I'm not sure how someone of your calibre asks the first part of such a question. Anyway, the parts that are slipped refer to the time between the birth and incarnation of Christ and His ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father. Makes perfect sense to me for we not only relive the events in performing the rites that way, but also make these statements in addition..
This may sound harsh but how any educated person in the 21st century can say it makes sense to remove random parts of the creed during random periods of the year I find ignorant. I know this is what has been taught but this falls under the Egyptian attitude of if something wrong is taught long enough then it becomes right. The creed is a declaration of faith and no matter what events you are reliving through church services your faith never changes. Why limit skipping sentences to Holy Week and start from Kiahk simply adding the events as they are celebrated? The standard answer is of course no that would be wrong. Likewise it is demmed ok to remove the resurrection and ascension phrases from the creed on Covenant Thursday but it's perfectly acceptable to say Amen, amen, amen we preach your death...your holy resurrection and ascension? Surely this response conflicts with the shortened creed. And there are other examples such as you would skip "He shall come in his glory to judge the living and the dead..." yet the priest still prays "He will appear to judge the world..." and the list goes on.
Finally if Bishop Yousef accepts his position as a member of the Holy Synod then surely he should not be enforcing rules which are in direct contradiction of it.
@ophadece...we are to say the entire Creed because the Synod simply said so. our holy Synod has the right to change rites as much as it would like--it, being one entity and not just as a bishop or a couple.
as for the Creed: The entire Creed is said according to the declaration of the holy Synod “not to delete parts of Creed at any time of the year” at its meeting on June 2, 2001.
For a short period of time some parts that are integral to salvation are omitted, so to skip parts from Kiahk onwards is as you rightly say needless. However, from after the beginning of the Anaphora things seldom change. Indeed they never change, except for the commemoration of saints during the Covenant Thursday (and that is fitting). So when abouna consecrates through his prayers the offerings and the Holy Spirit descends he just tells the story crudely if you like (with no association to readings, or any other change of rites - except for the Watos Aspasmos for the congregation of course). Compare this to let's say ajios - the latter is taken from the Revelation but we add, chop and change all year - so why do we do that to the word of God and resist it in the word of man? Indeed, why is the word of man so adherently stuck to when it comes to the Creed, and not to the Thanksgiving prayer? Or the commemoration of saints? Or ajbeya prayers? Are all these less important? I really don't think so. It's really a shame that the declaration of faith is disturbed in 45 days of the year as if for the faithful they will lose their faith if they don't say those parts. OH NO; the argument is of course not like that. It is just an argument of STICKING to the faith. Oh yes, but we can skip Pauline, Catholic epistles and Acts but not the NICENE CREED?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The same holy synod comes up with decisions and a couple of years after change them back. The same holy synod is followed by some bishops, but not others (not talking actually about anba David), and then the bishops' views also change!!!!!
I didn't mean that you meant shortened different to skipped parts; I knew you knew it, and that's why I didn't answer the whole question, but you get my point.
The Creed was created as a unified declaration of faith to be declared at all times without exception. Perhaps we should refamiliarise ourselves with the Didiskalia and the punishments for not reciting the creed. This shows its importance. It does not make sense at all to skip parts of the creed only at certain times of the year. The church lives it seasons through ritual and hymns and that is sufficient. The Orthodox view of Holy Week is that it is the period prior to the Feast of Pascha and therefore our focus is on the Salvation that Christ granted us. Orthodox do not traditionally use the term Passion Week for example which is Western as we no longer focus on the act and pains but only the end result. That is what the Orthodox church teaches. In the major hazaney hymns of Holy Week they all declare the power and might of God and Salvation.
I totally agree with the Synod decision and was questioning the skipping years before the decision was made. I appreciate the Holy Synod are not perfect and may be they do go back on decisions they make but that is their right and we are called simply to obey and not for every Bishop, Priest and Deacon to become a law unto themselves.
@ophadece and at every single one of those times they change, i will follow their decisions within church despite what my own opinion is...or anyone in fact.
Please don't mistake my words as though I'm condoning the disobedience of the holy synod. I'm just questioning their decision in this particular matter. The same dioskoleya prohibits people who have not bathed to partake of the Communion. The same dioskoleya has variants to certain teachings. The same dioskoleya doesn't allow deacons under certain ages to serve altogether. So what Am I getting at? Take it literally and people complain your orthodoxy is becoming Pharisees-like. Take it loosely and you are not loyal to the Coptic church and the forefathers. So I guess we should do what we understand not to disturb the proclamation of faith. After all the Creed isn't the only tool in the church for declaration of the faith..
I agree that there are other declarations of faith such as the majority of the liturgical text which again is why you do not remove references to events from the creed but leave them in other parts of the liturgy. This is illogical and inconsistent.
I don't think it is either illogical or inconsistent. I actually don't know for sure if the Creed and/or our father were sung in the olden days but psychologically speaking it seems that the two have been given more importance than other parts of the liturgy because it's easy for people to recite them out loud in another language than Coptic, and that's why all the fuss. I don't see people being moved when in some quick liturgies hedan 's are skipped. Indeed even in a number of churches synexarium is skipped on occasions and sometimes cut short or not completed till the end.
Listening to H.G. Bishop Raphael saying that it is the Feast of Salvation and it commemorates all 3 feasts; Annunciation, Nativity, and Resurrection. Anton also said the verses for Annunciation, Nativity, and Resurrection. So I don't know what kind of statement H.G. Bishop Youssef is trying to make by trying to have all the responses just the Annunciation.
I looked at the revised Synaxarium today produced by El Sourian monastery and the first point clearly said commemoration of the three major feasts of our Salvation Annunciation, Nativity and Resurrection. It has always been that way and not sure where the notion of commemorating only the Annunciation came from. Ibrahim Ayad even recorded its rituals a number of years ago.
I don't think it was H.G. Bishop Youseff's intention to just say annunciation hymns. It seems more to me as a programming glitch in the app since the readings are of the feast of the annunciation(like when you tell the app use Annunciation readings, it auto fills the hymns for it or something)
According to the diocese the ORIGINAL RITE was to celebrate only the annunciation. Note that I don't have a source, and am quoting suscopts. This is why CR only displays Annunciation.
To get CR to display all three, go to settings and enable non-customary responses.
This is why some are seeing just annunciation or all three. The presence of the Apostles hymns was an accident.
Comments
Finally if Bishop Yousef accepts his position as a member of the Holy Synod then surely he should not be enforcing rules which are in direct contradiction of it.
I totally agree with the Synod decision and was questioning the skipping years before the decision was made. I appreciate the Holy Synod are not perfect and may be they do go back on decisions they make but that is their right and we are called simply to obey and not for every Bishop, Priest and Deacon to become a law unto themselves.
According to the diocese the ORIGINAL RITE was to celebrate only the annunciation. Note that I don't have a source, and am quoting suscopts. This is why CR only displays Annunciation.
To get CR to display all three, go to settings and enable non-customary responses.
This is why some are seeing just annunciation or all three. The presence of the Apostles hymns was an accident.