› ›

Pi-epnevma in the Holy 50 Days in Weddings

paisiospaisios
in Hymns Discussion
Khristos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
I've heard some priests and bishops say we shouldn't chant pi-epnevma during weddings in the holy 50, since He hasn't descended yet (Pentecost). In my opinion it doesn't really make much sense. Your opinion on this?
Thank you!

Comments

  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited April 2018
    Hogwash!

    Reminds me of the time when we used to cut the Nicene Creed, but then thankfully the Synod rejected this. So same principle should apply.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    My opinion is that it shouldn't be said in weddings at all :-)

    I think i explained why i think so here somewhere on the forum...i'll search
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited April 2018
    Isn’t it also said in the welcoming ceremony of a newly ordained presbyter?

    And another question perhaps one can ask, as I am thinking for this question, why do we chant PiEpnevma in the wedding? What message is the Church telling us in chanting this hymn and if this message is important, why remove it?
  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear @minatasgeel,
    Why do you have that kind of opinion?
    Dear @minasoliman,
    I disagree with you and with the synod on the point of the Nicene Creed..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited April 2018
    I think Mina is looking for the old thread so that he doesn’t repeat himself :)

    In the meantime, why do you think we can cut the Creed at certain points? I think we need to recognize the way “time” is experience in the liturgy, as opposed to the linear world we go through.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    edited April 2018
    Searching from forum is not real feasible...so here I go. 

    @minasoliman...yes, the hymn is said in the welcoming ceremony

    A couple of points to consider:
    - The current rite of the Crowning Ceremony that is done in almost all church is missing some of the things that the Synod agreed upon in the 1999 Pentecost session. The changes there were basically to mix the rite of 'aqd al-emlak (The Pledge of Marriage) with the Ekleel (The Crowning)
    - Before the Synod changes in 1999, there was one source for the services, a book done by Heg Philotheus--in that book, there is no mention of Pi-epnevma
    - There is prob one or two manuscripts that do say pi-epnevma is said
    - Traditionally cantors would say the hymn Nikhora instead since that the hymn is for the Wedding of Cana of Galilee Feast

    Now, the main reason for my opinion is this: Pi-epnevma is a hymn of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit that first time, and not the calling for Him to fulfill the mystery. So, think of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit on the disciples on Pentecost; that's similar to us getting the Spirit during Chrismation. But in the Crowning Ceremony, He doesn't come to "dwell" in the couple--they already have Him since they are both believers. But He comes to fulfill the mystery--to do His work as the 3rd hypostasis of the Trinity. This is similar to the Spirit coming during the epiclesis to transform the bread and wine to the Body and Blood. 

    So with that in mind, you'll see that in essence, the words in the hymn have nothing to do at all with what is really happening in the Crowning Ceremony. 

    If you ask me then, why do we say the hymn during ordinations or consecrations...i would also say, consider Pentecost...that day the Apostles received the Spirit which gave them the authority to invoke Him to consecrate clergy or holy places/"things"==the mystery of Priesthood. So in an ordination, a bishop exercises the grace and authority given to him indirectly by the Holy Spirit from Pentecost.

    This is my opinion. And it's mostly a response to what is being done these days where priests and bishops are moving the hymn to be said after the fulfillment of the mystery part, "Crown them..." instead of after the Pauline. They do this by saying that at that moment, the Holy Spirit comes. Which is not a good argument at all since they'll fall into the same trap of those that argue that the Spirit only comes during the epiclesis in the liturgy to fulfill the sacrament. 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    “Now, the main reason for my opinion is this: Pi-epnevma is a hymn of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit that first time, and not the calling for Him to fulfill the mystery. So, think of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit on the disciples on Pentecost; that's similar to us getting the Spirit during Chrismation. But in the Crowning Ceremony, He doesn't come to "dwell" in the couple--they already have Him since they are both believers. But He comes to fulfill the mystery--to do His work as the 3rd hypostasis of the Trinity. This is similar to the Spirit coming during the epiclesis to transform the bread and wine to the Body and Blood. ”

    Good point!
  • PiOnkh
    I agree with not cutting the creed. The creed is a statement of faith...our faith does not change so there is no reason for us to exclude certain parts at a particular time of the year. In the same liturgy which we cut the Nicene creed we also sing Ton Thanaton, in particular the part which we confess Christs ".....holy resurrection and ascension into the heavens.....". Why do we sing this but exclude it in the Creed? Does not make any sense. The same also applies to Pi-epnevma. The holy spirit descends down on the married couple irregardless of what time of the year it is. So to make the argument that we don't sing a hymn of the holy spirit because " we haven't come to Pentecost yet" doesn't make a lot of sense either. Pentecost happened 2000 years ago! And while it is nice to travel through this period like the apostles would have, we need to make adjustments becse these exclusions are not correct
  • paisiospaisios
    Perhaps a justification for pi-epnevma in a wedding. Like @minatasgeel said about authority in ordinations/consecrations. Could the hymn be meant for the groom, "he is the head of the wife... He is the leader. He represents the principle of authority in the family. Just as the priest is the spiritual leader of the parish, so too the husband is the priest in his family, responsible for his family."
    Just a thought, it's not too concrete though...
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @paisios...Being a husband or a wife is not a rank in the Church. And what you are saying is not practical. It's good analogy to show the role of either couple in the family...but i think its too far fetched here to use to justify saying the hymn.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    I always like to emphasize the priesthood begins in our chrismation. Being given the authority to consecrate the sacraments begins in the presbyterate.
  • ShareTheLordShareTheLord
    @minasoliman, could you develop that last thought more concretely, that being the difference between the two types of priesthood, and how they can be biblically supported? (Sorry for the tangent). 
  • ophadeceophadece
    edited April 2018
    Dear all,
    Sorry I had some busy days at work, and wasn't able to reply sooner. I have replied to a similar argument before on this very website when Fr. Peter Farrington was active. I will try to relist those points, although I can't remember all the details of the argument, but I will try. 
    First of all, I find it a subjective argument to say cut out parts of God's words and shy away from doing the same with man-made words. How many psalms, epistles, Gospels are cut out to serve rubrics, but the same couldn't be done with the Creed. Why is that a statement of faith, whilst the words of God are not? That's unacceptable for me. Remember that this goes hand in hand with what the priest says in the fraction too, and Ekhrestos anesty (i.e. parts are added after the fortieth day, and another on the day of the Pentecost). 
    Secondly, why should we say that if converts enter the Church they would be "misled", or "confused". Why is the same argument not used when on a great Lordly feast as the pentecost no one is confused when the sixth hour of the agbeya is not prayed, and the prayers of the agbeya finishes without the relevant parts, until during the Liturgy? Why would there be no confusion when some of the saints are left out of the commemoration of saints in tasbeha (both vespers and midnight)? Are they less important? Does the church commit to them being ranked less than others? So why should it be acceptable to remove some parts of names, Lord's parables, and agbeya prayers, but not the Creed? 
    Thirdly, "ton tanadon" is part of the story-telling of salvation. This is the better example of words that do not change, because the whole story telling, including the litanies of the liturgy of St Basil. But reconciliation prayers are left out until Bright Saturday; commemoration on a major Lordly feast, as Covenant Thursday. No, I will go even further and say that psalm 150 as a whole is left out on a major Lordly feast, and then Bright Saturday. 
    Lastly, I can see the priests that the OP mentioned who propose that teaching, may have well got it from here; i.e. bebnewma is not mentioned as the focus is on the resurrection, EVEN THOUGH, we say the very same text during every liturgy in the forty nine days preceding (i.e. third hour agbeya prayers). 
    Oujai qen `P[c
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Chrismation restores the human person to what he originally was, which was prophet, priest, and king. To be chrismated is to be “christed”, to literally be Christ. The oil that was used for the three separate functions in the Old Testament have been united in Christ and given to us. 

    The clearest evidence of this thought is in 1 Peter 2:9...”But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession.”

    Additionally, the book of Revelation also professes this:

    "To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (Rev. 1:5-6)

    "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:9-10)

    Finally, the gift of prophecy was prophesied (no pun intended) by Joel and readdressed in the book of Acts:

    "And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17-18)

    The Church at the same time appointed "elders" (or in Greek "presbyters") and "bishops" chosen from among the community of the baptized and chrismated to lead them.  The Bible never said to  "choose a priest".  No, the Bible said "choose a presbyter" or in another area "a bishop" (or even the choice of deacon is also made apparent).  See Titus and 1 Timothy for these instructions.  We unfortunately translated the Arabic word "qasees" in English "priest" to mean the presbyter, but that is not the only priest there is.  The priesthood is the community of the Christians.  All priests are laity and all the laity are priests.  Even Revelations 4:4, there are not 24 "priests", but 24 "presbyters".  The Coptic words for all of these have kept the original intent for these ordinations.

    Every time you read in the New Testament the words "elder" and "overseer", replace them with "presbyter" and "bishop" and you will see the clear intent of these holy orders in the Church.  Every time you read the word "priest" in the New Testament, it either refers to Christ or the laity.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Dear ophadeece,

    I'm not sure I follow your arguments here.

    Granted, I may have reacted rashly and compared the removal of PiePnevma to the removal of parts of the Creed, but I do believe the Creed carries the function of a statement of faith, and not just any statement of faith, but etched in stone so to speak as to tell us what we believe and how we should read the Scriptures and approach the Eucharist.  So if parts of the Liturgy are cut here and there just for the season, the Creed is still understood as that part that cannot be cut because it is eternally believed at anytime.  In the same way Abouna prays "Therefore, as we also commemorate Your Holy Passion, Your Resurrection from the dead, Your Ascension into the Heavens, Your Sitting at at the Right Hand of the Father, and Your second coming, which is awesome and full of glory, we offer unto You these gifts from what is Your's, for every condition, concerning every condition, and in every condition."  NONE OF THAT is cut off at any time.  We say this in Palm Sunday, in Holy Thursday, in Joyous Saturday, in Resurrection Sunday, in everyday after that, in the Ascension, and everyday after that.  In short, EVERY liturgy.  What we believe is what we "commemorate", and what we commemorate is what we live in the moment.  The liturgy does not represent a time machine, but represents the end of times that we live "right now", our eternity in Christ in the liturgy.  Therefore, we even commemorate His second coming as if it already happened.  And when we commemorate His entrance into Jerusalem, we also remember that and know with Christ He will be crucified and will rise from the dead and ascend to the Heavens.  If when Thursday happens, we think the same.  And when He is crucified and buried, we already know He is risen from the dead.  All of this are done in His person, not outside Him.  When Christ was born, He already knows He will be crucified, buried, risen, ascended, and return in glory, where every knee both in heaven, on the earth, and under the earth will bend before.

    We cut certain parts so as to present what Christ is doing "now" and we are doing "in Him".  But at the same time, Christ is eternal, and He raised us into His eternity.  Therefore, we are privy to knowledge in a way the Apostles did not before His resurrection.  The way we experience time now as opposed to before the sending of the Holy Spirit to His followers is completely different.  No longer is time linear, but becomes an icon of His eternity.  We already live in His Kingdom and in His second coming.  Therefore, when we say "Today, He is on the Cross" or "Today, the King has entered Jerusalem", we did not get transported back in time, but live in Christ and walk in His journey while in communion with His eternity.

    So when you cut parts of the Creed, you are saying that I do not partake of the eternity of Christ, but live in the ignorance of His resurrection and Ascension, not really believing it.  The Creed, the faith, is eternal, not partial or time-wise.  When parts of the liturgy is cut to "commemorate" a specific action Christ did for our salvation, it is still done through the FAITH of His passion, resurrection, ascension, and second coming.
  • Jojo_HannaJojo_Hanna
    edited April 2018
    @paisios ...
    This in my opinion is incorrect because our Hymns/Prayers/Praises, consist of facts, which is to say stating informations.
    In this context according to those Priests and Bishops, a simple example would be The Verses of Cymbals would not be chanted, because...we say:
    Hail to you O Mary, the fair dove, who gave birth to, God the Word.
    <ere ne Maria...

    We say:

    WHO GAVE BIRTH,  
      not 
    WHO GIVES BIRTH... 

    In Your peace, O Christ our Savior, we slept and arose, for we have hoped in You.
  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear @minasoliman,
    Let me answer your queries in an uninformed way, much less learned than you are I know, but I am sure you will understand and find more evidence than what I can say. 
    First of all you said: "I may have reacted rashly and compared the removal of PiePnevma to the
    removal of parts of the Creed"
    I wasn't aware of you making that simile. I was pointing out to @minatasgeel.
    You said: "I do believe the Creed carries the function of a statement of faith, and
    not just any statement of faith, but etched in stone so to speak as to tell us
    what we believe and how we should read the Scriptures and approach the
    Eucharist"
    Why is that so? Why is the Creed a statement of faith any more than the Gospel is? Or the sign of the Cross? Is it because we start the passage by saying "we believe"? Of course you are aware that the Creed was not fully formed until the fifth century, which means that so many martyrs, church leaders, saints, patriarchs, never relied on it, and the church was solidly strong against many challenges. Indeed, it was for this very reason that the Creed was formed and developed - i.e. its function was to stand against heresies. It was therefore incorporated into all the other prayers, and therefore all other liturgical prayers are statements of faith, aren't they? But they change, don't they? 
    You said: "the Creed is still understood as that part that cannot be cut because it
    is eternally believed at anytime"
    No, it isn't - I disagree. Why can't we say the same for agioc o :eoc? The commemoration of the saints? Those saints who defended and led the way of the Coptic Orthodox faith? In fact, the Creed is different to the ones used by other churches, and I am sure you know that. 
    You said: "In the same way Abouna prays "Therefore, as we also commemorate
    Your Holy Passion, Your Resurrection from the dead, Your Ascension into the
    Heavens, Your Sitting at at the Right Hand of the Father, and Your second
    coming, which is awesome and full of glory, we offer unto You these gifts from
    what is Your's, for every condition, concerning every condition, and in every
    condition."  NONE OF THAT is cut off at any time"
    That's exactly the point I made previously. This is part of the anaphora (what I simplistically called "story-telling of salvation". This part follows "amyn ton ;anaton" as another member mentioned above. The only parts that change are the Asbasmos Watos, and commemoration of saints. We could then argue that this is based on the Orthodox faith, from which derives the Nicene Creed. 
    You said "What we believe is what we "commemorate", and what we
    commemorate is what we live in the moment"
    And how does this reconcile with the fact that during Sundays of the Great Lent we say ak`i rather than aktwnk? Certainly we all know that Sunday is the day of the Lord, don't we?
    You said: "The liturgy does not represent a time machine, but represents the end of
    times that we live "right now", our eternity in Christ in the
    liturgy.  Therefore, we even commemorate His second coming as if it
    already happened"
    No, we don't. Where do we celebrate the second coming as though it had already happened? I find this very difficult to grasp, but please explain further to me. 
    You said: "And when we commemorate His entrance into Jerusalem, we also remember
    that and know with Christ He will be crucified and will rise from the dead and
    ascend to the Heavens"
    Thank you - my point exactly. We do what you said, yet we pray joyfully, and we don't mention Isaac's sacrifice, or the birth of the Lord in Bethlehem, or His Theophany. And we don't sing Crucifixion hymns, do we? Or ascension hymns. 
    You said: "If when Thursday happens, we think the same.  And when He is
    crucified and buried, we already know He is risen from the dead.  All of
    this are done in His person, not outside Him.  When Christ was born, He
    already knows He will be crucified, buried, risen, ascended, and return in
    glory, where every knee both in heaven, on the earth, and under the earth will
    bend before"
    Yes, but our expression of all those events is different. 
    You said: "We cut certain parts so as to present what Christ is doing
    "now" and we are doing "in Him""
    Thank you. 
    You said: "But at the same time, Christ is eternal, and He raised us into His
    eternity.  Therefore, we are privy to knowledge in a way the Apostles did
    not before His resurrection.  The way we experience time now as opposed to
    before the sending of the Holy Spirit to His followers is completely different.
     No longer is time linear, but becomes an icon of His eternity.  We
    already live in His Kingdom and in His second coming"
    No problem; more complicated than I can argue, but I see contradictions in one statement. 
    You said: "Therefore, when we say "Today, He is on the Cross" or
    "Today, the King has entered Jerusalem", we did not get transported
    back in time, but live in Christ and walk in His journey while in communion
    with His eternity"
    Why would you think that cutting parts out of the Creed does?!!!!!!!!!!! It is exactly what you describing now - the very same purpose, thank you. 
    You said: "So when you cut parts of the Creed, you are saying that I do not partake
    of the eternity of Christ, but live in the ignorance of His resurrection and
    Ascension, not really believing it"
    Of course not - because saying agioc o :eoc followed by ek par;enou three times, doesn't mean we forget His Crucifixion, or His ascension; or do we? 
    You said: "The Creed, the faith, is eternal, not partial or time-wise.  When
    parts of the liturgy is cut to "commemorate" a specific action Christ
    did for our salvation, it is still done through the FAITH of His passion,
    resurrection, ascension, and second coming"
    No arguing with that. But it is not just the Creed, is it? 
    Oujai qen P[c
  • paisiospaisios
    Has the Holy Synod ever specifically addressed whether we should sing it in the Holy 50 at all?
  • Daniel_Kyrillos
    I believe that PiEpneva is valid to be said during weddings because we are stressing that this union is not just superficial, but that the Holy Spirit who descended upon those in the Upper Room is descending upon these bride and groom and making them one. 
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @paisios...The Synod did make the decision not to say it during the fifties.

    @Daniel_Kyrillos...please read my comments above. 
Sign In or Register to comment.