The trisagion hymn: Trinitarian or Christological?

[Joshua G.]

I had always assumed that the Trisagion was understood to be Trinitarian even though I wasn't exactly sure in what way. I assumed this simply because it says Holy three times. Then I was surprised to find out that this prayer is understood to be primarily Christological in nature and, in fact, their version is a bit different: "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who was Crucified for us, have mercy upon us".

It seems in reading about this, this difference might reflect their miaphysite perspective. (??)

Also, it would seem that our insistence on the Trinitarian understanding of this hymn might be a reflection of our focus on the Father as Godhead since, from reading our understanding of it, "Holy God" refers to the Father, seemingly using God in the biblical way meaning Godhead, not denying the eternal divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, bur affirming the Father as the eternal source of divinity.

Any thoughts or knowledge on this?

Where do we believe this hymn came from? Do we believe that the Coptic understanding of this hymn is theologically wrong, just historically wrong, wrong in the sense that it was developed out of a denial of the Chalcedonian explanation of the natures of Christ (So, not incorrect theology, but incorrect implications) or just a different tradition that can coexist?

Anything else to share. All of this is so new to me and fascinating, I hardly know where to start, so I thought I would bring it here to help organize my thoughts and questions a bit.

Thank you in advance,

Joshua

Note to the Mod: I wasn't sure if this should be under Traditions of Theology Forum because one question of mine is where it came from and I imagine the story will be based on Tradition, and the other is a more theological question. Thanks for figuring this part out for me :)

[Ryan]

I think the main problem, theologically, is that the insertion makes the whole prayer devoted to Christ, when it is supposed to be Trinitarian.

Also, the Trisagion was delivered by angels, so it may not be wise to mess with it much.

The idea of God suffering in the flesh is acceptable to Orthodoxy, as shown most clearly at the Fifth ecumenical council, so that is not the problem.

[Kris]

Where do we believe this hymn came from?


You can read about the origins of the hymn here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisagion).



Do we believe that the Coptic understanding of this hymn is theologically wrong,


It is not theologically wrong when understood as a Christological hymn. When understood to refer to the Holy Trinity, however, it has obvious theological problems.



just historically wrong,


Our tradition would certainly say it was. The Trisagion is always related to the "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord," found in Isaiah and the Apocalypse. This was always regarded as a Trinitarian hymn. Indeed, St. Athanasios used it in his defence against Arianism, showing how the three Holies were a single Lord.



wrong in the sense that it was developed out of a denial of the Chalcedonian explanation of the natures of Christ (So, not incorrect theology, but incorrect implications)


While Peter the Fuller's additions to the hymn were a reaction to Chalcedon, the understanding of the Trisagion as Christological was a prevalent one long before Chalcedon, particularly in Syria I believe.


or just a different tradition that can coexist?

The additions to the Trisagion are condemned by an Ecumenical Council. However, this anathema relates to the Trisagion as a Trinitarian hymn. I don't personally see why two interpretations of the same prayer cannot coexist when neither is theologically deficient.

That being said, it is such a central prayer to both traditions that a common interpretation is desirable, if not necessary.


What I find interesting is that the Copts follow the Trisagion with the words "Holy Trinity, have mercy on us." Perhaps that is evidence that the Trisagion was understood as being Trinitarian by the pre-schism Church of Alexandria.

[Alex Haig]

Come, you peoples, let us worship the Godhead in three persons, the Son in the father, with the Holy Spirit; for the Father timelessly begot the Son, co-eternal and co-reigning, and the Holy Spirit was in the Father, glorified with the Son; one power, one essence, one Godhead, whom we all worship as we say: Holy God, who created all things through the Son, with the co-operation of the Holy Spirit. Holy Strong, through whom we have come to know the Father, and through whom the Holy Spirit came into the world. Holy Immortal, the Advocate Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. Holy Trinity, glory to you.



by Emperor Leo the Wise from the Aposticha for Pentecost

It is interesting here that the Trisagion has been interpreted in a Trinitarian sense, also that it ends with the words "Holy Trinity, glory to you."

In Xp

Alex

PS I saw this hymn in an excellent article from Sobornost (Vol 30 No 2) by Dimitri Conomos, well worth a look.

[Andreas Moran]

. . . it ends with the words "Holy Trinity, glory to you."

It is worth mentioning that 'you' here means singular - in the Greek prayer, it is 'σου' which in early modern English is 'thee'. This is an example of how modern English can be theologically unclear, 'you' not differentiating singular and plural.

[Eric Peterson]

The "who was crucified for us" was added by Peter the Fuller, of the anti-Chalcedonian party. So, it would appear that the Christological "interpretation" is really more of a later re-invention of meaning, rather than simply a disputed understanding.

[Kosta]

This is what is known as the theopaschite controversy. The scythian monks who were pro-chalcedonian promoted the phrase "one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh" as a solution to the miaphysite/chalcedon division. The theopaschite phrase would reaffirm the hypostatic union and thus no one could mininterpret chalcedon of having a nestorian tendency. This phrase would disallow any nestorian interpretation of chalcedon and hopes were that it would reunite the monophysites with the orthodox. It was recieved at the 5th ecumenical council in canon 10 (the capitula of the council):

"If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema."

However the theopaschite clause was never meant to be inserted into the Trisagion which was universally recognized as an ancient prayer to the Holy Trinity. This was first done by Peter the Fuller, the monophysite bishop of Antioch in 475a.d. and was very controversial. It was also introduced in Constantinople sometime during the reign of the monophysite emperors Zeno or Anastasius but quickly dropped at 512a.d. The canon 81 of the qunisext council condemned any theopaschite insertion into the Trisagion:

Canon LXXXI.
Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after “Holy and Immortal,” “Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us,” and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off.

[Grace Singh]

Trisagion Hymn in the Coptic Tradition : English and Greek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvypI4naU_U)