Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Asomento in Italian, French, German, Spanish

1235

Comments

  • andrew8345andrew8345
    Dear imikhail or ophadece (or anyone else who wishes to chime in):

    I am curious, what is at stake for you if the Coptic language is no longer spoken? What if in all COCs there is little to no prayer in Coptic, what then? Why do you cling to a language so strongly?

    Will the church suddenly abandon the Orthodox doctrine? Will war around the world increase? In all seriousness, what is the worst-case scenario?

    Frankly, there is too much emphasis on the word that comes before 'Orthodox' and not enough focus on what really matters, namely, the 'Orthodox' part.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140722#msg140722 date=1309642286]

    it is highly likely that these hymns were already found in Egypt before the 19th century because Egypt was a heavily Hellenistic culture that operated this way for thousands of years

    That is not true.

    It was M. Takla who introduced them in the late 19th century. They were not known in the Coptic Church liturgical prayers.

    imikhail,

    Abouna Takla's 1865 "Deacon Service Book" does not have any existing copies. The idea that these hymns came after Pope Cyril's unification is hearsay. Again I will repeat what I said in post #68, "unless you find a manuscript or document that Pope Cyril or Abouna Takla added these Greek hymns, then it's only speculative evidence you have." On the other hand, since 75-80% of our Coptic hymns is not written before 1900's, and we know that our Church has a long liturgical history, we can conclude that many hymns, both Greek and Coptic, were transmitted orally and not in written form. If you like references, I can give you.

    What you choose to ignore is that Coptic liturgical tradition uses popular Greek hymns, just like the rest of the Christian world outside Egypt. Why would Egypt, a known Hellenistic environment, be exempt from having and using Greek hymns that are not Chalcedonian?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140731#msg140731 date=1309647447]
    I hope Reminkimi reads and understand that Copts have their own heritage that is different than the Byzantine.
    Nothing in that article addressed oral transmission. It was specifically speaking of manuscript evidence of Coptic writings transitioning to Arabic. Please point me to the place where it says Greek is foreign to Coptic heritage.

    [B]The following hymns were added recently in the Coptic Church and were not part of the Coptic Heritage:

    Ton Seena Tolithos Eparthenos

    They were officially added in the late 19th century during the papacy of Cyril the 4th.

    Officially added to the rite is different than being used in Egypt before Pope Cyril IV. Again, I don't have references but it is highly likely, since we have other Greek hymns found in all Apostolic churches: Tou dipnou, anixo, evshees, etc.
  • imikhailimikhail
    Dear Remenkami,

    I have indicated to you before that I never say anything of a speculative nature. Everything I say I have researched. If I present my own opinion I will clearly indicate so.

    Let me repeat what I have said again. A lack of evidence is an evidence when it comes to manuscripts.

    Unless you can produce one single manuscript that dates prior to the unification movement, and that manuscript has those hymns, then they did not exist.

    Abouna Takla's 1865 "Deacon Service Book" does not have any existing copies. The idea that these hymns came after Pope Cyril's unification is hearsay. Again I will repeat what I said in post #68, "unless you find a manuscript or document that Pope Cyril or Abouna Takla added these Greek hymns, then it's only speculative evidence you have."

    I do not know who Abouns Takla is. I know of M. Takla who was the Moallem of Alhan during Pope Cyril the 4th. He, through the blessing of Pope Cyril, introduced these hymns in the Coptic Church. This is a historical fact and not an opinion, neither it is speculative.

    You can read about it in this article written by Ragheb Moftah
    http://www.coptic.org/music/keraza75.htm


    So, I will stand firm by my earlier claim:

    The following hymns were added recently in the Coptic Church and were not part of the Coptic Heritage:

    Ton Seena, Tolithos, Eparthenos

    They were officially added in the late 19th century during the papacy of Cyril the 4th.
  • imikhailimikhail

    On the other hand, since 75-80% of our Coptic hymns is not written before 1900's

    Is this an opinion, claim, speculation, ...?

    If a claim, please back it up.

    we can conclude that many hymns, both Greek and Coptic, were transmitted orally and not in written form. If you like references, I can give you.

    Wrong.

    Greek was abandoned by the Church of Alexandria as a liturgical language and was replaced by Coptic. This happened after the Schism.

    There were movements to cleanse the Coptic literature from any Hellinistic influence as the movement by St. Shenouda.

    We have manuscripts that date to the 11th century that have references to our ritual prayers along with the hymns that we use today.
  • imikhailimikhail

    Why would Egypt, a known Hellenistic environment, be exempt from having and using Greek hymns that are not Chalcedonian?

    You yourself said that tonssena, tolitos and Eparthenos were written in the 6th century. If this is true, then that was after the schism. Do you really believe the Copts who considered the Chalcedonian to be their enemies, would adopt any hymns coming from the Greek?

    Logically this does not make any sense. This is my deduction of historical events. Setting that aside, there is no historical evidence pointing to any of the Greek  hymns Tonseena, epathenos, and Tolitos that show they were used prior to their adoption by Pope Cyril through M. Takla.

  • imikhailimikhail

    What you choose to ignore is that Coptic liturgical tradition uses popular Greek hymns

    No, I do not ignore this fact. What I said is that Greek hymns that are not present in any manuscripts prior to the unification movement are not part of our liturgical tradition but were added recently.
  • imikhailimikhail
    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11736.msg140787#msg140787 date=1309736590]
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140731#msg140731 date=1309647447]
    I hope Reminkimi reads and understand that Copts have their own heritage that is different than the Byzantine.
    Nothing in that article addressed oral transmission. It was specifically speaking of manuscript evidence of Coptic writings transitioning to Arabic. Please point me to the place where it says Greek is foreign to Coptic heritage.


    I am not discussing oral tradition. What I am saying is that the Church of Alexandria abandoned the Greek language and literature.
  • imikhailimikhail
    [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11736.msg140782#msg140782 date=1309728318]
    Dear imikhail or ophadece (or anyone else who wishes to chime in):

    I am curious, what is at stake for you if the Coptic language is no longer spoken? What if in all COCs there is little to no prayer in Coptic, what then? Why do you cling to a language so strongly?

    Will the church suddenly abandon the Orthodox doctrine? Will war around the world increase? In all seriousness, what is the worst-case scenario?

    Frankly, there is too much emphasis on the word that comes before 'Orthodox' and not enough focus on what really matters, namely, the 'Orthodox' part.


    Language is an essential element of making up the identity of a people. If we lose Coptic we lose our identity.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140799#msg140799 date=1309742744]
    [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11736.msg140782#msg140782 date=1309728318]
    Dear imikhail or ophadece (or anyone else who wishes to chime in):

    I am curious, what is at stake for you if the Coptic language is no longer spoken? What if in all COCs there is little to no prayer in Coptic, what then? Why do you cling to a language so strongly?

    Will the church suddenly abandon the Orthodox doctrine? Will war around the world increase? In all seriousness, what is the worst-case scenario?

    Frankly, there is too much emphasis on the word that comes before 'Orthodox' and not enough focus on what really matters, namely, the 'Orthodox' part.


    Language is an essential element of making up the identity of a people. If we lose Coptic we lose our identity.


    Our identity is primarily Orthodox and only secondarily Coptic.
  • imikhailimikhail
    This is not true.

    Our identity is Coptic Orthodox.

    There are many people who call themselves Orthodox: Christians, heretics, and non Christians. Adding Coptic, Armenean, Syrian, ... gives specificity.



  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Your essential identity should be Orthodox. Nothing else matters very much.

    If you went to live in Armenian you should join the Armenian Orthodox Church, if you went to live in Syria you should join the Syrian Orthodox Church.

    Of course while you are attending Coptic Orthodox communities your identity is presently and secondarily Coptic Orthodox, but to set up a false division between other Orthodox communities based on culture is heresy.
  • imikhailimikhail
    I understand your point Fr. Peter as we have discussed this before.

    However, at the end the identity of being Orthodox goes hand in hand with the Church the individual attends.

    The issue here was what value the Coptic language presents to the Coptic Church?
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    The Coptic language is not of ultimate value, it is of a secondary value, just as English (which I love immensely) is of secondary value.

    What matters is what we believe, and how we live, the culture we find ourselves in is secondary.

    That doesn't mean our cultures are of no value, how could I say such a thing as an Englishman. But if I had to go and live in Armenia, or Syria, or Ethiopia then my faith would not suffer at all, therefore my culture and language are secondary.

    At some point all Orthodox Christians in the US, for instance, must become American Orthodox. The very fact of Pentecost demands such a thing. Multiple bishops with multiple jursidictions are not tenable in Orthodox ecclesiology.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140835#msg140835 date=1309787760]
    This is not true.

    Our identity is Coptic Orthodox.

    There are many people who call themselves Orthodox: Christians, heretics, and non Christians. Adding Coptic, Armenean, Syrian, ... gives specificity.



    We are not just 'Orthodox'. . .we are the Orthodox Church. Do you think if we removed the Coptic part all of the sudden people might confuse us with Orthodox Jews? What matters is that we are the Orthodox Church and as we say in the Creed, "...The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..." Emphasis on the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, etc. part is the reason there is less unity and less evangelism.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Appendix C: Language, Architecture and Calender
    The Coptic Language
    (Excerpt taken from Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity by Otto F. A. Meinardus (c) 1999)

    The scribes of pharaonic Egypt used heiroglyphic characters to write on the walls of temples and tombs, yet those symbols did not actually represent the phonetic form of the language.

    [...]

    Following the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great, Greek became the official language and remained so until well after the Arab conquest in 640. Greek was the language spoken in the famous Catechetical School of Alexandria, and it was the medium of communication among the patriarchs and bishops of the early church. It remained the official language until the days of governor 'Abd Allah ibn Marwan (705-709) who tried to use Arabic in public affairs.

    The Coptic language was the Egyptian vernacular language expressed in Greek characters with the addition of seven letters to represent those sounds that were unknown to the Greeks. These letters were taken over from Demotic. Our earliest examples of Coptic are the London Horoscope of 100 and the two second-century mummy labels from Akhmim.

    Coptic has five dialects: Sa'idic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, Akhmimic and Subakhmimic. Of these dialects only Bohairic is in use, as the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. Sa'idic may be considered the classical dialect, and it was widespread in Egypt. The other three dialects were limited to the districts of which they bear the names.

    Though Sa'idic was the general Coptic language until the ninth century, Bohairic replaced Sa'idic, partly on account of ecclesiastical influence, and a good deal of the Sa'idic literature then extant was translated into Bohairic. During the reign of al-Hakim (996-1021) Christians still spoke Coptic among themselves, and Muslims would not know what was being said. Within one hundred years, however, there were many changes.

    In 1131, the patriarch Gabriel II admonished the priests to explain the Lord's Prayer in the vernacular Arabic. This meant that even at this early date, Coptic was little understood by the people. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Coptic liturgical books began to have Arabic translations side by side with the Coptic. Yet in Upper Egypt, Coptic seems to have prevailed much longer. Al-Maqrizi implies that Coptic was still spoken in the monasteries around Asyut in the fifteenth century. It is generally believed that Coptic ceased to be a spoken language in the seventeenth century...

  • ophadeceophadece
    My identity is Coptic, and my faith is the Orthodox Christian faith. Coptic simply means Egyptian, and I am Egyptian. I cannot really relinquish this fact, or this stamp just because I am Christian. Throughout the ages, Christians were identified by many other attributes and nationalities. That is I think natural.
    While I do appreciate that I may have been brought to the Christian Orthodox faith through Arabic (from parents, Sunday school, etc), and other people through English, or French, or any other language, yet Coptic remains for me an integral part for not only preserving the faith of my church, but also as a guide-path to renew and strengthen my faith all the time. I don't think it is appropriate to ignore Fr. Peter's British-ness just because he is Orthodox.
    Oujai
  • imikhailimikhail
    Culture plays a very important role in shaping how a Church conducts its prayars. For instance, when St. Mark came to Egypt he did not just delivered the faith, but used the culture as a way to deliver that faith. We cannot simply say we are Orthodox, because the nationality gives a dimention to being Orthodox.

    If it were true that only Orthodoxy is what mattered, we would not find the different rituals that existed since the second century. Yes we are Orthodox, but my nationality gives a difinition of how I practice this Orthodoxy.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Quite true, indeed exactly true. But your nationality has changed. You are now an American, and your children will be even more so American. What is required for Coptic Orthodoxy to become an American Orthodoxy with Coptic roots?

    There is a place for people to be Egyptian and Orthodox, but it is surely not ultimately America even if we are in a time of transition now. If I want to be British I don't go to live in Nigeria. If I go to live in Nigeria I have to become, to some extent, Nigerian. Even more would my children have to be part of Nigerian society and culture.

    How will all the Oriental Orthodox in the US, or Canada, or the UK, be united into one Church - as our Orthodox Faith and canons require (even if it takes 200 years) - if we all insist on being X Orthodox or Y Orthodox, rather than Orthodox in the US, or Canada, or the UK?

    If I want to be only and purely British Orthodox I need to live in Britain, if I want to be only and purely Coptic Orthodox then surely it is necessary to stay in Egypt. If we find ourselves somewhere else then the Gospel demands that we become Orthodox in THAT place. This happened in Egypt where St Mark did not expect the Church to use Aramaic, and then when the Church switched from Greek to Coptic, and then when the Church switched from Coptic to Arabic. It happened in Rome where the Latin and Greek congregations eventually united into one Roman Church. It happened in Armenia and Ethiopia where the Syrian missionary monks did not expect to form a Syrian Church in Armenia or Ethiopia.

    There would be something very wrong if in 100+ years the Oriental Orthodox were all still split up in different jurisdictions in the West. Where Orthodox are together they are ONE Church. We do not need to rush but we do need to ask what we need to be doing to prepare for such unity now. Many Copts have never worshipped in a congregation of non-Coptic Orthodox, even in the same town. But the same is true the other way round.
  • imikhailimikhail
    I agree with you Fr. Peter. But this is a long long process. In the meantime, I cannot simply tell my children you are Orthodox or you are American Orthodox because there is neither a Church called Orthodox nor American Orthodox.

    I have to tie their faith to some Church. This Church happens to be the Coptic Church.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    There is no problem with being associated with a particular tradition, but there is a problem when a particular tradition is elevated above all other particular traditions and the sense of a common faith is diminished. There is also a problem, as far as my opinion goes, when we seek to preserve a cultural tradition beyond its usefulness and by opposition to the historical truth that Orthodoxy must become properly present in all cultures.

    I am not saying you are doing any of these things.

    At the least I would want to see all Orthodox congregations within travelling distance having some relationship with each other whatever the background tradition. This takes a lot of work, but if it is easy for Coptic youth to attend Protestant services then it should not be too hard to develop a sense of belonging to and with the Armenians, Indians, Syrians, Ethiopians, Eritreans etc etc. It should not be too hard to invite other priests to speak, or other bishops even. (I am sure this happens in some places).

    When we appreciate these other cultures, and the Orthodox Faith which is transmitted in them, then we are less likely to become exclusive about our own culture, however much it is properly valued.
  • imikhailimikhail
    In the Southern Diocese of the US we hold a common liturgy for all the Orientals to attend. We also have youth activities that all the Orientals participate in.

  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    That's good. I hope that similar practices will take place in all cities and states around the Western world.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    I couldn't agree with you more, Father. Unfortunately, I fall under the category of people who have never visited another OO tradition.
  • imikhailimikhail
    There is a sense of unity in the Southern diocese between the different Oriental Churches. yes, there is cultural differences as well as ritual ones. However, we hold liturgical prayers together every month, the Coptic seminary has been chosen to be the seminary for the Eritreans, and there are youth activities held so that all could participate.

    Bishop Youssef is reaching out to the Greek Orthodox through conferences and inviting their bishops, priests to talk.

    I think the road is long to have an American Orthodox Church that encompass all the Traditions. I have my doubts that we will ever get there, because even in Egypt, the different Churches are "separate".
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    In Egypt the Greek and Coptic Churches are not part of the same communion, and so that is the reason for a separation.

    But in our Orthodox communion every single Orthodox Christian is already a member of the same Church. Every bishop is a bishop of One Church.

    As the various Churches take account of the local languages then it is less difficult to have a living sharing of Christian experience.

    I could imagine all sorts of structures, (none of which might be what the Holy Spirit wills), but there could be a number of dioceses across North America with each Bishop, or Metropolitan, (whatever his ethnic background), having auxiliary bishops from each traditional background with particular insight into those traditions, so that there was both one Church and yet also care taken for each traditional background.
  • imikhailimikhail

    In Egypt the Greek and Coptic Churches are not part of the same communion, and so that is the reason for a separation.

    I was not referring to the Greek. I am referring to the other Oriental churches in Egypt; mainly the Syriac and the Armenian.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Would the Copts in Egypt be able to embrace Armenian communities within their jurisdiction while being respectful of their own Armenian tradition? Would the Armenians in Egypt be able to embrace the structure of the Patriarchate of Alexandria while preserving their own Tradition?

    Is the Patriarchate the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, or the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate?

    As far as folk have determined here on tasbeha it was never called the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate until very recently. I prefer the term Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria because it sounds like it describes an Orthodox structure which is open to all ethnicities.

    Indeed several Patriarchs have been Syrians. So there was a unity in the past.
  • imikhailimikhail

    Would the Copts in Egypt be able to embrace Armenian communities within their jurisdiction while being respectful of their own Armenian tradition? Would the Armenians in Egypt be able to embrace the structure of the Patriarchate of Alexandria while preserving their own Tradition?

    I do not believe it is a matter of acceptance as much as it is a matter of preserving culture and language.

    For hundreds of years the Syrians and the Armenians have been living in Egypt with their own Traditions, culture, liturgical rites and their language. They resisted assimilation within the much bigger Coptic Church (I do not mean anything negative) for fearing of losing their roots.

    This is the same problem we are facing here in the U.S. All communities want to preserve their roots and their heritage. This is very vivid in the Indian Syriac Church that still uses Syriac in liturgical prayers.

    I would very much like to see Anglo Saxon and other ethnic groups come to Orthodoxy but I think it won't happen until we have a focused liturgical prayers that is mainly focused on these cultures.
  • imikhailimikhail

    I prefer the term Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria because it sounds like it describes an Orthodox structure which is open to all ethnicities.

    This is difficult because there is the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

    I am not sure as to the correctness of the name Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. To my knowledge, the official name is the Coptic Orthodox Church.

    In liturgical prayers it is merely called the Church of Alexandria.
Sign In or Register to comment.