www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Altar Girls

[I think it is also VERY important to point out here that in the Orthodox church only those men and boys who are approved can enter the Holy of Holies. Just because you are male does not make you eligible to enter this domain. The Priest must approve your NEED to be there for whatever reason. So the majority of males in our parish are not authorized to enter behind the Iconostasis.]

Excellent points Joe. Which is why it's so ridiculous to label four girls holding the red cloth under the chin of a Communicant (OUTSIDE OF THE ALTAR AREA) as ALTAR girls.

OrthoMan

Thanks, Gaudior, to an Orthodox sister whose jurisdiction does not engage in this foolishness and who honestly acknowledges the Orthodox idea of the temple, and is respectful of the holiness of that ENTIRE space, which is the transfigured cosmos.

If Bob has a problem with my synthesized statement about the Orthodox idea of the temple, he needs to refer back to such Orthodox sources as Ware, Meyendorff and Schmemann. It's not of my making, and he may want to read some more profound Orthodox theology of the space of the temple beyond his basic empirical understanding of "parts".

Is the temple holy? If so then why this nonsense? I'd love to get some feedback from some ROCOR parishoners on this thread.

This reminds me of the time (two years ago)I stopped at the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul in Philadelphia and witnessed a bus load of school kids being given a guided tour right through the main altar and sanctuary areas. I thought that this was strange but with the new awareness since VatII I just thought it was OK. Then after some thought it came to me, that the Blessed Sacrament was in reserve somewhere other than on the main altar which I guess makes this sort of thing OK.

JoeS

[If Bob has a problem with my synthesized statement about the Orthodox idea of the temple, he needs to refer back to such Orthodox sources as Ware, Meyendorff and Schmemann. It's not of my making, and he may want to read some more profound Orthodox theology of the space of the temple beyond his basic empirical understanding of "parts".]

The only problem I have Diak is that you and Fr Stephanos take a picture of four girls holding a cloth in an OCA parish and use it as excuse to criticize and predict the beginning of the end for Holy Orthodoxy.

And yet you both ignore two pictures submitted of occurances in two different jurisdictions within the Eastern Catholic Church under papal authority to make a similiar prediction for your own church.

One where the girls are difinetely dressed in the standard acolyte vestments of the Eastern Church which you pooh poohed with the excuse its ok because THE PICTURE IS TAKEN OUTSIDE THE CHURCH! Thus making the ridiculous assumption that the girls either didn't enter the church vested or vested when the procession came out of the church so they could walk with the male Altar Boys.

The other of a young girl holding the Troja while either the Gospel or Epistle is being read within another jurisdiction! Isn't she within the entire Holy Temple and therefore, an Altar Girl according to your definition?

And no one has gotten into the practice of 'Eurcharistic Ministers' whether male or female in some of your jurisdictions.

I'm more offended by Fr Stephanos using it as an example as the beginning of the end for the Holy Orthodox Church! (Take note you Orthodox reading this).

May I remind the good Father that the Holy Orthodox Catholic faith has survived over 2000 years of religious persecution. A majority of it from their fellow western Christians as well as non Christians and athiests. We are not about to go down because four girls hold a red cloth under the chins of people receiving Communion from the clergy.

OrthoMan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This reminds me of the time (two years ago)I stopped at the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul in Philadelphia and witnessed a bus load of school kids being given a guided tour right through the main altar and sanctuary areas.

-----------------
-----------------

Reminds me of the time I took a friend to see the inside of the Ukarianin Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. As we were sitting there a female teacher took a group of girls and boy students up to the Iconostatsis and opened the Royal Doors so they could see the inside. Needless to say she went through the Royal Doors as she did so.

Or the time we visited St Basil's Academy new Chapel and the nuns invited us to go in and check out the Altar!

So much for respecting the ENTIRE inside of the Temple Diak.

OrthoMan

I have taken note of this, more than once. This is not a unique occurance for him on this forum. I don't appreciate such comments either.

Bob, I think that everyone is aware that the EC's do this as well...and the ECs, the majority of them, do not like this.

HOWEVER, (and, if I am confusing pictures, please forgive me) The fact that the procession is OUTSIDE does make a (minor) difference in that it may explain circumstances, and may require some thought.

For instance: Several years ago, at a monastery's feast day, where several hierarchs were serving, and, NO, repeat NO female altar server had ever, at any time, been in evidence, any of the times I had been there, hierarchical or no...at the end of the Divine Liturgy, several teens came to get the banners attached to the ends of the pews. Boys, and girls...the boys...some were clearly altar boys, some were not. They could be distinguished by the fact that those who were not, wore only a white robe. The girls wore only a white robe. They came in, took the banners, and went outside for the procession.

In this case, they were being used because ALL the banners were wanted for the procession, they had to have older children as the procession was long, and the poles for the banners heavy, so using progressively smaller boys would not have worked. They wanted some appearance of symmetry, but not the appearance of female altar servers, as, they were not, in fact, ever allowed any church duties...

But, one taking a picture without knowing this, would see, outside, girls and boys, "vested". So, the statement that they may not have been altar servers is, technically, correct. They may not have been.

If they WERE, does that mean that the ECs think it is right? Nope. Does it mean that it IS right? Likewise, nope. The Latin Church does allow it, for circumstances where an altar boy cannot be found...and, BEFORE anyone accuses me of Latin bashing...there is an ORTHODOX parish which made the news over the summer because the first female baby had been born there in 22 years. It is possible, tho, not probably, given the larger size of most Latin Catholic parishes, that the same thing COULD happen, only with no boys being born. Do I think that most parishes are looking very hard for boys to serve, before in desperation opening it up to girls? Nope. But they may be, and that may just be my opinion. I know that I am appalled by that practice, as an Orthodox Christian, but it isn't an Orthodox Church, so they play by their own rules!

And, I agree with Fr. Stephanos...for the simple reason that it is a historical fact that when Christians are being persecuted for their faith, they grab hold of it harder, and pay far more attention to it than when the atmosphere is permissive. Under persecution, those who survive hold fast to their faith, as a thing of great value...and turn to God for comfort. Under permissiveness, when with NO Canonical justification for this (in the Orthodox Church) we have priests who not only do not fast themselves, thus setting a bad example, but preach from the pulpit scornfully about how fasting is reserved for monastics, and go for warm fuzzy inclusiveness with letting the girls help serve, and cutting parts out of the service to make it shorter...then you are on your way to disaster.

The priest MUST be able to maintain the traditions and practices of the Church...if he isn't willing to do so, he can go become a Protestant pirest. The priest says "this is how it is" and everyone else can decide whether they want to be Orthodox, or whether they want to be protestant...and, for the protestants on the board, it is not perjorative, but using the root of protestant, as, one whose religious group formed as a breakaway group in protest of something...

It is permissiveness that teaches us not to value and treasure and protect what we have...so, in this case,Fr. Stephanos is correct. Add a little here, take away a little there...and within two generations, you have something nearly unrecognizable.

Will "altar girls" cause the walls of the temple to collapse? No, and no one is saying that. The disobedience of priests and laity is what may do it...

Again, this is a feminist thing...the moms say "Well, why SHOULDN'T my daughter be an acolyte? After all, she is older and more responsible than the neighbor's son...." And up goes mama to hector and bully the priest...

I doubt very much it originates with the small girls...none of the many I know in many Orthodox jurisdictions have a problem with the fact that "altar boys" are boys!

There is NO reason to deprive the already existing altar boys of part of their function, and frankly, the idea of requiring someone to hold the cloth for another is plain silly. Priests in MANY jurisdictions who lack an altar server will hold one end of the cloth to the chalice, and the communicant takes the other end and places it under his or her own chin!

There is no need for girls to take this function from the boys, if they are present, nor to perform it, if they are not. It is a senseless modernization. Period. And, the creation of senseless modernizations combined with the disregard for canons concerning fasting, and liturgical abuses, are what will bring about the "beginning of the end".

Gaudior, who sometimes wishes for a bit more persecution, to make people value what they have.

Dear Gaudior,

WELL SAID!

As I also stated yesterday:

"I wonder if alot of these altar type girls in Eastern churches comes from mothers who are somewhat feminist...I have learned through the years of raising children, that if YOU question things (such as traditions, rules, etc.) or persons (such as priests, teachers, etc.) and make things an issue, children will follow suit. If YOU accept things, they will also accept them...."

All the best,
In Christ,
Alice...who has seen more than her share of 'bullying' mothers (in EVERY and ANY venue imaginable) for a life time!!! :rolleyes:

[But, one taking a picture without knowing this, would see, outside, girls and boys, "vested". So, the statement that they may not have been altar servers is, technically, correct. They may not have been.]

Guadior:

Maybe its different within your church because of the Latinizations. But within the Orthodox Catholic Church no Altar Boy is allowed to vest and serve at any particular service unless he has the Blessing of the priest to do so prior to the beginning of the service. Each boy will get a set of vestments, go into the Sanctuary and present them to the priest. The priest will then Bless the vestments and the boy will kiss his hand. The Blessing of the vestment is the priests permission to the boy to serve. Without that Blessing he cannot put the vestment on and cannot participate at the service other than as a member of the congregation.

There is a picture of girls outside in a procession with other boys ALL VESTED IN THE SAME VESTMENTS OF THE EASTERN RITE. Which means either the girls had the priests Blessing to vest or they did it on their own. One must assume they had the priests Blessing since they wern't taken out of the procession. Once they receive that priests blessing to vest they become 'Altar Girls' whether the picture is taken inside or outside the church.

To say that because they are outside they cannot be considered as 'Altar Girls' is ridiculous.

I'm off to physical therapy so I can't continue this right now.

OrthoMan

Dear Bob,

'Gaudior' is Eastern Orthodox, not Byzantine Catholic...and VERY traditionally Orthodox at that. (I think I said this before? )

In Christ,
Alice,
who thinks you may be confusing posters

Bill,

I agree with you. I have "known" for close to 40 years that women are not allowed in the Holy of Holies, but I also have never seen any written proscription of it (other than the old Latin Code of Canon Law citation which Deacon John posted). I reviewed the Rudder and the Canons of the Councils a couple of days ago, in detail, and cannot find any reference to it. So, it would be very helpful if those who continue to make the point of it being "forbidden by the Canons" would either point to the Canon in question or just acknowledge that it is "tradition" which has taken on a canonical life of its own over the centuries.

I find myself disagreeing with both Bob and Randy in their opposing points of view.

As to the girls in the Yorktown procession photos, Randy's point that the photos were taken outside is valid but, let's face it, the fact that the young ladies are vested in sticharions certainly makes it suspect that they were functioning as servers prior to the procession exiting the temple.

As to the "handmaidens" in the other photo, vested in albs, Bob's point that they are outside the iconostasis is also valid but (again), let's face it, they are clearly on the "fringe" and someone could easily and not outrageously read into the usage that it's a step onto a slippery slope and, once taken, not easy from which to recover.

Regarding the photos from Our Lady of Perpetual Help, which Paul brought to our attention, in which the young ladies are holding the Trojca, I don't find that particularly bothersome and I can't point to any particular reason why not.

The decision by the Latin Church to allow female servers doesn't bother me at all, because I'm not of that Church and the choices that are made within it, as long as they don't become the basis for imposition of latinizations on my Church, are not my concern.

Stephanos' remarks predicting the downfall of Orthodoxy if female servers are allowed is silliness, nothing more or less. None of our Churches is going to survive or fail based on the sex of its servers; if it does, then we can feel assured that God did not intend for it to survive. Nor, is the onesness, holiness, catholicity, orthodoxy, or apostolicity of them challenged by that. Those who would like to believe so are the same folk who, too often, assert the rightfulness of their Church's claim to be the sole source of salvation to be proven by such things as the apparition at Fatima or the Miracle of the Holy Fire. I rather guess that when our Churches answer before God for what they have accomplished or failed to accomplish in His Name, whether, in celebration of His Liturgies, His presbyters were assisted by males or females will not be paramount on the list of things by which He will measure our adherence to His proclaimed message.

Wile searching for any references to this issue, I came across an interesting paper by an Orthodox woman. It is somewhat off the thread topic, but almost certainly a subject toward which the thread will diverge if it continues,

The Canons of Ritual Uncleanliness and Women in the Orthodox Church [home.ptd.net]

Many years,

Neil, who has no strong opinion about female servers and thinks the Churches have greater concerns to address, unity being paramount among those

Gaudior,

Previously chanting (leading the chanting) was the job of men. Do you no longer chant in your parish? Will you agree then that it is wrong for women to lead the chanting?

As for the canon, as Ghazar has requested for the benefit of all, and to provide a convincing argument, please quote the canon(s) in question.

There are many, many interesting canons within the body of canonical literature. Many, many are not applied so to speak of the canons as if they were civil laws to be applied by a civil court does not seem appropriate. Canons are part of the living tradition of the Church.

I do not support any notion of altar girls in the Orthodox parish. However, I remain unconvinced that handmaidens are equivalent.

That being said, if you support the notion being put forth that all the physical space of the church is the same, then there is no difference in the Reader who is tonsured in the nave and the priest who is ordained at the altar? If vestments are vestments then there is really no diference between a bishop and a deacon?

If no one can go behind the screen without reason how does that fit that the whole church building is iconic? What about choir robes? They are vestments, or not?

Tony, seeing very little consistency in some of these arguemnts.

Bob, once and for all, I am Old-Calendar, ORTHODOX. My particular jurisdiction doesn't happen to have "Latinizations"...

The problem with altar boys (acolytes, and taper bearers)in the Canons is that they are so unimportant in the cosmic scheme of things that little is mentioned about them...To get a clear picture, one must put several Canons together..

Such as the one that says that they are a minor order...which few (other than the altar girl supporters) would dispute. Then, one looks to other Canons...For instance, there is one that says clergy, including minor orders, are not to bathe with women. It specified, minor orders, and not to bathe with women. Therefore, one can see that the clergy and minor orders in question (of which, taper-bearers are one) are, in fact, male.
One can also see from those canons concerning marriage and clergy and minor orders...all refer to wife...Other Canons that refer to marriage in general are quick to state wife or husband.. they do not use "spouse". So, in actuality, support of this well know fact comes from bits and pieces...and, I might add, that this was likely to be so self-evident at the time, that it was not commented on. Clergy are men, even minor orders. This is clear in the use of the male pronoun to describe the minor orders, as well.

A commentator on the Canons had pointed out that accolyte also implies that the person in question is attached to the priest, as servant, and not to the temple. Given what we know of the prohibitions of clergy even living in the same HOUSE as unmarried women (even ugly ones, the Canons say), how are we to conclude that the servants of these priests were girls?

Also, properly speaking, altar boys are to be tonsured. Seldom is this done these days, as with the tonsure of a reader...many chanters, however trained, are untonsured.

A woman may only receive the monastic tonsure.

Again, when you look at all of the pieces and parts, concerning minor orders, their pronouns, marriage and tonsuring rules, and other concerns that made it into the Canons, you can see that it is clearly a male only sort of thing...Including the one that says "No female may approach the altar"...but, again, read the Canons for yourself.

The fact is, this is a feel-good initiative, and frankly, there is no point to it. If altar BOYS are present, then there is no reason for them to cease to function OUTSIDE the altar...they can hold the Communion cloth. If they do not exist, I fail to see why men are not performing this function of altar server, as then the priest will have assistance both in and out of the altar. If there are no altar boys, then the priest must do everything inside the altar himself...or, give some man a blessing to help him. If he chooses to do everything himself, and can do so, then there is no need for an "altar girl", is there? If he gets a man to assist in altar, that man can hold the Communion cloth, so there is no need for altar GIRLS, is there? Creating a feel-good position only appeases feminists, and goes against the traditions and canons of the Church. Plain and simple.

Bob, in the situation I described, an ORTHODOX monastery, the girls were outside, and not vested. Only in white robes. And, I am quite familiar with the fact that servers must obtain a blesing to vest, thank you very much.

I think you need to stop using the OCA as your standard of Orthodoxy, and look to the Canons. The OCA, like the GOA, and the Antiochians, have made some extremely startling innovations in the last few years...like tonsuring women as readers, when the prayer of tonsure of a Reader clearly states "this is the first step in the priesthood".

Whether some are doing this, as independent dioceses or even as a whole jurisdiction...it is not right if the Canons oppose it, until a Council is convened that allows it.

So, the Orthodox are wrong to do this...and the Eastern Catholics have a loophole, but most acknowledge that it is wrong within their tradition.

Gaudior, an Orthodox Old Calendarist, in a Canonical jurisdiction, thank you very much!

Dear Ghazar,

You have a legitmate question. I did some searching and the only Canon regarding women serving at the altar that I can find is this:

The Canons of the Synod Held in the City of Laodicea, in Phrygia Pacatiana

Canon XLIV.

Women may not go to the altar.

I hope this helps.

Grace and peace to you,

Paul

Please bear in mind, for those Orthodox who acknowledge such a thing, that "altar" is defined as the space behind the iconostasis, not merely the altar table, according to the Dictionary of Orthodox Theology.

Thanks, Paul, for looking up the reference...I confess to being too lazy to do any such thing.

Gaudior, who thinks it tedious to search the Canons in quest of what has been evident to all for millenia...barring the last 20 years or so....