Readers and Subdeacons
Christo J. Balouris
traditions. I am in the GOA, and am a chanter in my church. I was tonsured
as a Reader when I was a young boy (maybe a teenager), but I never use the
designation "Reader", basically because in the GOA tradition, this seems to
be a designation that is simply given as sort of a pat on the head to the
acolytes when the Bishop comes to visit. I also don't know of any
Subdeacons in the GOA.
I'm not saying that there is a right or wrong here, just curious - and maybe
a little jealous of all you guys who get to use the nifty titles ,-).
Chris Balouris, Lawyer/Broker/Chanter/Darned Proud Former
Altarboy-Reader/Priest Wannabe
GS
Christo J. Balouris wrote:
Ordained Reader a very serious ordination in the Bulgarian, Macedonian and
Russian churches.
Mother of three altarboys,
Galja
Fr. John Morris
> Russian churches.
>
It would be more correct to consider a Reader or Subdeacon blessed rather than
ordained because in the Greek a different word is used to describe the making of a
Reader or Subdeacon than is used to describe the ordination of a deacon, priest or
bishop. The blessing of a Reader or Subdeacon takes place outside of the Altar
outside of the Divine Liturgy. I was blessed a Reader at Vespers and blessed a
Subdeacon at the end of Matins. The ordination of a deacon, priest or bishop takes
place within the Altar during the Divine Liturgy. Thus Readers and Subdeacons are
in minor orders while deacons, priests and bishops are in major orders.
Archpriest John W. Morris
SubDJoseph
>Thus Readers and Subdeacons are
>in minor orders while deacons, priests and bishops are in major orders.
>
Yep. "Subdeacon" - Alterboy to Bishops and correcter of small children.
In the OCA at least in theopry only the Cathedrals should have subdeacons as
their actions are only needed for hierarchical services, vesting the bishop,
holding the staff, book, candle, washing the hands, etc. In practice most
parishes keep two or three around for the times that we are graced by the
bishops presense and to generaly help out as elevated alterboys and hewers of
water and drawers of wood.
Joseph
Romanos777
tonsure of readers and ordination of subdeacons is taken seriously. Being
minor clergyman, readers and subdeacons are expected (according to the OCA
priest who catechized me) to have beards and must not go into bars -- in the
same way priests are expected to do this. This priest also told me that
techinically a man cannot get married after ordination to the subdeaconate,
although I believe most jurisdictions -- including the OCA -- ignore that.
--Romanos Emmert, pilgrim
Miami, Florida, USA
SubDJoseph
>Among the Old Calendarists and OCA people with whom I am acquainted, the
>tonsure of readers and ordination of subdeacons is taken seriously. Being
>minor clergyman, readers and subdeacons are expected (according to the OCA
>priest who catechized me) to have beards and must not go into bars
At least here in the West, this is not strictly adhered to, and I would hazard
a guess that in most areas the Canons on this are not strictly enforced. We
take it seriously but not to that extreme. Those same canons also say that we
should "wear the attire appropriate to our rank at all times" and I just don't
see this happening, although I have been told that I look good in black.
Joseph
theo...@medlib.georgetown.edu
Yes, as Joseph said, when there is no bishop present, we are little more than
altar boy "sergeants." (and fire marshalls) When the bishop does come, then,
in my experience, there is almost too much to do, especially if there are
only one or two subdeacons serving.
In XC,
Nick Theodorakis
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
theo...@medlib.georgetown.edu
roman...@aol.com (Romanos777) wrote:
> Among the Old Calendarists and OCA people with whom I am acquainted, the
> tonsure of readers and ordination of subdeacons is taken seriously. Being
> minor clergyman, readers and subdeacons are expected (according to the OCA
> same way priests are expected to do this. This priest also told me that
> techinically a man cannot get married after ordination to the subdeaconate,
> although I believe most jurisdictions -- including the OCA -- ignore that.
> --Romanos Emmert, pilgrim
> Miami, Florida, USA
>
Although, when I was ordained (tonsured, blessed, whatever) as a subdeacon
(in the OCA), I was asked whether I or my wife had any previous marriages, as
if that would have been an impediment. My understanding was that readers
could get married after ordination, however.
John Simmons
On 4 Dec 1998, SubDJoseph wrote:
> >Romanos777
>
> >Among the Old Calendarists and OCA people with whom I am acquainted, the
> >tonsure of readers and ordination of subdeacons is taken seriously. Being
> >minor clergyman, readers and subdeacons are expected (according to the OCA
> >priest who catechized me) to have beards and must not go into bars
>
> At least here in the West, this is not strictly adhered to, and I would hazard
> a guess that in most areas the Canons on this are not strictly enforced. We
> take it seriously but not to that extreme. Those same canons also say that we
> should "wear the attire appropriate to our rank at all times" and I just don't
> see this happening, although I have been told that I look good in black.
Both of the above are basically true where I am. Most, but not all of us
readers have beards and uncut hair, which is encouraged for readers but
not legalistically mandated (Not everyone is able to do this for various
reasons anyway - job codes, lack of hair, etc.). Most of us do not wear
our podrazniks outside of church, but if lecturing at a bookstore or
visiting a monastery/church community, we do.
I think it's good that even the lower ranks of clergy and church servers
don't go to bars, since they are basically a place to be scattered and
not gathered (former life experiences). Besides, brawls over liturgics
could be pretty ugly.
____________________________________________________________
unworthy reader John Simmons |"I have lit the lamp, but take
stra...@strannik.com | care of the wick yourselves"
http://www.strannik.com | - Elder Nectary of Optina
_____________________________|______________________________
Matanna
Matushka Ann Lardas
Catherine Hampton
In alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox Matanna <mat...@aol.combyespam>
wrote:
: Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long
: hair, no.
Am I the only one who suddenly has a mental picture of the Subdeacon
Joseph leading a rather interesting animal into Vespers tomorrow
evening? <BIG wicked grin>
(Aren't typos fun?) :>
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Orthodox Christian Resources * <http://www.hrweb.org/orthodox/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
SubDJoseph
>: Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long
>: hair, no.
>
>Am I the only one who suddenly has a mental picture of the Subdeacon
>Joseph leading a rather interesting animal into Vespers tomorrow
>evening?
Hmmm, now that you mention it....
NO, Joe, down boy, DON'T go there.
Naughty Catherine, DON'T the the subdeacon any ideas.
In the SCA, a recreation group that I was active in for quite a while, large
men with beards and longish hair were called "bears'. We were all quite
cuddly, or so the ladies thought.
Joseph
GS
Matanna wrote:
> Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long hair, no.
> Matushka Ann Lardas
Disagree on the hair, unless it's your own children
Catherine Hampton
:>: Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long
:>: hair, no.
:>Am I the only one who suddenly has a mental picture of the Subdeacon
:>Joseph leading a rather interesting animal into Vespers tomorrow
:>evening?
: Hmmm, now that you mention it....
: NO, Joe, down boy, DON'T go there.
: Naughty Catherine, DON'T the the subdeacon any ideas.
I repent! This particular subdeacon seems to have quite enough of them
without any help from me, though.... ;>
: In the SCA, a recreation group that I was active in for quite a while, large
: men with beards and longish hair were called "bears'. We were all quite
: cuddly, or so the ladies thought.
I should've guessed you were in the SCA. (Come to think of it, I
think your wife mentioned she was.) I never have been, but I've
been on the outskirts for many years because I'm a science fiction
and fantasy reader and fan who goes to SF cons. (conventions, for
the uninitiated.)
nick cobb
"Fr. John Morris" wrote:
> > Ordained Reader a very serious ordination in the Bulgarian, Macedonian and
> > Russian churches.
> >
>
> It would be more correct to consider a Reader or Subdeacon blessed rather than
> ordained because in the Greek a different word is used to describe the making of a
> Reader or Subdeacon than is used to describe the ordination of a deacon, priest or
> bishop. The blessing of a Reader or Subdeacon takes place outside of the Altar
> outside of the Divine Liturgy. I was blessed a Reader at Vespers and blessed a
> Subdeacon at the end of Matins. The ordination of a deacon, priest or bishop takes
> place within the Altar during the Divine Liturgy. Thus Readers and Subdeacons are
> in minor orders while deacons, priests and bishops are in major orders.
>
> Archpriest John W. Morris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Slavic tradition, these orders with the "laying on of hands" is considered more
serious than in the Greek/Antiochian tradition.
Caedmontwo
>techinically a man cannot get married after ordination to the subdeaconate,
>although I believe most jurisdictions -- including the OCA -- ignore that.
This may vary by diocese, but those OCA bishops I know *do* fully enforce the
canonical rule about about marriage and the subdiaconate.
In Him,
the sinner Caedmon
Galina
Steven Nichols wrote:
> Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
>> In alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox Matanna
>> <mat...@aol.combyespam>
>> wrote:
>>
>> : Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long
>> : hair, no.
>>
>> Am I the only one who suddenly has a mental picture of the Subdeacon
>>
>> Joseph leading a rather interesting animal into Vespers tomorrow
>> evening? <BIG wicked grin>
>
> As a fellow parishioner, I can imagine SubDeacon Joseph's dear wife
> leading someone who bears (sorry!) a strong resemblance to that same
> rather interesting animal. Why do you think he's such an effective
> corrector of small children?? ;-)
>
> //Steve
His middle name is Berenstain?
Caedmontwo
>
Hmm. Maybe that's a candidate for Troyen's "B"
SubDJoseph
>> His middle name is Berenstain?
>>
>
>Hmm. Maybe that's a candidate for Troyen's "B"
Mine is Richard.
But we may be getting close for Troyen.
Joseph
Matanna
: hair, no.
Am I the only one who suddenly has a mental picture of the Subdeacon
Joseph leading a rather interesting animal into Vespers tomorrow
evening? <BIG wicked grin>
(Aren't typos fun?) :><
Oh, man.
I'm just glad I wrote "bears" and not "beers!"
Speaking of animals and church:
When James was three, he brought his toy monkey, "Ooo-oo" to church with him. I
told him he had to leave it in the parish hall or in the car, since we don't
bring toys to church. He clutched the monkey to his chest and said,
witheringly, "Ooo-oo is NOT a toy!"
Matushka Ann Lardas
Matanna
> Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long hair, no.
> Matushka Ann Lardas
>> Disagree on the hair, unless it's your own children<<
It's not until the diaconate that you sign the paper agreeing not to cut your
hair. And so for a man to have long hair prior to that rank is to take upon
himself the provenance of the priesthood. Long hair represents a vow, whether
priestly or monastic.
Matushka Ann Lardas
Phil Thompson
>> Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long hair, no.
>> Matushka Ann Lardas
And then she wrote..
>It's not until the diaconate that you sign the paper agreeing not to cut
your
>hair. And so for a man to have long hair prior to that rank is to take upon
>himself the provenance of the priesthood. Long hair represents a vow,
whether
>priestly or monastic.
Possibly ignorant question here - are traditional Orthodox folks offended by
laymen with long hair?
Phil
SubDJoseph
>Possibly ignorant question here - are traditional Orthodox folks offended by
>laymen with long hair?
I don't think so, just so long as it is clean and well groomed. Most would be
happy jsut to see more people in church.
Joseph
Matanna
But, I would rather see men have beards and short hair and women have no beards
and long hair.
But I hardly speak for all traditionalists.
Wayner
Matanna wrote in message <19981205112823...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>>: Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long
>: hair, no.
>
>Am I the only one who suddenly has a mental picture of the Subdeacon
>Joseph leading a rather interesting animal into Vespers tomorrow
>evening? <BIG wicked grin>
>
>(Aren't typos fun?) :><
>
>Oh, man.
>
>I'm just glad I wrote "bears" and not "beers!"
>
And somehow the thought of "bares" really makes me cringe! LOL
Wayner
SubDJoseph wrote in message <19981205124330...@ng18.aol.com>...
>>Matushka Ann
>
>>It's not until the diaconate that you sign the paper agreeing not to cut
your
>>hair. And so for a man to have long hair prior to that rank is to take
upon
>>himself the provenance of the priesthood. Long hair represents a vow,
whether
>>priestly or monastic.
>>
>
>I thought that there was a Canon that said Readers and Subdeacons should
not
>cut their hair. I had recieved an email form a ROCOR priest that quoted
all of
>it last summer but I don't remember which Council it was.
>
>Joseph
Joseph, might that have been the Council of Mohair? er...maybe that's a
sweater come to think of it.
ELENI53
In article <19981205152112...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
mat...@aol.combyespam (Matanna) writes:
>But, I would rather see men have beards and short hair and women have no
>beards
>and long hair.
>
>But I hardly speak for all traditionalists.
ROFLMAO!!!!!! I spewed my coffee all over the screen. Thanks for the laugh
Matushka!
Love,
eleni (on her way to the bathroom mirror to check out her chin stubble)
Nicholas Skovran
Matanna wrote in message <19981205113000...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
. And so for a man to have long hair prior to that rank is to take upon
>himself the provenance of the priesthood. Long hair represents a vow,
whether
>priestly or monastic.
I'm sure there are many ex-hippies out there who didn't know they they took
upon themselves...;.;."the provenance of the priesthood". A lot of present
day bums too.
Catherine Hampton
wrote:
: But, I would rather see men have beards and short hair and women
: have no beards and long hair.
It's kind of hard to argue with that.... ;>
Me =- I like men to look male and women female. But I'm as used
to long hair as short on men these days, and don't really care one
way or the other whether they have beards and/or moustaches or not.
I'm used to them on deacons, priests, bishops, and monastics, of
course, but in everyday life anything goes, at least out here.
A traditionally Orthodox man who insists on having long hair before
being ordained to the deaconate, or tonsured a monk, may be usurping
a perogative/sign of the priesthood. But wouldn't you say that in
order for this to be usurping, the person in question would have to
know that it was?
Galina
Matanna wrote:
> >: Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long
> : hair, no.
>
> Am I the only one who suddenly has a mental picture of the Subdeacon
> Joseph leading a rather interesting animal into Vespers tomorrow
> evening? <BIG wicked grin>
>
> (Aren't typos fun?) :><
>
> Oh, man.
>
> I'm just glad I wrote "bears" and not "beers!"
>
> Speaking of animals and church:
>
> When James was three, he brought his toy monkey, "Ooo-oo" to church with him. I
> told him he had to leave it in the parish hall or in the car, since we don't
> bring toys to church. He clutched the monkey to his chest and said,
> witheringly, "Ooo-oo is NOT a toy!"
>
> Matushka Ann Lardas
That wouldn't be a Curious George stuffeed animal being drug along the floor by
the tail would it? I had one that attended many a service with my son Vladimir!
Once Vlad made George cross himself....
Matanna
I'm NOT going to argue with Fr. Luke!
I thought the belt was a symbol of virginity, though, not of obedience.
We live, we learn.
In Christ,
Matushka Ann Lardas
SubDJoseph
>I'm NOT going to argue with Fr. Luke!
>
So you will let me keep my long hair?
Joseph
tad...@adsnet.com
mat...@aol.combyespam (Matanna) wrote:
> Dear Galina,
>
> > Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long hair, no.
>
> >> Disagree on the hair, unless it's your own children<<
>
> himself the provenance of the priesthood. Long hair represents a vow, whether
> priestly or monastic.
>
>
Matushka Ann I was told by Fr. Luke at Jordanville, that readers and
subdeacons should have long hair and beard because we are "tonsured"
(Xerotessa) into the rank, the hair is cut and is given to God. They should
also wear a "belt" as a sign of their obedience to the bishop (most do not),
and may wear a Russian style black skufia outside the church or performing
any function of the church with the exception of Church services or trapeza.
I was tonsured a Sub-deacon in the Antiochian Arch., and when I left and
joined the "Synod" (no I am not a secret bishop) the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad , I was asked of course if I was married, I was not, I was asked to
become a monk, I said maybe latter but not now, so I was reduced to a Reader
because of the aberation of not following the Holy Canons. I have seen
people use the term "blessing" this is not the case if their was a laying on
of hands by the bishop. If a bishop wanted a Reader to perform as a
Sub-deacon and to wear the Orarion then it is a "blessing" to do so, and does
not mean that you get to wear it all the time while serving since you are not
a "real Sub-deacon" but only functioning as one. Most Readers serve as
Sub-deacons all the time and do not get a blessing to wear the Orarion. With
Sub-deacons they are allowed to pass through the Royal Doors with the Bishop
and and touch, and dress the Altar; place and take up the mitre but may not
remove any items like Gospel, Antimins and the Tabernacle. Readers are
tonsured during the reading of the 3rd Liturgical Hour and Subdeacons at the
6th Liturgical Hour.
Phil Thompson
>and long hair.
My preference too. :-D
Phil Thompson
>A traditionally Orthodox man who insists on having long hair before
>being ordained to the deaconate, or tonsured a monk, may be usurping
>a perogative/sign of the priesthood. But wouldn't you say that in
>order for this to be usurping, the person in question would have to
>know that it was?
I guess that's what I'm wondering - if Orthodox folks would see long hair as
acting like a priest... like wearing a cross with that extra loop in the
chain...
Anyway, it's just idle curiosity. These days my idea of a haircut is "Buzz
me. Number three." I can't be bothered to actually comb my [remaining] hair
in the mornings... There's no excuse for personal grooming, I always say.
Oddly enough still single,
Phil
Wayner
tad...@adsnet.com wrote in message <74d7fe$o83$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Don't you find all of this just a teensie weensie bit legalistic? Maybe
you're into all this stuff but I think you made a major mistake.
Wayner
Galina wrote in message <366A2442...@erols.com>...
>
>
>Matanna wrote:
>
>> >: Readers and subdeacons should have short hair. Bears, yes. Long
>> : hair, no.
>>
>> Am I the only one who suddenly has a mental picture of the Subdeacon
>> Joseph leading a rather interesting animal into Vespers tomorrow
>> evening? <BIG wicked grin>
>>
>> (Aren't typos fun?) :><
>>
>> Oh, man.
>>
>> I'm just glad I wrote "bears" and not "beers!"
>>
>> Speaking of animals and church:
>>
>> When James was three, he brought his toy monkey, "Ooo-oo" to church with
him. I
>> told him he had to leave it in the parish hall or in the car, since we
don't
>> bring toys to church. He clutched the monkey to his chest and said,
>> witheringly, "Ooo-oo is NOT a toy!"
>>
>> Matushka Ann Lardas
>
> That wouldn't be a Curious George stuffeed animal being drug along the
floor by
>the tail would it? I had one that attended many a service with my son
Vladimir!
>Once Vlad made George cross himself....
>
Brian
>>Once Vlad made George cross himself....
Galina,
This image got me rolling on the floor laughing!!!! Since, I work in a
library and in a Children's Section, I often have to recommend books to
mothers. Now, whenever, I pick out a Curious George book, I will have the
mental image of him crossing himself!
Maybe there should be a new book "Curious George goes to Divine
Liturgy"!!
Still laughing,
Brian
Troyen
the Readings!
sinner, troyen
George Spruksts
Well, St. Seraphim of Sarov made his "Misha" cross himself, too... (And
that's no joke. The bear obediently crossed himself and then left the
Saint in peace, to say his prayer-office...)
-- George S.
Matanna
the Readings!<
A slightly unfocussed look and a wide grin?
tad...@my-dejanews.com
"Wayner" <wayne...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> Don't you find all of this just a teensie weensie bit legalistic? Maybe
> you're into all this stuff but I think you made a major mistake.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >I was tonsured a Sub-deacon in the Antiochian Arch., and when I left and
> >joined the "Synod"
What mistake did I make? Are you refering to leaving the Antiochian Arch.
for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, if yes, I have never regreted my
decision to do so. Legalistic, maybe, but the Holy Canons and Holy Tradition
dictate what I said it is not of my own doing (self-willfulness)but that
which has been passed down to us. "LET ALL THINGS BE DONE DECENTLY AND IN
ORDER" (I Corn. 14:40) "AND HE GAVE SOME TO BE APOSTLES, SOME PROPHETS, SOME
EVANGELISTS, AND SOME PASTORS , AND TEACHERS" (Eph. 4:11) We all have
different gifts and are called in the Church for different functions.
Stewardship in the Church is of time, talent, gifts, roles, money and
self-sacrifice, many do not give freely while others hoard their talent for
self-gain.
John Simmons
On 6 Dec 1998, Catherine Hampton wrote:
> In alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox Matanna <mat...@aol.combyespam>
> wrote:
>
> : But, I would rather see men have beards and short hair and women
> : have no beards and long hair.
>
> It's kind of hard to argue with that.... ;>
>
> Me =- I like men to look male and women female. But I'm as used
> to long hair as short on men these days, and don't really care one
> way or the other whether they have beards and/or moustaches or not.
> I'm used to them on deacons, priests, bishops, and monastics, of
> course, but in everyday life anything goes, at least out here.
>
> A traditionally Orthodox man who insists on having long hair before
> being ordained to the deaconate, or tonsured a monk, may be usurping
> a perogative/sign of the priesthood. But wouldn't you say that in
> order for this to be usurping, the person in question would have to
> know that it was?
I initially noticed a lot of men with long hair, and thought it would be
neat to join them - no real understanding of why until it was too late to
cut, unless I was sure I needed/wanted to. Of course everyone knows that
I'm a monastic wannabe. I guess I'm hoping that the rest of the life will
attach itself to the hair if I leave it long!
__________________________________________________________________________
|unworthy reader John Simmons |"I have lit the lamp, but take |
|stra...@strannik.com, www.strannik.com | care of the wick yourselves" |
|(person & site under construction) | - Elder Nectary of Optina |
|________________________________________|_______________________________|
Caedmontwo
>Abroad , I was asked of course if I was married, I was not, I was asked to
>become a monk, I said maybe latter but not now, so I was reduced to a Reader
>because of the aberation of not following the Holy Canons.
What "not following" the Holy Canons? The canons in question (III and VI of the
Quinsext Council) forbid a subdeacon to marry after his tonsuring, but they do
not require him to become a monk. If you are saying that a tonsuring to the
subdiaconate was reduced to readership because you were not a monk then it is
not the original ordainers who were creatively interpreting the Holy Canons.
In Him,
the sinner Caedmon
rdr...@my-dejanews.com
> Among the Old Calendarists and OCA people with whom I am acquainted, the
> tonsure of readers and ordination of subdeacons is taken seriously. Being
> minor clergyman, readers and subdeacons are expected (according to the OCA
> priest who catechized me) to have beards and must not go into bars -- in the
> same way priests are expected to do this.
The latter is because there are canons forbidding any of the clergy (minor or
major) from entering a tavern. Never heard of the former, though.
> This priest also told me that
> techinically a man cannot get married after ordination to the subdeaconate,
This is also a canonical restraint, and thus, sometimes, bishops allow
subdeacons to get married. In the Antiochian tradition (as I understand it),
this is not the case, but it is the case in the OCA (at least here in AK).
> although I believe most jurisdictions -- including the OCA -- ignore that.
Fr. John is correct about the terminology: subdeacons and readers are not
ordained. Only ordained men are allowed through the Holy Doors, and subdeacons
are certainly not allowed to go through them. I was told that readers are
"tonsured" and subdeacons are "blessed".
Regardless, it is a very serious thing.
reader john
tad...@adsnet.com
neither.
Caedmontwo
>neither.
No, you don't. Check the relevant canons. That may be local Russian tradition
but it is not part of Canons of the Church and to invalidate a blessing because
it is inconsistent with local tradition but consistent with conciliar Tradition
is, yep, you guessed it, "uncanonical".
tad...@adsnet.com
Relevant canons are: Canon VI of the 6th Ecumenical Council "Inasmuch as it
has benn declared in the Apostolic Canons that those being promoted to the
Clergy only Anagnosts (Readers) and Psalts (chanters) MAY MARRY, we too, in
keeping with this prohibition decree that henceforth NO SUBDEACON, OR DEACON,
OR PRESBYTER at all, after the ordination bestowed upon him, has permission
to contract matrimonial relationship for himself: If he should dare to do
this, let him be deposed from office. But if anyone wants to contract a legal
marruage with a woman before being admitted to the Clergy as a Sub-deacon, or
Deacon, or Presbyter previous to ordination, let him do so". The 23 Canon of
the Apostolic Canons: "As to bachelors who have entered the Clergy, we allow
only Anagnosts (Readers) and Psalts (Chanters) to marry, if they wish to do
so". Another canon states also that if they do not wish to marry they must
remain virgins. Your interpretation can hardly be considered since the above
canons repudiate your premise! Besides one can see the use of "economy" here
since if I wanted to remain a Sub-Deacon I would not be able to marry as
stated by the above quotes from the canons, to reduce my rank to Reader,
really it is saying I was not properly tonsured into the rank of Sub-Deacon,
by the above canon. "That is why the second ordinance of Title I of the
Novels (Photius, Title IX, ch. 28) decrees that the ordainer (Bishop) of an
unmarried man must ask him whether he can live with sobriety and virginity:
that a bishop is to be deprived of his bishopric and episcopate if he gives
permission to a sun-deacon or deacon, to marry after ordination". (The Rudder
pp. 298-299) In Christ, Haj Reader Timothy Tadros
Caedmontwo
>canons repudiate your premise!
My "interpretation" is exactly what these canons say. Having been made a
sub-deacon, you cannot marry. Cannot marry is not the same thing as become a
monk which is not mentioned in any of those canons; there is considerably more
involved in becoming a monk than simply not marrying.
Besides one can see the use of "economy" here
>since if I wanted to remain a Sub-Deacon I would not be able to marry as
>stated by the above quotes from the canons, to reduce my rank to Reader,
>really it is saying I was not properly tonsured into the rank of Sub-Deacon,
>by the above canon. "That is why the second ordinance of Title I of the
>Novels (Photius, Title IX, ch. 28) decrees that the ordainer (Bishop) of an
>unmarried man must ask him whether he can live with sobriety and virginity:
>that a bishop is to be deprived of his bishopric and episcopate if he gives
>permission to a sun-deacon or deacon, to marry after ordination". (The Rudder
>pp. 298-299
>
When St. Theodore (of Canterbury) came to Rome from Tarsus in the 7th century,
he had a "Greek tonsure" (at the time, head completely shaved). Before Pope St.
Vitalian sent him to England, he required St. Theodore to grow his hair out
into the Western "crown" tonsure. By your reasoning, St. Vitalian should have
invalidated his monastic profession until he matched the local tradition for
monastics.
Are you honestly claiming that it is a more acceptable economy to *invalidate*
your consecration than to relax the canon to allow you to marry? Rejection of a
sacrament is superior to showing mercy? The Rudder passage you quote says
nothing about rejecting sacraments, which is a *rejection* of the Holy Spirit.
rdr...@my-dejanews.com
> Are you honestly claiming that it is a more acceptable economy to *invalidate*
> your consecration than to relax the canon to allow you to marry? Rejection of
> nothing about rejecting sacraments, which is a *rejection* of the Holy Spirit.
Actually, all of us in the minor and major orders serve only at the whim of
the bishop. We are all simply representatives of his and any authority and
grace we exercise is derived from his authority and grace. When the bishop
says the prayers of the sacrament of ordination over us, or when he reduces
our rank, he is doing so with the authority given him by Christ, and by the
power of the Holy Spirit given him at his consecration.
Bishops are allowed to elevate and reduce the rank of a cleric as they see
fit, at least as far as the minor orders are concerned (there are rules for
reducing the rank of a bishop, priest, or deacon). As far as I know, there
aren't any canons that deny a bishop this right. IMNSHO, if bishops *can't*
do this, then we are stuck with a Western understanding of ordination: once a
priest, always a priest.
However, there *are* canons (as Reader Timothy has pointed out) going as far
back as the Apostolic canons that specifically state that subdeacons may not
marry. The question, then, becomes whether a bishop has the right to bend any
of the canons (and which canons) in some cases as they see fit. Ages-old
question, that, and the cause of many a rift in the Church. I don't claim to
know the answer, either -- just making an observation.
reader john
Caedmontwo
>the bishop. We are all simply representatives of his and any authority and
>grace we exercise is derived from his authority and grace. When the bishop
>says the prayers of the sacrament of ordination over us, or when he reduces
>our rank, he is doing so with the authority given him by Christ, and by the
>power of the Holy Spirit given him at his consecration.
>
>Bishops are allowed to elevate and reduce the rank of a cleric as they see
>fit, at least as far as the minor orders are concerned (there are rules for
>reducing the rank of a bishop, priest, or deacon). As far as I know, there
>aren't any canons that deny a bishop this right. IMNSHO, if bishops *can't*
>do this, then we are stuck with a Western understanding of ordination: once a
>priest, always a priest.
Dear John, I think in avoiding the "once a priest, always a priest" distinction
you have gone way too far in the other direction. Yes, clergyman (major or
minor) serve completely at the whim (or pleasure) of their ruling bishop if one
understands "serve" as "function" (i.e., actually performing the duties of his
office: performing the Liturgy, reading the Epistle, etc.).
But it needs to be remembered that the ordinations are themselves Mysteries. A
bishop my no more cancel an ordination or tonsuring on a "whim" than he can
cancel a baptism, chrismation, or marriage on a whim.
The Church has established canonical standards by which a clergyman (major or
minor) who has sinned or taught heresy can be removed from his office
(layicized). But the very existence of those standards means that the episcopal
power 'to bind and to loose' cannot be used to invalidate sacraments "at a
whim".
More importantly for this thread, the canons and the Tradition make *no*
provision for partial demotions. Removal from an office is an all-or-nothing
affair. If a justification exists for the Church (through the bishop[s]) to
remove a cleric from his office, then that clergyman is *layicized* and can
never receive another "laying on of hands" (see canon 30 of Carthage for the
most explicit statement of this principle).
The Church does not recognize any sort of intermediate step. Indeed when the
Ecumenical Councils had cause to judge between two bishops elevated to the same
see (for example, the cases of Bassian vs. Stephen and Sabinian vs. Athanasius
at Chalcedon) through canonical confusion, the Fathers had only two choices: if
one (or both) of the bishops could be found to remove the episcopacy of one,
the he was indeed layicized. But if there was not grounds to layicize either
then the Council could only confirm one bishop as the *ruling* bishop of the
diocese. The "losing" bishop retained the office and dignity of the episcopacy,
but was 'retired' to prevent having two ruling bishops in one place. IOW, even
an Ecumenical Council had to choose between all or nothing, they could not
simply bump one of the bishops back to presbyter for the good of the Church.
Indeed, the quoted canon III of Trullo should demonstrate the inelgibility of
this approach. If a sub-deacon cannot marry and a reader can (which is true),
and if a sub-deacon can be reduced to a reader at the whim of the bishop (an
blatant innovation), then all the verbage of this canon is superflouos and
wasted. A sub-deacon who decides he wants to marry should simply ask his bishop
for a dispensation to move him back to reader until after his marriage.
Indeed the same reasoning would invalidate all the canons about clerical
marriage. A priest has been widowed, but is not prepared to live chastely for
the rest of his life? Well then, just demote him to reader again until he finds
a second wife.