From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 11:11, July 5, 2008 by ASDamick (talk | contribs) (Communion)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Deacon's Etiquette

it is my understanding that in the greek practise, kissing the hands of deacons was both common and proper, as a sign of respect to the hands that have touched Communion (not for a blessing); whereas it is in the russian practise that kissing the deacon's hands is wrong. can someone verify this before any changes are made? Pistevo 00:14, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I can't, of course, speak for all Greeks everywhere, but my understanding is that it is inappropriate to kiss a deacon's hand regardless of ethnic tradition. I am a deacon in the Antiochian Archdiocese, which follows the Greek/Byzantine tradition as a general rule, and kissing the hands of deacons is not done. —Dcn. David talk contribs
I've likewise never seen deacon's hands being kissed, whether in Byzantine or Slavic practice, either here in the US or in the handful of parishes I've been to in the UK. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 08:49, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)


DcnDavid, if you'd like to give your sources for saying "dalmaticon is just the Latin cognate; similar to calling a phelonion a chasuble", it could be beneficial. Thanks chrisg 2006-06-21-0909 EAST

Well, I suppose I could respond by saying I asked you for citations first, but that wouldn't really help move the discussion along. To be honest, the only place I think I've ever seen the term dalmatic in print in an Orthodox context is in the Hapgood service book and subsequent works using Hapgood as a source. I've never seen the term dalmaticon or dalmatikon anywhere before your edits on this wiki (and a Google search of both terms fails to demonstrate the usage you advocate).
Hapgood is, as I described here, a translation from Slavonic into English undertaken by a non-Orthodox translator in the early 20th century. As a translation, it suffers. Hapgood insists on calling the sticharion a dalmatic; Hapgood also refers to the phelonion as a chasuble (e.g., p. xxxviii).
As to dalmatic being a Latin cognate for sticharion, I suppose you could look in any English dictionary with an etymology. Both the OED and the online version of Merriam-Webster agree that the term derives ultimately from the Latin dalmaticus, meaning Dalmatian or from Dalmatia (as the text of your article entitled Dalmatikon would seem to indicate).
Please note that I don't have a problem of noting the variant usage of dalmatic (again, apparently, not dalmatic/kon) in the Sticharion article if you feel it adds to the knowledge base of the audience for OrthodoxWiki. I, myself, am interested to know who among the Orthodox uses this term and how they came to use it, which is why I asked the questions I did on the Dalmatic article's discussion page. I think it is sloppy wikification, however, to have two articles on the same subject under two different titles. I believe sticharion is the favored term and, thus, should be the main title. Moreover, OrthodoxWiki's Style Manual prefers use of Greek terms where no standard English term predominates. —Dcn. David talk contribs 20:39, June 20, 2006 (CDT)

Priests acting as Deacons

Priests in the Orthodox traditions can do anything a deacon can do, except they cannot vest as a deacon. Consequently, when they chant a diaconal litany, they do so from the altar, and do not raise their wing in praise like a deacon does.

Andrew, I agree with you that in the Latin and Anglican traditions, priests vest as deacons when they perform the role of a deacon at solemn mass or eucharist. Most orthodox find it strange that these priests "pretend" to be deacons by vesting as such. It is almost as if liturgical appearance is more important than the substance of their orders. Chrisg 00:44, July 4, 2008 (UTC)

Well that is sort of what I intended. If there is no deacon serving, the priest does not stand out were the deacon stands for the litanies. Also, parts of the litanies are skipped, like at the Litany of the Catechumens. (And some parts of the quiet prayers in the altar). No big deal. - Andrew 21:59, July 4, 2008 (UTC)


The article currently states: "A deacon may be blessed by his bishop and parish priest to distribute the Eucharist to the faithful, either from a second chalice at a regular liturgy where a priest is serving or in connection with a typika service that is celebrated when the priest is absent."

There are two things that I wonder about in regard to the above statement. First, at seminary we were told that communing the people used to by primarily the deacons' job during the Liturgy. Which brings me to the second observation: when I was a deacon, I served in both a 'regular' liturgy and a hierarchical one where the deacon or deacons were the only ones distributing the Eucharist to the people. I'm not entirely sure how common that is or whether the above sentence should be rewritten. Vandrona 02:37, July 5, 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - both that I've also seen this happen often, and that I'm not sure how to reword it. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:18, July 5, 2008 (UTC)
It's currently essentially Slavic-leaning. I would word it something like this: "Deacons may also distribute the Eucharist at the Divine Liturgy or at a Typika service, depending on the parish's liturgical tradition." —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 11:11, July 5, 2008 (UTC)