How to address and greet Orthodox Clergy and their wives?

The practice of living the life in Christ: fasting, vigil lamps, head-coverings, family life, icon corners, and other forms of Orthopraxy. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Alpha Omega
Newbie
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon 4 August 2003 10:39 am

Kissing of Hands

Post by Alpha Omega »

MaryCelia wrote that priests hands are kissed for the reason that the priest holds the body and blood of Christ, and that for this reason the deacons hand is not kissed.

However, it should be noted that in the Greek Orthodox tradition, deacons hands are kissed because, in actual fact (and contrary to the suggestion of the original post), the deacon takes the Body of Christ in exactly the same way as a priest does - in the palm of his right hand.

The only difference is that deacons do not pick up the Body from the diskos themselves - rather they receive it into their hand from the hand of a priest. Otherwise it is the same - ie they hold the Body in the palm of their hands as they pray the Prayer Before Communion ("I believe and I confess that Thou art...")

It is a Russian practice not to kiss a deacon's hand - but I am not sure why Russians thought this up - probably because they considered the deacon to be kind of a glorified altar boy. In fact, the deacon takes the same oath as a priest at ordination, and is subject to the same rules with regards to his life, appearance, how he runs his household etc. The differences are liturgical. Priests are obligated to administer the Seven Sacraments on behalf of their ruling Bishop, whilst a deacon cannot.

With regards to deacons being called father, the Greek practice is to call them "Deacon", as is, apparently, the Old Ritualist Russian practice.

Interestingly, however, it is also the practice amongst "new" ritualist Russians that even ordained Subdeacons (as opposed to altar boys with the honarary award of a crossed orarion) are called "Father". There are so few ordained subdeacons around in most of the various jursidictions that the traditions surrounding them are not well understood, even by clergy. Ordained subdeacons may enter the Royal Doors when assisting a Bishop in serving, and they may also touch the Altar Table itself when changing its vestments.

Apart from that, it's an excellent article.

AO

Arsenios
Jr Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu 10 July 2003 1:56 pm

Post by Arsenios »

they considered the deacon to be kind of a glorified altar boy.

What do you mean? :?

Alpha Omega
Newbie
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon 4 August 2003 10:39 am

Post by Alpha Omega »

Arsenius wrote:

they considered the deacon to be kind of a glorified altar boy.

What do you mean? :?

I meant that many Russians (particularly post-revolutionary Russians, both at home and abroad) tend to see the Deacon as someone who assists the priest in a similar way to an altar boy.

My assertion (however inadequately explained) was that it's not well known that the Liturgy actually requires a deacon if it is to be completely fulfilled (ie there are some parts that are skipped if a deacon is not present.) In addition, it is impossible for a Bishop to serve a Hierarchical Liturgy without at least one deacon present - though it is certainly possible for such a Liturgy to take place without a single priest being present (that is with the proviso that the Bishop skips the Greeting and performs the Proskomide himself). In other words, when a bishop is present, the priests become, in effect, not secondary to the bishop, but tertiary- whilst the deacon acts as the secondary server. Finally, it is the deacon's role to tell the priest WHEN to perform certain actions - like giving the blessing at the start of a Liturgy, and the blessing and the breaking of Holy Bread. The deacon is therefore the order-keeper for the services. He gives the cues for the priest to follow.

I think that some of the misconceptions may have arisen out of the fact that for so long, few parishes actually had a deacon due to the Revolution. In this case, though, the "kissing of hands" tradition is much older than the Revolution, as is the "non kissing of deacons hands amongst Russians" so it suggests that Russians somehow developed a different understanding about the role of a deacon than the Greeks. Why? - well, I am only speculating, but perhaps it had something to do with a Russian idea that deacons are like senior Altar Boys and merely "help out with the kadilo and the saying of ektenia."

The truth is, though, that deacons have a distinct and unique role to fulfill in the services, and it includes taking Holy Communion at the Altar Table in ostensibly the same way that a priest or bishop does. Yes, deacons are always subordinate to the Bishop, just as priests are. For the most part, they are also subordinate to the priest... but there are a few very specific cases, such as the Bishops services, and the cue-prompting parts of the ordinary services where they are not subordinate to the priest, and they are certainly not performing the role of senior altar boy at any stage of the services.

a o

User avatar
ania
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue 15 April 2003 4:21 pm
Contact:

Post by ania »

Wow, I would love to see my dad's reaction if someone told him he's served 28 years as a glorified alter boy...
Just a quick note, a bishop can serve liturgy alone, if he does it in the capacity of a priest, which I have seen done, so, he can serve without a deacon.
The purpose of a deacon, (as according to my dad) is, besides the litanies & assisting the priest/bishop in the sacraments, is to keep order in the alter. Perhaps this isn't in all parishes (I've seen deacons unfortunately who became deacons to "live the clergy life" without the responsibility of priesthood, and they basicly do the litanies to look pretty, and then just chill), but in big parishes, where several priests serve at once, or where a bishop's serving is quite common, they are there to make sure the service goes smoothly, & to take care of any problems that might be going on, so that the priests/bishop can continue.
I remember what Met. Lavr said the day my dad left the deaconate & became a priest, was that he was very sorry about finally giving in to my dad's request (it took my dad about 3 months to talk vladika into it) because when my dad was serving, vladika was sure in that everything in the alter will go perfectly, and he could concentrate on prayer.
Anyway, time to actually get some work done around here.
Ania

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

I'm confused as to why someone would want to be a priest, but that's none of my business I suppose. :(

Deacons are also suppose to command a good deal more respect than laymen in the Church. What I mean by this is, they can help "keep order" or inform people when they are doing something wrong without worrying about judging them: it's just part of their responsibility. They are also held to be more worthy of consideration when they speak on matters of doctrine (as compared to laymen).

Anastasios
Sr Member
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu 7 November 2002 11:40 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC-Archbishop Kallinikos
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Post by Anastasios »

Paradosis wrote:

I'm confused as to why someone would want to be a priest, but that's none of my business I suppose. :(

If it's none of your business then keep it to yourself. Don't throw your thoughts out and about then say "oh well I should not say anything."

Besides, I don't see why you feel the need to tell lifelong ROCORites how they should go about the priesthood? Sure in the olden days people were selected by bishops due to extreme holiness and they often refused several times, but in modern times people have to make it known that they feel some type of calling and the bishop then decides.

anastasios

Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

First, I wanted to make a general comment, though her Father's particular situation is really none of my business. I can make general comments without judging someone (particular application). I did not say "oh well I should not say anything," I said that his personal situation was none of my business. As someone who is in seminary, I'd think you'd have been taught such a concept/distinction. Who am I to judge a priest? It's like giving general fasting guidelines and then not judging someone if they fall short on the fast. Just because Tom says "I broke the fast on wednesday" and I then say "it's good to keep the fast," that doesn't mean that I was judging Tom. We might use Tom's situation as a stepping stone for moving on to a more general discussion, however. Indeed, I've constantly tried to take personal attack (including ones on you!) and move them into more general discussions on this board.

And speaking generally again, read the treatises on the priesthood by the Fathers, such as those by Saints Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, and Gregory the Theologian. Then read how the other Fathers talk about becoming a priest. Then you'll understand why I am confused as to why someone would want to be a priest. It has nothing to do with things such as "in the olden days people were selected by bishops due to extreme holiness". That very statement makes abundantly clear that you haven't read the relevant literature, for even in the times of Gregory the Theologian and earlier the priesthood had become something that was mostly made up of nominally (or weak) Christian men. John Chrysostom could say in his 3rd Homily on Acts that most bishops wouldn't be in heaven.

But here people are running after this ball and chain, as though it's something to be sought out as one might seek out spiritual knowledge or holiness. Gregory ran away to a monastery from ordination. John Chrysostom tricked his friend (lied) as a plan that prevented him from being ordained. Ambrose even went to the extent of going into the houses of prostitutes because he thought it would cause such a scandal that they wouldn't possibly ordain him. Perhaps those saints, in their holiness, know something that we sinners don't about the priesthood. This is not to say that we must run from the priesthood--the Fathers are clear that we should submit to the will of God (though there are numerous saintly exceptions to this), but to seek after the priesthood... it would take a rare man to do that, a man with a very special gift and calling from God.

Justin

PS. And don't be so smug, I could just as easily retort "And don't tell Orthodox who have actually read the works of the fathers on the priesthood what to think about the priesthood." ALAS!! It comes true, the fast begins and the tempers flair. :( God help us!

PSS. You say that they "refused several times"... why? Once you find the answer to that "why?" you won't be so quick to seek the priesthood.

Post Reply