[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=11208.msg135479#msg135479 date=1302206592] "So what do the priests wear? Do they wear the purple bornoses or their regular black vestments?"
it's a funeral.....no liturgical vestments for priests....bournoses are really weird...i don't think there is a specfic rite for them.
Actually, in any sacrament or service of the church (incl. a funeral or a baptism, confession, raising of incense, etc), the priest should wear his stole (saddreya) but for some reason it seems that it was dropped out of use in many services...
I still dont understand why they went from joyus(palm sunday) and mourning(funeral prayers), to joyus and annual? Where does the annual tune fit in to this day? It is not an annual day......
I think that it is a mistake to imagine that the rites have ever been static.
We can ask whether a change is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, but the rites as we have them now are not at all the rites of the first centuries, even while there is a clear path of development from then to now.
Before the printed text it seems to me that there was an allowable variety of rites in different places that depended on Alexandria. This is also natural. It has been the case more or less everywhere in the Orthodox Catholic Church that there has been a degree of variety. That is also why it is not necessarily wise to rely absolutely on isolated texts over many centuries as if they described a fixed Tradition rather than simply shining a light on particular traditions in particular places at particular times.
It is always the case that the bishops are free to order the Church as the Holy Spirit guides them.
In fact each Church, in Egypt, had slightly different rites. Each region had different rites. However, all the rites have been fixed by the 15th century throughout all of Egypt.
The change we are facing now is not for a local church but it is for the whole Church. I do not understand as to the reason of the change and its authenticity.
Simply, the change from mournful tune to annual one does not make sense. This particular one had been fixed, as far as we know, since the 12th century.
But how do you know it has been fixed in all parts of the See of Alexandria since the 12th century?
And if that were the case it would not mean that the bishops could not change the rite. Authenticity depends in a great part on the judgement of the bishops in each age.
Every aspect of our Tradition has developed and changed over time. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it being changed again. It is best to ask the local diocesan bishop for an explanation as to why the Synod has introduced a change. Some of these changes may well be a matter of dispute or controversy, but I think the best way to respond to such changes is to ask our own bishop what they mean.
The reason we know is from a manuscript that explains the rite in lower and Upper Egypt written by Shams Al Reyasa IbnBrakat.
Yes bishops could change the rites as they wish. However, one characteristic of the Orthodox Church is that one generation receives what has handed down to it, and unless there is something wrong with what is received, and keep it as it is without change.
Now the question is why we are changing that what we have received for this particular rite. Why is it necessary to change it?
The bishop of our diocese is keeping the rite as it is without the new change.
If your own bishop is not adopting the change then I don't see the problem. Each bishop is supposed to govern the rite in his diocese. Have you been able to ask him why other bishops have changed? I am sure they have a reason. Orthodoxy does not mean keeping the rites unchanged. If it did then you would not be using the rite you do use, and you would be worshipping in Aramaic or Greek at least.
I am not sure what you mean by just one manuscript. So, it is not true if it only one manuscript?
All of our liturgical rituals, performed during the liturgy, that we have today goes back to only one manuscript from which other manuscripts were composed.
I did not say Orthodoxy means that the rites won't be changed. I said the rites received from one generation to the other does not change unless there is something wrong with it.
Let us not lose focus of what we are discussing here. We are talking about the change of the Funeral prayer tune from mournful to annual.s
The reason of the change is mentioned on this thread. I do not have a copy of the actual text of the change which I am eager to get. All of what I am hearing thus far does not make sense and the bishop is not convinced of the reason as well. So, for the time being the churches of the Southern diocese are not adopting the change. However, this may change.
We cannot make absolute statements about rites if they go back to one manuscript. That just isn't enough evidence.
We follow the rites that our bishops authorise, that is Orthodoxy. We study ancient manuscripts but they do not determine the life of the Church. The life of the Church is the living experience of the Holy Spirit. This depends on many things, certainly not one manuscript.
So yes, it is not absolutely true if it goes back to one manuscript. Certainly it is not true enough to say that our bishops are acting unacceptably. One manuscript from many centuries is not enough evidence to say THIS is the only way the rites were performed. All it tells us is that the author of the manuscript understood the rites at the time he knew them and in the places he knew them to be performed in that way.
The bishops have the absolute right and authority to change the Funeral Prayer in whatever way they wish as long as it does not express heresy. The laity have the absolute right to ask for an explanation, but in a domain where the bishops have authority the laity do not have the right, as far as I can see as someone who is also under authority, to ignore the decision of their local bishop.
The rites are not static. And never have been, and are not now, as is very clear from discussion here on tasbeha.
With all due respect I disagree regarding the sources of rites. If we have a manuscript from which the printed books are taken and there is strong evidence that this manuscript is the source then by all means it is true since we do not have another source.
Certainly it is not true enough to say that our bishops are acting unacceptably.
I never suggested they did. I am saying that there is no source to the change or a necessity for it.
When the rites were fixed in the 15th century and handed down to us, we have the responsibility to preserve them and only change them with good reason. I do not see that good reason of changing the mournful tune of the funeral, which is the rite and the tradition of the Coptic Church, to annual.
Why are there so many questions and disagreements? It would be helpful to begin by reading what I've linked to, in order to understand why the changes were implemented by the Holy Synod.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11208.msg136169#msg136169 date=1302988533] With all due respect I disagree regarding the sources of rites. If we have a manuscript from which the printed books are taken and there is strong evidence that this manuscript is the source then by all means it is true since we do not have another source.
Certainly it is not true enough to say that our bishops are acting unacceptably.
I never suggested they did. I am saying that there is no source to the change or a necessity for it.
hehe....you know imikhail, "The Bible commands through St. Paul and St Peter to respect the authorities and obey them"....especially when they all have decided in one unity. [quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=11208.msg136138#msg136138 date=1302936922] I still dont understand why they went from joyus(palm sunday) and mourning(funeral prayers), to joyus and annual? Where does the annual tune fit in to this day? It is not an annual day......
the reason that the annual tune fits here and was chosen is that it is the "middle-ground" between festive and sad. here we have a case that is similar to Covenant Thursday; is done mostly annual (with some taste of festive) simply because, being a minor feast of the Lord, it is not fitting for the rite to be sad.
I learned from Anba Benyameen of El-monofeya that the Church, with all Her wisdom, will never take is from one extreme to another; festive being one and sad being the other. there will always be a transition point in the middle. that's the reason that the 2nd psalm of palm sunday is said in the annual tune....being the transition point where the next psalm that is said in the church is sad.
Saw this as an update on the Service of the Deacons page on facebook(how reliable it is I do not know, I assume it is)---Regarding the tune and hymns for the general funeral prayer after the Hosanna/Palm Sunday service, it is to be prayed as detailed in the Service of the Deacons, which is the traditional Paschal tune... The Holy Synod is currently re-reviewing a decision that was made in May 2010, where the service was changed to the annual tune.
Mina, your or abouna's statement on holy Thursday is not precise. The rite is semi-festive semi-annual during the Liturgy only. Laqqan is an absolute annual. Paschal prayers before and after are mournful. In fact we say the longest hymn, or at least should do, in sad tune on holy Thursday... Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11208.msg136179#msg136179 date=1303017345] Mina, your or abouna's statement on holy Thursday is not precise. The rite is semi-festive semi-annual during the Liturgy only. Laqqan is an absolute annual. Paschal prayers before and after are mournful. In fact we say the longest hymn, or at least should do, in sad tune on holy Thursday... Oujai
i am not considering the laqqan...i had enough arguments on that.....the liturgy itself is as you said. there is a reason fro that. [quote author=jydeacon link=topic=11208.msg136178#msg136178 date=1303014634] Saw this as an update on the Service of the Deacons page on facebook(how reliable it is I do not know, I assume it is)---Regarding the tune and hymns for the general funeral prayer after the Hosanna/Palm Sunday service, it is to be prayed as detailed in the Service of the Deacons, which is the traditional Paschal tune... The Holy Synod is currently re-reviewing a decision that was made in May 2010, where the service was changed to the annual tune.
There is no ritual reason whatsoever, in my opinion, to have the funeral prayer in the annual tune. It has been as such since the 12th century and probably before.
Why the change today?
In any case in our diocese we pray it in the paschal tune.
To read Pauline "for the resurrection of the dead", and psalm "blessed is the one You chose into Your place" in annual tune is beyond me. That's like reading the annunciation readings in annual. We even don't include them in the Lenten katamaros... Oujai
I feel that the prayers should either be festive or mournful. I don't think that this "middle-ground" argument is valid. If the idea is that Palm Sunday is a master feast, and it is not fitting for us to be mournful, then it seems we should continue in the festive tunes. Just like in the 50 days after the Feast of the Resurrection; if there are funerals, they are done in the festive rite. I don't know why this would not apply to Palm Sunday also because it is still the same day. And unfortunately, I think a lot of bishops now are just putting in their own opinions-not researching before speaking.
You hit the nail on the head. Research is lacking in our Church. Most Arabic books in bookstores that claim to be studies do not have references or sources and most express the author's own opinion.
This is very evident in the rituals where the clergy either meditate on the reason why a certain thing should be done one way or the other without regard to the authenticity of the particular ritual.
But I mean, in the end, who among us is remotely capable of speaking to the Holy Synod about this issue of what tune we should use? We are really wasting our time because the point has been established-the decision was not well thought out and we are lacking mandatory guidelines, which is just not right by any means. To me, the most important thing is that every Coptic Church should be following the same order of rites, and today was the biggest testimony to this lack of unity in our church. The question is, what were churches supposed to do today? The Holy Synod left us in quandary yesterday, pondering what should be done today. Frankly, I don't care whether or not they are rethinking the decision. I just would like to know, what did the Holy Synod expect to be done today in Coptic Churches around the world? I don't feel that there should be room for any questions, debate or options of what to follow in the rites of the church.
I am not sure what you mean by just one manuscript. So, it is not true if it only one manuscript?
All of our liturgical rituals, performed during the liturgy, that we have today goes back to only one manuscript from which other manuscripts were composed.
I did not say Orthodoxy means that the rites won't be changed. I said the rites received from one generation to the other does not change unless there is something wrong with it.
Actually in the first couple centuries, nothing ritually (liturgical) was written down. It was handed down orally at first and there were certain 'formulas' that the bishops/priests used such as invoking the name of the Trinity at the beginning of services. For example, the epiclesis was not always the same in every church...as long as the celebrant called upon the Holy Spirit to effect some sort of change, this is what mattered. During the liturgy as another example, we know from the Didache that the bishop would with the best of his ability say a prayer of thanksgiving, say some sort of prayer to God the Father, and then the Institution Narrative followed by the Epiclesis...its not as if St. Peter went to Antioch or St. Mark went to Alexandria and gave the Christians a kholagi (euchologion)...even at first, we had no iconostasis....the reason why our altar is raised high (besides its practical reason of being seen and its spiritual reason of symbolizing heaven), is that Christians used public basilicas and other venues to conduct their services. Strictly speaking, before any spiritual meaning was ever attached to a ritual, it had a wholly practical meaning. Hence the candles at the lectern during the gospel was there first so the reader can see what he is reading, and then the symbolism of the Gospel being the light of the world etc was attached to it after by the church fathers. The church fathers started to attach symbolic meaning and started to write down and formalize their services only after the church in general was freed from persecution.
The point here is that the church rites developed and continue to develop as Fr. Peter has mentioned. It is not static but rather organic which in this case means that it will grow and change only as necessary- we cannot enforce a random change just because (as in Vatican II lets say).
Actually in the first couple centuries, nothing ritually (liturgical) was written down.
This is incorrect. We have manuscripts with the Church rituals ....
Thanks.
Really? Thats really interesting, do you have examples of such? I'd love to know of some. What we were taught in the seminary is that this concerns primarily the divine liturgy but it also goes for other services too, you didn't see too many actual texts appearing before the 300's (whereas there were people who commented on the appearance of the rituals). There are pieces here and there of liturgical prayers, or certain prayers during a certain feast or rite but it wasn't a compiled set of works and it wasn's standardized until later...by the way, of interesting note, my prof told me that many of the earliest surviving texts were of Coptic (or Coptic rite but in Greek) and Syriac.
Comments
"So what do the priests wear? Do they wear the purple bornoses or their regular black vestments?"
it's a funeral.....no liturgical vestments for priests....bournoses are really weird...i don't think there is a specfic rite for them.
Actually, in any sacrament or service of the church (incl. a funeral or a baptism, confession, raising of incense, etc), the priest should wear his stole (saddreya) but for some reason it seems that it was dropped out of use in many services...
Where does the annual tune fit in to this day?
It is not an annual day......
It seems to me it is an invention in the Church received rites.
We can ask whether a change is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, but the rites as we have them now are not at all the rites of the first centuries, even while there is a clear path of development from then to now.
Before the printed text it seems to me that there was an allowable variety of rites in different places that depended on Alexandria. This is also natural. It has been the case more or less everywhere in the Orthodox Catholic Church that there has been a degree of variety. That is also why it is not necessarily wise to rely absolutely on isolated texts over many centuries as if they described a fixed Tradition rather than simply shining a light on particular traditions in particular places at particular times.
It is always the case that the bishops are free to order the Church as the Holy Spirit guides them.
In fact each Church, in Egypt, had slightly different rites. Each region had different rites. However, all the rites have been fixed by the 15th century throughout all of Egypt.
The change we are facing now is not for a local church but it is for the whole Church. I do not understand as to the reason of the change and its authenticity.
Simply, the change from mournful tune to annual one does not make sense. This particular one had been fixed, as far as we know, since the 12th century.
Thanks.
And if that were the case it would not mean that the bishops could not change the rite. Authenticity depends in a great part on the judgement of the bishops in each age.
Every aspect of our Tradition has developed and changed over time. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it being changed again. It is best to ask the local diocesan bishop for an explanation as to why the Synod has introduced a change. Some of these changes may well be a matter of dispute or controversy, but I think the best way to respond to such changes is to ask our own bishop what they mean.
Yes bishops could change the rites as they wish. However, one characteristic of the Orthodox Church is that one generation receives what has handed down to it, and unless there is something wrong with what is received, and keep it as it is without change.
Now the question is why we are changing that what we have received for this particular rite. Why is it necessary to change it?
The bishop of our diocese is keeping the rite as it is without the new change.
If your own bishop is not adopting the change then I don't see the problem. Each bishop is supposed to govern the rite in his diocese. Have you been able to ask him why other bishops have changed? I am sure they have a reason. Orthodoxy does not mean keeping the rites unchanged. If it did then you would not be using the rite you do use, and you would be worshipping in Aramaic or Greek at least.
I am not sure what you mean by just one manuscript. So, it is not true if it only one manuscript?
All of our liturgical rituals, performed during the liturgy, that we have today goes back to only one manuscript from which other manuscripts were composed.
I did not say Orthodoxy means that the rites won't be changed. I said the rites received from one generation to the other does not change unless there is something wrong with it.
Let us not lose focus of what we are discussing here. We are talking about the change of the Funeral prayer tune from mournful to annual.s
The reason of the change is mentioned on this thread. I do not have a copy of the actual text of the change which I am eager to get. All of what I am hearing thus far does not make sense and the bishop is not convinced of the reason as well. So, for the time being the churches of the Southern diocese are not adopting the change. However, this may change.
Thanks.
We follow the rites that our bishops authorise, that is Orthodoxy. We study ancient manuscripts but they do not determine the life of the Church. The life of the Church is the living experience of the Holy Spirit. This depends on many things, certainly not one manuscript.
So yes, it is not absolutely true if it goes back to one manuscript. Certainly it is not true enough to say that our bishops are acting unacceptably. One manuscript from many centuries is not enough evidence to say THIS is the only way the rites were performed. All it tells us is that the author of the manuscript understood the rites at the time he knew them and in the places he knew them to be performed in that way.
The bishops have the absolute right and authority to change the Funeral Prayer in whatever way they wish as long as it does not express heresy. The laity have the absolute right to ask for an explanation, but in a domain where the bishops have authority the laity do not have the right, as far as I can see as someone who is also under authority, to ignore the decision of their local bishop.
The rites are not static. And never have been, and are not now, as is very clear from discussion here on tasbeha.
When the rites were fixed in the 15th century and handed down to us, we have the responsibility to preserve them and only change them with good reason. I do not see that good reason of changing the mournful tune of the funeral, which is the rite and the tradition of the Coptic Church, to annual.
Why are there so many questions and disagreements? It would be helpful to begin by reading what I've linked to, in order to understand why the changes were implemented by the Holy Synod.
Here's a direct link to the English text: http://www.copticheritage.org/parameters/copticheritage/General_Funeral/General_Funeral_English.pdf
With all due respect I disagree regarding the sources of rites. If we have a manuscript from which the printed books are taken and there is strong evidence that this manuscript is the source then by all means it is true since we do not have another source. I never suggested they did. I am saying that there is no source to the change or a necessity for it.
hehe....you know imikhail, "The Bible commands through St. Paul and St Peter to respect the authorities and obey them"....especially when they all have decided in one unity.
[quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=11208.msg136138#msg136138 date=1302936922]
I still dont understand why they went from joyus(palm sunday) and mourning(funeral prayers), to joyus and annual?
Where does the annual tune fit in to this day?
It is not an annual day......
the reason that the annual tune fits here and was chosen is that it is the "middle-ground" between festive and sad. here we have a case that is similar to Covenant Thursday; is done mostly annual (with some taste of festive) simply because, being a minor feast of the Lord, it is not fitting for the rite to be sad.
I learned from Anba Benyameen of El-monofeya that the Church, with all Her wisdom, will never take is from one extreme to another; festive being one and sad being the other. there will always be a transition point in the middle. that's the reason that the 2nd psalm of palm sunday is said in the annual tune....being the transition point where the next psalm that is said in the church is sad.
Oujai
Mina, your or abouna's statement on holy Thursday is not precise. The rite is semi-festive semi-annual during the Liturgy only. Laqqan is an absolute annual. Paschal prayers before and after are mournful. In fact we say the longest hymn, or at least should do, in sad tune on holy Thursday...
Oujai
i am not considering the laqqan...i had enough arguments on that.....the liturgy itself is as you said. there is a reason fro that.
[quote author=jydeacon link=topic=11208.msg136178#msg136178 date=1303014634]
Saw this as an update on the Service of the Deacons page on facebook(how reliable it is I do not know, I assume it is)---Regarding the tune and hymns for the general funeral prayer after the Hosanna/Palm Sunday service, it is to be prayed as detailed in the Service of the Deacons, which is the traditional Paschal tune... The Holy Synod is currently re-reviewing a decision that was made in May 2010, where the service was changed to the annual tune.
interesting.
Why the change today?
In any case in our diocese we pray it in the paschal tune.
Thanks.
Oujai
PK
You hit the nail on the head. Research is lacking in our Church. Most Arabic books in bookstores that claim to be studies do not have references or sources and most express the author's own opinion.
This is very evident in the rituals where the clergy either meditate on the reason why a certain thing should be done one way or the other without regard to the authenticity of the particular ritual.
PK
I am not sure what you mean by just one manuscript. So, it is not true if it only one manuscript?
All of our liturgical rituals, performed during the liturgy, that we have today goes back to only one manuscript from which other manuscripts were composed.
I did not say Orthodoxy means that the rites won't be changed. I said the rites received from one generation to the other does not change unless there is something wrong with it.
Actually in the first couple centuries, nothing ritually (liturgical) was written down. It was handed down orally at first and there were certain 'formulas' that the bishops/priests used such as invoking the name of the Trinity at the beginning of services. For example, the epiclesis was not always the same in every church...as long as the celebrant called upon the Holy Spirit to effect some sort of change, this is what mattered. During the liturgy as another example, we know from the Didache that the bishop would with the best of his ability say a prayer of thanksgiving, say some sort of prayer to God the Father, and then the Institution Narrative followed by the Epiclesis...its not as if St. Peter went to Antioch or St. Mark went to Alexandria and gave the Christians a kholagi (euchologion)...even at first, we had no iconostasis....the reason why our altar is raised high (besides its practical reason of being seen and its spiritual reason of symbolizing heaven), is that Christians used public basilicas and other venues to conduct their services. Strictly speaking, before any spiritual meaning was ever attached to a ritual, it had a wholly practical meaning. Hence the candles at the lectern during the gospel was there first so the reader can see what he is reading, and then the symbolism of the Gospel being the light of the world etc was attached to it after by the church fathers. The church fathers started to attach symbolic meaning and started to write down and formalize their services only after the church in general was freed from persecution.
The point here is that the church rites developed and continue to develop as Fr. Peter has mentioned. It is not static but rather organic which in this case means that it will grow and change only as necessary- we cannot enforce a random change just because (as in Vatican II lets say).
Thanks.
Thanks
However, what we are discussing in this thread is changing the tune of the general funeral from paschal to annual.
Thanks.
Really? Thats really interesting, do you have examples of such? I'd love to know of some. What we were taught in the seminary is that this concerns primarily the divine liturgy but it also goes for other services too, you didn't see too many actual texts appearing before the 300's (whereas there were people who commented on the appearance of the rituals). There are pieces here and there of liturgical prayers, or certain prayers during a certain feast or rite but it wasn't a compiled set of works and it wasn's standardized until later...by the way, of interesting note, my prof told me that many of the earliest surviving texts were of Coptic (or Coptic rite but in Greek) and Syriac.
http://stpaulatlanta.org/rituals.html
Earlier resources:
The canons (especially those of Hyppolytes), Didache, Apostolic Constitutions all contain ritual instructions.
The general funeral tune should be in the annual one as it is practice in the Church nowadays.
Any funeral prayed on Sunday before 5:00 pm is prayed in the annual tune, so should the General Funeral.
I apologize for any disturbance I may have caused regarding this issue.