On Saturday Nights (Vespers for Asheya) are you supposed to say Amoini Marenouosht or Tenouosht because my church says tenouosht even though Sunday is Adam.
Original rites say you say tenousht saturday night and amouini sunday morning, however more recently, HG Bishop serapion of the LA diocese has said that since it is the vespers of sunday we say amouini.
[quote author=jydeacon link=topic=9305.msg114922#msg114922 date=1275437584] Original rites say you say tenousht saturday night and amouini sunday morning, however more recently, HG Bishop serapion of the LA diocese has said that since it is the vespers of sunday we say amouini.
to be more specfic to what John said, HG specified that the vespers be after 6 pm....his grace is taking time a little more literal than others......which is acceptable.
With all due respect, that is wrong. Tenouwst is supposed to be said, even though it is vespers praises for the following Sunday. This is the tradition, even though there is some solid argument otherwise, but this is the tradition, and please let us stop making changes based on how we see fit. IT IS THE TRADITION (according to most - if not all - olden rites church books). [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=9305.msg114970#msg114970 date=1275514226] With all due respect, that is wrong. Tenouwst is supposed to be said, even though it is vespers praises for the following Sunday. This is the tradition, even though there is some solid argument otherwise, but this is the tradition, and please let us stop making changes based on how we see fit. IT IS THE TRADITION (according to most - if not all - olden rites church books). [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
i agree.....but again ya Fady, he is a bishop and he is in charge of his diocese ("wife" ;)).
Yes Mina, I take your point. But aren't bishops in charge of preserving the tradition? Pope Shenouda included? Or change it according to their own views and knowledge base? Sorry I don't mean to sound harsh or extreme, but unfortunately this is what I see happening nowadays. [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=9305.msg114993#msg114993 date=1275572842] Yes Mina, I take your point. But aren't bishops in charge of preserving the tradition? Pope Shenouda included? Or change it according to their own views and knowledge base? Sorry I don't mean to sound harsh or extreme, but unfortunately this is what I see happening nowadays. [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
his grace is probably doing this that it may make sense to his diocese deacons. they are just shortcuts keda for others to understand.
Yes Mina, thanks for answering. I can't find this a valid argument anyway. It still doesn't mean we succumb to changing things to make them appeal to the young or even deacons, or whatever category. You saw yourself what occurred as a result of the compromised approach other churches (and frankly some of the Coptic ones as well) took. Sorry, but that just doesn't sit right with me [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
Whether you say Amouini or tenousht on saturday, if you do either one, does it add or take away from the spirituality of the service in any way? No I don't think so, When it comes to really big things I agree with you Fady, but let me ask you something. Say there is vesper on wednesday night, would you say Amouini since the day WAS wednesday or would you switch to Tenousht since the vesper is for thursday? What sayedna is saying makes sense since days are not counted from sunrise to sunrise but sunset to sunset. So Sunday starts at vespers. It also makes sense since I believe Vespers are done(at least in LA) done mostly after sunset. So Sunday has officially started. I am not one for changing Rites but if there is no reason behind the rite why hold to it if we don't know why we do it? Something to think about...
Dear jydeacon, I will attempt to answer your questions here, although I am sure you know my opinions well enough, so I hope I am not offending or repeating empty answers. First you said "if you do either one, does it add or take away from the spirituality of the service in any way?" Of course it does not. That doesn't mean however that there should be some kind of complacency, or taking things lightly especially when it comes to rites. They were there for a very good reason, and we should strive to preserve them, and even if we don't understand why they are there, we should try to, at least contemplate, but not change on a whim or willy nilly (actually the last phrase I borrowed from you in another debate). You said "Say there is vesper on wednesday night, would you say Amouini since the day WAS wednesday or would you switch to Tenousht since the vesper is for thursday?" I will follow the rites book, as I have never ever attended vespers prayers on Tuesday evening (Eve of Wednesday). I don't know why you get mixed up between the days in Adam and Watos, but that is only a side note. I guess there will be good reason if the rites books say "[coptic]amwini[/coptic]" rather than "[coptic]tenouwst[/coptic]". You said "So Sunday starts at vespers. It also makes sense since I believe Vespers are done(at least in LA) done mostly after sunset. So Sunday has officially started. " I disagree. Sunday doesn't start at vespers. Sunday starts after vespers. If we look at the prayers, don't forget that we pray Vespers and Compline prayers - these cannot be prayed at the start of Sunday, and therefore I think we stick to "[coptic]tenouwst[/coptic]" because it is still a Saturday. I guess, but it is only my tuppence we can argue that things should change after the Gospel reading as It tells a story relating to Sunday, hence the resurrection of the Lord. The second thing is timing nowadays is not strictly followed. Please note the practices of Palm Sunday followed by General Funeral (yes, I know... without getting into a new debate). The timing of vespers prayers and matins prayers in Nativity and Epiphany services; the partaking of the Communion on the Major Lordly feasts... so on... You said "I am not one for changing Rites but if there is no reason behind the rite why hold to it if we don't know why we do it?" I simply put it before let's just strive to understand at least through contemplation. I quote St. Athanasius the apostolic when he was confronted with Arius and his heresy, the first thing he said "we didn't receive this from the fathers (i.e. we haven't been taught this). Then we come to another argument: do we really understand the hymn [coptic]O Kirioc metacou[/coptic]? Is it grammatically sound? [coptic]Tenen[/coptic]? All the Greek parts in the Liturgy. You know, for the latter, even the Greeks do not understand them nowadays, but they hold on to them, because that is TRADITION. I don't think it is good approach to start thinking of changing and correcting what is wrong (unless of course it is blatantly obvious as in the case of [coptic]Apen[oic[/coptic] of Nativity that should be [coptic]Pa[oic[/coptic]). This latter point makes perfect sense to me that the Copts composed the paralex pieces of the major Lordly feasts as [coptic]Pa[oic [/coptic] (and the month of Kiahk) reserving [coptic]Apen[oic [/coptic] only for the Great Lent, possibly to contrast the works He did in the past to teach us something, and the eternal, and continuous, ever-in the present tense salvation works related to the major Lordly feasts. [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
EDIT: Coptic word put in Coptic letters rather than English
Fady, I actually wanted tell you something about the General Funeral. the Synod will be clarifying this rite soon to be as this: If the rite is to begin after the liturgy is done (more specifically communion) than it is supposed to be the sad tune. WHY, because from the time of the 2nd psalm (figuratively speak), the church turns into the sanawi tune (that's why it must be said in the sanawi tune and not festive as Albair proposes). that will be so until the end of liturgy. After the angel of the Sacrifice is released, then we begin Holy Week, with the general funeral in the sad tune.
Which makes since.....the main point of the Pope when he spoke about this in his lecture a couple of years ago is that priests started to begin the prayer during communion....sometimes even right at the start without Psalm 150. That is not prober considering that the Sacrifice is still on the altar.
dear Mina, if that's the case then I don't find any objections to the Pope's proposition but the fact of the matter is that the suggestions made things more confusing to many churches even in Egypt itself. However the Palm Sunday is not and should not be treated the same as Holy Thursday. For the latter no psalm 150 to be chanted but the prophecies with the altar shut during Communion as a: the prophecies aren't any less important than psalm 150, b: the story told should not be interrupted or even delayed till FRIDAY EVE, and c: there is nothing wrong with taking the Communion "behind closed doors" as I may contemplate and say noone really understood the meaning of that except those who partook (barring Judas if indeed he did) and the whole world outside the altar is being entertained with sad tunes for the loss, blindness, and ignorance they weren't realising. I hope that makes sense. God bless you and pray for us a lot
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=9305.msg115083#msg115083 date=1275686224] dear Mina, if that's the case then I don't find any objections to the Pope's proposition but the fact of the matter is that the suggestions made things more confusing to many churches even in Egypt itself. However the Palm Sunday is not and should not be treated the same as Holy Thursday. For the latter no psalm 150 to be chanted but the prophecies with the altar shut during Communion as a: the prophecies aren't any less important than psalm 150, b: the story told should not be interrupted or even delayed till FRIDAY EVE, and c: there is nothing wrong with taking the Communion "behind closed doors" as I may contemplate and say noone really understood the meaning of that except those who partook (barring Judas if indeed he did) and the whole world outside the altar is being entertained with sad tunes for the loss, blindness, and ignorance they weren't realising. I hope that makes sense. God bless you and pray for us a lot
I am sorry...i just lost you. Despite what people might know and think or NOT.......the Christ is there, there must be joy for us to be in His presence. it's not about ppl taking communions behind closed curtains but rather the fact that the Mysteries are still THERE in a material thing.
And how closing the curtains contradicts materialising the mysteries? In fact, I don't think this is a valid argument in the first place. Mysteries are called as such because they cannot be materially palpated in the first place. We see Christ by our inner eyes, the spiritual eyes. We speak to Him by our spiritual tongue, and this is actually very important: we may not understand all the hymns we say but we are still praying, the Holy Spirit makes our prayers fit in front of God the Father. Secondly, it only popped into my head this morning another thing we never discussed before: why do we have to say psalm 150 at all? In fact, from the time of the General funeral we don't touch psalms at all again, except the psalms prophesying the Passion (Passion psalms), and the only exception is Laqqan, and we talked about this before being a service in its own right. We don't read agbeya, or even say[coptic] allelouia vai pe piehoou[/coptic]; nor in the Bright Saturday Liturgy. We just chant some pieces of psalms that talk about Passion, and more specifically the death of Christ, so why did not any body say we should start at least by psalm 150 in that service? Even during midnight chants, we are not used to saying either 2nd or 4th Canticles (say the lobsh of the former, and the third Canticle). As you can see there are many things that need to be researched very thoroughly, and preserved instead of changing them because we don't see a point. Also note, that I didn't count psalm 151 as an exception, because to me this one does speak prophecies (and not just thanksgiving and blessings) which is fit to be chanted when the Psalm Book is carried over abouna's head. [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
You said "So Sunday starts at vespers. It also makes sense since I believe Vespers are done(at least in LA) done mostly after sunset. So Sunday has officially started." I disagree. Sunday doesn't start at vespers. Sunday starts after vespers.
Yet I have been taught by fathers who have been taught by very strict and accurate monastic Coptic fathers that Sunday DOES start at Vespers. And I have been taught that the Raising of Evening Incense belongs to the liturgy of the following day and is the beginning of it.
This is why the patristics talk about not having sexual relations on the eve of a liturgy because it has already begun at Vespers/Raising of Evening Incense. As far as I can recall all the Orthodox from all of the traditions I know and have read teach that Sunday begins at Vespers on the Saturday evening.
So I am not denying your point of view but would be interested to know on what documents it is based, or on the instruction of which ancient and modern fathers and how you account for so many other Orthodox, and even other Coptic Orthodox, taking a different view?
Yes Fr. Peter, you are right. I got that wrong, and I am sorry for that. I was confused but I should have meant the vespers praises, not the vespers raising of incense. However, even the vespers praises follow the tune of Sunday and psalis follow such as I learnt, but there seems to still be some confusion about that, as according to the euchologion book of the three liturgies by Beni Sweif and El Bahnasa it says that antiphonarium of vespers praises should relate to Saturday that is finishing. I guess that is what some members on coptichymns.net argued when we were discussing Palm Sunday vespers service, whether it is annual or sha'anini (Cross-rites like). Regardless of that the same book does mention that we should still stick to "[coptic]tenouwst[/coptic]" rather than "[coptic]amwini marenouwst[/coptic]" and this is what I base my opinion on. [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
No need to apologise at all. I am only interested in learning from this thread.
Can you list all the various services of prayer that are normal for a Saturday Evening and describe where you understand the beginning of Sunday to be so it is clear to me where you are marking the change.
I think i wrote a long post about this once on coptichymns.net....but let me try to remember what i wrote there. I always thought of this write as a mix of the rite of the hymns (the text) and the tune that is said. meaning that you'd do the vespers in the Saturday rite....WATOS. and depending ont he occasion, you'd add the things that go with it......like extra verses of cymbals, doxologies, tarh....
I would have to agree with Amoini being said on Saturday night. Otherwise, on vespers like the Eve of Palm Sunday, there would be a clear contradiction between saying tenousht and the verses of the cymbals for Palm Sunday. I think that some churches saw this contradiction and that is why they choose to skip tenousht and go directly into saying the verses of the cymbals for the feast followed by the annual verses.
[quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=9305.msg115145#msg115145 date=1275758104] I would have to agree with Amoini being said on Saturday night. Otherwise, on vespers like the Eve of Palm Sunday, there would be a clear contradiction between saying tenousht and the verses of the cymbals for Palm Sunday. I think that some churches saw this contradiction and that is why they choose to skip tenousht and go directly into saying the verses of the cymbals for the feast followed by the annual verses. PK
I doubt that is the reason. most ppl only skip the intros because of time. if you want to say the long feast parts in the long tune you must say the intro parts long to. so most ppl just skip. it's the same for ALL saturdays.
With the verses of cymbals, there isn't really annual verses. there is the USUAL and than on feasts there are extra parts to that.....also a special long tune that many just call "Festive long tune"
Although you should say both the long intro and long verses for the feast together, that is not the case at all in many churches. I have heard many who just skip and go right into the verses for the feast. I could be wrong however in saying that they skip it because of that contradiction, but clearly, there is a contradiction there.
[quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=9305.msg115150#msg115150 date=1275758974] Although you should say both the long intro and long verses for the feast together, that is not the case at all in many churches. I have heard many who just skip and go right into the verses for the feast. I could be wrong however in saying that they skip it because of that contradiction, but clearly, there is a contradiction there.
PK
it is accepted and not as right..........like i said before, they only ya3ny considered a "contradiction" after that many years and especially only on that palm sunday?!!!
In the Annal Psalmody of El-Baramous Monst, the rule is SET to say the intro (accept for the Fifties that have rather a more confusing order).
[quote author=minagir link=topic=9305.msg115152#msg115152 date=1275759227] [quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=9305.msg115150#msg115150 date=1275758974] Although you should say both the long intro and long verses for the feast together, that is not the case at all in many churches. I have heard many who just skip and go right into the verses for the feast. I could be wrong however in saying that they skip it because of that contradiction, but clearly, there is a contradiction there.
PK
it is accepted and not as right..........like i said before, they only ya3ny considered a "contradiction" after that many years and especially only on that palm sunday?!!!
In the Annal Psalmody of El-Baramous Monst, the rule is SET to say the intro (accept for the Fifties that have rather a more confusing order).
you are right. many churches do skip the begginings and go straight into the festive (Apiekristos). When I was younger, I listned to a beautiful recording of the verses of the cymbals. They started with Tenouousht in the festive tune and did not say Apiekristos until the middle-end of the track. I thought they were wrong because I grew up learning the wrong way but I did some reading and found out that it was right.
Sorry I haven't really had time to log on and discuss this further and I don't really have time to say all I want. However, regarding the vesper praise of saturday, it is its own rite almost completely separate from vespers. If I am correct, which i may not be, vespers praise(even vespers) is not even the start of the Liturgy and are not required. So that actually helps your argument seeing as its a separate service so the mix between rites is understandable. I honestly just follow what the church I happen to be in is doing,whether Amouini or Tenousht. If its up to me I stick with Tenousht, since what Anba Serapion did is strictly for his diocese and there hasn't been an official ruling by the synod, so Tenousht stands.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9305.msg115137#msg115137 date=1275750774] No need to apologise at all. I am only interested in learning from this thread.
Can you list all the various services of prayer that are normal for a Saturday Evening and describe where you understand the beginning of Sunday to be so it is clear to me where you are marking the change.
Thanks
Father Peter
Sorry for the duel posts. Services should(but I believe dont' have to) start with Vesper praises. In which Psalm 116 is chanted, then the 4th Canticle(hoos) which consists of Psalm 148-150, the Saturday Psali for the Virgin(or the occasion) and the Psali for our Lord. Next the Saturday Theotokia, its Lobsh and then the Antiphonarium(rarely since very little texts exist) and the Watos Conclusion to the Theotokia.
Vespers then begins. After the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the people chant the verses of the cymbals where the disagreement here lies. In the actual rites of the church, specifically on saturday evening it says Tenousht which is the watos(which therefore implies saturday has not yet finished) introduction to be said. Very recently, HG Bishop Serapion said that this is not correct since sunday begins at vespers therefore the Adam introduction, Amouini should be said in its place. However, the doxologies are always of the even of the proceeding day and the tunes in our church follow that of the proceeding day. For example, this sunday is the 29th of the Coptic month(a feast) therefore the tune is festal starting from vespers. After vespers, everything is strictly the rites of sunday(Midnight praise, matins, and Liturgy).
[quote author=jydeacon link=topic=9305.msg115160#msg115160 date=1275776470] [quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9305.msg115137#msg115137 date=1275750774] No need to apologise at all. I am only interested in learning from this thread.
Can you list all the various services of prayer that are normal for a Saturday Evening and describe where you understand the beginning of Sunday to be so it is clear to me where you are marking the change.
Thanks
Father Peter
Sorry for the duel posts. Services should(but I believe dont' have to) start with Vesper praises. In which Psalm 116 is chanted, then the 4th Canticle(hoos) which consists of Psalm 148-150, the Saturday Psali for the Virgin(or the occasion) and the Psali for our Lord. Next the Saturday Theotokia, its Lobsh and then the Antiphonarium(rarely since very little texts exist) and the Watos Conclusion to the Theotokia.
Vespers then begins. After the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the people chant the verses of the cymbals where the disagreement here lies. In the actual rites of the church, specifically on saturday evening it says Tenousht which is the watos(which therefore implies saturday has not yet finished) introduction to be said. Very recently, HG Bishop Serapion said that this is not correct since sunday begins at vespers therefore the Adam introduction, Amouini should be said in its place. However, the doxologies are always of the even of the proceeding day and the tunes in our church follow that of the proceeding day. For example, this sunday is the 29th of the Coptic month(a feast) therefore the tune is festal starting from vespers. After vespers, everything is strictly the rites of sunday(Midnight praise, matins, and Liturgy).
Hope this has cleared things up a bit.
before Vesper Praise, the 9th-12th hours are prayed if they were not already. My church does it right before vesper praise
From what i know and from the book put together by HH Sunday, monday and tuesday we say Amoini(o come). On all other days namely; wednesday, thursday friday and saturday we start by Tenousht(We worship) thats how we do it at my church.
[quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=9305.msg115170#msg115170 date=1275810592] From what i know and from the book put together by HH Sunday, monday and tuesday we say Amoini(o come). On all other days namely; wednesday, thursday friday and saturday we start by Tenousht(We worship) thats how we do it at my church.
the problem we are talking about is "when does the day start." you start sunday at vespers of struday....does that mean you say amoyne beening a sunday?!
So, I guess everyone is agreed that the universal Orthodox tradition is that at some time on Saturday evening/night the liturgical day becomes Sunday.
And either..
i. Raising of Evening Incense should be entirely of the actual calendar day (i.e Saturday) ii. Raising of Evening Incense should be entirely of the following calendar day (i.e Sunday) iii. Raising of Evening Incense should be a mixture of both days and mark the transition from one to the other.
I would say that iii. makes sense because it provides an end to one day and the passing on to the other.
Do we have any historic texts which support either i, ii, or iii? Does the present mixed practice indicate that it is most likely to be iii?
If it is iii. Then either..
i. We should say 'we worship' because we are ending the Saturday ii. We should say 'O come' because we are beginning Sunday iii. The practice has always been varied in different locations and periods in Alexandrian tradition and was a matter of local episcopal decision.
Again, is there historic documentation to support i or ii, or does the present variation suggest iii. and that this was not a matter in which uniformity was imposed by the Synod in ancient times.
It seems to me that before the advent of printing there was a variety of practice in all Orthodox churches and within Orthodox churches, within certain boundaries of course. It would not surprise me that this was a matter of historic local custom. The advent of printing tended to make one or two usages more authoritative than others simply because they were distributed by central authorities. Here in the UK in ancient times it was the case that though there was a general Western liturgy, nevertheless local places, down to large towns, would have their own particular traditions which were part of the general tradition but were specific to a place.
With that in mind, what do the most ancient manuscripts and other documents say about a variety (or not) of texts for the Raising of Incense, and a variety of traditions (or not) of when Sunday proper begins?
Without going back to the oldest texts it seems that we can only say 'my bishop tells us to do it this way', or 'my bishop tells us to do it that way'.
Dear jydeacon, Thanks for answering the question Fr. Peter originally asked me. Dear Fr. Peter and all, To me the problems seems even more complicated. What jydeacon says makes sense, but not necessarily the current practice. Now even vespers praises themselves are treated according to the rites of Sunday in some cases, with the most confusing example that minagir correctly pointed out: Palm Sunday. The HICS obviously recorded the [coptic],ere ;yet;meh `n`hmot [/coptic]in Sha'anini tune, and the watos psali in joyful. That is very interesting because apparently you can say the [coptic],ere [/coptic]tune was handed down in that very tune for the Cross feasts, and not necessarily Palm Sunday which should be only annual. But why then is there a watos psali for a major Lordly feast that falls on an Adam day? It even becomes more confusing when we find that Wagdi Bishara teaches vespers and also matins psalms of Nativity in annual tune. A practice that Ibrahim Ayad recently recorded, going back on himself. Now yes as Fr. Peter presumes, and minagir always thinks Saturday can be considered a mixture of two rites (wording-wise at least), but based on the Gospel responses even Wagdi (as I remember) did record the Nativity in annual tune before digitalising the hymns in his voice - can't remember how he sings them after he digitalised his collection. I have to assert again I am still learning, and I may be inferring things from here, and there, but I do agree with Fr. Peter that there may have been many practices everywhere, and they must have had good reasons for that. However, I find it difficult to believe that after the HICS, and specifically cantor Mikhail there are many people who are not in complete harmony, not that I blindly believe in all what cantor Mikhail did, as he seems to have done things that were not 100% well planned through either. I am interested to hear your views... [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
How much do you think it matters (that is a question not an assertion) as long as the bishop of a diocese has considered the issues and prescribes some uniformity in his diocese?
Why do you think there should be complete uniformity if it cannot be shown that there was complete uniformity? (Again a question not a statement)
Can one valid answer to this issue be that it remains an open issue for further study and research, but that it is entirely canonical for a bishop to order the rites as they are used in his diocese, within the bounds set by his Synod?
Comments
Original rites say you say tenousht saturday night and amouini sunday morning, however more recently, HG Bishop serapion of the LA diocese has said that since it is the vespers of sunday we say amouini.
to be more specfic to what John said, HG specified that the vespers be after 6 pm....his grace is taking time a little more literal than others......which is acceptable.
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
With all due respect, that is wrong. Tenouwst is supposed to be said, even though it is vespers praises for the following Sunday. This is the tradition, even though there is some solid argument otherwise, but this is the tradition, and please let us stop making changes based on how we see fit. IT IS THE TRADITION (according to most - if not all - olden rites church books).
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
i agree.....but again ya Fady, he is a bishop and he is in charge of his diocese ("wife" ;)).
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
Yes Mina, I take your point. But aren't bishops in charge of preserving the tradition? Pope Shenouda included? Or change it according to their own views and knowledge base? Sorry I don't mean to sound harsh or extreme, but unfortunately this is what I see happening nowadays.
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
his grace is probably doing this that it may make sense to his diocese deacons. they are just shortcuts keda for others to understand.
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
I will attempt to answer your questions here, although I am sure you know my opinions well enough, so I hope I am not offending or repeating empty answers.
First you said "if you do either one, does it add or take away from the spirituality of the service in any way?"
Of course it does not. That doesn't mean however that there should be some kind of complacency, or taking things lightly especially when it comes to rites. They were there for a very good reason, and we should strive to preserve them, and even if we don't understand why they are there, we should try to, at least contemplate, but not change on a whim or willy nilly (actually the last phrase I borrowed from you in another debate).
You said "Say there is vesper on wednesday night, would you say Amouini since the day WAS wednesday or would you switch to Tenousht since the vesper is for thursday?"
I will follow the rites book, as I have never ever attended vespers prayers on Tuesday evening (Eve of Wednesday). I don't know why you get mixed up between the days in Adam and Watos, but that is only a side note. I guess there will be good reason if the rites books say "[coptic]amwini[/coptic]" rather than "[coptic]tenouwst[/coptic]".
You said "So Sunday starts at vespers. It also makes sense since I believe Vespers are done(at least in LA) done mostly after sunset. So Sunday has officially started. "
I disagree. Sunday doesn't start at vespers. Sunday starts after vespers. If we look at the prayers, don't forget that we pray Vespers and Compline prayers - these cannot be prayed at the start of Sunday, and therefore I think we stick to "[coptic]tenouwst[/coptic]" because it is still a Saturday. I guess, but it is only my tuppence we can argue that things should change after the Gospel reading as It tells a story relating to Sunday, hence the resurrection of the Lord. The second thing is timing nowadays is not strictly followed. Please note the practices of Palm Sunday followed by General Funeral (yes, I know... without getting into a new debate). The timing of vespers prayers and matins prayers in Nativity and Epiphany services; the partaking of the Communion on the Major Lordly feasts... so on...
You said "I am not one for changing Rites but if there is no reason behind the rite why hold to it if we don't know why we do it?"
I simply put it before let's just strive to understand at least through contemplation. I quote St. Athanasius the apostolic when he was confronted with Arius and his heresy, the first thing he said "we didn't receive this from the fathers (i.e. we haven't been taught this). Then we come to another argument: do we really understand the hymn [coptic]O Kirioc metacou[/coptic]? Is it grammatically sound? [coptic]Tenen[/coptic]? All the Greek parts in the Liturgy. You know, for the latter, even the Greeks do not understand them nowadays, but they hold on to them, because that is TRADITION. I don't think it is good approach to start thinking of changing and correcting what is wrong (unless of course it is blatantly obvious as in the case of [coptic]Apen[oic[/coptic] of Nativity that should be [coptic]Pa[oic[/coptic]). This latter point makes perfect sense to me that the Copts composed the paralex pieces of the major Lordly feasts as [coptic]Pa[oic [/coptic] (and the month of Kiahk) reserving [coptic]Apen[oic [/coptic] only for the Great Lent, possibly to contrast the works He did in the past to teach us something, and the eternal, and continuous, ever-in the present tense salvation works related to the major Lordly feasts.
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
EDIT: Coptic word put in Coptic letters rather than English
I actually wanted tell you something about the General Funeral. the Synod will be clarifying this rite soon to be as this:
If the rite is to begin after the liturgy is done (more specifically communion) than it is supposed to be the sad tune. WHY, because from the time of the 2nd psalm (figuratively speak), the church turns into the sanawi tune (that's why it must be said in the sanawi tune and not festive as Albair proposes). that will be so until the end of liturgy. After the angel of the Sacrifice is released, then we begin Holy Week, with the general funeral in the sad tune.
Which makes since.....the main point of the Pope when he spoke about this in his lecture a couple of years ago is that priests started to begin the prayer during communion....sometimes even right at the start without Psalm 150. That is not prober considering that the Sacrifice is still on the altar.
if that's the case then I don't find any objections to the Pope's proposition but the fact of the matter is that the suggestions made things more confusing to many churches even in Egypt itself. However the Palm Sunday is not and should not be treated the same as Holy Thursday. For the latter no psalm 150 to be chanted but the prophecies with the altar shut during Communion as a: the prophecies aren't any less important than psalm 150, b: the story told should not be interrupted or even delayed till FRIDAY EVE, and c: there is nothing wrong with taking the Communion "behind closed doors" as I may contemplate and say noone really understood the meaning of that except those who partook (barring Judas if indeed he did) and the whole world outside the altar is being entertained with sad tunes for the loss, blindness, and ignorance they weren't realising. I hope that makes sense. God bless you and pray for us a lot
dear Mina,
if that's the case then I don't find any objections to the Pope's proposition but the fact of the matter is that the suggestions made things more confusing to many churches even in Egypt itself. However the Palm Sunday is not and should not be treated the same as Holy Thursday. For the latter no psalm 150 to be chanted but the prophecies with the altar shut during Communion as a: the prophecies aren't any less important than psalm 150, b: the story told should not be interrupted or even delayed till FRIDAY EVE, and c: there is nothing wrong with taking the Communion "behind closed doors" as I may contemplate and say noone really understood the meaning of that except those who partook (barring Judas if indeed he did) and the whole world outside the altar is being entertained with sad tunes for the loss, blindness, and ignorance they weren't realising. I hope that makes sense. God bless you and pray for us a lot
I am sorry...i just lost you.
Despite what people might know and think or NOT.......the Christ is there, there must be joy for us to be in His presence. it's not about ppl taking communions behind closed curtains but rather the fact that the Mysteries are still THERE in a material thing.
Secondly, it only popped into my head this morning another thing we never discussed before: why do we have to say psalm 150 at all? In fact, from the time of the General funeral we don't touch psalms at all again, except the psalms prophesying the Passion (Passion psalms), and the only exception is Laqqan, and we talked about this before being a service in its own right. We don't read agbeya, or even say[coptic] allelouia vai pe piehoou[/coptic]; nor in the Bright Saturday Liturgy. We just chant some pieces of psalms that talk about Passion, and more specifically the death of Christ, so why did not any body say we should start at least by psalm 150 in that service? Even during midnight chants, we are not used to saying either 2nd or 4th Canticles (say the lobsh of the former, and the third Canticle).
As you can see there are many things that need to be researched very thoroughly, and preserved instead of changing them because we don't see a point. Also note, that I didn't count psalm 151 as an exception, because to me this one does speak prophecies (and not just thanksgiving and blessings) which is fit to be chanted when the Psalm Book is carried over abouna's head.
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
Thanks for an interesting thread.
It has been said.. Yet I have been taught by fathers who have been taught by very strict and accurate monastic Coptic fathers that Sunday DOES start at Vespers. And I have been taught that the Raising of Evening Incense belongs to the liturgy of the following day and is the beginning of it.
This is why the patristics talk about not having sexual relations on the eve of a liturgy because it has already begun at Vespers/Raising of Evening Incense. As far as I can recall all the Orthodox from all of the traditions I know and have read teach that Sunday begins at Vespers on the Saturday evening.
So I am not denying your point of view but would be interested to know on what documents it is based, or on the instruction of which ancient and modern fathers and how you account for so many other Orthodox, and even other Coptic Orthodox, taking a different view?
God bless
Father Peter
Regardless of that the same book does mention that we should still stick to "[coptic]tenouwst[/coptic]" rather than "[coptic]amwini marenouwst[/coptic]" and this is what I base my opinion on.
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
Can you list all the various services of prayer that are normal for a Saturday Evening and describe where you understand the beginning of Sunday to be so it is clear to me where you are marking the change.
Thanks
Father Peter
I always thought of this write as a mix of the rite of the hymns (the text) and the tune that is said.
meaning that you'd do the vespers in the Saturday rite....WATOS. and depending ont he occasion, you'd add the things that go with it......like extra verses of cymbals, doxologies, tarh....
PK
I would have to agree with Amoini being said on Saturday night. Otherwise, on vespers like the Eve of Palm Sunday, there would be a clear contradiction between saying tenousht and the verses of the cymbals for Palm Sunday. I think that some churches saw this contradiction and that is why they choose to skip tenousht and go directly into saying the verses of the cymbals for the feast followed by the annual verses.
PK
I doubt that is the reason. most ppl only skip the intros because of time. if you want to say the long feast parts in the long tune you must say the intro parts long to. so most ppl just skip. it's the same for ALL saturdays.
With the verses of cymbals, there isn't really annual verses. there is the USUAL and than on feasts there are extra parts to that.....also a special long tune that many just call "Festive long tune"
PK
Although you should say both the long intro and long verses for the feast together, that is not the case at all in many churches. I have heard many who just skip and go right into the verses for the feast. I could be wrong however in saying that they skip it because of that contradiction, but clearly, there is a contradiction there.
PK
it is accepted and not as right..........like i said before, they only ya3ny considered a "contradiction" after that many years and especially only on that palm sunday?!!!
In the Annal Psalmody of El-Baramous Monst, the rule is SET to say the intro (accept for the Fifties that have rather a more confusing order).
[quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=9305.msg115150#msg115150 date=1275758974]
Although you should say both the long intro and long verses for the feast together, that is not the case at all in many churches. I have heard many who just skip and go right into the verses for the feast. I could be wrong however in saying that they skip it because of that contradiction, but clearly, there is a contradiction there.
PK
it is accepted and not as right..........like i said before, they only ya3ny considered a "contradiction" after that many years and especially only on that palm sunday?!!!
In the Annal Psalmody of El-Baramous Monst, the rule is SET to say the intro (accept for the Fifties that have rather a more confusing order).
you are right. many churches do skip the begginings and go straight into the festive (Apiekristos). When I was younger, I listned to a beautiful recording of the verses of the cymbals. They started with Tenouousht in the festive tune and did not say Apiekristos until the middle-end of the track. I thought they were wrong because I grew up learning the wrong way but I did some reading and found out that it was right.
Sorry I haven't really had time to log on and discuss this further and I don't really have time to say all I want. However, regarding the vesper praise of saturday, it is its own rite almost completely separate from vespers. If I am correct, which i may not be, vespers praise(even vespers) is not even the start of the Liturgy and are not required. So that actually helps your argument seeing as its a separate service so the mix between rites is understandable. I honestly just follow what the church I happen to be in is doing,whether Amouini or Tenousht. If its up to me I stick with Tenousht, since what Anba Serapion did is strictly for his diocese and there hasn't been an official ruling by the synod, so Tenousht stands.
My two cents
No need to apologise at all. I am only interested in learning from this thread.
Can you list all the various services of prayer that are normal for a Saturday Evening and describe where you understand the beginning of Sunday to be so it is clear to me where you are marking the change.
Thanks
Father Peter
Sorry for the duel posts. Services should(but I believe dont' have to) start with Vesper praises. In which Psalm 116 is chanted, then the 4th Canticle(hoos) which consists of Psalm 148-150, the Saturday Psali for the Virgin(or the occasion) and the Psali for our Lord. Next the Saturday Theotokia, its Lobsh and then the Antiphonarium(rarely since very little texts exist) and the Watos Conclusion to the Theotokia.
Vespers then begins. After the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the people chant the verses of the cymbals where the disagreement here lies. In the actual rites of the church, specifically on saturday evening it says Tenousht which is the watos(which therefore implies saturday has not yet finished) introduction to be said. Very recently, HG Bishop Serapion said that this is not correct since sunday begins at vespers therefore the Adam introduction, Amouini should be said in its place. However, the doxologies are always of the even of the proceeding day and the tunes in our church follow that of the proceeding day. For example, this sunday is the 29th of the Coptic month(a feast) therefore the tune is festal starting from vespers. After vespers, everything is strictly the rites of sunday(Midnight praise, matins, and Liturgy).
Hope this has cleared things up a bit.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9305.msg115137#msg115137 date=1275750774]
No need to apologise at all. I am only interested in learning from this thread.
Can you list all the various services of prayer that are normal for a Saturday Evening and describe where you understand the beginning of Sunday to be so it is clear to me where you are marking the change.
Thanks
Father Peter
Sorry for the duel posts. Services should(but I believe dont' have to) start with Vesper praises. In which Psalm 116 is chanted, then the 4th Canticle(hoos) which consists of Psalm 148-150, the Saturday Psali for the Virgin(or the occasion) and the Psali for our Lord. Next the Saturday Theotokia, its Lobsh and then the Antiphonarium(rarely since very little texts exist) and the Watos Conclusion to the Theotokia.
Vespers then begins. After the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the people chant the verses of the cymbals where the disagreement here lies. In the actual rites of the church, specifically on saturday evening it says Tenousht which is the watos(which therefore implies saturday has not yet finished) introduction to be said. Very recently, HG Bishop Serapion said that this is not correct since sunday begins at vespers therefore the Adam introduction, Amouini should be said in its place. However, the doxologies are always of the even of the proceeding day and the tunes in our church follow that of the proceeding day. For example, this sunday is the 29th of the Coptic month(a feast) therefore the tune is festal starting from vespers. After vespers, everything is strictly the rites of sunday(Midnight praise, matins, and Liturgy).
Hope this has cleared things up a bit.
before Vesper Praise, the 9th-12th hours are prayed if they were not already. My church does it right before vesper praise
Sunday, monday and tuesday we say Amoini(o come).
On all other days namely; wednesday, thursday friday and saturday we start by Tenousht(We worship)
thats how we do it at my church.
From what i know and from the book put together by HH
Sunday, monday and tuesday we say Amoini(o come).
On all other days namely; wednesday, thursday friday and saturday we start by Tenousht(We worship)
thats how we do it at my church.
the problem we are talking about is "when does the day start." you start sunday at vespers of struday....does that mean you say amoyne beening a sunday?!
And either..
i. Raising of Evening Incense should be entirely of the actual calendar day (i.e Saturday)
ii. Raising of Evening Incense should be entirely of the following calendar day (i.e Sunday)
iii. Raising of Evening Incense should be a mixture of both days and mark the transition from one to the other.
I would say that iii. makes sense because it provides an end to one day and the passing on to the other.
Do we have any historic texts which support either i, ii, or iii? Does the present mixed practice indicate that it is most likely to be iii?
If it is iii. Then either..
i. We should say 'we worship' because we are ending the Saturday
ii. We should say 'O come' because we are beginning Sunday
iii. The practice has always been varied in different locations and periods in Alexandrian tradition and was a matter of local episcopal decision.
Again, is there historic documentation to support i or ii, or does the present variation suggest iii. and that this was not a matter in which uniformity was imposed by the Synod in ancient times.
It seems to me that before the advent of printing there was a variety of practice in all Orthodox churches and within Orthodox churches, within certain boundaries of course. It would not surprise me that this was a matter of historic local custom. The advent of printing tended to make one or two usages more authoritative than others simply because they were distributed by central authorities. Here in the UK in ancient times it was the case that though there was a general Western liturgy, nevertheless local places, down to large towns, would have their own particular traditions which were part of the general tradition but were specific to a place.
With that in mind, what do the most ancient manuscripts and other documents say about a variety (or not) of texts for the Raising of Incense, and a variety of traditions (or not) of when Sunday proper begins?
Without going back to the oldest texts it seems that we can only say 'my bishop tells us to do it this way', or 'my bishop tells us to do it that way'.
Father Peter
Thanks for answering the question Fr. Peter originally asked me.
Dear Fr. Peter and all,
To me the problems seems even more complicated. What jydeacon says makes sense, but not necessarily the current practice. Now even vespers praises themselves are treated according to the rites of Sunday in some cases, with the most confusing example that minagir correctly pointed out: Palm Sunday. The HICS obviously recorded the [coptic],ere ;yet;meh `n`hmot [/coptic]in Sha'anini tune, and the watos psali in joyful. That is very interesting because apparently you can say the [coptic],ere [/coptic]tune was handed down in that very tune for the Cross feasts, and not necessarily Palm Sunday which should be only annual. But why then is there a watos psali for a major Lordly feast that falls on an Adam day? It even becomes more confusing when we find that Wagdi Bishara teaches vespers and also matins psalms of Nativity in annual tune. A practice that Ibrahim Ayad recently recorded, going back on himself.
Now yes as Fr. Peter presumes, and minagir always thinks Saturday can be considered a mixture of two rites (wording-wise at least), but based on the Gospel responses even Wagdi (as I remember) did record the Nativity in annual tune before digitalising the hymns in his voice - can't remember how he sings them after he digitalised his collection.
I have to assert again I am still learning, and I may be inferring things from here, and there, but I do agree with Fr. Peter that there may have been many practices everywhere, and they must have had good reasons for that. However, I find it difficult to believe that after the HICS, and specifically cantor Mikhail there are many people who are not in complete harmony, not that I blindly believe in all what cantor Mikhail did, as he seems to have done things that were not 100% well planned through either. I am interested to hear your views...
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
Why do you think there should be complete uniformity if it cannot be shown that there was complete uniformity? (Again a question not a statement)
Can one valid answer to this issue be that it remains an open issue for further study and research, but that it is entirely canonical for a bishop to order the rites as they are used in his diocese, within the bounds set by his Synod?
Father Peter