coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

David_the_King

posted on May 09, 2008 - 08:22 AM

From Truth.Seeker:

What's interesting is that if we go back to the original way things were done, we'll end up with no Coptic in our Church. On the other hand, if we were to change everything in the Church from Coptic to another language, then Coptic would not have any worth at that point.

It seems to me that most of those arguing to promote Coptic in Church Services ASSUME that Coptic is an inherent and integral part of the Church, then say Coptic is important. Well, Coptic is only an integral part of the Church because we made it so.

All the hymns in our Church were written by someone at some point. There's only value in knowing exactly what a hymn says if that hymn being sung with a single word of deviation would be diminished in worth. That is not the case. The original writer of the hymn could have simply wrote it differently. Then that would have been our frame of reference.



One more point, forgive me,

Yes the Basillian Liturgy was not written in Coptic originally. The original language of the Basillian liturgy WOULD be more beneficial if it is chanted in that language. But then that one language would mess up a lot of things, because you would learn that language for one thing only; ONE liturgy. But our ENTIRE church is done in Coptic, from a Coptic Bible, to Coptic hymns, to Coptic liturgies, to EVERYTHING could be done in Coptic. So why change St. Basil's liturgy to the original language if it is going to be only used for one thing?

I know that is not what you were saying. But one thing you forgot is that MANY MANY of our hymns WERE written in Coptic, after Coptic was the main language of the church. Some hymns are STILL being found and recorded (thanks to people like Ibrahim Ayad, Albair, Zaher, etc.), many of them being Greek. So I DO advocate that learning both Coptic and Greek is beneficial, and for Greek, people can just take classes. It is not TOO out of reach. But as I was saying, the liturgy, sure it was written in a different language, but I believe that the Coptic STILL captures the beauty that it was originally written in. That is why I say that we should learn Coptic, as well as Greek (Greek for hymns AND the Bible).

Pray for my weaknesses

_________________
David_the_King
Co-Webmaster and Administrator
coptichymns.net
http://www.coptichymns.net/

Joined: Nov 04, 2002 | Posts: 837
Location: St. Abanoub and St. Antony COC Norco, California

ophadeece

posted on May 09, 2008 - 10:33 AM

Dear all,
Thanks for your enlightening arguments. The debate between Fortuantus and Remnkimi enriches my knowledge a great deal. However, I have a point against Fortunatus, which Remnkimi touched on but didn't stress out a lot. That point is pride. Well, in fact I can see two different things: pride - preservation of Coptic. It is not because people who know Coptic are fought with pride that Coptic as a whole shouldn't be taught so that we avoid instilling pride in our youth. Pride is not related to Coptic as such. It is just because some people think they know it all because they can sing hymns the congregation cannot, especially that they very likely don't understand or meditate on what they say. As rightly Remenkimi said, it happens also with Arabic and English, but no one complains because they know they will reach a blind end. This should not be the case in the COPTIC church. Pride, which is devoid of which language the individual is singing in, or speaking, is not a flaw of the Coptic language, rather it is a flaw of the person who sings in it. Interestingly, my second point is the very same point Fortunatus raised: when people didn't understand the liturgy in Greek (them being Coptic) it was translated to Coptic; OH MAN, the reverse is happening now which people are trying to defend. Now we don't understand our own language and want it translated to foreign tongues?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What?! How come?! Yes, this is the truth. We forgot our own language and we are defending the usage of Arabic or English to unite the church, when we know deep down, and for sure that more division will occur if that goes on, or let's say specific parts of the liturgy should be sung in German, Italian or French, or... or...!!!
The beauty of the Greek language specifically: would someone translate to me "ic o banagios Bateer: ic o banagios Iios: Endo banagion Ebnauma amen", and compare them to either the Arabic or English very defective translations?
Thanks a lot. God bless you all and pray for us a lot

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 111
Location: Wolverhampton, UK

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 09, 2008 - 01:02 PM

People don't advocate translating things into English because they're proud of being American - it's because they want to understand what they're praying. A big part of why people advocate learning Coptic is out of being "proud to be Coptic." "Now we don't understand our own language and want it translated to foreign tongues?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What?! How come?!" PRIDE.

What's more important - having everyone at church understand what's going on or keeping "our own language"? I'll go back to the uniformity argument - the only legitimate reason to keep Coptic.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 09, 2008 - 02:19 PM

What it comes down to for me: I WANT people to learn Coptic. In order for people to learn Coptic, they need a good reason to do it. The "proud to be Coptic" stuff is not going to work - they would have already learned Coptic if they shared that view. So, let's focus on the Church-related reasons for learning it, but use reasons that only apply to Coptic. I have somewhat been playing the devil's advocate on this issue because I anticipate the arguments that will be given. Better to expose them and deal with them now than when trying to get someone to learn Coptic.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 09, 2008 - 06:05 PM

How about the fact that as a Copt you should retain your identity as such and not leave that alone. I understand that that sounds like a political issue, and I at one point struggled with this, but we can deem anything purely "political" if we wanted to. For example helping the poor, or speaking out against wars. Religion deals with life and all it's obligations. If one is obligated to retain their identity as Egyptian Copts, and the sons of the Pharaohs, then let it be.

To say that there is nothing to be "proud" of in Coptic, is deeply saddening to hear. Yes I understand and also take sides with those who want to understand, but let's be careful here. We are indeed talking about a very unique heritage, and as Egyptians its our heritage and we should be careful to preserve it. Just as I love the fact that the Russians are preserving their beautiful church chant as it is their pride and identity, I only ask the same of the Egyptian Copts. Is it too much to ask for? Is it to much to ask that we revive the language of the forefathers who were burned and threatened with amputation had they spoke our native language? The Arab invaders have robbed the Middle East of all its past beautiful cultures, along with the Syrians, and many other groups, and we must stand up against their Islamic influence, and shine forth as the Egyptians we are with our Coptic identity.

Yes, I know what you are going to reply back with and say, COPTIC NATIONALISM, nothing religious about that. No there is. This is a moral obligation, as it is for any country that wishes to preserve her culture and identity. It is a moral obligation, if one cares about retaining the identity that God gave him, and the beautiful unique culture He blessed the Church with. If we run to fast to think about what is most convenient with us, God will never stand behind us. Yes I agree we must balance it out, but we should never dwindle the use of Coptic, it's our identity.

Can one ask for any more than what the Church has? She is blessed with abundant ancient treasures, what a waste we would be putting away if we were to ever decline using this language, the language of our forefathers.

Let me leave you with a verse that Pope Cyril VI once gave when speaking about the preservation of Coptic: "Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28)

Let's keep that real, and at least focus on the use of Coptic, and make it a language more alive with sons of the Egyptians.

This isn't about pride or not, when one is more proud in something greater than himself, he commits no sin. If I am proud of my father and what he has accomplished, I am no more a sinner, than the Lord Jesus was in praising St. John the Baptist. We have a great heritage, indeed I did not make it, but I am blessed and undeserving to have been giving such a great identity by birth.

May God aid us in the preservation of our Coptic Culture,
God Bless.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 09, 2008 - 07:24 PM

As far as I can tell, the Bible tells us giving to the poor is good and killing people is bad. It doesn't tell us being proud to be Coptic is good. Here's what I always say: "A religious issue can be introduced into politics, but a political issue is not to be introduced into religion."

Where does this "moral obligation" to preserve the Coptic identity come from? If it doesn't come from the Bible, it means nothing. I hereby declare it a moral obligation to run half an hour every morning. This is a moral obligation, it should be religiously preserved. Get my point?

You have to carefully see what I'm saying - if someone wants to say we should preserve Coptic identity - fine, I got no problem with that. I wouldn't have learned Coptic if I wanted it to die. But that's not a religious argument.

We can't say we should keep our Coptic identity therefore we should use it in Church. That's like saying we should workout to be healthy, therefore it's our regliious duty to have a gym at Church.

Proverbs 22:28 has limits - if we go back long enough, our ancestors were pagans, are we to "not remove the landmark which our fathers have set?" Whether we are to preserve a landmark or not has to do with whether it's good or not. That's what we're trying to answer here.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 09, 2008 - 08:50 PM

Truth.seeker you take to the extreme. You could say the same thing about King Solomon, he could be talking about the heritage predating Moses, meaning they would abandon Mosaic law. Our fathers, are the patriarchs and the clergy who are part of the Body that has been ongoing since our prelate St. Mark the Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are our fathers. Is it good to give to the poor? Yes. So why wouldn't Christ want us to do that? Is it good to take care of God's creation? Yes. So why wouldn't Christ want us to do that?

From where do you get this mentality that we can secularize some parts of our lives, as if they were never meant to be motivated by religion, separating them from what we do in Church? Christ should be involved in every single detail in our lives. He gave us reason. We are not robots who go out and just read every word from the Bible and turn them into commandments. Otherwise I would have been a castrated snake/sheep by now. But we are reasonable humans who believe in the Religion of the Logos, the Reason of God Himself. Indeed we rationalize the Scriptures so that they become meaningful to us. And likewise what our conscience brings to us we see if it is pure before our Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ wanted to, He could have written a book of an infinite number of words, so that we would have all the commands we need to perform without using our own spirits of intellect to know how to apply them. Everything would be there for us. But no, He leaves with verses so that we might interpret them rightly in a reasonably fashion. He leaves us His Spirit to guide us throughout our lives, and to inflame our spirits to look to Him, the Eternal Logos.

So yes, it is important to use our reason to see how after being influenced by the Church and Her scriptures that we apply what we learn. The Bible is silent on abortion, does that mean it is just another purely "political" issue? No. We use our reason from what we read from the Bible to see that it is murder, and from what we know about the start of biological life.

I think it is very reasonable that we preserve our identity for the sake of the God who gave it to us. It is a moral obligation, just as our entire lives are filled with situations of moral obligations (thousands upon thousands that are not DIRECTLY mentioned in the Bible, but by our informing from the Bible the Holy Spirits inflames our reason to do what is right). This is one of these cases. Yes, the Bible might not say anything directly about us Copts, or our modern day dilemma, but it's time that we take what our reason yearns for us to do. Not only this issue, but also taking care of the environment as Biboboy, God bless him, has taken the initiative to do.

GB

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 09, 2008 - 08:55 PM

You're talking in the abstract. Find me something in the Bible that theologically supports preserving our Coptic identity. Give me something better than "preserve the landmark of our fathers" because as I've clearly shown by my extreme example (I use extreme examples for a reason - they crystallize the issue), that verse couldn't mean "everything." It is because that verse couldn't mean "everything" that your response is peculiar - no, King Solomon wouldn't have meant to abandon Mosaic Law - because Mosaic Law was good. How you could say I'm implying that is beyond me. It straight up contradicts the point I made.

So when I'm deciding to eat a turkey sandwich or a ham sandwich I need to ponder about the more-Christian sandwich to eat?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 09, 2008 - 09:12 PM

1 Corinthians 9:

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

So much for racial identity in Christianity.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 09, 2008 - 09:43 PM

That passage from St. Paul relates to nothing we are talking about. He is speaking about evangelization, something that the Church has evidently done and has not forced Coptic on the British or the Kenyans or the French, or the Ethiopians or Eritreans. But it is our identity.

Everything in our lives, ever single little detail has moral worth, because we are humans of reason. There is nothing that draws a line where something is so insignificant that you can now say, "Oh, well, here it doesn't matter." Morality covers every aspect of our lives. How do you know if something is significant enough to become a moral "issue"? Is murder good enough? Is throwing a ball across the room, when I am aware it will mark the new wall my father recently painted? Is eating a turkey sandwich when my friend would rather have it? Its not in the details, but the reality of morality persists within our beings.

We can take many things to the extreme. We can abolish the use of Coptic from Church. Or we can seek to preserve it for future generations. We can keep the things that were handed down to us, and preserve what we have been given by our fathers, or we can lay it to waste. Its your choice. You can argue all you want on this, but I think the idea has become very clear by now.

I seek to preserve it as our identity so long as we are Egyptian.

GB

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 09, 2008 - 10:00 PM

No, taking something to the extreme is telling me there's a moral component to me choosing turkey over ham. THAT is extreme.

You have not provided me a theological reason why protecting racial identity is moral. And if preserving Coptic is the moral thing to do, then it would actually be a SIN for us to abolish it. I hope no one here would actually say that. That would be extreme as well.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 09, 2008 - 10:20 PM

I am saying that morality is not in the details, because there will never be a situation in your life when all you will ever have to do is pick turkey over ham all situations are more complex than that. Maybe you have an addiction to one over the other and so forth. But those kinds of decisions are the mere natural decisions that we share with animals, only we have a spiritual component of reason and they don't.

Yes I consider abolishing Coptic a Sin.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 09, 2008 - 10:29 PM

Are you telling me that preserving Coptic is a "detail?" A detail of what? What are you talking about? WHY is preserving Coptic THEOLOGICALLY moral? A simple question.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 09, 2008 - 10:48 PM

Because it is the identity that God gave us, if we care to preserve the talents He gave us, and not bury them in the sand, then it is a moral obligation.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 09, 2008 - 10:51 PM

God did not invent the Coptic language. We were not created speaking Coptic. An identity is something that is created by society, not God. Like I told Remnkemi, if we follow that argument, then anyone born into a pagan society is to stay pagan because that's the "identity that God gave him."

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 10, 2008 - 02:37 AM

I am talking about the heritage the Church has inherited should be preserved. The universe was created out of nothing, I am not talking about creation here. I am saying what God gave me. God gave me the Church, God gave me my family, God gave me everything around, He didn't create me with them, but the Pantocrator Who controls and sustains everything put them there for me.
GB

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 10, 2008 - 03:12 AM

You're giving me your personal ideas. Obviously you can't find Biblical basis for your propositions.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 10, 2008 - 07:28 AM

I will when you give me DIRECT quotes from the Bible that speaks out against abortion.
GB

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 10, 2008 - 01:10 PM

Easy.

How about "thou shalt not kill?" The only issue is whether an unborn child has life:

Exodus 21:22-25

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

LIFE FOR LIFE.

So, an unborn child has life, and ending that life is killing - violation of one of the ten commandments. In anticipation of you replying with, "yes, but you didn't find me a verse that says abortion is bad," I'll tell you that the fact that abortion is a sin is easily DEDUCED from the above.

Your turn.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 10, 2008 - 11:26 PM

Easy:
"Do not remove the ancient landmark Which your fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28)

Our fathers are NOT the Pharaohs, they are the saints and clergy of the Church of Egypt, to which we belong.

Obviously King Solomon is professing a truth: that we should not betray the traditions and the heritage which our ancestors and forefathers have put in place.
GB

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 10, 2008 - 11:36 PM

Really? The Pharaohs aren't our fathers? Going to re-write history now? By the way - Coptic existed before Christianity, our "fathers" as you define it had nothing to do with putting Coptic into place. They made everything in Coptic for lack of a better choice.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

Dioscorus

posted on May 11, 2008 - 02:23 AM

Actually, Truth.Seeker, if we were to search in the Bible for the source of languages, we would see that God created the different languages in the story of the Tower of Babel.

As far as preserving our identity as Copts, I believe that it is our duty to uphold what we were born into.

mikokiko, nice try, but by blood, our fathers are the Pharoahs.

Joined: May 11, 2008 | Posts: 6

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 11, 2008 - 03:29 AM

And how many thousands of years after the Tower of Babel did Coptic come along? In your words, nice try Dioscorus . And welcome to the forums! Also, you were not born speaking Coptic - scroll up.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

Dioscorus

posted on May 11, 2008 - 04:04 AM

It does not matter that we were not born speaking Coptic, we still need to keep the traditions of the Church.

Joined: May 11, 2008 | Posts: 6

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 11, 2008 - 01:54 PM

That's your conclusion. What are the theologically-supported premises of that "duty" you speak of?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418