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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Jun 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 16 , Jun 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 16 , Jun 20, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 16 , Jun 20, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 16 , Jun 22, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 16 , Jun 23, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 16 , Jun 23, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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 8 of 16 , Jun 24, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 16 , Jun 24, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 16 , Jun 26, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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.