I have been told that a full Deacon in the Coptic Church can serve the blood, but not the Body*. Also, that they wear black vestments and have no employment outside the Church, like Priests. Why are full Deacons in the Coptic parishes so rare (at least in the US)?
*Why is this the case? Why the one and not the other?
Comments
Of course, the priest must touch the body to serve it.
Any idea where these are purchased?
I think they serve the blood because serving the blood does not involve physically touching our Lord.
Of course, the priest must touch the body to serve it.
If there’s a new born baby that wont take the blood the priest/ full Deacon needs to take a drop of the blood on his finger and squeeze the cheeks of the baby so its mouth can open and he puts the blood in the babies mouth. So an archdeacon also touches the blood of Christ. does this mean we have to kiss his hand?
Adding fuel to fire. Since the arch deacon is a lower rank then a priest he can only give the blood. But why? This is hinting that the Blood is less important then the body because a lower rank can only give out the Blood. Or is it to just differentiate each rank from another.
[quote author=qawe link=topic=13602.msg158582#msg158582 date=1344330609]
I think they serve the blood because serving the blood does not involve physically touching our Lord.
Of course, the priest must touch the body to serve it.
If there’s a new born baby that wont take the blood the priest/ full Deacon needs to take a drop of the blood on his finger and squeeze the cheeks of the baby so its mouth can open and he puts the blood in the babies mouth. So an archdeacon also touches the blood of Christ. does this mean we have to kiss his hand?
This is an incorrect custom. The priest who give out the blood should never touch it. just consider how the other priest touch the body--they do not touch anything else while doing so and they wash their hand many times for that. The correct teaching is to use the mystere to give the blood always. in a case of a little child you will simply empty the mystere; you don't have to have blood on it but just a hint of it.
i have seved in the alter with many priests who do the same exact thing.
since i stand next to abouna many times while giving the blood i have seen them touching the blood a lot while giving the blood to a baby. if it is to hard to put the mysterein the babies mouth without spilling it.
i have seved in the alter with many priests who do the same exact thing.
I am not saying it's NOT DONE by priests.....but i am saying it's simply in correct. ALSO, nothing will spell from the mystere is there is no blood. ya3ny, when we take the blood, abouna dips the mystere and brings up a small about of blood. in our case here, he would not do that...in fact, he would make sure that the mystere doesn't have any drops on it when he takes itss it out of the cup, yet it will have a scent of the blood on it.
since i stand next to abouna many times while giving the blood i have seen them touching the blood a lot while giving the blood to a baby. if it is to hard to put the mysterein the babies mouth without spilling it.
i have seved in the alter with many priests who do the same exact thing.
This is the case in our church, but the archdeacon/deacon never touches the blood if he is distributing it.
The deatails are probably with Rem
RO
Just as a side note that might be a little off topic. In my opinion, the lack of deacons and archdeacons even lead to the making of General Bishops of Social Services. It would be wiser in my opinion to bring back the social services to the deacons, as it was in the Book of Acts to begin with, and as it was with Archdeacon Habib Guirguis, who in my opinion should be tonsured a saint.
The reason Full deacons are so rare (at least in America) is because they are not needed.
The ranks of the Psaltos (Chanter) and Oghnostos (Reader) have started (incorrectly) doing the work of a Deacon. The Deacon's work is to serve the altar, but as I'm sure you've ALL seen, we have Psaltos and Oghnostos serving in the altar during liturgy. The Subdeacon (Epidiakon) (Assistant to the Deacon) is supposed to assist the Deacon with his duties. We don't have many of those either. The Archdeacon is the Leader or the Head of all the deacons (Like St. Stephen). Psaltos are supposed to chant and nothing more. Oghnostos are supposed to read and nothing more.
When the wrong becomes the norm, it is difficult to make it right.
And about the whole Deacon giving the blood thing: no one is supposed to touch the blood with their finger to give babies... not the priest, and especially not the deacon.
It's a shame they are not that common anymore, we should try to revive the practice as best we can.
The question is ... how?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13602.msg159666#msg159666 date=1347190471]
It's a shame they are not that common anymore, we should try to revive the practice as best we can.
The question is ... how?
Good bishops with an Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology have the power to revive the rank and restore it to its former glory. The bishop, as an overseer and ultimate economos in his diocese, has the authority to ordain and financially support deacons and give the archdeacon the full authority over the social services in the Church and the deacon affairs.
Without a bishop, it cannot be done because the priests in general have an interest in limiting the rank of deacons to hymnology alone.
[quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13602.msg159669#msg159669 date=1347209446]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13602.msg159666#msg159666 date=1347190471]
It's a shame they are not that common anymore, we should try to revive the practice as best we can.
The question is ... how?
Without a bishop, it cannot be done because the priests in general have an interest in limiting the rank of deacons to hymnology alone.
Ya 3am, we don't even get that much :p.
This rank being brought will be hard. For one, what do we do with the superfluous amount of Bishops who have no diocese? Do we strip their rank, give them monasteries (dear God, please no), do we give them dioceses, or what? We know that we cannot give them the same job as an archdeacon because they have a bigger hat, and they will not appreciate that. So the question is bigger than just ordaining some archdeacons.
Secondly, like Stavro said, they need to have an Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology. The biggest question about ordaining an Archdeacon is "Why would a I pay someone for that, if I can just make him a priest?!" This seems more like a business understanding of ecclesiology, rather than an Orthodox one.
Finding Orthodox ecclesiology in our time is hard, from the top down.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Can full Deacons use the censer ("shoria" in Arabic)?
No. In the Coptic rite, only the priest is allowed to censor. This is an extension of the rites in the OT when the priests alone were to censor. The Levites, deacons in the NT, were not allowed to censor but were only helping the priests in the daily worship.
Chanters won't serve in the altar, won't read during services, etc.
He didn't mention anything about archdeacons though.
His concern is the following:
Parents of kids (or even adults) when they visit other dioceses will see kids in the altar, and come back and say "why can't I serve in the altar" or "why can't my son serve in the altar" etc.
The incorrect has become the norm.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=13602.msg159678#msg159678 date=1347226240]
[quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13602.msg159669#msg159669 date=1347209446]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13602.msg159666#msg159666 date=1347190471]
It's a shame they are not that common anymore, we should try to revive the practice as best we can.
The question is ... how?
Without a bishop, it cannot be done because the priests in general have an interest in limiting the rank of deacons to hymnology alone.
Ya 3am, we don't even get that much :p.
This rank being brought will be hard. For one, what do we do with the superfluous amount of Bishops who have no diocese? Do we strip their rank, give them monasteries (dear God, please no), do we give them dioceses, or what? We know that we cannot give them the same job as an archdeacon because they have a bigger hat, and they will not appreciate that. So the question is bigger than just ordaining some archdeacons.
Secondly, like Stavro said, they need to have an Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology. The biggest question about ordaining an Archdeacon is "Why would a I pay someone for that, if I can just make him a priest?!" This seems more like a business understanding of ecclesiology, rather than an Orthodox one.
Finding Orthodox ecclesiology in our time is hard, from the top down.
ReturnOrthodoxy
General bishops (without social services) are honestly the exactly same job as a khouri-episcopi. Treat them like khouri-episcopi, except you keep them there in that position for the rest of their lives, so that they don't get used to the rank and perpetuate it for a long time.