Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
Kiahk Hymns
Do we start singing the Kiahk hymns during liturgy on the first Sunday of Kiahk or the first day?
Comments
pray for me
joe
I don't think the number of the days matter. So even if Kiahk starts on a Monday you'd still say the first Sunday Gospel response for 13 days before switching. That's my understanding but I hope somebody correct me if I'm wrong
that is right.....the gospel response for the first week is supposed to be said from the 1st sunday til the next saturday (followed by the 2nd sunday)....the only exception is the couple of days from kiahk 1 to that sunday; you ALSO said the first week gospel response. In fact, you say all the first week hymns.
that is right.....the gospel response for the first week is supposed to be said from the 1st sunday til the next saturday (followed by the 2nd sunday)....the only exception is the couple of days from kiahk 1 to that sunday; you ALSO said the first week gospel response. In fact, you say all the first week hymns.
So, you would say the standard gospel response in the Kiahk tune between the beginning of Kiahk and the 1st Sunday?
[quote author=minagir link=topic=10103.msg123499#msg123499 date=1291577536]
that is right.....the gospel response for the first week is supposed to be said from the 1st sunday til the next saturday (followed by the 2nd sunday)....the only exception is the couple of days from kiahk 1 to that sunday; you ALSO said the first week gospel response. In fact, you say all the first week hymns.
So, you would say the standard gospel response in the Kiahk tune between the beginning of Kiahk and the 1st Sunday?
there is no "standard" gospel response. there is actually a different one for every Vespers, Matins and Liturgy.
you say the 1st week response from kiahk 1 to the saturday right before the 2nd sunday.
[quote author=josephgabriel link=topic=10103.msg123500#msg123500 date=1291577763]
[quote author=minagir link=topic=10103.msg123499#msg123499 date=1291577536]
that is right.....the gospel response for the first week is supposed to be said from the 1st sunday til the next saturday (followed by the 2nd sunday)....the only exception is the couple of days from kiahk 1 to that sunday; you ALSO said the first week gospel response. In fact, you say all the first week hymns.
So, you would say the standard gospel response in the Kiahk tune between the beginning of Kiahk and the 1st Sunday?
there is no "standard" gospel response. there is actually a different one for every Vespers, Matins and Liturgy.
Really? There is a different gospel response for every single Vespers, Matins and Liturgy? Where can I get hold of them? Yes, but I asked about the gap between the beginning of the month of Kiahk to the 1st Sunday. Would the gospel responses be said in the Kiahk tune?
I thought the "standard" was 'tenechisy emmo'? That's what my church says in weekday liturgies throughout Kiahk.
hmmm....read what i said above again slowly in your mind.....and i mean this in a respectful way...no sarcasm.
OKAY PEOPLE,
There are 2 different teachings.....In M Farag's book and Nahdet El-Kanaies book, there are two gospel responses:
[coptic]Ten] ne `mpi,ereticmoc[/coptic] for the first AND second week (for matins, vespers and liturgy).
[coptic]Ten[ici `mmo qen ouem`psa[/coptic] for the third AND fourth week (for matins, vespers and liturgy).
That is the rule that is followed by ALL really....because it is in the 2 books that are used most in the churches.
NOW, the other older order is that there is a different gospel response for every Matins, Vespers and Liturgy of every week. They were written in an old manuscript that not much have access to. Albair published those gospel responses in his book, second edition. Abouna Mettias records some of them (actually all) here: http://tasbeha.org/mp3/Hymns/Fasts/Nativity/Higher_Institute_of_Coptic_Studies.html but they are not titles because whoever uploaded this didn't know the info i am telling you now.
I do have 2 of them on the text library here:
- Gospel Response - 1st Week | [coptic]`A `P[oic ouwrp `nGabriyl[/coptic] (where [coptic]Ten] ne `mpi,ereticmoc[/coptic] becomes the 2nd week response).)
- Gospel Response - 4th Week | [coptic]`Elicabet acmici `nousyri[/coptic] ([i]where [coptic]Ten[ici `mmo[/coptic] becomes the 3rd week response).
You don't have to worry about these though......keep it in the back of your minds...not much know these responses and i doubt they'll try to open their minds to accept it.
Kiahk tune is sung from day one whatever day that falls on.
DEar Mina,
YOur post is very informative man thanks. NOt meaning to patronize or be cheeky but I'm asking for opinions here: that old teaching you alluded to, where is it mentioned and how valid? I'm afraid to say that that defies the belief I used to think I was taught in the church about preserving the unity of the church through church hymns! Or is it just a false motto I'm hanging on to? It makes sense to have a separate ebraxis response for each Sunday, separate Gospel response and separate aspasmos Adam but interestingly only 3 aspasmos watos. Why is it always Kiahk that we don't seem to agree to a certain tune for anything? That's the case with khan oushot and marenwonh as well as the taodokeya's? IS each and every hymn teacher saying something willy nilly? IS that actually a problem or am I exaggerating? Does it just have to be that we sit together as deacons locally and decide on what we say and what tune and that's it not paying any attention to "others'" teachings? TO me I take it as a sad state of affairs...
YOur post is very informative man thanks. NOt meaning to patronize or be cheeky but I'm asking for opinions here: that old teaching you alluded to, where is it mentioned and how valid?
they are valid. you can find them in the book: "Tarteeb El-Bay'a" (ترتيب البيعة) written by the Late Anba Samueel Bishop of sheben el-anateer(المتنيح الأنبا صموئيل أسقف شبين القناطر وتوابعها). the book is a manuscript indeed....very rare to find. i remember seeing a copy online somewhere. Albair had access to it, so is Abouna Mettias. Actually there are many other hymns and responses that are in that book that were not published in new books. as we say in arabic, the hymns "saquto"(literally 'fell') from latter on publications of khedmit shamas books.
I got this information mainly from Albair himself and then searched a little about what he said. The main reason i can give, just my own poor opinion, is that there are far tooo much hymns to control. We couldn't/can't unite in other rites and orders of hymns in "simple" rites...how will we unite on hymns of a month that can add up to the hymns of the rest of the year and differnt occasions. There is a FULL SEPARATE PSALMODY FOR KIAHK!!! a huge book (believing actually that still many hymns and psali and madaieh were lost).
Also another problem is that very rarely books tell you in what tune the hymn/madeha/psali is said. if they did, than after that you just have to deal with the many different tarkeeps.....which is not a problem for me personally. I wanted to comment on this separately because the problem is bigger than what you think. (again my humble opinion)
first, it's not that big of a problem simply because EVERYONE IS DOING IT.
You have the First Hoos & the Second Hoos Lobsh (concentrate on the word 'lobsh')
Both lobshes are "adam" lobshes...as the hooses are adam.
For a lobsh, there are 3 ways: Long, Mohayyar, Short.
There are 2 ways to say the Long one, khen oshot tune and maren-onh tune. After that, the Mohayyar, as i believe, is the way everyone says the "Hetin" parts at the end of the lobshes. if you really hear the recording of abouna metias of the "kiahky khen oushot" it sound exactly like the hetinnny, which just confirms what i just said--it's just the Mohayyar tune). Then the Short tune is there.
Let me take you away from this for a second to the Adam Theotokias Lobsh of the week (monday and tuesday). It is the rule to say them on the tune of khen oshot in annual days and marenonh in festive days. keep in mind that there is again: Long, Mohayyar, Short--only Long changes, Mohayya and short is the same.
if we go back to the hooses, it just makes sense that these rules apply to them to (consider the connection of the tunes and 3 ways). the big mistake is that people say khen oushot in it's tune all year long ANYWAYS, and marenonh in its tune all year long, despite the occasion.
I am sure sure i just confused you already.
A very edifying post Mina. I never once stepped back and realised how complicated the setup actually is. You have to be really enthusiastic to get into it properly, a reason so many people just don't.
just consider that this is just an opinion.
Now in an attempt to get rid of my confusion, and also make myself clear:
You said: "Actually there are many other hymns and responses that are in that book that were not published in new books. as we say in arabic, the hymns "saquto"(literally 'fell') from latter on publications of khedmit shamas books.
I got this information mainly from Albair himself and then searched a little about what he said."
OK, as long as those hymns were dropped for one reason or another, it doesn't mean we shouldn't hold on to them. Because they were found by someone, and published, they should be followed. That is my opinion. But to continue on our ways (which sadly will still happen even in my church) with what we are used to without rectifications, will be incorrect.
You said: "The main reason i can give, just my own poor opinion, is that there are far tooo much hymns to control. We couldn't/can't unite in other rites and orders of hymns in "simple" rites...how will we unite on hymns of a month that can add up to the hymns of the rest of the year and differnt occasions. There is a FULL SEPARATE PSALMODY FOR KIAHK!!! a huge book (believing actually that still many hymns and psali and madaieh were lost)."
I see your point, and respect your opinion, but is that a good excuse at all? If anything, that only means that (in contrast to what you told ilovesaintmark in another thread) cantors and hymns teachers in Egypt's churches do not really spend so much time on rites, and contemplations. They do, but not necessarily rightly, or long enough. They do question many things, but no body knows the answer for anything - one cantor says something because he was taught it; another says another because he was taught differently. That is why we end up with too many hymns and tunes out of our control. In fact, they are in our control (or should have been) had it not been for the different teachings of el sa'eed, Alexandria, and Cairo. And now you are talking about a Kiahk psalmody; how valuable is that? If somebody decides they will go through the order one way, and not stick to some hymns, and another says another thing... so?
You said: "Also another problem is that very rarely books tell you in what tune the hymn/madeha/psali is said. if they did, than after that you just have to deal with the many different tarkeeps.....which is not a problem for me personally."
You know who I blame??? Coptic Christians (of course I am talking about those who primarily live in Egypt, me being one of them at one stage). We got weaker. We don't like hymns. We would rather sang English songs in the diaspora to "[coptic]piwik `nte `pwnq[/coptic]"; we would rather sang "en fadeena da'ana". And culprits involved in those as well are church-appointed cantors, who just didn't bother with learning except the hymns that are commonly sung. There is a number of hymns in nahdet el kanaes book that no one knows how they were sung. Like a hymn called "[coptic]ouciou afsai[/coptic]" for the Nativity. That comes to my mind now, but I guess there is another one for Virgin Mary's entrance to the Temple. They are both Coptic by the way, not Greek in origin. Add to that the strifes of people to record va nitenh in different tunes. Same with [coptic]wouniatk `n;ok w Dimac[/coptic]. Bottom line is if cantors don't want to sing each and every hymn, or priests stopping them to, or congregation complaining, then good luck to us preserving gene;lion or long kata ni,oroc except in our homes, or our cars. On a side note, I ask you to cast your mind back to when you were living in Egypt, and ask yourself: how full was the church during Kiahk liturgies (not vespers and midnight praises); used to be cold in Egypt in those days, didn't it? how full was it during the Holy fifty days? How full was it during Passion week? Is there any connection between the preservation of EACH AND EVERY hymn during Passion week, the exact same tune (bar [coptic]]souri [/coptic] and [coptic]wouniatk[/coptic]) and the number of people attending? To me, there is a very strong link. Please also commenting on how full the church is during Kiahk, these are the only days they listen to tasbeha (for some of them I mean), and therefore you don't need to be too pedantic and say [coptic]qen ousot [/coptic] or [coptic]marenouwnh [/coptic] in a different manner. Let people enjoy whilst they are here!!!
You said: "Also another problem is that very rarely books tell you in what tune the hymn/madeha/psali is said. if they did, than after that you just have to deal with the many different tarkeeps.....which is not a problem for me personally."
The canticles do not follow either Adam or Watos tunes. That is an invalid statement. The only exception is the third segment of the fourth canticle (i.e. psalm 150) which does follow a watos arrangement (of course).
You said: "There are 2 ways to say the Long one, khen oshot tune and maren-onh tune. After that, the Mohayyar, as i believe, is the way everyone says the "Hetin" parts at the end of the lobshes. if you really hear the recording of abouna metias of the "kiahky khen oushot" it sound exactly like the hetinnny, which just confirms what i just said--it's just the Mohayyar tune). Then the Short tune is there."
I guess that is not "very" right. I wouldn't call the tune change as mohayyer. I know what I am going to utter from my mouth now is probably confusing or crazy, but I have seen churches follow it: what Fr. Mattias Nasr records is as you rightly said that tune of what we practise singing the last 3 verses for [coptic]qen ousot [/coptic] and 4 verses for [coptic]marenouwnh[/coptic]. However, I don't believe that is the correct practice. Both these Adam lobsh's should be sung the way Fr. Mattias recorded in Kiahk, that is, it is not a mohayyer tune, it is a Kiahky (or maybe if I may elaborate imaginatively) a fasting tune. This tune should not be sung for any of the verses of those Adam lobsh's, as is recorded by HICS in [coptic]qen ousot [/coptic] (but unfortunately not [coptic]marenouwnh[/coptic]). What I have just said may need further research, and Fr. Mattias would be the best one to shed light on that.
You said: "if we go back to the hooses, it just makes sense that these rules apply to them to (consider the connection of the tunes and 3 ways). the big mistake is that people say khen oushot in it's tune all year long ANYWAYS, and marenonh in its tune all year long, despite the occasion."
This I don't get...
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
OK, as long as those hymns were dropped for one reason or another, it doesn't mean we shouldn't hold on to them. Because they were found by someone, and published, they should be followed. That is my opinion. But to continue on our ways (which sadly will still happen even in my church) with what we are used to without rectifications, will be incorrect.
mish fahim. actually...no, things are set, but they are not even fully agreed to be said. i doubt that they are in our control.....yes we can control the coptic (or arabic being the original text of the madayeh) but you'll always have those who want their native language. so i think we have enough on you hands to deal with her.
oseya afsha is "lost".....but i actually think (rmemeber) i have heard a recording) :-). only 2 tunes......alexandrian and muharaq. 2 are are accepted because there is reasons for their difference. that's actually a problem between the text and the oldest recording Albairs thinks he have. sadly to tell you, i was never that enthusiastic in egypt about alhan....or even being a deacon in general....i was IN CHURCH....just not paying attention. also oh...not with our church, saint mark jersey city....holy week hymns are out of question to be "changed" to fit into time needed. (except on only epraxenoton..abouna goes like "you have 20 mins; say what you want" :-)) YES.......but they are Adam hymns. not to consider the tune. During the feasts and most of the fasts, there are special psalies that are said on every hoos (and hymns in kiahk). Those hymns are all ADAM.
ACTUALLY, and i might be wrong here so please check this for me, in older psalmodies, the title of the lobshs is normally [coptic]'ali `adam[/coptic] this is NOT an opinion. in the latest edition of the Paramous psalmody, it states that on annual days, you say the 2 lobshes on khen oushot tune and on festive days you say both of them maren-o-onh tune. you lost me there.....not confused but just lost the order of what is said in what tune.
you just called them adam lobshs....hehe. well i didn't get into this really. i still believe that what he recorded is exactly the same as the hetins we always say at the end of the lobshes.....so until we have a reason for that tradition, it's hard to take what you said in consideration.
what i am basically saying is that ALL LOBSHES (either watos or adam; either in the hooses or the theotokeis) are similar in tune. In the annual psalmody there are 2 kinds of Lobshes: the Hooses and the Theotokeias. The Hooses lobshes are adam....have there set tune (we knows that is not debatable). The Adam theotokias lobshes take the tunes of the hooses lobshes (also not debatable).
So you didn't use to be an avid hymns lover in Egypt... neither was I. ONly tells me something of the percentage of die-hard hymns enthusiasts in that country.
Yeah my comment about Kiahk or fasting khan oushot and marenwonh were observations only. So you're right to ask others not to take it into consideration... hehemy first point was about Mr. Albair... since he found the source, compiled the facts, and published them, then we should follow the teaching for four separate Gospel responses. I doubt that anybody is going to follow this though...
Ok this is from the mobile so not concise. First of all canticles are not subject to Adam or Watos but everything else is.... clear?
but we are not talking about the hooses....we are talking about their lobshes.
So you didn't use to be an avid hymns lover in Egypt... neither was I. ONly tells me something of the percentage of die-hard hymns enthusiasts in that country.
hehe
my first point was about Mr. Albair... since he found the source, compiled the facts, and published them, then we should follow the teaching for four separate Gospel responses. I doubt that anybody is going to follow this though...
yeah. i wasn't against what he did.....i am just considering the reality; not much people will accept it.
You Mina keep saying hoses when you mean lobsh's... not my fault
hehehe.......the connection i made through the fact that w say ADAM psalies and madayeh on them still stands.
Yes it does. Any chance of sharing that ouseyou afshai?
it was a loong time ago...i am not even sure i know where it is.