› ›

Who wears the Badrasheel?

drilago99drilago99
edited December 1969 in Coptic Orthodox Church
Is there a specific deaconate rank that is allowed to wear the badrasheel or is it for all deacons (psaltos to archdeacon) ?
What does it symbolize?

Thank you!

Comments

  • copticuser20copticuser20
    Only deacons who were ORDAINED as Agnostos and the ranks afterwards can wear them. I personally cannot stand it when little kids are running around in them. It is not decoration or anything.
  • drilago99drilago99
    Thanks for clarifying! :)

    What are its symbols or significance?
  • TimothymTimothym
    afaik, originally the deacons used to 'actually' serve people (physically) as in feeding, caring for people etc so they would often have a towel/handkercheif with them and eventually this evolved into a liturgical symbol of rank. Also, as others mentioned, only the ranks of reader (anagnostos) and higher are allowed to wear it but it is often disregarded. Some may argue that because the psaltos (cantor) today often does the liturgical duties of sub-deacon/deacon (minus distribution of communion), that the Church has allowed for the lower ranks to wear the stole (badrashil). But still, it also drives me crazy to see a 5 year old kid who has no clue what is going on and we put a stole on him. And we get mad when we see them throwing them on the floor as if it was nothing after they are finished with them. It comes down to education and instilling reverence for what is happening in church.
  • sifaingsifaing
    I'm going to reply just to give a sense of how lost we are in terms of who is supposed to wear what.

    Originally,
    The only people who should be wearing anything are the altar servants of that day.  Meaning serving priest, helper priests, serving deacon, helper deacons, and subdeacons.
    Since they are the only ones to wear tonyas then they are the only ones to wear Epitrachelions (batrasheels) to distinguish between the ranks of priest, deacon, and sub deacon.
    If you are not in the altar, then you don't wear anything, and remain outside of the sanctuary.

    There is nothing that ever said that oghnostos should wear a batrashel or even a tonya. 

    Now because everyone wears tonyas (mainly because lower ranks are called upon to take on the roles of higher ranks), then people wear batrasheels as well.  The oghnostos and psaltos, if they will wear a batrasheel, then they should wear it like a subdeacon.

    It is only recently that some bishops are saying psaltoses should not wear a batrasheel, but the same should go for oghnostos if you ask me.  And like I said, originally, those two ranks should not even be wearing tonyas, but they do so that they can serve the altar.

    About the psaltos,
    up until very recently the rank of psaltos was lost, and the first rank being ordained was oghnostos (my uncle is an example of this).  It wasn't until the manuscript for pslatos ordination was found (in the late 1900) that they started to ordain that rank again.

    About kids throwing stoles around...Well, they do the same thing with the tonyas, is that supposed to be ok?

    Thanks
    Christos Anesti! 
  • TimothymTimothym

    If you are not in the altar, then you don't wear anything, and remain outside of the sanctuary.

    I agree that those who are not serving are to remain outside the sanctuary but why wouldn't they wear a tonya? I was told that the complete opposite is true, that regardless of which rank he is, if the person is serving within the sanctuary or is chanting in the chorus outside, he should always wear a tonya, even during matins and vespers prayers since it is part of the liturgical service...but I may be wrong. This is just what I was told.

    It is only recently that some bishops are saying psaltoses should not wear a batrasheel, but the same should go for oghnostos if you ask me. 

    That is true, the stole (badrashil) is really only for sub-deacons and deacons since it is in essence an extension of the priestly sedraya (epitrachelion).

    About kids throwing stoles around...Well, they do the same thing with the tonyas, is that supposed to be ok?

    Of course it isn't. Both are important. I guess I mentioned it because its easier for it to fall off and then be thrown around as if it was nothing. At our parish we are trying to teach the younger servers to fold their vestments after they are finished serving in them. Cheers

    Thanks
    Christos Anesti!
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    It is so hard working with the young ones. I have to keep watching them holding the candles. They play with the wax and other things that show their attention is not fully on their responses. Sorry to sidetrack the thread.
  • sifaingsifaing
    Timothy,
    I was just talking about what they originally used to do. The chorus is part of the congregation. The only reason you need to wear anything is to enter the sanctuary.  Pope Shenouda tried to enforce this especially for vespers.  Currently Ofcourse our practice is for all of us to dress. But we should atleast understand what it means to dress.  It would be nice also to know the psalms that you r supposed to be saying when putting in your tonya (ps. 29 and 92 by septuagint numbering).

    Batrashel comes from the Greek Epitrachelion (over the neck).
    The deacons and subdeacons Batrashel is supposed to be called orarion, but we just call it Batrashel like the priest's. I think orarion lead to what we call bornos now ( the priests cape).

    Alitos anesti
  • TimothymTimothym
    [quote author=sifaing link=topic=13201.msg154872#msg154872 date=1335140157]
    Timothy,
    I was just talking about what they originally used to do. The chorus is part of the congregation. The only reason you need to wear anything is to enter the sanctuary.  Pope Shenouda tried to enforce this especially for vespers.  Currently Ofcourse our practice is for all of us to dress. But we should atleast understand what it means to dress.  It would be nice also to know the psalms that you r supposed to be saying when putting in your tonya (ps. 29 and 92 by septuagint numbering).

    Batrashel comes from the Greek Epitrachelion (over the neck).
    The deacons and subdeacons Batrashel is supposed to be called orarion, but we just call it Batrashel like the priest's. I think orarion lead to what we call bornos now ( the priests cape).

    Alitos anesti


    yes I was surprised and overjoyed to know that you mentioned the word epitrachelion. ps The Arabic speaking Eastern Orthodox also call it the badrasheel.
  • ophadeceophadece
    That's right Timothym.. that's because there's no 'p' in Coptic, and the Greek 't' is usually pronounced as /d/ in Coptic
    Oujai
  • copticuser20copticuser20
    But why aren't priests or Bishops enforcing the batrashil rules? Its obvious if you see a kid running around church like its a playground wearing a tonia and a batrashil that doesn't fit him, that he isn't supposed to wear it. I also get angry when I see older people, like 19, 20 etc year olds wearing it when I know they haven't been ordained. One time i explained to someone who was 18 when I was 16 how if you weren't ordained, then you shouldn't wear it. He said "but Abouna said I could..." then i asked him if he knew what it meant to wear one and why he wanted to wear it so bad. he responded "its so the older uncles respect me more". my jaw dropped at this amount of ignorance.
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    Priests and bishops are not the police.

    Deacons should take care of their own matters.
  • mark.naguib7
    [quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=13201.msg154918#msg154918 date=1335274612]
    Priests and bishops are not the police.

    Deacons should take care of their own matters.


    So what are we suppose to do if I am asked to serve in the altar, even though I am an oghnostus? Should I say no?
    When a priest or an elder deacon tells me to go in the procession and hold one of the crosses, should I tell them no, since I am not a sub-deacon or a deacon so I can not go in the altar?
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    We all have to deal with our conscience.

    Example:  On rare occasion, I will show up to Liturgy late.  The matter is, relative to traffic, it may take me 3 to 3.5 hours to get to church.  The priest will ask me to present my vestments, and I respectfully decline.  The priest knows how difficult the course was to get to church and the exhaustion on my face, but I look at in the regard of being an example to the others.  Whether anyone follows the lead, is up to their conscience.

    I think the priests are in a precarious situation regardless.  In my part, I try to relieve them of having to make a decision on the matter or for the other matter of creating a precedence that can be used against them.
  • mark.naguib7
    I understand what you are saying, but your example is a one time thing. Mine is forever, as my church does not ordain deacons or sub-deacons. I can not refuse going in the altar every time he asks me too, whether to serve, to join porcession, or for any other reason. I am planning on talking to him regarding this topic later on, but not now for reasons that I would like to keep to myself.

    So now I have two options, either to just follow the priests directions like everyone else or not wear my vestments at all and lose the blessing. For now, I think I am going to stick to the first one.
  • sifaingsifaing
    Coptic and proud,
    We are just talking here about the meanings of the ranks and the responsibilities.
    but don't forget that we also said that the lower ranks are called upon to carry out the roles of the deacon and subdeacon since they are not so prevalent these days, especially outside of Egypt.

    Copticuser20,
    In my opinion, there is no excuse for an 18 y.o to be dressing if they are not ordained.  Okay, sometimes we allow kids to dress when they are very young, but they need to eventually get ordained, but taught first ofcoure.  It saddens me to see some adults dress just so they can stand in the back row and look good (i'm not judging anyone, please don't understand me wrong).

    This kind of leads me to my next point.  We need to teach our kids that dressing as a deacon is not just for show.  It is a responsibility and that you are a leader of the entire congregation, so lead by example.  It bothers me when I see high school and college kids instead of standing with the chorus and sharing in the prayer, they are in the foyers of the church or wherever chatting it up while the service is going on.  I remember when I was younger, dressing as a deacon meant you stand in your spot and moving only with permission. 

    Anyways, May God help us.
  • copticuser20copticuser20
    [quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=13201.msg154925#msg154925 date=1335280181]
    I understand what you are saying, but your example is a one time thing. Mine is forever, as my church does not ordain deacons or sub-deacons.


    But see, the problem is that churches will probably stop ordaining the higher deacon ranks...or at least in America where the churches are growing at an increasing rate. I asked an older servant why we don't see Deacons and Archdeacons in America. He said that if they are already ordaining someone to be dedicated to the church, they'd might as well just make him a priest so he can take confessions, visit the sick and give them communions, attend weddings etc.  Deacons and Archdeacons really alleviate communion time and visitations in comparison to a priest.

    But this still is not an excuse to just push aside the roles and ruels for  each rank.
  • mark.naguib7
    [quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=13201.msg154947#msg154947 date=1335309799]
    [quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=13201.msg154925#msg154925 date=1335280181]
    I understand what you are saying, but your example is a one time thing. Mine is forever, as my church does not ordain deacons or sub-deacons.


    But see, the problem is that churches will probably stop ordaining the higher deacon ranks...or at least in America where the churches are growing at an increasing rate. I asked an older servant why we don't see Deacons and Archdeacons in America. He said that if they are already ordaining someone to be dedicated to the church, they'd might as well just make him a priest so he can take confessions, visit the sick and give them communions, attend weddings etc.  Deacons and Archdeacons really alleviate communion time and visitations in comparison to a priest.

    But this still is not an excuse to just push aside the roles and ruels for  each rank.


    I do not see this as an excuse to stop ordaining deacons. Can they at least ordain sub-deacons?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    [quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=13201.msg154947#msg154947 date=1335309799]
    [quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=13201.msg154925#msg154925 date=1335280181]
    He said that if they are already ordaining someone to be dedicated to the church, they'd might as well just make him a priest so he can take confessions, visit the sick and give them communions, attend weddings etc.  Deacons and Archdeacons really alleviate communion time and visitations in comparison to a priest.


    This whole issue really comes down to lack of organization. There is no organizational definition of each clerical order. In Acts 6, the seven deacons chosen were already 7 of the 70 apostles. They were both apostles and deacons. The only reason the Apostles "created" a deacon order was to oversee the responsibility of daily food. Hellenistic Jews complained about the Hebraic Jews because Hebraic Jews were getting food and Hellenistic Jews were not. So the Apostles chose 7 from among them to take care of meals instead of focusing on meals and not preaching and praying. One may deduce that the role of the deacon, according to Acts, is not a liturgical role but simply a practical role of distribution of meals and commodities. In fact, this is how the early Church operated. The Eucharist was the meal. In the infancy of the Eucharistic rite, believers gathered together, gave thanks, broke bread and ate. That's it. They would also pray together and the priest would "minister the the word" as it says in Acts 6:4. As time progressed, the rites became more complex. With more complexity, more organization was needed but never fully achieved.

    It seems to me that the deacon would take care of meals and building properties (nowadays called Grounds maintenance and cafeteria duties). The priest was delegated with the ministry of the sacraments and preaching (nowadays called operations management or Chief operating officer), while the bishop was the CEO in charge of long term goals and direction, personnel management (hiring new priest), expansion (new churches) and public relations (communication with other churches and bishops). However, like many other organizations, "employees" cross their post definitions. So the bishop also administers the sacraments and preaches, as do the priests. When this happens the distinction in duties (not rank or honor) is blurred. People go to the bishop for their personal problems instead of their priests. And usually the bishop sends them back to the priest.

    Do you go to the CEO of Walmart to return an item? Do you see the CEO of McDonald's cooking burgers? Do you see the CEO of Ford selling cars? No. These CEO's focus on their jobs and do not cross over to their juniors' jobs. This isn't the case in our church. Priests lead the congregation chorus instead of singers and archsingers. Singers enter the altar instead of consecrated deacons. Consecrated deacons and archdeacons read the readings instead of readers. Priests delegate the preparation of the meal (or the korban) to laity instead of deacons. And now laity give the sermon and preach on Sundays in many churches instead of priests and bishops. No one seeks to improve public relations with sister churches, with catechumens, with non-believers, and the community in general. There is so much crossing over organizational lines and it is not a momentary event. It happens all the time. And now we're complaining about one such crossing of organizational duties (singers and readers wearing an epitrachelion)?  This comes down to a lack of organizational leadership.

    I know ILSM and others will say that the bishops and priests are not police, that the deacons (actually singers, readers and subdeacons) do not do their jobs. There is truth in that. Each "employee", in any organization, is required to keep his post organized and fulfill his expected duties. However, in macro-managment of the Church and as CEOs, the bishops and the Synod are the only ones who are supposed to reorganize or clearly define clerical orders. Until then, we will continue to get questions and comments like "What is the difference between a subdeacon and a reader?" or "Deacons are only there to alleviate congestion in the communion line." or "There's no difference in education of a consecrated deacon or a priest so consecrated deacons should become priests" or "What is the minimum age for a singer, or a reader, or a consecrated deacon?" and on and on and on.

    The fact of the matter is this really doesn't matter all that much. 
  • sifaingsifaing
    The way I look at it is the bishop has all the ranks...while all the ranks under him are ordained as helpers.  They are only allowed to do what the bishop allows them to do.  The closer you are to a bishop, the more you can do.

    For example:
    The psaltos is a singer.  one of his main jobs is to sing the hymns and the psalm.
    The reader's is to sing the hymns, the psalm, and read the pauline epistle.
    the sub deacon's is to sing the hymns, the psalm, read the pauline and catholic epistle, help in altar service (like lighting candles, putting charcoal in the censer, etc...) and keep order in the church.
    the deacon is to do all of the above, serve the altar and give instructions to people (the responses), and administer the blood, and read the Acts
    the priest is to do all of the above, invoke to the Holy Spirit to sanctify the sacraments, give a blessing, read the gospel.
    the bishop is to do all of the above, ordain ranks (again, all the ranks are by his permission), and consecrate things.  A bishop can only be consecrated by at least two bishops.

    When a bishop is present, all of the ranks would or may move down one rank out of humility (yes, there is something called the rite of humility).  Meaning, he would do the things of the priest, the priest would do the things of the deacon, etc...  In fact, the right is when a Pope is ordained and enthroned, the rite is for the locum tenens to act as a deacon on the day of the ordination, out of humility.
    Of course now, when bishops are present, they still allow priests to pray, and for deacons to give blood, etc...

    Again, currently the practice is that lower ranks are allowed to do things higher than them because of the scarcity of the higher ranks, which is usually due to them being called to even higher ranks.

    So I think there is organization of different roles of the ranks, theoretically, I just don't think they are carried out practicaly to the fullest because we as a people are unorganized.  Also, there are practical issues that hinder us from carrying these things out to the fullest. 
Sign In or Register to comment.