Vestments of altar servers

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7856
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
7

7856

Guest
I had a question why deacons and up can wear a stole I think that lay assistants ie servers lectors and priest and deacons should have the right to wear a stole but the altar servers stoles will have our international altar server symbol and IHS
 
Last edited:
The stole is a symbol of authority. Deacons are ordained members of the clergy with authority in the church. That’s why they wear stoles.

They don’t need special insignia. They already wear their stoles differently than priests. It’s clear who is who.

There is no reason for a lay person to wear a stole.
 
Last edited:
yes i know that i was Wondering if altar servers can wear a stole with our title of lay assistant to clergy with our symbol
 
Like I said. The stole is a symbol of authority. You don’t possess that authority. Therefore, you don’t need a stole.
 
7856 said:
I think that lay assistants ie servers lectors and priest and deacons should have the right to wear a stole
Click to expand...
Only ordained clerics have the right to wear the stole, as a sign of their authority as clerics. It is a sign of holy orders. Altar servers do not have holy orders. Therefore, it is only proper for priests and deacons to wear the stole. They are, however, allowed to wear cassock and surplice, or alb (which is a sign of baptism).
 
CTBcin said:
Therefore, it is only proper for priests and deacons to wear the stole.
Click to expand...
Subdeacons also wear the stole, at least in the east (I know that the west has surpassed them).

It’s the same stole as a deacon, but worn differently.

hawk
 
dochawk said:
Subdeacons also wear the stole, at least in the east (I know that the west has surpassed them).

It’s the same stole as a deacon, but worn differently.
Click to expand...
Right, I am aware of this. Of course, the subdiaconate has been suppressed. The interesting thing about subdeacons is that laymen (usually seminarians who have received candidacy/ministry of acolyte) are able to fill in for the role of subdeacon. However, “straw subdeacons” are not able to do all the things a normal subdeacon does during Mass. I forget if they are allowed to wear the stole.
 
I would be shocked if they wore a stole.

We still have subdeacons in the East, although lay men (including myself) usually have to fill in for them on the alter. They’re kind of hard to find these days . . .

hmm, there was “Pooh’s trap for heffalumps” . . . maybe we could have “Hawk’s traps for Subdeacons” . . . “Father, Father! I caught one! Now what do we do?”" :crazy_face:🤣😱

More seriously, I do think that (in the East) we should drop the celibacy vow for subdeacons (in the half or so of churches that historically have it) and ordain men as subdeacons for this purpose.

hawk
 
You asked this question back in March. The answer remains the same and it will continue to remain the same.

No: Altar servers are not ‘lay’ clergy, which, of course, is an oxymoron.

No: Altar servers cannot wear a stole. The stole is vestment proper to the clergy, i.e. bishops, priests and deacons.
 
dochawk said:
More seriously, I do think that (in the East) we should drop the celibacy vow for subdeacons (in the half or so of churches that historically have it) and ordain men as subdeacons for this purpose.
Click to expand...
What was the purpose of the celibacy vow for subdeacons? Seems an interesting thing since deacons and priests don’t have to take such a vow.
 
I really couldn’t tell you; I’ve wondered myself.

It’s also only about half the eastern churches, give or take.

They’re function is entirely liturgical, preparing things for the priests and deacons and carrying in procession, and they’re not higher clergy, entering through the Deacons’ doors rather than the Holy Doors.

Presumably most would have been married by the tie of ordination, but still . . .
 
mrsdizzyd said:
What was the purpose of the celibacy vow for subdeacons? Seems an interesting thing since deacons and priests don’t have to take such a vow.
Click to expand...
I believe you misunderstood. Celibacy vow exists only for those who are not married yet- or that’s how practice goes where I’m from. It works much like with Byzantine Priests or Deacons, or even Latin Deacons. Of course, that’s only required somewhere and it’s a bit more complicated; Orthodoxwiki states this:
"Subdeacons are mentioned in canons with age restrictions (of 20 years of age) and prohibitions on marriage after ordinations (like deacons and priests) - e.g., Apostolic canon 26. A variety of methods of dealing with these canons have been employed, including:
  • Blessing acolytes or readers to vest and act as a subdeacon temporarily or permanently
  • This causes a new distinction between a ‘blessed subdeacon’ and an ‘ordained subdeacon’. It should be noted that a ‘blessed subdeacon’ may not touch the altar or assume other perogatives of ordained subdeacons outside services.
  • Reserving the formal ordination service to candidates for the diaconate
  • Simply ignoring the canons and permitting subdeacons to marry."
I believe practice is same or very similar with Eastern Catholics.
 
Last edited:
If that is so, then I did misunderstand what Doc was saying. But it raises another question: why then would a celibacy vow negatively impact the number of people wanting to be subdeacons?
 
Hm, maybe Doc actually meant to say that practice of only allowing celibate men as subdeacons exists in his Church, but I’ve never heard of such case (but I’m not an expert either). It would be very weird because Deacons and Priests are generally subdeacons first.

Maybe most people 20+ who would want to be subdeacons are not married yet and others advance to deacons pretty fast. It’s interesting tbh.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
If that is so, then I did misunderstand what Doc was saying. But it raises another question: why then would a celibacy vow negatively impact the number of people wanting to be subdeacons?
Click to expand...
To clear things up, I know of nowhere where unmarried celibate subdeacons is the norm.

The vow of celibacy for ordination as a subdeacon would prevent an unmarried man from marrying, or a man widowed the future from remarrying.

That vow has a lot to do with my rebuffing overtures to train as a deacon–I know full well that if something happened to my wife, I would not be able to function on my own for the rest of my life.

Most EC churches in the US seem to use either adult men or men with some boys in place of the hard-to-find subdeacons.

I’m suggesting ordaining men to a permanent subdeacons in the EC churches, but without a vow of celibacy.

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top