Hi Stuart. I like your reasoning and your candor. I agree with you about all o which you wrote. I just thought that the reasoning used by both of the writers on the Antiochian website was so off and certainly seems to be artificial. I wonder who really wrote them? (sorry . . . my bad . . XD).

As for the ordination of readers and subdeacons in the Ruthenian Church - sure, the reasoning you were given was surely solicitous towards womens' sensitivities. To be frank however, I honestly feel that the real concern lies somewhere in the realm of potential "financial and legal" responsibility on the part of eparchies towards "ordained clerics" (or so a certain hierarch once admitted to me . . . ) Go figure.

Personally, I would not necessarily frown upon a greater role for women in the liturgy. I would however, prefer to leave that "discussion" for others to flesh out.

Thanks for your input . . . Fr. Joe

Father Joe--I think all of the reasons that have been given for the Metropolia's refusal to restore the authentic minor orders of the Church are disingenuous at best. At the bottom, I suspect, is the belief that such orders have no real legitimacy in their own right, but only as steps along the cursus honorum towards the "fullness" of the priesthood. That explains the failure to reinstitute Subdeacon as a "permanent" order (sorry for the Latin neologism, but there is no other way to explain the situation) or the ordained Cantor in any form whatsoever (cantor generally not being seen as having any relevance to reaching the presbyterate at all).

(In the Eparchy of Passaic under Bishop Andrew, men were advanced from Reader to Deacon in the course of a single Liturgy, receiving cheirothesia for Subdeacon at the Little Entrance, and cheirotoneia to Deacon fifteen minutes later, after the Great Entrance. Not only did this denigrate the order of the Subdeacon, but it was canonically irregular, since a man cannot be advanced more than one office in a single Liturgy. I have heard other Eparchies behaved differently, but in no case do I know of a man who simply decided he wanted to be a Subdeacon and not advance further.)

As for the role of women in the liturgy, I believe it is fulfilled by their participation among the laity, and nothing more is required. The participation of women in choirs is fully in conformity with patristic usage, but there is no indication that women were ever ordained as Readers or led the singing as Cantors. Even the order of Deaconesses (the restoration of which I support) had no liturgical role outside of the baptism of adult women (though they did receive the Eucharist at the altar, immediately after the deacons, and in contrast to the subdeacons). Our present use of women as cantors and as readers reflects the failure of our leaders, from the bishops downward, to nurture and develop men to fill these roles. I do not believe that any women would be offended if these functions reverted exclusively to ordained men. Most of the women who do it do so out of love of the Church, and not out of some sense of privilege or right, so if sufficient men were available, I believe they would step aside unless needed in some emergency.

Regarding my own experience in our UGCC parishes, I have never seen female altar servers. I've been in 5 parishes in my lifetime. In early June I was in the southeast, visiting one of our parishes, and I noticed a poster for some kind of eparchial altar server event/conference thing in Parma and I saw pictured several female altar servers. It really surprised me. My UGCC priest friend who I was with, when I asked him about it, said disapprovingly "They do that at some of the parishes in this eparchy."

I saw one in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish in Riverhead, NY. On the other hand, that was the least of their problems. The average age of the parishoners at the liturgy I attended was 75 or better. The liturgy was said, not sung. The priest went through the motions without any real feeling or enthusiasm (my daughters still crack each other up with dead-on imitations of his underwhelming homily on the Transfiguration), and it was apparent that the place was dead on its feet. I never went back there, and doubt it's even still open. But I give the girl altar boy credit--she knew her stuff and performed all her duties with precision and dignity. Too bad they couldn't find at least one boy willing to do the job for her.

The Eucharist is a bloodless Sacrifice and there can be no flow of blood in the Holy Place. Women who are mentrual have a blood flow and are Ritually unclean. No women is permitted in the Holy Place, just as in the the Temple worship. Menstrual women are also not permitted to receive Communion or receive a Blessing from a priest. Also, when children are Churched, male babies are only taken into the Holy Place. No woman should enter the Holy Place for any reason!

Altar Boys are only permitted into the Holy Place with a Blessing. Service at the Altar is only for those who are ordained and dedicated for worship.

Heiromonk Luke

This smacks of the kinds of ritual purity laws the New Covenant specifically overturned. In fact, no such argument is found until the seventh century or later, about the time that concern for ritual purity begins to reemerge in both the East and West--the Fathers having been notably indifferent to such things. And it's significant that precisely the same sort of ritual purity arguments were used in the Western Church in the Middle Ages as the rationale for clerical celibacy. I call it the "argument ad cooties".

That female deacons received Communion at the Holy Table, in the same manner as the male deacons, puts paid to the notion that women could never enter the Holy Place. I'm sure St. John Chrysostom himself gave the Gifts to his friend St. Olympias, with his own hands, too. Again, got a problem, take it up with him.

Given the celibacy requirement, I cannot imagine this being successful.

I'm married, and I serve most Sundays. I can't imagine, though, being ordained a subdeacon and committing myself to remaining single if something happened to my wife.

Crikey, mate!

Thanks Stuart, for your keen responses. They are intelligent and speak right to the point.

In regards to the advancement of men (presumably involved in some sort of formation) to the various orders, I couldn't agree with you more. I assume that the practice you mention under the retired Eparch of Passaic speaks about those in the so-called "permanent diaconate program". It would have been better if, at a certain stage or in different years of the program, they could have been advanced to lector and then subdeacon, finishing off the course of studies with ordination to major orders.

Many bishops choose certain holy days or seasons of the year when they normally confer the various orders. It was the standard practice of Metropolitan Stephen Kocisko (of blessed memory) to always ordain lectors on the Feast of St. Nicholas, subdeacons on the Annunciation and deacons at the conclusion of the seminary academic year. I do not know if this is still the practice at the Pittsburgh seminary, but it was kind of nice and made it special.

At times, the Passaic eparchs of the past would confer minor orders to candidates at different stages, at the cathedral during the Christmas holiday break.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful posts. Fr. Joe

Stuart: So we of the Russian Orthodox Church have it wrong.....?

Yes, you do. If you want to rationalize your present practices, then you have to choose reasons that stand up to historical scrutiny. And what of all those babas who lovingly clean the Holy Place, dress the Holy Table and ensure that the lamps are filled and the candles trimmed? Do they know they are ritually impure, too?

The solution there is simple: you could simply return to the lay state. I imagine that lots of Orthodox subdeacons do just that. Probably quite a few deacons, too. The present practice of allowing deacons to remarry without restrictions (provided no valid prior marriage exists) strikes me as innovative, and no discipline at all. It's downright peculiar when you consider the plethora of deacons in the Latin Church today.

I don't have a problem with male or female readers or cantors. I know for a fact (been present) that the Orthodox also employ both males and female singers. My problem is the altar servers. They are only to be male. Sure women can clean behind the iconostasis after the Liturgy or during the week. But DURING the liturgies, vespers, orthos, etc they are prohibited.

Thanks for the traditional explanation Heiromonk Luke. Many people today forget that certain things have been done for centuries a certain way for a theological reason. Today it's all about gender equality and not offending someone or some group. Men and women are equal in the eyes of the church and God. But there are certain things that men do and certain things that women do. I could also argue with God and say, why wasn't Eve's rib taken and not Adams. Are you sexist God. But I don't nor ever will.

Article 462 of the Particular Law for the UGCC in the USA states:

Everyone is free to break the law. Other than the Russian Catholics, I know of no Eastern Catholic Church that hasn't dabbled with this nonsense in the US, and several Orthodox churches have also experimented with this as well.