Hi,
Two questions:
I've noticed that when Copts make the sign of the cross they sometimes raise one finger. Is this a practice that originated in respect to the christological controversy; the one finger representing Christ's "one nature of the Word Incarnate," as taught by St. Cyril?
Also,
In the EOC the Trisagion is always said in its original form, without the additions introduced by Severus of Antioch. This is because the OOC views this hymn as referring to the Son, whereas the EO believes it refers to the whole Trinity.
I can understand the Trinitarean interpretation of the hymn, since it seems to be an extended version of the "Holy, Holy, Holy" found in both Apocalypse 4 and Isaiah 6 (which St. Athanasius explains as referring to the Trinity).
What is the origin of the OO interpretation of this hymn as reffering only to the Son?
Thanks
Comments
we were always taught to use three fingers when signing the cross (i.e the thumb, index and middle fingers joined together at the tip) and we were taught to teach the kids that too. three representing the trinity.
I dont think i can answer the other question, sorry!
Kristina123
its KRISTINA
NOT KRESTINA
PLEASE SPELL IT CORRECTLY I HATE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kristina123
Hi,
Two questions:
I've noticed that when Copts make the sign of the cross they sometimes raise one finger. Is this a practice that originated in respect to the christological controversy; the one finger representing Christ's "one nature of the Word Incarnate," as taught by St. Cyril?
the right way of doing the sign of the cross is to have 3 fingers togather simplizing the Trinity and the One God. and the other two loos finger simplizes the two natures of Christ.
and the other two loos finger simplizes the two natures of Christ.
According to EOC practice, yes. But the Coptic Church rejects the expression "two natures" so how can that be correct?
1.with one finger(the thumb)
2.with three finger(the first three)
3.with the five finger(representing el khamas gera7at..i don't know what is it in english but am pretty sure its right)
GBU
sandra
ok about the sign of the cross thing..abouna talked to us about it before..we can do it in 3 ways:
1.with one finger(the thumb)
2.with three finger(the first three)
3.with the five finger(representing el khamas gera7at..i don't know what is it in english but am pretty sure its right)
GBU
sandra
just to verify, The one finger thing Is wrong because it doesn't show anything.
The one finger symbolises many things according to Coptic tradition. I think you should be careful with what you openly proclaim as being "right" and "wrong". The fact you may not be personally aware of the signficance or relevance of the one finger usage, does not make it wrong; your lack of awareness may, as in this particular case, indicate that you simply do not know. It is better to inquire than to jump to conclusions.
Orthodox11,
As I am overseas, I will not be able to give you a sufficient answer to your inquiries as of yet. For now I can give you a thorough answer to your question regarding the sign of the cross since I have the necessary information for that on my laptop. With regard to the Trisagion, Fr. V.C Samuel gives a sufficient account of its history and purpose in his renowned scholarly work Chalcedon Re-Examined. Once I get back home I will be sure to quote you the relevant excerpts from this book, but for now I can only give you a brief summary based on my vague memory.
1) Sign of the Cross
According to Coptic tradition we may use either one or three fingers; never two.
i) One finger: According to Anba Mikhail of Damietta, a Metropolitan Bishop of the twelfth century, the Coptic Church was taught to use one finger from left to right, directly by St. Mark the Apostle himself. The early Fathers attest to the use of one finger. For example, Bar Salibi quotes St. John Chrysostom as saying “… you should not make the sign of the cross with the finger in only one way, but rather you should first make it with will and great faith…” and comments stating: “See how this Father and Doctor speaks of a finger in the singular as opposed to the plural". Anba Mikhail lists many reasons regarding the symbolism of the one finger usage:
a) The One Incarnate Nature of God the Word Incarnate - a fundamental dogma of our faith.
b) The Ten Commandments which were written by the finger of God according to Scriptural testimony (Exodus 31:18, Deuteronomy 9:10).
c) The Scriptural testimony concerning the sprinkling of the blood of the victims (Exodus 29:12; Leviticus 4:6,17,25,30; 8:15; 9:9) and the sprinkling of oil (Leviticus 14:16) to be with one finger.
d) St. Luke's testimony to the words of Christ as recorded in the 11th chapter of his Gospel: “If I with the finger of God cast out devils...” (Luke 11:20).
e) The unity of the essence of the Trinity, and the fact one person of the Trinity became Incarnate. The unity of the essence of the three persons of the Holy Trinity is symbolised by the fact that the one finger has three joints. The Incarnation of the one of the persons of the Holy Trinity is symbolised by the fact that one of these joints is joined to a nail (i.e. which is metaphorical for the nails which pierced the Incarnate Word).
2) The Trisagion:
First of all, to speak of the Trsiagion in its original form is to presume there was one original form. The blessed St. Severus in addressing the objections of his day appealed to the Antiochian historical tradition which always, since the days of Arius and for the purpose of countering his heresy, employed the Trsiagion in address to Christ.
As far as my memory recalls, Fr. V.C. Samuel notes that one of our Fathers managed to trace a Christological Trsiagion to St. Ireneous of Lyons even.
With respect to the Scriptural verse in question, whether or not it in particular concerns Christ or the Holy Trinity is really quite immaterial for there is no necessary connection between the Trisagion and the Scriptures in the first place.
Furthermore, as far as I know, EO's do in fact use the Trisagion in a Christological context at least once a year; I believe it's on Good Friday. The traditional EO objections to the Christological Trsiagion were cop-outs. An objection to the Christological Trisagion on account of the argument that it confuses the hypostases of the Trinity is a straw man attack, for the hymn is purely Christological: Christ = Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, not Christ = Holy God = Father = Holy Mighty = Son = Holy Immortal = Holy Spirit. An objection to the Christological hymn on account of the argument that it is theopaschitic, is a resort to polemical Nestorian reductionism. Most of the traditional EO objections to Miaphysitism closely resembled Nestorian objections to St. Cyril and Ephesus 431. One of our Fathers explicitly argued that anyone who denies the validity of the Christological context of the Trisagion breaks the explicit anathema's of St. Cyril, one of which (I think the last one, from memory) dictates that He who denies that God was crucified in the flesh is anathema.
Thank you for your explanation of the sign of the cross, it was very helpful.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=12;threadid=4115;start=0#msg57618 date=1152812778]
2) The Trisagion:
First of all, to speak of the Trsiagion in its original form is to presume there was one original form.
If I recall correctly it is Fr. V.C. Samuel himself who refers to it as the "original form." And it was on this basis that I chose to refer to it as such. I was not making an objection to the Alexandrian usage of the hymn, I was merely asking what the reasoning was behind it being seen as a Christological hymn, rather than a Trinitarean one.
Fr. Samuel, in his book, makes it apparent that additions were made to the hymn in order to combat Arianism and Nestorianism. But I am still confused as to whether this indicates that the hymn was 'reapplied,' so to speak, to Christ alone for the purpose of combating heresy, or whether it was alway viewed as a Christological hymn, hence my question.
Thank you for taking time to answer though.
I found the answers to your queries regarding the Trisagion in Fr. S. M. Ishak's Liturgical and Ritual Issues and Proposals Concerning the Restoration of Communion. If you're still there and interested I can type them out for you.
Orthodox11,
I found the answers to your queries regarding the Trisagion in Fr. S. M. Ishak's Liturgical and Ritual Issues and Proposals Concerning the Restoration of Communion. If you're still there and interested I can type them out for you.
If you could that would be really great, thanks! ;D
Yesterday I asked a theologically trained priest about the Trisagion and he told me it is both Trinitarian and Christological. His explanation was deep and he advised me to read The Life in Christ by Nicholas Cabasilas (which, having skimmed over it, I would recommend to all) and The Divine Liturgy by Gogol (the Russian writer). By the time I check this the interest in this subject may have cooled so briefly; does the Trinitarian/Christological explanation of the Trisagion conflict with Coptic belief?
Sorry for the delayed response. The Coptic Orthodox Church would dispute an interpretation of Isaiah 6 which deems it directed towards the Holy Trinity upon the following basis: In his Gospel, St. John the Apostle declares that Isaiah the Prophet beheld and spoke of the glory of Christ (John 12:41). St. Cyril of Alexandria explicates (in his Commentary on the Gospel of John 8:23) the fact that St. John the Apostle was referring to Isaiah's testimony as given in Chapter 6 of his book. Bar Salibi, a 12th century Armenian Saint further refers (in his treatise Against the Melkites) to other Fathers of the Church to support this interpretation, including St. John Chrysostom. Following from the explanation given above, an argument can be made that the Christological Trisagion finds its origin in the Scriptures.
According to St. Moses Bar Kepha, the 9th century Bishop of Mosul, there is an ancient tradition concerning choirs of Angels surrounding the Crucified Christ as he lay in the tomb, singing "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal" in the presence of Sts. Joseph and Nicodemus. Upon hearing this chant, Sts. Joseph and Nicodemus added the clause "who was Crucified for us". This tradition was later confrimed by Bar Salibi, and both he and St. Moses claim that by vritue of this tradition, St. Ignatius of Antioch established the Christological Trisagion as a hymn in the churches within his jurisdiction.
The aforementioned tradition relating the Christological Trisagion to the Angels and Sts. Joseph and Nicodemus is preserved by the Coptic tradition in a famous Good Friday hymn known as Golgotha, which may be heard/dowloaded here: http://tasbeha.org/mp3/Songs/Coptic/David_Ensmble/Coptic_Hymns.html
The relevant verse from that hymn reads:
[center]The righteous Joseph and Nicodemus,
Came and took away the Body of Christ;
They wound it in linen cloths with spices and put it in a sepulchre,
And praised Him saying:
"Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us."[/center]
I hope that helps.
First of all, welcome to the site, it's nice to have more EO brethren participating here.
We don't necessarily have a problem with a Trinitarian Trisagion; it doesn't present any theological difficulties or anything. It is simply alien to our tradition. Furthermore, a Trinitarian interpretation of the Trisagion was, I believe, historically employed as a polemical attack against the Christological Trisagion of the Oriental Orthodox Church. We were essentially accused of being Patripassianists/Pnevmatopassianists because of the additional clauses.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=4;threadid=4115;start=15#msg59917 date=1156859037]
The Coptic Orthodox Church would dispute an interpretation of Isaiah 6 which deems it directed towards the Holy Trinity upon the following basis: In his Gospel, St. John the Apostle declares that Isaiah the Prophet beheld and spoke of the glory of Christ (John 12:41). St. Cyril of Alexandria explicates (in his Commentary on the Gospel of John 8:23) the fact that St. John the Apostle was referring to Isaiah's testimony as given in Chapter 6 of his book. Bar Salibi, a 12th century Armenian Saint further refers (in his treatise Against the Melkites) to other Fathers of the Church to support this interpretation, including St. John Chrysostom.
That's interesting. Do you happen to have St. John Chrysostom's interpretation at hand?
It seems there is difference among the Fathers on this issue:
St. Gregory of Nyssa: "The mystery of the Trinity was luminously proclaimed when they uttered that marvellous cry, 'Holy,' being awestruck with the beauty in each hypostasis of the Trinity" (Dogmatic Treaties: Against Eunomius, Bk. I. in Nicene, 2nd Ser., X:151.)
St. Ambrose: "They repeat thrice and say the same word, that even in a hymn you may understand the distinction of Persons in the Trinity" (Of the Holy Spirit, Bk. III. Ch. XVI(110), in Nicene, 2nd Ser., IV:90.)
St. Athanasius: "For the fact of those venerable living creatures offering their praises three times proves that the three hypostases are perfect, just as in saying 'Lord,' they declare the one essence." (On Luke X.22,, 6, in Nicene, 2nd Ser., IV:90.) I don't think the fact that Isaiah's vision was of the pre-incarnate Word (and from what you say St. Kyril doesn't seem to suggest anything more than this) necessarily means that the hymn sung by the Angels was limited to one Person of the Trinity only.
But I do see how one could reach such a conclusion. Again, very interesting. I am not sure whether our Church holds to the same tradition (excluding, of course, Nicodemus' addition) or not.
Are there any other sources (preferrably pre-Chalcedon) that attribute such a thing to St. Ignatius of Antioch? I did, a lot. Thank you so much ;D
Nope. All I have is a secondary reference from Fr. Shenouda to a secondary quotation from a primary source of an OO Father; which is good enough for me, especially in light of what I know of Patristic textual criticism. Sure, why not? There is on just about every issue of a non-dogmatic nature. It sounds like pretty simple logic to me:
1) The Lord whom Isaiah beheld was Christ, not the Trinity.
2) The Angels sang the Trisagion to the Lord whom Isaiah beheld.
3) Therefore, the Angels sang the Trisagion to Christ, not the Trinity. The only three Fathers Fr. Shenouda refers to who all relate this tradition are: St. Moses Bar Kepha (9th century), St. Bar Salibi (12th century), and St. Ibn Siba (13th century).