Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Saying Midnight Praise Madaye7 during Kiahk Mass Distribution, is this right?
Dear All,
I need the opinion of the knowledgeable cantors & deacons regarding chanting the 7&4 Midnight Praise Madaye7 during Kiahk Mass Distribution (after psalm 150), we always have an argument at our church of whether this is right or wrong. It will be great if there are recordings about opinions (i.e. from Albair, HG anba rafa-eel) or any other reliable source. Can you please get back to me ASAP?
God bless
I need the opinion of the knowledgeable cantors & deacons regarding chanting the 7&4 Midnight Praise Madaye7 during Kiahk Mass Distribution (after psalm 150), we always have an argument at our church of whether this is right or wrong. It will be great if there are recordings about opinions (i.e. from Albair, HG anba rafa-eel) or any other reliable source. Can you please get back to me ASAP?
God bless
Comments
I personally do not see anything wrong with it.
The second reason I think it isn't preferable to chant the madayeh from the midnight praises during the Distribution, is because there are already hymns in the rites to be said after the Psalm 150: The hymns Efemepsha Ghar on weekends and Tiparthenos (I believe) are to be said. These are by no means excessively complex hymns to learn, are beautiful and will be lost if everyone says "let's sing The Burning Bush because it is a catchy tune." Just because the madayeh are more popular, doesn't mean we should neglect the Coptic hymns to be said in the rite. Translate Efemepsha Ghar to English if you want to! But chant the hymn.
If you really find after that, that you've run out of hymns to chant, then sure chant your madayeh. But if there are options which are preferable, why not chant those?
I personally think that is it wrong, for two reasons. The first is that the rites of our Church are ordered and structured such that there should be no confusion or disturbance between the deacons as to hymns which are chanted, to maintain the reverence of the prayerful environment of the church. The rites are there so that everything is done decently and in order. Follow the rites and there should be no problems.
The second reason I think it isn't preferable to chant the madayeh from the midnight praises during the Distribution, is because there are already hymns in the rites to be said after the Psalm 150: The hymns Efemepsha Ghar on weekends and Tiparthenos (I believe) are to be said. These are by no means excessively complex hymns to learn, are beautiful and will be lost if everyone says "let's sing The Burning Bush because it is a catchy tune." Just because the madayeh are more popular, doesn't mean we should neglect the Coptic hymns to be said in the rite. Translate Efemepsha Ghar to English if you want to! But chant the hymn.
If you really find after that, that you've run out of hymns to chant, then sure chant your madayeh. But if there are options which are preferable, why not chant those?
I agree with JG. My remark was that it is ok to say the madaye7 after all the distribution rites have been exhausted.
Thanks a lot for the replies, they're great. For additional confirmation, can someone please get in contact with Albair immediately & get him to post his opinion? We need to sort out this confusion at our church ASAP.
I do not believe you will get any different answer than what is presented here.
i'm sending a p.m. about communion hymns so i don't disrupt the thread.
:)
Ya3ny ask them to prove to you that you can say tasbeha hymns/psalies during communion.
I also want to add that there is specific melody for the distribution which can be found on this site. I do find it hard to believe that you will find time to say more. Just consider the following order:
Psalm 150 long
Psalm 150 short (English, Arabic)
Long Jefesmarout
Efemepsha ghar
Communion melody
:)
how can we get hold of this?
:)
pray hard enough i finish it this week and publish a digital form......
Now, where's the connection with Albair. Well, a couple of months ago, Albair gave a lesson about the Tamgeed and its origins. In it he explained the principle above and why doing the tamgeed during communion is wrong. You can find the lecture here: http://www.copticheritage.org/sermons/14_the_glorification_service. ; He starts talking about communion time at about 11:10.
Personally, I completely agree with this principle. Distribution hymns should focus on Christ. This is why Meghalo and Gennethlion could be said during the distribution of communion. I also believe that with the exception of Efemepsha gar, all the hymns of Kiahk distribution are directed to God. It therefore makes sense that Efemempsha gar was a latter addition to the distribution corpus. It is still considered the seventh Kiahk doxology first and foremost. Tiparthenos is not widely known as a Kiahk distribution corpus even though the tune is only said during Kiahk. But I also think it was an addition.
If you look at all other calendaric seasons, with the exception of St Mary's and Apostles feasts, all of the distribution hymns are God focused. Ataiparthenos is also a tamgeed hymn and a later addition. This leaves us with Arabic madayeh that focus on saints instead of Christ (like the Apostles hymn in the tune of Asomen). These are also probably late additions since most Arabic madayeh are God focused.
Now in the grand scheme of things, isn't it better for the whole congregation to sing a widely known Kiahk midnight praises hymn (like The Burning Bush), than sit around and have one or two people sing the long Je efesmaroot or an Arabic madayeh?
Now in the grand scheme of things, isn't it better for the whole congregation to sing a widely known Kiahk midnight praises hymn (like The Burning Bush), than sit around and have one or two people sing the long Je efesmaroot or an Arabic madayeh?
Remenkimi,
This goes back to what JG said in his post. If I may quote him, he said "The hymns Efemepsha Ghar on weekends and Tiparthenos (I believe) are to be said. These are by no means excessively complex hymns to learn, are beautiful and will be lost if everyone says "let's sing The Burning Bush because it is a catchy tune." The hymns will be lost. This is a very real phenomenon. Hymns can get lost. It has happened before and it could happen again. A lot of people might say, "How can they be lost when we have recordings of them?" Well, they will be lost on the people's minds. The people (and probably many deacons) won't even know they exist. You mentioned Jenethlion in your post. I'll bet most people (not those on this forum) don't even know what Jenethlion is because nobody says it, even though there are plenty of recordings of it out there. So somewhere down the line, there has to be a decision made by a higher church official, like a bishop or something, that says from now on we're going to focus on the new generation and make sure that they know ALL the hymns and we're going to work to make it so that the hymns that are not widely known now are widely known, by EVERYONE, in the future. The problem of course is that here in the northeast, there is no bishop. I think Pope Tawadros said he was going to change that but we'll see.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13928.msg161500#msg161500 date=1354023289]
If you look at all other calendaric seasons, with the exception of St Mary's and Apostles feasts, all of the distribution hymns are God focused. Ataiparthenos is also a tamgeed hymn and a later addition. This leaves us with Arabic madayeh that focus on saints instead of Christ (like the Apostles hymn in the tune of Asomen). These are also probably late additions since most Arabic madayeh are God focused.
This just supports my statement. Everyone knows Atai Parthenos because that's the one that sounds more attractive. But if you look at the recordings on this site and in all the books of the rites, they say that the communion hymn for St. Mary's fast is Anok Nim, a hymn that's on the tune of the paralex of Piepnevma (which everyone knows) and focuses on the incarnation of the Lord Christ. But how many churches chant this hymn? How many people are aware of it? Here's a perfect example of the right hymn being swept under the rug by a hymn that was not meant to be chanted at that time because people put their own desires before theological principles and correct worship.
I believe it is upon the priests and the deacons to educate the people and to lead them in the forms of correct worship and respect for our traditions. If the people control the church rites with their whimsical desires then we have a much bigger problem.
The hymns will not be lost because God will always send a specialized group of cantors who will learn these long hymns. He did it in the early 20th century with M. Mikhail Guirgis. He did it in the papacy of Pope Cyril VI with M. Faheem Guirgis. He did it in the papacy of Pope Shenouda III with M. Ibrahim Ayad who is continuing it in Pope Tawadros' papacy. God even sent more cantors like M. Albair, M. Zaher, and many others who learned these long hymns. We probably have more cantors who know these hymns than in previous generations. To imply a hymn gets lost because of non-usage implies we are keeping hymns alive for the Church. Put another way, are hymns sung for the Church or are hymns sung for the parishioner? Do we keep the Church stable with hymns or does God keep us stable with Church's hymns? If it is the latter then people who cannot advance spiritually with long hymns should not be penalized. It only cause people to get offended at the Church, not people becoming ideally interested in hymns in some sort of utopia.
I still think Efemepsha and Tiparthenos are later additions that break the genre or theme of distribution hymns. Ataiparthenos AND Anok nim are also tamgeed hymns that were incorporated into the distribution corpus. And there is no such thing as the "right hymn". Subjective terms like "not excessively complex", "beautiful", "will be lost (fragile)" are not sufficient reasons keep or even sing long hymns for every liturgy. This is not simply my opinion. It seems to be the opinion of nearly all clergy (in varying degrees).
I think there needs to be a middleground. Despite the fact that people are unaware of these hymns does not mean we should withhold them from any possible benefit they may recieve from them (whether it be spiritual, theological, or even musical). I have had many instances where people came up to me and asked me about several hymns they found to be very beautiful. This does not mean we ought to chant every hymn in the service; but we need to use wisdom if we plan on saying something new or long. I, for example, would never chant a hymn out of the blue without at least having an English translation available on our powerpoint slides. This way, you allow the congregation to meditate on the hymn without dozing off into space. If the hymn is simple enough, I might chant things in English--and this sometimes gets them even more invovled. My point is, there is a lot of richness in our rites and hymns and it would be a shame to deprive parishioners the chance to see that. At the same time, we must discern whether or not the time is right, whether we are not running late, if the occasion is appropriate, if abouna agreed, if other deacons know it (saying things alone is not good), if it coincides with the rites, etc...
I do not believe that it is fitting for the lay people to suggest things that conflict with our rites. I do not see how communion should be any different. In fact, we should be more cautious in the time of communion since the Body and Blood are present before us! I think to chant things like the burning bush would be highly inappropriate. There needs to be a middleground. We can say things that are directly related to Christ without saying uncommon hymns.
Rem's theory that Efemepsha Ghar and Tiparthenos are late additions to the Distribution rite is interesting, and I would be very interested if he or anybody produced sources or evidence to support it.
Joe.
This does not mean we ought to chant every hymn in the service; but we need to use wisdom if we plan on saying something new or long. I, for example, would never chant a hymn out of the blue without at least having an English translation available on our powerpoint slides. This way, you allow the congregation to meditate on the hymn without dozing off into space.
Let me try a different approach. Instead of hymns, let's compare linguistics. There are some churches where the priest insists on saying the Lord's prayer only in Coptic. Now there is wisdom in doing this. We all know there is always an English translation on a powerpoint slide. And if there isn't, everyone knows the Lord's prayer in English by heart. Notwithstanding this common knowledge, ask yourself if you would benefit from the Lord's prayer in Coptic only or if it would be a burden you do not want. Theoretically, as you said, this should be enough for people to meditate on the Coptic text without dozing off into space. If you asked each and every parishioner in those churches where the Lord's prayer is recited in Coptic exclusively, they would likely wish they could say the Lord's prayer in their first language of familiarity instead of Coptic.
It is the same with hymns. Theoretically, with more usage and familiarity, the hymns become more beneficial. However, in reality it creates an environment where people feel excluded. The clergy will not tolerate a liturgical service that caters to a specific group and excludes the rest. And in reality, most people feel excluded from the elite cantors who can learn hymns. Then ask yourself, is depriving the Lord's prayer in Coptic (even just occasionally) a shame? If your answer is no, then it is not shameful to deprive parishioners of rites and hymns that become a burden and offense. (not absolutely depriving or removing all hymns, but in reason modifying services for the maximum benefit to all).
It's not the people who are suggesting anything. It is the clergy who see long-winded hymns as a conflict with the rites and counterproductive for spiritual growth. The patristic fathers also have recommended brevity over long services. I agree. But do you think it is just as inappropriate for a handful of deacons to sing any hymn (whether short, long, English, German, Sawhili, Arabic, monotone, polytonic, vocal, instrumental, whatever) while the congregation is not engaged? Agreed. But "middle ground" is another subjective term. How do we know that what we are doing now (singing the Burning Bush during the Kiahk distribution) isn't a compromise or a middle ground solution? I'm not sure I follow. It is the long, uncommon hymns that people object to, especially if they are focused on saints instead of Christ. I don't think anyone objects to short, common hymns directed to Christ during the distribution.
Sorry for the long post
Another issue I would like to comment on, is that we simply don't have an accurate picture of communion hymns throughout history. Whenever someone makes a comment such as "it is wrong to do...x, y, and z", I think the statement has to be qualified as a contemporary theological interpretation of what is perceived to be the practice that most accurately reflects the Orthodox ethos and purpose of worship. The word "contemporary" here is not meant in a negative sense. Indeed, the Church's worship must strive in some respects to re-present the Church's rule of Faith in a meaningful way to each generation. I just wanted to point out that for those people that rely mainly on historical precedence (cantor so and so said this or taught that), two things have to be kept in mind: 1- In the grand scheme of things, everything we know as taught by different cantors or written in different books amounts in the end to one thing, contemporary modern practice, which may or may not have anything to do with Coptic tradition in the entirety of history. 2- Those of us who study Liturgical history on a more academic level must also be ready to acknowledge when we have very little data about a certain practice or part of the service. For example, as it stands now, I don't know the history of Efemepsha ghar beyond the history of printed books (late 19th and 20th cent).
One thing to take from all this: 1- We cannot apply abstract theological principles on the liturgy, and judge everything that violates these principles as necessarily harmful. 2- At the same time, we cannot ignore the testimony of all the sources we have (and this is a work that goes way beyond simply consulting Ibn Kabar or other ready sources), instead choosing to bury our heads in the last 100 years of liturgical tradition. Or even worse, assume that the opinions of this or that contemporary teacher (without mentioning names) is all that is needed. When the official church hierarchy (priest, bishop, or synod) has spoken on a matter, obedience must follow for the sake of consistency and for obedience's sake. However, the intellectual debates outside of the church cannot and must not be monopolized by the opinions of any, regardless of rank or background.
Let me try a different approach. Instead of hymns, let's compare linguistics. There are some churches where the priest insists on saying the Lord's prayer only in Coptic. Now there is wisdom in doing this. We all know there is always an English translation on a powerpoint slide. And if there isn't, everyone knows the Lord's prayer in English by heart. Notwithstanding this common knowledge, ask yourself if you would benefit from the Lord's prayer in Coptic only or if it would be a burden you do not want. Theoretically, as you said, this should be enough for people to meditate on the Coptic text without dozing off into space. If you asked each and every parishioner in those churches where the Lord's prayer is recited in Coptic exclusively, they would likely wish they could say the Lord's prayer in their first language of familiarity instead of Coptic.
I do not see any wisdom in saying the Lord's prayer in Coptic. You are the one claiming that there is wisdom.
I do not think you can equate this example to hymns simply based on the fact that language is a very miniscule part of it. I already mentioned in the previous post that sometimes I chant these "unfamiliar" hymns in English; so there goes your arguement. Secondly, I already mentioned that there are other benefits to introducing unfamiliar hymns to the congregation (refer to previous post).
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13928.msg161508#msg161508 date=1354049585]
It is the same with hymns. Theoretically, with more usage and familiarity, the hymns become more beneficial. However, in reality it creates an environment where people feel excluded. The clergy will not tolerate a liturgical service that caters to a specific group and excludes the rest. And in reality, most people feel excluded from the elite cantors who can learn hymns.
I disagree. Your example is not a good one. Liturgical services do not have to cater towards a specific group; all it has to do is coincide with the rites. For example, if the people do not know how to say efemepsha long, the deacons can chant it in a fast doxology tune. And instead of the burning bush, maybe they can say the madeha for the first sunday or whatever. This is a good example of a middleground because it does not compromise our rites and yet allows the congregation to participate.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13928.msg161508#msg161508 date=1354049585]
Then ask yourself, is depriving the Lord's prayer in Coptic (even just occasionally) a shame? If your answer is no, then it is not shameful to deprive parishioners of rites and hymns that become a burden and offense. (not absolutely depriving or removing all hymns, but in reason modifying services for the maximum benefit to all) .
The answer is no. The rites of the church have little to do with language Rem. I highly disagree with you with regards of it being a burden and offense. A few years ago I remember when I introduced the hymn "Sena Echo" in our church (taught the deacons) during the fast of St. Mary for the revival. The people soon loved it and asked us to chant it during every glorification for St. Mary. Not only did we say it in Coptic, but there were times when it was chanted in English. This was just one example among many.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13928.msg161508#msg161508 date=1354049585]
It's not the people who are suggesting anything. It is the clergy who see long-winded hymns as a conflict with the rites and counterproductive for spiritual growth. The patristic fathers also have recommended brevity over long services.
I do not think you understand what I was saying. I was refering to those who keep pressuring the deacons to say tamgeed or things like the burning bush. I also mentioned previously that long hymns should be said with descretion. So, please do not argue as if I am condoning every service as if it should be 5 hours long. Secondly, not all clergy hold the same view you think. However, if you agree with what you have posted above, than why not skip hymns like Omonogenees, Pekethronos, mournful Taishory, Ethvety, The addribi psalm....ah heck, why not get rid of pacha altogether? I kid.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13928.msg161508#msg161508 date=1354049585]
I agree. But do you think it is just as inappropriate for a handful of deacons to sing any hymn (whether short, long, English, German, Sawhili, Arabic, monotone, polytonic, vocal, instrumental, whatever) while the congregation is not engaged? .
How on earth would you know if they were engaged or not? Could you read their mind? Is it not possible that they are meditating on the prayer? Is it not possible that they are learning from the church's theology? Is it not possible that they are internally joyful? I do not think you are in a position to say so.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13928.msg161508#msg161508 date=1354049585]
Agreed. But "middle ground" is another subjective term. How do we know that what we are doing now (singing the Burning Bush during the Kiahk distribution) isn't a compromise or a middle ground solution? .
I gave an example of having a middleground above. Please refer to it.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13928.msg161508#msg161508 date=1354049585] I'm not sure I follow. It is the long, uncommon hymns that people object to, especially if they are focused on saints instead of Christ. I don't think anyone objects to short, common hymns directed to Christ during the distribution. .
What I meant was, we can compromise by saying something simple (easy for the congregation) for communion as long as its part of the distribution rite. I do not really know of any long hymns that are directed to saints other than maybe Apekran, so you kinda lost me. The problem is that sometimes they prefer to do something for saints during the distribution which is not proper and that is why I made that comment.
I hope this made sense.
I understand where you are coming from. My point of view is this (I will make this short):
Consider the Liturgy of the Believers. The entire set of prayers is directed towards God in a direct way. Even the commemoration of the saints is praising the saints based off the fact that Christ commanded us to have a share with them. All these prayers are done before we even partake of the Eucharist. Now once the priest prays the confession and the deacons finish the response, we start Psalm 150 and the like. We are now partaking of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Does it make any sense whatsoever to start chanting a madeha on the saint of the day? Of course not! Christ is in our midst! He deserves to be the centerpoint of all our attention (Just like in the Liturgy).
Albeir mentioned something that I thought was interesting. He said the rite of St. Basil's liturgy is byzantine in origin and the people of that culture believed that once the Body was present before they (after the invocation), they may begin to start petitioning prayers (which is the modern day litanies). However, in St. Mark's liturgy (which was later modified by St. Cyril), we find that that all the litanies and commemoration come early and later on, we find the prayer of Agios and so forth. Albeir mentioned that, in our culture (at the time), we believed that, once the Body was present before us, we had ought to put more focus and attention on God's greatness. So we end up with a contrast of views. I am not using this as an arguement but I thought it would be something interesting to share.
At the end of the day, the focus needs to be on Christ directly.
I do not believe it is at all wrong to pray with the Madaye7. The focus should be Christ whether we are partaking of Christ or we are simply praying the commemoration of saints during tasbeha.
The idea that the focus should be Christ after the start of the anafora is of utmost dangerous. The focus is Christ whether we are praying the ajbeya, midnight praises, matins, vespers, ... etc, whether we are glorifying St. Mary, St George, ... etc.
To suggest that we are not focusing on Christ while we are glorifying a saint is theologically and dogmatically not correct.
1) I remember hearing a talk somewhere (I think it was from Copticheritage.org, one of Albair's latest lectures on the history of Coptic Hymns) that, in Ancient Egypt, when the people would worship at the temple, there were many priests but there was one priest who had the specific duty of doing the chanting. This priest was given the highest honor because the chants were very long and complicated and thus it took an extremely gifted person to be able to master them (cue the 30 minute long Enthok Ghar from the Liturgy of St. Gregory). Only he was to chant and nobody made any issue of not following along or understanding the words. As we all know, our Coptic tradition is heavily based around that of our ancestors. Many Coptic hymns have roots in Ancient Egyptian musical tradition (although I know Remenkimi would say the evidence for this is inconclusive). It stands to reason that maybe, in our Coptic Church, people weren't meant to sing along. This is something that I have thought for a very long time. Why are our hymns so long? Most of the long hymns are only a few sentences yet they take very long to chant. I think it's because the text is not important. The Ancient Egyptians (our forefathers) felt that it was the music that was more important than the text, that it was the effect of the music on the mind and body that would set the worshipers in the right state of mind. Maybe the whole point this whole time is not so that people could sing along or understand what is being said, but rather that they should be subjected to hearing the music. It's a stretch, but food for thought.
2) This is probably a silly question but do people really actually try to sing along with the deacons during communion. I am sure there are a couple but when I look at the people during communion, most of them are not really focused on the deacons at all. There is a lot of activity going on (people moving around and such) during this time and I think the people are preoccupied with other things than what the deacons are chanting, especially in those churches where the kids go to Sunday School immediately after taking communion.
Finally, I totally agree with Amoussa01 on his point about introducing unknown hymns:
[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=13928.msg161510#msg161510 date=1354057550]
A few years ago I remember when I introduced the hymn "Sena Echo" in our church (taught the deacons) during the fast of St. Mary for the revival. The people soon loved it and asked us to chant it during every glorification for St. Mary. Not only did we say it in Coptic, but there were times when it was chanted in English.
This exact story happened with me as well. People get sick and tired of monotony. When they hear the same hymns every single Sunday, they get bored. It really livens them and makes them attentive when they hear a hymn that they've never heard before. I think it also kind of puts them on the edge of their seat. I've had several people come up to me after a service saying something like "You broke a record with that hymn today! I thought you would never finish." When you're singing a long hymn it keeps them guessing when it will be over. This forces them to pay attention. hehe :)
The questions is what should the deacons pray once the rite has been done? I mean once we pray all the distribution hymns of the occasion, i.e kiahk? Is it wrong to pray with the midnight madaye7? Should we just be silent?
I do not believe it is at all wrong to pray with the Madaye7. The focus should be Christ whether we are partaking of Christ or we are simply praying the commemoration of saints during tasbeha.
The idea that the focus should be Christ after the start of the anafora is of utmost dangerous. The focus is Christ whether we are praying the ajbeya, midnight praises, matins, vespers, ... etc, whether we are glorifying St. Mary, St George, ... etc.
To suggest that we are not focusing on Christ while we are glorifying a saint is theologically and dogmatically not correct.
Imikhail,
I am sorry but it seems you misunderstood my post. My issue is this:
When the Lord of Glory is with us and we are about to approach and partake of His holy mysteries and someone decides to chant the tamgeed for St. Mina the wonderworker instead of "The Bread of Life" (Pi-oik). Don't get me wrong; I love St. Mina and yes its possible to praise God through His saints but aren't we missing the bigger picture here? We worshipping in such an indirect way which is inappropriate to say the least. FYI, this view is not just something that came from me but many fathers will also tell you the same.
Regarding your other comment:
I never meant to say that we did not focus on God before the anaphora. Rather, certain aspects and prayers focus more on heavenly things such as His throne and His glory, not so much petitions or commemoration.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13928.msg161515#msg161515 date=1354064933]
The questions is what should the deacons pray once the rite has been done? I mean once we pray all the distribution hymns of the occasion, i.e kiahk? Is it wrong to pray with the midnight madaye7? Should we just be silent?
I do not believe it is at all wrong to pray with the Madaye7. The focus should be Christ whether we are partaking of Christ or we are simply praying the commemoration of saints during tasbeha.
The idea that the focus should be Christ after the start of the anafora is of utmost dangerous. The focus is Christ whether we are praying the ajbeya, midnight praises, matins, vespers, ... etc, whether we are glorifying St. Mary, St George, ... etc.
To suggest that we are not focusing on Christ while we are glorifying a saint is theologically and dogmatically not correct.
Imikhail,
I am sorry but it seems you misunderstood my post. My issue is this:
When the Lord of Glory is with us and we are about to approach and partake of His holy mysteries and someoène decides to chant the tamgeed for St. Mina the wonderworker instead of "The Bread of Life" (Pi-oik). Don't get me wrong; I love St. Mina and yes its possible to praise God through His saints but aren't we missing the bigger picture here? We worshipping in such an indirect way which is inappropriate to say the least. FYI, this view is not just something that came from me but many fathers will also tell you the same.
Regarding your other comment:
I never meant to say that we did not focus on God before the anaphora. Rather, certain aspects and prayers focus more on heavenly things such as His throne and His glory, not so much petitions or commemoration.
I understand your points moussa. However, you did not address my question. What should the deacons do once the rite of distribution has been fulfilled?
As I mentioned already (previously in this forum), I think there is more than enough in the rite (unless you are praying in a cathedral) to sustain the length of communion time. Consider the following:
Psalm 150 long (Ibrahim ayad's version is 17 min long)
Psalm 150 in English/Arabic/whatever
Long Jefesmarout
Efemepsha Ghar (M. ayad's version is 20 min long)
Communion Melody of the week
imikhail,
As I mentioned already (previously in this forum), I think there is more than enough in the rite (unless you are praying in a cathedral) to sustain the length of communion time. Consider the following:
Psalm 150 long (Ibrahim ayad's version is 17 min long)
Psalm 150 in English/Arabic/whatever
Long Jefesmarout
Efemepsha Ghar (M. ayad's version is 20 min long)
Communion Melody of the week
This is besides the point. The question still remains whether the deacons should just be silent or say the madaye7 from 7&4 after they fulfill the rite.
I think the answer lies in the question. There are separate rites for every thing. Why should we confuse and mix things up?
The question is difficult of what we do after singing the usual legitimate Communion hymns. I don't approve of melodies (= madaye7) but some people do.
Oujai qen `P[C