www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology lay ministry vesting

It seems to me that those laity who serve in the church as ministers "outside" the altar only cannot vest. This includes cantors, lectors, and other liturgical functionaries.

Am I correct?

If this is so, then what do we make of it when laity in the Byzantine Catholic church DO vest? I include male and female volunteer ministers here.

What is the Byzantine tradition for vesting. I don't mean riazza or other black or gray cassock-type garment. I mean vestments.

What if the lay person feels it is her or his right to wear it; the argument going that no one wants to be a altar 'boy'. What if lay people vest in order to hold candles and assist at serving communion while altar boys stand aside?

I always asked the members of my parish schola to wear appropriate attire. But our cantors, chanters, and lectors who don't serve at the altar never wear vestments.

But this is becoming popular in our church. Not only does our clergy approve of it, they also introduce it and then promote it.

Do our clergy have the right to introduce lay vesting at the Divine Liturgy when lay ministries are only served outside the altar? If so, why isn't this done in all our parishes?

This thread certainly has grown silent since my last post except for one reply.

I believe that our church doesn't do anything without a reason. So, if our bishops are permitting our clergy to introduce lay vesting for their ministries outside the altar, then I would like to know more about it. This is a novelty because since I first entered the seminary to study for the priesthood, the fathers have always made sure it was understood who can and cannot wear vestments - the altar boy phenomenon aside.

Now, all those understandings are being ignored.

I don't hate lay ministers who perform their ministries outside the altar. I am one of them. I even was active in starting a schola made up of female singers who have served wonderfully in their capacity - even leading the people's parts at times all by themselves!

But should I ask my local protopresbyter, who is canonically responsible for ensuring correct liturgical rubrics (per canon law), to introduce lay vesting? Can the girls in my parish schola begin wearing vestments? How about our non-tonsured lay lector?

What do you think? Is your bishop introducing or giving his blessing to lay vesting at the liturgy for those ministries performed ONLY outside the altar?

Thanks. I welcome your insight and comments.

God bless,
Joe Thur

The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese had a fashion for a while of having "robed" choirs - I don't know if this is still going on.

Incognitus

Joe,

I would not say that any one has the RIGHT to vest. Since you mentioned "our clergy" (and by this I assume you mean the parish pastor or administrator) are instituting vesting in the sticharion for laity in ministries outside of the subdiaconal ministry "with knowledge and permission of the their bishop," then I would direct you back to your pastor, he is, after all, the bishop's representative to the parish.

Now let us recall what the sticharion represents. The sticharion signifies the garment worn by the initiated after baptism. So maybe all the faithful should be allowed it's use??? I'm not advocating one way or the other, but its reservation to the ordained developed for some reason. Or to state this differently, the elimination of the use of the sticharion among the laity developed for some reason, or does this sound like clericalism?

If your bishop has allowed its use for the laity who perform ministerial duties in the liturgical services and you "would like to know more about it," then ask those, i.e., your bishop,pastor, etc., who are in the position to provide the definitive answer. Certainly none of the laity unilaterally would make the decision to vest in the sticharion without first asking the parish pastor.

Father Deacon John,

Thank you for your reply. It seems I keep running into things that demand a 'contact the bishop' to get answers.

The vestments of the presbyter used to be civil clothing at one time elsewhere. Now, they have taken on a new meaning, a meaning restricted to liturgical sign and function.

Should laity be wearing vestments or should clergy be wearing civil clothes during the liturgies? Something to ponder.

But the point is made that there are reasons why certain attire become restricted to certain ministers and certain functions. I don't know if clericalism is the total answer. It would seem. There are many things priests do at the Divine Liturgy that the laity used to do.

For the forum discussion, and this is what we do best here:

Hypothetically speaking, if Suzie wants to distribute Communion, can she wear the sticharion to do so? Can Mike ask to wear the sticharion if he has been lectoring for over two decades? Is it appropriate for baba to wear the sticharion if she wants to start ministering outside the altar - like leading the congregation in praying the rosary before liturgy?

Since the Church has made a distinction in attire for liturgical services, I would like to know if that distinction is now 'old school'? Have we been too strict in our preference on who wears vestments during divine services? Should the Church recognize lay volunteer ministers as it once did with minor orders? They are doing the same thing. One doesn't need to be a deacon or sub-deacon to administer Communion. Why should the vestment rule still apply?

Joe

NO, because only deacons (but not in all traditions), priests and bishops may distribute Communion. These are all men who have been consecrated to minister to the Church. If any Eastern Catholic Church has decided to institute the Roman Catholic institution of Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion they should re-read numerous directives and encyclicals from the Holy See, be good and obedient Catholics, and stop playing at being Roman.

YES, but only if his bishop tonsures him as a reader. If the bishop believes that one is only consecrated to the Minor Orders the day before being ordained deacon - and a few months later, priest - then the answer is NO, regardless of how long Mike has been functioning as a 'reader'. The blame is not on Mike, but on his Bishop.

NO, because 1) baba, being female, cannot be tonsured, ergo she cannot be a 'minister' in an Eastern Church, and 2) there is no place for public recitation of the rosary before DL in the Eastern Churches. Try learning your own patrimony before copying from others.

How about 'the Church' decides to recover its neglected traditions - Minor Orders - and learn to work with them, instead of ignoring them and coming up with something new? Too often EC Churches perceive a 'problem' and instead of looking under their own roof for a solution go running straight to another Church. This inevitably leads to further problems down the road.

Attention Eastern Catholics: have the courage to be who you are - Christians of the Orthodox East in Communion with the Holy See. If being Eastern embarasses you and you think the RCC is the model to work to, please make life easier on everyone and just become RC - this is where you will eventually drag your church. Why waste time?

Sometimes I wish the Eastern Catholic Churches would be given the ultimatum: either become Roman Catholic or Orthodox. It would end these silly games and make our lives much easier, especially mine!

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

As a follow-up...

If a Church has laity assuming the responsibilities of the Minor Orders - then tonsure them! Restore Minor Orders! If the laity are women, you have a problem. But the solution is NOT to say "well, we can't tonsure you because you are female, but we'll 'bless' you and give you some sort of 'vestment' - almost like the real thing". At that point one might as well just start tonsuring and ordaining women. If that's what some people want, there are plenty of Protestant and vagante churches that will galdly give them a home. Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

A quick response from a Latin...I notice the term outside the altar...which to me is the sanctuary...my parish(RC)presently has the EMHC's running about without a way to distinguish them...well that is not totally correct...there are usally 4 women and 2 men...many times the lector/reader is a EMHC also. It does not make sense to have altar servers robed and the others not...

james

PS-no I don't agree with the practice or use of EMHC's...

This ministry has been instituted in the Byzantine Catholic Church. There are even guidelines like the 70-person rule, which permits an EM to distribute if there are more than 70 communicants. It might be 70; it might be 75. I can�t remember and I certainly don�t spend my time counting.

BTW, there is no such thing as �extraordinary.� There is only ordinary or there is not.

//Can Mike ask to wear the sticharion if he has been lectoring for over two decades?//
I heard that a mitred archpriest can also ordain readers. Are you familiar with this tradition? But tonsured readers will eclipse the female lectorate. How can we work things out here?

//Is it appropriate for baba to wear the sticharion if she wants to start ministering outside the altar - like leading the congregation in praying the rosary before liturgy?//
Weren�t there deaconesses in the Byzantine Church at one time � even paid by the emperor for their particular ministry? Several folks on these forums have called for its re-institution.

Some eparchies do consider their lay pastoral associates as ministers and have them go through the same application process as do deacons. But this might be typical of anyone going for the ministry.

Some Byzantine Catholic parishes advertise in newspapers that they still pray the rosary before the liturgy (Mass) in order to attract disgruntled traditionalist Latins. If we fail in the evangelization department, why not institute a rosary guild to grow?

Do we know what that is? Clergy do have vocations in their parishes to the minor orders, but minor orders have not been re-instituted. Wouldn�t re-instituting minor orders push out lay female ministers? In some Latin dioceses I hear they are doing away with the diaconate because women are upset about losing their ministries. Why do you need a EEM if you have deacons that can distribute Communion?

But there is a difference between minor orders and volunteer ministers: Money and Responsibility. Volunteers are rather inexpensive wouldn�t you say? I mean, if you have no need for them then discard them. It�s like cohabitating.

Why buy the cow if you get the milk free?

Joe

Joe,

as you are aware the norm re the distribution of the Eucharist may be found in the Particular Law as promulgated by Metropolitan +Judson of blessed memory in 1999.

It states as follows:

Canon 709 �2

�l. In cases of true necessity, deacons may distribute the Divine Eucharist.

�2. In the same cases, even minor clerics and members of the laity can be designated to distribute the Divine Eucharist.

1o. A parish may have one person designated for this purpose plus another for each 75 communicants at the Liturgy.

2o. The metropolitan Liturgical Commission is to prepare a program of training that includes theological and spiritual formation, the selection process for candidates and a practicum.

3o. Those persons may take communion to those who, by reason of illness, infirmity or age, cannot attend the Divine Liturgy regularly.

4o. If any priest or deacon is present at the Liturgy, in any capacity whatever, he is to make himself known to the principal celebrant and shall distribute the divine Eucharist, vested insofar as possible, and taking precedence over any minor cleric or lay person present.

So as we can see the governing law for the Metropolia of Pittsburgh provides a certain "hierarchy" for the distribution of the Holy Gifts. The celebrant bishop and/or priest is the ordinary minister of Communion. The EMoC's are as follows in order of precedence

1. Concelebrating deacon
2. non-celebrating priest
3. non-celebrating deacon
4. minor cleric
5. member of the laity

Given that some parishes do not have deacons or minor clerics, members of the laity would be allowed to distribute the Eucharist "(i)n cases of true necessity." In my mind, that would mean: the priest is unable to stand unsupported; he is unable to hold his arms for any length of time; etc; or that the distribution to more than 75 communicants would cause any of the aforementioned.

Returning to your original question, by practice and custom, non-ordained persons, except for men or boys serving as sudeacons in the altar, have not vested for the liturgical services. The CCEO, the Particular Law, and no doubt the various eparchial norms are silent on the non-ordained who perform liturgical ministries outside the altar, i.e., cantors, lectors, etc. Having said that, I would imagine there is nothing to prevent a bishop from introducing the vesting of laity in those ministries. However, where would it end? Would catechists/teachers look to be vested as well?

Good point. And this returns to my original post/question.

Since there is nothing to prevent laity from vesting then it is ok. Priests are in the right to introduce lay vesting in their parishes. Anyone who ministers outside the altar can vest, male and female. It explains why this is now happening.

But why is it being introduced in some parishes but not others? Why are laity permittd by their bishops to vest in some parishes, but it not be promoted and taught at large?

Will you introduce lay vesting in your parish?

Joe

Dear Joseph,

And what does milk have to do with all this?

And you've never been one to "cow-tow" to anyone . . .

Alex

A final word ...

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

Jose:

if your question is directed to me, I have to say that it already happens in the situation of non-ordained men and boys who serve in the altar.

Now if your question refers to the vesting of those outside the altar, as a deacon, I have to say that is not for me to decide.

KO63AP:

the general rule is violated in every circumstance noted above by those men and boys who serve as subdeacons in the altar.

Good point, Fr. Deacon John. That violation began when we got rid of the minor orders - if Ruthenians ever made use of them - and instituted innovative solutions like 'altar boys.' But, of course, we opted for vesting of such new ministries. Maybe because we couldn't accept civil clothes for attire inside the altar?

Ruthenians DID have a special altar boy vestment that differed from a sticharion. Later, we adopted the traditional sticharion that a deacon or subdeacon wears. The earlier vestment style did not associate the altar boy with minor orders.

Does anyone remember the Ruthenian altar boy vestment that I am referring to? The one with the yoke and tassles? Or was this an innovation in order to distinguish 'Our People' from the Orthodox?

But the ordo makes an interesting point about rank, etc. Might this mean that Rome is telling us something? Might this ring a bell regarding getting back to our traditions? Should the institution of 'altar boy' be dismantled and re-built?

The deaconate was re-instituted, no? The problem of having a liturgy where we read "Deacon's part" was answered by having a deacon, not a priest, serve. We eliminated the problem.

Now we still have vesting of laity as altar boys or adult male servers serving in the capacity of subdeacons. Is there a need to re-investigate the re-institution of minor orders to eliminate this age-old problem? Several eparchies have established subdeacon training.

But there is one problem. Women now serve in various ministries. We now permit altar boys (a violation) to serve in tandem with vested girls (another violation).

Are we looking to solve a problem or just compounding an existing one? Just wondering.

Joe

That sounds interesting (even if slightly dodgy) - what was this vestment, and what was it called? Has anyone a picture?