The original formula is the same as the one which the Eastern Orthodox still use.
The way you are speaking us disrespectful to all of the Holy Synods and to Pope Shenouda and all his efforts. I shall consider moderating all posts which speak in such a way against the clear intention and activity of the Synod. I do not believe this forum should be used to undermine what all the Holy Synods have achieved and taught.
Imikhail is mistaken I and saying that the Christological formula was condemned and then the Trinitarian use was introduced. On the contrary these uses were contemporary and Chalcedonians used both, as did the Roman Church. It was only as the use of Constantinople predominated, and especially because of invasions leading hierarchs to flee to Constantinople that the local uses died out and were eventually excluded and not properly understood.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13535.msg158498#msg158498 date=1344118760] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158479#msg158479 date=1344068412] However, the Eastern Church did condemn such usage. Thus, they introduced the trinitarian formula.
Dear Imikail,
It is troubling that the Eastern Church condemn the use of the original formula, the Word of God, and replaced it with another formula. Does the church still hold of chalcedon!! How can some people ask for unity with such church?!! With respect, I do not think this is anything to get worked up about. They understand the Trisagion as addressing the entire Trinity (though, in its area of origin it was intended to be addressed to Christ). Thus, the elongated version for them is unacceptable and they use the original formula, which can be used in a Patrological, Christological, Pneumatological, or Trinitarian way.
For us, the Trisagion is addressed specifically to Christ and thus the elongations are to reinforce the fact that it was the Word of the Father who, in His own flesh, was truly born of a Virgin and was truly crucified. It all depends on CONTEXT.
Please, do not take this as confrontational or contradicting what you are saying.
Although the Byzantine family of Orthodox churches understand the Trisagion as a Trinitarian hymn, it is understood by the Oriental family Orthodox churches as being addressed to Christ.
What is the origin of the Trisagion:
1) Some say that it is taken and introduced from Isaiah the prophet (6:3) who heard the Seraphim sent to find the Lord of glory saying: "Holy Holy Holy, Lord of Sabaoth”, and from him it was adapted and appointed in the Church. [St Cyril of Jerusalem is of that opinion]
2) But others say that at the time of the crucifixion, after Christ had given up His spirit into the hands of His Father, the holy Seraphim came together roundabout the body of Christ, sang this hymn as far as "Who was crucified for us"; and they left out this clause, and very rightly, since it was not for them that He was crucified, but for the whole race of men. At that time, they say, Joseph the Councillor was present, he who begged the body of Christ from Pilate the judge and embalmed it, and they say that when he heard them saying: "Holy art Thou, God; holy art Thou, Almighty; Holy Art Thou, Immortal", his own mind was enlightened, he added (thereto) "Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us …”
3) Others say that by Ignatius the fiery (i.e. St. Ignatius of Antioch) … It was fixed in the church, both it and the present matter of singing the service into two choirs
4) The Trisagion, or Cherubic Hymn, has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church from the very earliest. No form of adoration is of such frequent occurrence in all the offices of the Church. Originally the Trisagion (Thrice Holy), was in the exact form found in Isaiah 6:3. [Hymns from the Greek Office Books John Brownlie Othodox Eastern Church p 101]
It is important to note that the Jews had a similar Trisagion based on Isaiah 6:3
Whether the origin of the Trisagion is the Tradition (2 above) or Isaiah 6:3, we can conclude that the Church from the early stages understood that the Trisagion is addressed to the Son (according to the interpretation of Isaiah's vision by Origen, St. John of Jerusalem, St John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Agustine, and others)
Here are the major events leading up to the controversy of the Trisagion:
1 - St. Peter the Fuller, patriarch of Antioch (470 – 488), is chiefly remembered for his addition to the Trisagion of the clause "Who was crucified for us" to be a touchstone of orthodoxy against the Nestorian tendencies.
2 - Calandoin (481-485), the second successor after the second deposition of Patriarch Peter the Fuller at Antioch, suggested the adoption of the phrase "Christ the King, Who was crucified for us" as a safeguard against any misrepresentation. The compromise, however, was unsatisfactory to some Chalcedonians, as it made the chant refer directly and equivocally to the Incarnate Word.
3 - Then some Scythian monks at Constantinople, led by John Maxentius, proposed a formula, which obtained, though not without difficulty, the approval of Emperor Justinian (March 15, 553): "One of the Trinity was crucified".
4 - In 521, Pope Hormisdas (514 – 523) considered the compromise to be of but little importance, but it was commended by Pope John II (532 – 535 ), in 534, and imposed under anathema as Orthodox by the second Council of Constantinople (553).
5 - The clause "Who was crucified for us" was condemned by the second Council in Trullo (692) [in canon 81]"
Conclusion:
“Holy God Holy Mighty Holy Immortal” is the original formula addressed to the Son. Its source is Isaiah 6:3 and the Tradition of Christ’s burial.
The addition “who was crucified for us” was condemned for fear of attributing the passion to the Divinity.
As a result the understanding of Trisagion addressed to the Son CHANGED from being addressed to the Son to being addressed to the Trinity.
The Orientals kept the original understanding of the Trisagion being addressed to the Son, while the Byzantines used the Trinitarioan understanding as prescribed by canon 81 of Trullo.
“Holy God Holy Mighty Holy Immortal” is the original formula addressed to the Son. Its source is Isaiah 6:3 and the Tradition of Christ’s burial.
The addition “who was crucified for us” was condemned for fear of attributing the passion to the Divinity.
As a result the understanding of Trisagion addressed to the Son CHANGED from being addressed to the Son to being addressed to the Trinity.
The Orientals kept the original understanding of the Trisagion being addressed to the Son, while the Byzantines used the Trinitarioan understanding as prescribed by canon 81 of Trullo.
Dear imikhail,
Thanks a lot, I am rejoicing that at least one person is defending the fundamental faith of the TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH. On this forum it became almost impossible to see someone taking the side of our true heroes of Orthodoxy. May the Lord bless you
sherene_maria, is our church about taking sides? Brother against brother? We take our offerings and sacrifices, but not to argue over them.
Dear Joshuaa,
Our Coptic Orthodox Church is about,
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares,.. Jude 1-2:3
Who are the ones creeping in unawares?I still say Holy God Holy Almighty Holy Immortal every morning and I accepted it with joy and now I know that others treat it with zealous pride maks me feel as there is politics behind what I am saying. Pride polerizes it and as well doesn't listen and rejects others attempts to bring people together. Would a monk defend with pride or just keep his position and offer it? The pharisses defended themselves and were upset about Christ breaking the sabbath the forth commandment in which slaves were to do no work but Jesus set us all free.
Truth is not perfected by pride as pride does not bring people together. Pride is not love. Pride says I belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church and I will use our truth to not accept others. Instead, why not just keep that truth as an offer like our prayers and every thing else we do as this is love and the joy that we get from the victories in it. It is healing and pride does less healing but says others should be drawn to what I feel proud about. So when we talk it is as an offer and not as an absolute truth even though it maybe. The pharisees thought they had an absolute truth in obeying the forth commandment, but it excluded those who wanted to heal. Truth is perfected by love not pride.
Truth is not perfected by pride as pride does not bring people together. Pride is not love. Pride says I belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church and I will use our truth to not accept others. Instead, why not just keep that truth as an offer like our prayers and every thing else we do as this is love and the joy that we get from the victories in it. It is healing and pride does less healing but says others should be drawn to what I feel proud about. So when we talk it is as an offer and not as an absolute truth even though it maybe. The pharisees thought they had an absolute truth in obeying the forth commandment, but it excluded those who wanted to heal. Truth is perfected by love not pride.
Dear Joshuaa,
What I understand you are saying is that for the sake of love, I accommodate others even if this accommodation brushes on the truth.
This is a very dangerous ideology and not at biblical. Love has to be built on the Truth, otherwise it is fake love.
There is no conflict between standing firm for what I was delivered and loving others.
Truth is not perfected by pride as pride does not bring people together. Pride is not love. Pride says I belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church and I will use our truth to not accept others. Instead, why not just keep that truth as an offer like our prayers and every thing else we do as this is love and the joy that we get from the victories in it. It is healing and pride does less healing but says others should be drawn to what I feel proud about. So when we talk it is as an offer and not as an absolute truth even though it maybe. The pharisees thought they had an absolute truth in obeying the forth commandment, but it excluded those who wanted to heal. Truth is perfected by love not pride.
Dear Joshuaa,
What I understand you are saying is that for the sake of love, I accommodate others even if this accommodation brushes on the truth.
No. He says protect the faith through love. If one does not do his utmost effort to do so in love, he destroys the faith. Thus, if one is bold, arrogant and prideful in protecting the faith, he may very well lead others away from the faith. To protect the faith, one must try to do so in a spirit of love and humility with awareness of how different personalilties may understand our statements when protecting the faith. If I am not doing so, I am doing all the opposite of protecting my faith (destroying it), as I am not respecting my one greatest commandment of love. That is the faith. Love. That is what I should first and foremost protect the spirit of love!
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
I am sorry I do not understand what you mean by "offer his position"?
What makes one prideful while protecting the faith?
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
What makes one prideful while protecting the faith?
Let's try to not bluntly and openly judge one another...
This topic can be quite interesting. It is simply disappointing Father Peter had to retrieve himself from the discussion.
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
I am sorry I do not understand what you mean by "offer his position"?
What makes one prideful while protecting the faith?
Let's try to not bluntly and openly judge one another...
This topic can be quite interesting. It is simply disappointing Father Peter had to retrieve himself from the discussion.
How is my question for clarification be judging?
I simply do not understand a statement made. Why do you accuse me of judging?
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
What makes one prideful while protecting the faith?
Let's try to not bluntly and openly judge one another...
This topic can be quite interesting. It is simply disappointing Father Peter had to retrieve himself from the discussion.
How my question for clarification be judging?
I simply do not understand a statement made. Why do you accuse me of judging?
Sorry, I believe you misunderstood me, I will clarify. I simply get the impression you feel attacked and are asking question that may lead another to judge you while drifting from an interesting subject. I am not accusing you or anyone of judgement. I honestly hope I am not offending anyone. I will thus refrain from speaking and hope to benefit more.
Don't worry imikhail, I didn't think you were judging me or anyone. You are a good man.
I wasn't happy that Father Peter withdrew as well and that was all, but the love I was talking about is in 1 John 4:7-16. Overall I try to close seperation even when it comes to small tecnicalilties.
I wanted to share with you an idea that I think has yet to be mentioned in this discussion, though to me it begs to be discussed or at least noted.
Besides the Biblical/exegetical evidence presented here that indicates that the vision of Isiaiah was indeed a vision of Christ, an observation used here to indicate the the Christological interpretation of the Trisagion is somehow older or more original, there is one obvious problem with this. The hymn itself as it stands now in our liturgical tradition has very clear Trinitarian elements. The last verse is the Trinitarian doxology (Doxa Patri...etc.), followed by Agia Trias eleyson emas, are very clearly Trinitarian. This seems to me to pose a problem, at least at initial examination, since the text on its own seems to either a) Shift inexplicably from addressing the Son only, to addressing the Trinity or, worse, b) Attributing birth, passion, and resurrection to the Trinity.
To give an imperfect analogy, I remember that many clergy often caution against mixing between the anaphora of St. Gregory and the other two anaphoras for precisely this reason. The sudden change from addressing the Son in the anaphora of St. Gregory to addressing the Father in the anaphoras of St. Basil or St. Cyril is considered by many to be inaccurate and undesirable. It could definitely confuse the hearers, especially those without outside theological foundation, confusing what is attributed to the Father or to the Son.
I simply wish to point out that something similar can be seen here in the non-Chalcedonian Trisagion. This does not necessarily imply that the Christological or the Trinitarian interpretations are more accurate or traditional. I believe the data we have settles unequivocally which version is at least older (the Chalcedonian version). However, I do believe a discussion of the intended meaning of the Trisagion (Christological vs. Trinitarian) has to take into account that the text as it stands now would make much more sense as a Trinitarian hymn, without the additions that the Oriental church has added at a certain point in history.
the hymn itself as it stands now in our liturgical tradition has very clear Trinitarian elements. The last verse is the Trinitarian doxology (Doxa Patri...etc.), followed by Agia Trias eleyson emas, are very clearly Trinitarian. This seems to me to pose a problem, at least at initial examination, since the text on its own seems to either a) Shift inexplicably from addressing the Son only, to addressing the Trinity or, worse, b) Attributing birth, passion, and resurrection to the Trinity.
I beg to disagree with this observation.
Most hymns in the Church, and prayers, ends with the Trinitarian praise: Here are examples:
The Hidanis Braxis response Through the intercession The Cherubim (Asbasmos Watos) Gospel Response (Maranwosht) Festal Doxology endings (Bai arabee a ou)
All the litanies end with trinitarian praise, though its core prayers are mostly addressed to the Father (only the litany of the gospel is addressed to the Son, and it too is ends with a Trinitarian praise).
Besides, the Doxa is a praise by itself that is annexed to the Trisagion and not all forms of the Trisagion, as used in the other churches, have it (for the original form of the Trisagion did not contain the Doxa).
The Doxa is used by itself in many occasions (the Ajbeya, offering of the lamb, the beginning of the Watos Tadakeya, ...)
So, there is no problem with the hymn itself being addressed to the Son as this is the original understanding as explained and is preserved in the Oriental Church. It is a praise by itself and was added to the Trisagion.
Let me respond concerning the litanies first. Our litanies, whether major or minor, all end in a standard doxology:
Through the grace, compassion and love of mankind of Your only begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. Through Whom the glory, the honor, the dominion, and the worship are due unto Him and the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, who is of one essence with You, now and at all times and unto the age of all ages Amen.
I believe this or at least a similar formula is present at the end of most litanies. Notice that in this small doxology, we are still addressing the Father, albeit incorporating praise for the Son and the Holy Spirit as well. All the way throughout the litany, the addressee is the Father, the first hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. This is a different situation from the one present in the Trisagion as it stands now in the non-Chalcedonian Churches, where we address the Son throughout the hymn (Holy God who was born of the Virgin...etc), and then suddenly and without any transition we start addressing all the Trinity.
Your piece of information about the Doxa being added later to the Trisagion, and that it is not present in all liturgical traditions, is accurate but still besides the point. It is of no concern to the problem as I see it whether the Doxa is original to the Trisagion, and or when it was added. The fact of the matter is that, as it stands now, the Doxa has become part of the Trisagion, causing the confusion I am referring to.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with switching between addressing one Person of the Holy Trinity to another, or to all three. However, I think this should be done in a clearly indicated way, and at any rate I can't think at the moment of any prayers in the Church where a similar phenomenon happens. I believe I have shown you why your example does not work. If I find any more information about this topic, I will share, but as it stands now, the Trisagion as a trinitarian hymn makes much more sense, unless we are willing to drop the Doxa at the end.
This is a different situation from the one present in the Trisagion as it stands now in the non-Chalcedonian Churches, where we address the Son throughout the hymn (Holy God who was born of the Virgin...etc), and then suddenly and without any transition we start addressing all the Trinity.
As I explained the Doxa itself is a hymn by itself that was not part of the Trisagion. Different Oriental Churches have different ending:
The Jerusalem rite ends the Trisagion addressing the Son: "Ewlojimanos o Erkhomanos en onomti Kirion ..." Hosanna in the Highest, blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord" (addressing the Son)
The original Latin Trisagion ended with" blerees pasa ee kteesis .. " The whole creation is full of his glory (addressing the Son)
These endings is a proof that the Trisagion is understood to be addressed to the Son, not to the Trinity.
The Copts ended the Trisagion with a praise to the Trinity which is a separate hymn altogether.
The fact of the matter is that, as it stands now, the Doxa has become part of the Trisagion, causing the confusion I am referring to.
I do not see any confusion. You address one Person of the Trinity, then you address the whole Trinity.
The resurrection hymn "Bikhristos Afdonf" or "Ekhristos Anesti" is addressed to the Son, yet it is concluded with the Doxa.
The hymn "O monojanees" is totally addressed to the Son, then ends with a prayer to the Trinity.
The Ajbeya prayers, especially the 6th and the 9th hours, address the Son. Then the response is addressed to the Trinity.
In the Anafora of St Basil, the priest addresses the Father, but the congregation in the Asbasmos addresses the Son.
As I already mentioned in my previous post, I don't see how the fact that the Doxa is a later addition or that it is not present in all ancient rites has any bearing on this issue. I will grant you that in many other traditions, the Trisagion does not end with the Doxa, but I am speaking strictly about the non-Chalcedonian Trisagion, not simply because it is the Coptic Trisagion we all care about, but because the Christological additions were added mainly in non-Chalcedonian Churches.
So, I will go back and reiterate that as it stands now the Trisagion ends in the Doxa. In fact, if you look at the longer version of the Trisagion present in the Coptic horologion, and indeed in the Byzantine as well, you will see that the Doxa is not even at the end. The Horologion prayer goes from addressing the Son (Holy God, Holy mighty....etc), to addressing the Trinity (Glory to the Father...etc) and emphasizes this in what follows (O Holy Trinity have mercy on us...For thine is the glory, dominion, and triple holiness).
Even if you argue that the horologion prayer is also in fact two separate prayers, I will respond and say that for all but the most-learned Church member, the prayer is clearly one single unit that seems to vacillate between addressing the Son and the Trinity. What is most dangerous in all of this is the possibility that some (especially our children) getting the wrong idea about the Trinity, and thinking that we do indeed ascribe birth, passion, and resurrection to the Trinity. Let's not forget that one of the main functions of dogmatic hymnography is to instruct and catechize, so it is of paramount importance that the prayer is as clear theologically as possible to avoid any possible misunderstandings. That is why I hope you understand me when I say it does not matter whether the Doxa was originally part of the hymn or not...it is indeed part of the hymn in the popular understanding (whether or not this corresponds with historical fact, which you have yet to prove with sources and citations).
As for your other examples, again, the Resurrection Troparion Christos Anesti is not addressed to the Son, but rather refers to Him in the third person. This is again not the same.
As for O Monogenes, you probably already know that the hymn originally addresses only Christ, since as you know it was written as follows:
This is extent of the text as composed initially in the aftermath of Chalcedon (whether by Emperor Justinian of Severus of Antioch is a whole different argument). This is also the extent of the hymn as it exists today in the Byzantine services, and all Eastern Orthodox rites. As you also probably know, the rest of the hymn as it appears today in our service books is a later addition. According to Fr. Athanasius St. Macarius, it does not even appear in Ibn Sabaa.[sup]1[/sup] Whether or not this portion existed from the beginning, I do not know, and I don't currently possess any evidence that it did. One would need to examine manuscript evidence going much further back than Ibn Sabaa, and ascertain if the very last phrase Agia Trias eleyson emas was present or not.
Please, instead of focusing on bringing examples, which I am afraid might confuse the discussion, let's focus on the prayer at hand, the Trisagion as it exists today in the Coptic Church.
_________________________________
[sup]1[/sup] Fr. Athanasius St. Macarius, Holy Pascha: The Ritual History and the Rites of the Prayers, Part II (In Arabic), p.294
If I am following your argument .. You are saying that the Chalcedonian version is more authentic because the Coptic mixes the Trinity with the Son.
In response, I showed you that this is irrelevant as we have hymns that addresses the Son then switches to the Trinity.
I also showed that the hymn of the Trisagion originally addressed the Son.
You, in turn, say that the hymn as it stands in the Coptic Church is confusing because it switches from the Son to the Trinity. I guess this is your personal opinion.
We have prayers, hymns that have the exact same switch you object to.
Whether the hymn is using the third person or the first is irrelevant. The Trisagion is in the third person, "bikhristoc afdonf" is in the third person. Both are attributed to the Son and both end with the same Doxa. Also, the hour prayers are in the third person and end with the Doxa.
I am afraid you misunderstood my argument, or maybe confused it with what others prior to me were saying. I am not at all addressing the question of which is more authentic/older, as this is not at all debated and it is perfectly understood by everyone that the version without the Christological additions, and which is used today by the Eastern Orthodox is the more original. Neither am I discussing which understanding of the prayer (Trinitarian vs. Christological) is older or more original. I am simply commenting on the confusing structure of the prayer the way it stands now. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, saying that the prayer as it stands now is somewhat confusing does not necessarily mean "the early Church understood the Trisagion in a trinitarian way". It could be for example that the Christological interpretation is in fact much older as you say, but that the Doxa itself was added much later. I personally don't quite accept that theory, but it is a theory nonetheless, and until I have more evidence to support or contradict it, it will remain a theory.
Regarding your assertion as a matter of fact that you have shown that the Christological interpretation is more ancient, I don't see what makes you so certain. I know you believe so, and you claim this to be the interpretation of Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and others. First, you have not provided the relevant passages for everyone to read. Second, the passage in Isaiah 6:3 refers to the Sanctus, or what is called in the Byzantine tradition The Hymn of Victory, "Holy Holy Holy O Lord of Sabaoth", and not to the liturgical Trisagion. So, even if the Fathers you mention interpret Isaiah's vision Christologically, this does not necessarily mean it has a bearing on the Trisagion, although it might.
I like to also remind you again that your examples of other prayers allegedly exhibiting a similar mix of Trinity and Son are not satisfactory. The Trisagion indeed is in the second person, asking the Son directly to "have mercy on us", while the Paschal Troparion Christos Anesti -of which the Coptic version is obviously derived- does not address the Son at all, but merely describes what He has done by His resurrection. You are building a conclusion on a comparison that is itself faulty.
it is perfectly understood by everyone that the version without the Christological additions, and which is used today by the Eastern Orthodox is the more original.
It is important to know why the Chalcedonians are using the original formula. They forbid the Christological understanding of the hymn for fear of attributing passion to the Divinity. There is a long history behind this CHANGE in understanding. Prior to this council, they did have the correct understanding. I know this is not your point but it is critical that readers are aware of the history as I explained in my earlier posts on this thread.
I am simply commenting on the confusing structure of the prayer the way it stands now. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is no confusion this is the way the Church prays:
You find the same structure in the liturgical prayers, hymns, praises.
It could be for example that the Christological interpretation is in fact much older as you say, but that the Doxa itself was added much later.
I do not wish to enter in circular logic.
It is not me that I say that the Christological understanding is the original and more authentic. It is the Bible that says so and the Holy Fathers who understood it that way.
The structure of the hymn in ALL the different churches point to the Christological understanding as I mentioned from the Latin rite, the Byzantine rite, Jerusalem rite, and the Oriental rite. The additions at the end of the hymn do point to the understanding of the the hymn being Christological.
This understanding was true till it was FORBID in the year 692 by the Chalcedonians. The Orientals, however, continued with the Christological understanding.
Regarding your assertion as a matter of fact that you have shown that the Christological interpretation is more ancient, I don't see what makes you so certain.
Regarding your assertion as a matter of fact that you have shown that the Christological interpretation is more ancient, I don't see what makes you so certain. I know you believe so, and you claim this to be the interpretation of Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and others. First, you have not provided the relevant passages for everyone to read.
So, if I provide the passages I will gain your approval. In other words, I am guilty of fabrication till proven otherwise.
Thank you!
Second, the passage in Isaiah 6:3 refers to the Sanctus, or what is called in the Byzantine tradition The Hymn of Victory, "Holy Holy Holy O Lord of Sabaoth", and not to the liturgical Trisagion.
Allow me to share the cup of references, you just gave me, with you. What is your reference?
I did site a reference of how the Byzantines do base the Trisagion on Isaiah's vision. Are you saying that this reference is wrong and somehow you have a better one? If so, please share.
So, even if the Fathers you mention interpret Isaiah's vision Christologically, this does not necessarily mean it has a bearing on the Trisagion, although it might.
Is this your personal inference? What source(s) did you use to get to that conclusion?
It cannot be both. Which one is it?
I like to also remind you again that your examples of other prayers allegedly exhibiting a similar mix of Trinity and Son are not satisfactory.
Unsatisfactory to whom? You?
With all due respect, your satisfaction is irrelevant.
If you study the liturgical prayers, I guarantee you will be satisfied.
The Trisagion indeed is in the second person, asking the Son directly to "have mercy on us", while the Paschal Troparion Christos Anesti -of which the Coptic version is obviously derived- does not address the Son at all, but merely describes what He has done by His resurrection. You are building a conclusion on a comparison that is itself faulty.
You pick and chose what suits you. Out of all the examples I cited you keep on only focusing on what you believe would give you the edge.
I will post the passages on Isaiah 6:3 so that people who may not be skilled in research could benefit.
Ramez is not saying the Chalcedonian Triasagion version is more authentic. He is merely stating the Non-Chalcedonian formula, as we have it today, seems to shift the subject from the Logos to the Trinity and (sometimes) back and forth. He also states shifting like this is "frowned upon" because it brings about confusion.
I'm not so sure shifting from Christological hymns to Trinitarian hymns are considered negative in our church. In fact we shift quite often from Marian hymns to Trinitarian hymns quite frequently. Additionally, some hymns cannot be categorized as Trinitarian vs. Christological. Look at the Kiahk Vesper additions. They shift from praising Mary because of giving birth to Christ (Christology) who is one from the Trinity (Trinitarian); all in the same sentence.
I will agree that the shift is very confusing. Look at the Glorification rite. We start out with a Trinitarian hymn, K`cmarwout then move to a Marian hymn, <ere ;eotoky par;eny then back to a Trinitarian hymn Agioc ictyn then a few Marian hymns and end with the Trinitarian hymn Qen Vran and the Christological hymn W Pen[oic Iycouc Pi,rictoc. I guess the best explanation for this phenomena is that this shifting is not "frowned upon" but rather a distinct and unique characteristic of Coptic hymnography.
Let me discuss authenticity for a moment. One theory is that the Trisagion is originally Christological because of Isaiah 6. Another theory is that the Trisagion is originally Trinitarian. Most Biblical scholars believe it was addressed to God the Father and Pantocrator since most of Isaiah's early chapters address the Pantocrator. I propose a third explanation. It goes like this.
The Trisagion in Isaiah 6 is neither the Chalcedonian nor the Non-Chalcedonian Trisagion. The Isaiah 6 Trisagion simply says, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Host, Heaven and Earth are full of His glory". What is important is that there is no "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal" found in both the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian versions. We are now left with figuring out which Trisagion is older to decide on authenticity. Historians from both sides claim their respective version is older, simpler, and more authentic. Chalcedonians claim it was given by a child who went to heaven and heard the hymn from angels and returned to Constantinoplean patriarch Prochus in the 5th century. The Non-Chalcedonians state it given by Joseph and Nicodemus at the tomb (again hearing it from angels). Since then the Chalcedonians, under John of Damascus, have attacked non-Chalcedonians on the ground of "shifting" the original Trinitarian hymn to a Christological. Non-Chalcedonians, under Severus of Antioch, have also attacked the Chalcdonians for failing to recognize the Christological elements. There is no conclusive argument that one side is more authentic or more accurate then the other (based on history). However, I propose that it really doesn't matter who is first and who is more authentic. We can simply see a development of two versions, independently formed, both based on the original Isaiah 6 Trisagion. Both are equally divergent from the original Isaiah 6 Trisagion. Both have their own distinct characteristics.
The Chalcedonian were against any additions to the Trisagion, even if it was a Trinitarian addition. They anathemized anyone who even proposed an addition. (The exception to this rule are the Catholic Uniate Churches of the Middle East. They are allowed to have additions violating their own Roman councils.)
The Non-Chalcedonians characterized the Trisagion with local Christological additions. There are actually 2 Trisagion hymns in the Coptic Church. The first and more popular one is the one we sing all the time is the Greek Agioc with additions for the Nativity, Theophany, Passion and Resurrection. The second version, only found in one hymn Tenen and fully Coptic (not Greek), also has additions but distinctly different. In this second group, there are several Bohairic version and Sahidic versions. They are: Bohairic 1: Found in the Deacon Service Book says, "Holy Son of God, Holy Son of the Mighty, Holy Son of the Only-Invisible, who ordered [for] us grace. (You) Have compassion on (our ignorance?)" Bohairic 2: Found in St Shenouda Society Manuscript 4. Same as Bohairic 1 but the second part is in the third person singular (He) have compassion on our ignorance Sahidic 1: Found in Tuki's Kiahk Theotokia. "(He is) Holy (that is) God. (He is) Holy (that is) Mighty. (He is) Holy (to) the Only-Immortal. who gave (?) from His grace. (He) have compassion on our ignorance." Sahidic 2: Found in Claudius Labib Annual Psalmody. Same as Sahidic 1 but switches to Bohairic on the second part and slightly changes it to "He had compassion on our ignorance." Sahidic 3: Found in St Shenouda Society Manuscript 30. (He is) Holy (that is) God. (He is) Holy (that is) Mighty. Holy the Spirit ...." The rest of the verse is just bad Coptic grammar but I believe the intended to copy Sahidic 1.
So we have multiple versions where there are additions to the beginning and additions to the end. The additions in the beginning are Christological and the additions in the end are generic (possibly Trinitarian like Isaiah 6).
Finally, like I said thousands of times before on multiple topics, especially language and hymns, there is no such thing as "more" authentic. Authenticity is based on the philosophy of exclusivity and plurality. Nearly all evidence and modern concepts of exclusivity do not allow for absolute exclusivity but advocate the concept of degrees of plurality.
Thanks for chiming in, sir! I am very glad someone else decided to join the conversation, as I feel that now we can have a productive discussion in which both of us can walk away having learned something new. Your input is certainly a relief from the insistent one-sided defense of anything Oriental without any proper academic rigor that I see around here.
First, yes..that is exactly a good summary of what I said so far. Thanks for clearly representing what I said. Now I understand that you don't see this switching of subjects as necessarily "frowned upon" and you use examples from the Glorification service to show that it happens quite often. The only thing I'd say is that I don't feel the examples you mentioned are quite analogous to the situation of the Trisagion. I really hope you don't feel I am simply saying this to avoid facing the evidence, as imikhail seems to think. I am honestly not seeing the comparison here, so maybe you can help me. To me, it seems that switching subjects from one hymn to the next is one thing, while switching in the middle of a single cohesive prayer is another. Do you disagree with that? To me, it just does not carry the same potential for confusion when we are dealing with two clearly separate hymns in the service. I understand that one of imikhail's arguments was that the Doxa was not originally part of the Trisagion, but as it stands now especially in the Trisagion of the horologion, it is right in the middle of the prayer, not even simply at the end.
Furthermore, a switch from addressing St. Mary to addressing Christ or the Trinity hardly carries the same risk for misunderstanding of theology. Maybe you can provide examples, but I have a hard time imagining that anyone would come out confused about who is St. Mary vs. who is Christ or the Trinity. Not to mention that expecting all of the hymns in a service to have a single subject is quite unrealistic, as well as theologically suspect. We venerate St. Mary because she gave birth to the Logos. We worship God the Word together with the Father and the Holy Spirit because our equality of worship is a reflection of our belief in their homoousia. That I totally understand, but what I don't quite like is switching the addressee mid-hymn without any clear indication that this in fact has happened. Let's not forget, there is nothing explicit about the the first verses of the Trisagion addressing the Son, but only a person with a good grasp of theology would deduce this from the additions "Who was born of the virgin"...etc.
I like your general theory about the Trisagion very much. It is much more logically sound than blindly defending this or that interpretation. At face value, the Trisagion pre-Christological additions can be understood either way, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with varying traditions all within the bounds of Orthodoxy. I also reiterate again that the prayer of Isaiah 6, as you said, is "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Host, Heaven and Earth are full of His glory", which is more clearly the origin of the Sanctus rather than the Trisagion. As you describe, and I totally agree, the stories behind the origin of the Trisagion vary and all have a certain apocryphal flavor. Most sources I looked at seem to conclude that the most definitive earliest literary evidence for the Trisagion is the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.
I have a couple questions however. You say that both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians claim their versions are more authentic and older. How is this the case, when no one disputes the Syrian addition of "who was born of the Virgin" by Peter the Fuller? The way I see it, no one is in disagreement that the Trisagion was originially without any explicit Christological statements. The disagreement however lies in the question of meaning, not the text itself. Since the text without the additions can be understood either way, both sides differ on what it means. Can you please clarify where you stand regarding Peter the Fuller and the Syrian additions of the Trisagion?
Also, can you please explain your last statement more clearly? I think I agree with you, but I am not sure I fully understand.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13535.msg158597#msg158597 date=1344361205] Ramez is not saying the Chalcedonian Triasagion version is more authentic. He is merely stating the Non-Chalcedonian formula, as we have it today, seems to shift the subject from the Logos to the Trinity and (sometimes) back and forth. He also states shifting like this is "frowned upon" because it brings about confusion.
I have yet to see evidence of this frowning.
If this is the true case, then all of our liturgical prayers, hymns, praises need to be changed.
I suggest to keep personal tastes out of theological discussions.
The Trisagion in Isaiah 6 is neither the Chalcedonian nor the Non-Chalcedonian Trisagion. The Isaiah 6 Trisagion simply says, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Host, Heaven and Earth are full of His glory".
The Non Chalcedonian version, that is the Oriental version, is Christological because it bases the Trisagion on the vision seen by Isaiah.
So, you are suggesting that even John the evangelist is mistaken to comment that this vision was a revelation of the Son's glory.
What is important is that there is no "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal" found in both the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian versions. We are now left with figuring out which Trisagion is older to decide on authenticity.
And you are suggesting that the Holy Fathers are wrong too.
Chalcedonians claim it was given by a child who went to heaven and heard the hymn from angels and returned to Constantinoplean patriarch Prochus in the 5th century. The Non-Chalcedonians state it given by Joseph and Nicodemus at the tomb (again hearing it from angels). Since then the Chalcedonians, under John of Damascus, have attacked non-Chalcedonians on the ground of "shifting" the original Trinitarian hymn to a Christological. Non-Chalcedonians, under Severus of Antioch, have also attacked the Chalcdonians for failing to recognize the Christological elements. There is no conclusive argument that one side is more authentic or more accurate then the other (based on history).
We have liturgies that do contain the Trisagion and predate this legend. Whom should I believe s legend or the liturgical prayers.
However, I propose that it really doesn't matter who is first and who is more authentic.
May be not to you. It is of greatest important when it comes to theological debates between the two families.
The Chalcedonian were against any additions to the Trisagion, even if it was a Trinitarian addition. They anathemized anyone who even proposed an addition. (The exception to this rule are the Catholic Uniate Churches of the Middle East. They are allowed to have additions violating their own Roman councils.)
This is not true because there was no Trinitarian addition since the hymn was understood throughout Christendom to be Christological.
However, the Byzantines, went off on a tangent that is not Traditional and developed this new Trinitarian understanding.
The Non-Chalcedonians characterized the Trisagion with local Christological additions.
How it is local if the Latins and the Byzantines INITIALLY accepted it. The hymn was understood to be Christological till at least the 8th century.
[quote author=RamezM link=topic=13535.msg158613#msg158613 date=1344372669] Hi Remenkimi,
Thanks for chiming in, sir! I am very glad someone else decided to join the conversation, as I feel that now we can have a productive discussion in which both of us can walk away having learned something new. Your input is certainly a relief from the insistent one-sided defense of anything Oriental without any proper academic rigor that I see around here.
Really non academic?
I have nothing else to say except that you go against the Scripture itself, the Holy Fathers, and the liturgical prayers.
Instead, your whole argument is confusion. Yes, we Orientals are confused, we do not know whom we are addressing or praying to and we need to leave our Tradition behind and follow the Chalcedonian footsteps.
I am appalled at how some dare to insert their personal opinion in place of the faith and the Tradition we have received.
Comments
The original formula is the same as the one which the Eastern Orthodox still use.
The way you are speaking us disrespectful to all of the Holy Synods and to Pope Shenouda and all his efforts. I shall consider moderating all posts which speak in such a way against the clear intention and activity of the Synod. I do not believe this forum should be used to undermine what all the Holy Synods have achieved and taught.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158479#msg158479 date=1344068412]
However, the Eastern Church did condemn such usage. Thus, they introduced the trinitarian formula.
Dear Imikail,
It is troubling that the Eastern Church condemn the use of the original formula, the Word of God, and replaced it with another formula. Does the church still hold of chalcedon!!
How can some people ask for unity with such church?!!
With respect, I do not think this is anything to get worked up about. They understand the Trisagion as addressing the entire Trinity (though, in its area of origin it was intended to be addressed to Christ). Thus, the elongated version for them is unacceptable and they use the original formula, which can be used in a Patrological, Christological, Pneumatological, or Trinitarian way.
For us, the Trisagion is addressed specifically to Christ and thus the elongations are to reinforce the fact that it was the Word of the Father who, in His own flesh, was truly born of a Virgin and was truly crucified. It all depends on CONTEXT.
Please, do not take this as confrontational or contradicting what you are saying.
Although the Byzantine family of Orthodox churches understand the Trisagion as a Trinitarian hymn, it is understood by the Oriental family Orthodox churches as being addressed to Christ.
What is the origin of the Trisagion:
1) Some say that it is taken and introduced from Isaiah the prophet (6:3) who heard the Seraphim sent to find the Lord of glory saying: "Holy Holy Holy, Lord of Sabaoth”, and from him it was adapted and appointed in the Church. [St Cyril of Jerusalem is of that opinion]
2) But others say that at the time of the crucifixion, after Christ had given up His spirit into the hands of His Father, the holy Seraphim came together roundabout the body of Christ, sang this hymn as far as "Who was crucified for us"; and they left out this clause, and very rightly, since it was not for them that He was crucified, but for the whole race of men. At that time, they say, Joseph the Councillor was present, he who begged the body of Christ from Pilate the judge and embalmed it, and they say that when he heard them saying: "Holy art Thou, God; holy art Thou, Almighty; Holy Art Thou, Immortal", his own mind was enlightened, he added (thereto) "Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us …”
3) Others say that by Ignatius the fiery (i.e. St. Ignatius of Antioch) … It was fixed in the church, both it and the present matter of singing the service into two choirs
4) The Trisagion, or Cherubic Hymn, has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church from the very earliest. No form of adoration is of such frequent occurrence in all the offices of the Church. Originally the Trisagion (Thrice Holy), was in the exact form found in Isaiah 6:3. [Hymns from the Greek Office Books John Brownlie Othodox Eastern Church p 101]
It is important to note that the Jews had a similar Trisagion based on Isaiah 6:3
Whether the origin of the Trisagion is the Tradition (2 above) or Isaiah 6:3, we can conclude that the Church from the early stages understood that the Trisagion is addressed to the Son (according to the interpretation of Isaiah's vision by Origen, St. John of Jerusalem, St John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Agustine, and others)
Here are the major events leading up to the controversy of the Trisagion:
1 - St. Peter the Fuller, patriarch of Antioch (470 – 488), is chiefly remembered for his addition to the Trisagion of the clause "Who was crucified for us" to be a touchstone of orthodoxy against the Nestorian tendencies.
2 - Calandoin (481-485), the second successor after the second deposition of Patriarch Peter the Fuller at Antioch, suggested the adoption of the phrase "Christ the King, Who was crucified for us" as a safeguard against any misrepresentation. The compromise, however, was unsatisfactory to some Chalcedonians, as it made the chant refer directly and equivocally to the Incarnate Word.
3 - Then some Scythian monks at Constantinople, led by John Maxentius, proposed a formula, which obtained, though not without difficulty, the approval of Emperor Justinian (March 15, 553): "One of the Trinity was crucified".
4 - In 521, Pope Hormisdas (514 – 523) considered the compromise to be of but little importance, but it was commended by Pope John II (532 – 535 ), in 534, and imposed under anathema as Orthodox by the second Council of Constantinople (553).
5 - The clause "Who was crucified for us" was condemned by the second Council in Trullo (692) [in canon 81]"
Conclusion:
“Holy God Holy Mighty Holy Immortal” is the original formula addressed to the Son. Its source is Isaiah 6:3 and the Tradition of Christ’s burial.
The addition “who was crucified for us” was condemned for fear of attributing the passion to the Divinity.
As a result the understanding of Trisagion addressed to the Son CHANGED from being addressed to the Son to being addressed to the Trinity.
The Orientals kept the original understanding of the Trisagion being addressed to the Son, while the Byzantines used the Trinitarioan understanding as prescribed by canon 81 of Trullo.
Conclusion:
“Holy God Holy Mighty Holy Immortal” is the original formula addressed to the Son. Its source is Isaiah 6:3 and the Tradition of Christ’s burial.
The addition “who was crucified for us” was condemned for fear of attributing the passion to the Divinity.
As a result the understanding of Trisagion addressed to the Son CHANGED from being addressed to the Son to being addressed to the Trinity.
The Orientals kept the original understanding of the Trisagion being addressed to the Son, while the Byzantines used the Trinitarioan understanding as prescribed by canon 81 of Trullo.
Dear imikhail,
Thanks a lot, I am rejoicing that at least one person is defending the fundamental faith of the TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH. On this forum it became almost impossible to see someone taking the side of our true heroes of Orthodoxy. May the Lord bless you
sherene_maria, is our church about taking sides? Brother against brother? We take our offerings and sacrifices, but not to argue over them.
sherene_maria, is our church about taking sides? Brother against brother? We take our offerings and sacrifices, but not to argue over them.
Dear Joshuaa,
Our Coptic Orthodox Church is about,
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares,.. Jude 1-2:3
Who are the ones creeping in unawares?I still say Holy God Holy Almighty Holy Immortal every morning and I accepted it with joy and now I know that others treat it with zealous pride maks me feel as there is politics behind what I am saying. Pride polerizes it and as well doesn't listen and rejects others attempts to bring people together. Would a monk defend with pride or just keep his position and offer it? The pharisses defended themselves and were upset about Christ breaking the sabbath the forth commandment in which slaves were to do no work but Jesus set us all free.
Truth is not perfected by pride as pride does not bring people together. Pride is not love. Pride says I belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church and I will use our truth to not accept others. Instead, why not just keep that truth as an offer like our prayers and every thing else we do as this is love and the joy that we get from the victories in it. It is healing and pride does less healing but says others should be drawn to what I feel proud about. So when we talk it is as an offer and not as an absolute truth even though it maybe. The pharisees thought they had an absolute truth in obeying the forth commandment, but it excluded those who wanted to heal. Truth is perfected by love not pride.
Truth is not perfected by pride as pride does not bring people together. Pride is not love. Pride says I belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church and I will use our truth to not accept others. Instead, why not just keep that truth as an offer like our prayers and every thing else we do as this is love and the joy that we get from the victories in it. It is healing and pride does less healing but says others should be drawn to what I feel proud about. So when we talk it is as an offer and not as an absolute truth even though it maybe. The pharisees thought they had an absolute truth in obeying the forth commandment, but it excluded those who wanted to heal. Truth is perfected by love not pride.
Dear Joshuaa,
What I understand you are saying is that for the sake of love, I accommodate others even if this accommodation brushes on the truth.
This is a very dangerous ideology and not at biblical. Love has to be built on the Truth, otherwise it is fake love.
There is no conflict between standing firm for what I was delivered and loving others.
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13535.msg158523#msg158523 date=1344212150]
Truth is not perfected by pride as pride does not bring people together. Pride is not love. Pride says I belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church and I will use our truth to not accept others. Instead, why not just keep that truth as an offer like our prayers and every thing else we do as this is love and the joy that we get from the victories in it. It is healing and pride does less healing but says others should be drawn to what I feel proud about. So when we talk it is as an offer and not as an absolute truth even though it maybe. The pharisees thought they had an absolute truth in obeying the forth commandment, but it excluded those who wanted to heal. Truth is perfected by love not pride.
Dear Joshuaa,
What I understand you are saying is that for the sake of love, I accommodate others even if this accommodation brushes on the truth.
No. He says protect the faith through love. If one does not do his utmost effort to do so in love, he destroys the faith. Thus, if one is bold, arrogant and prideful in protecting the faith, he may very well lead others away from the faith. To protect the faith, one must try to do so in a spirit of love and humility with awareness of how different personalilties may understand our statements when protecting the faith. If I am not doing so, I am doing all the opposite of protecting my faith (destroying it), as I am not respecting my one greatest commandment of love. That is the faith. Love. That is what I should first and foremost protect the spirit of love!
PFM
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
I am sorry I do not understand what you mean by "offer his position"?
What makes one prideful while protecting the faith?
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13535.msg158528#msg158528 date=1344219987]
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
What makes one prideful while protecting the faith?
Let's try to not bluntly and openly judge one another...
This topic can be quite interesting. It is simply disappointing Father Peter had to retrieve himself from the discussion.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158531#msg158531 date=1344220274]
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13535.msg158528#msg158528 date=1344219987]
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
I am sorry I do not understand what you mean by "offer his position"?
What makes one prideful while protecting the faith?
Let's try to not bluntly and openly judge one another...
This topic can be quite interesting. It is simply disappointing Father Peter had to retrieve himself from the discussion.
How is my question for clarification be judging?
I simply do not understand a statement made. Why do you accuse me of judging?
[quote author=PFM link=topic=13535.msg158540#msg158540 date=1344223892]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158531#msg158531 date=1344220274]
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13535.msg158528#msg158528 date=1344219987]
That is what I'm saying PFM. That is why I asked the quesion, would a monk defend with pride or keep his position and offer it?If he is keeping his position, then he is not changing, but making an offer of the position he holds. I'm saying this because pride is hard and there is less movement in what is being accepted and rejected. Whereas love gives the option of accepting and rejecting and what is more it is offered. Pride can bring out hardness of heart according to rules even when the rule is quite correct.
What makes one prideful while protecting the faith?
Let's try to not bluntly and openly judge one another...
This topic can be quite interesting. It is simply disappointing Father Peter had to retrieve himself from the discussion.
How my question for clarification be judging?
I simply do not understand a statement made. Why do you accuse me of judging?
Sorry, I believe you misunderstood me, I will clarify. I simply get the impression you feel attacked and are asking question that may lead another to judge you while drifting from an interesting subject. I am not accusing you or anyone of judgement. I honestly hope I am not offending anyone. I will thus refrain from speaking and hope to benefit more.
Don't worry imikhail, I didn't think you were judging me or anyone. You are a good man.
I wasn't happy that Father Peter withdrew as well and that was all, but the love I was talking about is in 1 John 4:7-16. Overall I try to close seperation even when it comes to small tecnicalilties.
My prayers are for you in our Lord. God bless.
Besides the Biblical/exegetical evidence presented here that indicates that the vision of Isiaiah was indeed a vision of Christ, an observation used here to indicate the the Christological interpretation of the Trisagion is somehow older or more original, there is one obvious problem with this. The hymn itself as it stands now in our liturgical tradition has very clear Trinitarian elements. The last verse is the Trinitarian doxology (Doxa Patri...etc.), followed by Agia Trias eleyson emas, are very clearly Trinitarian. This seems to me to pose a problem, at least at initial examination, since the text on its own seems to either a) Shift inexplicably from addressing the Son only, to addressing the Trinity or, worse, b) Attributing birth, passion, and resurrection to the Trinity.
To give an imperfect analogy, I remember that many clergy often caution against mixing between the anaphora of St. Gregory and the other two anaphoras for precisely this reason. The sudden change from addressing the Son in the anaphora of St. Gregory to addressing the Father in the anaphoras of St. Basil or St. Cyril is considered by many to be inaccurate and undesirable. It could definitely confuse the hearers, especially those without outside theological foundation, confusing what is attributed to the Father or to the Son.
I simply wish to point out that something similar can be seen here in the non-Chalcedonian Trisagion. This does not necessarily imply that the Christological or the Trinitarian interpretations are more accurate or traditional. I believe the data we have settles unequivocally which version is at least older (the Chalcedonian version). However, I do believe a discussion of the intended meaning of the Trisagion (Christological vs. Trinitarian) has to take into account that the text as it stands now would make much more sense as a Trinitarian hymn, without the additions that the Oriental church has added at a certain point in history.
Most hymns in the Church, and prayers, ends with the Trinitarian praise: Here are examples:
The Hidanis
Braxis response
Through the intercession
The Cherubim (Asbasmos Watos)
Gospel Response (Maranwosht)
Festal Doxology endings (Bai arabee a ou)
All the litanies end with trinitarian praise, though its core prayers are mostly addressed to the Father (only the litany of the gospel is addressed to the Son, and it too is ends with a Trinitarian praise).
Besides, the Doxa is a praise by itself that is annexed to the Trisagion and not all forms of the Trisagion, as used in the other churches, have it (for the original form of the Trisagion did not contain the Doxa).
The Doxa is used by itself in many occasions (the Ajbeya, offering of the lamb, the beginning of the Watos Tadakeya, ...)
So, there is no problem with the hymn itself being addressed to the Son as this is the original understanding as explained and is preserved in the Oriental Church. It is a praise by itself and was added to the Trisagion.
Let me respond concerning the litanies first. Our litanies, whether major or minor, all end in a standard doxology: I believe this or at least a similar formula is present at the end of most litanies. Notice that in this small doxology, we are still addressing the Father, albeit incorporating praise for the Son and the Holy Spirit as well. All the way throughout the litany, the addressee is the Father, the first hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. This is a different situation from the one present in the Trisagion as it stands now in the non-Chalcedonian Churches, where we address the Son throughout the hymn (Holy God who was born of the Virgin...etc), and then suddenly and without any transition we start addressing all the Trinity.
Your piece of information about the Doxa being added later to the Trisagion, and that it is not present in all liturgical traditions, is accurate but still besides the point. It is of no concern to the problem as I see it whether the Doxa is original to the Trisagion, and or when it was added. The fact of the matter is that, as it stands now, the Doxa has become part of the Trisagion, causing the confusion I am referring to.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with switching between addressing one Person of the Holy Trinity to another, or to all three. However, I think this should be done in a clearly indicated way, and at any rate I can't think at the moment of any prayers in the Church where a similar phenomenon happens. I believe I have shown you why your example does not work. If I find any more information about this topic, I will share, but as it stands now, the Trisagion as a trinitarian hymn makes much more sense, unless we are willing to drop the Doxa at the end.
The Jerusalem rite ends the Trisagion addressing the Son: "Ewlojimanos o Erkhomanos en onomti Kirion ..." Hosanna in the Highest, blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord" (addressing the Son)
The original Latin Trisagion ended with" blerees pasa ee kteesis .. " The whole creation is full of his glory (addressing the Son)
These endings is a proof that the Trisagion is understood to be addressed to the Son, not to the Trinity.
The Copts ended the Trisagion with a praise to the Trinity which is a separate hymn altogether. I do not see any confusion. You address one Person of the Trinity, then you address the whole Trinity.
The resurrection hymn "Bikhristos Afdonf" or "Ekhristos Anesti" is addressed to the Son, yet it is concluded with the Doxa.
The hymn "O monojanees" is totally addressed to the Son, then ends with a prayer to the Trinity.
The Ajbeya prayers, especially the 6th and the 9th hours, address the Son. Then the response is addressed to the Trinity.
In the Anafora of St Basil, the priest addresses the Father, but the congregation in the Asbasmos addresses the Son.
And so on ...
As I already mentioned in my previous post, I don't see how the fact that the Doxa is a later addition or that it is not present in all ancient rites has any bearing on this issue. I will grant you that in many other traditions, the Trisagion does not end with the Doxa, but I am speaking strictly about the non-Chalcedonian Trisagion, not simply because it is the Coptic Trisagion we all care about, but because the Christological additions were added mainly in non-Chalcedonian Churches.
So, I will go back and reiterate that as it stands now the Trisagion ends in the Doxa. In fact, if you look at the longer version of the Trisagion present in the Coptic horologion, and indeed in the Byzantine as well, you will see that the Doxa is not even at the end. The Horologion prayer goes from addressing the Son (Holy God, Holy mighty....etc), to addressing the Trinity (Glory to the Father...etc) and emphasizes this in what follows (O Holy Trinity have mercy on us...For thine is the glory, dominion, and triple holiness).
Even if you argue that the horologion prayer is also in fact two separate prayers, I will respond and say that for all but the most-learned Church member, the prayer is clearly one single unit that seems to vacillate between addressing the Son and the Trinity. What is most dangerous in all of this is the possibility that some (especially our children) getting the wrong idea about the Trinity, and thinking that we do indeed ascribe birth, passion, and resurrection to the Trinity. Let's not forget that one of the main functions of dogmatic hymnography is to instruct and catechize, so it is of paramount importance that the prayer is as clear theologically as possible to avoid any possible misunderstandings. That is why I hope you understand me when I say it does not matter whether the Doxa was originally part of the hymn or not...it is indeed part of the hymn in the popular understanding (whether or not this corresponds with historical fact, which you have yet to prove with sources and citations).
As for your other examples, again, the Resurrection Troparion Christos Anesti is not addressed to the Son, but rather refers to Him in the third person. This is again not the same.
As for O Monogenes, you probably already know that the hymn originally addresses only Christ, since as you know it was written as follows: This is extent of the text as composed initially in the aftermath of Chalcedon (whether by Emperor Justinian of Severus of Antioch is a whole different argument). This is also the extent of the hymn as it exists today in the Byzantine services, and all Eastern Orthodox rites. As you also probably know, the rest of the hymn as it appears today in our service books is a later addition. According to Fr. Athanasius St. Macarius, it does not even appear in Ibn Sabaa.[sup]1[/sup] Whether or not this portion existed from the beginning, I do not know, and I don't currently possess any evidence that it did. One would need to examine manuscript evidence going much further back than Ibn Sabaa, and ascertain if the very last phrase Agia Trias eleyson emas was present or not.
Please, instead of focusing on bringing examples, which I am afraid might confuse the discussion, let's focus on the prayer at hand, the Trisagion as it exists today in the Coptic Church.
_________________________________
[sup]1[/sup] Fr. Athanasius St. Macarius, Holy Pascha: The Ritual History and the Rites of the Prayers, Part II (In Arabic), p.294
If I am following your argument .. You are saying that the Chalcedonian version is more authentic because the Coptic mixes the Trinity with the Son.
In response, I showed you that this is irrelevant as we have hymns that addresses the Son then switches to the Trinity.
I also showed that the hymn of the Trisagion originally addressed the Son.
You, in turn, say that the hymn as it stands in the Coptic Church is confusing because it switches from the Son to the Trinity. I guess this is your personal opinion.
We have prayers, hymns that have the exact same switch you object to.
Whether the hymn is using the third person or the first is irrelevant. The Trisagion is in the third person, "bikhristoc afdonf" is in the third person. Both are attributed to the Son and both end with the same Doxa. Also, the hour prayers are in the third person and end with the Doxa.
I am afraid you misunderstood my argument, or maybe confused it with what others prior to me were saying. I am not at all addressing the question of which is more authentic/older, as this is not at all debated and it is perfectly understood by everyone that the version without the Christological additions, and which is used today by the Eastern Orthodox is the more original. Neither am I discussing which understanding of the prayer (Trinitarian vs. Christological) is older or more original. I am simply commenting on the confusing structure of the prayer the way it stands now. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, saying that the prayer as it stands now is somewhat confusing does not necessarily mean "the early Church understood the Trisagion in a trinitarian way". It could be for example that the Christological interpretation is in fact much older as you say, but that the Doxa itself was added much later. I personally don't quite accept that theory, but it is a theory nonetheless, and until I have more evidence to support or contradict it, it will remain a theory.
Regarding your assertion as a matter of fact that you have shown that the Christological interpretation is more ancient, I don't see what makes you so certain. I know you believe so, and you claim this to be the interpretation of Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and others. First, you have not provided the relevant passages for everyone to read. Second, the passage in Isaiah 6:3 refers to the Sanctus, or what is called in the Byzantine tradition The Hymn of Victory, "Holy Holy Holy O Lord of Sabaoth", and not to the liturgical Trisagion. So, even if the Fathers you mention interpret Isaiah's vision Christologically, this does not necessarily mean it has a bearing on the Trisagion, although it might.
I like to also remind you again that your examples of other prayers allegedly exhibiting a similar mix of Trinity and Son are not satisfactory. The Trisagion indeed is in the second person, asking the Son directly to "have mercy on us", while the Paschal Troparion Christos Anesti -of which the Coptic version is obviously derived- does not address the Son at all, but merely describes what He has done by His resurrection. You are building a conclusion on a comparison that is itself faulty.
You find the same structure in the liturgical prayers, hymns, praises. I do not wish to enter in circular logic.
It is not me that I say that the Christological understanding is the original and more authentic. It is the Bible that says so and the Holy Fathers who understood it that way.
The structure of the hymn in ALL the different churches point to the Christological understanding as I mentioned from the Latin rite, the Byzantine rite, Jerusalem rite, and the Oriental rite. The additions at the end of the hymn do point to the understanding of the the hymn being Christological.
This understanding was true till it was FORBID in the year 692 by the Chalcedonians. The Orientals, however, continued with the Christological understanding. So, if I provide the passages I will gain your approval. In other words, I am guilty of fabrication till proven otherwise.
Thank you! Allow me to share the cup of references, you just gave me, with you. What is your reference?
I did site a reference of how the Byzantines do base the Trisagion on Isaiah's vision. Are you saying that this reference is wrong and somehow you have a better one? If so, please share. Is this your personal inference? What source(s) did you use to get to that conclusion?
It cannot be both. Which one is it? Unsatisfactory to whom? You?
With all due respect, your satisfaction is irrelevant.
If you study the liturgical prayers, I guarantee you will be satisfied. You pick and chose what suits you. Out of all the examples I cited you keep on only focusing on what you believe would give you the edge.
I will post the passages on Isaiah 6:3 so that people who may not be skilled in research could benefit.
Thanks for a wonderful debate.
I'm not so sure shifting from Christological hymns to Trinitarian hymns are considered negative in our church. In fact we shift quite often from Marian hymns to Trinitarian hymns quite frequently. Additionally, some hymns cannot be categorized as Trinitarian vs. Christological. Look at the Kiahk Vesper additions. They shift from praising Mary because of giving birth to Christ (Christology) who is one from the Trinity (Trinitarian); all in the same sentence.
I will agree that the shift is very confusing. Look at the Glorification rite. We start out with a Trinitarian hymn, K`cmarwout then move to a Marian hymn, <ere ;eotoky par;eny then back to a Trinitarian hymn Agioc ictyn then a few Marian hymns and end with the Trinitarian hymn Qen Vran and the Christological hymn W Pen[oic Iycouc Pi,rictoc. I guess the best explanation for this phenomena is that this shifting is not "frowned upon" but rather a distinct and unique characteristic of Coptic hymnography.
Let me discuss authenticity for a moment. One theory is that the Trisagion is originally Christological because of Isaiah 6. Another theory is that the Trisagion is originally Trinitarian. Most Biblical scholars believe it was addressed to God the Father and Pantocrator since most of Isaiah's early chapters address the Pantocrator. I propose a third explanation. It goes like this.
The Trisagion in Isaiah 6 is neither the Chalcedonian nor the Non-Chalcedonian Trisagion. The Isaiah 6 Trisagion simply says, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Host, Heaven and Earth are full of His glory". What is important is that there is no "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal" found in both the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian versions. We are now left with figuring out which Trisagion is older to decide on authenticity. Historians from both sides claim their respective version is older, simpler, and more authentic. Chalcedonians claim it was given by a child who went to heaven and heard the hymn from angels and returned to Constantinoplean patriarch Prochus in the 5th century. The Non-Chalcedonians state it given by Joseph and Nicodemus at the tomb (again hearing it from angels). Since then the Chalcedonians, under John of Damascus, have attacked non-Chalcedonians on the ground of "shifting" the original Trinitarian hymn to a Christological. Non-Chalcedonians, under Severus of Antioch, have also attacked the Chalcdonians for failing to recognize the Christological elements. There is no conclusive argument that one side is more authentic or more accurate then the other (based on history). However, I propose that it really doesn't matter who is first and who is more authentic. We can simply see a development of two versions, independently formed, both based on the original Isaiah 6 Trisagion. Both are equally divergent from the original Isaiah 6 Trisagion. Both have their own distinct characteristics.
The Chalcedonian were against any additions to the Trisagion, even if it was a Trinitarian addition. They anathemized anyone who even proposed an addition. (The exception to this rule are the Catholic Uniate Churches of the Middle East. They are allowed to have additions violating their own Roman councils.)
The Non-Chalcedonians characterized the Trisagion with local Christological additions. There are actually 2 Trisagion hymns in the Coptic Church. The first and more popular one is the one we sing all the time is the Greek Agioc with additions for the Nativity, Theophany, Passion and Resurrection. The second version, only found in one hymn Tenen and fully Coptic (not Greek), also has additions but distinctly different. In this second group, there are several Bohairic version and Sahidic versions. They are:
Bohairic 1: Found in the Deacon Service Book says, "Holy Son of God, Holy Son of the Mighty, Holy Son of the Only-Invisible, who ordered [for] us grace. (You) Have compassion on (our ignorance?)"
Bohairic 2: Found in St Shenouda Society Manuscript 4. Same as Bohairic 1 but the second part is in the third person singular (He) have compassion on our ignorance
Sahidic 1: Found in Tuki's Kiahk Theotokia. "(He is) Holy (that is) God. (He is) Holy (that is) Mighty. (He is) Holy (to) the Only-Immortal. who gave (?) from His grace. (He) have compassion on our ignorance."
Sahidic 2: Found in Claudius Labib Annual Psalmody. Same as Sahidic 1 but switches to Bohairic on the second part and slightly changes it to "He had compassion on our ignorance."
Sahidic 3: Found in St Shenouda Society Manuscript 30. (He is) Holy (that is) God. (He is) Holy (that is) Mighty. Holy the Spirit ...." The rest of the verse is just bad Coptic grammar but I believe the intended to copy Sahidic 1.
So we have multiple versions where there are additions to the beginning and additions to the end. The additions in the beginning are Christological and the additions in the end are generic (possibly Trinitarian like Isaiah 6).
Finally, like I said thousands of times before on multiple topics, especially language and hymns, there is no such thing as "more" authentic. Authenticity is based on the philosophy of exclusivity and plurality. Nearly all evidence and modern concepts of exclusivity do not allow for absolute exclusivity but advocate the concept of degrees of plurality.
Thanks for chiming in, sir! I am very glad someone else decided to join the conversation, as I feel that now we can have a productive discussion in which both of us can walk away having learned something new. Your input is certainly a relief from the insistent one-sided defense of anything Oriental without any proper academic rigor that I see around here.
First, yes..that is exactly a good summary of what I said so far. Thanks for clearly representing what I said. Now I understand that you don't see this switching of subjects as necessarily "frowned upon" and you use examples from the Glorification service to show that it happens quite often. The only thing I'd say is that I don't feel the examples you mentioned are quite analogous to the situation of the Trisagion. I really hope you don't feel I am simply saying this to avoid facing the evidence, as imikhail seems to think. I am honestly not seeing the comparison here, so maybe you can help me. To me, it seems that switching subjects from one hymn to the next is one thing, while switching in the middle of a single cohesive prayer is another. Do you disagree with that? To me, it just does not carry the same potential for confusion when we are dealing with two clearly separate hymns in the service. I understand that one of imikhail's arguments was that the Doxa was not originally part of the Trisagion, but as it stands now especially in the Trisagion of the horologion, it is right in the middle of the prayer, not even simply at the end.
Furthermore, a switch from addressing St. Mary to addressing Christ or the Trinity hardly carries the same risk for misunderstanding of theology. Maybe you can provide examples, but I have a hard time imagining that anyone would come out confused about who is St. Mary vs. who is Christ or the Trinity. Not to mention that expecting all of the hymns in a service to have a single subject is quite unrealistic, as well as theologically suspect. We venerate St. Mary because she gave birth to the Logos. We worship God the Word together with the Father and the Holy Spirit because our equality of worship is a reflection of our belief in their homoousia. That I totally understand, but what I don't quite like is switching the addressee mid-hymn without any clear indication that this in fact has happened. Let's not forget, there is nothing explicit about the the first verses of the Trisagion addressing the Son, but only a person with a good grasp of theology would deduce this from the additions "Who was born of the virgin"...etc.
I like your general theory about the Trisagion very much. It is much more logically sound than blindly defending this or that interpretation. At face value, the Trisagion pre-Christological additions can be understood either way, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with varying traditions all within the bounds of Orthodoxy. I also reiterate again that the prayer of Isaiah 6, as you said, is "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Host, Heaven and Earth are full of His glory", which is more clearly the origin of the Sanctus rather than the Trisagion. As you describe, and I totally agree, the stories behind the origin of the Trisagion vary and all have a certain apocryphal flavor. Most sources I looked at seem to conclude that the most definitive earliest literary evidence for the Trisagion is the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.
I have a couple questions however. You say that both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians claim their versions are more authentic and older. How is this the case, when no one disputes the Syrian addition of "who was born of the Virgin" by Peter the Fuller? The way I see it, no one is in disagreement that the Trisagion was originially without any explicit Christological statements. The disagreement however lies in the question of meaning, not the text itself. Since the text without the additions can be understood either way, both sides differ on what it means. Can you please clarify where you stand regarding Peter the Fuller and the Syrian additions of the Trisagion?
Also, can you please explain your last statement more clearly? I think I agree with you, but I am not sure I fully understand.
Ramez is not saying the Chalcedonian Triasagion version is more authentic. He is merely stating the Non-Chalcedonian formula, as we have it today, seems to shift the subject from the Logos to the Trinity and (sometimes) back and forth. He also states shifting like this is "frowned upon" because it brings about confusion.
I have yet to see evidence of this frowning.
If this is the true case, then all of our liturgical prayers, hymns, praises need to be changed.
I suggest to keep personal tastes out of theological discussions.
The Non Chalcedonian version, that is the Oriental version, is Christological because it bases the Trisagion on the vision seen by Isaiah.
So, you are suggesting that even John the evangelist is mistaken to comment that this vision was a revelation of the Son's glory. And you are suggesting that the Holy Fathers are wrong too. We have liturgies that do contain the Trisagion and predate this legend. Whom should I believe s legend or the liturgical prayers. May be not to you. It is of greatest important when it comes to theological debates between the two families. This is not true because there was no Trinitarian addition since the hymn was understood throughout Christendom to be Christological.
However, the Byzantines, went off on a tangent that is not Traditional and developed this new Trinitarian understanding. How it is local if the Latins and the Byzantines INITIALLY accepted it. The hymn was understood to be Christological till at least the 8th century.
Hi Remenkimi,
Thanks for chiming in, sir! I am very glad someone else decided to join the conversation, as I feel that now we can have a productive discussion in which both of us can walk away having learned something new. Your input is certainly a relief from the insistent one-sided defense of anything Oriental without any proper academic rigor that I see around here.
Really non academic?
I have nothing else to say except that you go against the Scripture itself, the Holy Fathers, and the liturgical prayers.
Instead, your whole argument is confusion. Yes, we Orientals are confused, we do not know whom we are addressing or praying to and we need to leave our Tradition behind and follow the Chalcedonian footsteps.
I am appalled at how some dare to insert their personal opinion in place of the faith and the Tradition we have received.