I said the Trisagion in church today. I praised Jesus who is Holy, Mighty, Immortal, and God. God accepted my prayer.
My Russian friend said the Trisagion in his church today. He praised the Trinity who is Holy, Mighty, Immortal, and God. God accepted his prayer.
There is nothing wrong with discussing historic roots to the "authenticity of a hymn" (although I must agree with Rem on his analysis of what it means to be athentic). We must not let this, however, hold us back from true prayer.
I just wanted to use this as a reminder to not let things get bitter, and a pursuit of self-vindication.
3- Regarding Fr. Athanasius Almaqarry, here is what he wrote about this: "And it [the Trisagion] depends in its origin on the text of Isaiah the prophet 6:3". This is my translation of the Arabic text, "wa taatamed fi aslaha ala nass Asheya Alnabi 6:3"1 The operative word here is depends, which I interpret as that the Trisagion is derived or inspired by the vision of Isaiah, not that the prayer in the vision of Isaiah 6:3 itself is the Trisagion. This of course goes without saying, since the texts are obviously different. In light of this, I don't see the problem with what I said that the vision of Isaiah is the Sanctus not the Trisagion.
I am glad you agree on this source that the vision of Iasaiah is the basis of the Trisagion.
5- Finally, I am very glad imikhail finally brought up Fr. Shenouda Maher, waving him around as another big name that I am unfortunately going against.
RamzM
You never said why would you disagree with Fr. Shenouda.
You say that you have his article that I am using, what in this article makes you against it?
Thank you very much for the passage you provided. I learned something I did not know at all before, and this passage helps me a great deal in my original argument.
In the end, my argument has nothing to do strictly with whether the Trisagion is Isaiah 6:3 or not, or whether it is Christological, Trinitarian, or both. I'd like here to reiterate what I said a couple pages ago about the other rites of the Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine tradition is consistent in addressing the Trinity throughout. The Syrian Orthodox tradition is consistent, addressing Christ throughout. The Coptic tradition, unfortunately, seems to be halfway in between the two, addressing Christ then the Trinity without clearly delineating or indicating the switch. I feel this is dogmatically risky and could place many neophytes at least at risk of misunderstanding some very important dogma. This is all I have to say.
I will continue keeping a subdued presence on these forums, only entering into discussions where I know I have my seminary education, my languages, and my books which seem to threaten some people to back me up, and not merely to masquerade non-academic drivel as the final word on "Coptic faith", as though there is any such thing independent from the Orthodox faith that we share with other Churches in Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, Constantinople, and Russia.
Dear Ramez,
I actually agree fully with you. It makes me wonder at times if the confusion lead to things like the "Agios Istin" hymn, where in many areas, it sounds blasphemous. I continue to be upset with deacons who sing without understanding this hymn only because of how nice it sounds. Another question of confusion I also like to address is the "Je Nai Nan" hymn. Is it appropriate to use the Christological (Savior) use of this hymn, or the Trinitarian use (Pantocrator, Savior, Have Mercy)? And I remember you and I also conversed about how different anaphoras being mixed in the liturgy, where one prayer is to the Father and another to the Son, and how this can cause theological confusion from an improper use of Liturgical anaphoras. While the more educated of us know to discern the appropriate faith, it doesn't change the fact that the more simple-minded in the world may take these liturgical confusions and inconsistencies to actually become heretical beliefs in their thoughts (case in point, the author of Agios Istin was probably a simple-minded person probably with good intentions...I remember Remnkemi did a great job in studying this hymn and offering an alternative to it).
In any case, my use of St. Athanasius was addressed primarily to IMikhail, who uses Isaiah 6 as a foundation to his argument that the Trisagion has ALWAYS been Christological. In a way, I was using this to disprove such foundation argumentation made for the Trisagion. Nevertheless, for studies' sake, some questions one can ask of the Athanasian quote is if even the Trisagion St. Athanasius is talking about the same Trisagion we chant today (that is without the added parts; perhaps it's better to ask if it's the same Trisagion Byzantines chant today), or is St. Athanasius referring to some other hymn, similar to the Cherubic hymn we chant today?
In the end, I think we should take Fr. Peter's approach in this subject, that there is no clear indication by the early Church what the Trisagion we chant should be referred to. We have ancient reasons for Christological basis and we have ancient reasons for Trinitarian, and to say only one of those traditions is the correct, while the other is heretical is intellectually dishonest, and erroneously absolutist. At the same time, I also agree that the language of our liturgies should have consistency in it, and not have abrupt changes in praises between one or all members of the Trinity. I hope the study of the manuscripts would help correct these problems in our liturgies and hymns.
"So when I said in Reply #65, "However, these are only a handful of references with one understading. We may find other fathers who understood Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian. More research is needed." I was correct.
Reminkimi,
I am afraid you were not correct.
There is a difference between what Isaiah saw and the praise itself which he heard.
Did Isaiah see the Trinity? No.
By all means, Isaiah saw a theophany of our Lord Christ. No Church father disagreed on this.
Above all, the scripture is very clear in John 12:41
To Whom was the praise directed to? This is where the disagreement between the Church fathers come in play. Some understood it to be directed to the holy Trinity.
Others believe it was directed to the person of Christ whom Isaiah saw. And this is the view of the Oriental Church. The references I provided show that the Church as a whole accepted the praise to be directed to the person of Christ since the additions to the Trisagion, in Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem and Syria, were Christological . However, the Byzantines insisted on the Trinitarian understanding by 692.
What is sad is that the Byzantines deny the Orientals the Christological understanding in spite of Church fathers supporting it and they themselves approved it at one point in time.
Dear IMikhail,
If you feel that some Church fathers disagreed on "Whom the praise was directed to," then this still begs the question of your argument. Are you still thinking that the Trisagion is based on the Cherubic praise or the vision Isaiah saw? If the vision, then your arguments do not matter at all in the past couple of pages of this thread, since what was seen and what was said are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS to you, and that the Trisagion should have NOTHING to do with Isaiah 6! If on the other hand, the Cherubic praise, then you shouldn't make absolutist claims that the Trisagion was ONLY Christological by using how the Church fathers interpreted Isaiah 6. Clearly, St. Athanasius, a very important source of credibility in interpretation and faith, thought that the use of the Thrice-Holy praise is for the Trinity, and so if the our Trisagion hymn, as you claim, comes from this praise, then perhaps, we deviated, according to your central argument, from St. Athanasius' use at his time.
I also question your use of Ibn Sabaa as a proof of first century tradition that somehow Joseph of Arimethea chanted "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal" while burying Christ. This is taken from the Golgotha hymn, which is a conversational technique of theological beliefs, not necessarily a literal conversation that took place at some point in time. People like St. Ephraim the Syrian and St. Jacob of Serug used this technique in their poetry to express theological beliefs. Consider for instance St. Ephraim's Hymn XI, where he contemplates what the Theotokos would say to her beloved Son, who is also her God and Savior:
I shall not be jealous, my Son, that Thou art with me, and also with all men. Be Thou God to him that confesses Thee, and be thou Lord to him that serves Thee, and be Brother to him that loves Thee, that Thou mayest gain all! When Thou didst dwell in me, Thou didst also dwell out of me, and when I brought Thee forth openly, Thy hidden might was not removed from me. Thou art within me, and Thou art without me, O Thou that makest Thy Mother amazed. For [when] I see that outward form of Thine before mine eyes, the hidden Form is shadowed forth “in my mind,” O holy One. In Thy visible form I see Adam, and in Thy hidden form I see Thy Father, who is joined with Thee. Hast Thou then shown me alone Thy Beauty in two Forms? Let Bread shadow forth Thee, and also the mind; dwell also in Bread and in the eaters thereof. In secret, and openly too, may Thy Church see Thee, as well as Thy Mother. He that hates Thy Bread is like unto him that hates Thy Body. He that is far off that desires Thy Bread, and he that is near that loves Thy Image, are alike. In the Bread and in the Body, the first and also the last have seen Thee. Yet Thy visible Bread is far more precious than Thy Body; for Thy Body even unbelievers have seen, but they have not seen Thy living Bread. They that were far off rejoiced! their portion utterly scorns that of those that are near. Lo! Thy Image is shadowed forth in the blood of the grapes on the Bread; and it is shadowed forth on the heart with the finger of love, with the colors of faith. Blessed be He that by the Image of His Truth caused the graven images to pass away. Thou art not [so] the Son of Man that I should sing unto Thee a common lullaby; for Thy Conception is new, and Thy Birth marvellous. Without the Spirit who shall sing to Thee? A new muttering of prophecy is hot within me. How shall I call Thee a stranger to us, Who art from us? Should I call Thee Son? Should I call Thee Brother?478 Husband should I call Thee? Lord should I call Thee, O Child that didst give Thy Mother a second birth from the waters? For I am Thy sister, of the house of David the father of us Both. Again, I am Thy Mother because of Thy Conception, and Thy Bride am I because of Thy sanctification, Thy handmaid and Thy daughter, from the Blood and Water wherewith Thou hast purchased me and baptised me. The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became His Mother; and as by a second birth I brought Him forth so did He bring me forth by the second birth, because He put His Mother’s garments on, she clothed her body with His glory. Tamar, who was of the house of David, Amnon put to shame; and virginity fell and perished from them both. My pearl is not lost: in Thy treasury it is stored, because Thou hast put it on. The scent of her brother-in-law slunk from Tamar, whose perfume she had stolen. As for Joseph’s Bride, not even his breath exhaled from her garments, since she conceived Cinnamon. A wall of fire was Thy Conception unto me, O holy Son. The little flower was faint, because the smell of the Lily of Glory was great. The Treasure-house of spices stood in no need of flower or its smells! Flesh stood aloof because it perceived in the womb a Conception from the Spirit. The woman ministers before the man, because he is her head. Joseph rose to minister before his Lord, Who was in Mary. The priest ministered before Thy ark by reason of Thy holiness. Moses carried the tables of stone which the Lord wrote, and Joseph bare about the pure Tablet in whom the Son of the Creator was dwelling. The tables had ceased, because the world was filled with Thy doctrine.
It would be preposterous to think that St. Ephraim got this from some first century tradition that the Theotokos was actually recorded saying these exact words, just as much as it is preposterous to think that Joseph of Arimethea actually chanted the Trisagion when burying Christ! These are contemplative discussions, not literal events. I don't know what this technique in contemplative writing or chanting is called, but I do know the Byzantine Church uses this a lot in their hymns for various seasons and feasts.
In any case, if I misunderstood you in any way, I am open to correction.
First let me thank you for addressing me by "dear". It is refreshing after a heated discussion. I am guilty of not using it more often.
Second, forgive me for addressing the points you raised in your last post in different posts as it makes it easy for the reader to follow the discussion especially if the points are not discussing the same topic.
The first point you raised is the hymn "Agios Ictin" I personally do not chant this hymn not because it is confusing but because of a different reason I did address on this forum. I do not think it is appropriate to rehash what I have already discussed especially if it is a different topic.
Now let me address the points you raised:
Is it appropriate to use the Christological (Savior) use of this hymn, or the Trinitarian use (Pantocrator, Savior, Have Mercy)?
You argue that the Trisagion, as it is chanted in the Oriental Church, is inappropriate because it switches from being Christological to being Trinitarian.
This is the same argument RamzyM used when he first joined the discussion and I did present evidence from other liturgical hymns.
My first question is why is it confusing? When you say so, you seem to separate the Trinity persons from one another.
When I pray to the Son, am I only praying to the Son separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit? Of course not. We pray to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit as in all the litanies (except for the Gospel litany), the Lord's prayer, .... etc.
We also pray to the Son and give Him glory together with the Father and the Son as in all the hymns addressing the Son (the Pauline response, the Acts response, ...etc).
We also pray to the Holy Spirit through the Father as in the Epiclesis.
We address each person separately because of each Person's absolute perfection and unique characteristics.
The Church prayers are full of these prayers, hymns, praises where the "switch", if this is the right word, happens from addressing one Person to addressing the three Persons. This shows that the three persons are one in perfect unity with regards to the Divinity but still unique with regards to their characteristics.
Our salvation is not unique to just one Person of the Trinity. As the Son redeemed us on the Cross, we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and accepted to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158776#msg158776 date=1344793042] How did you reach the conclusion that he was in fact talking abut the Cherubic hymn and not the Trisagion?
John Brownlie says on page 102 of the reference below: "The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church from the very earliest. .... Originally, the Trisagion (thrice holy), was in the exact form found in Isaiah 6:3, but as the years passed, additions were made to went to express doctrine both Orthodox and heterodox. [/quote[ I've emphasized the pertinent points. From the very first sentence, it's obvious that John Brownlie views the Trisagion and the Cherubic hymn as one and the same. If you look back at Post #83, I asked "If Isaiah 6 text is different than the liturgical Trisagion, then it's not the same hymn. Maybe it can be seen as a type of Trisagion, but it can't be the liturgical Trisagion." Now Brownlie wants to blur the distinction between the two texts. In his second sentence, he explicitly says the Sanctus and the Trisagion are identical texts. He is wrong.
Secondly, you want to claim Isaiah 6 is Christological and yet you use Trinitarian Cherubic hymn that references the Trisagion. Look again at the Cherubic hymn text "We who mystically represent the Cherubim, and who sing to the Life-Giving Trinity the thrice-holy hymn" It is obvious that the author of the Cherubic hymn believes the Trisagion is Trinitarian.
In any case, my use of St. Athanasius was addressed primarily to IMikhail, who uses Isaiah 6 as a foundation to his argument that the Trisagion has ALWAYS been Christological.
Dear Mina Soliman,
Would St Athanasius disagree that the Person whom Isaiah saw, in his vision, someone else other than the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ?
I doubt it. For he used the vision to prove to the Arians that Christ is God perfect in His divinity as to the Father.
First, St. Athanasius presented the argument of the Arians as they claimed that the singing of the "Lord" for the Christ, is lower than that of the Father. "And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men."
Then he presents what Isaiah heard, the Trisagion as sung by the Cherubim. He is not referring to another hymn but the actual words Isaiah heard.
Here are his words:
"For the Triad, praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi.; Rev. iv. offering their praises three times, saying ‘Holy, Holy, Holy,’ proves that the Three Subsistences are perfect, just as in saying ‘Lord,’ they declare the One Essence."
Notice the bolded phrase.
What St. Athanasius is saying (my interpretation) is that contrary to the Arians' denial of Christ's Godhead, by saying that the singing of the Lord for the Christ, is lower than that of the Father, Isaiah's vision actually proves Christ's full divinity.
St. Athanasius argues that Isaiah does not hear "Holy" for the Son lower than the other two "Holy". So, St. Athanasius acknowledges that the thrice Holy are for the three persons but they act as if it is one for they only say "Lord" one time.
This goes to my last post regarding that when we address one Person of the Divinity we do not separate Him from the other two persons for the three are one.
Let's go back to the vision. Whom did Isaiah see? By all means it is the person of Christ.
Whom did they call Lord while Isaiah was seeing the Christ incarnate? By all means it is the person of Christ.
This is why the Church Fathers understood the vision to be Christological for it proves the Divinity of Christ and our Trisagion that we chant is based on this vision.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13535.msg158796#msg158796 date=1344824604] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158776#msg158776 date=1344793042] How did you reach the conclusion that he was in fact talking abut the Cherubic hymn and not the Trisagion?
John Brownlie says on page 102 of the reference below: "The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church from the very earliest. .... Originally, the Trisagion (thrice holy), was in the exact form found in Isaiah 6:3, but as the years passed, additions were made to went to express doctrine both Orthodox and heterodox. I've emphasized the pertinent points. From the very first sentence, it's obvious that John Brownlie views the Trisagion and the Cherubic hymn as one and the same. If you look back at Post #83, I asked "If Isaiah 6 text is different than the liturgical Trisagion, then it's not the same hymn. Maybe it can be seen as a type of Trisagion, but it can't be the liturgical Trisagion." Now Brownlie wants to blur the distinction between the two texts. In his second sentence, he explicitly says the Sanctus and the Trisagion are identical texts. He is wrong.
Dear Reminkimi,
I am not following your logic. How is he wrong if he lists the Trisagion hymn as it is exactly used by the Byzantines and give the comment you posted?
Secondly, you want to claim Isaiah 6 is Christological and yet you use Trinitarian Cherubic hymn that references the Trisagion. Look again at the Cherubic hymn text "We who mystically represent the Cherubim, and who sing to the Life-Giving Trinity the thrice-holy hymn" It is obvious that the author of the Cherubic hymn believes the Trisagion is Trinitarian.
You are far off on this point.
I used John Brownlie to prove one point and one point only:
The vision that Isaiah saw is Christological and what he heard is attributed to the person of Christ.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158795#msg158795 date=1344821897] Dear Mina Soliman,
First let me thank you for addressing me by "dear". It is refreshing after a heated discussion. I am guilty of not using it more often.
Second, forgive me for addressing the points you raised in your last post in different posts as it makes it easy for the reader to follow the discussion especially if the points are not discussing the same topic.
The first point you raised is the hymn "Agios Ictin" I personally do not chant this hymn not because it is confusing but because of a different reason I did address on this forum. I do not think it is appropriate to rehash what I have already discussed especially if it is a different topic.
Now let me address the points you raised:
Is it appropriate to use the Christological (Savior) use of this hymn, or the Trinitarian use (Pantocrator, Savior, Have Mercy)?
You argue that the Trisagion, as it is chanted in the Oriental Church, is inappropriate because it switches from being Christological to being Trinitarian.
This is the same argument RamzyM used when he first joined the discussion and I did present evidence from other liturgical hymns.
My first question is why is it confusing? When you say so, you seem to separate the Trinity persons from one another.
When I pray to the Son, am I only praying to the Son separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit? Of course not. We pray to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit as in all the litanies (except for the Gospel litany), the Lord's prayer, .... etc.
We also pray to the Son and give Him glory together with the Father and the Son as in all the hymns addressing the Son (the Pauline response, the Acts response, ...etc).
We also pray to the Holy Spirit through the Father as in the Epiclesis.
We address each person separately because of each Person's absolute perfection and unique characteristics.
The Church prayers are full of these prayers, hymns, praises where the "switch", if this is the right word, happens from addressing one Person to addressing the three Persons. This shows that the three persons are one in perfect unity with regards to the Divinity but still unique with regards to their characteristics.
Our salvation is not unique to just one Person of the Trinity. As the Son redeemed us on the Cross, we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and accepted to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.
Dear IMikhail, the issue with the Trisagion is an abrupt change without warning. When we pray to the Son, we still pray to the Son and add to the fact that we glorify YOU oh Son with YOUR Good Father and the Holy Spirit. So we're still talking to the Second Person glorifying Him with the other two. In the Trisagion, we talk to the Son, and THEN we talk the Trinity all at once. Thus is the difference and it lacks the consistency that the other prayers might have.
In any case, my use of St. Athanasius was addressed primarily to IMikhail, who uses Isaiah 6 as a foundation to his argument that the Trisagion has ALWAYS been Christological.
Dear Mina Soliman,
Would St Athanasius disagree that the Person whom Isaiah saw, in his vision, someone else other than the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ?
I doubt it. For he used the vision to prove to the Arians that Christ is God perfect in His divinity as to the Father.
First, St. Athanasius presented the argument of the Arians as they claimed that the singing of the "Lord" for the Christ, is lower than that of the Father. "And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men."
Then he presents what Isaiah heard, the Trisagion as sung by the Cherubim. He is not referring to another hymn but the actual words Isaiah heard.
Here are his words:
"For the Triad, praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi.; Rev. iv. offering their praises three times, saying ‘Holy, Holy, Holy,’ proves that the Three Subsistences are perfect, just as in saying ‘Lord,’ they declare the One Essence."
Notice the bolded phrase.
What St. Athanasius is saying (my interpretation) is that contrary to the Arians' denial of Christ's Godhead, by saying that the singing of the Lord for the Christ, is lower than that of the Father, Isaiah's vision actually proves Christ's full divinity.
St. Athanasius argues that Isaiah does not hear "Holy" for the Son lower than the other two "Holy". So, St. Athanasius acknowledges that the thrice Holy are for the three persons but they act as if it is one for they only say "Lord" one time.
This goes to my last post regarding that when we address one Person of the Divinity we do not separate Him from the other two persons for the three are one.
Let's go back to the vision. Whom did Isaiah see? By all means it is person of Christ.
Whom did they call Lord while Isaiah was seeing the Christ incarnate? By all means it is person of Christ.
This is why the Church Fathers understood the vision to be Christological for proves the Divinity of Christ and our Trisagion that we chant is based on this vision.
I'm arguing that it doesn't matter who Isaiah sees. If the hymn is based on the Cherubic hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth," and St. Athanasius said that this hymn is based on the Trinity, then we should talk about the hymn itself as it relates to your argument, not on who Isaiah saw, because as you argue, the Trisagion is derived from this Cherubic hymn, and has been changed and added to over time. Therefore, by definition, this derivation according to St. Athanasius should be applied to the Trinity. As St. Athanasius said, the "Holy, Holy, Holy" refers to the Three Subsistences and their equal perfection, and the word "Lord," is their oneness in essence. It is equivalent perhaps to the sign of the Cross as we say it, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God," or as we pray in the Liturgy, "One is the All-Holy Father, One is the All-Holy Son, One is the All-Holy Spirit" so also St. Athanasius saw the Cherubim say, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth." Therefore, we cannot say that the Trisagion is Christological only, or that it is related to the Vision. If you make distinct the Vision of Isaiah and the Chanting of the Cherubim, and say that the hymn is based on the Vision, then this begs the question, where did words of the three Holies to Christ come from if not from the Cherubim as St. Athanasius believes it to be to the Holy Trinity?
Dear IMikhail, the issue with the Trisagion is an abrupt change without warning. When we pray to the Son, we still pray to the Son and add to the fact that we glorify YOU oh Son with YOUR Good Father and the Holy Spirit. So we're still talking to the Second Person glorifying Him with the other two. In the Trisagion, we talk to the Son, and THEN we talk the Trinity all at once. Thus is the difference and it lacks the consistency that the other prayers might have.
Dear Mina,
We have numerous prayers that do switch exactly like the Trisagion.
Here are few examples:
The Creed Intro: Address St Mary "We exalt you, the Mother of the true Light. We glorify you, O Saint, the Theotokos,1 for you brought forth unto us the Savior of the whole world; He came and saved our souls."
Address the Son Glory to You, our Master, our King, Christ, the pride of the apostles, the crown of the martyrs, the joy of the righteous, the firmness of the churches, the forgiveness of sins.
Address the Trinity We proclaim the Holy Trinity in One Godhead. We worship Him. We glorify Him.
Address the Trinity in Unison Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord bless. Amen.
Hymn Omonojanees We start addressing the Son and then end by addressing the Trinity
The Annual Gospel Response: "Let us worship our Savior, the good lover of mankind, for He came and saved us. Blessed is the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit, the perfect Trinity, we Worship Him (the Trinity) snd glorify Him (the Trinity)"
We start with the Son, then each Person then the Trinity.
These are just few examples but our Church is full of such prayers.
If you make distinct the Vision of Isaiah and the Chanting of the Cherubim, and say that the hymn is based on the Vision, then this begs the question, where did words of the three Holies to Christ come from if not from the Cherubim as St. Athanasius believes it to be to the Holy Trinity?
Dear Mina,
In our minds, we cannot separate the Son from the Trinity or say that the angels are praising the Trinity but not the Son or they are praising the Son without the Trinity.
So, the angels are addressing the Trinity through the Person of Christ whom Isaiah saw. This shows the perfection of the Son's Divinity.
What I am saying, is that Isaiah saw Christ. He heard the Cherubim praising the One He is seeing. Thus there is no harm in attributing what he heard to the one he saw.
The problem is what the Byzantines did in 692 and later. They considered it a heresy that the Trisagion is attributed to the Son and thus deposed St Peter the Fuller, though there were already Christological additions in Rome, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.
We cannot say that the the Trisagion we chant in the Church is not based on Isaiah 6 given the resources already mentioned. We also cannot accept the position of the Byzantines that the hymn is solely Trinitarian and anything else is heresy.
I am not following your logic. How is he wrong if he lists the Trisagion hymn as it is exactly used by the Byzantines and give the comment you posted? Brownlie is wrong because he is saying the text of the Trisagion is identical to the text of the Cherubic hymn which is identical to the text of the Sanctus in Isaiah 6. Look at his quote again, "The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church" By using the singular form of the verb, he has grouped plural subjects into one. It is like saying "Six or one half dozen". They two are identical syntactically. Then by using the singular tense of the verb, it becomes one singular subject. One can't say "Mac and Cheese are my favorite snacks" because in American syntax "Mac and cheese" describes a singular object. The sentence must be "Mac and Cheese is my favorite snack." Brownlie didn't say "The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn have been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church." He used the singular form, "has been". He therefore claims the liturgical Trisagion and the Cherubic hymns are identical. And he is wrong. Then in the second sentence, Brownlie explicitly says the liturgical Trisagion is identical to the Sanctus with minor additions. Again wrong. These additions dramatically change the Sanctus. They are three different hymns. They may be based on each other, but they are not identical.
You are far off on this point.
I used John Brownlie to prove one point and one point only:
The vision that Isaiah saw is Christological and what he heard is attributed to the person of Christ.
Brownlie's quote is saying multiple things. (1) The liturgical Trisagion is identical to the Cherubic hymn. (2) It has been used from the very earliest. (3) It is found in nearly all offices of the church. (4) Isaiah 6 is identical to the liturgical Trisagion with minor additions. (5) The implied doctrine that the liturgical Trisagion expresses, as found in the present Byzantine liturgical Trisagion, is Trinitarian. If you combine #1 and #4 and #5 in a logical progression as Brownlie did, then logically he is stating all three hymns are Trinitarian. If you intend to use Brownlie as a reference without explicitly disagreeing with him, then you are indirectly agreeing with all his points. You probably unintentionally didn't realize that Brownlie's argument weakens your Christological argument.
I am not following your logic. How is he wrong if he lists the Trisagion hymn as it is exactly used by the Byzantines and give the comment you posted? Brownlie is wrong because he is saying the text of the Trisagion is identical to the text of the Cherubic hymn which is identical to the text of the Sanctus in Isaiah 6. Look at his quote again, "The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church"
Dear Reminkimi,
You are assuming Brownlie is wrong because he uses this phrase "The Trisagion or the Cherubic".
I do not see it that way and I will not go into rebutting your claim for it is a side issue.
Nevertheless, let us assume that he is confused as you say. Since he lists the text of the hymn we refer to as the Trisagion and says that it is based on Isaiah, then it is a valid reference in our discussion.
Some said that the Trisagion as we know does not relate to Isaiah. Consequently I used Brownlie to show the root of the Trisagion is based on Isaiah 6.
Please, read #34, #75 to see in what manner I am using Brownlie reference.
I did not mean to say that I necessarily disagree with Fr. Shenouda Maher. I am sorry my wording was not clear enough. What I meant is that you cite him as someone I am going against, which is not exactly true.
Fr. Shenouda's entire thesis in that article is that 1- Many early Fathers (the earliest quoted I believe is St. Cyril) understood the Trisagion Christologically, and 2- Our understanding is not in any way heretical (Patripassianist) as others claim. Do you agree these are the basic ideas?
If so, I don't disagree with any of that. As I said before, I don't have any problem with either interpretation and I definitely don't think our Church is promoting Patripassiansim when singing the Trisagion with the additions (who was crucified for us). However, what I do have a problem with, and which I don't think Fr. Shenouda addressed at all, is the switch from addressing Christ in the first three verses, to addressing the Trinity. So, again, unless you think Fr. Shenouda mentioned this or defended it, I don't think his argument has any bearing on this discussion, though you are free to use his references (with proper citation and giving credit to Fr. Shenouda).
Regarding the evidence you provided that switches like that happen often, I still don't think it is the same. As Minasoliman already said, it is one thing to address the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, and another thing altogether to switch randomly without clearly indicating. I understand you think this is totally ok, but that's where we disagree most (and I apologize if I may have caused the discussion to depart from that basic point by discussing Isaiah and other sources). Yes, we never separate the members of the Trinity as though we deny their equality, God forbid. But in so far as each hypostasis in the Holy Trinity has different energies, we cannot on our end risk confusing hearers between the three hypostases regarding those things that are unique to each, such as birth from the Virgin, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.
Your other defense, besides bringing up other hymns, was to argue that the Church always understood the Trisagion in a Christological way. That's fine with me...the Syrian Orthodox also understand the Trisagion in a Christological way and I have no problem with that. However, notice that their Trisagion has no Doxa and no mention of the Trinity altogether. Even if we leave aside the Byzantines for now, and even if I were to agree that they are the ones that departed from what is authentic, what about our Oriental Syrian brothers? Something here is off when they too, with whom we share every last bit of the Faith, have a Trisagion without any mention of the Trinity as a whole.
So what am I suggesting happened? I suspect that the Doxa was not always part of our Trisagion. If this is no true, please anyone show me with evidence that the church of Alexandria always chanted the Trisagion with Doxa. What I actually suspect happened is this:
1- The Trisagion was chanted at some point before Chalcedon in Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria. It was understood by some to be Trinitarian and by others to be Christological, since the text itself could be read either way.
2- For historical reasons, the Christological phrases were added to solidify the already existing Christological understanding in Antioch and was later adopted in Alexandria. The additions were perfectly Orthodox, and designed to defend the humanity of Christ from charges of Monophysitism.
3- The Doxa came later, maybe even much later, adopted from the Byzantines.
Notice that Ibn Sebaa even does not mention the doxa in his text and explanation of the Trisagion. I feel that might mean it was not chanted at his time, but there needs to be more corroborating evidence. If I am not mistaken, none of the sources presented here so far necessarily imply that Doxa Patri is part of the Trisagion, am I correct in that?
Also, I wanted to share with you and everyone else another example I noticed yesterday in liturgy. The Fraction for the feasts of angels and St. Mary I think would be highly relevant for this discussion, and I would like to see everyone here thinks of it:
Behold Emmanuel our God, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world is with us today on this table, who sits upon the throne of His glory and before Whom all the heavenly orders stand, whom the angels praise with voices of blessing and before whom the archangels fall down and worship.
The four Incorporeal Beasts sing the hymn of the Trisagion, and the twenty four Priests sitting on their seats, with twenty four crowns of gold on their heads, and twenty four golden vials in their hands, full of incense which is the prayers of Saints, and they worship before Him Who is living unto the age of ages.
And the hundred and forty four thousand undefiled virgins praise the Lord saying, "Holy, Holy, Holy. Amen, Alleluia." And we also worship the Holy Trinity, praising Him, saying, "Holy God the Father, Almighty. Amen. Alleluia. Holy, His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Alleluia. Holy is The Holy Spirit, the Comforter. Amen. Alleluia."
Ok, so this will probably stand somewhere in between both of our arguments. On the one hand, the fraction interprets the angels' vision (whether or not this is in reference to Rev, Is 6:3, or otherwise) as a Christological vision. On the other hand, the hymn that we on earth join them in singing is Trinitarian. For me, this supports somewhat what I am saying. Regardless of the basis for the Trisagion, the praise itself is Trinitarian in nature. What does this tell me? It tells me that 1- The Trisagion can be understood in a Trinitarian way, and we have here of an example from the Coptic rite itself that this is possible. 2- Here we have a Trisagion that is perfectly consistent. The Angels and 24 presbyters are praising Emmanuel our God, and we too worship the Holy Trinity. Everything is clear and sound, with no confusion whatsoever. I hope this example can at least show that it is possible to see the Trisagion in a Trinitarian way from a perfectly solid Oriental Orthodox perspective. At any rate, like I keep repeating, the issue is one of consistency, not that one interpretation or another is the only correct one. I am afraid I might not be able to present the case any more clearly if you feel the switching back and forth is ok.
I did not mean to say that I necessarily disagree with Fr. Shenouda Maher. I am sorry my wording was not clear enough. What I meant is that you cite him as someone I am going against, which is not exactly true.
Fr. Shenouda's entire thesis in that article is that 1- Many early Fathers (the earliest quoted I believe is St. Cyril) understood the Trisagion Christologically, and 2- Our understanding is not in any way heretical (Patripassianist) as others claim. Do you agree these are the basic ideas?
If so, I don't disagree with any of that. As I said before, I don't have any problem with either interpretation and I definitely don't think our Church is promoting Patripassiansim when singing the Trisagion with the additions (who was crucified for us). However, what I do have a problem with, and which I don't think Fr. Shenouda addressed at all, is the switch from addressing Christ in the first three verses, to addressing the Trinity. So, again, unless you think Fr. Shenouda mentioned this or defended it, I don't think his argument has any bearing on this discussion, though you are free to use his references (with proper citation and giving credit to Fr. Shenouda).
Dear RamezM
This discussion about the Trisagion started with whether it Christological and whether it is appropriate in light of how the Byzantines use it.
If the switch is what we are discussing then I think the past 5 pages were effort spent in vain.
Regarding the evidence you provided that switches like that happen often, I still don't think it is the same. As Minasoliman already said, it is one thing to address the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, and another thing altogether to switch randomly without clearly indicating.
Can you please explain to me what you mean by " switch randomly without clearly indicating"? Please, do not take offense as I am trying to understand your logic.
However, the prayers like omonojanees switch like the Trisagion. The Creed Intro does switch like the Trisagion.
May be if you explain your logic, I would stop bringing up the same examples.
So what am I suggesting happened? I suspect that the Doxa was not always part of our Trisagion.
I completely agree. I have been saying this from the start.
The Doxa is a doxology to the Trinity that is chanted as a stand alone hymn in many of the Church prayers. It is usually chanted by the southern choir (Ba7ary/Kebly).
It was most likely added to complete the choral response to the Trisagion.
Fr. Athanasius Al Makary says it is a doxology in use since the 4th century and is based on scripture found in the letters to the Romans and Philippians and the book of Revelation. (Dictionary of Church Expressions Volume II p.96)
When I first posted on this discussion, my comment was regarding the switching, and I've tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to keep it limited to that. I understand I responded to other side issues here and there, and maybe the entire discussion about Isaiah and the origin of the Trisagion may have blurred my main point. If that was the case, I apologize. However, it seems to me that you are saying "the Trisagion has always been Christological and never Trinitarian until after Chalcedon." I disagree with that too, and I think both understandings are valid, but at any rate my main point is: the text cannot be both Trinitarian and Christological at the same time.
As far as explaining the switch, no offense taken at all! I don't think the example of the intro to the creed is on the same leve as the Trisagion. Yes, it switches from addressing St. Mary to addressing Christ, but I can't imagine many people acquiring the wrong teaching from something like that, do you? It seems very clear that we are finished with St. Mary and then now we are addressing Christ (the reason for St. Mary's honor and veneration to begin with). If I understand you correctly, you feel that it is never confusing any time it happens including the Trisagion, and that is where we disagree. This may come down to perception, but it is clear to me that many who lack the proper theological foundation can easily misinterpret the Trisagion when it contains Christological phrases followed by praising the Trinity as a whole. Yes, teaching here can help, but that does not mean we shouldn't acknowledge the potential for misunderstanding. At the very least, even if no one will misunderstand the prayer, to me it seems clearly odd at least for this particular praise to be adding on the Doxa at the end. This observation I have been making is corroborated by the facts that 1- Two other Orthodox traditions do not exhibit the same issue in the Trisagion, 2- We all know both the Christological phrases and the Doxa are later additions, 3- We have examples in the Coptic tradition itself, such as the Fraction of Angels and even the Doxology of Angels where the Trisagion is present without Doxa and without Christological phrases. All this confirms my initial suspicion that things were not always the way they are now regarding the words sung, and I hope this gets you to consider that there is a possibility here that what I am saying could be true.
Regarding the Doxa, I do remember you saying it is separate from the hymn, and I responded and said that yes, the Doxa may have been added later (and I still think so as you saw from my recent post), but that as it stands now everyone understands it as part of the same single prayer of the Trisagion. So, the way I think, and because I see the switching as potentially confusing, I would not have added the Doxa to the hymn after it had become clearly Christological with the addition of "who was crucified for us". If the hymn was always understood Christologically (something I am not sure is true, because we also have the Fraction of the Angels singing a Trinitarian Trisagion...etc) then the Doxa should not have been added at any point in time. OR we can take the other approach and say that while the Christological phrases were needed to defend against Monophysitism, maybe it's time to remove them and make the Trisagion Trinitarian. Either way, the Doxa or the Christological phrases should go (again, per my own reasoning about this and while keeping in mind that neither will probably happen).
At the bottom of all this is something I am not sure everyone will like me for saying. With the birth of Islam and its entering Egypt, our Church (and other Churches in Arab lands) gradually entered a period of dark ages, where the level of Theological education and expertise declined as a general rule. I don't think anyone would deny the fact that the golden age of Alexandria as a beacon of theology was the period roughly from the 3rd century to maybe the late 5th or early 6th centuries, right? I am talking about St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, even Origen (with the exception of his heretical teachings on some topics), Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind...etc. With this in mind, I don't particularly place the same weight on liturgical texts composed much later than that period the same way I do with texts proven to be from an earlier period. For example, I regard people like Ibn Sebaa and others of the 14th century to be great references to the ritual practices of 14th century Cairo, but I don't place the same value on their dogmatic or theological explanations the way I would with someone like St. Athanasius, St. Cyril and others. Same goes with something like O Monogenes. As a general rule in liturgical studies (and this is a law or hypothesis advanced by Anton Baumstark in his iconic work Comparative Liturgy) texts tend to develop from shorter to longer, not vice versa. As any such statement, it is a generalization that will not always be true, but in the absence of any contradicting evidence, it seems that the shorter Byzantine text of O Monogenes is the older one. Without knowing when the rest of O Monogenes was written, my gut feeling is that it was written much later than Chalcedon, again because I don't see this tendency to switch between Christ and the Trinity as part of traditional hymnography. This is just my speculation on the matter, and I've done my best to try and find the origin of the rest of O Monogenes. If you have more info to the contrary, please share.
This may come down to perception, but it is clear to me that many who lack the proper theological foundation can easily misinterpret the Trisagion when it contains Christological phrases followed by praising the Trinity as a whole. Yes, teaching here can help, but that does not mean we shouldn't acknowledge the potential for misunderstanding.
Dear RamzyM
To me, the only way there would be misunderstanding is if people do not understand what they are saying because the words of the Trisagion are very clear as opposed to the Trinitarian Doxa.
Believe me, there are numerous examples of this switching:
The conclusion canon of the liturgical services .. it starts with Doxa Batri and then switches to the Son. "Glory be to the Father, .....now and forever ...we cry out saying O Christ our Lord .."
The midnight praises is full of such switches between addressing Son, and the Trinity in one sentence "Glory be to You, O only begotten Son, O Holy Trinity, have mercy on us"
Of course if people are not aware of what they are saying, then yes there will be confusion. But that is not because of the text but because of lack of knowledge.
I liken this to the deep words with which our Lord used with the disciples. They could not understand not because His words are structured poorly but because the hearers did not have the level of knowledge with which they could understand our Lord.
[quote author=RamezM link=topic=13535.msg158838#msg158838 date=1344890781] For me, this supports somewhat what I am saying. Regardless of the basis for the Trisagion, the praise itself is Trinitarian in nature. What does this tell me? It tells me that 1- The Trisagion can be understood in a Trinitarian way, and we have here of an example from the Coptic rite itself that this is possible. Ramez, I have a second Coptic hymn to support your claim. In the "Canon of the Resurrection", Tennav, we have a very interesting verse. "We worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one in essence. And we proclaim and say with the Cherubim, "Holy, Holy, Holy are You, O Lord." It seems clear to me that it is a Trinitarian hymn referencing Isaiah 6's Sanctus. I think this solidifies that Isaiah 6 can be interpreted in a Trinitarian way.
2- Here we have a Trisagion that is perfectly consistent. The Angels and 24 presbyters are praising Emmanuel our God, and we too worship the Holy Trinity. Everything is clear and sound, with no confusion whatsoever. I hope this example can at least show that it is possible to see the Trisagion in a Trinitarian way from a perfectly solid Oriental Orthodox perspective.
The hymn Tennav is mostly addressed to the Christ. All of it is in the second person singular form. In the very first verse, the confusion starts. "We bow down to Your Cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify Your resurrection. For you are our God and we know none but You and after Your name we are called." Then we get the first part of the Doxa. Is it a separate hymn? Or is it a transitional mechanism used by hymnographers? I will say that the Greek version of Tennav excludes the Doxa. Additionally, right after the doxa, we move to addressing the believers and the events of the resurrection in the third person singular. We finish the second half of the doxa and then address the Virgin. I also think that the second response, "Blessed are You, O Lord, teach me Your statutes", is used as a transition mechanism. After the first "Blessed are You, O Lord", we move from the Theotokos back to Christ in the second person singular. Then after the next "Blessed are You, O Lord" we speak directly to the women carrying fragrant oil. Then after the next "Blessed are You, O Lord" we address Christ and His angel. Then after the next "Blessed are You, O Lord" we don't shift the subject. We still speak to Christ. But after this, we say Doxa again and shift to a Trinitarian hymn. After the second half of the Doxa we go back addressing the Theotokos. I will add this response is found in the Greek Tennav all four times.
I will look for more examples of shifting. We may be able to see if the Coptic Trisagion is part of a pattern or an exception.
[quote author=RamezM link=topic=13535.msg158846#msg158846 date=1344900280] As a general rule in liturgical studies (and this is a law or hypothesis advanced by Anton Baumstark in his iconic work Comparative Liturgy) texts tend to develop from shorter to longer, not vice versa. As any such statement, it is a generalization that will not always be true, but in the absence of any contradicting evidence, it seems that the shorter Byzantine text of O Monogenes is the older one. I forgot to mention. The Greek Tennav is shorter. Two verses, Nirasi tyrou and Anon de hwn, are missing. It is highly likely that the Coptic text is a translation of the Greek with additions. This is no real surprise since most Coptic texts are later translations.
I will look for more examples of shifting. We may be able to see if the Coptic Trisagion is part of a pattern or an exception.
Dear Remenkimi,
I am glad you brought up the shifting in Dannaw. It shows that the "shifting" is a charactaristic of the Church prayers. This is not a surprise for each Person of the Trinity is perfect and when glorified the glory is perfect just as if we are praising the Holy Trinity Himself.
If you make distinct the Vision of Isaiah and the Chanting of the Cherubim, and say that the hymn is based on the Vision, then this begs the question, where did words of the three Holies to Christ come from if not from the Cherubim as St. Athanasius believes it to be to the Holy Trinity?
Dear Mina,
In our minds, we cannot separate the Son from the Trinity or say that the angels are praising the Trinity but not the Son or they are praising the Son without the Trinity.
You misunderstand me I think. I'm not saying they're NOT praising the Son. I'm saying that it seems St. Athanasius is interpreting this verse as the Cherubim praising the Trinity, not the Son ALONE. Forgive me if I made it sound like that the Cherubim were worshiping the Trinity without the Son, which I agree is absurd.
So, the angels are addressing the Trinity through the Person of Christ whom Isaiah saw. This shows the perfection of the Son's Divinity.
What I am saying, is that Isaiah saw Christ. He heard the Cherubim praising the One He is seeing. Thus there is no harm in attributing what he heard to the one he saw.
I think this is where I will disagree. There's no indication first off that Isaiah thought they were praising ONLY what he was seeing. How do we know that Isaiah's thoughts were not opened to a Trinitarian understanding also, even if he only saw the Logos? Second of all, we shouldn't be afraid to admit that St. Athanasius contradicts how other Church fathers interpret the verse in Isaiah. Some did in fact interpret the three Holies as praise to the Logos alone. It's not erroneous. But certainly, it makes for a great Bible/Patristic discussion.
The problem is what the Byzantines did in 692 and later. They considered it a heresy that the Trisagion is attributed to the Son and thus deposed St Peter the Fuller, though there were already Christological additions in Rome, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.
I agree with you that what the Byzantines did was wrong. But correct me if I'm wrong. Were you not saying earlier that it's wrong for them to attribute this hymn to the Holy Trinity, or that this hymn is for Christ solely? Because I also think both traditions, Christological and Trinitarian are perfectly valid. As Ramez explained, it's not one tradition or another I'm advocating, but consistency, but I don't want to repeat what is already being discussed, since he's discussing it.
We cannot say that the the Trisagion we chant in the Church is not based on Isaiah 6 given the resources already mentioned.
I'll be honest with you. I cannot really form that conclusion unless one can derive for sure where this text of the Trisagion came from exactly, or that we have conclusive and primary evidence of the manuscripts that indicates such. And just because St. Athanasius says "Trisagion" doesn't mean it's what we chant today, and I'm sure you understand that. I made the disclaimer earlier. Nevertheless, if one is to make that conclusion, then it is valid to think that the Alexandrian Church at the time may have had a Trinitarian understanding of the Cherubic hymn.
I remember reading an article a while ago about the Trinity where it mentions that one possible Old Testament reference to the Trinity can be the three men who visited Abraham. The article claimed that although our tradition mainly sees this as the Logos with two angels, some Church fathers seem to believe that this is the Trinity appearing to Abraham. I admit, there's no reference to which Church fathers did in fact profess this, but perhaps someone here can help me more knowledgeable than I am in this. Perhaps if someone has the ACCS and look up Genesis 14, this may also add an interesting dynamic to the discussion, that we cannot assume what Isaiah saw by theological assumption that only the Logos can appear to human eyes in the Old Testament. In addition, the Ethiopian Church venerates an icon of the Trinity, three equally looking, anthropological figures, blessing. This icon is rampant in the Ethiopian Church and has become a symbol of their iconographical tradition:
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=13535.msg158922#msg158922 date=1344999032] I remember reading an article a while ago about the Trinity where it mentions that one possible Old Testament reference to the Trinity can be the three men who visited Abraham. The article claimed that although our tradition mainly sees this as the Logos with two angels, some Church fathers seem to believe that this is the Trinity appearing to Abraham. I admit, there's no reference to which Church fathers did in fact profess this, but perhaps someone here can help me more knowledgeable than I am in this. Perhaps if someone has the ACCS and look up Genesis 14, this may also add an interesting dynamic to the discussion, that we cannot assume what Isaiah saw by theological assumption that only the Logos can appear to human eyes in the Old Testament. In addition, the Ethiopian Church venerates an icon of the Trinity, three equally looking, anthropological figures, blessing. This icon is rampant in the Ethiopian
Dear Mina,
I suppose you are referring to Genesis 18.
It is very clear from the Scripture that the three were the Son and two angels.
The two angel left the Lord conversing with Abraham (18:22)
In Chapter 19, the Scripture clearly calls them "angles".
"Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. "
The term "angle" is only attributed to the Son in terms of His redemptive mission, or to the rank of the angles. It is never attributed to the Father nor to the Holy Spirit.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158926#msg158926 date=1345003721] [quote author=minasoliman link=topic=13535.msg158922#msg158922 date=1344999032] I remember reading an article a while ago about the Trinity where it mentions that one possible Old Testament reference to the Trinity can be the three men who visited Abraham. The article claimed that although our tradition mainly sees this as the Logos with two angels, some Church fathers seem to believe that this is the Trinity appearing to Abraham. I admit, there's no reference to which Church fathers did in fact profess this, but perhaps someone here can help me more knowledgeable than I am in this. Perhaps if someone has the ACCS and look up Genesis 14, this may also add an interesting dynamic to the discussion, that we cannot assume what Isaiah saw by theological assumption that only the Logos can appear to human eyes in the Old Testament. In addition, the Ethiopian Church venerates an icon of the Trinity, three equally looking, anthropological figures, blessing. This icon is rampant in the Ethiopian
Dear Mina,
I suppose you are referring to Genesis 18.
It is very clear from the Scripture that the three were the Son and two angels.
The two angel left the Lord conversing with Abraham (18:22)
In Chapter 19, the Scripture clearly calls them "angles".
"Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. "
The term "angle" is only attributed to the Son in terms of His redemptive mission, or to the rank of the angles. It is never attributed to the Father nor to the Holy Spirit. sorry, yes I meant ch 18. Thank you for that correction
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=13535.msg158927#msg158927 date=1345003791] Leo is nestorian. Nestorius actually praised the Tome of Leo, viewing as a "vindication of the truth".
Bogus! Just because a heretic praises me for something, it does not meen that I follow the heresies of that man. That is some of the worst logic I have seen in my entire life. I, a Coptic Orthodox, praise the commitment of the protestants to evangelism, but that does not mean that all protestants are Coptic Orthodox. A couple posts into the "Selection of a new pontif" thread, Irishpilgrim said that he liked what I was saying, but that does not mean that I was like Irishpilgrim in all his other views. In fact, the reasoning there is backwords. It was not Leo who said that Nestorius' writings were a vindication of truth, but Nestorius who said that about the Tome. The doesn't say much about Leo, rather about Nestorius.
To say Leo is Nestorian is as baseless as the EO calling Dioscorous a Eutechian.
Leo supported Theodoret, even forcing him into the council. Theodoret is a confirmed nestorian. The Tome of Leo is clearly nestorian and this would be the reason for Leo ousting St. Dioscorous. Leo was on his way to exile if it were not for the death of the emperor Theodosius. The majority of Orthodoxy did NOT support the Tome. So Leo made up bogus stories that St. Dioscorous became violent and what not. YES Leo is a nestorian.
Comments
My Russian friend said the Trisagion in his church today. He praised the Trinity who is Holy, Mighty, Immortal, and God. God accepted his prayer.
There is nothing wrong with discussing historic roots to the "authenticity of a hymn" (although I must agree with Rem on his analysis of what it means to be athentic). We must not let this, however, hold us back from true prayer.
I just wanted to use this as a reminder to not let things get bitter, and a pursuit of self-vindication.
ReturnOrthodoxy
You never said why would you disagree with Fr. Shenouda.
You say that you have his article that I am using, what in this article makes you against it?
To summarize your points in post 88:
We both agree that Ibn Sibaa cites tradition as the basis for the christological Trisagion.
We both agree on Fr. Athanasius to him referring to Isaiah as the basis for the christological Trisagion.
You go against Fr. Shenouda Maher's reference with giving no reason. I hope you can show a reason why the disagreement.
You say that John Brownlie was confused but I do disagree with your assessment and wait for your input if you have one.
Minasoliman,
Thank you very much for the passage you provided. I learned something I did not know at all before, and this passage helps me a great deal in my original argument.
In the end, my argument has nothing to do strictly with whether the Trisagion is Isaiah 6:3 or not, or whether it is Christological, Trinitarian, or both. I'd like here to reiterate what I said a couple pages ago about the other rites of the Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine tradition is consistent in addressing the Trinity throughout. The Syrian Orthodox tradition is consistent, addressing Christ throughout. The Coptic tradition, unfortunately, seems to be halfway in between the two, addressing Christ then the Trinity without clearly delineating or indicating the switch. I feel this is dogmatically risky and could place many neophytes at least at risk of misunderstanding some very important dogma. This is all I have to say.
I will continue keeping a subdued presence on these forums, only entering into discussions where I know I have my seminary education, my languages, and my books which seem to threaten some people to back me up, and not merely to masquerade non-academic drivel as the final word on "Coptic faith", as though there is any such thing independent from the Orthodox faith that we share with other Churches in Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, Constantinople, and Russia.
Dear Ramez,
I actually agree fully with you. It makes me wonder at times if the confusion lead to things like the "Agios Istin" hymn, where in many areas, it sounds blasphemous. I continue to be upset with deacons who sing without understanding this hymn only because of how nice it sounds. Another question of confusion I also like to address is the "Je Nai Nan" hymn. Is it appropriate to use the Christological (Savior) use of this hymn, or the Trinitarian use (Pantocrator, Savior, Have Mercy)? And I remember you and I also conversed about how different anaphoras being mixed in the liturgy, where one prayer is to the Father and another to the Son, and how this can cause theological confusion from an improper use of Liturgical anaphoras. While the more educated of us know to discern the appropriate faith, it doesn't change the fact that the more simple-minded in the world may take these liturgical confusions and inconsistencies to actually become heretical beliefs in their thoughts (case in point, the author of Agios Istin was probably a simple-minded person probably with good intentions...I remember Remnkemi did a great job in studying this hymn and offering an alternative to it).
In any case, my use of St. Athanasius was addressed primarily to IMikhail, who uses Isaiah 6 as a foundation to his argument that the Trisagion has ALWAYS been Christological. In a way, I was using this to disprove such foundation argumentation made for the Trisagion. Nevertheless, for studies' sake, some questions one can ask of the Athanasian quote is if even the Trisagion St. Athanasius is talking about the same Trisagion we chant today (that is without the added parts; perhaps it's better to ask if it's the same Trisagion Byzantines chant today), or is St. Athanasius referring to some other hymn, similar to the Cherubic hymn we chant today?
In the end, I think we should take Fr. Peter's approach in this subject, that there is no clear indication by the early Church what the Trisagion we chant should be referred to. We have ancient reasons for Christological basis and we have ancient reasons for Trinitarian, and to say only one of those traditions is the correct, while the other is heretical is intellectually dishonest, and erroneously absolutist. At the same time, I also agree that the language of our liturgies should have consistency in it, and not have abrupt changes in praises between one or all members of the Trinity. I hope the study of the manuscripts would help correct these problems in our liturgies and hymns.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158741#msg158741 date=1344623427] Reminkimi,
I am afraid you were not correct.
There is a difference between what Isaiah saw and the praise itself which he heard.
Did Isaiah see the Trinity? No.
By all means, Isaiah saw a theophany of our Lord Christ. No Church father disagreed on this.
Above all, the scripture is very clear in John 12:41
To Whom was the praise directed to? This is where the disagreement between the Church fathers come in play. Some understood it to be directed to the holy Trinity.
Others believe it was directed to the person of Christ whom Isaiah saw. And this is the view of the Oriental Church. The references I provided show that the Church as a whole accepted the praise to be directed to the person of Christ since the additions to the Trisagion, in Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem and Syria, were Christological . However, the Byzantines insisted on the Trinitarian understanding by 692.
What is sad is that the Byzantines deny the Orientals the Christological understanding in spite of Church fathers supporting it and they themselves approved it at one point in time.
Dear IMikhail,
If you feel that some Church fathers disagreed on "Whom the praise was directed to," then this still begs the question of your argument. Are you still thinking that the Trisagion is based on the Cherubic praise or the vision Isaiah saw? If the vision, then your arguments do not matter at all in the past couple of pages of this thread, since what was seen and what was said are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS to you, and that the Trisagion should have NOTHING to do with Isaiah 6! If on the other hand, the Cherubic praise, then you shouldn't make absolutist claims that the Trisagion was ONLY Christological by using how the Church fathers interpreted Isaiah 6. Clearly, St. Athanasius, a very important source of credibility in interpretation and faith, thought that the use of the Thrice-Holy praise is for the Trinity, and so if the our Trisagion hymn, as you claim, comes from this praise, then perhaps, we deviated, according to your central argument, from St. Athanasius' use at his time.
I also question your use of Ibn Sabaa as a proof of first century tradition that somehow Joseph of Arimethea chanted "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal" while burying Christ. This is taken from the Golgotha hymn, which is a conversational technique of theological beliefs, not necessarily a literal conversation that took place at some point in time. People like St. Ephraim the Syrian and St. Jacob of Serug used this technique in their poetry to express theological beliefs. Consider for instance St. Ephraim's Hymn XI, where he contemplates what the Theotokos would say to her beloved Son, who is also her God and Savior: from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf213.iii.v.xii.html
It would be preposterous to think that St. Ephraim got this from some first century tradition that the Theotokos was actually recorded saying these exact words, just as much as it is preposterous to think that Joseph of Arimethea actually chanted the Trisagion when burying Christ! These are contemplative discussions, not literal events. I don't know what this technique in contemplative writing or chanting is called, but I do know the Byzantine Church uses this a lot in their hymns for various seasons and feasts.
In any case, if I misunderstood you in any way, I am open to correction.
God bless.
First let me thank you for addressing me by "dear". It is refreshing after a heated discussion. I am guilty of not using it more often.
Second, forgive me for addressing the points you raised in your last post in different posts as it makes it easy for the reader to follow the discussion especially if the points are not discussing the same topic.
The first point you raised is the hymn "Agios Ictin" I personally do not chant this hymn not because it is confusing but because of a different reason I did address on this forum. I do not think it is appropriate to rehash what I have already discussed especially if it is a different topic.
Now let me address the points you raised: You argue that the Trisagion, as it is chanted in the Oriental Church, is inappropriate because it switches from being Christological to being Trinitarian.
This is the same argument RamzyM used when he first joined the discussion and I did present evidence from other liturgical hymns.
My first question is why is it confusing? When you say so, you seem to separate the Trinity persons from one another.
When I pray to the Son, am I only praying to the Son separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit? Of course not. We pray to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit as in all the litanies (except for the Gospel litany), the Lord's prayer, .... etc.
We also pray to the Son and give Him glory together with the Father and the Son as in all the hymns addressing the Son (the Pauline response, the Acts response, ...etc).
We also pray to the Holy Spirit through the Father as in the Epiclesis.
We address each person separately because of each Person's absolute perfection and unique characteristics.
The Church prayers are full of these prayers, hymns, praises where the "switch", if this is the right word, happens from addressing one Person to addressing the three Persons. This shows that the three persons are one in perfect unity with regards to the Divinity but still unique with regards to their characteristics.
Our salvation is not unique to just one Person of the Trinity. As the Son redeemed us on the Cross, we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and accepted to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.
How did you reach the conclusion that he was in fact talking abut the Cherubic hymn and not the Trisagion?
John Brownlie says on page 102 of the reference below:
"The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church from the very earliest. .... Originally, the Trisagion (thrice holy), was in the exact form found in Isaiah 6:3, but as the years passed, additions were made to went to express doctrine both Orthodox and heterodox. [/quote[
I've emphasized the pertinent points. From the very first sentence, it's obvious that John Brownlie views the Trisagion and the Cherubic hymn as one and the same. If you look back at Post #83, I asked "If Isaiah 6 text is different than the liturgical Trisagion, then it's not the same hymn. Maybe it can be seen as a type of Trisagion, but it can't be the liturgical Trisagion." Now Brownlie wants to blur the distinction between the two texts. In his second sentence, he explicitly says the Sanctus and the Trisagion are identical texts. He is wrong.
Secondly, you want to claim Isaiah 6 is Christological and yet you use Trinitarian Cherubic hymn that references the Trisagion. Look again at the Cherubic hymn text "We who mystically represent the Cherubim, and who sing to the Life-Giving Trinity the thrice-holy hymn" It is obvious that the author of the Cherubic hymn believes the Trisagion is Trinitarian.
Would St Athanasius disagree that the Person whom Isaiah saw, in his vision, someone else other than the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ?
I doubt it. For he used the vision to prove to the Arians that Christ is God perfect in His divinity as to the Father.
First, St. Athanasius presented the argument of the Arians as they claimed that the singing of the "Lord" for the Christ, is lower than that of the Father.
"And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men."
Then he presents what Isaiah heard, the Trisagion as sung by the Cherubim. He is not referring to another hymn but the actual words Isaiah heard.
Here are his words:
"For the Triad, praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi.; Rev. iv. offering their praises three times, saying ‘Holy, Holy, Holy,’ proves that the Three Subsistences are perfect, just as in saying ‘Lord,’ they declare the One Essence."
Notice the bolded phrase.
What St. Athanasius is saying (my interpretation) is that contrary to the Arians' denial of Christ's Godhead, by saying that the singing of the Lord for the Christ, is lower than that of the Father, Isaiah's vision actually proves Christ's full divinity.
St. Athanasius argues that Isaiah does not hear "Holy" for the Son lower than the other two "Holy". So, St. Athanasius acknowledges that the thrice Holy are for the three persons but they act as if it is one for they only say "Lord" one time.
This goes to my last post regarding that when we address one Person of the Divinity we do not separate Him from the other two persons for the three are one.
Let's go back to the vision. Whom did Isaiah see? By all means it is the person of Christ.
Whom did they call Lord while Isaiah was seeing the Christ incarnate? By all means it is the person of Christ.
This is why the Church Fathers understood the vision to be Christological for it proves the Divinity of Christ and our Trisagion that we chant is based on this vision.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158776#msg158776 date=1344793042]
How did you reach the conclusion that he was in fact talking abut the Cherubic hymn and not the Trisagion?
John Brownlie says on page 102 of the reference below:
"The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church from the very earliest. .... Originally, the Trisagion (thrice holy), was in the exact form found in Isaiah 6:3, but as the years passed, additions were made to went to express doctrine both Orthodox and heterodox.
I've emphasized the pertinent points. From the very first sentence, it's obvious that John Brownlie views the Trisagion and the Cherubic hymn as one and the same. If you look back at Post #83, I asked "If Isaiah 6 text is different than the liturgical Trisagion, then it's not the same hymn. Maybe it can be seen as a type of Trisagion, but it can't be the liturgical Trisagion." Now Brownlie wants to blur the distinction between the two texts. In his second sentence, he explicitly says the Sanctus and the Trisagion are identical texts. He is wrong.
Dear Reminkimi,
I am not following your logic. How is he wrong if he lists the Trisagion hymn as it is exactly used by the Byzantines and give the comment you posted?
You are far off on this point.
I used John Brownlie to prove one point and one point only:
The vision that Isaiah saw is Christological and what he heard is attributed to the person of Christ.
Dear Mina Soliman,
First let me thank you for addressing me by "dear". It is refreshing after a heated discussion. I am guilty of not using it more often.
Second, forgive me for addressing the points you raised in your last post in different posts as it makes it easy for the reader to follow the discussion especially if the points are not discussing the same topic.
The first point you raised is the hymn "Agios Ictin" I personally do not chant this hymn not because it is confusing but because of a different reason I did address on this forum. I do not think it is appropriate to rehash what I have already discussed especially if it is a different topic.
Now let me address the points you raised: You argue that the Trisagion, as it is chanted in the Oriental Church, is inappropriate because it switches from being Christological to being Trinitarian.
This is the same argument RamzyM used when he first joined the discussion and I did present evidence from other liturgical hymns.
My first question is why is it confusing? When you say so, you seem to separate the Trinity persons from one another.
When I pray to the Son, am I only praying to the Son separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit? Of course not. We pray to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit as in all the litanies (except for the Gospel litany), the Lord's prayer, .... etc.
We also pray to the Son and give Him glory together with the Father and the Son as in all the hymns addressing the Son (the Pauline response, the Acts response, ...etc).
We also pray to the Holy Spirit through the Father as in the Epiclesis.
We address each person separately because of each Person's absolute perfection and unique characteristics.
The Church prayers are full of these prayers, hymns, praises where the "switch", if this is the right word, happens from addressing one Person to addressing the three Persons. This shows that the three persons are one in perfect unity with regards to the Divinity but still unique with regards to their characteristics.
Our salvation is not unique to just one Person of the Trinity. As the Son redeemed us on the Cross, we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and accepted to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.
Dear IMikhail, the issue with the Trisagion is an abrupt change without warning. When we pray to the Son, we still pray to the Son and add to the fact that we glorify YOU oh Son with YOUR Good Father and the Holy Spirit. So we're still talking to the Second Person glorifying Him with the other two. In the Trisagion, we talk to the Son, and THEN we talk the Trinity all at once. Thus is the difference and it lacks the consistency that the other prayers might have.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158797#msg158797 date=1344824974] Dear Mina Soliman,
Would St Athanasius disagree that the Person whom Isaiah saw, in his vision, someone else other than the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ?
I doubt it. For he used the vision to prove to the Arians that Christ is God perfect in His divinity as to the Father.
First, St. Athanasius presented the argument of the Arians as they claimed that the singing of the "Lord" for the Christ, is lower than that of the Father.
"And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men."
Then he presents what Isaiah heard, the Trisagion as sung by the Cherubim. He is not referring to another hymn but the actual words Isaiah heard.
Here are his words:
"For the Triad, praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi.; Rev. iv. offering their praises three times, saying ‘Holy, Holy, Holy,’ proves that the Three Subsistences are perfect, just as in saying ‘Lord,’ they declare the One Essence."
Notice the bolded phrase.
What St. Athanasius is saying (my interpretation) is that contrary to the Arians' denial of Christ's Godhead, by saying that the singing of the Lord for the Christ, is lower than that of the Father, Isaiah's vision actually proves Christ's full divinity.
St. Athanasius argues that Isaiah does not hear "Holy" for the Son lower than the other two "Holy". So, St. Athanasius acknowledges that the thrice Holy are for the three persons but they act as if it is one for they only say "Lord" one time.
This goes to my last post regarding that when we address one Person of the Divinity we do not separate Him from the other two persons for the three are one.
Let's go back to the vision. Whom did Isaiah see? By all means it is person of Christ.
Whom did they call Lord while Isaiah was seeing the Christ incarnate? By all means it is person of Christ.
This is why the Church Fathers understood the vision to be Christological for proves the Divinity of Christ and our Trisagion that we chant is based on this vision.
I'm arguing that it doesn't matter who Isaiah sees. If the hymn is based on the Cherubic hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth," and St. Athanasius said that this hymn is based on the Trinity, then we should talk about the hymn itself as it relates to your argument, not on who Isaiah saw, because as you argue, the Trisagion is derived from this Cherubic hymn, and has been changed and added to over time. Therefore, by definition, this derivation according to St. Athanasius should be applied to the Trinity. As St. Athanasius said, the "Holy, Holy, Holy" refers to the Three Subsistences and their equal perfection, and the word "Lord," is their oneness in essence. It is equivalent perhaps to the sign of the Cross as we say it, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God," or as we pray in the Liturgy, "One is the All-Holy Father, One is the All-Holy Son, One is the All-Holy Spirit" so also St. Athanasius saw the Cherubim say, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth." Therefore, we cannot say that the Trisagion is Christological only, or that it is related to the Vision. If you make distinct the Vision of Isaiah and the Chanting of the Cherubim, and say that the hymn is based on the Vision, then this begs the question, where did words of the three Holies to Christ come from if not from the Cherubim as St. Athanasius believes it to be to the Holy Trinity?
We have numerous prayers that do switch exactly like the Trisagion.
Here are few examples:
The Creed Intro:
Address St Mary
"We exalt you, the Mother of the true Light. We glorify you, O Saint, the Theotokos,1 for you brought forth unto us the Savior of the whole world; He came and saved our souls."
Address the Son
Glory to You, our Master, our King, Christ, the pride of the apostles, the crown of the martyrs, the joy of the righteous, the firmness of the churches, the forgiveness of sins.
Address the Trinity
We proclaim the Holy Trinity in One Godhead. We worship Him. We glorify Him.
Address the Trinity in Unison
Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord bless. Amen.
Hymn Omonojanees
We start addressing the Son and then end by addressing the Trinity
The Annual Gospel Response:
"Let us worship our Savior, the good lover of mankind, for He came and saved us. Blessed is the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit, the perfect Trinity, we Worship Him (the Trinity) snd glorify Him (the Trinity)"
We start with the Son, then each Person then the Trinity.
These are just few examples but our Church is full of such prayers.
In our minds, we cannot separate the Son from the Trinity or say that the angels are praising the Trinity but not the Son or they are praising the Son without the Trinity.
So, the angels are addressing the Trinity through the Person of Christ whom Isaiah saw. This shows the perfection of the Son's Divinity.
What I am saying, is that Isaiah saw Christ. He heard the Cherubim praising the One He is seeing. Thus there is no harm in attributing what he heard to the one he saw.
The problem is what the Byzantines did in 692 and later. They considered it a heresy that the Trisagion is attributed to the Son and thus deposed St Peter the Fuller, though there were already Christological additions in Rome, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.
We cannot say that the the Trisagion we chant in the Church is not based on Isaiah 6 given the resources already mentioned. We also cannot accept the position of the Byzantines that the hymn is solely Trinitarian and anything else is heresy.
Dear Reminkimi,
I am not following your logic. How is he wrong if he lists the Trisagion hymn as it is exactly used by the Byzantines and give the comment you posted?
Brownlie is wrong because he is saying the text of the Trisagion is identical to the text of the Cherubic hymn which is identical to the text of the Sanctus in Isaiah 6. Look at his quote again, "The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church" By using the singular form of the verb, he has grouped plural subjects into one. It is like saying "Six or one half dozen". They two are identical syntactically. Then by using the singular tense of the verb, it becomes one singular subject. One can't say "Mac and Cheese are my favorite snacks" because in American syntax "Mac and cheese" describes a singular object. The sentence must be "Mac and Cheese is my favorite snack." Brownlie didn't say "The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn have been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church." He used the singular form, "has been". He therefore claims the liturgical Trisagion and the Cherubic hymns are identical. And he is wrong. Then in the second sentence, Brownlie explicitly says the liturgical Trisagion is identical to the Sanctus with minor additions. Again wrong. These additions dramatically change the Sanctus. They are three different hymns. They may be based on each other, but they are not identical. Brownlie's quote is saying multiple things. (1) The liturgical Trisagion is identical to the Cherubic hymn. (2) It has been used from the very earliest. (3) It is found in nearly all offices of the church. (4) Isaiah 6 is identical to the liturgical Trisagion with minor additions. (5) The implied doctrine that the liturgical Trisagion expresses, as found in the present Byzantine liturgical Trisagion, is Trinitarian. If you combine #1 and #4 and #5 in a logical progression as Brownlie did, then logically he is stating all three hymns are Trinitarian. If you intend to use Brownlie as a reference without explicitly disagreeing with him, then you are indirectly agreeing with all his points. You probably unintentionally didn't realize that Brownlie's argument weakens your Christological argument.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158798#msg158798 date=1344825433]
Dear Reminkimi,
I am not following your logic. How is he wrong if he lists the Trisagion hymn as it is exactly used by the Byzantines and give the comment you posted?
Brownlie is wrong because he is saying the text of the Trisagion is identical to the text of the Cherubic hymn which is identical to the text of the Sanctus in Isaiah 6. Look at his quote again, "The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church"
Dear Reminkimi,
You are assuming Brownlie is wrong because he uses this phrase "The Trisagion or the Cherubic".
I do not see it that way and I will not go into rebutting your claim for it is a side issue.
Nevertheless, let us assume that he is confused as you say. Since he lists the text of the hymn we refer to as the Trisagion and says that it is based on Isaiah, then it is a valid reference in our discussion.
Some said that the Trisagion as we know does not relate to Isaiah. Consequently I used Brownlie to show the root of the Trisagion is based on Isaiah 6.
Please, read #34, #75 to see in what manner I am using Brownlie reference.
I did not mean to say that I necessarily disagree with Fr. Shenouda Maher. I am sorry my wording was not clear enough. What I meant is that you cite him as someone I am going against, which is not exactly true.
Fr. Shenouda's entire thesis in that article is that 1- Many early Fathers (the earliest quoted I believe is St. Cyril) understood the Trisagion Christologically, and 2- Our understanding is not in any way heretical (Patripassianist) as others claim. Do you agree these are the basic ideas?
If so, I don't disagree with any of that. As I said before, I don't have any problem with either interpretation and I definitely don't think our Church is promoting Patripassiansim when singing the Trisagion with the additions (who was crucified for us). However, what I do have a problem with, and which I don't think Fr. Shenouda addressed at all, is the switch from addressing Christ in the first three verses, to addressing the Trinity. So, again, unless you think Fr. Shenouda mentioned this or defended it, I don't think his argument has any bearing on this discussion, though you are free to use his references (with proper citation and giving credit to Fr. Shenouda).
Regarding the evidence you provided that switches like that happen often, I still don't think it is the same. As Minasoliman already said, it is one thing to address the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, and another thing altogether to switch randomly without clearly indicating. I understand you think this is totally ok, but that's where we disagree most (and I apologize if I may have caused the discussion to depart from that basic point by discussing Isaiah and other sources). Yes, we never separate the members of the Trinity as though we deny their equality, God forbid. But in so far as each hypostasis in the Holy Trinity has different energies, we cannot on our end risk confusing hearers between the three hypostases regarding those things that are unique to each, such as birth from the Virgin, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.
Your other defense, besides bringing up other hymns, was to argue that the Church always understood the Trisagion in a Christological way. That's fine with me...the Syrian Orthodox also understand the Trisagion in a Christological way and I have no problem with that. However, notice that their Trisagion has no Doxa and no mention of the Trinity altogether. Even if we leave aside the Byzantines for now, and even if I were to agree that they are the ones that departed from what is authentic, what about our Oriental Syrian brothers? Something here is off when they too, with whom we share every last bit of the Faith, have a Trisagion without any mention of the Trinity as a whole.
So what am I suggesting happened? I suspect that the Doxa was not always part of our Trisagion. If this is no true, please anyone show me with evidence that the church of Alexandria always chanted the Trisagion with Doxa. What I actually suspect happened is this:
1- The Trisagion was chanted at some point before Chalcedon in Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria. It was understood by some to be Trinitarian and by others to be Christological, since the text itself could be read either way.
2- For historical reasons, the Christological phrases were added to solidify the already existing Christological understanding in Antioch and was later adopted in Alexandria. The additions were perfectly Orthodox, and designed to defend the humanity of Christ from charges of Monophysitism.
3- The Doxa came later, maybe even much later, adopted from the Byzantines.
Notice that Ibn Sebaa even does not mention the doxa in his text and explanation of the Trisagion. I feel that might mean it was not chanted at his time, but there needs to be more corroborating evidence. If I am not mistaken, none of the sources presented here so far necessarily imply that Doxa Patri is part of the Trisagion, am I correct in that?
Also, I wanted to share with you and everyone else another example I noticed yesterday in liturgy. The Fraction for the feasts of angels and St. Mary I think would be highly relevant for this discussion, and I would like to see everyone here thinks of it: Ok, so this will probably stand somewhere in between both of our arguments. On the one hand, the fraction interprets the angels' vision (whether or not this is in reference to Rev, Is 6:3, or otherwise) as a Christological vision. On the other hand, the hymn that we on earth join them in singing is Trinitarian. For me, this supports somewhat what I am saying. Regardless of the basis for the Trisagion, the praise itself is Trinitarian in nature. What does this tell me? It tells me that 1- The Trisagion can be understood in a Trinitarian way, and we have here of an example from the Coptic rite itself that this is possible. 2- Here we have a Trisagion that is perfectly consistent. The Angels and 24 presbyters are praising Emmanuel our God, and we too worship the Holy Trinity. Everything is clear and sound, with no confusion whatsoever. I hope this example can at least show that it is possible to see the Trisagion in a Trinitarian way from a perfectly solid Oriental Orthodox perspective. At any rate, like I keep repeating, the issue is one of consistency, not that one interpretation or another is the only correct one. I am afraid I might not be able to present the case any more clearly if you feel the switching back and forth is ok.
Dear imikhail,
I did not mean to say that I necessarily disagree with Fr. Shenouda Maher. I am sorry my wording was not clear enough. What I meant is that you cite him as someone I am going against, which is not exactly true.
Fr. Shenouda's entire thesis in that article is that 1- Many early Fathers (the earliest quoted I believe is St. Cyril) understood the Trisagion Christologically, and 2- Our understanding is not in any way heretical (Patripassianist) as others claim. Do you agree these are the basic ideas?
If so, I don't disagree with any of that. As I said before, I don't have any problem with either interpretation and I definitely don't think our Church is promoting Patripassiansim when singing the Trisagion with the additions (who was crucified for us). However, what I do have a problem with, and which I don't think Fr. Shenouda addressed at all, is the switch from addressing Christ in the first three verses, to addressing the Trinity. So, again, unless you think Fr. Shenouda mentioned this or defended it, I don't think his argument has any bearing on this discussion, though you are free to use his references (with proper citation and giving credit to Fr. Shenouda).
Dear RamezM
This discussion about the Trisagion started with whether it Christological and whether it is appropriate in light of how the Byzantines use it.
If the switch is what we are discussing then I think the past 5 pages were effort spent in vain.
Can you please explain to me what you mean by " switch randomly without clearly indicating"? Please, do not take offense as I am trying to understand your logic.
However, the prayers like omonojanees switch like the Trisagion. The Creed Intro does switch like the Trisagion.
May be if you explain your logic, I would stop bringing up the same examples.
The Doxa is a doxology to the Trinity that is chanted as a stand alone hymn in many of the Church prayers. It is usually chanted by the southern choir (Ba7ary/Kebly).
It was most likely added to complete the choral response to the Trisagion.
Fr. Athanasius Al Makary says it is a doxology in use since the 4th century and is based on scripture found in the letters to the Romans and Philippians and the book of Revelation. (Dictionary of Church Expressions Volume II p.96)
When I first posted on this discussion, my comment was regarding the switching, and I've tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to keep it limited to that. I understand I responded to other side issues here and there, and maybe the entire discussion about Isaiah and the origin of the Trisagion may have blurred my main point. If that was the case, I apologize. However, it seems to me that you are saying "the Trisagion has always been Christological and never Trinitarian until after Chalcedon." I disagree with that too, and I think both understandings are valid, but at any rate my main point is: the text cannot be both Trinitarian and Christological at the same time.
As far as explaining the switch, no offense taken at all! I don't think the example of the intro to the creed is on the same leve as the Trisagion. Yes, it switches from addressing St. Mary to addressing Christ, but I can't imagine many people acquiring the wrong teaching from something like that, do you? It seems very clear that we are finished with St. Mary and then now we are addressing Christ (the reason for St. Mary's honor and veneration to begin with). If I understand you correctly, you feel that it is never confusing any time it happens including the Trisagion, and that is where we disagree. This may come down to perception, but it is clear to me that many who lack the proper theological foundation can easily misinterpret the Trisagion when it contains Christological phrases followed by praising the Trinity as a whole. Yes, teaching here can help, but that does not mean we shouldn't acknowledge the potential for misunderstanding. At the very least, even if no one will misunderstand the prayer, to me it seems clearly odd at least for this particular praise to be adding on the Doxa at the end. This observation I have been making is corroborated by the facts that 1- Two other Orthodox traditions do not exhibit the same issue in the Trisagion, 2- We all know both the Christological phrases and the Doxa are later additions, 3- We have examples in the Coptic tradition itself, such as the Fraction of Angels and even the Doxology of Angels where the Trisagion is present without Doxa and without Christological phrases. All this confirms my initial suspicion that things were not always the way they are now regarding the words sung, and I hope this gets you to consider that there is a possibility here that what I am saying could be true.
Regarding the Doxa, I do remember you saying it is separate from the hymn, and I responded and said that yes, the Doxa may have been added later (and I still think so as you saw from my recent post), but that as it stands now everyone understands it as part of the same single prayer of the Trisagion. So, the way I think, and because I see the switching as potentially confusing, I would not have added the Doxa to the hymn after it had become clearly Christological with the addition of "who was crucified for us". If the hymn was always understood Christologically (something I am not sure is true, because we also have the Fraction of the Angels singing a Trinitarian Trisagion...etc) then the Doxa should not have been added at any point in time. OR we can take the other approach and say that while the Christological phrases were needed to defend against Monophysitism, maybe it's time to remove them and make the Trisagion Trinitarian. Either way, the Doxa or the Christological phrases should go (again, per my own reasoning about this and while keeping in mind that neither will probably happen).
At the bottom of all this is something I am not sure everyone will like me for saying. With the birth of Islam and its entering Egypt, our Church (and other Churches in Arab lands) gradually entered a period of dark ages, where the level of Theological education and expertise declined as a general rule. I don't think anyone would deny the fact that the golden age of Alexandria as a beacon of theology was the period roughly from the 3rd century to maybe the late 5th or early 6th centuries, right? I am talking about St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, even Origen (with the exception of his heretical teachings on some topics), Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind...etc. With this in mind, I don't particularly place the same weight on liturgical texts composed much later than that period the same way I do with texts proven to be from an earlier period. For example, I regard people like Ibn Sebaa and others of the 14th century to be great references to the ritual practices of 14th century Cairo, but I don't place the same value on their dogmatic or theological explanations the way I would with someone like St. Athanasius, St. Cyril and others. Same goes with something like O Monogenes. As a general rule in liturgical studies (and this is a law or hypothesis advanced by Anton Baumstark in his iconic work Comparative Liturgy) texts tend to develop from shorter to longer, not vice versa. As any such statement, it is a generalization that will not always be true, but in the absence of any contradicting evidence, it seems that the shorter Byzantine text of O Monogenes is the older one. Without knowing when the rest of O Monogenes was written, my gut feeling is that it was written much later than Chalcedon, again because I don't see this tendency to switch between Christ and the Trinity as part of traditional hymnography. This is just my speculation on the matter, and I've done my best to try and find the origin of the rest of O Monogenes. If you have more info to the contrary, please share.
Dear RamzyM
To me, the only way there would be misunderstanding is if people do not understand what they are saying because the words of the Trisagion are very clear as opposed to the Trinitarian Doxa.
Believe me, there are numerous examples of this switching:
The conclusion canon of the liturgical services .. it starts with Doxa Batri and then switches to the Son.
"Glory be to the Father, .....now and forever ...we cry out saying O Christ our Lord .."
The midnight praises is full of such switches between addressing Son, and the Trinity in one sentence "Glory be to You, O only begotten Son, O Holy Trinity, have mercy on us"
Of course if people are not aware of what they are saying, then yes there will be confusion. But that is not because of the text but because of lack of knowledge.
I liken this to the deep words with which our Lord used with the disciples. They could not understand not because His words are structured poorly but because the hearers did not have the level of knowledge with which they could understand our Lord.
For me, this supports somewhat what I am saying. Regardless of the basis for the Trisagion, the praise itself is Trinitarian in nature. What does this tell me? It tells me that 1- The Trisagion can be understood in a Trinitarian way, and we have here of an example from the Coptic rite itself that this is possible.
Ramez, I have a second Coptic hymn to support your claim. In the "Canon of the Resurrection", Tennav, we have a very interesting verse. "We worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one in essence. And we proclaim and say with the Cherubim, "Holy, Holy, Holy are You, O Lord." It seems clear to me that it is a Trinitarian hymn referencing Isaiah 6's Sanctus. I think this solidifies that Isaiah 6 can be interpreted in a Trinitarian way. The hymn Tennav is mostly addressed to the Christ. All of it is in the second person singular form. In the very first verse, the confusion starts. "We bow down to Your Cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify Your resurrection. For you are our God and we know none but You and after Your name we are called." Then we get the first part of the Doxa. Is it a separate hymn? Or is it a transitional mechanism used by hymnographers? I will say that the Greek version of Tennav excludes the Doxa. Additionally, right after the doxa, we move to addressing the believers and the events of the resurrection in the third person singular. We finish the second half of the doxa and then address the Virgin. I also think that the second response, "Blessed are You, O Lord, teach me Your statutes", is used as a transition mechanism. After the first "Blessed are You, O Lord", we move from the Theotokos back to Christ in the second person singular. Then after the next "Blessed are You, O Lord" we speak directly to the women carrying fragrant oil. Then after the next "Blessed are You, O Lord" we address Christ and His angel. Then after the next "Blessed are You, O Lord" we don't shift the subject. We still speak to Christ. But after this, we say Doxa again and shift to a Trinitarian hymn. After the second half of the Doxa we go back addressing the Theotokos. I will add this response is found in the Greek Tennav all four times.
I will look for more examples of shifting. We may be able to see if the Coptic Trisagion is part of a pattern or an exception.
As a general rule in liturgical studies (and this is a law or hypothesis advanced by Anton Baumstark in his iconic work Comparative Liturgy) texts tend to develop from shorter to longer, not vice versa. As any such statement, it is a generalization that will not always be true, but in the absence of any contradicting evidence, it seems that the shorter Byzantine text of O Monogenes is the older one.
I forgot to mention. The Greek Tennav is shorter. Two verses, Nirasi tyrou and Anon de hwn, are missing. It is highly likely that the Coptic text is a translation of the Greek with additions. This is no real surprise since most Coptic texts are later translations.
I am glad you brought up the shifting in Dannaw. It shows that the "shifting" is a charactaristic of the Church prayers. This is not a surprise for each Person of the Trinity is perfect and when glorified the glory is perfect just as if we are praising the Holy Trinity Himself.
In our minds, we cannot separate the Son from the Trinity or say that the angels are praising the Trinity but not the Son or they are praising the Son without the Trinity.
You misunderstand me I think. I'm not saying they're NOT praising the Son. I'm saying that it seems St. Athanasius is interpreting this verse as the Cherubim praising the Trinity, not the Son ALONE. Forgive me if I made it sound like that the Cherubim were worshiping the Trinity without the Son, which I agree is absurd. I think this is where I will disagree. There's no indication first off that Isaiah thought they were praising ONLY what he was seeing. How do we know that Isaiah's thoughts were not opened to a Trinitarian understanding also, even if he only saw the Logos? Second of all, we shouldn't be afraid to admit that St. Athanasius contradicts how other Church fathers interpret the verse in Isaiah. Some did in fact interpret the three Holies as praise to the Logos alone. It's not erroneous. But certainly, it makes for a great Bible/Patristic discussion. I agree with you that what the Byzantines did was wrong. But correct me if I'm wrong. Were you not saying earlier that it's wrong for them to attribute this hymn to the Holy Trinity, or that this hymn is for Christ solely? Because I also think both traditions, Christological and Trinitarian are perfectly valid. As Ramez explained, it's not one tradition or another I'm advocating, but consistency, but I don't want to repeat what is already being discussed, since he's discussing it. I'll be honest with you. I cannot really form that conclusion unless one can derive for sure where this text of the Trisagion came from exactly, or that we have conclusive and primary evidence of the manuscripts that indicates such. And just because St. Athanasius says "Trisagion" doesn't mean it's what we chant today, and I'm sure you understand that. I made the disclaimer earlier. Nevertheless, if one is to make that conclusion, then it is valid to think that the Alexandrian Church at the time may have had a Trinitarian understanding of the Cherubic hymn.
I remember reading an article a while ago about the Trinity where it mentions that one possible Old Testament reference to the Trinity can be the three men who visited Abraham. The article claimed that although our tradition mainly sees this as the Logos with two angels, some Church fathers seem to believe that this is the Trinity appearing to Abraham. I admit, there's no reference to which Church fathers did in fact profess this, but perhaps someone here can help me more knowledgeable than I am in this. Perhaps if someone has the ACCS and look up Genesis 14, this may also add an interesting dynamic to the discussion, that we cannot assume what Isaiah saw by theological assumption that only the Logos can appear to human eyes in the Old Testament. In addition, the Ethiopian Church venerates an icon of the Trinity, three equally looking, anthropological figures, blessing. This icon is rampant in the Ethiopian
Dear Mina,
I suppose you are referring to Genesis 18.
It is very clear from the Scripture that the three were the Son and two angels.
The two angel left the Lord conversing with Abraham (18:22)
In Chapter 19, the Scripture clearly calls them "angles".
"Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. "
The term "angle" is only attributed to the Son in terms of His redemptive mission, or to the rank of the angles. It is never attributed to the Father nor to the Holy Spirit.
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=13535.msg158922#msg158922 date=1344999032]
I remember reading an article a while ago about the Trinity where it mentions that one possible Old Testament reference to the Trinity can be the three men who visited Abraham. The article claimed that although our tradition mainly sees this as the Logos with two angels, some Church fathers seem to believe that this is the Trinity appearing to Abraham. I admit, there's no reference to which Church fathers did in fact profess this, but perhaps someone here can help me more knowledgeable than I am in this. Perhaps if someone has the ACCS and look up Genesis 14, this may also add an interesting dynamic to the discussion, that we cannot assume what Isaiah saw by theological assumption that only the Logos can appear to human eyes in the Old Testament. In addition, the Ethiopian Church venerates an icon of the Trinity, three equally looking, anthropological figures, blessing. This icon is rampant in the Ethiopian
Dear Mina,
I suppose you are referring to Genesis 18.
It is very clear from the Scripture that the three were the Son and two angels.
The two angel left the Lord conversing with Abraham (18:22)
In Chapter 19, the Scripture clearly calls them "angles".
"Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. "
The term "angle" is only attributed to the Son in terms of His redemptive mission, or to the rank of the angles. It is never attributed to the Father nor to the Holy Spirit.
sorry, yes I meant ch 18. Thank you for that correction
Leo is nestorian. Nestorius actually praised the Tome of Leo, viewing as a "vindication of the truth".
Bogus! Just because a heretic praises me for something, it does not meen that I follow the heresies of that man. That is some of the worst logic I have seen in my entire life. I, a Coptic Orthodox, praise the commitment of the protestants to evangelism, but that does not mean that all protestants are Coptic Orthodox. A couple posts into the "Selection of a new pontif" thread, Irishpilgrim said that he liked what I was saying, but that does not mean that I was like Irishpilgrim in all his other views. In fact, the reasoning there is backwords. It was not Leo who said that Nestorius' writings were a vindication of truth, but Nestorius who said that about the Tome. The doesn't say much about Leo, rather about Nestorius.
To say Leo is Nestorian is as baseless as the EO calling Dioscorous a Eutechian.
ReturnOrthodoxy