Still think it's important to differentiate between Chanters, Readers and Deacons. So women Chanters and Readers might be one day be possible (similar to the other Orthodox Churches). Perhaps one day there will just be a mixed choir and the Deacon Responses will be actually be sung by the subdeacon or the father deacon.
PS here's an interesting video of the Syrian Orthodox Nativity Liturgy Syrian Orthodox Christmas Mass 24 12 2013:
Female chanting is vital in the Syriac tradition. St. Ephraim the Syrian who wrote many hymns and virtually instituted the Syriac rite taught them to the women and charged them with the role of chanting in the liturgy. But they don't wear anything special for it beyond their scarf.
Still think it's important to differentiate between Chanters, Readers and Deacons. So women Chanters and Readers might be one day be possible (similar to the other Orthodox Churches). Perhaps one day there will just be a mixed choir and the Deacon Responses will be actually be sung by the subdeacon or the father deacon.
Agree with everything except the bit about women readers. Which other Orthodox churches have women readers? Also, are you aware of the last part of the ordination rite for readers, in which it is referred to as "the first rank of the priesthood"?
That liturgy was performed at St. Mary and St. Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Church in Mississauga, Canada, by invitation of the Coptic Church to the Syriac Church. Thats why there are coptic icons
I have been to a Syriac Church multiple times and can concur with @mabsoota. The kiss of peace begins with the priests who 'distribute' it two two deacons or subdeacons, who in turn walk through the church giving the kiss of peace to the people on the end of the pews who then pass it on to the people around them. If you happen to walk in after the kiss of peace, the person standing next to you would give it to you, no matter how much time has passed.
I only have one problem with the female choir: it begins to lead to other things that may be a bit shocking to the Church or unacceptable. For instance, a couple of years ago in a church in Covina, some of the deaconesses chanted the Paschal psalm individually. I would say that's a bit outside of the description and rules offered by Anba Serapion, and it happened in his own diocese.
Well, here is my question. We have women deaconesses in the history of the Church, who were quite involved in the service of children, orphans, widows, and women. In the presence of the bishop, they assist in baptism and chrismation. And after the liturgy, she is responsible for any orphan, widow, or sick woman who did not come to church to send them the Eucharist. One can safely assume these deaconesses seems to be spiritual mothers to these people. The most famous deaconess that is known in the post-Nocene era is St. Nonna, the mother of St. Gregory the Theologian. She being by virtue the wife of a bishop was ordained a deaconess. It is not far-fetched to consider this position and then find out what this means for the lower ranks, such as subdeacon, reader, and chanter.
What I see HG Bishop Serapion doing is pretty much paving the way for female chantresses, and I find that encouraging. But I have no idea on what to consider of other ranks. The only thing I wonder is in ancient Christianity when reading began, was it a service that was considered men only? If you can imagine the Apostolic liturgy, it sounds like little reading was done (since most epistles and gospels were not yet well-known), and the psalms were chanted communally, with people prophesying, male or female, and the bishop being the Eucharistic minister.
I remember in an Antiochian Orthodox Church I frequently visited, there were at times a woman chosen to read the epistle. So I don't know. All I can say is this needs to be investigated and discussed with openness. The things that are clear is no females are allowed to be presbyters, bishops, in the altar, and giving a sermon (and most probably, the gospel). All other things, I'm not all too sure about.
I only have one problem with the female choir: it begins to lead to other things that may be a bit shocking to the Church or unacceptable. For instance, a couple of years ago in a church in Covina, some of the deaconesses chanted the Paschal psalm individually. I would say that's a bit outside of the description and rules offered by Anba Serapion, and it happened in his own diocese.
Why are people not equally outraged when male children chant the Psalms or read the Gospel? They're just as 'unqualified' as these female chanters. I don't know any Coptic Church that makes sure only Readers (Oghnostos) read the readings, so if anyone is going to be outraged that these girls do the same, they should be consistent and be equally outraged at the widespread practice of the Church. (Even then, they should not be especially outraged, since [I've heard] that women sometimes do the readings in the Armenian Churches, and even - in convents - in our Church too. Like minasoliman, I've attended Antiochian Orthodox liturgies where a woman read the Pauline Epistle. Incidentally, that church also had altar girls, but they had to be below the age of puberty.)
Why are people not equally outraged when male children chant the Psalms or read the Gospel? They're just as 'unqualified' as these female chanters.
Easy answer. Because one of the motives of females reading the psalm (which could be considered tantamount to reading the gospel) is feminism (or at least to appease feminists), and this is not a motive in the case of male children. I agree with you though that only tonsured readers should read.
Furthermore, I don't believe women read the psalm/gospel in the Armenian tradition, so that point is irrelevant, and no one is questioning women reading in convents either.
@Amoni, I'm not really picking at the fact that they chanted the psalm, but more that they are taking their own freedoms and attempting to expand what they can do haphazardly. An Psaltos reading or serving on the altar is not exactly with tradition, but it is permitted because of necessity. Like @qawe said, the female choirs do not chant the psalms because there are no deacons.
For these reasons I don't think anyone should be outraged at the multi-functioning Psaltos. If we did become outraged every time someone took a step out of their sort of "rank permissions or abilities" then I hardly think we would ever pray.
Well, I'm certain there would be some outrage for exactly the reasons you both cite - I'm not sure if you're agreeing that there should be outrage for those reasons or not. Either way, I don't think we should be upset to see girls wanting to read and sing psalms. (If they were demanding it as a right then that would be a problem, as much as a boy demanding to do the same). The thing I'm uncomfortable about is this: when unordained boys ask to read the Psalms and practice for hours to be able to do them well, no-one charges them with pride or overreaching. In some cases, they might indeed be driven by pride, but in most cases we give them the benefit of the doubt and interpret it as zeal for the Church and her rites. By saying that it's okay for unordained boys to want to do the readings, but not okay for girls, we're implicitly saying that there's something about "maleness" in itself that makes it appropriate to read Scripture out loud to the people. I think that's extremely dangerous. We really must either limit that role to ordained readers (making it clear that readers are chosen for their learning), or else not be upset when girls do the same thing that five year old boys do. To continue in the present state is to suggest that totally separate from any sort of virtue or education, a male is able to read the word of God to the people while a female is not. Surely that is not the point of the rank of Reader. And as much as I understand people's wariness about feminism in the Church, there's no need to introduce unnecessary stumbling blocks to women (and men) inclined to think that way. Anba Serapion made exactly that point in his interview.
I'm not sure about now (though I've seen photos), but the Armenians did at one point have a role for women where they read the Gospel and wore a stole: "... Orbelian placed the deaconess in the role of preacher and Gospel reader, and denoted her status of office as a stole (oorar) on the right side. (Later, the women deacons would wear the stole on the left side, like the male deacons.) She includes this passage from Orbelian’s book on Syunik:
Lol, if we're being completely precise, "oghnostos" is the Copto-Arabic word for Reader. The Greek word would not be 'anaghnostos' but αναγνώστης (anaghnostēs). "Oghnostos" is now a word in the same way that "Abu-Ghalamsis" (corrupted from of apokalypsis) and "Difnar" (from antiphonarion) have now become words.
Deaconnesses should not read anything out in the church. Deacon is a word meaning servant and they have a specified service and not to read out any readings in the church full stop.. Oujai
Deaconnesses should not read anything out in the church. Deacon is a word meaning servant and they have a specified service and not to read out any readings in the church full stop.. Oujai
Ophadece, what is your evidence for this claim? How do you reconcile it with the practice of the Armenian Orthodox Church: (Go to 13:25).
I really don't know anything about the Armenian church but in the Coptic church as other members explained that readers are considered part of the clergy and deacons are part of that hierarchy but deaconnesses are not Oujai
It seems to me in the Coptic tradition they were "ordained", not "tonsured". The Didascalia places them in liturgical importance for the completion of the baptism and chrismation of women, with the words of the bishop or presbyter residing over it, and chrismating only the head of the woman. The Syriac and Coptic traditions also indicate the taking of the Eucharist to women and children. They can enter the altar only to light the candles and to clean it, but not during liturgical service, where they sit in the front row with the chorus (there is an instance by the Syriac tradition where in nunneries, it is acceptable for women to serve in the altar and read the gospel, but only in convents).
There is also a contradiction among the canons. Canon 19 of Nicea talks about Pauliniast deaconesses as not receiving the laying of hands and therefore are among the laity. However, the Apostolic Constitutions and the Syriac tradition mentions the laying of hands on the deaconess, and her position while lower than the male deacon is higher than any subdeacon, male or female. St. Severus of Antioch says that a deaconess can be an abbot of a convent as well. This seems to mean that the reception of Pauliniast deaconesses are in the context of how they were tonsured in the heretical church, and therefore, in their case, because there was no laying of hands, they are not received in the same manner as the clergy. Nevertheless, it seems that among the Orthodox traditions, laying of hands for a deaconess was the norm.
I know this is an old thread, but I just wanted to clarify something discussed earlier.
Just because male chanters are granted the concession to do the tasks of the deacon (eg serve in the altar), does not mean that female chanters should be granted the same privilege. imo, if we're not going to restore the dignity of the so-called 'full' diaconate, female chanters should be permitted to perform the tasks of the deaconess (but not those of the male deacon), if that involved responding in the altar (in a normal church) then fine, if not then it's not on.
I only say this because what if we were (hypothetically) granting the male chanters to perform some of the duties of the priest. Should the female chanters be allowed to do the same? Of course not. Also, this 'maleness' and 'femaleness' argument above doesn't stack up because this would then justify the ordination of women to the priesthood. And if that is the logical conclusion of what you are suggesting, then better to come out and say it directly, as opposed to intellectually dishonestly leading us all down a slippery slope to Episcopalianism.
Mina, I have two followup questions. You said, "The Didascalia places them in liturgical importance for the completion of the baptism and chrismation of women, with the words of the bishop or presbyter residing over it, and chrismating only the head of the woman." Are we to assume that full ordained female deacons are allowed to charismate the head of women with the myron? The myron, as far as I know, is the oil of the Holy Spirit that only priests can touch. It would be akin to a deacon sacrificing the eucharist, or offering incense, or touching the Ark of the covenant in the OT. On my daughter's baptism, I accidentally touched the myron oil while holding her head and my priest had a full blown aneurysm. It would seem to be a serious contradiction to say only priests or bishops (no male deacons) are allowed to use the myron oil on the one hand and female deaconesses are allowed to use the myron oil on women on the other hand. Wouldn't you agree?
Also, practically speaking is there really a need for female ordained deaconess to enter the altar and clean and light candles? Surely, this may have been needed when there was no electricity, but what practical purposes are there for an ordained female deaconess that a female lay person can't do? Sing in a chorus? Help with communion? Clean the church? All of these can easily be done by volunteer lay people or paid services. I am having a hard time finding a real good, justifiable reason to reinstate the female diaconate. It seems that only reasons offered is (1) Other Orthodox Churches do it, like the Syrian and Armenian and (2) that is how it was like in antiquity and there is a nostalgic effect of continuity. These are really not sufficient reasons. There are a lot of things the Syrians and Armenians do that we really don't need or want to copy. There are lots of reasons why things in antiquity do not apply today. While nostalgia is good, it is not enough reason to bring back an ecclesiastical order. And as qawe said, this dancing around the appropriateness of female ordination can not stop a serious, intellectual argument in favor of female priests. It is not that we are afraid of discussing the appropriateness of female priests (or lack of appropriateness for Episcopalian/Old Catholic female priests). It just seems like this argument that will lead to confusion and contradiction (as illustrated in my first question). As St Paul teaches us "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife" (2 Timothy 2:23)
No. I've made myself clear about that so I won't divert on that tangent. If you want to post it on the other thread, I will answer in more detail. We are here talking about the female diaconate and female choirs.
@Remnkemi, there is a mention in HG Bishop Gregorious encyclopedia about an exception that is made for consecrated deaconesses to anoint older girls/women only in places that a priest, being a male, can't reach out of decency. I have read it but I haven't asked a priest about it because not every priest has a deaconess with him in every baptism of an older women with him. So there is the possibility that the priest doesn't do all 36 anointings of the myron.
No, it's clear that only bishops or presbyters could anoint the head, and the female deacon would anoint the rest of the joints of the woman. As Mina mentioned, it is out of decency. The same thing with the Eucharist. The female deaconess can distribute the Eucharist. She is not the one praying over the person or the Eucharist, but she becomes the hands of the bishop or presbyter himself. To be not allowed to touch the myron is a practice of reverence for the myron, just as there is a practice of reverence of the Eucharist. But there should not be a serious situation if it is accidentally touched. After all, we do touch the myron and the Eucharist in the proper context. If we're not allowed to touch the myron at all, how are we chrismated? That makes no sense.
What deacons are not allowed to do is pray over the formation of the myron or the Eucharist. Only a bishop is allowed to do that, and a presbyter by the authority of the bishop is allowed to, who acts on behalf of the bishop in a parish. What deacons are not allowed to do is to preside over the baptism or chrismation prayers either. Again, only the bishop or presbyter. The deacons are the hands of the bishops and presbyters. They are not self-sufficient in themselves to perform liturgical acts, but they take the elements that which were prayed over and distribute it to the people, just as they take the teachings and services of the Church and distribute to the needy. They perform both liturgical and extra-liturgical "social services". So, no, it makes no sense to me that one would get an aneurysm just because a smear of the myron is touched by the girl's father. It seems a piety to protect the myron has turned into some needless sensationalism over what it means not to touch the myron.
The Chrismation makes all the baptized children of God "Christs". By that manner, we are all "kings and priests" and the ark of the covenant is not only allowed to be touched and seen, but every Christian becomes that ark of the covenant because the Holy Spirit has not only dwelt in them, but made them Holy. The laity is just as much part of the priesthood as the bishops and presbyters. If you read carefully, I try to avoid calling presbyters "priests". To me, both presbyters and bishops are "fathers". That is why only "fathers" are allowed to take those positions, as they reflect the position of the divine Father Himself. It is the Father who gives us the Son in the Eucharist. It is the Father who the Holy Spirit proceeds from in the myron. And so these presbyters and bishops become in the liturgy the icon of the Father for us until the second coming of our Lord when we no longer need bishops, presbyters, and deacons. So that is why I make the gender distinction.
The concession made for male chanters to enter the altar is based on the false sense that only men are allowed to enter the altar. The real issue is only those the bishop allows to enter the altar are allowed to enter the altar. And usually only those necessarily ranked as such. So chanters and readers I understand are never allowed to enter the altar, male or female for that matter. The altar issue is still something I am unable to understand completely simply because I have not done much research, but for scandalizing purposes, when people are not around and when a liturgy is not being held, ANYONE should be able to enter the altar to clean it with the permission of the bishop. The point of bringing back the female deacon is not for altar purposes, but because we made the "white cloak" a "man-only" dress in liturgy when in fact, it should be all the baptized. Furthermore, women need spiritual advisers, and these are best filled by righteous women of the Church. Presbyters can only do so much. But deacons, male or female, can serve as excellent spiritual advisers, who will then bring the sins of the people to the presbyter and bishop to place on the altar. The laity are called to obey the deacons, the men obey the male deacons and the women obey the female deacons, because they carry with them the orders and service of the bishop. Whatever the bishop prays over in liturgy, they distribute. Whatever the bishop commands in society, they do in a social context as well. That is the importance of the deacon, and that is why I desire for them to be brought back into the Church, male or female.
Thank you for the information and for correcting my misunderstanding of female deacons anointing females. This makes sense but is it really necessary? Male priests have anointed females for many years without deaconesses (at least in diaspora, if not also in Egypt). Are we to say that the charismation of females done by priests without deaconesses is any less efficacious if the priest did not anoint female body parts? No. He can easily do 36 anointings on any part of the female body and the Holy Spirit will still make the girl a "Christ". What real benefit is there for adding another person to the equation in the form of the female deaconesses?
This of course applies to the eucharist. Since we no longer distribute the eucharist to people for later consumption, why does it matter anymore? Put another way, let's assume you have 10 priests and male deacons distributing the eucharist to men and women. What is the need to have priests and male deacons give the eucharist to men and female deaconesses give the eucharist to females (all under the authority of the bishop of course)? The same is true for "spiritual advisers". A man can easily have a female deaconess as a spiritual advisor. For that matter, a man can have a lay women as a spiritual adviser. And most women already have male spiritual advisers. Why ordain a female deaconess? Must women have only female advisers? By creating male deacons for men and female deaconesses for women, we are working in the framework of a societal gender bias of the past. But now it is no longer a scandal for a priest to give a female eucharist directly in her mouth, nor is it a scandal for a priest to anoint females, nor is it a scandal to have a female spiritual advocate, nor is it a scandal to clean the altar, etc. So why bother if we are not planning on bringing back all those gender specific ancient customs along with the diaconate?
Additionally, you mentioned that whatever the bishop does, prays or commands, then the presbyters, deacons, male and female and laity follow. I really don't understand the significance of the "deacon are the hands of the bishop or the presbyter". What does this mean exactly? It implies the bishops or priest cannot physically do something so it is delegated to deacons. By this logic, if the bishop does not see a need to delegate it, then there is no need to have deacons (male or female) at all. Does this mean we somehow have a defective bishop without allegorical hands? As I am trying to show, there is no longer a need for nearly everything originally delegated to deacons.
Like you, I greatly desire to see the diaconate elevated in the mind of the Coptic Church. But I am also unable to understand completely because I really cannot find any research that gives a full theological and logical reason for the establishment (or reestablishment) of the diaconate to anything more than what it is now. The services might need some tweaking here and there (like female choirs, baptism assistance, eucharist distribution assistance, etc) but does this necessitate a full clerical rank?
Also can you clarify why you feel a need to distinguish presbyter from priest? What is the difference between the two?
Rem are there any theological or logical reasons for current use or disuse or the diaconate today? Ie. The way that many in the Church understand Deacons today seems more like a reduction no?
Comments
Still think it's important to differentiate between Chanters, Readers and Deacons. So women Chanters and Readers might be one day be possible (similar to the other Orthodox Churches). Perhaps one day there will just be a mixed choir and the Deacon Responses will be actually be sung by the subdeacon or the father deacon.
PS here's an interesting video of the Syrian Orthodox Nativity Liturgy
Syrian Orthodox Christmas Mass 24 12 2013:
In any case, how is that relevant to my previous post?
قداس وجناز نياحة ابينا البطريرك قداسة مار اغناطيو…:
Can you elaborate more on the proper Kiss of Peace, maybe with a source? It sounds very interesting
What I see HG Bishop Serapion doing is pretty much paving the way for female chantresses, and I find that encouraging. But I have no idea on what to consider of other ranks. The only thing I wonder is in ancient Christianity when reading began, was it a service that was considered men only? If you can imagine the Apostolic liturgy, it sounds like little reading was done (since most epistles and gospels were not yet well-known), and the psalms were chanted communally, with people prophesying, male or female, and the bishop being the Eucharistic minister.
I remember in an Antiochian Orthodox Church I frequently visited, there were at times a woman chosen to read the epistle. So I don't know. All I can say is this needs to be investigated and discussed with openness. The things that are clear is no females are allowed to be presbyters, bishops, in the altar, and giving a sermon (and most probably, the gospel). All other things, I'm not all too sure about.
Furthermore, I don't believe women read the psalm/gospel in the Armenian tradition, so that point is irrelevant, and no one is questioning women reading in convents either. FYI this is being phased out A reader is 'anaghnostos', not 'oghnostos'.
A good case can be made for having women ordained to the rank of reader, though that would be many years off yet for our church. That's the argument made by Fr. Thomas Hopko (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/spiritandtruth/women_readers_in_the_divine_liturgy) and Met. Anthony Bloom (
Oujai
Oujai
Just because male chanters are granted the concession to do the tasks of the deacon (eg serve in the altar), does not mean that female chanters should be granted the same privilege. imo, if we're not going to restore the dignity of the so-called 'full' diaconate, female chanters should be permitted to perform the tasks of the deaconess (but not those of the male deacon), if that involved responding in the altar (in a normal church) then fine, if not then it's not on.
I only say this because what if we were (hypothetically) granting the male chanters to perform some of the duties of the priest. Should the female chanters be allowed to do the same? Of course not. Also, this 'maleness' and 'femaleness' argument above doesn't stack up because this would then justify the ordination of women to the priesthood. And if that is the logical conclusion of what you are suggesting, then better to come out and say it directly, as opposed to intellectually dishonestly leading us all down a slippery slope to Episcopalianism.