[quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=12807.msg150786#msg150786 date=1326942985] Ohh, man sa3idis are the best people in the whole wide world. NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!!!
P.S I donot take this matter lightly so donot dare reason with me lol
Why thank you Copticandproud..I'm actually half. My mom's fam is originally is from Akhmim and my dad is Alexandrian, go figure.
It is un-canonical to have such a young priest. The Church has provided rules which should be followed in the case of priests, deacons and subdeacons for the security of the Church.
No-one at 18 is suitable to be a priest. I think that the canons require a priest to be 30 years old. Of course a bishop may modify this rule, but 30 years of age seems a suitable minimum. This would allow many years of faithful service and progression through sub-deacon and deacon.
I dont think is correct. And it is certainly not universal. The canons state that only a Deacon may where it, and by dispensation it has been allowed to the subdeacon but I consider it unfortunate that the dispensation becomes a complete overthrow of the canons by allowing it to the reader. This is not the practice in the BOC according to the Coptic rite we received.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12807.msg150798#msg150798 date=1326977222] I dont think is correct. And it is certainly not universal. The canons state that only a Deacon may where it, and by dispensation it has been allowed to the subdeacon but I consider it unfortunate that the dispensation becomes a complete overthrow of the canons by allowing it to the reader. This is not the practice in the BOC according to the Coptic rite we received.
In the rite books that date back to the 17th century, the reader does wear the Batrashail as I described. Certainly this might not have been the case before that era.
We are surely governed by the universal canons of the Church. It seems to me to have been proved to be unhealthy when almost every males is allowed to wear the tonia and stole.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12807.msg150800#msg150800 date=1326978474] We are surely governed by the universal canons of the Church. It seems to me to have been proved to be unhealthy when almost every males is allowed to wear the tonia and stole.
Dear Fr. Peter,
Can you please cite those canons? This is not a challenge but for my own benefit.
The Canons of the Councils of Neo-Caesarea and Laodicea are universally accepted, and are accepted by the Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
Canon XI of Neo-Caesarea says that a man should not be made a priest before he is 30 years of age.
Canon XXII of Laodicea says 'The subdeacon has no right to wear an orarium [i.e., stole]'
Canon XXIII of Laodicea says 'The readers and singers have no right to wear an orarium, and to read or sing thus [habited]'.
Now in the earliest period the ministry of the subdeacon was not in the altar at all. His role was to preserve order in the Church, and watch the doors. Indeed there are canons forbidding the subdeacons to leave the doors of the Church and join in with the diaconal prayers of the Liturgy.
Clearly, as the subdeacon has become an assistant at the altar he has taken on some of the office of the proper deacon and wears the stole, but in a manner which distinguishes him as a subdeacon and not a deacon.
Is it proper that everyone who wears a tonia can approach the altar? I don't think so. Nor do I think this was ever intended by the Fathers. Of course there are exceptional circumstances - I have often experienced them myself in a mission context - but ordinarily the order of the Church expects there to be at least one proper Deacon at the Liturgy, and subdeacons who serve as assistants to the Deacon and are no more in number than is required for the proper celebration of Liturgy. There might also be readers who are prepared to read the Lections, and also participate in the general service of the Church outside of the Liturgy. But to progress from a reader to a subdeacon and to approach the altar should be a major life event - not just another chore.
I think that the collapsing of the orders of the Church has led to a devaluing of such service and that the restriction of the stole to the subdeacon - by way of concession - and deacon are appropriate ways of marking the distinction in the honour of the service. Extending the concession to all seems to me to make the wearing of the stole as a proper dignity of the Deacon of much less importance and value.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12807.msg150802#msg150802 date=1326984173] The Canons of the Councils of Neo-Caesarea and Laodicea are universally accepted, and are accepted by the Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
Canon XI of Neo-Caesarea says that a man should not be made a priest before he is 30 years of age.
Canon XXII of Laodicea says 'The subdeacon has no right to wear an orarium [i.e., stole]'
Canon XXIII of Laodicea says 'The readers and singers have no right to wear an orarium, and to read or sing thus [habited]'.
Now in the earliest period the ministry of the subdeacon was not in the altar at all. His role was to preserve order in the Church, and watch the doors. Indeed there are canons forbidding the subdeacons to leave the doors of the Church and join in with the diaconal prayers of the Liturgy.
Clearly, as the subdeacon has become an assistant at the altar he has taken on some of the office of the proper deacon and wears the stole, but in a manner which distinguishes him as a subdeacon and not a deacon.
Is it proper that everyone who wears a tonia can approach the altar? I don't think so. Nor do I think this was ever intended by the Fathers. Of course there are exceptional circumstances - I have often experienced them myself in a mission context - but ordinarily the order of the Church expects there to be at least one proper Deacon at the Liturgy, and subdeacons who serve as assistants to the Deacon and are no more in number than is required for the proper celebration of Liturgy. There might also be readers who are prepared to read the Lections, and also participate in the general service of the Church outside of the Liturgy. But to progress from a reader to a subdeacon and to approach the altar should be a major life event - not just another chore.
I think that the collapsing of the orders of the Church has led to a devaluing of such service and that the restriction of the stole to the subdeacon - by way of concession - and deacon are appropriate ways of marking the distinction in the honour of the service. Extending the concession to all seems to me to make the wearing of the stole as a proper dignity of the Deacon of much less importance and value.
The current practice is:
The singers rank are not supposed to wear the stole. This is enforced in the SUS diocese.
The readers do wear them with the shape of the cross on the back
Subdeacon wears on the right
Deacon wears it on the left
No one is supposed to enter the altar unless the service requires it (like during the prayer of the gospel)
Of all the things that I have read you saying on this site, I have never agreed more. The deaconte in the Coptic church is being destroyed. I stopped being a deacon unless my priest forces me to, which he often does. Why can we not get smart about the ranks and only ordain people who can carry out the responsibilities properly and honestly? We need to stop ordaining children, and babies so that they can "stand with Baba and sing." The deaconate shuold be taken seriously starting with Psaltos up.
We also need to have "try-outs" for the deaconate and for elevation of rank like they do in Maadi cairo. A curriculum is given out in the summer of hymns and Theology that need to be learned for each rank are distributed. At the end of the summer the Bishop of the diocese comes in along with Anba Rofael and they test everyone. You can apply for a higher rank one step at a time after extensive learning and service, as well as testing of personality and witnessing. This is what we should do.
Now, we have children running around in tonias half their size, kids fighting over the mic. Sometime, I walk into church and am forced by Abouna to be a deacon, Once I go and stand with the deacons, the leader gets al threatened and he tries to give me the mic (like take it but don't take it because I actually want it). That bothers me, I don't want your mic, and don't want to sing in a loud voice, I want to pray. I also don't like when the leader tries to get everyone hype, or when a group of youth decide to do their own thing. Like the youth will take over a liturgy and make it "fun" (loud singing, thug life cymbals) and it really ruins the liturgy.
The deaconate is broken. Can we fix it?
1) Stop ordaining children. 2) Stop ordaining people because every little boy should grow up in a tonia. It is the Egyptian thing to do. 3) Educate the deacons. All ordained Deacons should attend deacon classes. 4) Remove the microphone. Have the deacons sing as a choir rather then 1 guy leading, his 3 friends helping him out, and every other kid around picking his nose because he is bored and feels that his being there is useless.
Regarding the woman problem, if there are ordained servants around, a woman should keep silence. Problem is that a lot of these ordained servants don't now anything. Solution: Stop ordaining servants who don't know anything!
ReturnOrthodoxy
As a matter of fact, no deacon was allowed to be ordained until he was 13 years of age! Though I can't remember how long ago that was.
I agree that this is the current desired practice.
But there are many things we do which are not always for the best and are not ancient.
The canons also fix particular minimum ages for all the ranks of the diaconate and for choristers.
Interestingly when Butler wrote the Ancient Coptic Churches he describes the ordination of deacons, subdeacons and readers and does not witness the reader receiving a stole, though the subdeacon does.
I think originally there was a uniform practice amongst all Apostolic sees and which were later enforced in the councils but eventually due to economia of necessity, things slowly changed. While this may be so, we should ensure that as Fr. Peter says, there is still reverence as well as a distinction between each rank.
The byzantine rite is as follows: the cantor wears a black robe, the reader wears a tonia without stole, the sub deacon wears the tonia with the stole crossed in front and on the back (i.e. similar to the Coptic icon of the archangels), the deacon wears the stole crossed on the back when giving communion, otherwise he wears it on the right shoulder afaik.
The Syriac church does it in a neat way as well:
cantor: reader:sub-deacon:deacon:arch-deacon: as is shown, the length of the stole also differentiates between the ranks. I have a Syriac reader's stole which a friend of mine gave to me but I can't really use it in a Coptic service because of how short it is.
It's funny, the Armnians have the stole arrangement for the reader in the Syriac representation as their own arrangement for deacons who serve exclusively at the altar with bishops, and catholicoi.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12807.msg150811#msg150811 date=1326997433] I think originally there was a uniform practice amongst all Apostolic sees and which were later enforced in the councils but eventually due to economia of necessity, things slowly changed. While this may be so, we should ensure that as Fr. Peter says, there is still reverence as well as a distinction between each rank.
The byzantine rite is as follows: the cantor wears a black robe, the reader wears a tonia without stole, the sub deacon wears the tonia with the stole crossed in front and on the back (i.e. similar to the Coptic icon of the archangels), the deacon wears the stole crossed on the back when giving communion, otherwise he wears it on the right shoulder afaik.
The Syriac church does it in a neat way as well:
cantor: reader:sub-deacon:deacon:arch-deacon: as is shown, the length of the stole also differentiates between the ranks. I have a Syriac reader's stole which a friend of mine gave to me but I can't really use it in a Coptic service because of how short it is. Must be very frustrating for the deacon. Probably falls of all the time lol.
Dear Remenkimi, NO IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT. We in the Coptic church do not say "women do not lead" because of cultural issues. It is not cultural. It is based on St. Paul's teaching. St. Paul said women are not allowed to speak in churches, and that the man is the head of the woman. He was certainly not sexist, was he? NO, AGAIN NO, because I am irritated now with the responses. No woman should lead in the church PERIOD. In the recent Holy Synod instructions, it clearly says "no woman should wear deacon outfits, or similar outfits" referring to the practice that has been taken miles further by David ensemble, and the like. This is not cultural - this is Apostolic teaching, and I believe it this way. Dear TITL, I was going to send a pm, but because this topic is going on forever, I guess it is only fair to say it here. It is very commendable what you are doing in your church, and although you are not old by age, but experienced in hymns more than the deacons, so it really should be that you give them guidance and advice "WHEN they do ask for it". That is where their humility comes. Where yours come, is if no one asked for advice, and no one knows "allleluja oblations" you don't just heckle in, and start singing it with another couple of ladies who are learned in it. You may wait, if abouna, or a deacon starts the first stanza, and you can adjust it from behind (if they forget, or get muddled up). Again, for the last time, ladies are only allowed to "teach" in church in Sunday schools, but not at any other time. Oujai qen `P[C
I think it warrants a little discussion about St Paul's teachings about women rights. I will discuss multiple Pauline passages about egalitarianism then I will discuss the verses that limit women's participation. We must keep in mind, that all Biblical verses are dependent upon interpretation. In researching this topic, I found a wide variety of interpretations on these passages. If you choose to interpret scripture in a literal view, as it would seem many people do, then you will be faced with impracticality.
While St Paul was not a feminist, as defined by today's standards, he was not a misogynist either. He was androcentric, as most Jewish men and early Christians were. If you take the corpus of St Paul's teachings on women rights, you will see he was quite liberal with women participation in contrast to his contemporary Jewish and Christian companions (as Jesus Christ was).
First of all, we must keep in mind that St Paul mentions 10 women in his letters: Prisca, Phoebe, Mary, Junia, Julia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Euodia, Synthyce, and Chloe. What is important to realize is that St Paul said Phoebe was a deacon and Junia (and her husband Andronicus) were "outstanding among the apostles". This is not to say that Phoebe was an ordained deacon and Junia was an ordained apostle, as some feminist Protestants believe. But St Paul showed such high dignity for these women that he gave them honorific titles. This is not the attitude or actions of a misogynist. The rest of these women, St Paul says were "in prison with me", "who worked hard for you", "workers in the Lord", and "struggled at my side". All of these titles show St Paul used women in some sort of missionary capacity that was not restricted to "learning silently" (1 Tit 2:12).
It seems that while some women were quite vocal and very instrumental to missionary work, as a general rule, St Paul preferred women to learn silently without raising their voices in the congregation. It is unlikely St Paul himself insisted that no women speaks, teaches or prophecy, as we shall see below. Like many other canons we have discussed on these forums, absolute or literal rules were not absolutely applied. And nor should they be.
Let's discuss the two main passage that "forbid" woman to speak. These are 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Titus 2:12. Given that these two verses are almost verbatim and they seem "inserted" and out of context from the whole chapter a little more analysis is needed.
In 1 Corinthians 14, St Paul, following St Peter's reference of Joel 2:28 on Pentecost day, acknowledges that both men and women will prophecy. He says the same thing in 1 Cor 11:5, "Any women who prays and prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." It is not explicitly mentioned if St Paul speaks of women praying and prophesying in private or in public or in public ministry. Prophecy requires preaching which requires speaking aloud. What we can gather for certain is that practically St Paul did not forbid women from prophesying and ministering in his teachings.
This brings us to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.". At first glance, it appears that this explicitly forbids women from speaking in Church. We are faced with a decision: either we believe 1 Corinthians 14:34 is a later addition not written by St Paul, the Bible is not inerrant or infallible or St Paul meant something else. Many modern, liberal Catholics and Protestants ascribe to the belief that this passage is not written by St Paul and it was later inserted by a copyist or misogynist bishop. Many Islamic and atheist scholars use this passage to show how the Bible is filled with errors. Both these beliefs are completely un-Orthodox. We need not give an Orthodox apology for our reasons against these beliefs (unless someone here requests it).
This leaves us with the possibility that St Paul meant something figuratively in 1 Corinthians 14. If you look at the whole chapter, you will see that St Paul's instructions is not about who is or who isn't allowed to speak, but rather that any prophesying and speaking of tongues must be done in order. Look at verse 26 and 27. "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret." St Paul specifically included females in this instruction. If there is confusion and disorder, no one - regardless of gender - is allowed to speak.
Now you can choose to take a literal interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34 and ignore the rest of the verses that attest to St Paul's egalitarian view of women. But now you run into impracticality. If a Coptic woman hears a sermon by priest, or a presentation outside of the liturgy, and "inquires about something", she must only ask her husband at home. We must assume St Paul meant inquires about something said in the sermon or presentation. Shouldn't a woman who listens to a presentation by a guest speaker in church and has a question, ask questions there and then so "the church may be built up." Therein lies the conundrum I spoke about in my last message. Is it better for a woman to keep silent to fulfill a literal interpretation of this passage and not ask a question or sing a hymn, or is it better for a woman to ask a question or lead a hymn submissively, without contradicting this passage, so the Church may be built up? I think the answer is definitely the latter.
This does not mean that a women who sings, leads or preaches in Church is replacing the priest or the deacon. It only means a literal interpretation of scripture will actually bring down or destroy the Church instead of edifying or building it up. To illustrate this point, if you take a literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 then your scenario, "You may wait, if abouna, or a deacon starts the first stanza, and yo can adjust it from behind (if they forget, or get muddled up), would violate 1 Corinthians 14:30, 31. "And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. " In this scenario, the woman would be speaking in Church, violating 1 Corinthians 14:34, and interrupting the first speaker where no one will be instructed or encouraged, violating 1 Corinthians 14:27, 30. But if you ascribe to a broader view, a women who learns a hymn and is known to have special talent, should sing either solo or in a chorus because it will build up the church (except for those who hold a literal view of 1 Cor 14).
In 1 Corinthians 14:39, it is implied that women should be encouraged to speak and prophecy. "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." Given St Paul's overall philogynist view and the danger of holding a strictly literal and absolute views of canon or scripture, it makes perfect sense that women should sing and prophecy and preach (even in Church) to build up the church. ....as long as it is "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40)
Does this makes sense? I am eager to hear anyone's comments (especially Fr Peter's)
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12807.msg150987#msg150987 date=1327366784] I think it warrants a little discussion about St Paul's teachings about women rights. I will discuss multiple Pauline passages about egalitarianism then I will discuss the verses that limit women's participation. We must keep in mind, that all Biblical verses are dependent upon interpretation. In researching this topic, I found a wide variety of interpretations on these passages. If you choose to interpret scripture in a literal view, as it would seem many people do, then you will be faced with impracticality.
While St Paul was not a feminist, as defined by today's standards, he was not a misogynist either. He was androcentric, as most Jewish men and early Christians were. If you take the corpus of St Paul's teachings on women rights, you will see he was quite liberal with women participation in contrast to his contemporary Jewish and Christian companions (as Jesus Christ was).
First of all, we must keep in mind that St Paul mentions 10 women in his letters: Prisca, Phoebe, Mary, Junia, Julia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Euodia, Synthyce, and Chloe. What is important to realize is that St Paul said Phoebe was a deacon and Junia (and her husband Andronicus) were "outstanding among the apostles". This is not to say that Phoebe was an ordained deacon and Junia was an ordained apostle, as some feminist Protestants believe. But St Paul showed such high dignity for these women that he gave them honorific titles. This is not the attitude or actions of a misogynist. The rest of these women, St Paul says were "in prison with me", "who worked hard for you", "workers in the Lord", and "struggled at my side". All of these titles show St Paul used women in some sort of missionary capacity that was not restricted to "learning silently" (1 Tit 2:12).
It seems that while some women were quite vocal and very instrumental to missionary work, as a general rule, St Paul preferred women to learn silently without raising their voices in the congregation. It is unlikely St Paul himself insisted that no women speaks, teaches or prophecy, as we shall see below. Like many other canons we have discussed on these forums, absolute or literal rules were not absolutely applied. And nor should they be.
Let's discuss the two main passage that "forbid" woman to speak. These are 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Titus 2:12. Given that these two verses are almost verbatim and they seem "inserted" and out of context from the whole chapter a little more analysis is needed.
In 1 Corinthians 14, St Paul, following St Peter's reference of Joel 2:28 on Pentecost day, acknowledges that both men and women will prophecy. He says the same thing in 1 Cor 11:5, "Any women who prays and prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." It is not explicitly mentioned if St Paul speaks of women praying and prophesying in private or in public or in public ministry. Prophecy requires preaching which requires speaking aloud. What we can gather for certain is that practically St Paul did not forbid women from prophesying and ministering in his teachings.
This brings us to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.". At first glance, it appears that this explicitly forbids women from speaking in Church. We are faced with a decision: either we believe 1 Corinthians 14:34 is a later addition not written by St Paul, the Bible is not inerrant or infallible or St Paul meant something else. Many modern, liberal Catholics and Protestants ascribe to the belief that this passage is not written by St Paul and it was later inserted by a copyist or misogynist bishop. Many Islamic and atheist scholars use this passage to show how the Bible is filled with errors. Both these beliefs are completely un-Orthodox. We need not give an Orthodox apology for our reasons against these beliefs (unless someone here requests it).
This leaves us with the possibility that St Paul meant something figuratively in 1 Corinthians 14. If you look at the whole chapter, you will see that St Paul's instructions is not about who is or who isn't allowed to speak, but rather that any prophesying and speaking of tongues must be done in order. Look at verse 26 and 27. "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret." St Paul specifically included females in this instruction. If there is confusion and disorder, no one - regardless of gender - is allowed to speak.
Now you can choose to take a literal interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34 and ignore the rest of the verses that attest to St Paul's egalitarian view of women. But now you run into impracticality. If a Coptic woman hears a sermon by priest, or a presentation outside of the liturgy, and "inquires about something", she must only ask her husband at home. We must assume St Paul meant inquires about something said in the sermon or presentation. Shouldn't a woman who listens to a presentation by a guest speaker in church and has a question, ask questions there and then so "the church may be built up." Therein lies the conundrum I spoke about in my last message. Is it better for a woman to keep silent to fulfill a literal interpretation of this passage and not ask a question or sing a hymn, or is it better for a woman to ask a question or lead a hymn submissively, without contradicting this passage, so the Church may be built up? I think the answer is definitely the latter.
This does not mean that a women who sings, leads or preaches in Church is replacing the priest or the deacon. It only means a literal interpretation of scripture will actually bring down or destroy the Church instead of edifying or building it up. To illustrate this point, if you take a literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 then your scenario, "You may wait, if abouna, or a deacon starts the first stanza, and yo can adjust it from behind (if they forget, or get muddled up), would violate 1 Corinthians 14:30, 31. "And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. " In this scenario, the woman would be speaking in Church, violating 1 Corinthians 14:34, and interrupting the first speaker where no one will be instructed or encouraged, violating 1 Corinthians 14:27, 30. But if you ascribe to a broader view, a women who learns a hymn and is known to have special talent, should sing either solo or in a chorus because it will build up the church (except for those who hold a literal view of 1 Cor 14).
In 1 Corinthians 14:39, it is implied that women should be encouraged to speak and prophecy. "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." Given St Paul's overall philogynist view and the danger of holding a strictly literal and absolute views of canon or scripture, it makes perfect sense that women should sing and prophecy and preach (even in Church) to build up the church. ....as long as it is "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40)
Does this makes sense? I am eager to hear anyone's comments (especially Fr Peter's)
Comments
P.S I donot take this matter lightly so donot dare reason with me lol
Ohh, man sa3idis are the best people in the whole wide world. NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!!!
P.S I donot take this matter lightly so donot dare reason with me lol
Why thank you Copticandproud..I'm actually half. My mom's fam is originally is from Akhmim and my dad is Alexandrian, go figure.
No-one at 18 is suitable to be a priest. I think that the canons require a priest to be 30 years old. Of course a bishop may modify this rule, but 30 years of age seems a suitable minimum. This would allow many years of faithful service and progression through sub-deacon and deacon.
I know that in some churches it is worn by readers, or even by choristers.
We have just ordained a new reader, and I was a reader for many years and I never wore a padrashil.
is not the practice in the BOC according to the Coptic rite we received.
I dont think is correct. And it is certainly not universal. The canons state that only a Deacon may where it, and by dispensation it has been allowed to the subdeacon but I consider it unfortunate that the dispensation becomes a complete overthrow of the canons by allowing it to the reader. This
is not the practice in the BOC according to the Coptic rite we received.
In the rite books that date back to the 17th century, the reader does wear the Batrashail as I described. Certainly this might not have been the case before that era.
We are surely governed by the universal canons of the Church. It seems to me to have been proved to be unhealthy when almost every males is allowed to wear the tonia and stole.
Dear Fr. Peter,
Can you please cite those canons? This is not a challenge but for my own benefit.
Thanks.
Canon XI of Neo-Caesarea says that a man should not be made a priest before he is 30 years of age.
Canon XXII of Laodicea says 'The subdeacon has no right to wear an orarium [i.e., stole]'
Canon XXIII of Laodicea says 'The readers and singers have no right to wear an orarium, and to read or sing thus [habited]'.
Now in the earliest period the ministry of the subdeacon was not in the altar at all. His role was to preserve order in the Church, and watch the doors. Indeed there are canons forbidding the subdeacons to leave the doors of the Church and join in with the diaconal prayers of the Liturgy.
Clearly, as the subdeacon has become an assistant at the altar he has taken on some of the office of the proper deacon and wears the stole, but in a manner which distinguishes him as a subdeacon and not a deacon.
Is it proper that everyone who wears a tonia can approach the altar? I don't think so. Nor do I think this was ever intended by the Fathers. Of course there are exceptional circumstances - I have often experienced them myself in a mission context - but ordinarily the order of the Church expects there to be at least one proper Deacon at the Liturgy, and subdeacons who serve as assistants to the Deacon and are no more in number than is required for the proper celebration of Liturgy. There might also be readers who are prepared to read the Lections, and also participate in the general service of the Church outside of the Liturgy. But to progress from a reader to a subdeacon and to approach the altar should be a major life event - not just another chore.
I think that the collapsing of the orders of the Church has led to a devaluing of such service and that the restriction of the stole to the subdeacon - by way of concession - and deacon are appropriate ways of marking the distinction in the honour of the service. Extending the concession to all seems to me to make the wearing of the stole as a proper dignity of the Deacon of much less importance and value.
The Canons of the Councils of Neo-Caesarea and Laodicea are universally accepted, and are accepted by the Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
Canon XI of Neo-Caesarea says that a man should not be made a priest before he is 30 years of age.
Canon XXII of Laodicea says 'The subdeacon has no right to wear an orarium [i.e., stole]'
Canon XXIII of Laodicea says 'The readers and singers have no right to wear an orarium, and to read or sing thus [habited]'.
Now in the earliest period the ministry of the subdeacon was not in the altar at all. His role was to preserve order in the Church, and watch the doors. Indeed there are canons forbidding the subdeacons to leave the doors of the Church and join in with the diaconal prayers of the Liturgy.
Clearly, as the subdeacon has become an assistant at the altar he has taken on some of the office of the proper deacon and wears the stole, but in a manner which distinguishes him as a subdeacon and not a deacon.
Is it proper that everyone who wears a tonia can approach the altar? I don't think so. Nor do I think this was ever intended by the Fathers. Of course there are exceptional circumstances - I have often experienced them myself in a mission context - but ordinarily the order of the Church expects there to be at least one proper Deacon at the Liturgy, and subdeacons who serve as assistants to the Deacon and are no more in number than is required for the proper celebration of Liturgy. There might also be readers who are prepared to read the Lections, and also participate in the general service of the Church outside of the Liturgy. But to progress from a reader to a subdeacon and to approach the altar should be a major life event - not just another chore.
I think that the collapsing of the orders of the Church has led to a devaluing of such service and that the restriction of the stole to the subdeacon - by way of concession - and deacon are appropriate ways of marking the distinction in the honour of the service. Extending the concession to all seems to me to make the wearing of the stole as a proper dignity of the Deacon of much less importance and value.
The current practice is:
The singers rank are not supposed to wear the stole. This is enforced in the SUS diocese.
The readers do wear them with the shape of the cross on the back
Subdeacon wears on the right
Deacon wears it on the left
No one is supposed to enter the altar unless the service requires it (like during the prayer of the gospel)
ILSM,
Of all the things that I have read you saying on this site, I have never agreed more. The deaconte in the Coptic church is being destroyed. I stopped being a deacon unless my priest forces me to, which he often does. Why can we not get smart about the ranks and only ordain people who can carry out the responsibilities properly and honestly? We need to stop ordaining children, and babies so that they can "stand with Baba and sing." The deaconate shuold be taken seriously starting with Psaltos up.
We also need to have "try-outs" for the deaconate and for elevation of rank like they do in Maadi cairo. A curriculum is given out in the summer of hymns and Theology that need to be learned for each rank are distributed. At the end of the summer the Bishop of the diocese comes in along with Anba Rofael and they test everyone. You can apply for a higher rank one step at a time after extensive learning and service, as well as testing of personality and witnessing. This is what we should do.
Now, we have children running around in tonias half their size, kids fighting over the mic. Sometime, I walk into church and am forced by Abouna to be a deacon, Once I go and stand with the deacons, the leader gets al threatened and he tries to give me the mic (like take it but don't take it because I actually want it). That bothers me, I don't want your mic, and don't want to sing in a loud voice, I want to pray. I also don't like when the leader tries to get everyone hype, or when a group of youth decide to do their own thing. Like the youth will take over a liturgy and make it "fun" (loud singing, thug life cymbals) and it really ruins the liturgy.
The deaconate is broken. Can we fix it?
1) Stop ordaining children.
2) Stop ordaining people because every little boy should grow up in a tonia. It is the Egyptian thing to do.
3) Educate the deacons. All ordained Deacons should attend deacon classes.
4) Remove the microphone. Have the deacons sing as a choir rather then 1 guy leading, his 3 friends helping him out, and every other kid around picking his nose because he is bored and feels that his being there is useless.
Regarding the woman problem, if there are ordained servants around, a woman should keep silence. Problem is that a lot of these ordained servants don't now anything. Solution: Stop ordaining servants who don't know anything!
ReturnOrthodoxy
As a matter of fact, no deacon was allowed to be ordained until he was 13 years of age! Though I can't remember how long ago that was.
I wonder why that has stopped??
But there are many things we do which are not always for the best and are not ancient.
The canons also fix particular minimum ages for all the ranks of the diaconate and for choristers.
Interestingly when Butler wrote the Ancient Coptic Churches he describes the ordination of deacons, subdeacons and readers and does not witness the reader receiving a stole, though the subdeacon does.
The byzantine rite is as follows: the cantor wears a black robe, the reader wears a tonia without stole, the sub deacon wears the tonia with the stole crossed in front and on the back (i.e. similar to the Coptic icon of the archangels), the deacon wears the stole crossed on the back when giving communion, otherwise he wears it on the right shoulder afaik.
The Syriac church does it in a neat way as well:
cantor:
as is shown, the length of the stole also differentiates between the ranks. I have a Syriac reader's stole which a friend of mine gave to me but I can't really use it in a Coptic service because of how short it is.
I think originally there was a uniform practice amongst all Apostolic sees and which were later enforced in the councils but eventually due to economia of necessity, things slowly changed. While this may be so, we should ensure that as Fr. Peter says, there is still reverence as well as a distinction between each rank.
The byzantine rite is as follows: the cantor wears a black robe, the reader wears a tonia without stole, the sub deacon wears the tonia with the stole crossed in front and on the back (i.e. similar to the Coptic icon of the archangels), the deacon wears the stole crossed on the back when giving communion, otherwise he wears it on the right shoulder afaik.
The Syriac church does it in a neat way as well:
cantor:
as is shown, the length of the stole also differentiates between the ranks. I have a Syriac reader's stole which a friend of mine gave to me but I can't really use it in a Coptic service because of how short it is.
Must be very frustrating for the deacon. Probably falls of all the time lol.
NO IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT. We in the Coptic church do not say "women do not lead" because of cultural issues. It is not cultural. It is based on St. Paul's teaching. St. Paul said women are not allowed to speak in churches, and that the man is the head of the woman. He was certainly not sexist, was he? NO, AGAIN NO, because I am irritated now with the responses. No woman should lead in the church PERIOD. In the recent Holy Synod instructions, it clearly says "no woman should wear deacon outfits, or similar outfits" referring to the practice that has been taken miles further by David ensemble, and the like. This is not cultural - this is Apostolic teaching, and I believe it this way.
Dear TITL,
I was going to send a pm, but because this topic is going on forever, I guess it is only fair to say it here. It is very commendable what you are doing in your church, and although you are not old by age, but experienced in hymns more than the deacons, so it really should be that you give them guidance and advice "WHEN they do ask for it". That is where their humility comes. Where yours come, is if no one asked for advice, and no one knows "allleluja oblations" you don't just heckle in, and start singing it with another couple of ladies who are learned in it. You may wait, if abouna, or a deacon starts the first stanza, and you can adjust it from behind (if they forget, or get muddled up).
Again, for the last time, ladies are only allowed to "teach" in church in Sunday schools, but not at any other time.
Oujai qen `P[C
While St Paul was not a feminist, as defined by today's standards, he was not a misogynist either. He was androcentric, as most Jewish men and early Christians were. If you take the corpus of St Paul's teachings on women rights, you will see he was quite liberal with women participation in contrast to his contemporary Jewish and Christian companions (as Jesus Christ was).
First of all, we must keep in mind that St Paul mentions 10 women in his letters: Prisca, Phoebe, Mary, Junia, Julia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Euodia, Synthyce, and Chloe. What is important to realize is that St Paul said Phoebe was a deacon and Junia (and her husband Andronicus) were "outstanding among the apostles". This is not to say that Phoebe was an ordained deacon and Junia was an ordained apostle, as some feminist Protestants believe. But St Paul showed such high dignity for these women that he gave them honorific titles. This is not the attitude or actions of a misogynist. The rest of these women, St Paul says were "in prison with me", "who worked hard for you", "workers in the Lord", and "struggled at my side". All of these titles show St Paul used women in some sort of missionary capacity that was not restricted to "learning silently" (1 Tit 2:12).
It seems that while some women were quite vocal and very instrumental to missionary work, as a general rule, St Paul preferred women to learn silently without raising their voices in the congregation. It is unlikely St Paul himself insisted that no women speaks, teaches or prophecy, as we shall see below. Like many other canons we have discussed on these forums, absolute or literal rules were not absolutely applied. And nor should they be.
Let's discuss the two main passage that "forbid" woman to speak. These are 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Titus 2:12. Given that these two verses are almost verbatim and they seem "inserted" and out of context from the whole chapter a little more analysis is needed.
In 1 Corinthians 14, St Paul, following St Peter's reference of Joel 2:28 on Pentecost day, acknowledges that both men and women will prophecy. He says the same thing in 1 Cor 11:5, "Any women who prays and prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." It is not explicitly mentioned if St Paul speaks of women praying and prophesying in private or in public or in public ministry. Prophecy requires preaching which requires speaking aloud. What we can gather for certain is that practically St Paul did not forbid women from prophesying and ministering in his teachings.
This brings us to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.". At first glance, it appears that this explicitly forbids women from speaking in Church. We are faced with a decision: either we believe 1 Corinthians 14:34 is a later addition not written by St Paul, the Bible is not inerrant or infallible or St Paul meant something else. Many modern, liberal Catholics and Protestants ascribe to the belief that this passage is not written by St Paul and it was later inserted by a copyist or misogynist bishop. Many Islamic and atheist scholars use this passage to show how the Bible is filled with errors. Both these beliefs are completely un-Orthodox. We need not give an Orthodox apology for our reasons against these beliefs (unless someone here requests it).
This leaves us with the possibility that St Paul meant something figuratively in 1 Corinthians 14. If you look at the whole chapter, you will see that St Paul's instructions is not about who is or who isn't allowed to speak, but rather that any prophesying and speaking of tongues must be done in order. Look at verse 26 and 27. "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret." St Paul specifically included females in this instruction. If there is confusion and disorder, no one - regardless of gender - is allowed to speak.
Now you can choose to take a literal interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34 and ignore the rest of the verses that attest to St Paul's egalitarian view of women. But now you run into impracticality. If a Coptic woman hears a sermon by priest, or a presentation outside of the liturgy, and "inquires about something", she must only ask her husband at home. We must assume St Paul meant inquires about something said in the sermon or presentation. Shouldn't a woman who listens to a presentation by a guest speaker in church and has a question, ask questions there and then so "the church may be built up." Therein lies the conundrum I spoke about in my last message. Is it better for a woman to keep silent to fulfill a literal interpretation of this passage and not ask a question or sing a hymn, or is it better for a woman to ask a question or lead a hymn submissively, without contradicting this passage, so the Church may be built up? I think the answer is definitely the latter.
This does not mean that a women who sings, leads or preaches in Church is replacing the priest or the deacon. It only means a literal interpretation of scripture will actually bring down or destroy the Church instead of edifying or building it up. To illustrate this point, if you take a literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 then your scenario, "You may wait, if abouna, or a deacon starts the first stanza, and yo can adjust it from behind (if they forget, or get muddled up), would violate 1 Corinthians 14:30, 31. "And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. " In this scenario, the woman would be speaking in Church, violating 1 Corinthians 14:34, and interrupting the first speaker where no one will be instructed or encouraged, violating 1 Corinthians 14:27, 30. But if you ascribe to a broader view, a women who learns a hymn and is known to have special talent, should sing either solo or in a chorus because it will build up the church (except for those who hold a literal view of 1 Cor 14).
In 1 Corinthians 14:39, it is implied that women should be encouraged to speak and prophecy. "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." Given St Paul's overall philogynist view and the danger of holding a strictly literal and absolute views of canon or scripture, it makes perfect sense that women should sing and prophecy and preach (even in Church) to build up the church. ....as long as it is "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40)
Does this makes sense? I am eager to hear anyone's comments (especially Fr Peter's)
I think going back to the original Greek text would support your argument, if it is accurate.
I think it warrants a little discussion about St Paul's teachings about women rights. I will discuss multiple Pauline passages about egalitarianism then I will discuss the verses that limit women's participation. We must keep in mind, that all Biblical verses are dependent upon interpretation. In researching this topic, I found a wide variety of interpretations on these passages. If you choose to interpret scripture in a literal view, as it would seem many people do, then you will be faced with impracticality.
While St Paul was not a feminist, as defined by today's standards, he was not a misogynist either. He was androcentric, as most Jewish men and early Christians were. If you take the corpus of St Paul's teachings on women rights, you will see he was quite liberal with women participation in contrast to his contemporary Jewish and Christian companions (as Jesus Christ was).
First of all, we must keep in mind that St Paul mentions 10 women in his letters: Prisca, Phoebe, Mary, Junia, Julia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Euodia, Synthyce, and Chloe. What is important to realize is that St Paul said Phoebe was a deacon and Junia (and her husband Andronicus) were "outstanding among the apostles". This is not to say that Phoebe was an ordained deacon and Junia was an ordained apostle, as some feminist Protestants believe. But St Paul showed such high dignity for these women that he gave them honorific titles. This is not the attitude or actions of a misogynist. The rest of these women, St Paul says were "in prison with me", "who worked hard for you", "workers in the Lord", and "struggled at my side". All of these titles show St Paul used women in some sort of missionary capacity that was not restricted to "learning silently" (1 Tit 2:12).
It seems that while some women were quite vocal and very instrumental to missionary work, as a general rule, St Paul preferred women to learn silently without raising their voices in the congregation. It is unlikely St Paul himself insisted that no women speaks, teaches or prophecy, as we shall see below. Like many other canons we have discussed on these forums, absolute or literal rules were not absolutely applied. And nor should they be.
Let's discuss the two main passage that "forbid" woman to speak. These are 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Titus 2:12. Given that these two verses are almost verbatim and they seem "inserted" and out of context from the whole chapter a little more analysis is needed.
In 1 Corinthians 14, St Paul, following St Peter's reference of Joel 2:28 on Pentecost day, acknowledges that both men and women will prophecy. He says the same thing in 1 Cor 11:5, "Any women who prays and prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." It is not explicitly mentioned if St Paul speaks of women praying and prophesying in private or in public or in public ministry. Prophecy requires preaching which requires speaking aloud. What we can gather for certain is that practically St Paul did not forbid women from prophesying and ministering in his teachings.
This brings us to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.". At first glance, it appears that this explicitly forbids women from speaking in Church. We are faced with a decision: either we believe 1 Corinthians 14:34 is a later addition not written by St Paul, the Bible is not inerrant or infallible or St Paul meant something else. Many modern, liberal Catholics and Protestants ascribe to the belief that this passage is not written by St Paul and it was later inserted by a copyist or misogynist bishop. Many Islamic and atheist scholars use this passage to show how the Bible is filled with errors. Both these beliefs are completely un-Orthodox. We need not give an Orthodox apology for our reasons against these beliefs (unless someone here requests it).
This leaves us with the possibility that St Paul meant something figuratively in 1 Corinthians 14. If you look at the whole chapter, you will see that St Paul's instructions is not about who is or who isn't allowed to speak, but rather that any prophesying and speaking of tongues must be done in order. Look at verse 26 and 27. "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret." St Paul specifically included females in this instruction. If there is confusion and disorder, no one - regardless of gender - is allowed to speak.
Now you can choose to take a literal interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34 and ignore the rest of the verses that attest to St Paul's egalitarian view of women. But now you run into impracticality. If a Coptic woman hears a sermon by priest, or a presentation outside of the liturgy, and "inquires about something", she must only ask her husband at home. We must assume St Paul meant inquires about something said in the sermon or presentation. Shouldn't a woman who listens to a presentation by a guest speaker in church and has a question, ask questions there and then so "the church may be built up." Therein lies the conundrum I spoke about in my last message. Is it better for a woman to keep silent to fulfill a literal interpretation of this passage and not ask a question or sing a hymn, or is it better for a woman to ask a question or lead a hymn submissively, without contradicting this passage, so the Church may be built up? I think the answer is definitely the latter.
This does not mean that a women who sings, leads or preaches in Church is replacing the priest or the deacon. It only means a literal interpretation of scripture will actually bring down or destroy the Church instead of edifying or building it up. To illustrate this point, if you take a literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 then your scenario, "You may wait, if abouna, or a deacon starts the first stanza, and yo can adjust it from behind (if they forget, or get muddled up), would violate 1 Corinthians 14:30, 31. "And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. " In this scenario, the woman would be speaking in Church, violating 1 Corinthians 14:34, and interrupting the first speaker where no one will be instructed or encouraged, violating 1 Corinthians 14:27, 30. But if you ascribe to a broader view, a women who learns a hymn and is known to have special talent, should sing either solo or in a chorus because it will build up the church (except for those who hold a literal view of 1 Cor 14).
In 1 Corinthians 14:39, it is implied that women should be encouraged to speak and prophecy. "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." Given St Paul's overall philogynist view and the danger of holding a strictly literal and absolute views of canon or scripture, it makes perfect sense that women should sing and prophecy and preach (even in Church) to build up the church. ....as long as it is "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40)
Does this makes sense? I am eager to hear anyone's comments (especially Fr Peter's)
This sounds more balanced and acceptable