Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [orthodox-readers] Re: Qustion about women "Readers"

Expand Messages
  • Philip Silouan Thompson
    ... Maybe your parish has enough men to read the services and Epistle, so they don t need to recruit women to read? Rdr Silouan
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 9, 2008
      mskgz wrote:
      > I am a tonsured Reader, but also a bit of a trouble maker when
      > warranted. I am now part of a wonderful parish, but which is the
      > only parish I have ever attended in my life that did not have women
      > readers.

      Maybe your parish has enough men to read the services and Epistle, so
      they don't need to recruit women to read?

      Rdr Silouan
    • Steve Robinson
      Wellll.... why would you want to make the parish less wonderful by being a jerk? Sdn. Steven Paul. ... From: mskgz To: orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com Sent:
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 9, 2008
        Wellll.... why would you want to make the parish less "wonderful" by being a jerk?
        Sdn. Steven Paul.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: mskgz
        To: orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:00 PM
        Subject: [orthodox-readers] Re: Qustion about women "Readers"


        Hello all,

        I am a tonsured Reader, but also a bit of a trouble maker when warranted. ... (I decided that I won't wear a cossock until that is corrected.)
        Visit Your Group
        Yahoo! News
        Get it all here

        Breaking news to

        entertainment news

        Special K Group
        on Yahoo! Groups

        Learn how others

        are losing pounds.

        Learn to live
        a full life with these

        healthy living

        groups on Yahoo!
        .


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John M. Black
        ... Points for honesty. :-) ... You sound like you re the authority of everything; in the sense that *you* (the individual, and not the Church as a whole in
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 10, 2008
          On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:00 PM, mskgz <mskgz@...> wrote:

          > I am a tonsured Reader, but also a bit of a trouble maker when
          > warranted.


          Points for honesty. :-)



          > I am now part of a wonderful parish, but which is the
          > only parish I have ever attended in my life that did not have women
          > readers. (I decided that I won't wear a cossock until that is
          > corrected.)


          You sound like you're the authority of everything; in the sense that *you*
          (the individual, and not the Church as a whole in the person of its Pastor,)
          will decide when something is "corrected" to your liking. Sounds Protestant
          to me.


          I believe that the proper protocol is for the reader that is not
          > allowed back behind the altar (which probably shoulod include me) to
          > approach the front of the church and then receive the blessing from
          > the priest.


          I believe the proper protocol is what your Bishop and Pastor decide is the
          proper protocol. Sure you can have a discussion with your pastor and offer
          your opinion, but in the end your obedience as a Reader is more urgent than
          your own opinion.


          -Rdr John


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • polychrony
          ... Anyone who is not ordained cannot serve as a Reader, per canon XIV of the 7th Oecumencial Synod. The commentary on this canon also indicates that those
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 20, 2008
            --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "mskgz" <mskgz@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello all,
            >
            > I am a tonsured Reader, but also a bit of a trouble maker when
            > warranted. I am now part of a wonderful parish, but which is the
            > only parish I have ever attended in my life that did not have women
            > readers. (I decided that I won't wear a cossock until that is
            > corrected.)

            Anyone who is not ordained cannot serve as a Reader, per canon XIV
            of the 7th Oecumencial Synod. The commentary on this canon also
            indicates that those who are not ordained cannot so serve even
            with the license of the bishop. [To do so is an abuse of episcopal
            authority.]

            A note, the wearing on not wearing of ecclesial garb is not up
            subject to your own discretion.

            >
            > I believe that the proper protocol is for the reader that is not
            > allowed back behind the altar (which probably should include me) to
            > approach the front of the church and then receive the blessing from
            > the priest.

            Here you happened to surmise correctly. The ecclesial orders are
            divided into two groups, esobema and exobema, the Reader belongs
            to the latter group.

            Polychronios

            >
            > Interested in your thoughts.
            >
            > Michael
            >
            > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "Art Danks" <artdanks1@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi all,
            > >
            > > A question came up at our parish that I'm curious about. We have 4
            > > different individuals that do the reading during the services at
            > our
            > > church. TWo of us are tonsured readers (both men of course), and
            > the
            > > other two are non-tonsured, and are both women.
            > >
            > > When it comes time for the blessing before the reading of the
            > > Prokemeinon and Epistle reading, the male tonsured Readers go into
            > > the altar area to receive the blessing, and then then go back into
            > > the Nave for the readings. However, the women of course, only go up
            > > to the foot of the stairs, and our Priest steps forward to give
            > them
            > > the blessing prior to the reading.
            > >
            > > This has been the practice of our parish for many years, but I have
            > > recently heard that this actually is not proper protocol, and that
            > > in fact when women do the reading they normally do not receive a
            > > blessing, and that this is just a recent innovation and not a
            > common
            > > practice in other parishes.
            > >
            > > I'm curious to hear what the groups thoughts are, the practices of
            > > your particular parish, and what you have heard on this matter.
            > >
            > > Thank you all.
            > >
            > > In His service,
            > >
            > > Reader John
            > >
            >
          • Art Danks
            ... I don t see wherre you get this. I looked up Canon 14 at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm It says: Canon 14: Tonsured persons not ordained
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 20, 2008
              You said:

              > Anyone who is not ordained cannot serve as a Reader, per canon XIV
              > of the 7th Oecumencial Synod. The commentary on this canon also
              > indicates that those who are not ordained cannot so serve even
              > with the license of the bishop. [To do so is an abuse of episcopal
              > authority.]

              I don't see wherre you get this. I looked up Canon 14 at:

              http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm

              It says:

              "Canon 14: Tonsured persons not ordained lectors must not read the
              Epistle or Gospel in the ambo. "

              Sounds to me like it is dekineating WHERE the Reading is to be done
              or not done, depending on whether it is an Ordained Reader or not.

              Please explain where you got your information.

              Reader John


              --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "polychrony"
              <Polychrony@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "mskgz" <mskgz@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hello all,
              > >
              > > I am a tonsured Reader, but also a bit of a trouble maker when
              > > warranted. I am now part of a wonderful parish, but which is
              the
              > > only parish I have ever attended in my life that did not have
              women
              > > readers. (I decided that I won't wear a cossock until that is
              > > corrected.)
              >
              > Anyone who is not ordained cannot serve as a Reader, per canon XIV
              > of the 7th Oecumencial Synod. The commentary on this canon also
              > indicates that those who are not ordained cannot so serve even
              > with the license of the bishop. [To do so is an abuse of episcopal
              > authority.]
              >
              > A note, the wearing on not wearing of ecclesial garb is not up
              > subject to your own discretion.
              >
              > >
              > > I believe that the proper protocol is for the reader that is not
              > > allowed back behind the altar (which probably should include me)
              to
              > > approach the front of the church and then receive the blessing
              from
              > > the priest.
              >
              > Here you happened to surmise correctly. The ecclesial orders are
              > divided into two groups, esobema and exobema, the Reader belongs
              > to the latter group.
              >
              > Polychronios
              >
              > >
              > > Interested in your thoughts.
              > >
              > > Michael
              > >
              > > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "Art Danks"
              <artdanks1@>
              > > wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Hi all,
              > > >
              > > > A question came up at our parish that I'm curious about. We
              have 4
              > > > different individuals that do the reading during the services
              at
              > > our
              > > > church. TWo of us are tonsured readers (both men of course),
              and
              > > the
              > > > other two are non-tonsured, and are both women.
              > > >
              > > > When it comes time for the blessing before the reading of the
              > > > Prokemeinon and Epistle reading, the male tonsured Readers go
              into
              > > > the altar area to receive the blessing, and then then go back
              into
              > > > the Nave for the readings. However, the women of course, only
              go up
              > > > to the foot of the stairs, and our Priest steps forward to
              give
              > > them
              > > > the blessing prior to the reading.
              > > >
              > > > This has been the practice of our parish for many years, but I
              have
              > > > recently heard that this actually is not proper protocol, and
              that
              > > > in fact when women do the reading they normally do not receive
              a
              > > > blessing, and that this is just a recent innovation and not a
              > > common
              > > > practice in other parishes.
              > > >
              > > > I'm curious to hear what the groups thoughts are, the
              practices of
              > > > your particular parish, and what you have heard on this matter.
              > > >
              > > > Thank you all.
              > > >
              > > > In His service,
              > > >
              > > > Reader John
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • James Morgan
              Why ask here? We are all just readers . Take the question to your priest, and if he can t answer, to your bishop. He is the ultimate authority. After all he
              Message 6 of 16 , Jun 22, 2008
                Why ask here? We are all just 'readers'. Take the question to your
                priest, and if he can't answer, to your bishop. He is the ultimate
                authority. After all he tonsured you.

                Rdr. James
                olympia, WA

                --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "polychrony" <Polychrony@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "mskgz" <mskgz@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hello all,
                > >
                > > I am a tonsured Reader, but also a bit of a trouble maker when
                > > warranted. I am now part of a wonderful parish, but which is the
                > > only parish I have ever attended in my life that did not have
                women readers. (I decided that I won't wear a cossock until that is
                > > corrected.)
                >
                > Anyone who is not ordained cannot serve as a Reader, per canon XIV
                > of the 7th Oecumencial Synod. The commentary on this canon also
                > indicates that those who are not ordained cannot so serve even
                > with the license of the bishop. [To do so is an abuse of episcopal
                > authority.]
                >
                > A note, the wearing on not wearing of ecclesial garb is not up
                > subject to your own discretion.
                >
                > >
                > > I believe that the proper protocol is for the reader that is not
                > > allowed back behind the altar (which probably should include me)
                to approach the front of the church and then receive the blessing from
                the priest.
                >
                > Here you happened to surmise correctly. The ecclesial orders are
                > divided into two groups, esobema and exobema, the Reader belongs
                > to the latter group.
                >
                > Polychronios
                >
              • polychrony
                The whole canon follows: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_XIV/The_Seventh_Ecumenical_Council/Canons/Canon_XIV
                Message 7 of 16 , Jun 23, 2008
                  The whole canon follows:

                  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_XIV/The_Seventh_Ecumenical_Council/Canons/Canon_XIV

                  Canon XIV.

                  That no one without ordination ought to read in the ambo during the
                  synaxis.

                  That there is a certain order established in the priesthood is very
                  evident to all, and to guard diligently the promotions of the
                  priesthood is well pleasing to God. Since therefore we see certain
                  youths who have received the clerical tonsure, but who have not yet
                  received ordination from the bishop, reading in the ambo during the
                  Synaxis, and in doing this violating the canons, we forbid this to be
                  done (from henceforth,) and let this prohibition be observed also
                  amongst the monks. It is permitted to each hegumenos in his own
                  monastery to ordain a reader, if he himself had received the laying on
                  of hands by a bishop to the dignity of hegumenos, and is known to be a
                  presbyter. Chorepiscopi may likewise, according to ancient custom and
                  with the bishop's authorization, appoint readers.[1]

                  Notes.

                  Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV.

                  No one shall read from the ambon unless he has been ordained by the
                  bishop. And this shall be in force also among monks. The superior of
                  a monastery, if he has been ordained by the bishop, may ordain a
                  lector but only in his own monastery. A chorepiscopus also can make a
                  lector.
                  --------

                  The mention of the "ambon"--the only place where readings would
                  be done--and the "synaxis" is added to emphasizes the liturgical
                  nature of the office. One cannot imagine that if someone, not
                  canonically ordained, need merely step off the ambon to read, then
                  the injunction on diligently guarding the grades of the priesthood
                  no longer applies.

                  Note too that this canon clarifies that the monastic tonsure is
                  insufficient to qualify someone to serve as a Reader, but he must
                  receive ordination to this effect.

                  Polychronios





                  --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "Art Danks" <artdanks1@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > You said:
                  >
                  > > Anyone who is not ordained cannot serve as a Reader, per canon XIV
                  > > of the 7th Oecumenical Synod. The commentary on this canon also
                  > > indicates that those who are not ordained cannot so serve even
                  > > with the license of the bishop. [To do so is an abuse of episcopal
                  > > authority.]
                  >
                  > I don't see where you get this. I looked up Canon 14 at:
                  >
                  > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm
                  >
                  > It says:
                  >
                  > "Canon 14: Tonsured persons not ordained lectors must not read the
                  > Epistle or Gospel in the ambo. "
                  >
                  > Sounds to me like it is dekineating WHERE the Reading is to be done
                  > or not done, depending on whether it is an Ordained Reader or not.
                  >
                  > Please explain where you got your information.
                  >
                  > Reader John
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "polychrony"
                  > <Polychrony@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "mskgz" <mskgz@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Hello all,
                  > > >
                  > > > I am a tonsured Reader, but also a bit of a trouble maker when
                  > > > warranted. I am now part of a wonderful parish, but which is
                  > the
                  > > > only parish I have ever attended in my life that did not have
                  > women
                  > > > readers. (I decided that I won't wear a cossock until that is
                  > > > corrected.)
                  > >
                  > > Anyone who is not ordained cannot serve as a Reader, per canon XIV
                  > > of the 7th Oecumencial Synod. The commentary on this canon also
                  > > indicates that those who are not ordained cannot so serve even
                  > > with the license of the bishop. [To do so is an abuse of episcopal
                  > > authority.]
                  > >
                  > > A note, the wearing on not wearing of ecclesial garb is not up
                  > > subject to your own discretion.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > I believe that the proper protocol is for the reader that is not
                  > > > allowed back behind the altar (which probably should include me)
                  > to
                  > > > approach the front of the church and then receive the blessing
                  > from
                  > > > the priest.
                  > >
                  > > Here you happened to surmise correctly. The ecclesial orders are
                  > > divided into two groups, esobema and exobema, the Reader belongs
                  > > to the latter group.
                  > >
                  > > Polychronios
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Interested in your thoughts.
                  > > >
                  > > > Michael
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "Art Danks"
                  > <artdanks1@>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Hi all,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > A question came up at our parish that I'm curious about. We
                  > have 4
                  > > > > different individuals that do the reading during the services
                  > at
                  > > > our
                  > > > > church. TWo of us are tonsured readers (both men of course),
                  > and
                  > > > the
                  > > > > other two are non-tonsured, and are both women.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > When it comes time for the blessing before the reading of the
                  > > > > Prokemeinon and Epistle reading, the male tonsured Readers go
                  > into
                  > > > > the altar area to receive the blessing, and then then go back
                  > into
                  > > > > the Nave for the readings. However, the women of course, only
                  > go up
                  > > > > to the foot of the stairs, and our Priest steps forward to
                  > give
                  > > > them
                  > > > > the blessing prior to the reading.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > This has been the practice of our parish for many years, but I
                  > have
                  > > > > recently heard that this actually is not proper protocol, and
                  > that
                  > > > > in fact when women do the reading they normally do not receive
                  > a
                  > > > > blessing, and that this is just a recent innovation and not a
                  > > > common
                  > > > > practice in other parishes.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I'm curious to hear what the groups thoughts are, the
                  > practices of
                  > > > > your particular parish, and what you have heard on this matter.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Thank you all.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > In His service,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Reader John
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Чтец Вn
                  ... Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_XIV/The_Seventh_Ecumenical_Council/Ca nons/Canon_XIV ... be ... on ... be a ... and ... of ... make a ... Polychronios,
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jun 23, 2008
                    --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "polychrony"
                    <Polychrony@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > The whole canon follows:
                    >
                    > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-
                    Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_XIV/The_Seventh_Ecumenical_Council/Ca
                    nons/Canon_XIV
                    >
                    > Canon XIV.
                    >
                    > That no one without ordination ought to read in the ambo during the
                    > synaxis.
                    >
                    > That there is a certain order established in the priesthood is very
                    > evident to all, and to guard diligently the promotions of the
                    > priesthood is well pleasing to God. Since therefore we see certain
                    > youths who have received the clerical tonsure, but who have not yet
                    > received ordination from the bishop, reading in the ambo during the
                    > Synaxis, and in doing this violating the canons, we forbid this to
                    be
                    > done (from henceforth,) and let this prohibition be observed also
                    > amongst the monks. It is permitted to each hegumenos in his own
                    > monastery to ordain a reader, if he himself had received the laying
                    on
                    > of hands by a bishop to the dignity of hegumenos, and is known to
                    be a
                    > presbyter. Chorepiscopi may likewise, according to ancient custom
                    and
                    > with the bishop's authorization, appoint readers.[1]
                    >
                    > Notes.
                    >
                    > Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV.
                    >
                    > No one shall read from the ambon unless he has been ordained by the
                    > bishop. And this shall be in force also among monks. The superior
                    of
                    > a monastery, if he has been ordained by the bishop, may ordain a
                    > lector but only in his own monastery. A chorepiscopus also can
                    make a
                    > lector.
                    > --------
                    >
                    > The mention of the "ambon"--the only place where readings would
                    > be done--and the "synaxis" is added to emphasizes the liturgical
                    > nature of the office. One cannot imagine that if someone, not
                    > canonically ordained, need merely step off the ambon to read, then
                    > the injunction on diligently guarding the grades of the priesthood
                    > no longer applies.
                    >
                    > Note too that this canon clarifies that the monastic tonsure is
                    > insufficient to qualify someone to serve as a Reader, but he must
                    > receive ordination to this effect.
                    >
                    > Polychronios
                    >

                    Polychronios, I'm not saying that you're interpretation of the canon
                    is incorrect (it may be spot on for all I know, I just don't know
                    myself), but your interpretation definitely does not follow from the
                    canon itself or from the notes that follow. When read in a vacuum,
                    the canon is certainly says what it says (at least in this
                    translation, I don't know about the original), i.e. that no one
                    without ordination OUGHT to read IN THE AMBON DURING THE SYNAXIS

                    There are several issues that are not answered by the text of the
                    canon or the explanitory notes.

                    For example, why would they have included the word "ambon" when they
                    could have just as easily said "no one without ordination shall read
                    during the synaxis"?

                    This may just be a translation issue, but the canon says "ought"
                    instead of "shall" which implies permissibility or desirability.

                    Finally, it is easy to think of a reason why the canon may have been
                    intended simply to keep non-ordained people simply from reading from
                    the ambon, but not from reading in general. For instance, just
                    preventing non-ordained people from reading in the ambon helps "guard
                    diligently the promotions of the priesthood" for the simple fact that
                    non-ordained people will be reading from a different place, namely a
                    place that is not such a focus of people's attention.

                    Also, the canon explains that the youths who were tonsured but not
                    ordained were reading from the ambon in violation of the canons.
                    This implies that there are other canons at play which should be used
                    to guide interpretation.

                    Rdr. Vyacheslav
                  • polychrony
                    Dear Rdr. Vyacheslav, Prefixed to the canons are epitomes ; these are ancient. They capsulate the canon, and frequently are the `short-hand by which the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jun 24, 2008
                      Dear Rdr. Vyacheslav,

                      Prefixed to the canons are "epitomes"; these are ancient. They
                      capsulate the canon, and frequently are the `short-hand' by which
                      the whole of the canon is cited. In the text as provided below,
                      the "ancient epitome" is given following the canon (it properly
                      prefaces the canon). I am not certain regarding the following,
                      but I think it correct: the prefacing sentence here, which
                      includes the `ought' term, is not part of the canon at all, but
                      I surmise it is the gloss of one Dr. John Johnson, whose work was
                      used by the editors of the NPNF series. So it is not even a
                      question of translation, since that statement is not present in
                      the canon at all.

                      With regard to why the holy fathers included in the phrase `from
                      the ambon' in the text, this emphasis of text is not unusual.
                      If it is said, for example, that those excommunicated "dare not
                      approach the holy table to receive the divine mysteries," does
                      that mean to say that it permissible for them to commune, as long
                      as the minister brings the mysteries out to them, so they need
                      not "approach the holy table"? It is emphatic text to help clarify
                      the point.

                      Also, indicating this phrase as emphatic is that in the
                      ancient church the `ambon' was the only designated place for the
                      reading of the holy scriptures. Where else would one go to read
                      them? Non-ambonic readings would have made no sense. Even a
                      hyper-legalistic reading cannot support this as a prerequisite.

                      In reference to our own times, in current ecclesiastical
                      architecture is this no longer an ambon along the ancient usage,
                      the closest being the `pulpit', which tends to be used only by
                      presbyters/bishops, making it more of an exobema structure than
                      a reader's ambon. In fact, I do not recall if I have ~ever~
                      witnessed the epistle being read from the pulpit—typically it is
                      read from the center of the church where the ambon ~used to be~,
                      or from the psalterion/solea. So is the thrust of the canon now
                      gutted because we no longer have that exact church furnishing?
                      Is that the message what the Fathers were trying to convey?

                      Lastly, in the interpretation of this canon as provided in ~The
                      Rudder~, the following extract is worthy of note:

                      "Since some person have been consecrated from infancy to God,
                      and have donned garments befitting clerics, and have also
                      received the tonsure at the hands of their own parents, in
                      accordance with a certain custom, on the pretext that they have
                      been and are, allegedly, consecrated, and these same children on
                      coming to age have had the temerity to read the divine books to
                      the laity perhaps trusting to that tonsure received in their
                      infancy) without having had the requisite imposition of hands and
                      without having received the requisite seal and tonsure of an
                      Anagnost from a prelate; therefore the present Canon commands that
                      such a thing be not done, on the ground that it is disorderly and
                      uncanonical. Not only are laymen forbidden to act as Readers
                      without a bishop's seal, but so are monks, too."

                      One can see from all the above how the position of reader is an
                      office in the Church, and the canons diligently guard its
                      promotion. The late-20th, early 21st century innovative practice
                      by presbyters and bishops of having non-ordained layman or women
                      read the holy scriptures to the laity is clearly misguided. So
                      much so that Michael ("mskgz") is going out on a cassock strike in
                      order to promote this un-Orthodox practice.

                      In Christ,

                      Polychronios


                      --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "mskgz" <mskgz@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hello all,
                      >
                      > I am a tonsured Reader, but also a bit of a trouble maker when
                      > warranted. I am now part of a wonderful parish, but which is the
                      > only parish I have ever attended in my life that did not have women
                      > readers. (I decided that I won't wear a cossock until that is
                      > corrected.)
                      >
                      > I believe that the proper protocol is for the reader that is not
                      > allowed back behind the altar (which probably shoulod include me) to
                      > approach the front of the church and then receive the blessing from
                      > the priest.
                      >
                      > Interested in your thoughts.
                      >
                      > Michael
                      >
                      > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "Art Danks" <artdanks1@>
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi all,
                      > >
                      > > A question came up at our parish that I'm curious about. We have 4
                      > > different individuals that do the reading during the services at
                      > our
                      > > church. TWo of us are tonsured readers (both men of course), and
                      > the
                      > > other two are non-tonsured, and are both women.
                      > >
                      > > When it comes time for the blessing before the reading of the
                      > > Prokemeinon and Epistle reading, the male tonsured Readers go into
                      > > the altar area to receive the blessing, and then then go back into
                      > > the Nave for the readings. However, the women of course, only go up
                      > > to the foot of the stairs, and our Priest steps forward to give
                      > them
                      > > the blessing prior to the reading.
                      > >
                      > > This has been the practice of our parish for many years, but I have
                      > > recently heard that this actually is not proper protocol, and that
                      > > in fact when women do the reading they normally do not receive a
                      > > blessing, and that this is just a recent innovation and not a
                      > common
                      > > practice in other parishes.
                      > >
                      > > I'm curious to hear what the groups thoughts are, the practices of
                      > > your particular parish, and what you have heard on this matter.
                      > >
                      > > Thank you all.
                      > >
                      > > In His service,
                      > >
                      > > Reader John
                      > >
                      >
                    • mskgz
                      I read this with a mixture of amusement and consternation. It is exactly this kind of thinking that makes Orthodoxy almost irrelevant in the eyes of America.
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jun 24, 2008
                        I read this with a mixture of amusement and consternation. It is
                        exactly this kind of thinking that makes Orthodoxy almost irrelevant
                        in the eyes of America. We will never be able to spread the word of
                        Christ if we Orthodox insist on looking to ancient texts and forget
                        the one ancient text that has the most importance to our faith.
                        (That being the Bible, in case you were not sure of my meaning.)

                        As to the comment about my "un-Orthodox practices", my bishop doesn't
                        think I am being un-Orthodox, so I don't really care what you think.

                        I stand by my view that readers in the church can include men and
                        women that have not been tonsured. That is the practice in most of
                        the churches I know and have attended since my youth, and is not
                        inconsistent with Church Canons based on the discussions I have had
                        with theologians of much greater significance. On a personal note, I
                        do believe that Churches that fail to include lay people in their
                        services risk being left with no one in their congregations.

                        How about we talk about the need to use only English in our services?

                        Michael


                        --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "polychrony"
                        <Polychrony@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Dear Rdr. Vyacheslav,
                        >
                        > Prefixed to the canons are "epitomes"; these are ancient. They
                        > capsulate the canon, and frequently are the `short-hand' by which
                        > the whole of the canon is cited. In the text as provided below,
                        > the "ancient epitome" is given following the canon (it properly
                        > prefaces the canon). I am not certain regarding the following,
                        > but I think it correct: the prefacing sentence here, which
                        > includes the `ought' term, is not part of the canon at all, but
                        > I surmise it is the gloss of one Dr. John Johnson, whose work was
                        > used by the editors of the NPNF series. So it is not even a
                        > question of translation, since that statement is not present in
                        > the canon at all.
                        > >
                        <SNIP>
                      • polychrony
                        ... Have we learnt nothing from the tragic experiences of the RC s, the Anglicans, et.al., in their search for relevance ? Since the 1960 s, when this view
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jun 26, 2008
                          --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "mskgz" <mskgz@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I read this with a mixture of amusement and consternation. It is
                          > exactly this kind of thinking that makes Orthodoxy almost
                          > irrelevant in the eyes of America.

                          Have we learnt nothing from the tragic experiences of the RC's,
                          the Anglicans, et.al., in their search for "relevance"? Since
                          the 1960's, when this view first emerged in force, we saw such
                          developments as:

                          folk guitar masses
                          'Christian' rock music
                          gender-neutral language
                          altar girls
                          women priests
                          homosexual ministers
                          open-communion, et. al.

                          All these misguided efforts in the vain pursuit of making the
                          "faith once delivered to the saints" ~relevant~ to American
                          culture.

                          > We will never be able to spread the word of
                          > Christ if we Orthodox insist on looking to ancient texts and
                          > forget the one ancient text that has the most importance to our
                          > faith.(That being the Bible, in case you were not sure of my
                          > meaning.)

                          Is the "word of Christ" as spread by the Orthodox the same as that
                          spread by the Protestants? If not, then perhaps it is because these
                          ancient texts inform our understanding of Scripture?

                          Rather than opposing the Holy Scriptures against other ancient
                          Christian writings (e.g., the Apostolic Fathers, the holy canons,
                          the lives of the saints, etc.) perhaps it would be worthwhile to
                          look to how these represent a consistent, living tradition? 20
                          centuries of unbroken tradition should be looked to for guidance
                          in what it means to live piously, reverently, and just perhaps,
                          it may be American culture that needs some revision.

                          > As to the comment about my "un-Orthodox practices", my bishop
                          > doesn't think I am being un-Orthodox, so I don't really care what
                          > you think.

                          And, evidently, what the Seven Oecumenical Councils think, either.

                          > I stand by my view that readers in the church can include men and
                          > women that have not been tonsured. That is the practice in most of
                          > the churches I know and have attended since my youth, and is not
                          > inconsistent with Church Canons based on the discussions I have had
                          > with theologians of much greater significance.

                          Perhaps you have misunderstood them. I am certain that if their
                          positions are carefully vetted, you will find them in concordance
                          with holy tradition.

                          > On a personal note, I
                          > do believe that Churches that fail to include lay people in their
                          > services risk being left with no one in their congregations.

                          Lay people are included in every service, as "the faithful", the
                          "oi pistoi". Ironically, if everyone served in some fashion as
                          a cleric, then there would be no congregations!

                          "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers
                          of miracles?" 1 Cor 12:29.

                          [snip]

                          In Christ,

                          Polychronios


                          --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "mskgz" <mskgz@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I read this with a mixture of amusement and consternation. It is
                          > exactly this kind of thinking that makes Orthodoxy almost irrelevant
                          > in the eyes of America. We will never be able to spread the word of
                          > Christ if we Orthodox insist on looking to ancient texts and forget
                          > the one ancient text that has the most importance to our faith.
                          > (That being the Bible, in case you were not sure of my meaning.)
                          >
                          > As to the comment about my "un-Orthodox practices", my bishop doesn't
                          > think I am being un-Orthodox, so I don't really care what you think.
                          >
                          > I stand by my view that readers in the church can include men and
                          > women that have not been tonsured. That is the practice in most of
                          > the churches I know and have attended since my youth, and is not
                          > inconsistent with Church Canons based on the discussions I have had
                          > with theologians of much greater significance. On a personal note, I
                          > do believe that Churches that fail to include lay people in their
                          > services risk being left with no one in their congregations.
                          >
                          > How about we talk about the need to use only English in our services?
                          >
                          > Michael
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In orthodox-readers@yahoogroups.com, "polychrony"
                          > <Polychrony@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Dear Rdr. Vyacheslav,
                          > >
                          > > Prefixed to the canons are "epitomes"; these are ancient. They
                          > > capsulate the canon, and frequently are the `short-hand' by which
                          > > the whole of the canon is cited. In the text as provided below,
                          > > the "ancient epitome" is given following the canon (it properly
                          > > prefaces the canon). I am not certain regarding the following,
                          > > but I think it correct: the prefacing sentence here, which
                          > > includes the `ought' term, is not part of the canon at all, but
                          > > I surmise it is the gloss of one Dr. John Johnson, whose work was
                          > > used by the editors of the NPNF series. So it is not even a
                          > > question of translation, since that statement is not present in
                          > > the canon at all.
                          > > >
                          > <SNIP>
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.