Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Lessen Arabic Influence in North American Orthodox Churches

135

Comments

  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    edited September 2014
    @Ophadece

    What are you talking about???!!!! Where did i say that Arabic is the official language of our Church? A Church doesn't have an official language - it has an official credo or creed and Patriarchate. I said the official language of EGYPT is Arabic. 

    We are the Church of Egypt, and having Arabic as part of our liturgical expression is not a sin! 

    Again, your entire attitude wreaks of anti-islamic hatred. You may pride yourself in the fact that you happen to speak and understand Coptic; and that's all well and good, but Coptic wasn't spoken by our Pharaonic great great grand fathers; so if you wish to be a true Copt, why not learn Hyroglyphics or whatever language the Pharaohs spoke during the pre-Coptic language period in Egypt?

    The Coptic Church is merely the Orthodox Church of Egypt, and Coptic is sung in our Churches simply because of the hymns in Coptic and the adherence of the hymns in our Church to the Coptic language. 

    You argue that we are not the "Arabic Orthodox Church" - but that is such an immature, if not uneducated answer: would you say that we are not the "English Orthodox Church" if the liturgy was totally sung in English? Would you say then "Hey! Why are we singing in English and everything is in English when we are meant to be the Egyptian Orthodox Church - since when was English an official language of Egypt"? 

    Arabic is in our Church because Arabic is the language of Egypt (official language of Egypt) of which our Church belongs to. Her natives speak Arabic.
  • ophadeceophadece
    @Zoxsasi,
    That's exactly what I am saying. I appreciate you joined this thread quite late but you may read previous posts and see for yourself.
    The pharaohs had spoken the Coptic language. Hieroglyphics is only a system of writing.
    What is anti-islamic hatred got to do with my position of the church and her language?
    Oujai
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I'm starting to think no one but Minasoliman read what I wrote and even Mina seems to have misunderstood what I wrote. I'll summarize.

    The argument that liturgical services must be done in the vernacular based on 1 Cor 14 or patristic evidence so that the one hearing the gospel understands falls on shaky logic. If people cannot understand basic English, then there is no difference between saying "Axion ke dikeon" and "Meet and right". Sure, as minasoliman said, we can take that as an opportunity to teach people about the meaning of "meet and right". We can take the same opportunity for "axion ke dikeon". But for "axion ke dikeon", most insist to abandon the usage entirely. So it is no longer a matter of understanding.  The problem is not that English shouldn't be used, but avoiding Coptic based on understanding is not sufficient reason. 

    Secondly, America is multi-cultural. You cannot claim Coptic services must be done in English when the more appropriate vernacular may be Spanish, Ethiopian, Armenian, Arabic, Syriac, Chinese, etc. Mina said, "Look at Bolivia, Look at Mexico. The services are in Spanish." I am saying look at Spanish Harlem, NY. Look at Chinatown, Any City USA. Look at New Orleans, LA, etc. The problem lies in the idea that English should be the primary language in America, when certain areas require a different primary language. This brings me to my third point.

    The moment one says 10% Coptic is ok, 50% Coptic is ok, but 100% Coptic is wrong, then you have automatically invalidated someone based on your personal preference. The message of 1 Cor 14, used to justify abandonment of non-vernacular language use, is actually very specific and does not say anything about exclusive use of one language. In fact, in 1 Cor 14, St Paul stresses the need to be inclusive of all, not just one who has the gift of tongues or prophecy. The use of interpretation, as St Paul instructs, allows the gift of tongues to include edification for everyone, not just a minority or even a majority but all. This solution does not satisfy the person who insists all service must be English (even though the majority do not understand basic English). 

    I have constantly heard that we should not consider ourselves the Coptic Orthodox Church. We are the Orthodox Church of Alexandria. But that title has as much cultural connotation as the first. If you want a title devoid of cultural ethnicity, then you theoretically will have to remove the Coptic calendar used in Egypt, the use of Alexandrian hagiography, the use of non-liturgical rituals (like eating Kolkas on Theophany) and of course, Coptic music. I would dare say the flood gates would have to open to remove the distinction between Protestantism and American rituals rooted in Protestantism. Therefore, an American Coptic Orthodox Church title or American Orthodox Church of Alexandria devoid of culturalism (which I consider faulty titles and a complete contradiction in terms) cannot exist. If you call it American Orthodox Church, then nothing that we are accustomed to in our Orthodox rituals can be used and you cannot prevent any American rituals that may contradict Orthodoxy. I have to emphasize the last part. If you prevent any American ritual, then you can't call it American. And if you allow American heresies, you can't call it Orthodox. So what everyone is advocating is not American Orthodox Church devoid of Egyptian culture and the Coptic language, but shifting of allowable or acceptable Egyptian culture. This brings me back to my point. One person's acceptable Egyptian cultural influence is another person's abomination of desolation. And one person's abomination of desolation is another person's condemnation because the other thinks differently. We have then made Orthodoxy an exclusivist's church - one where no one can agree on how exclusive Orthodoxy should be.

    So the only real solution is for everyone to recognize the feelings of others and not invalidate them by stating English only or my preferential mix of Coptic/English alone is valid. Instead of arguing against ophadece or others who feel monolingual usage is important, why don't we take it upon ourselves to learn a small prayer like the Lord's prayer in another language. So that if a Chinese or Croatian or person comes into Church, you can include him in prayer. If we can't include everyone in a service because of language diversity, then we should pastorally begin services in different mono-languages and multi-languages of all degrees. In the meantime, we need to stop invalidating our own brothers (Copts and non-Copts) who simply feel differently about liturgical language use.
  • ophadeceophadece
    @Remenkimi,
    I agree with most of what you said; one thing I have an issue with however (although I have a feeling you unintentionally used it in a reverse way to prove your point, as I am certain you know this better than I do) in speaking about tongues, St. Paul wasn't referring to live languages. 
    Oujai
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @Remnkemi, lol. i do read your articles and learn from them, but i don't necessarily have anything in mind to comment on. specially considering that these comments will have little affect on reality. Sorry, I am just being an annoying engineer where I really care a lot about the final result of some kind action and seeing it manifest in front of my eyes....i take pleasure in that... :-p 
  • cyril
    edited September 2014
    Hi everyone this might sound silly but:

    Are we the Orthodox Church in Alexandria? The Orthodox Church in Egypt? The Orthodox Church in America? The Orthodox Church of Alexandria in America? The Orthodox Church of Jerusalem that went to Alexandria and is now in America?

    Also what about the Church in Ethiopia when Ethiopians come to America? Is that the Orthodox Church of Alexandria in Ethiopia? The Orthodox Church in Ethiopia? Or the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia in America?

    What about the Russians when they live and pray in America? Are they The Orthodox Church of Constantinople in Russia? the Orthodox Church of Constantinople in Russia in America? The Russian Orthodox Church in America? The Russian Orthodox Church of America? The Orthodox Church of Russia of America?
  • mabsootamabsoota
    i read it!
    i like some coptic. i am actually happy with the current status in uk of most churches doing about half or just over half english in the main services and there also being some arabic and coptic.

    but it is better to say 'right and worthy' as 'meet and right' in an egyptian accent sounds very much like 'meat and rice' and it's impossible for the children (and some adults) to take it seriously!

    by the way, the solution for people who want more english in the church is not for someone to stand at the front praying very fast in a very thick accent!
    it is bettter for him to pray in arabic, then at least the arabic speakers can understand him and the others can follow along on the screen or in the book.

    ;)
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    @Cyril
    What you are asking is not silly at all. It illustrates my point on English proficiency and semiotics of language. Logically, the Coptic Church in America cannot be called the Orthodox Church in Alexandria or the Orthodox Church in Egypt because the language implies a geographic location in Egypt. Orthodox Church in Egypt has a very different meaning than the Orthodox Church of Egypt. 

    One must keep in mind the title Orthodox Church of Egypt also implies a cultural affinity with Egypt. Unless you expand the detail in the title to something like the Orthodox Church in America that originated from Egypt but has no cultural affiliation with Egypt or the Middle East. (I'm sure that isn't going to fly with anyone). 

    I'm sure when St Athanasius sent St Fremetius to Ethiopia, there wasn't even the notion to call it the (Orthodox) Church of Alexandria in Ethiopia. It was simply the part of the Church of Alexandria. The ecclesiastical boundary of Alexandria extended to all Africa.  It's autocephaly in 1968 (?) under Pope Cyril VI gave it the name Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which in essence shrunk that ecclesiastical boundary of Alexandria to exclude Ethiopia. 

    One cannot call the Orthodox Church of Alexandria, "The Orthodox Church of Jerusalem that went to Alexandria". Technically speaking, ecclesiastical centers did not exist till the third century. In the Apostolic era, it was only "The Church". The Church in Rome was the same Church in Antioch. All the Apostles began their mission in Jerusalem (after the Ascension), but this was not the ecclesiastical body that became the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem (I believe that occurred after Chalcedon where Juvenal switched loyalty from St Dioscorus to the Chalcedonian camp. I think minasoliman knows more about it than I do.) 

    Technically speaking, unless the Coptic Church in America becomes autocephalous, it will continue to be an exarchate (diocese) of the (Coptic) Orthodox Church in Alexandria. It becomes only a question if we want to attach the word "Coptic" before the word Orthodox or not include it at all. This only complicates the implications of culture and ecclesiastical identity.

    It is actually quite ironic and ambiguous. When Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, Alexandria was an island in what was then the city/village of Rakotis. This really small island, under the Roman empire, became the major city of the Delta (long after St Mark came to Egypt). The ecclesiastical history and authority of Alexandria has grown from a no-name island to essentially the whole world, with some exceptions. 

    I guess we could adopt the title American Coptic Orthodox Church, if and only if, it is synonymous with Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the See of St Mark. If it implies division from Alexandria, then we're fooling ourselves because it will be another example of baseless ecclesiastical divisions. (Just look at the Eastern Orthodox problems with jurisdiction and autocephaly they are facing now. They will have an "ecumenical council" to fix this mess that politics created).
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    @ophadece
    I don't want to go off on a tangent. But the definition of living language is tangential. Speaking in tongues or glossolalia, if mutually understandable between to people, is a living language. If, however, we adopt the definition that a language is a medium of communication that is transmitted to the next generation, then speaking in tongues is not a living language. But it doesn't change the fact that St Paul was instructing us to include everyone in prayer and preaching, not by abandoning glossolalia or prophecy, but by providing interpretation. 

    It seems you agree that a multilingual approach is best suited. Great. However, I have argued that even bad English is just as necessary as the Queens English. So the person who can't say "meet and right" correctly is trying to be inclusive in prayer. This is a good thing. We should not exclude these people from using bad Coptenglish because they can't properly use British/American English. Now my question to you, as a convert, is why do you even want Arabic? If you have not gone through elementary school in the Middle East, (like myself), then your Arabic (and mine) is going to be considered bad Arabic. If you or I want to share prayer in Arabic, should we be excluded and be reduced to participating indirectly through a screen? I know you don't believe that. If you did, your screen name would not be an Arabic word. 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited September 2014
    Dear Rem,

    I'm not sure "I misunderstood you", but your post completely misses my point and seems to misunderstand me as well.  So, it seems like we are both missing something in each other's posts that I do not know what exactly, but I thought my previous post adequately answered some of the issues you re-wrote in this post.  When I get the time, I'll see if I can try to offer a fuller response.

    I'll touch quickly on one issue.  We are the Orthodox Church in (or sojourning in) _________  (fill in blank).  In other words, we're not American Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox in, we are simply Orthodox in (or for completeness sake, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church located in under the auspices of so-and-so bishop).  And if we use some liturgy we already know, we use what we already have, just as the Apostles used the Jewish Liturgy in practically every place.  St. Mark did not invent the Coptic rite.  So I'm not saying to change into the culture, but to change into the language of the group.  And I only advocate 50% of another language if that roughly corresponds to what the demographic language is.  I can safely assume less than 5% of Copts (probably way less) speak Coptic (so that should never be 50%).  IF a Copt knows Chinese and wants to do a mission in Chinatown, or knows Spanish and wants to do a mission in Cuban Miami, okay fine.  I don't know why it's so difficult to understand.  And if our demographic is now mostly second generation and youth and converts, it's time to phase out the Arabic and do majority English.

    My allowance for Coptic is on the small stuff (not Axion ke dikeon alone, but the whole prayer after that should be vernacular, Hiten Nis are repetitive and easy to understand, but Thanksgiving Prayer should be vernacular, Kyrie Eleison is fine, but Amen Amen Amen Ton Thanaton so Kyrie should be vernacular...get my point?).  And the idea that a misunderstanding of "meet and right" invalidates the reason for the vernacular makes no sense to me.  (and normally, people who already know the Lord's Prayer by heart, when translating into another language, it's not a big deal either; in fact, I know it in Coptic and Aramaic, but I don't teach people Coptic or Aramaic first; they have to first know it in their own language...let's be practical here; PhD scholars do not make the majority of a church--and I don't know if you have a PhD, but you're as good as a PhD to me :) ).
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited September 2014
    The Church St. Frumentius lead was never called the Church of Alexandria in Ethiopia.  It was always called the Church of Ethiopia (it was never called "Alexandria).  Calling it Coptic was only a much much much later appellation.  Case in point:  The British Orthodox Church.

    If you notice in history, every bishop is named with the city he resides in, because the Church is also called by that city.  Pentapolis was not the Alexandrian Church in Pentapolis, it was the Church of or in Pentapolis, even though it was under the auspices or arbitership of the archbishop of Alexandria.
  • ophadeceophadece
    @Remenkimi,
    No St Paul wasn't discussing reaching out to everyone in their own language for them to understand. Please refrain from interpreting biblical passages your own way. This is not clever at all. Another thing, to claim that saying ta ma he sn so lo km for someone next to me to say they do understand and that qualifies as a communication medium, aka a language is beyond funny. However I do understand you've never been to such churches or know what goes on inside. I'm not sure even if YouTube paints the right picture.
    @minasoliman,
    I'm not comfortable with you saying the apostles carried on using the Jewish liturgy! Yes I do believe St Mark did invent his own liturgy for the Coptic church and now that's called the Cyrilian liturgy.
    Oujai
  • cyril
    Thanks Mina and Rem
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi





    @minasoliman

    Are you sure it was called the Church of Ethiopia when St Frementius came? I guess we need to position our arguments in a specific location of time and space. While the Church of Ethiopia, just like the Church of Pentapolis, are one and the same church, my understanding is that ecclesiastically it became the Church of Alexandria under Canon 6 of Nicaea. (Luckily Canon 6 actually mentions Pentapolis)

    "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

    The canon clearly states that the custom predates the Nicene council. Alexandria has jurisdiction over Pentapolis and Ethiopia (and essentially the whole African continent and now suffragan dioceses through out the world). 

    Each city has the Church and should be called the Church of that city or in that city. However, the ancient "Churches retain their privilege." I guess that would include the privilege to be recognized in the title of suffragan diocese. So the Church of Boston should also be understood as the Church of Alexandria in Boston. This distinction is sometimes necessary because all "ancient Churches" have now included suffragan dioceses throughout the world and many in one city. The only thing that differentiates these suffragan dioceses is ecumenical councils and culture. (I'm not going to waste anyone's time arguing for Protestant Churches. By Churches, I mean Orthodox Churches). So the Church of Boston, practically can mean (1) the Orthodox Church in Boston that follow Non-Chalcedonian theology devoid of a particular culture, (2) the Orthodox Church in Boston that follows Chalcedonian theology devoid of a particular culture, (3) the Orthodox Church in Boston that follows Non-Chalcedonian theology and historically and culturally follows and is under the authority of the Church of Alexandria. (4) the Orthodox Church in Boston that follow Chalcedonian theology and historically and culturally follows and is under the authority of the Church of Greece. (5-?) Now include the 5 other Non-Chalcedonian families and the 14? other Chalcedonian families. All of these suffragan diocese are found in Boston and their distinction helps us understand that theological and cultural differences exist.

    Even if the faith is identical (i.e., we remove the distinction of Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian), we still have to accept the cultural impact of each "church". Theologically, this should not be the case. We are all part of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. But we cannot ignore the cultural identity of each church. If we did, then like I said in a previous post, we have to essentially remove everything we know, like language, music, customs, food, etc. This is not what anyone is advocating. We are advocating how much culture should we accept (which I will respond to your other post)

    We also have to retain the "privilege of each ancient church" as predicated by Nicaea Canon 6. So saying the Church of Alexandria in Ethiopia or the Church of Alexandria in Pentapolis seems to be what Nicaea Canon 6 implied. While I prefer to be called the Church in Boston, it doesn't identify and position my church in time and space in the ecclesiastical mixture we now live in. 

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    @ophadece,
    If St Paul was not discussing reaching out to everyone in their own language for them to understand, especially in 1 Cor 14, please support your counter-argument with references. Saying I'm interpreting biblical passages my own way, is not constructive. 

    I assume the second part of your counterargument speaks of glossolalia from the Pentecostal or Charismatic Protestant churches. I'm not going to defend Protestant Churches. But one cannot deny that glossolalia is a gift that our own Orthodox fathers enjoyed. St Peter did in the Pentecost. St Antony did it to respond to Greek philosophers, as did St Pachomius for the same reason. St Pachomius did it with St Theodore and other Greek monks. Now if you don't want to call glossolalia a language, that is your choice. It is still tangential to the whole argument anyways. 

    Also if you want to believe St Mark did invent his own liturgy for the Coptic Church that is now called the Cyrillian liturgy, then again that is your choice. Others will believe that St Mark's oral teachings became the liturgy and he used both Jewish customs (which we still follow now) as well as Egyptian customs of his time. All of these developed over centuries into the liturgy we now call the Cyrillian liturgy. 
  • baempibaempi
    What about the old style garb? Do you think the missionary church priests should have a slightly more contemporary appearance?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi





    @minasoliman,

    Most of what you wrote is agreeable to both of us. Let us discuss some points.

    minasoliman wrote:

    "So I'm not saying to change into the culture, but to change into the language of the group.  And I only advocate 50% of another language if that roughly corresponds to what the demographic language is.  I can safely assume less than 5% of Copts (probably way less) speak Coptic (so that should never be 50%). "

    First let me clarify that I am not saying we should force anything on any body, especially a foreign language. If this is not agreed on, then everything coming is pointless.

    I don't agree that the usage of a liturgical language is dependent on the demographics or on linguistic competency. By your logic, If 100% of Copts speak bad Coptenglish (like "and with your ESPIRIT", a second or third grade vocabulary proficiency, verbs before nouns, etc), then we should abandon proper English and abandon the liturgical translation we have now and use 100% Coptenglish for all services. 

    In addition if one person in the entire church knows 100% Coptic and 100% Coptic services is the means for establishing a relationship with God, you are basically telling him "Tough luck buddy. You get only 5% because that is the demographics of the area and if you can't establish that relationship with God through English proper then go somewhere else. You're a lost cause." Yet, Matthew 18 and Luke 15 tells us that even if one person is lost (and I would say that "different than the majority" is included in the meaning of "lost"), the only logical thing is to do whatever it takes to get that one lost person, even if you abandon the ninety-nine. If that means the ninety-nine don't get the preferential amount of English so that the one may get 100% Coptic, then it is still an act of love. 

    What I have been advocating is that we should have services in proper English, in Coptenglish, in Coptic proper, in whatever language is used, in long hymns, in short hymns, in whatever it takes so that 100% of the people come to God even if it is not something I personally prefer.

    You also wrote:

    "IF a Copt knows Chinese and wants to do a mission in Chinatown, or knows Spanish and wants to do a mission in Cuban Miami, okay fine.  I don't know why it's so difficult to understand."

    You're missing the point of what I was saying. It is not only about doing mission work in a foreign country. If a Coptic convert from China comes to your church and his primary language is not English and he sits next to you and wants to share in prayer, what do you do? You figure out a way to communicate in Chinese. I'm not saying we must require all Copts to learn Chinese and all 5000+ current living languages. I am saying that the vernacular is not appropriate 100% of the time - which is what people who advocate removing Coptic or Arabic argue. What does the "mind of Christ" say in Philippians 2? It doesn't say "Tough luck buddy. No Chinese here, ever." Neither does it say "Tough luck, fanatic Copt. No more Coptic here in America."

    The remaining part of your post reiterates your preferences of allowable Coptic. It makes complete sense to you but it would be considered blasphemy to someone else. I know in your list, you include simple Coptic that is easily understandable. Others will argue that they are perfectly fine saying more complex Coptic while not understanding Coptic because they are comfortable with the translation. Others will argue that not even Kyrie eleson is appropriate. I'm not going to argue one list of allowable Coptic vs another. All I am trying to say is that if your list allows any Coptic and you (or anyone in church) still does not understand what they're saying then why are we even arguing competency or understandability at all? The only reason I see is to politicize one's own preference. 

  • meenahannameenahanna
    edited September 2014
    I am dumbfounded by some of the statements above. Persistence in using the Coptic dialect is unrational ( in my opinion).  Is it fair for the youth to attend a liturgy and ask them to follow along some projector/screen or liturgical book if they want to understand what we are praising. Is that how we reveal who Christ is.....is He that impersonable and unapproachable and tough to taste!!!  Why these stumbling blocks we place before the youth and even the adults. Coptic language at the expense of understanding/preaching/ and even reconciling the youth with Christ is ludicrous. Forgive me but  I feel you don't understand this point.  As a high school servant, I assure you that some if not many Youth in our church do not have a relationship with the Church or even the Lord Himself. I am so saddened by this discussion that I wonder if the deacons of the church who hold these views of maintaining the Coptic language at the expense of their brothers are truly servants of Christ. Forgive me, but wake up, many youth are leaving the church and we need to address it. The least we can do is speak their language. All these deacons do is insist on singing long hymns and in coptic/arabic. The Coptic language is not GOD. Our identity is Christ Himself. Wake up, the youth need more English in the church and specifically in its liturgical services. Do you guys even comprehend the intricacies of your praises. You cannot contend that you know the meaning praise i f you did not read the Spirituality of Rights of the Midnight Praises (by Bishop Mettaious) (note this is not his book of the Liturgy, but tasbeha). I am sorry but please help us serve the youth and reveal Christ to them.  I believe it is time we stop electing priests/church board members from the deaconate and start choosing them from highschool youth servants or leaders.  Forgive me for being blunt i am amazed at what is being said.   
  • baempibaempi
    Meenahanna,
    That is an unfortunate situation in your church. I think there are likely other causes than liturgical language causing the youth to leave the church where you are at.  I have spent my whole life in 2 churches basically.  They are about 75-80% English and 20-25% Coptic/Arabic but the youth don't flee like your situation. There have been a couple who have lost their way here and there but it is very uncommon. Please consider looking for other reasons for this exodus. The Word and word of God are more powerful than we are.
    Picaji de ente epchois efeaiai ouoh efeashai efe amahi ouoh efetagro khen tiagia enekklesia ente efnouti amen.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi





    “I am dumbfounded by some of the statements above.”

    Thank you for proving my point: One person’s acceptable level of Egyptian cultural influence is another person’s abomination of desolation.


    “Persistence in using the Coptic dialect is unrational ( in my opinion).”

    And that it is…just your opinion. You have created a cause and effect relationship that doesn’t exist. Just because one insists (not persists) to use Coptic, it does not mean such insistence is irrational. (And thank you for proving my point on Coptenglish - unrational is not an English word). If you can show that insistence on using Coptic causes youth to leave the Church, then you might have a point. But Coptic does not cause the youth to leave the Church. People cause the youth to leave the church. 


    “Is it fair for the youth to attend a liturgy and ask them to follow along some projector/screen or liturgical book if they want to understand what we are praising.”

    Yes it is. Asking someone to follow along on a screen or a book is very fair. Every church in the world gives books to the congregation to follow along. What I assume you’re asking is “Is it fair to have some one follow on a screen or a book in a different language.” And my answer again is yes. Read 1 Cor 14. Did St Paul tell the Corinthians to ban the foreign language/tongue or prophecy? No. Did St Paul say no interpretation/translation allowed. All prophecy and instruction must be in the vernacular. No.


    Now is it fair for you to decide that youth who must attend a liturgy with only English is more important than anyone else who wants Arabic or Coptic or any other language? Is it fair for you to decide that those who want another language are causing the youth to perish, but it is perfectly ok to dismiss all those people who want Arabic or Coptic? Are the youth who want English more important than the youth and the non-youth who want Coptic and English?


    “Is that how we reveal who Christ is.....is He that impersonable and unapproachable and tough to taste!!!”

    Your questions (if we can really call them questions) have more implications than you perceive. If you ware talking about Christ as the Logos, then yes He is unapproachable, infinite, ineffable and everything we are not (unless you want to disagree with St Gregory and his liturgy). Now if by impersonable, (which again is not an English word), you meant impersonal, than no because Christ emptied Himself for us to touch and taste. How this relates to language is beyond me. 


    “Why these stumbling blocks we place before the youth and even the adults.”

    The stumbling block is not Coptic or any language. It is this attitude and this sense of entitlement that argues liturgical service must conform to my preference that stumbles the youth and adults.


    “Coptic language at the expense of understanding/preaching/ and even reconciling the youth with Christ is ludicrous.”

    Provide any evidence that Coptic language is an enmity between the youth and Christ. Provide any reference where anyone said the Coptic language must come at the expense of understanding or preaching or reconciliation with Christ. What does “reconciling the youth with Christ even mean”? Is Coptic preventing Christ from being God who is capable to reconcile with anyone? Did I also not say “I am not saying we should force anything on any body, especially a foreign language”?  No one is arguing that Coptic is God. But condemning people who do not agree with your preference of English makes you a judge in place of God. 


    “As a high school servant, I assure you that some if not many Youth in our church do not have a relationship with the Church or even the Lord Himself.”

    And Coptic is the cause of this sin? Maybe these many youth have no relationship with the Church or even the Lord Himself because they chose to abandon God and the Church without any influence of Coptic. 


    “Forgive me, but wake up, many youth are leaving the church and we need to address it.”

    And did using English or Arabic prevent the youth from leaving the church? I doubt it has. If you want to address the problem, identify the real cause; whatever it may be. Don’t make Coptic the scapegoat.


    “The least we can do is speak their language.”

    Isn’t that what I have been saying all along? My question to you is, would feel this same way if “their language” was not English? 


    “Do you guys even comprehend the intricacies of your praises. You cannot contend that you know the meaning praise i f you did not read the Spirituality of Rights of the Midnight Praises (by Bishop Mettaious) (note this is not his book of the Liturgy, but tasbeha).”

    And this phrase is why I am not responding in a more compassionate language. You want to fix a perceived problem of language by judging and condemning me on how incompetent I understand the intricacies of Coptic praises. Is that in Bishop Mattaos’ book? I am incompetent in understanding Coptic praises but that does not mean it gives a justifiable reason to abandon Coptic praise or the Coptic language.


    “I am sorry but please help us serve the youth and reveal Christ to them.”

    Have you ever stopped to think that the youth may see Christ revealed through Coptic and Coptic praise? Have you ever stopped to think that Coptic hymns reveal Christ in a most sublime and profound way that has nothing to do with language?  


    “I believe it is time we stop electing priests/church board members from the deaconate and start choosing them from highschool youth servants or leaders.”

    Who says priest and church board members are chosen from the diaconate? (It is diaconate, not deacon ate.) Did you hear it from any bishop? Why do you insist on judging and condemning the actions of everyone because it does not conform to your perceived analysis of the youth? 


    “Forgive me for being blunt i am amazed at what is being said.”

    Being blunt is not a sin. Judging is. Try discussing what is being said without judging.   

  • ophadeceophadece
    edited September 2014
    @Remenkimi,
    What happens in some contemporary protestant churches is not glossolalia. Secondly I am sure you have ample resources of fathers who interpret St Paul the correct way. Thirdly thanks for correcting your position on St Mark. Jewish as well as Coptic customs is different to @minasoliman saying Jewish liturgy..
    Oujai
  • mrpete33mrpete33
    If we keep up this failed experiment, this notion that "saying everything in Coptic makes it holier because its somehow a holier language or more rooted in something apostolic or more Christiany or because other people did it" I fear for what we have to answer for offending the little ones.

    No one will ever be evangelized or brought into the fold via Coptic (unless some weird scholar who knows the language). Lets pretend somebody was brought into the fold because Coptic "sounded nice" then they would be loving a sound, an emotion, a movement of feelings rather than loving Christ and building the foundation upon Christ, as delivered by His Apostles, safeguarded by the Fathers and bequeathed to us by the Church.

    We might, however, (especially in a country where know everyone atleast has a small tiny bit of proficiency in the English language) bring someone to Christ by using all English. By bringing Christ to people and removing the stumbling block of learning a language or removing the barrier of having to tolerate chanting (note: chant in coptic is not prayer since it is unintelligible to everyone. If you get it, that doesnt make it prayer, it makes you selfish for subjecting everyone to 'chanting' so that ONLY you might pray) in some foreign language and wait till the next part in English.

    How in the heck do we ever think we are going to have our youth and our people fall in love with Christ and begin their journey with Him if all we ever do is try to make them love a language or love some particular "rite" or love the sound of coptic. Christ is Person, the Trinity is a communion of Persons! No legalism or abstract feelings will ever make me love someone, why do we think it is less so with God. No one could ever tell me to go and try to love a brother of mine who speaks only in Coptic or who speaks only in Japanese. (please no one go on tangents about long distance relationships between people who dont speak the same language). God does speak our language! God speaks to us where we are! Certainly the fathers would say that many times God would speak to the Jews in a compassionate way by addressing them where they were morally and ethically and in terms of understanding, etc etc.

    Why do we set an obstacle for our youth? Why do we set obstacles for each other? I always feel that if St. Athanasius was alive today and North American he would smack us upside the head for imagining 'prayer' could ever happen in an unfamiliar language.

    Pray for me
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I'm going to say it a third time: "we should force anything on any body, especially a foreign language”. No one is saying Coptic is a holier language or more rooted in Christianity. No one is saying Coptic is the ends or the only reason for evangelizing. 

    What I am saying is the logic for avoiding Coptic because people don't understand Coptic applies to English. We should avoid English because people do not understand English if that is the reason to avoid Coptic. For some reason it is stumbling block for Coptic but not a stumbling block for English. We tolerate people for using really bad English that is barely comprehensibly, yet we condemn people who use Coptic. Is that the love of Christ you want to evangelize?

    I find it offensive that you can condemn hundreds if not thousands of years of Coptic chant as false prayer and unintelligible. Even if Coptic chant is unintelligible to everyone, it is still prayer. Or is Romans 8:26 a lie?

    And I guess the one sheep in Christ's parable that made the Shepherd leave the ninety nine sheep was selfish, subjecting ninety-nine sheep to disharmony so that ONLY one might be with the shepherd? No wait, the Shepherd was selfish for choosing to leave ninety-nine sheep to look for the one sheep. That must be it. Christ is selfish when he hears any prayer in Coptic. 

    And if you only go and try to love a brother who speaks your own language and not Coptic or Japanese, are you not showing favoritism? Or is 1 Timothy 5:21 and James 2:9 also a lie?

    St Athanasius wrote in both Greek as lingua franca to other bishops and patrons and Coptic to the monks who needed it (as the theory goes). Why didn't he just speak Greek, the lingua franca, to everyone, just like you are advocating English, the current lingua franca? Maybe someone should smack St Athanasius upside the head for even using Coptic.

    The obstacle is not the language. It is the persistent faulty reason that language causes an irreparable schism between youth and God. 
  • qawe
    @Remnkemi

    "Have you ever stopped to think that Coptic hymns reveal Christ in a most sublime and profound way that has nothing to do with language?"

    This is where I, and most opponents of Coptic, disagree with you. The revelation of Christ is principally through the words. All the other ways in which Christ is revealed (eg tune, the sound of Coptic) are secondary. So it is clear that proponents of Coptic either:
    1) are selfish and understand the words, but no-one else can benefit, OR worse...
    2) have an emotional affinity with the tune/sound of Coptic, which makes them no better (ok, a bit better) than those who advocate Evangelical/Protestant/Hillsong/CCM in church merely because it sounds nice (to them).
  • meenahannameenahanna
    edited September 2014
    @Rem

    I am not a person who responds line by line, because I am not attacking a specific person, but a certain mentality. For if I was to address you personally this conversation would be very different. I alluded to people in general in my prior thread.

    What is the insistence in praying in a foreign language?  I admire your love for the Coptic Language, but I assure you that preserving the language is not a role of the church. The role of the church is the salvation of the members. I am not just advocating speaking/praising in English. I am insisting that church return to her Orthodox roots and teach her children the true faith. The true faith with works is necessary for salvation, not language.

    As you know, tongues are no longer necessary in the church. Majority of scholars and theologians confer with this point. Furthermore, the youth, do not need additional stumbling blocks. Let them read in the screen and hear the prayer in a different language. I pray that this mentality dies in our church. The mentality that Coptic is essential for our salvation. I would not argue whether Coptic hinders or the youth from getting closer to Christ. That is a frivolous/fruitless argument. It is clear that praying in another language is at times a stumbling block. The youth are not individuals like yourself, but people who do not want to get to know HIM. And when they come in church, let’s place additional stumbling blocks, such as, praying in a foreign language, singing excessive solo Coptic hymns, treating the language as a performance….the list goes on.

     @mrpete33 I  completely agree with you. Don’t worry I am realizing.

     @Rem, on a light note, perhaps my English and grammar would be better if the church used more English. Lol.Overall, the language is not what is essential but our relationship with God. The thrice blessed pope Shenouda states: Some people chant these hymns with void of any relationship with God. (See: Relationship with God, العلاقه مع الله  15:00-17:35).  See:
  • qawe
    edited September 2014
    "Even if Coptic chant is unintelligible to everyone, it is still prayer."

    Granted, but chanting in an intelligible language is far superior.

    "And if you only go and try to love a brother who speaks your own language and not Coptic or Japanese, are you not showing favoritism?"

    Everyone in North America (ie living in an English-speaking area, not some obscure Spanish area you are talking about) who understands Coptic or Japanese also understands English. Use of English kills 2 birds with 1 stone.

    "St Athanasius wrote in both Greek as lingua franca to other bishops and patrons and Coptic to the monks who needed it"

    A ridiculous argument! No one 'needs' to be spoken to in Coptic, because everyone who knows Coptic also knows another language (eg Arabic/English). Those monks probably only knew Coptic.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited September 2014
    @ophadeece,

    I don't understand your objection to my referencing of "Jewish Liturgy".  Practically every Liturgical rite takes its ancestral root in Jewish liturgical practices.  The way we gather, the "Lord have mercies", the "Lord of Sabaoth" hymn, the structure of the liturgy, the reading of the scriptures, the kiss of peace, the Eucharist (yes, the Eucharist is Jewish in its origin), the responses to the priest, all of that was Jewish.  Later on, the people built up on the liturgy with the hymns, which morphed and evolved slowly into the various rites we have today.  But if one is immersed into the structure of liturgy, you can go anywhere and not get lost because you can take a good educated guess what comes next in the liturgical prayers.

    The Coptic elements came from St. Mark's direct descendants.  He probably had to learn some Coptic, or at least had some Greek-speaking Copts to help him out.  But the Jewishness of every liturgy is very self-evident.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    "The revelation of Christ is principally through the words. All the other ways in which Christ is revealed (eg tune, the sound of Coptic) are secondary."

    Really? 
    in·ef·fa·ble; inˈefəbəl/
    adjective
    1. too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words.

    So then when we say "Ineffable is the is the power of Your wisdom. No manner of speech can measure the depth of Your love toward mankind", we are really saying the power of Your wisdom is only a secondary revelation. The only real revelation must be in my vernacular to be a primary revelation. The depth of Your love toward mankind can only be properly measured through words. And anyone who experiences the power of Your wisdom and Your love toward mankind outside of words is selfish and only has an emotional (or superficial) affinity with Your love toward mankind.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    "The mentality that Coptic is essential for our salvation. 
    I'm going to say it a fourth time: "we should force anything on any body, especially a foreign language”. No one is saying Coptic is essential for our salvation. 

    "I would not argue whether Coptic hinders or the youth from getting closer to Christ. That is a frivolous/fruitless argument. "
    That frivolous/fruitless argument is exactly what you are arguing when you say "And when they come in church, let’s place additional stumbling blocks, such as, praying in a foreign language, singing excessive solo Coptic hymns, treating the language as a performance….the list goes on." You are arguing Coptic hinders the youth from Christ. You (and proponents of removing Coptic) have not provided any evidence how Coptic hinders the youth from Christ. You and others have not provided evidence how much Coptic is ok and how much is detrimental. You and others have refused to acknowledge that in a 100% vernacular, non-Coptic environment, youth are still leaving Christ. And worse of all, you and others refuse to recognize that by claiming that the Church must use the vernacular for the youth and ignore everyone who wants the non-vernacular, is in effect judging and condemning these proponents of the non-vernacular as secondary citizens of the Church, selfish parishioners, and the cause of sin. 
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    "Granted, but chanting in an intelligible language is far superior."
    God understand what you consider an unintelligible language. Anyone who uses this language you call unintelligible (theoretically) understands the language. And if praying in an intelligible language is far superior than the Holy Spirit who intercedes in wordless groans willingly uses an inferior method of communication. 

    ""And if you only go and try to love a brother who speaks your own language and not Coptic or Japanese, are you not showing favoritism?"
    Everyone in North America (ie living in an English-speaking area, not some obscure Spanish area you are talking about) who understands Coptic or Japanese also understands English. Use of English kills 2 birds with 1 stone."
    So if favoritism is convenient and kills 2 birds with 1 stone, then it is justifiable? 1 Tim 5:21 and James 2:9 are lies. Good to know.

    "A ridiculous argument! No one 'needs' to be spoken to in Coptic, because everyone who knows Coptic also knows another language (eg Arabic/English). Those monks probably only knew Coptic."
    So years of research on the benefits of bilingualism is a ridiculous argument? By that same argument, no one "needs' to be spoken in Arabic, because everyone in America probably also knows English.
Sign In or Register to comment.