› ›

Resurrection Re-Enactment

kyrollos faheemkyrollos faheem
edited April 2011 in Hymns Discussion
Hello everyone,

I've seen many variations of the way the Resurrection Re-Enactment is conducted. As we all know, in the cathedral, the lights are turned off and the curtain is closed immediately after the Acts are read. Then "O Nim Nai," "Ya kol asofoof," "The Resurrection Enactment" are prayed, then the lights are turned back on and the curtain opens again. In many churches, I've seen a variety where the lights are turned off only at the end or even the middle of "Ya kol asofoof."

My question is which way is correct? What is the Holy Synod's stance on this issue if it has ever been addressed in one of its annual meetings? Thanks a lot and take care.
«1

Comments

  • epchois_nai_nanepchois_nai_nan
    This will be a completely unhelpful post because not only am I not answering your question, I'm adding another to it :)

    I've heard that the Resurrection Re-enactment is an Eastern Orthodox tradition which we've only been practicing for about 150 years, but I'm sure its much older than that. Does anybody know how old the tradition actually is?

    PS: "O Ni Emnai" a pet peeve of mine. The Coptic text is: `w nim nai cumvonia = O, what are these sounds?

    `w = O (O!)
    nim = Nim (who?)
    nai = Nai (these)
    cumvonia = simfonia (sounds/voices - root of the English word 'symphony')

    So it should be pronounced "O Nim Nai", not "O Ni EM-nai".

    PFM
  • kyrollos faheemkyrollos faheem
    I corrected it. Finally, I saw someone who is concerned about the way the Coptic language should be pronunciated. Thanks for the correction. And another thing, how do you write Coptic like that on the forums?
  • epchois_nai_nanepchois_nai_nan
    You click the 'font' button above - the red 'A' on the right. That'll give you two html brackets in the text editing box - just change Verdana to CS Avva Shenouda

    God bless





  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    The Enactment is of Greek origin....not coptic tradition. The enactment itself is not controversial at all. What to do is written in books and need not to be changed. What many do something, including my church, is that it's an enactment. It's like a theater presentation you are showing to everyone. we don't turn on the light in one time....we do it in increments while we say ya kol-al-sofof. ALSO, we Sanctuary doors we close with the lights. the rest i don't need to explain. just watch this: http://copticmedia.org/2007/05/18/episode-33-online/

    the thing is that there are many factors. the basics to do are written in books than we can elaborate on when we do. In the Cathedral, which is the only liturgy that everyone watches, they have many limitations. It's not that way in other churches.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    The Enactment is of Greek origin....not coptic tradition. The enactment itself is not controversial at all. What to do is written in books and need not to be changed. What many do something, including my church, is that it's an enactment. It's like a theater presentation you are showing to everyone. we don't turn on the light in one time....we do it in increments while we say ya kol-al-sofof. ALSO, we Sanctuary doors we close with the lights. the rest i don't need to explain. just watch this: Coptic Media Productions - Archive - Episode 33 Online

    the thing is that there are many factors. the basics to do are written in books than we can elaborate on when we do. In the Cathedral, which is the only liturgy that everyone watches, they have many limitations. It's not that way in other churches.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    The Enactment is of Greek origin....not coptic tradition. The enactment itself is not controversial at all. What to do is written in books and need not to be changed. What many do something, including my church, is that it's an enactment. It's like a theater presentation you are showing to everyone. we don't turn on the light in one time....we do it in increments while we say ya kol-al-sofof. ALSO, we Sanctuary doors we close with the lights. the rest i don't need to explain. just watch this: Coptic Media Productions - Archive - Episode 33 Online

    the thing is that there are many factors. the basics to do are written in books than we can elaborate on when we do. In the Cathedral, which is the only liturgy that everyone watches, they have many limitations. It's not that way in other churches.
  • imikhailimikhail
    The old books (40 years) say that during the enactment, two kids holding candles stand opposite to each other at the door of the altar symbolizing the two angles at the tomb.
  • Michael Boutros
    At our church Abouna is very adamant on keeping it to the bare minimum when it comes to theatrics. Lights turn off, the enactment is... enacted, lights turn on and the deacon just hits the deaf a couple of times. Best part is when some Tonts in the congregation clap! It's pretty amazing really!
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11187.msg135030#msg135030 date=1301749559]
    The old books (40 years) say that during the enactment, two kids holding candles stand opposite to each other at the door of the altar symbolizing the two angles at the tomb.

    well that's what is controversial now....the symbolism of everything in the enactment.
    Some say that it's a scene from Judgment Day with Jesus going into heaven (the sanctuary) with the righteous behind him.
    Some say that it's Jesus going into Paradise with the righteous He delivered from Hades after the Resurrection.
    Some say that it's a scene of the Resurrection.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    I thought would be a good example to read:
    The Spiritual Meaning of Resurrection Enactment
    By, H.G. Bishop Youssef
    Bishop, Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Since we're talking about pet peeves, I have another one. Why do we all the "Resurrection enactment" an enactment at all? As implied in previous posts, an enactment implies theatrics and sensory enticement. Theatrics, everyone knows, takes away from spiritual depth. Why do we not call it the "Resurrection Commemoration". This removes any implication of theatrics.

    If we look to the Eucharist, which is a commandment to do in remembrance of Christ, we don't call the eucharist an enactment. The same is true with the Triumphant procession of the Entry Feast into the Temple (aka, Palm Sunday), or the Triumphant procession and elevation of the Cross, or the burial of Good Friday, or the processions of Bright Saturday. All of them are commemorations of Christ's salvation for us, yet none are called enactment. Why do we call the most important salvation event (in the words of St Paul in 1 Cor 15), the Resurrection, an enactment? Doesn't it seem so wrong?
  • imikhailimikhail
    There is a big difference between the resurrection enactment and the Eucharist. During the Eucharist the Holy Spirit descends and changes the offering to the body and the blood of Jesus. The Eucharist is not just an enactment but an actual living of the SAME moments the disciples lived with Jesus during the Last Supper, the SAME moments before the cross and the Same moments of Resurrection.

    The resurrection enactment there is no Holy Spirit and no consecration.

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I know there is a difference. But there is no Holy Spirit consecration in the other events I mentioned, yet we do not call them enactments. I can't imagine someone saying, "The Judas Enactment" or the "Washing of the Feet Enactment" on Pascha Thursday. It's simply called the "Washing of the feet" or "The Blessing of the Water Rite".

    You get the idea.
  • imikhailimikhail
    The events you mentioned are original rites in the Coptic Church. However, the resurrection one is a recent addition and thus got the name "enactment" or "act".

  • ophadeceophadece
    I am with Remenkimi on this one. Adopting the rites from a sister church doesn't make it any less of a rite than other "more original" ones.
    Oujai
  • imikhailimikhail
    I did not say it is any less. I am just saying that this is how the ritual books refer to it since it was not mentioned in the  original books. In arabic it is called tamthileya meaning that it was an addition to the original rite.

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I don't see the logic. How does the date of its introduction into the rite have anything to do with what it is or what it is called? In all books (with the exception of HCOC's Deacon Servant Book) nothing is said about the date of the introduction. They all see it as a re-enactment, not a commemoration (which is how all other liturgical events are viewed). The Church always sees our rites as commemoration of events that have a deep spiritual meaning. An enactment or re-enactment, by definition, only implies a repetituous story telling.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11187.msg135080#msg135080 date=1301806319]
    I don't see the logic. How does the date of its introduction into the rite have anything to do with what it is or what it is called? In all books (with the exception of HCOC's Deacon Servant Book) nothing is said about the date of the introduction. They all see it as a re-enactment, not a commemoration (which is how all other liturgical events are viewed). The Church always sees our rites as commemoration of events that have a deep spiritual meaning. An enactment or re-enactment, by definition, only implies a repetituous story telling.

    I am with you on this....but i have to say that in this, we kind of do much more than a "commemoration." you are acting out what happened. In other occasions, like ones that you listed, none can be close to be called "enactments." we commemorate those events. we try to live within them but we don't entirely separate a special occasion to "enact what happened." So i have to stick to the idea of calling at, an enactment. The commemoration of the Resurrection is not only based on this rite. we have 50 other days to celebrate and commemorate the Resurrection.

    Now about adapting the rite from a sister church....i really don't know what to say. i am sure there are many things that got into our Church this way but i am sure none of them is as modern as this.....but what are you gonna say?!!!
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Mina, I disagree. all of the other events I mentioned are entirely separate, a special occasion for each. There is only 1 time we commemorate the betrayal of Judas. We even have an actual act or processing or moving around the church. Yet are we enacting what Judas did or are we commemorating what happened to Jesus? The same with the Resurrection. Are we enacting or acting out what angels did and said or are we commemorating the Christ's restoration of Adam from Hades to Paradise? If we simply are enacting or acting out, we would only be carbon copying what happened, like a civil war enactment. But if we are commemorating what happened, we are automatically spiritually and consciously using our minds to find meaning in what Christ did. This is the definition of commemoration. And I think this is what Bishop Youssef's article wanted to stress. Although I think he simply titled it wrong.
    George

    PS. Mina, I need technical help. Every time I hit the quote button, I get flagged as spam. That's why I didn't simply quote your message. How do I stop that?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel

    Mina, I disagree. all of the other events I mentioned are entirely separate, a special occasion for each. There is only 1 time we commemorate the betrayal of Judas. We even have an actual act or processing or moving around the church. Yet are we enacting what Judas did or are we commemorating what happened to Jesus? The same with the Resurrection.
    hehe. i knew you would bring this up because i did think about it when abouna told me once that there are church who actually make a person but a tonia on, inside out and moving in the zaffa backwards. but even with that extreme way, it is still a commemoration. also, you didn't understand what i meant by "this separate rite." the commemorations we have in church are all mixed into all the services leading to the liturgy and communion. Even the zaffa itself done in most of the feasts, it is a declaration of the good news of that feast. so still stand to what i said, that rite is best called an "enactment" better than a commemoration. that fits what we do and separates it from the reset of the services we have.

    Are we enacting or acting out what angels did and said or are we commemorating the Christ's restoration of Adam from Hades to Paradise? If we simply are enacting or acting out, we would only be carbon copying what happened, like a civil war enactment. But if we are commemorating what happened, we are automatically spiritually and consciously using our minds to find meaning in what Christ did. This is the definition of commemoration. And I think this is what Bishop Youssef's article wanted to stress. Although I think he simply titled it wrong.
    George
    Well...that what i was saying when i said it controversial.

    "PS. Mina, I need technical help. Every time I hit the quote button, I get flagged as spam. That's why I didn't simply quote your message. How do I stop that?"
    it's a a new way to limiting spammers. so most posts that have "quotes" or links will be flagged as spam. the way to fix this: don't use the "quote" tag much (i like to use red colors now). Also, links, try to use the "url" tag (it been working for me here.)
  • imikhailimikhail
    I guess some missed my comments in an earlier post so I am repeating here.

    It MUST be understood that the ONLY place we relive the same moments of suffering, death and resurrection of our Lord is during the LITURGY.

    During the liturgy we are, like the apostles before us, living the same moment at the Last Supper, we are standing before the cross and are witnessing the resurrection.

    As for the enactment of the Resurrection, it is just that an enactment for we DO NOT live the same moments of resurrection.

    As for the Judas procession, it is a condemnation of what Judas did to our Lord. We DO NOT live what Judas did.,

    So whatever name used to resurrection, it is an act or enactment and NOT reliving.


    Thanks
  • mabsootamabsoota
    whatever we call it, it's awesome, and i like it loud, it's really moving.
    i also like the complete silence just before that and the chant and response 'lift up your heads, you gates' etc.
    it is the most moving part for me in the church services, followed closely by Good Friday.

    could someone please post the links to the hymns? i might just have time to learn them, so far i'm 25% through ya kull is sifoof (oh, all the heavenly armies), so i don't promise to get them perfect in time for the paschal liturgy  ;)
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    maboota, did you watch our enactment in the link i posted below?
  • imikhailimikhail
    Just to make things more clear. The words "commemorate" and "remembrance" are reserved for reliving the minutes of incarnation, baptism, death, burial, and resurrection - the act of redemption. So, we cannot use these words for the resurrection act, or Judas procession.

    In commemoration, through the Holy Spirit, we relive the events of salvation. This only happens in the Liturgy.

    I agree that that the enactment of resurrection and Judas procession are done within the scope of the liturgy service. However, they are not essential parts of the liturgy as they are special rites done for the season the Church is in. For example the Pascha and the funeral tunes are ritualistic but cannot in themselves make us relive the moments of salvation.

    I hope this clarifies the issue.
     
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    imikhail,

    Relative to your previous posting about the Eucharist.  The Orthodox Church does not use the term "change" the offering.  Rather, "make" is the proper.  The Holy Spirit makes the offering into the Holy Body and Holy Blood of Our Lord.  This is known as the Epiclesis.
  • imikhailimikhail
    ilovesaintmark,

    Thanks for the info.

    You can find the word change in the Liturgy of St Basil when the priest signs the offering right after the Thanksgiving prayer in the third signing before he puts the prosfarin. You can find the English words on page 94 of the three liturgies of the Southern diocese 1st edition.

    This is the accurate translation of the Coptic word "wotwoo"

    The same word is also used in The Prayer of the Descent of the Holy Spirit when the priest says "descend upon us and upon these gifts set forth, and purify them, change them ..." p 165. Again the same Coptic verb "wot" is used which means change.

    It is the idea of changing the the offering into something else. Our Lord changed the water into wine. Thus, in the Saturday psali we use the word change when we say: "Six stone jars, You have changed into choice wine, O my Lord Jesus Christ, my good Savior"

    In all the responses and hymns for the feast of Cana of Galilee we use the word "change".


    Thanks.

  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    I appreciate the insight on the Coptic.

    Linguistic nuances make an entrance relative liturgical nuance and in perspective translational nuance.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Mina, imikhail. I'm still confused here. Please clarify.

    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11187.msg135119#msg135119 date=1301859065]
    Just to make things more clear. The words "commemorate" and "remembrance" are reserved for reliving the minutes of incarnation, baptism, death, burial, and resurrection - the act of redemption. So, we cannot use these words for the resurrection act, or Judas procession.
    I don't exactly know what you mean by reliving. If you mean we are gaining life through the sacraments, then I agree this is more than just commemorating. But  How is reliving different than commemorating?

    Are you contracting yourself. You said, "The words "commemorate and remembrance" are reserved for reliving the minutes of the incarnation....and resurrection...we cannot use these words for the [resurrection]". Is the Resurrection "act" (the "enactment" on the Resurrection feast) recalling (if you prefer re-living) anything different than the act of the Resurrection redemption? What's the difference between minutes of the resurrection and the act of redemption during the Resurrection?

    I agree that that the enactment of resurrection and Judas procession are done within the scope of the liturgy service. However, they are not essential parts of the liturgy as they are special rites done for the season the Church is in.

    I don't understand what you mean by essential parts of the liturgy. The Synaxarium is part of the liturgy and it is a commemoration. Many entries in the Synaxarium begin with the words, "On this day, the Church commemorates the martyrdom (or departure) of...". It changes depending on the "season" or the "day" the Church is in. 

    For example the Pascha and the funeral tunes are ritualistic but cannot in themselves make us relive the moments of salvation.

    The crucifixion and the death of Christ on Good Friday is a major part of salvation. Without His death, we would not be saved. If we are not reliving this moment to commemorate what He did for us, why have Pascha at all? To fulfill a ritual?

    I don't see how any Church service does not relive some part of salvation. If we limit commemoration to events during a liturgy, we would limit the effects of salvation in repentance, in Agpeya prayers, in Midnight praises, in confession, and so on. All of these events commemorate some aspect of God's salvation.

    Mina, you wrote

    you didn't understand what i meant by "this separate rite." the commemorations we have in church are all mixed into all the services leading to the liturgy and communion. Even the zaffa itself done in most of the feasts, it is a declaration of the good news of that feast. so still stand to what i said, that rite is best called an "enactment" better than a commemoration. that fits what we do and separates it from the reset of the services we have.

    I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that a separate service should be called an enactment, while a service within the liturgy or communion should be called a "commemoration"? The Resurrection "enactment" is done within (or leads up to) the liturgy. By this logic, shouldn't it be called a "commemoration"? Isn't the repetitive "declaration of the good news of the feast", by definition, a commemoration of the Feast? 

    I don't get it.
    George
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11187.msg135951#msg135951 date=1302718622]
    I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that a separate service should be called an enactment, while a service within the liturgy or communion should be called a "commemoration"? The Resurrection "enactment" is done within (or leads up to) the liturgy. By this logic, shouldn't it be called a "commemoration"? Isn't the repetitive "declaration of the good news of the feast", by definition, a commemoration of the Feast? 

    The entire celebration (From that Annual Gospel of communion in Bright Saturday to the 1st (maybe 2nd) sagda) is a commemoration. In every aspect of all the services we do something different that reminds us of the Resurrection. None of that is an enactment of what happen--of the Resurrection ITSELF as an event that happened once in history. This is also differnt than "declaration of the good news of the feast." For a declaration to be made about an event, that event needs not to be replicated to send the message. It's hard to explain.

    But in general, that's why the whole rite is very strange to us copts because there is nothing explicitly like it in our Church.
  • imikhailimikhail
    Dear Remenkimi,

    During the liturgy prayer, according to the teaching of the Church, we are living the same exact moments of the events of salvation. For example, when the priest says:"He took bread in His hands ...." We are actually living these moments again as if we are with the disciples seeing our Lord when He took bread in His Hands.

    When the priest says:"He gave His disciples and pure apostles saying ...." Jesus is actually saying this to us as well.

    This happens because of the role of the Holy Spirit within the liturgy. So, we live all the events of the liturgy starting with Jesus' incarnation, baptism, ... resurrection.

    The other events you mentioned the Pascha services, Judas procession and the resurrection enactment, there is no calling of the Holy Spirit. So, the rituals remind us of those events. However, the liturgy goes a step further and bring us to these events .. it is like we are brought back in time to live these events through the liturgy.

    The other events that you mentioned: Judas procession, the pascha services, and the resurrection enactment are reminding services where we only remember the events. The liturgy goes a step further and makes us live these events through the calling of the Holy Spirit.

    In other words, all the rituals that we do during these services are a reminder and only become true in the liturgy.

    Is this clear?

    Thanks
Sign In or Register to comment.