Porter at some point, Lector in 4th College or something -- don't remember now. We were tonsured after 2 months in the "house", the weekend we got our cassocks and could wear clerical garb "on duty".

Subdeacon is a major order in the West, however.

This is funny, because my parish priest and I were recently discussing something similar, about how the Metropolia should bring minor orders back.

Just a small clarification vis-a-vis the West. The minor orders were suppressed, but permission to use them went to the groups that have permission to follow the older Tridentine Rites. The west retained two of the minor orders as "ministries" and candidates to the diaconate must receive them prior to ordination. Those are Lector and Acolyte.

Fr. Deacon Edward

What were the reasons and logic of suppressing minor orders in the Latin church? Vito

No. We have Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers and Mary-Martha servers.

Minor orders are probably considered a waste of time and effort (read: useless). Too Orthodox.

Joe

I don't think they would be a waste of time as you say , since they were used for around 1,960 years or so in the west. But your opinion is your opinion.
The reasoning behind the suppresson im not sure of, I imagine it was because they were trying to get away from anything resembling the Old Mass in the new one.
Also, are the Eastern Minor Orders any different?

Yes. In the Byzantine tradition, there are only two orders below the diaconate, those of readers and subdeacons. In other Eastern Rites I know of, these two orders are broken down more, but there is nothing resembling the orders of porter or exorcist ... but I don't know much about rites other than the Byzantine, so don't take my word for other Eastern Rites.

There were once special services for setting aside laymen for sundry functions, e.g., preaching and lamp lighting, but these had fallen into disuse before the invention of printing, with one exception: Candle bearer (acolyte, I suppose), which is now prepended to the ordination of readers and singers; while it's written as one service, there are places were candle bearers are set aside without being ordained readers, which, since they are still laymen, makes them essentially altar boys.

The ordination of a reader includes the tonsure; they have always been the same ceremony. Readers are very common; without ever having seen figures, I am reasonably certain that in the Orthodox Church there are more readers than members of all the higher ranks of clergy.

The use of subdeacons varies widely from one part of the Orthodox world to another. In most places, marriage is forbidden once one is ordained a subdeacon (and traditionally, one must be either married or a monk to be ordained), but in, at least, the Patriarchate of Antioch, the bar for marriage is the diaconate, and many unmarried men are subdeacons; there, they also perform some functions that elsewhere are normally reserved to deacons, e.g., intoning litanies (outside of the Divine Liturgy). In Greece, on the other hand, the order is obsolete, in that a subdeacon is now only ordained in the same service in which he will later be ordained a deacon; the subdeacons' roles there are performed by deacons. In Russia, permanent subdeacons are only found attached to bishops, whom they escort to and from church, in addition to their special roles in pontifical services.

I have been a reader most of my life. Practically, this means I wear a cassock in church and at church functions; although most men in minor orders nowadays groom as laymen, I have a substantial beard and long hair. Also, I vest to receive Communion even if I'm not already vested, and I wore my vestment, the sticharion, when I was married, and will be buried wearing it; whenever I am commemorated in the services, the epithet "Reader" is used with my baptismal name. Although, especially in modern times and in the new world, laymen do read in church, I have been set aside for that purpose and this is recognized with respect. And, because I personally have a very thorough knowledge of the rubrics, when chaos threatens, I take over the choir and reestablish order with an authority that a layman would not.

Photius, Reader

There should be no such thing as "lay" Eurcharistic Ministers in Byzantine Catholic churches. Such practice was suppose to be elimanted, but there are still parishes in the Ruthenian Metropolia that have them. Tsk, tsk!

Ungcsertezs

Good morning Clark.

The minor orders were not used for 1,960 years or so in the West. As with other ministries and practices in the Church, they developed individually over time. In fact, from at least the middle ages onward, those who had been ordained to these minor orders rarely exercised them, with the exception of that of acolyte. One of the minor orders was that of exorcist and the Church has restricted the rite of exorcism to specially trained and delegated presbyters for a very long time.

Instead of conjecturing why they were suppressed, may I suggest that you read the Apostolic Letter Ministeria Quaedam at
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MINORS.HTM
which presents the reasons for their suppression. As you will see, the reasons had nothing to do with your conjecture "...they were trying to get away from anything resembling the Old Mass in the new one...."

Given your comment (noted above), may I ask you, please, do not turn this thread into a "Novus Ordo versus Tridentine" battleground. That is not what this Forum is about.

Thank you and God bless,

Charles

Clark,

I did not say, "I consider minor orders a waste of time ..."

I wrote, "Minor orders are probably considered a waste of time and effort (read: useless). Too Orthodox."

I have always been in support of the restoration of minor orders. I'm not too sure that our bishops are; hence, eucharistic ministers and mary/martha servers.

When asked to restore our traditions in lieu of Orthodox practice, we look to the nearest Latin church to see what they are doing.

But minor orders demand a reciprocal relationship between parties. Unlike disposable volunteer ministries and immitation ministries (the "come-and-go" orders), minor orders might be too much to handle.

BTW, I was once told years ago that such orders WAS a waste of time and effort, especially when the church can be spending time educating priests instead. That is why our seminary is packed.

But our hierarchs prefer to cold call on vocations with Called by Name and Vocation Icon programs rather than harvest a potential crop of potential vocations via minor orders in every parish. The former demands the laity to solve the vocation problem; the latter demands the hierarchs to solve it. Sure, most of them might not even consider 'major' orders, but a field of dedicated ministries can help keep the pilot light lit.

Minor orders fell out of use just like the deaconate did. But the latter was restored. This shows that restoration can take place even though particular offices were tucked away in the attic.

Joe

Christ is Risen!

I would just add to the ample response of Photius that in churches of the Greek tradition (including some Antiochian) that servers are sometimes blessed to wear the crossed orarion and serve as a subdeacon without being ordained specifically through chierotesia to the subdiaconate, and the subdiaconate becomes reduced to a transitory rite before diaconate.

One does see "permanent" (an unsatisfactory term) subdeacons much more frequently in churches of the Slavic tradition. Tonsured readers, however, are a more universal tradition to both Greek and Slavic traditions.

Also even the Orthodox have lost some of the minor orders that one would have seen in the Great Church in Constantinople, such as doorkeepers, etc.

In Truth is He Risen!
I would add to Diak's addition, that in the Russian tradition, readers are also sometimes given the right to wear an orarion, at least when serving as tri- or dikirphor in lieu of a sundeacon; I have such a blessing. However, even on the rare occasions I wear an orarion, I must take it off to receive Communion, and when ordained a subdeacon, the candidate never wears an orarion until he is solemnly vested in it at the end of the ceremony.

The other minor orders that you speak of, to the best of my ability to figure out what was done, were considered special blessings and those in those offices were not tonsured, so they were not, technically, minor orders. But, I'm not certain of that. However, the office of reader has been around since the second century and has always been a required prerequisite to being ordained a subdeacon.

Christ is Risen!
Photius