Mariya,

While we've many members here whose ACROD, OCA, and ROCOR parishes were once Ruthenian, your parish is somewhat of a rarity. The vast majority of Ruthenian parishes that entered into the Archdiocese of North America and the Aleutians in the time period that you indicate eventually became part of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America ("the Metropolia") and, in time, either the OCA or ROCOR.

Formerly Ruthenian parishes that transferred directly (versus a portion of the faithful breaking away and erecting a new temple) to the North American Archdiocese and remain today among the parishes of the Patriarchal Representation/Vicariate are few and far between. Our resident historian, John Schweich, may correct me, but Ss Peter & Paul Cathedral in Passaic (NJ) and Ss Peter & Paul in Manchester (NH) are the only two that come immediately to mind. (I'm not sure about the history of St Nicholas in Chester (PA); it may also fall into that category.)

Many years,

Neil

Hello,
yes, Ss Peter & Paul Cathedral in Passaic, New Jersey, is my church. We are hosting the Sunday of Orthodoxy joint service at 4:00pm, there will be a ton of people from different churches in the area, come join us!

It's on March 4 btw.

I took a class on chanting the Epistle. I feel comfortable doing it after taking this class, however I know I would be super nervous when the time came for me to actually chant it in front of our parish simply because I'm new at it and it's in front of people. Women don't do anything at our parish; men do it all. Well, when it comes to chruch service stuff. Part of me really wants to chant the Epistle just once, just so I know I can do it! It's actually not the pastor who I am afraid to ask. If he said no, not a big deal. If he did say yes, it's the older parishioners I'd be afraid of! I'm sure I'd feel as if they were stoning me with their glares. This makes me even more nervous. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is how things would go.

Obviously, being a female and having taken the time to take a formal class in this, I have no problem with women in general doing things in the Church. As long as it is approved and no one oversteps boundaries. I do understand the concept of not being an ordained to ANY order as a woman or being able to be a server as is ok in RC parishes.

Some questions from a new member.

There has been some discussion about female readers being alright, but that they shouldn't act like tonsured readers. Tonsured readers are only male, I presume? Doesn't that imply that tonsured readers are always to be preferred, and that if not available, then you can make use of a lay reader?

By analogy, I often serve Mass (Traditional, Latin rite). I would never presume to do this if there enough priests and deacons and seminarians to take the roles. In fact they are called acolytes because the roles are for those ordained to the minor order of acolyte (not sure if this exists in the East, or is called the same thing).

Also regarding "Eucharistic ministers" -- well this is a total aberration in the Latin rite. I would never receive from a woman, but I'd also never receive from a lay man! In the Byzantine Rite I'm happy to receive from the priest because he is a priest. Even if his hands are not consecrated according to the Latin ceremoniale, he is the priest, the alter Christus, offering the Sacrifice from God to God, and He alone should be giving Communion. The Latin rite is actually more liberal -- it allows deacons, in cases of need, to help distribute communion (e.g. to the sick, or a really crowded Mass where many people are receiving).

But in the Latin rite today (in the Novus Ordo) we often see laypeople giving Communion. They even do this when there is no need, and sometimes the priest is even seated (I have seen it myself). They even give blessings sometimes (which I believe even deacons in the East do not do).

Anyway, that's my Latin perspective. I try to be respectful of Eastern traditions, that's why I'm here, because I'm fascinated and interested in the Byzantine Rite. I personally would not have a problem if the Eastern churches kept female readers in cases of need, but it makes sense to me that they'd like to encourage suitable men to be tonsured so they wouldn't have to have laypeople at all, men or women.

Sorry for my long post above. I wanted to add that the notion of women being capable is a distraction. Of course women can chant, and many can chant well. They can also serve at the altar, and they can do any action externally a priest or even a bishop can do. That's not the issue - only a myisogynist would question a woman's ability.

But the Church has restricted the priesthood to men, therefore there is something to the possibility that it might at least be preferable to restrict service at the altar and reading to men as well. I'm trying to be careful in my wording.

If I heard a female lector at Byzantine parish I visited, I would not interfere, lol, but I think this is a worthy discussion.

"I'm trying to be careful in my wording."

But you still don't sound right. "You don't really belong here ladies, but sure we'll use you if no men want to do the job." If that's the case, either find the men to chant, or if the men are too lazy then cancel the service. We're either fit to read or we're not, it doesn't work both ways.

If it's so simple, why does the Byzantine Church in her wisdom ordain men to be readers? Why would this not be a preferred thing?

Another perspective: I serve Mass in the Latin Rite. If I were told, "today we have enough priests, deacons, and seminarians in minor orders, we don't need you to serve," I would be overjoyed. I serve because we don't have enough ordained men to do this in the Latin Rite.

Women readers/lectors a distraction??? No way!
The huge distraction in the Latin Rite are the female and male Eucharistic ministers.

One does not have to be a Lector or Reader to chant the Epistle. Of course, if a parish is lucky enough to have a Lector or Reader present, the Epistle is chanted by the Lector or the Reader. In most cases, the Epistle is chanted by the parish Cantor or someone serving in this capacity in the absence of a trained Cantor.

This role of Cantor can be performed by either a man or a woman depending on need and circumstance. I have been told by many clergy and a few bishops (including some of the more conservative ones) that this is perfectly acceptable; however, they have also instructed that if a capable male is available for the task, it should be given first to the male. I know this sometimes causes hard feelings, but it is consistent with our tradition and unlikely to be modified.

The responses of some laity as shared throughout the thread, however, are both a blessing and a curse IMO. On the one hand, they exhibit a tendency toward traditionalism which is a hallmark of our Eastern Churches, and is OK as long as the views are expressed charitably. At the same time, this attitude ignores certain realities. There are many parishes which have no capable or willing males to perform the duty of Cantor. What then? Recite the Divine Liturgy? I am also aware of a few instances, even in Eastern Europe, where the wives of married priests (our dear Panis) serve as parish Cantor. If not, they are often the lead harmonists of the congregation and add constant beauty and depth in the rendering of our plainchant.

IMO our plainchant is so much better when harmomized, and in my mind not complete without an accompanying female alto voice. Our women faithful are no less essential to our chant tradition than anyone else. If circumstances require or permit, we should be grateful that we have women who are capable and willing to serve as Cantors so that our Divine Liturgy can be properly rendered.

My first sustained exposure to the Eastern Church was at an Orthodox (OCA) parish in Montreal where the director of the choir was a woman and, subsequently, where the chants were often led by her.

It never dawned on me that anyone could have a problem with it. After all, there was a clear distinction between her (quite beautiful) work in the community, and that of the clerics.

As a Latin Catholic, I agree 100%. End the practice of "Eucharistic Ministers."

Curious Joe said

This makes eminent sense to me. I think we have lost this in the Latin tradition but even there I'd love to see choirs made up of clerics in the choir stalls when possible (in monasteries, seminaries, cathedrals).

It might seem harsh to say a male should be preferred, and always things should be expressed with charity, but at the end of the day it's not about how we feel or what we would like. God gave us orders and reserved them to men.

The great majority of parishes do not have tonsured readers. But yes, if they have one he should be preferred for the chanting of the Epistle. However, just because one is a tonsured reader does not mean he is the most qualified to lead the rest of the liturgical chants as cantor. This should go to the most qualified person, man or woman. And I would also note that some Eastern Churches do tonsure women readers, most notably the The Chaldean Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church.



Yes the Eastern Catholic Churches have the minor orders of reader/cantor/server (all given in one rite, although theoretically server could be seperated) and subdeacon.



The Eastern Catholic Churches, as well the Orthodox Church, allow deacons to distribute when needed as well.



Rome has been quite clear lay extraordinary ministers are not to give blessings. Some Eastern Catholic Churches have made allowance in heir particular law for extraordinary ministers of Communion but they are far more restrictive about their use.

The Copts, for this matter, do not make women do anything whatsoever. The women do not even have to make their voices heard in church. They stay on the right side and pray quietly, looking pretty in their white lace veils. The men do all the reading, singing, serving, and everything. Now, that is fair! The men are the boss, but they are also paying the cost, instead of "reluctantly" making women do their duties for them. In the Coptic parish where I was, nearly all boys and men were involved in the service.