"Full" Deacons in the Coptic Orthodox Church

edited December 1969 in Coptic Orthodox Church
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?
«1

Comments

  • 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.
  • Well this is a coincidence...my church just ordained an Archdeacon this past weekend. I think it's mainly because in the U.S. we ordain more priests because the service here is a little bit more different than Egypt. Diakon/Archdiakons have different responsibilities than a priest. A priest deals with people more 1-on-1 because he takes confession, he is a spiritual father, and so on. The diakon/archdiakon can be spiritual fathers but they can't take confession.
  • ^They wear headgear during the Liturgy, don't they?
  • They do wear head gear. It's a small skull cap and on top a cylinder shaped hat with a cross coming out of the top and saints pictures all around the sides.
  • Not sure if I would call it a skull cap, though I've also seen those used. The diaconal head gear has become very rare in the Coptic church, but what I've seen is more of a crown. Looks rather like a Turkish fez without the tassle, with a cross on the top. I am sure saints' pictures are fine, but crosses are more traditional.

    Any idea where these are purchased?
  • [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?

    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=markmarcos link=topic=13602.msg158668#msg158668 date=1344446112]
    [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.
  • 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.
  • [quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13602.msg158670#msg158670 date=1344450864]
    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.
  • [quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13602.msg158670#msg158670 date=1344450864]
    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.
  • i see but he can touch the vessles... does that mean we kiss his hands ?
  • Why are full Deacons so rare in parishes?
  • ^Nevermind
  • [quote author=I Believe link=topic=13602.msg158584#msg158584 date=1344334154] I think it's mainly because in the U.S. we ordain more priests because the service here is a little bit more different than Egypt. Diakon/Archdiakons have different responsibilities than a priest. A priest deals with people more 1-on-1 because he takes confession, he is a spiritual father, and so on. The diakon/archdiakon can be spiritual fathers but they can't take confession.
  • Can full Deacons use the censer ("shoria" in Arabic)?
  • Remnkemi is probably best able to answer this, but I believe that oringinaly, they were, but this prctice became rare, and eventually, removed.

    The deatails are probably with Rem

    RO
  • It became rare when the Church scrambled to survival mode under Islamic occupation at times, and traditions have been lost.  Abouna Abraham of Holmdel taught that no one lower than a full deacon should be allowed in the altar, but because of the rarity, our practices today are an exception.  I'm not sure about the history and I can't verify what Abouna is saying here, but I'm pretty sure there at least some truth to what he says. 

    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 priest has a responsibility to the spiritual aspects of the church (confession, sermons, etc.) whereas the deacon has a responsibility to the administrative aspects of the church." - (HG Bishop Youssef (SUS)) He takes it as a full time job, and dresses in the black robes. It is not uncommon for him to live IN the church so as to maintain it, keep it clean, and keep it open for the public to come and pray.

    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.
  • Are full Deacons more common in Egypt?
  • I don't think "Full" Deacons and Archdeacons are more common in Egypt but there are a lot of "consecrated" deacons or servants like mo3allims and other people who teach in the kolaya el ekliirikaya and so on
  • It's a shame they are not that common anymore, we should try to revive the practice as best we can.
  • [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?
  • [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?


    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=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
  • ^A reader in my Church said pretty much the same thing you did.
  • [quote author=Severian link=topic=13602.msg159641#msg159641 date=1347038012]
    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.
  • HG Bishop Youssef (SUS) at my church this past week told us of his future plans and hopes/wishes to restore the ranks of the deaconate. This includes ordaining full deacons, sub deacons, and making sure that Readers and Chanters do what their rank entitles them to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

    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=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13602.msg159679#msg159679 date=1347227102]
    [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.
  • My Priest said that it was his dream to have seven full Deacons tonsured in our Parish. Why seven? What is so special about this number?
Sign In or Register to comment.