[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=7837.msg101993#msg101993 date=1240228140] I felt you were being negative because you suggested everyone was eating and wasn't interested. Forgive me if this was not what you meant.
As you and I and others have said, it is a busy time of year, that is the reason everything Orthodox goes quiet.
Father Peter
I was talking about myself. I know now that the Pascha is over, I'm not really bothered. So long as there is food in the fridge, I'm not really bothered if a woman reads or not. However, I get a bit upset if I'm fasting and I can't find anything to eat, and I may ask why women cannot read during the Pascha.
I don't think I should fast.. it doesnt do me much good.
Am I the only one who finds QT's posts a little funny?
Well anyways, if my father of confession allows it (which he obviously does), I'm fine. Oh, and I read one of the Gospels towards the end of the Kiahk nights (7 & 4). I really don't understand what the problem is.
[quote author=Christ4Life link=topic=7837.msg102006#msg102006 date=1240250540] Am I the only one who finds QT's posts a little funny?
nope....enough said.
Well anyways, if my father of confession allows it (which he obviously does), I'm fine. Oh, and I read one of the Gospels towards the end of the Kiahk nights (7 & 4). I really don't understand what the problem is.
i think sayedna's answer that was posted by KingofPeace is clear. there is no point to suggest more opinion or things that happened before.
I really don't understand what Sayedna's opinion was. There was no concrete fact to be derived from it. He objected to the deacon's action, but did not say whether the act is originally allowed or not.
Even the very earliest Church Fathers, such as St Ignatius, impress upon us the need for service to be according to a proper order.
I could not decide to be a priest just because I felt I could serve in that way, there was a need for others to discern this as well, and for my bishop to ordain me to this service. But I could not even enter the altar until my bishop ordained me as a Reader. And even if I have lots of good ideas for how I could organise the Church ;) I cannot choose to be a bishop because for one things I am a married man, and for another, it again requires the discernment of others.
One of the problems that is present in the modern Coptic Orthodox Church is the lack of order in the diaconate. It is not always clear whether someone serving as a deacon is an Acolyte, Psaltor, Reader, Subdeacon or Deacon. And these distinctions have value and meaning in the Tradition of the Church. It is not always clear how various grades of servants should dress, nor who should read the various lections or share in particular liturgical actions. Everyone and everything sometimes (not always of course) is subsumed under the title of 'deacon'.
It seems to me that this then causes problems with the faithful women and young ladies in the congregations. When they see a young boy being called a deacon and allowed to read they wonder why they cannot also, since they are often older and just as, or more, committed to the Church. If the grades of the diaconate were more clearly delineated in real life then it would be seen that most of those called deacons should not normally be reading lections in the Church at all, and that those with the various ministries have particular training, a Reader for instance should not just read the lections but should have some theological training. If it was clear that most boys are in fact not canonically allowed to read the lections then this might allow young ladies to see that these are not the only ways to serve.
The issue of the Paschal readings, and reading in extra-liturgical services and settings is a bit different and less clear. But it seems to me that the main issue to deal with is sorting out which boys/men are actually supposed to be reading the lections and bringing canonical order into the diaconate and minor orders.
[quote author=user00 link=topic=7837.msg101803#msg101803 date=1239653602] I think it has to do with this verse: 1 Corinthians 5:14-15 34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
It is not permissible for women to teach in church and the job of a reader in the church (previously, not so much now) was to explain and instruct the congregation. This is my guess-- I'm not sure of the actual reason. I guess it goes along with the other thing that St. Paul , that he "does not permit woman to have authority over a man" and that kind of goes along-- not to read or instruct in the church services.
In my church, women don't read the Revelation. I've never heard it being done before.
The way I see it now though, does it really matter? The men can take the blessings of the reading the readings and singing the psalms and the women can take the blessing of listening. Really, in the big scheme, who gets to read is inconsequential.
Great answer, i think this is the true reason.
Some responsibilities are giving to men are different responsibilities than the ones given to women. Regarding the readings of the revelation gospel, I've only seen this done in small churches. Never have I seen a church in Egypt that allowed women read the gospel. It'll usually start with the Priests, deacons, and the men congregation.
I think a big reason of why they allow it in smaller churches is to keep the few people awake and ready for the liturgy.
It means an 'attendant' or 'assistant' and was sometimes used as a general term for the lowest orders, which included porters, ostiaries and exorcists and sometimes as the chief of these minor orders.
In a letter from Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch in 252 he says..
He knew that there were in this Church (of Rome) 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 exorcists, lectors, and porters.
Other Churches at other times had different selections of these roles and responsibilities.
The minor orders which are in use at any time are all associated with particular jobs that need doing, otherwise they are just meaningless titles, so it would be useful for churches to consider what jobs do need doing and as far as the canons prescribe they should be shared out appropriately, and where the canons are flexible there should still be a clear order. The exorcist, for instance, assisted with teaching people who were becoming Christians and then assisting at baptisms. The porters were responsible for security and the Church fabric. The subdeacon should be the servant of the deacon and so on.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=7837.msg102022#msg102022 date=1240254727] It means an 'attendant' or 'assistant' and was sometimes used as a general term for the lowest orders, which included porters, ostiaries and exorcists and sometimes as the chief of these minor orders.
In a letter from Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch in 252 he says..
He knew that there were in this Church (of Rome) 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 exorcists, lectors, and porters.
Other Churches at other times had different selections of these roles and responsibilities.
The minor orders which are in use at any time are all associated with particular jobs that need doing, otherwise they are just meaningless titles, so it would be useful for churches to consider what jobs do need doing and as far as the canons prescribe they should be shared out appropriately, and where the canons are flexible there should still be a clear order. The exorcist, for instance, assisted with teaching people who were becoming Christians and then assisting at baptisms. The porters were responsible for security and the Church fabric. The subdeacon should be the servant of the deacon and so on.
Father Peter
I have a feeling this is exclusive to the british orthodox church, I could be mistaken though...
I am not sure. All of our different Orthodox Churches seem to have younger lads who serve and who are admitted to one of the minor ranks. It seems to be fairly standard in all of the traditional churches, and in the Coptic Church of history there were many minor ranks.
The confusing thing for me, is that in modern Coptic use anyone who serves is called a deacon, which means that it is not clear who are the real deacons, who are subdeacons, etc.
Guys were acting like our church is sexest lol We are not! There are many things where women take part in including the reading of revelations and the processions of Bright Saturday. However i like the verse that 1 Corinthians 5: 14- 15 is very explanatory. Also it was like this in the Old Testament. As Orthodox Christians we stick to or old traditions and thats y catholics now have women priests here and there and i no that no one meant something like that but i wanted to just xplain that. For womean to participate in alhan and sing with deacons and stuff like this is completely fine and bishops and priests have chorus ofboys and girls but anything more than that i dont think is permitted and or correct
Although I've been quiet (for the reason that I feel that enough has been said), I have been closely following this topic.
After reading all the posts, I feel and know for certain that the real answer has been given by multiple members. The only reason people continue to post is perhaps because they are not satisfied with the correct answer.
The question has been answered. Whatever is done in individual churches is at the discretion of the priest, but what was posted here was the true Coptic Orthodox answer.
As for those who did not understand Anba Youssef's answer, he said basically what we've been saying all along, that is wrong. That is not sex-ist, but rather, it is against the Bible (and he quoted the verse I referred to earlier from 1 Corinthians). He said that it was wrong that they were allowed to read in the first place, setting them up for the hurt that transpired. He also said the one who objected was wrong in that he did not act in a kind way-- that he should have been more sensitive.
Really, the way I see it, there is no furthur need for discussion.
oh dear. I feel really bad for this thread. I only started it because I was fasting and I wasn't happy with the way my fast was going... there was basically nothing to eat, so I wanted to find some problem in the Church.
Anyway, now the fast is over, I'm really OK about women not reading in the Church. I really couldnt care anymore. I mean, so long as they keep quiet in Church, and help out with the tea and coffee at the end, I'm really OK with our current operations.
I really cannot believe this thread has now 640 views!
Look, this is the way I see it: if they want to read, let them. If they are not allowed.. well, it doesnt make sense, but now the fasting is over and I've had a really good meal, I can definately see the Coptic Church's point of view.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=7837.msg102027#msg102027 date=1240259101] I am not sure. All of our different Orthodox Churches seem to have younger lads who serve and who are admitted to one of the minor ranks. It seems to be fairly standard in all of the traditional churches, and in the Coptic Church of history there were many minor ranks.
The confusing thing for me, is that in modern Coptic use anyone who serves is called a deacon, which means that it is not clear who are the real deacons, who are subdeacons, etc.
Father Peter
This is true, however this mostly due to the lack of interest in being a deacon and a lack of organization. Because people don't want to be deacons as much they have to encourage little kids from young ages and one mean of doing this is when it gets to a certain point they allow them to read.
Comments
I felt you were being negative because you suggested everyone was eating and wasn't interested. Forgive me if this was not what you meant.
As you and I and others have said, it is a busy time of year, that is the reason everything Orthodox goes quiet.
Father Peter
I was talking about myself. I know now that the Pascha is over, I'm not really bothered. So long as there is food in the fridge, I'm not really bothered if a woman reads or not. However, I get a bit upset if I'm fasting and I can't find anything to eat, and I may ask why women cannot read during the Pascha.
I don't think I should fast.. it doesnt do me much good.
Well anyways, if my father of confession allows it (which he obviously does), I'm fine. Oh, and I read one of the Gospels towards the end of the Kiahk nights (7 & 4). I really don't understand what the problem is.
Am I the only one who finds QT's posts a little funny?
nope....enough said. i think sayedna's answer that was posted by KingofPeace is clear. there is no point to suggest more opinion or things that happened before.
I could not decide to be a priest just because I felt I could serve in that way, there was a need for others to discern this as well, and for my bishop to ordain me to this service. But I could not even enter the altar until my bishop ordained me as a Reader. And even if I have lots of good ideas for how I could organise the Church ;) I cannot choose to be a bishop because for one things I am a married man, and for another, it again requires the discernment of others.
One of the problems that is present in the modern Coptic Orthodox Church is the lack of order in the diaconate. It is not always clear whether someone serving as a deacon is an Acolyte, Psaltor, Reader, Subdeacon or Deacon. And these distinctions have value and meaning in the Tradition of the Church. It is not always clear how various grades of servants should dress, nor who should read the various lections or share in particular liturgical actions. Everyone and everything sometimes (not always of course) is subsumed under the title of 'deacon'.
It seems to me that this then causes problems with the faithful women and young ladies in the congregations. When they see a young boy being called a deacon and allowed to read they wonder why they cannot also, since they are often older and just as, or more, committed to the Church. If the grades of the diaconate were more clearly delineated in real life then it would be seen that most of those called deacons should not normally be reading lections in the Church at all, and that those with the various ministries have particular training, a Reader for instance should not just read the lections but should have some theological training. If it was clear that most boys are in fact not canonically allowed to read the lections then this might allow young ladies to see that these are not the only ways to serve.
The issue of the Paschal readings, and reading in extra-liturgical services and settings is a bit different and less clear. But it seems to me that the main issue to deal with is sorting out which boys/men are actually supposed to be reading the lections and bringing canonical order into the diaconate and minor orders.
Father Peter
I think it has to do with this verse: 1 Corinthians 5:14-15
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
It is not permissible for women to teach in church and the job of a reader in the church (previously, not so much now) was to explain and instruct the congregation. This is my guess-- I'm not sure of the actual reason. I guess it goes along with the other thing that St. Paul , that he "does not permit woman to have authority over a man" and that kind of goes along-- not to read or instruct in the church services.
In my church, women don't read the Revelation. I've never heard it being done before.
The way I see it now though, does it really matter? The men can take the blessings of the reading the readings and singing the psalms and the women can take the blessing of listening. Really, in the big scheme, who gets to read is inconsequential.
Great answer, i think this is the true reason.
Some responsibilities are giving to men are different responsibilities than the ones given to women.
Regarding the readings of the revelation gospel, I've only seen this done in small churches. Never have I seen a church in Egypt that allowed women read the gospel. It'll usually start with the Priests, deacons, and the men congregation.
I think a big reason of why they allow it in smaller churches is to keep the few people awake and ready for the liturgy.
In a letter from Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch in 252 he says..
He knew that there were in this Church (of Rome) 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 exorcists, lectors, and porters.
Other Churches at other times had different selections of these roles and responsibilities.
The minor orders which are in use at any time are all associated with particular jobs that need doing, otherwise they are just meaningless titles, so it would be useful for churches to consider what jobs do need doing and as far as the canons prescribe they should be shared out appropriately, and where the canons are flexible there should still be a clear order. The exorcist, for instance, assisted with teaching people who were becoming Christians and then assisting at baptisms. The porters were responsible for security and the Church fabric. The subdeacon should be the servant of the deacon and so on.
Father Peter
It means an 'attendant' or 'assistant' and was sometimes used as a general term for the lowest orders, which included porters, ostiaries and exorcists and sometimes as the chief of these minor orders.
In a letter from Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch in 252 he says..
He knew that there were in this Church (of Rome) 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 exorcists, lectors, and porters.
Other Churches at other times had different selections of these roles and responsibilities.
The minor orders which are in use at any time are all associated with particular jobs that need doing, otherwise they are just meaningless titles, so it would be useful for churches to consider what jobs do need doing and as far as the canons prescribe they should be shared out appropriately, and where the canons are flexible there should still be a clear order. The exorcist, for instance, assisted with teaching people who were becoming Christians and then assisting at baptisms. The porters were responsible for security and the Church fabric. The subdeacon should be the servant of the deacon and so on.
Father Peter
I have a feeling this is exclusive to the british orthodox church, I could be mistaken though...
The confusing thing for me, is that in modern Coptic use anyone who serves is called a deacon, which means that it is not clear who are the real deacons, who are subdeacons, etc.
Father Peter
After reading all the posts, I feel and know for certain that the real answer has been given by multiple members. The only reason people continue to post is perhaps because they are not satisfied with the correct answer.
The question has been answered. Whatever is done in individual churches is at the discretion of the priest, but what was posted here was the true Coptic Orthodox answer.
As for those who did not understand Anba Youssef's answer, he said basically what we've been saying all along, that is wrong. That is not sex-ist, but rather, it is against the Bible (and he quoted the verse I referred to earlier from 1 Corinthians). He said that it was wrong that they were allowed to read in the first place, setting them up for the hurt that transpired. He also said the one who objected was wrong in that he did not act in a kind way-- that he should have been more sensitive.
Really, the way I see it, there is no furthur need for discussion.
Anyway, now the fast is over, I'm really OK about women not reading in the Church. I really couldnt care anymore. I mean, so long as they keep quiet in Church, and help out with the tea and coffee at the end, I'm really OK with our current operations.
I really cannot believe this thread has now 640 views!
Look, this is the way I see it: if they want to read, let them. If they are not allowed.. well, it doesnt make sense, but now the fasting is over and I've had a really good meal, I can definately see the Coptic Church's point of view.
God bless the CoC!
I am not sure. All of our different Orthodox Churches seem to have younger lads who serve and who are admitted to one of the minor ranks. It seems to be fairly standard in all of the traditional churches, and in the Coptic Church of history there were many minor ranks.
The confusing thing for me, is that in modern Coptic use anyone who serves is called a deacon, which means that it is not clear who are the real deacons, who are subdeacons, etc.
Father Peter
This is true, however this mostly due to the lack of interest in being a deacon and a lack of organization. Because people don't want to be deacons as much they have to encourage little kids from young ages and one mean of doing this is when it gets to a certain point they allow them to read.