www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Altar Girls

In almost no parishes are "altar boys" in minor orders. This is simply public knowledge. Even in parishes that have the custom of vesting altary boys as subdeacons (seems more common among Greek-usage parishes) they are simply boys.

AFAIK acolytes and taper-bearers do not exist as stand alone minor orders in modern usage. Do they in your old-calendar Jurisdiction?

Tony

Gaudior, perhaps your old-calendar jurisdiction has some different usage than most. "[T]his is the first step in the priesthood" is not part of any prayer. It is part of the admonition that the bishop gives to the newly tonsured.

Tony

Paul,

Be it the Curia or the Pope via the local Bishop, it was a gesture to appease.

I do agree with men dropping the ball, we tend to put aside or forget our responsibilities.

james

Gaudior,

You are old-calendarist? I must be stupid or something. And I'm trying to argue with you about being open to allowing women to play new roles... you won't even accept the "new" 400 year old calendar which is more accurate! Sorry for wasting both of our time.

I wonder though, does your Church make women sit apart from the men as well? Then again, you don't sit at all do you (no pews)? Do your women cover their heads? (I happen to like that one).

I'm against the feminization of the Church too, but I think a lot of people are just overly nostalgic, harkening back to a day that isn't our day. I think, such a strict rejection of anything modern, leads one to schismatic inclinations. If one is so dogmatic about every little detail, sooner or later one will find something to divide over. If women are such a problem in our Churches, why don't we just kick them out altogether? Oh yeah, we still need to reproduce, don't we. I don't think this is worth arguing about. As far as I'm concerned we should probably get all of the kids out of the Liturgy and just leave it to adults as is the orignal practice. There would be a lot less scandals if this were again the practice.

Ghazar

Neil, thanks for the post and the interesting article.

Well we agree somewhat!
I firmly believe that the ministry should be reserved to adult men.
Stephanos I

I have seen this practice of vesting even small boys as subdeacons, but, no, in my parish we do have both tonusred accolytes (as I said, only some, the youngest have not been tonsured yet) and a sub-deacon who serves in altar, doing such things as holding fans when required...standard server things. He is a sub-deacon, and is communed as such.

Gaudior, who maintains that once the boys are trained as altar servers, and have shown they can "stick with the program" they should be tonsured as such, but as the Orthodox start them so young, they should not be tonsured until they have an idea what such setting aside means.

Pardon me, Tony..I should have made that statement : When the ceremony for the setting aside of a Reader clearly states "This is the first step of the priesthood". It is not a prayer, but an admonition.

Are Readers still created taper-bearers if they are not already tonsured to this minor office? I was once told that the service for creating a taper-bearer preceded that of the service to create a Reader, effectively making the man both on the same day. I do not know if this is correct, though.

Does anyone have a Hapgood Service book to hand?

Gaudior, questioningly

For the simple reason that it has been out of use for so many centuries that it would no longer, in my opinion, count as a "restoration". No one is 100% certain what those duties entailed, although many excellent books and articles have been written on the subject. It would be necessary for hierarchs in all jurisdictions to agree on the "rules" if you will. Even looking at the original rules will only be a guide, as most women at 40 have not become menopausal, and, therefore, either the age or the rule about menstruating must go. There are too many items to be worked out to allow something like this to slide by as a "Restoration" without clarification by Council, even though no Council ended it

Gaudior, in explanation

Ghazar,

This may come as a surprise to you, but most of the Orthodox world are Old Calendarists.

And, while churches with no pews (except for the elderly, or infiirm, along the sides) are the ideal as they allow full-body worship, my church does have pews. Most in America do.

St. Paul says women should cover their heads. Some do, some do not. It is not for me to tell them what to do...in my experience only the splinter sects that are in communion with no one chase women around with headscarfs, demanding they wear them.

Gaudior, who has answered politely, but is beginning to lose patience with irrelevancies such as pews and head coverings.

It wouldn't hurt to be mindful of the "restoration" mindset that has created chaos for years in the post-Vatican II Latin Church. Before "restoring" something, it might be a good idea to find out why it was dropped to begin with. There could have been excellent reasons for dropping it. I think some of the clamor for change in women's roles is an attempt to do what worked successfully in the Episcopal church namely, moving into deaconess roles then the priesthood. There has been a trend in recent times, and I think Paul VI suffered from it greatly, to think that modern people are so much more advanced than our medieval ancestors. That somehow we have more wisdom, holiness, will to do good, and have only the best intentions. Not so! Our capacity for creativeness in sin has certainly increased. Our ability to deceive ourselves into thinking that the evil we do is really good has increased. Our loss of the sense of sin and of shame has increased. The fact that we live today instead of 400 years ago is not a good reason for changing anything without putting a great deal of thought into it. We need to examine why we need the change, and what the effects and implications of the change will likely be.

Orthoman,

"And what Canon or Church Rule book assigned Altar Boys the responsibility of holding the cloth underneath a communicant OUTSIDE OF THE SANCTUARY (ALTAR) area? Until you can produce such evidence on just who is responsible to perform this function you cannot prove it is a responsibility of only an Altar Boy. It may be the norm but that doesn't make it etched in stone."

The Liturgikon prescribes that the deacon perform this function. In his absence, this would obviously devolve to servers, in their absence to males in the congregation, if their are no males then females. However, if parishes are using girls in this capacity when males are available they are disturbing the proper order.

Also the alb and the sticharion are the same vestment. The deacon and servers are of better material than the priest's because this is their top vestment, but both represent the baptismal garment and since everyone is vested with this at their baptism I really can't see how people can object to a girl wearing one.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Deacon Lance,

Which Liturgikon prescribes this?

Tony

Tony,

The 1942 Ruthenian. I would assume the Orthodox Liturgicons prescribe the same as the Liturgicons produced by Rome are faithful to the originals. I should not that the Ruthenian Liturgikon actually presribes the deacon hold the discos under the communicants chin, but this is probably a Latinization and I would imagine the original prescribed the holding of the lention.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,

The modern Muscovite books that I have examined do not actually say who holds the cloth, but rather that the deacons wipes the lips of the communicant (with a cloth) after communion. It can be deduced that the deacon holds one side of the cloth, the one he wipes with. Who holds the other? What if there is no deacon?

In the 1942 Ruthenian Liturgikon does it say the deacon wipes the lips of the communicant?

Tony

Such a statement, I do find surprising. Reason tells me that if those on the new calendar were the exception, they would be the ones with the label (e.g. "New Calendarists"). The fact that the Old Calendarists get the label, tells me they are the exception and not the norm. Otherwise you would not be called "old-calendarist Orthodox" but rather just "Orthodox" which everyone would know automatically means "old calendar."

The points about headcovering, pews and sitting apart (all of which I wouldn't mind seeing restored) were just meant to point to the fact that many things in the Church change. Some people get dogmatic about this or that but ultimately we have a choice of whether to follow our Church hierarchy or be schismatic. Example: In the Armenian Church it is Canon Law that women must cover their heads to receive Communion, and they still do. And yet the Armenian Church does allow girls to serve in some form during the Liturgy.

In other words, I think we pick and choose (all of us) based on our likes and dislikes. Many outdated Canons are no longer inforced. I just think its a little arbitrary to insist on some (against women) and ignore others.

But thanks for your politeness and patience, just the same.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

p.s. Stephanos I, amazing... we agree on something!