One of the traditional ministries in the church has been the order of lector (or Reader). In the early church, being literate was highly valued. Most of the laity were illiterate and needed a special service to read or chant the Scriptures.

Is ordination to this important ministry necessary? Should it become a ministry unto itself or should the Byzantine Catholic Church continue relying on 'volunteer' readers?

The casual approach to reading the scriptures in our church has received some criticism, especially when those volunteering to chant the Epistle cannot pronounce the words.

Is there a parallel between letting laity distribute communion without the same education that deacons need to go through and allowing laity to read the scriptures in church without learning how to chant it properly or know what they are reading? Is this an 'anything goes' situation we find ourselves in, whereby the reading of Holy Writ becomes a last-minute decision of who does it?

How can we recover a better appreciation and ministry in the order of reader? So far, our current practice is volunteer. Is this the way our Church should treat its Scripture?


Joe

[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Joe,

Agreed that those who read should, uhh.. be able to read. No congregation should have to hear over and over how Christ came to "expedite" our sins, how the message of the Cross is complete "obscurity" to the Jews, etc. Nor should they have to strain to hear an inaudible voice.

But I dunno if ordination would solve the problem. Some basic training might, along with a requirement for minimal linguistic proficiency and PRACTICE. Even a second-grader can be taught to read a text accurately and clearly with practice.

'twould also be nice if readers were familiar with the names of the books of the Bible, and "announcing" conventions. While intensive scripture study would be nice, I don't know how realistic it would be to require it - and readers read - they don't preach.

Not sure it's practical to start a "Reader's School" ala Cantor School, - distance ya know - but at least with respect to technique & the do's & don'ts, why not do an instructional video or two? Distribute them to all parishes, and folks can study either at home or at church. Especially for folks who don't read music, something they can listen to over & over again can be really helpful in learning chants.

What do you think?

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

My first inclination is yes, an ordained, or at least certified, ministry is in order for Lectors. A certain level of training and competancy is called for these people (of whom I am the least). An Apostle must be read well, with no mistakes (as close as possible), clear diction, and inflections that make sense of the meaning of the text. A poorly read Apostle is distracting and disruptive to the prayer of the people. This a proclamation of the Word of God, and it must have the care, attention, and expertise it deserves.

Cantora Sharon has good ideas. The training of Lectors is the responsibility of the Cantor (or head Cantor). But tapes of people reading, in English, would be immensly helpful in learning phrasing and inflection.

[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: akemner ]

Friends,

Ordination and training are both called for I think. It brings us in line with Orthodox practice and highlights the importance of this ministry. A Reader/Subdeacon institute is a necessity, although I think it would need to be structured differently than the Cantor Institute.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Lance brings attention to an important feature of any ministry: ordination or some laying on of hands? How can a Church go on without giving recognition in its own special way the significance and importance of such liturgical ministries? Reading in Church does not pay the bills or accomplish things like the administration of the parish plant, but isn't Liturgy the summit and prime act of being Church?

Is the current practice of 'volunteerism' a poor substitute? Lance makes mention of another factor: the Orthodox. Can the Byzantine Catholic Church go do its own thing once again - because the Latins are doing it - and give lip service to these ministries that the Orthodox have elevated to some degree of respect?

With ordination of laying on of hands there comes responsibility. Such a situation demands reciprocal duties to each other. The ordinand has responsibilities to give to the community and the Church community has its responsibility of supporting and sustaining that ministry. It would seem that if neither is the case then it would be not too far from the likes of cohabitation without marriage (read: no commitment from either side). Am I too strong in my analogy in this 'commitment' thing?

Cantor Joe Thur
Deacon-student

[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

If a Syrian may add $0.02, I would say that the Minor Orders are relevant and necessary, and where they aren't used, they should be resurrected. In the Indian Syrian Churches, the Minor Orders are generally reserved for those going on to the Priesthood, and so are temporary...transitional, if you will. However, in the Syrian (Middle Eastern) Church, males are frequently ordained to the orders of singer, reader, and subdeacon without ever having to go or consider going farther than that. So it's not unusual to have one such parish with a few of each order, whereas in an Indian parish, if you see even one, it's usually a seminarian or a seminarian-to-be. I think this is unfortunate...so many of our people think that you go on to the Minor Orders to be a priest in the end, and so they don't consider it. I know for my part that even if I don't end up a priest, I would definitely like to be minor ordained. It's something we need to reform, but with God's help, and perhaps some influence from the Middle Eastern Syrians, it'll happen.

Problems I have with minor orders:

1. The female issue.

2. Corporatization of the liturgy. "That's not my job." "That is his responsibility." "My job is to just stand here" Tightly defining all roles and responsibilities discourages laity involvement in the liturgy. (One of the things I like the most of the Ruthenian tradition is that it encourages involvement of all of the faithful.)

3. I disagree with Joe's description of the responsibilities of the clergy. I consider them to be the responsibilities of all of the faithful.

4. There is a tendency to grossly underestimate the commitment of the laity to their parish and to their spiritual lives. Honest priests will tell you that they are not the holiest members of their communities.

4. The laity have a right to their involvement in the liturgy and in the parish. (The most brilliant outcome of Vatican II in my opinion!)
There is a fundamental difference between clergy and ministry.

5. While the laity have a fundamental right to ministry, the clergy have no right to ordination. The priesthood places a priest at the head of a flock but not above it. His sacramental responsibilities derive from the fact that he acts on behalf of the entire community, not despite it, and not because of himself either. The deacon merely represents the embodiment of all of the faithful. The priest represents the divine, the deacon the human. Minor orders are thus in a sense superfluous and redundant.

A most unworthy deacon
John

Dcn John,

I guess I was referring to establishing communication, training, and working together as a team. The "It is your responsibility, therefore do it" doesn't always work if there is no cooperation. People have to know what is expected of them and how to effectively do their job as in any group endeavor. This was the point I was trying to make.

You mention the 'female issue.' Can you explain further what problems are there? Maybe your insight as an ordained deacon can shed light on the topic?


God bless,
Joe

[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

If all the Father John says is true, then why did we have these minor orders to begin with? Was it not the tradition of our Church to have lay participation in the Liturgy, but have those set apart in minor orders to keep things going smoothly. I mean to say, the responsibility of an ordained man to the Church and to his feloow parishoners is greater than that of the volunteer who is doing it just for the hey.

Also, did these minor orders not maintain the traditions of worship? For instance, the decline in properly trained ordained Cantors saw the decline in the full use of the chant fo our Church, to the point where many places cannot even do a routine service like Vespers, or the propers without notated music, much less the polyphonic congregational singing our Church was known for.

Fr. Deacon John:

I fail too see how defining proper liturgical roles discourages the laity from participating. In fact, I believe properly defining the roles encourages more participation not less. While all the baptised share in the one priesthood in Christ, they each have a share according to their order.

Also, I disagree with your description of the presbyterate and diaconate. Rather than say one represents the divine and the other the human. I see both representative of Christ, although in different roles. The presbyterate represents Christ as priest, the deacon represents Christ as servant. This typology is born out in the earliest liturgical commentaries.

Relating this to minor orders, the Liturgy being our most sacred act demands order and dignity. The ministry of the priest and deacon require assistance to avoid disorder and maintain dignity. The Minor Orders fufill an intermediary role between those in Holy Orders and the laity. Those judged worthy are given the privelege of service at the altar. And it is a privelege, because only those in Holy Orders have the right to enter the iconostasis and represent the laity before the altar.

So the Minor Orders have a proper role all their own and are neither superfluous nor redundant. How much more smoothly and beautifully does a Liturgy go when a properly trained and coordinated priest, deacon, acolytes, lector and cantor are present. Compare this to a Liturgy with only a priest and cantor, or worse a priest and a cantorless congregation.

Also consider the many Latin parishes were the concept of the laity's right to participate has evolved into the right to be lector, server, of (extra?)ordinary minister of the Eucharist whether qualified or not, whether required or not. I believe the lack of Minor Orders in the Latin Church has directly contributed to many of their current problems not the least of which are a loss of a sense of the sacred, confusion about the proper roles for the laity, and misunderstanding of the distinction between the laity and priesthood.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Our childrens Godfather was set aside as a reader(Ruthenian-may his memory be eternal). It was a very secial gift, done beautifully and well respected. We also had the choir, which still is led by a woman. It worked out well.

"The priest represents the divine, the deacon the human."

Fr. Deacon John's comment made me do a double-take since I detect a hint of what may seem to be a Dionysian outlook, which interprets things symbolically. Is this the right view to take when discussing ministry in the Church? Are there alternative views?


"Minor orders are thus in a sense superfluous and redundant."

This sends a double message. First, this seems to ignore Paul's simile of the body, whereby all the parts play an important role and not just one. Second, this may explain why such orders died out in the first place; since certain parts were considered 'unecessary' they were forgotten.

Isn't today's priest a conglomerate of superflous and redundant ministries? Take a look at our Great Entrance rite. Not only does a priest take the place of the bishop by receiving the gifts to offer up to God, but he also plays the part of the deacon by bringing it up and even baking it for the liturgy. There is no connection with the laity in the offertory. The laity are not needed. They remain spectators. How can Liturgy be a "work of the people" if the people are regarded as superflous? A. Schmemann seems to think otherwise in his "Eucharist" book (see chapter one: The Sacrament of the Assembly).


Cantor Joe Thur
Deacon-student

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Lance:

My explanation of the divine/human symbolism of the priest and deacon encompasses your priest/servant representation of Jesus.

Dear all:

While I agree that the aesthetic presentation of the liturgy is important, it is not most important. My favorite Ruthenian tradition is our cherished prostipinije chant, the common chant of the people. While not as pleasant to the ear as a well-studied choir, the participation of all of the people is essential. It highlights the spiritual aspect of the liturghical celebration. While you discuss the importance of liturgical function, you miss the bigger picture: what is vocation? Vocation is a way of life, and life itself is liturgy. How is the vocation of "Reader" separate and distinct from the vocation of the baptized? I have no answer to this question.

I constantly wrestle with deacon as vocation. How is this different than my Christian vocation? Is it simply my liturgical function? Is that function essential or aesthetic? What is the difference between vocation and ministry? For that matter, what is priest? How does the vocation of priesthood relate to the priest and how does the vocation of the priesthood relate to the faithful? Is the priesthood a social class within the church? Is "reader" a social class within the church?

I guess I still consider "reader" to be a ministry and not a vocation. I would more readily support the ordination of widows and virgins as vocations: true, important, and distinct ways of living within the church. These are separate and distinct from the vocation of marriage or the priesthood.

John

John raises an interesting distinction between a ministry and a vocation. But is a ministry just a functionary, whereas a vocation is a truer calling?

I would like to continue this discussion further with one additional term: order. How does one understand Reader as a ministry, a vocation, and an order?

Joe

Fr. Deacon John,

I think it is vocation that separates the Mystery of Holy Orders from the minor orders. I don't think anyone receives a vocation to be a server, reader, or cantor. God gives some a talent or love and they may elect to use it in His service or not. I agree that minor orders are a ministry not a vocation. However, that does not diminsh the fact that not all are given the same talents, abilities, or interests. Minor orders exist to attest to the reverence we should have for the Liturgy. We offer our best for use in the Liturgy, be it the prosphora, vestments, vessels, etc. and all these receive a blessing and are set apart because of their use in the Liturgy. Those that are set aside for a particular service in the Liturgy should receive the blessing of minor orders for the strengthening of their service.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate