Orthodox is a big picture that includes how we sing, the style of the hymns, and the way we draw our icons, not just the Theology and Doctrine, because of course what is said in the hymns must be orthodox as well, and the drawings must be theologically correct
I understand that, but they still have the same "style" of singing and other things as well, its not just doctrine and Theology, thats just the root of it.
[quote author=clay link=topic=6063.msg80760#msg80760 date=1199405049] You think the way we sing, the style of the hymns, the way we draw our icons, and the language we use is Orthodox?
I do not understand...care to enlighten me? Seems like I am a bit out of the know.
What are the differences between us and our other Orietal brethren?
All of this dissing on our Church does not seem like a good thing to do. How are we not Orthodox? And if indeed we are not Orthodox, then what are we? It seems that something is being suggested in the undertone of your posts, but you probably should just say it flat out.
We are most certainly Orthodox. The problem is we are so disorganized it is laughable. We 'cannot tie our shoelaces as a Community' (I mean that figuratively).
My own proverb: 'The difference between a Real Coptic and an Egyptian'. An Egyptian is one who talks more than he acts, and a Coptic is one that takes action more than he talks. That is what our ancestors did, that is what we should be emulating, that is why it is necessary to keep a Coptic tradition, language, and heritage alive. There are too many Egyptians talking in Our Church, and not enough Coptics taking action. I ask the fundamental question, which no one has answered yet: Are we the Coptic Orthodox Church or are we the Egyptian Orthodox Church?
Forgive my pessimism and cynicism, but I have listened to too many of these discussions since the inception of the Church in the United States and I have not seen any progress.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=6063.msg80769#msg80769 date=1199410316] We are most certainly Orthodox. The problem is we are so disorganized it is laughable. We 'cannot tie our shoelaces as a Community' (I mean that figuratively).
My own proverb: 'The difference between a Real Coptic and an Egyptian'. An Egyptian is one who talks more than he acts, and a Coptic is one that takes action more than he talks. That is what our ancestors did, that is what we should be emulating, that is why it is necessary to keep a Coptic tradition, language, and heritage alive. There are too many Egyptians talking in Our Church, and not enough Coptics taking action. I ask the fundamental question, which no one has answered yet: Are we the Coptic Orthodox Church or are we the Egyptian Orthodox Church?
Forgive my pessimism and cynicism, but I have listened to too many of these discussions since the inception of the Church in the United States and I have not seen any progress.
Of course we are Orthodox! Although our buddy Clay does not seem to think so...
What is your proposed plan for organization? In what ways are we unorganized?
Don't form yourself the straw man with my arguments; I have said nothing of the sort!
Perhaps the following quote might have made you think so: You think the way we sing, the style of the hymns, the way we draw our icons, and the language we use is Orthodox?
I meant to say "Orthodoxy", my apologies.
I have argued consistently (save for that preceeding quote) that Orthodoxy is the faith; It is our sacraments; our fasting; the way we hold that Scripture is sacred, and as the Book of the Church and thus we should not force our own interpretation; it is regard for the elders the clergy.; it is the holy Ecunemical councils.; it is taking part in the Liturgy in the roles we have, and in the Church as whole; it is fasting and praying.; it is hope in the Resurrection. It is many things, but it is not language; it is not the tune in which make our hymns, its not the vestments, its not the design of our cross or icons; its not the human traditions that we have accumulated (as valuable it is for the Church and the richness of its symbolism). Just look at the differences between Orthodox Churches. They can be diverse without being heterodox.
What I was merely suggesting is that the diaspora in future generations, when they no longer feel any ties with Egypt, should have their own Orthodox Church. In a way that is happening now, with English Churches coinciding with Arabic Churches.
I have never criticized the Church; I defended it. You might be seen to be criticizing the priests for allowing Coptic to wane etc. or having Protestant-like songs. Instead I offered an explanation, that outside Egypt we have a different "taste" of style, and that it would not be unorthodox under guidance to have such a Church established, since that is what happened in Apostolic and post-Apostolic times, and we have many examples that different style of worship (to a degree) is not a deviation from Orthodoxy.
You think the style of Coptic Art was developed by wholly by Christians? No the Christians took the good; what had significance in their culture and used it to express Orthodoxy.
As for organisation, they only problem I have is there is too many versions of the English Basil Liturgy. However, perhaps, less educated people might need a liturgy that has the English best suit them, though I am not sure if there are various Coptic versions?
I wanted to think about things before I answered. I have these quaint thoughts. Let me know what you think.
1. The Sunday Schools are oveerrun as it is and the parents either faithfully bring their kids, in some cases dump them there, or are clamoring to get them out. Hence, I believe that the cultural aspects, including: language, history, etc. are better served in a more formal setting of a Coptic School system. This would be similar to the Jewish, Greek, and Armenian systems. There would be more time and more quality towards that end.
There has been much talk in the Northeast of the U.S. for a Coptic School, but quite honestly there is no real preparation. With the way everything is done ad hoc in the Northeast, I do not see any reasonable person commiting their child's future to imbalanced unprepared thinking for a Coptic School.
I would suggest that there be visits to these ethnic schools to learn from them how they were set-up.
2. Part of the reason why Coptic is just a Liturgical language, is because barely anyone really know it as a language--that includes the priests and the clergy. There is a shyness about the language because anyone teaching chants and so get embarassed and are even defensive when challenged about these things.
I would implement regional centers for development of curricula for the teachers and the development of the language in their skills before sanctioning these people to teach others. There needs to be an investment from the parishes towards this goal, and I would believe The St. Shenouda Society in California would be helpful to that aim.
3. The seminaries in North America are weak and anemic. There has to be a real bolstering of their courses and training for the betterment of the Church as a whole. I can go on and on about this issue but I think it is self-explanatory, and I do not want to get into an argument over it. There has been absolutely no investment (real investment). I think there is a long long long list of the great fathers and saints of our Church from Pantaenus to Pope Shenouda. A TRUE SEMINARY IS ESSEENTIAL TO THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH IN ALL ITS ASPECTS.
4. To be mindful of each other's needs until some of these issues are implemented. For example, I do not like the English in the Liturgy but I accept it for the sake of others.
5. Resources: books, flash cards, computer programs, etc. need to be developed.
6. All the aspects of culture to be represented so that there is an overall effect. You may review my previous posts.
7. Bring Sts. Dioscorus & Severus into the spotlight again for their work in having preserved our Orthodoxy and our Culture that is tied to it.
8. Stop wanting to be something that we are not. We are COPTIC.
9. We are not Arabs, and we do not want to be. We are not Egyptian nationals. We are Coptics living in the Diaspora.
I guess that's a start. I will add things as I think of them.
As i live in the UK, i have no idea of the affairs of our church in the US, but here the England, we are doin OK on the front of education. We have conferences for the children so that they can interact with people of their own age. ilovesaintmark, i disagree with your statement that "we are not Egytian nationals". If we are Egyptian, and thereofre Coptic, we have the right to the nationality. I cannot see you differentiating between egyptian and coptic, for they are one and the same.
If you are living in the Diaspora, and have acquired the citizenship of the land, you are not an Egyptian national. The discussion, I believe, was relative to the Diaspora. In the United States, there is no recognition of dual-citizenship.
I make a distinction between the concept of Coptic and Egyptian, although as you may have read my previous posts in this thread you would pick-up on some of my points. It is certainly a connotative issue I make and not a dennotative issue.
Quite honestly I am proud to be of the Coptic lineage, and its heritage. I am not an Arab, or of any Arab lineage. The mistake that Nasser made by announcing that Egypt is an Arab nation is a price that is being paid over and over by the population of Egypt as a whole. I have no wanton regard for the Arab Republic of Egypt or its lack of regard for its citizens the Copts in its Constitution and other implementations. Do I love Egypt?...absolutely. Egypt is, as His Holiness says, lives within me. I am trying to draw distinctions.
I'm not Coptic, I'm Greek Orthodox, but I'm not Greek, I'm American, (I became Orthodox some 5 years ago) and I just like to say that in my experience by using ENGLISH in the services, people, draws people to wanting to learn Greek. When people can comprehend what's going on in a language they understand, then they soon want to learn the language its translated from. This is how it works in my Church anyways. When it used 100% some 15 years ago, no one cared...when they started to use English, people got turned on to the Liturgy as well as the Greek. I don't see how it would be different in a Coptic Church. The best way to keep the language alive is not to force people to learn it, look at the Catholics and Latin...and how it disappeared after Vatican II. However now that they use no Latin, people are beginning to take a second look at it as a sacred language and it's beauty because NOW they understand what it meant....so now people CHOOSE to learn latin. Its a good lesson for us Orthodox I think.
The whole issue of being Egyptian equating with being Arab is a very complicated thing to discuss. There are so many elements to understand and semantics in verbiage. Gamal Abdel-Nasser, effectively the first president of the republic in Egypt, despite Mohammad Naguib, being the figurehead of the revolution in the 50's and the stated 'first president', declared Egypt to be an Arab Nation. Without going into a lot of detail, this was his attempt to form a Pan-Arab Confederacy from which to pass international influence and remove the State of Israel.
In my own personal regard, and certainly by no official mention of the Coptic Church, which would most certainly frown and disclaim such terminology, I equate the word 'egyptian' as the Arab/Semitic component which exists in Egypt. As for the word Coptic and its people, they are of the essentially pure lineage to the pharaonic times. I know this is a broad generalization, and I know there are people that will come down my throat as a 'separatist', but the final placing of things is we are just not Arab--we never were and never will. If the government of Egypt wishes to label themselves as Arab, fine, but I am not obliged to subscribe to their whims or their inaccuaracies in the annals of history.
If you look at the Arab Federation that was formed with Syria and Libya, which was supposed to be a model for other Arab nations to follow, the Egyptian Nation was robbed of resources and economy far beyond the pain of lifetimes. The poverty of Egypt at this point relates to these policies and confederacy and its carry over into the humiliations of '67 and '73 (despite the Egyptians thinking that there was a victory in 1973). Not to mention the slaughter of the Egyptian Army in the Yemen War.
I do not really want to talk about this topic in this detail because it is not necessary for this forum. My point is not to fan the flames of dissent, but to clarify my points. If you have any thoughts along these lines it would probably better to do by personal message. Better to stick to the topic of 'Being Coptic in the Diaspora'.
This has been quite a candid discussion; Chuck also had some good insights. I especially like how ilovesaintmark gave some well presented suggestions for improving Coptic delivery in northern US.
"The main ‘venue’ in Orthodoxy for the ‘hammering out’ of patterns and methods is the monastic context. Monasticism is the ‘icon in praxis’ of the ascetical life of the whole Church, which is why so much of the Church’s liturgical and ascetical practice has its origins in it (e.g. the shape, form and practical elements of Lenten fasting, of the liturgical cycle, etc.). I don’t raise this point simply as a way of suggesting that ‘the way forward is to have more monasteries’ (though I sometimes suffer for breath for saying that there should be); this is not really the issue. What is necessary is to engage with the question of developing local Orthodox practice and ‘ethos’ from within the testimony of the monastic icon of the Church.
***"One of the fundamental principles of monastic life is obedience. Not freedom, not personality, but obedience. The ‘not’ before ‘freedom’ and ‘personality’ isn’t there because these are negative things, but because they are divine realities imaged in human existence, marred by the passions in a most invidious way. Holy freedom, pure freedom, is divine life: the fruit and possession of the saints – but unpurified freedom is worse than slavery. St Paul’s favourite term for himself is ‘slave’, a title he uses with great joy in the face of its alternatives. Freedom saw him crucify and persecute his Saviour. Slavery saw him transform the world around him. Similarly personality. To be fully person, individual in divine communion, is to reflect purely God as persons in communion. But to be a ‘person’ as driven by individualizing traits, defined as much by pattern, custom, habit, and passion as anything else, is to debase personhood into a mythology of the will. My ‘personality’ is my will personified. So the monastic context insists that personality is secondary to obedience. Obedient asceticism reveals the person, it is not driven by it. The true personality of the saints is not the fruit of their wills, but the genuine personhood of the creature in purified communion with its creator.
"In the monastic context, these realities are brought to life through a specific kind of obedience that cannot be mirrored outside it. There is a deliberate submission to the life of the monastic community, and an absolute obedience to it. Elder Ephrem of Katounaikia one received in his cell Elder Joseph, who introduced him to one of his attendant monks. Fr Ephrem’s first question was simply, ‘Is he obedient?’ Obedience in the monastic context often takes harsh, external forms; but like all ascetical practices, they are aimed at interior as well as exterior transformation. And they are engaged in willingly, as the means of purifying the fallen will. So the monk is not asked ‘Would you like to do this?’, nor is he invited to say ‘In my background we do it this way’, but he enters into obedience to the life of the monastic community. This obedience aims to transfigure the will, so that it learns how to say truly, and not just as a well-intentioned pious flourish, ‘not my will, but thine be done’. As this process takes place – and it can often be harsh, and long – the will is indeed transformed, and trappings of false freedom and false personality are etched away. What is revealed is true freedom in Christ, which is only ever found in real submission; together with true personhood and personality, borne out of union with God.
"This monastic context, though not every aspect of monastic praxis, is the icon of ascetical life in the Church as a whole. Freedom must come through obedience – for everyone. Similarly, no one will discover their true personality apart from obedience and transformation. What one brings to the life in Christ can be good, holy, wonderful. But it can only be so if it is brought in the context of obedient freedom, rather than wilful freedom, and embraced in a personality borne of obedient truth, rather than self-will personified.
***"This is true of the Church in whole localities, as much as it is true of individual persons. Genuine local Orthodox customs and ‘flavours’ will emerge out of local practice, but not simply because many local groups come together with various habits, contexts, personalities, tendencies, etc., and eventually patterns work their way out of the mish-mash. Such patterns are nothing more than collective habits, filtered and generalized over time. Nor can things that ‘resonate particularly well in this culture’ emerge in a healthy way simply as trends that pool and unite. Rather, genuine emergence of local Orthodox life comes through the purification of obedience. When a locality – a parish, a city, a diocese, a nation, a land – submits will and habit in obedience to the Church, that obedience transforms will and habit into things truly authentic to the real persons that make them up. A fear of ‘ethnicising’ (which is a real issue in some contexts) often causes this pattern to be looked at with suspicion. ‘This land should not have to become [Insert mother ethnos here] to be authentically Orthodox’. This is true, and this abuse of the maternity of mother-churches must be rooted out. But the baby is infinitely more important than the bath water. Genuine ecclesiastical maternity is not about causing the child church to become a mirror of the mother church, any more than a mother wishes her own child to become an exact mirror of her, or a monastic elder wishes his novice to become a mirror of himself. The obedience demanded of this relationship is designed to free the child, but not into a false-freedom of the will, but into a real freedom of purified personhood in Christ. The child is only able to discover himself, as the genuine creature uniquely, irrepeatably created by God, when the child is reared to stop attempting to create himself."
Dear all, Thank you all for your participation in this great post. It really contains outstanding views of each of the members. Just let me add some points to what you all said; I wish to draw the distinction between Coptic as a language and culture, and Arabic (as opposed to Egyptian). Basically, Coptic means Egyptian, but as certifiedcoptic (I think) pointed out, I would like to enforce the statement of "WE ARE A COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH, NOT AN ARABIC ORTHODOX CHURCH". This is just to support the argument of Arabic translation of hymns, and equally the English ones, don't match their Coptic descendants by any means. Second, let me say this: I don't think that the Coptic Orthodox Church spread in the diaspora, because the Coptics wanted to preach Coptic Orthodoxy to other nations. On the contrary, my view is that there was a need for Coptic Christians who left Egypt to practise their religion (Christianity) in the same belief and dogmas they inherited as Copts (Orthodoxy). So, I see the argument of adopting new languages, or ways of thoughts as an invalid argument, including what clay (I think) said that the language, the culture, the vestments, ... don't form any part in our beliefs; YES THEY DO. I also read this on copticheritage.org; let's assume that all of us held a big international Coptic conference, gathering the youths from every country in the diaspora; USA, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Egypt as well, (as well as whichever you want to add); in what language should the Mass be celebrated? Different one, ain't it? Well, where is the oneness then? You know, Indians and Jews (I point to these two communities especially as I am not sure about others) are better than us; teaching their children their own language, before they learn the native English of the UK, although they live in the UK. Moreover, there are many generations of them here now, and in Israel, they even developed words to adapt to the modern language, like cars, aeroplanes, etc. I also liked Orthodox11 view of obedience coming before personality and individuality - also the fact that spreading the hymns in the language of each country, or each community shouldn't really be viewed as something which will help developing the church, and gathering more youth in it: the case may be the complete antithesis. In the end, what different will the Coptic Orthodox Church in England be offering different to Her British counterpart, or even the Church of England?!! Dear josephgabriel, I am amazed by your enthusiasm. God bless you and complete your work. As I live in the UK myself, I didn't see many churches who are that enthusiastic about teaching the language and preserving it. Let's all pray though... Thank you for having the time to read my points God bless you all and pray for us a lot
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=6063.msg80839#msg80839 date=1199561817] let's assume that all of us held a big international Coptic conference, gathering the youths from every country in the diaspora; USA, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Egypt as well, (as well as whichever you want to add); in what language should the Mass be celebrated? Different one, ain't it? Well, where is the oneness then?
As Christians, the "oneness" is in the Eucharist, in Christ. The Coptic Church is just one part of a much larger Oriental Orthodox Church. You should feel as united to your Ethiopian or Armenian brothers as you do to your fellow Copt.
So the argument that the Coptic language is what unifies the Church is not a particularly convincing one since, were you to have a big international OO conference, you'd be faced with groups whose traditional liturgical languages were Ge'ez, Armenian and Syriac, not Coptic.
You know, Indians and Jews (I point to these two communities especially as I am not sure about others) are better than us; teaching their children their own language, before they learn the native English of the UK, although they live in the UK. Moreover, there are many generations of them here now, and in Israel, they even developed words to adapt to the modern language, like cars, aeroplanes, etc.
Before the establishment of Israel, Hebrew was a dead language, and I can't think of any Jew in the UK that would have learned Hebrew before learning English.
The common language of Jews in Europe was not Hebrew, but Yiddish, which is basically a dialect of German with no real historical significance.
In the end, what different will the Coptic Orthodox Church in England be offering different to Her British counterpart, or even the Church of England?!!
I hope you're not suggesting the main difference between the Coptic Church and the Church of England is language.
Well, I see this discussion has really blossomed. I guess this topic must have struck a nerve with everyone. Now, i noticed that no one has really answered the underlying "base" question in all this:
What is the effect of praying in a language that IS NOT your mother tongue. Coptic will NEVER be our mother tongue. We will never understand it, nor will its words mean more to us than the language we learnt when we were children.
I know many people that speak at least 3 languages fluently. They are completely bilingual, but still they insist on praying the "Our Father" prayer in their mother tongue. I know one gentleman that CANNOT even pray the Agpeya unless its in his mother tongue, despite him being fluent in English (more than an Englishman!).
What is the effect on our spiritual sanity, on our spiritual growth, and our psychology by CONSISTENTLY praying in a language that is ALIEN to us!!!??
What is the effect of this on our children. As adults, perhaps we can say to ourselves, "OK, i'll have to go back to that particular song in Coptic and check out the meaning on Tasbeha.org", but what about a child of 10 years of age??? imagine him/her growing up in a Church where they sang coptic and he/her did not understand a word.
PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS ON THIS QUESTION (and then we'll look at the other questions later that I asked - otherwise it will not be a constructive discussion).
Now, here is my opinion on this issue:
a) Most Coptic youth who initiate prayer using Protestant/Catholic songs are the same ones who dislike praying in Coptic. I asked one girl in particular why she refused to pray one song with us Coptic, and she said :"I hate praying in a language that I don't understand". I said to her: "well, we know the meaning at least, we've sung this song for ages in our Church". She refused. Her refusal then triggered the refusal of other people singing the same song. All those who refused, we are talking about at least 50 persons (yes, that's 50% of the youth in the Church) refused to sing in a language that they did not understand. Learning that language was not option for them. Now what's right or wrong is irrelvant here. Yes, I agree she went a bit TOO far and could have sang with us in Coptic just for the sake of unity, and if she didnt understand the language, she could have asked what it means; but then, who could blame them for refusing to sing in a language that they don't understand!!!??
b) This has divided our Church, and abouna even said this:
We have one group who love Coptic, and nothing ELSE BUT Coptic hymns. They obviously do not sing with the "protestantised" youth.
We have another group who just love the Bible. Nothing else, BUT the Bible. (that's great, but they are a good bunch, but that's 2 persons).
We have another who just love Arabic songs. These could be protestant arabic songs, or Coptic, but mainly mixed. They don't know Coptic, they don't know English, all they know is Arabic. They even do the tasbeha in arabic.
If our Church did not have coptic, we would not have all these groups. And these groups causes division in the Church!! This is what I think at least!!
As much as this girl refuses to pray in Coptic, i REFUSE also to sing protestant songs/catholic songs IN a Coptic Church.
c) This is now gives rise to another problem:
Many people refuse to sing catholic songs/protestant songs in the Coptic Church. So, where do those who love protestant songs go??? Take a guess?? To the protestant church!!
But who can blame them?
In the Coptic Church, if we don't pray in Coptic, we pray in Arabic, both are gibberish to these youth, so they only can pray in English. What's the percentage of English songs in the Church!??? 20% ?? perhaps 30%.
If we asked them to pray in Coptic, and we gave them the translated and TRANSLITTERATED books that come from Australia and the USA (Well done guys for those books by the way!!), will that help them?? NO! Because they spending more time translitterating, and translating and understanding than actually praying.
It means that real concentration/prayer is only feasible for 20%. The other 80% of their church-time is just sitting quietly listening to songs that doesn't make sense to them. Is that fair also?? So, a Church is a place of unity. Its where we all are ONE members of the body of Christ. Having a language like Coptic, as I've shown has done nothing but divide us.
Its united those who love coptic; but I can tell u, they know how to read the coptic letters, but believe me, they only understand 20% of it also. The reason they end up liking Coptic soooo much is because as deacons, they are given a "SOLO ACT" in Coptic. It gives them a buzz. Am i judging?? Well, its what someone told me. He even went further to say "The Church should ask me to sing more!!! I don't do enough solo singing!! AND I'm GOOD". But he admitted that he doesnt understand a word of it. This guy is 27 years old!! I mean.... that's how they think. His friends, in that group are the same. Singing in Coptic, for them, is a bonus point of "obediency" towards their Coptic Church. They don't understand a WORD of what they're singing, but the situation requires it to be sung.
So, it seems now we are doing things that are haphazard. No meaning.... no understanding.
d) Finally, there is another issue: Too much Coptic. I remember once I went early to Kiahk one year, and one of the die-hard Coptic deacons was praying something I had never heard before. I listend, i tried to sing with him, but I couldn't. He was singing it for about 1 hour. I had come to Church to just hear someone sing for 1 hour something that was NOT translated, I couldn't understand and that was alien to me?? THat's cruel!!!
So, WHAT is the SOLUTION?? ======================
Firstly, refusing to pray in Coptic because you don't understand the language is a bit arrogant. But its still a valid point.
Before we discuss the solution, we need to analyse the problem thoroughly: What IS our problem with protestant/catholic songs???
Modern day catholic/protestant songs are all based on emotion. If I wrote a love song and changed the girl's name to God, then this would be a TYPICAL certified protestant song. Although it could be correct in theology, it would be ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT in spirituality.
The solution my friends is drastic; but feasible:
a) Prayer from the agpeya has to be given the highest priority. Whether in youth meetings, conventions, church meetings, bus trips, WHATEVER, but the agpeya has to be read MORE than what it is today. Its better to read this agpeya than to sing ANY protestant song. And if the congregation attending DO NOT understand coptic or arabic, then the Agpeya should be read even more, and in place of the Coptic/arabic song. No English song should be sung in its place.
b) H.H Pope Shenouda should write for us more songs in English. It should come from him!! He should at least assign this task to a priest. Something has to be done. All of Kiahk if sung in English sounds terrible. Why should we be singing in English if the song was made for the arabic language?? the words won't rhyme.
These are my two suggestions. I'm looking forward to hearing from you on your other suggestions.
c) NOTHING IN COPTIC SHOULD BE SUNG UNLESS THERE IS A TRANSLATION NEXT TO IT!!!!
Dear all, Have a happy and blessed Coptic Christmas. May all your days be as joyful and as blessed through our Lord's grace. Dear Orthodox11, As aem581 said, I meant the British Orthodox Church by saying the word "counterpart". Second, I am sorry if my post was a little vague; as I wanted to mention as many points as I possibly can without making it too long. Now, there are two other things. First, I wasn't referring to the Jews in Europe; I was referring to the Jews everywhere. It was a new piece of information for me that they spoke Yiddish, but as I understand, they revived the Hebrew language when they came together in Israel. Secondly, I wasn't talking about the oneness of the whole of the Orthodox Church. I was only interested in the Coptic church; let me call it "unison", so that I don't infer bigger topics than my understanding would allow me. It is (to me) a shame if we as one Coptic congregation gather together and can't participate in a liturgy because of the difference in the language (btw, surely I wasn't hinting that the only difference between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Church of England is the language: rather I was basing my argument on what you said, that language maybe a dispersing factor rather than a uniting one). I wouldn't of course be able to answer the question of the oneness of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and I don't see it as an aim of this thread. I hope I am bit more clear now :) God bless you all and pray for us a lot
Comments
You think the way we sing, the style of the hymns, the way we draw our icons, and the language we use is Orthodox?
I do not understand...care to enlighten me? Seems like I am a bit out of the know.
What are the differences between us and our other Orietal brethren?
All of this dissing on our Church does not seem like a good thing to do. How are we not Orthodox? And if indeed we are not Orthodox, then what are we? It seems that something is being suggested in the undertone of your posts, but you probably should just say it flat out.
My own proverb: 'The difference between a Real Coptic and an Egyptian'. An Egyptian is one who talks more than he acts, and a Coptic is one that takes action more than he talks. That is what our ancestors did, that is what we should be emulating, that is why it is necessary to keep a Coptic tradition, language, and heritage alive. There are too many Egyptians talking in Our Church, and not enough Coptics taking action. I ask the fundamental question, which no one has answered yet: Are we the Coptic Orthodox Church or are we the Egyptian Orthodox Church?
Forgive my pessimism and cynicism, but I have listened to too many of these discussions since the inception of the Church in the United States and I have not seen any progress.
We are most certainly Orthodox. The problem is we are so disorganized it is laughable. We 'cannot tie our shoelaces as a Community' (I mean that figuratively).
My own proverb: 'The difference between a Real Coptic and an Egyptian'. An Egyptian is one who talks more than he acts, and a Coptic is one that takes action more than he talks. That is what our ancestors did, that is what we should be emulating, that is why it is necessary to keep a Coptic tradition, language, and heritage alive. There are too many Egyptians talking in Our Church, and not enough Coptics taking action. I ask the fundamental question, which no one has answered yet: Are we the Coptic Orthodox Church or are we the Egyptian Orthodox Church?
Forgive my pessimism and cynicism, but I have listened to too many of these discussions since the inception of the Church in the United States and I have not seen any progress.
Of course we are Orthodox! Although our buddy Clay does not seem to think so...
What is your proposed plan for organization? In what ways are we unorganized?
Perhaps the following quote might have made you think so: You think the way we sing, the style of the hymns, the way we draw our icons, and the language we use is Orthodox?
I meant to say "Orthodoxy", my apologies.
I have argued consistently (save for that preceeding quote) that Orthodoxy is the faith; It is our sacraments; our fasting; the way we hold that Scripture is sacred, and as the Book of the Church and thus we should not force our own interpretation; it is regard for the elders the clergy.; it is the holy Ecunemical councils.; it is taking part in the Liturgy in the roles we have, and in the Church as whole; it is fasting and praying.; it is hope in the Resurrection. It is many things, but it is not language; it is not the tune in which make our hymns, its not the vestments, its not the design of our cross or icons; its not the human traditions that we have accumulated (as valuable it is for the Church and the richness of its symbolism). Just look at the differences between Orthodox Churches. They can be diverse without being heterodox.
What I was merely suggesting is that the diaspora in future generations, when they no longer feel any ties with Egypt, should have their own Orthodox Church. In a way that is happening now, with English Churches coinciding with Arabic Churches.
I have never criticized the Church; I defended it. You might be seen to be criticizing the priests for allowing Coptic to wane etc. or having Protestant-like songs. Instead I offered an explanation, that outside Egypt we have a different "taste" of style, and that it would not be unorthodox under guidance to have such a Church established, since that is what happened in Apostolic and post-Apostolic times, and we have many examples that different style of worship (to a degree) is not a deviation from Orthodoxy.
You think the style of Coptic Art was developed by wholly by Christians? No the Christians took the good; what had significance in their culture and used it to express Orthodoxy.
As for organisation, they only problem I have is there is too many versions of the English Basil Liturgy. However, perhaps, less educated people might need a liturgy that has the English best suit them, though I am not sure if there are various Coptic versions?
As for 'criticising' the preists, I was just pointing out some simple facts.
The question I ask is this:
Why should the future generations have their own church? Why should not we continue the Coptic Orthodox Church, and expand its language and customs?
I wanted to think about things before I answered. I have these quaint thoughts. Let me know what you think.
1. The Sunday Schools are oveerrun as it is and the parents either faithfully bring their kids, in some cases dump them there, or are clamoring to get them out. Hence, I believe that the cultural aspects, including: language, history, etc. are better served in a more formal setting of a Coptic School system. This would be similar to the Jewish, Greek, and Armenian systems. There would be more time and more quality towards that end.
There has been much talk in the Northeast of the U.S. for a Coptic School, but quite honestly there is no real preparation. With the way everything is done ad hoc in the Northeast, I do not see any reasonable person commiting their child's future to imbalanced unprepared thinking for a Coptic School.
I would suggest that there be visits to these ethnic schools to learn from them how they were set-up.
2. Part of the reason why Coptic is just a Liturgical language, is because barely anyone really know it as a language--that includes the priests and the clergy. There is a shyness about the language because anyone teaching chants and so get embarassed and are even defensive when challenged about these things.
I would implement regional centers for development of curricula for the teachers and the development of the language in their skills before sanctioning these people to teach others. There needs to be an investment from the parishes towards this goal, and I would believe The St. Shenouda Society in California would be helpful to that aim.
3. The seminaries in North America are weak and anemic. There has to be a real bolstering of their courses and training for the betterment of the Church as a whole. I can go on and on about this issue but I think it is self-explanatory, and I do not want to get into an argument over it. There has been absolutely no investment (real investment). I think there is a long long long list of the great fathers and saints of our Church from Pantaenus to Pope Shenouda. A TRUE SEMINARY IS ESSEENTIAL TO THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH IN ALL ITS ASPECTS.
4. To be mindful of each other's needs until some of these issues are implemented. For example, I do not like the English in the Liturgy but I accept it for the sake of others.
5. Resources: books, flash cards, computer programs, etc. need to be developed.
6. All the aspects of culture to be represented so that there is an overall effect. You may review my previous posts.
7. Bring Sts. Dioscorus & Severus into the spotlight again for their work in having preserved our Orthodoxy and our Culture that is tied to it.
8. Stop wanting to be something that we are not. We are COPTIC.
9. We are not Arabs, and we do not want to be. We are not Egyptian nationals. We are
Coptics living in the Diaspora.
I guess that's a start. I will add things as I think of them.
joe
If you are living in the Diaspora, and have acquired the citizenship of the land, you are not an Egyptian national. The discussion, I believe, was relative to the Diaspora. In the United States, there is no recognition of dual-citizenship.
I make a distinction between the concept of Coptic and Egyptian, although as you may have read my previous posts in this thread you would pick-up on some of my points. It is certainly a connotative issue I make and not a dennotative issue.
Quite honestly I am proud to be of the Coptic lineage, and its heritage. I am not an Arab, or of any Arab lineage. The mistake that Nasser made by announcing that Egypt is an Arab nation is a price that is being paid over and over by the population of Egypt as a whole. I have no wanton regard for the Arab Republic of Egypt or its lack of regard for its citizens the Copts in its Constitution and other implementations. Do I love Egypt?...absolutely. Egypt is, as His Holiness says, lives within me. I am trying to draw distinctions.
The whole issue of being Egyptian equating with being Arab is a very complicated thing to discuss. There are so many elements to understand and semantics in verbiage. Gamal Abdel-Nasser, effectively the first president of the republic in Egypt, despite Mohammad Naguib, being the figurehead of the revolution in the 50's and the stated 'first president', declared Egypt to be an Arab Nation. Without going into a lot of detail, this was his attempt to form a Pan-Arab Confederacy from which to pass international influence and remove the State of Israel.
In my own personal regard, and certainly by no official mention of the Coptic Church, which would most certainly frown and disclaim such terminology, I equate the word 'egyptian' as the Arab/Semitic component which exists in Egypt. As for the word Coptic and its people, they are of the essentially pure lineage to the pharaonic times. I know this is a broad generalization, and I know there are people that will come down my throat as a 'separatist', but the final placing of things is we are just not Arab--we never were and never will. If the government of Egypt wishes to label themselves as Arab, fine, but I am not obliged to subscribe to their whims or their inaccuaracies in the annals of history.
If you look at the Arab Federation that was formed with Syria and Libya, which was supposed to be a model for other Arab nations to follow, the Egyptian Nation was robbed of resources and economy far beyond the pain of lifetimes. The poverty of Egypt at this point relates to these policies and confederacy and its carry over into the humiliations of '67 and '73 (despite the Egyptians thinking that there was a victory in 1973). Not to mention the slaughter of the Egyptian Army in the Yemen War.
I do not really want to talk about this topic in this detail because it is not necessary for this forum. My point is not to fan the flames of dissent, but to clarify my points. If you have any thoughts along these lines it would probably better to do by personal message. Better to stick to the topic of 'Being Coptic in the Diaspora'.
The full post can be found here.
"The main ‘venue’ in Orthodoxy for the ‘hammering out’ of patterns and methods is the monastic context. Monasticism is the ‘icon in praxis’ of the ascetical life of the whole Church, which is why so much of the Church’s liturgical and ascetical practice has its origins in it (e.g. the shape, form and practical elements of Lenten fasting, of the liturgical cycle, etc.). I don’t raise this point simply as a way of suggesting that ‘the way forward is to have more monasteries’ (though I sometimes suffer for breath for saying that there should be); this is not really the issue. What is necessary is to engage with the question of developing local Orthodox practice and ‘ethos’ from within the testimony of the monastic icon of the Church.
***"One of the fundamental principles of monastic life is obedience. Not freedom, not personality, but obedience. The ‘not’ before ‘freedom’ and ‘personality’ isn’t there because these are negative things, but because they are divine realities imaged in human existence, marred by the passions in a most invidious way. Holy freedom, pure freedom, is divine life: the fruit and possession of the saints – but unpurified freedom is worse than slavery. St Paul’s favourite term for himself is ‘slave’, a title he uses with great joy in the face of its alternatives. Freedom saw him crucify and persecute his Saviour. Slavery saw him transform the world around him. Similarly personality. To be fully person, individual in divine communion, is to reflect purely God as persons in communion. But to be a ‘person’ as driven by individualizing traits, defined as much by pattern, custom, habit, and passion as anything else, is to debase personhood into a mythology of the will. My ‘personality’ is my will personified. So the monastic context insists that personality is secondary to obedience. Obedient asceticism reveals the person, it is not driven by it. The true personality of the saints is not the fruit of their wills, but the genuine personhood of the creature in purified communion with its creator.
"In the monastic context, these realities are brought to life through a specific kind of obedience that cannot be mirrored outside it. There is a deliberate submission to the life of the monastic community, and an absolute obedience to it. Elder Ephrem of Katounaikia one received in his cell Elder Joseph, who introduced him to one of his attendant monks. Fr Ephrem’s first question was simply, ‘Is he obedient?’ Obedience in the monastic context often takes harsh, external forms; but like all ascetical practices, they are aimed at interior as well as exterior transformation. And they are engaged in willingly, as the means of purifying the fallen will. So the monk is not asked ‘Would you like to do this?’, nor is he invited to say ‘In my background we do it this way’, but he enters into obedience to the life of the monastic community. This obedience aims to transfigure the will, so that it learns how to say truly, and not just as a well-intentioned pious flourish, ‘not my will, but thine be done’. As this process takes place – and it can often be harsh, and long – the will is indeed transformed, and trappings of false freedom and false personality are etched away. What is revealed is true freedom in Christ, which is only ever found in real submission; together with true personhood and personality, borne out of union with God.
"This monastic context, though not every aspect of monastic praxis, is the icon of ascetical life in the Church as a whole. Freedom must come through obedience – for everyone. Similarly, no one will discover their true personality apart from obedience and transformation. What one brings to the life in Christ can be good, holy, wonderful. But it can only be so if it is brought in the context of obedient freedom, rather than wilful freedom, and embraced in a personality borne of obedient truth, rather than self-will personified.
***"This is true of the Church in whole localities, as much as it is true of individual persons. Genuine local Orthodox customs and ‘flavours’ will emerge out of local practice, but not simply because many local groups come together with various habits, contexts, personalities, tendencies, etc., and eventually patterns work their way out of the mish-mash. Such patterns are nothing more than collective habits, filtered and generalized over time. Nor can things that ‘resonate particularly well in this culture’ emerge in a healthy way simply as trends that pool and unite. Rather, genuine emergence of local Orthodox life comes through the purification of obedience. When a locality – a parish, a city, a diocese, a nation, a land – submits will and habit in obedience to the Church, that obedience transforms will and habit into things truly authentic to the real persons that make them up. A fear of ‘ethnicising’ (which is a real issue in some contexts) often causes this pattern to be looked at with suspicion. ‘This land should not have to become [Insert mother ethnos here] to be authentically Orthodox’. This is true, and this abuse of the maternity of mother-churches must be rooted out. But the baby is infinitely more important than the bath water. Genuine ecclesiastical maternity is not about causing the child church to become a mirror of the mother church, any more than a mother wishes her own child to become an exact mirror of her, or a monastic elder wishes his novice to become a mirror of himself. The obedience demanded of this relationship is designed to free the child, but not into a false-freedom of the will, but into a real freedom of purified personhood in Christ. The child is only able to discover himself, as the genuine creature uniquely, irrepeatably created by God, when the child is reared to stop attempting to create himself."
Thank you all for your participation in this great post. It really contains outstanding views of each of the members.
Just let me add some points to what you all said; I wish to draw the distinction between Coptic as a language and culture, and Arabic (as opposed to Egyptian). Basically, Coptic means Egyptian, but as certifiedcoptic (I think) pointed out, I would like to enforce the statement of "WE ARE A COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH, NOT AN ARABIC ORTHODOX CHURCH". This is just to support the argument of Arabic translation of hymns, and equally the English ones, don't match their Coptic descendants by any means.
Second, let me say this: I don't think that the Coptic Orthodox Church spread in the diaspora, because the Coptics wanted to preach Coptic Orthodoxy to other nations. On the contrary, my view is that there was a need for Coptic Christians who left Egypt to practise their religion (Christianity) in the same belief and dogmas they inherited as Copts (Orthodoxy). So, I see the argument of adopting new languages, or ways of thoughts as an invalid argument, including what clay (I think) said that the language, the culture, the vestments, ... don't form any part in our beliefs; YES THEY DO.
I also read this on copticheritage.org; let's assume that all of us held a big international Coptic conference, gathering the youths from every country in the diaspora; USA, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Egypt as well, (as well as whichever you want to add); in what language should the Mass be celebrated? Different one, ain't it? Well, where is the oneness then?
You know, Indians and Jews (I point to these two communities especially as I am not sure about others) are better than us; teaching their children their own language, before they learn the native English of the UK, although they live in the UK. Moreover, there are many generations of them here now, and in Israel, they even developed words to adapt to the modern language, like cars, aeroplanes, etc.
I also liked Orthodox11 view of obedience coming before personality and individuality - also the fact that spreading the hymns in the language of each country, or each community shouldn't really be viewed as something which will help developing the church, and gathering more youth in it: the case may be the complete antithesis. In the end, what different will the Coptic Orthodox Church in England be offering different to Her British counterpart, or even the Church of England?!!
Dear josephgabriel, I am amazed by your enthusiasm. God bless you and complete your work. As I live in the UK myself, I didn't see many churches who are that enthusiastic about teaching the language and preserving it. Let's all pray though...
Thank you for having the time to read my points
God bless you all and pray for us a lot
let's assume that all of us held a big international Coptic conference, gathering the youths from every country in the diaspora; USA, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Egypt as well, (as well as whichever you want to add); in what language should the Mass be celebrated? Different one, ain't it? Well, where is the oneness then?
As Christians, the "oneness" is in the Eucharist, in Christ. The Coptic Church is just one part of a much larger Oriental Orthodox Church. You should feel as united to your Ethiopian or Armenian brothers as you do to your fellow Copt.
So the argument that the Coptic language is what unifies the Church is not a particularly convincing one since, were you to have a big international OO conference, you'd be faced with groups whose traditional liturgical languages were Ge'ez, Armenian and Syriac, not Coptic. Before the establishment of Israel, Hebrew was a dead language, and I can't think of any Jew in the UK that would have learned Hebrew before learning English.
The common language of Jews in Europe was not Hebrew, but Yiddish, which is basically a dialect of German with no real historical significance. I hope you're not suggesting the main difference between the Coptic Church and the Church of England is language.
Well, I see this discussion has really blossomed. I guess this topic must have struck a nerve with everyone. Now, i noticed that no one has really answered the underlying "base" question in all this:
What is the effect of praying in a language that IS NOT your mother tongue. Coptic will NEVER be our mother tongue. We will never understand it, nor will its words mean more to us than the language we learnt when we were children.
I know many people that speak at least 3 languages fluently. They are completely bilingual, but still they insist on praying the "Our Father" prayer in their mother tongue. I know one gentleman that CANNOT even pray the Agpeya unless its in his mother tongue, despite him being fluent in English (more than an Englishman!).
What is the effect on our spiritual sanity, on our spiritual growth, and our psychology by CONSISTENTLY praying in a language that is ALIEN to us!!!??
What is the effect of this on our children. As adults, perhaps we can say to ourselves, "OK, i'll have to go back to that particular song in Coptic and check out the meaning on Tasbeha.org", but what about a child of 10 years of age??? imagine him/her growing up in a Church where they sang coptic and he/her did not understand a word.
PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS ON THIS QUESTION (and then we'll look at the other questions later that I asked - otherwise it will not be a constructive discussion).
Now, here is my opinion on this issue:
a) Most Coptic youth who initiate prayer using Protestant/Catholic songs are the same ones who dislike praying in Coptic. I asked one girl in particular why she refused to pray one song with us Coptic, and she said :"I hate praying in a language that I don't understand". I said to her: "well, we know the meaning at least, we've sung this song for ages in our Church". She refused. Her refusal then triggered the refusal of other people singing the same song. All those who refused, we are talking about at least 50 persons (yes, that's 50% of the youth in the Church) refused to sing in a language that they did not understand. Learning that language was not option for them. Now what's right or wrong is irrelvant here. Yes, I agree she went a bit TOO far and could have sang with us in Coptic just for the sake of unity, and if she didnt understand the language, she could have asked what it means; but then, who could blame them for refusing to sing in a language that they don't understand!!!??
b) This has divided our Church, and abouna even said this:
We have one group who love Coptic, and nothing ELSE BUT Coptic hymns. They obviously do not sing with the "protestantised" youth.
We have another group who just love the Bible. Nothing else, BUT the Bible. (that's great, but they are a good bunch, but that's 2 persons).
We have another who just love Arabic songs. These could be protestant arabic songs, or Coptic, but mainly mixed. They don't know Coptic, they don't know English, all they know is Arabic. They even do the tasbeha in arabic.
If our Church did not have coptic, we would not have all these groups. And these groups causes division in the Church!!
This is what I think at least!!
As much as this girl refuses to pray in Coptic, i REFUSE also to sing protestant songs/catholic songs IN a Coptic Church.
c) This is now gives rise to another problem:
Many people refuse to sing catholic songs/protestant songs in the Coptic Church. So, where do those who love protestant songs go??? Take a guess?? To the protestant church!!
But who can blame them?
In the Coptic Church, if we don't pray in Coptic, we pray in Arabic, both are gibberish to these youth, so they only can pray in English. What's the percentage of English songs in the Church!??? 20% ?? perhaps 30%.
If we asked them to pray in Coptic, and we gave them the translated and TRANSLITTERATED books that come from Australia and the USA (Well done guys for those books by the way!!), will that help them?? NO! Because they spending more time translitterating, and translating and understanding than actually praying.
It means that real concentration/prayer is only feasible for 20%. The other 80% of their church-time is just sitting quietly listening to songs that doesn't make sense to them. Is that fair also?? So, a Church is a place of unity. Its where we all are ONE members of the body of Christ. Having a language like Coptic, as I've shown has done nothing but divide us.
Its united those who love coptic; but I can tell u, they know how to read the coptic letters, but believe me, they only understand 20% of it also. The reason they end up liking Coptic soooo much is because as deacons, they are given a "SOLO ACT" in Coptic. It gives them a buzz. Am i judging?? Well, its what someone told me. He even went further to say "The Church should ask me to sing more!!! I don't do enough solo singing!! AND I'm GOOD". But he admitted that he doesnt understand a word of it. This guy is 27 years old!! I mean.... that's how they think. His friends, in that group are the same. Singing in Coptic, for them, is a bonus point of "obediency" towards their Coptic Church. They don't understand a WORD of what they're singing, but the situation requires it to be sung.
So, it seems now we are doing things that are haphazard. No meaning.... no understanding.
d) Finally, there is another issue: Too much Coptic. I remember once I went early to Kiahk one year, and one of the die-hard Coptic deacons was praying something I had never heard before. I listend, i tried to sing with him, but I couldn't. He was singing it for about 1 hour. I had come to Church to just hear someone sing for 1 hour something that was NOT translated, I couldn't understand and that was alien to me?? THat's cruel!!!
So, WHAT is the SOLUTION??
======================
Firstly, refusing to pray in Coptic because you don't understand the language is a bit arrogant. But its still a valid point.
Before we discuss the solution, we need to analyse the problem thoroughly: What IS our problem with protestant/catholic songs???
Modern day catholic/protestant songs are all based on emotion. If I wrote a love song and changed the girl's name to God, then this would be a TYPICAL certified protestant song. Although it could be correct in theology, it would be ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT in spirituality.
The solution my friends is drastic; but feasible:
a) Prayer from the agpeya has to be given the highest priority. Whether in youth meetings, conventions, church meetings, bus trips, WHATEVER, but the agpeya has to be read MORE than what it is today. Its better to read this agpeya than to sing ANY protestant song. And if the congregation attending DO NOT understand coptic or arabic, then the Agpeya should be read even more, and in place of the Coptic/arabic song. No English song should be sung in its place.
b) H.H Pope Shenouda should write for us more songs in English. It should come from him!! He should at least assign this task to a priest. Something has to be done. All of Kiahk if sung in English sounds terrible. Why should we be singing in English if the song was made for the arabic language?? the words won't rhyme.
These are my two suggestions. I'm looking forward to hearing from you on your other suggestions.
c) NOTHING IN COPTIC SHOULD BE SUNG UNLESS THERE IS A TRANSLATION NEXT TO IT!!!!
PERIOD!!!!
Unless its translated, we should not sing it.
Have a happy and blessed Coptic Christmas. May all your days be as joyful and as blessed through our Lord's grace.
Dear Orthodox11,
As aem581 said, I meant the British Orthodox Church by saying the word "counterpart". Second, I am sorry if my post was a little vague; as I wanted to mention as many points as I possibly can without making it too long. Now, there are two other things. First, I wasn't referring to the Jews in Europe; I was referring to the Jews everywhere. It was a new piece of information for me that they spoke Yiddish, but as I understand, they revived the Hebrew language when they came together in Israel. Secondly, I wasn't talking about the oneness of the whole of the Orthodox Church. I was only interested in the Coptic church; let me call it "unison", so that I don't infer bigger topics than my understanding would allow me. It is (to me) a shame if we as one Coptic congregation gather together and can't participate in a liturgy because of the difference in the language (btw, surely I wasn't hinting that the only difference between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Church of England is the language: rather I was basing my argument on what you said, that language maybe a dispersing factor rather than a uniting one). I wouldn't of course be able to answer the question of the oneness of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and I don't see it as an aim of this thread. I hope I am bit more clear now :)
God bless you all and pray for us a lot