Peter the Fuller and the Trisagion - Non-Chalcedonians, please respond

[Cecilianus]

In non-Chalcedonian churches, the Trisagion is sung with the following addition: “Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us!” My understanding is that (at least prior to Vatican II) the addition is ommited in these churches that are in union with Rome (e.g. Copts and Chaldeans), and that the Synodikon of Holy Orthodoxy anathematizes “Peter the Fuller, the fool” for making this insertion, which is regarded as Eutychian and patripassionist.

My question, especially directed at the non-Chalcedonians here, is - how do you yourselves regard the theological significance of the “who wast crucified for us”? At face value to me it doesn’t seem like it should be a point of contention - God hung on the Cross, not just his human nature. Why do Catholics omit this phrase, and why is Peter the Fuller anathematized in the Synodikon?

 

[Gregory_I]

Traditionally, the Trisagion was first interpreted as trinitarian by ROme and constantinople. When they heard: Who was crucified for us, they thought several things: THis could be the imposition of a fourth person in the Trinity; They Could be affirming that the whole trinity suffered and died; or, more commonly, that the one composite nature of christ was in fact mingled, and therefore the Godhead of Christ suffered physically and naturally. THis was the position of the THeopaschites.

However, the second council of Constnatinople clearly affirmed that one of the Trinity became flesh and suffered for us, and so to continually object against this particular use of the Trisagion was really just the Chalcedonians being hard-headed.

 

[mathewjoseph]

Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us

This is actually monophytism. Peter the fuller, the then patriarch of Antioch added the last stance, ‘who was crucified for us’. This is non chalcedonean.

In the original antiochene liturgy, the stance ‘who was crucified for us’ is not there. This was added by Peter the fuller after chalcedon.

I found that in my syro malabar catholic church, it is sung as,
Holy God, Holy and Mighty,
Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us.

I found the same in chaldean and maronite churches.

In syro malankara catholic church, it is sung as
Holy God, Holy and Mighty,
Holy and Immortal, who wast crucified for us,
have mercy on us.

In the prayer books of syro malabar catholic church, i found it as
Holy God, Holy and Mighty,
Holy and Immortal,
oh Jesus Christ who wast crucified for us,
have mercy on us.

Note the difference. From this I found that non oriental churches or catholic churches do not recognize that God itself was crucified. They think that God and Christ are two.

But the oriental churches (Antiochene) think that God himself was crucified.

It clearly shows that confusion is there now also.

 

[Gregory_I]

GOd made flesh WAS crucified, if you are malabarese, or syro-malabar, you are Catholic, and Catholics believe this:

The Word took flesh of the Virgin, the fullness of humanity.

He made it one with his divinity without change confusion comingling or separation.

His Humanity is not his divinity, and his divinity is not his humanity.

The Difference continues in the union:

But it is the WORD HIMSELF who became flesh.

Therefore, it is the Word incarnate, the Word made flesh who died on the cross: Not that the Godhead suffered, but He who was the Word suffered in the flesh.

One of the trinity suffered for us and was crucified, died, and rose again IN THE FLESH.

That flesh was not another man. That flesh was God’s flesh, for God made it his own.

He is not a loose association of Divine Person and Human Person under the one Mask (Prosopon) of a Physical reality.

He is one DIvine Person who took Flesh of the Virgin with a rational soul and all its properties, including its energy intellect and will, and he MADE IT HIS OWN in an ineffable union.

The One Christ is the One God, and the One GOd is the One Christ, he is emmanuel, he is our true savior, he is God-With-Us.

We do not speak of two after the union, we speak of One incarnate nature of God the word that preserves intact and inviolate all the properties of humanity and Divinity iwthout any mixing or fluidity, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite Says, One Theandric (God-man) Nature.
Yet he who is one wills severally in accordance with the energies of the humanity and in accordance with the energies of the divinity which are preserved in the One incarnate nature of God the Word. St. Cyril taught thus, II Constantinople Taught thus and III COnstantinople taught thus.

The Flesh of Christ is the flesh of God.

It is St. Cyril of Alexandria who is the Doctor of the Incarnation, not THeodore of Mopsuestia, not John of Antioch, Not Theodoret of Cyr or Paul of Samosata or Ibas of Edessa, not mar Babai who is the Doctor of the Incarnation: His works are the standard, as they judged even the Tome of Leo.

Peter was making St. Cyrils point by modifying his liturgy, and as Patriarch of his see, he had the right to do so. It is not unorthodox to say God died in the flesh.

Anathema to Eutyches
Anathema to Apollinaris
Anathema to Nestorius
Anathema to Theodore of Mopsuestia.
This is the Faith of our Fathers.

There are no monophysites.

 

[JohnVIII]

I’m going off the top of my head here but I think one of the canons of the Church anathematizes those who add the phrase “who wast crucified for us” to the Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal". It was probably one of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon no doubt.

As this thread is starting I am already feeling like I want to side with the non-Chalcedonians as I still feel in my heart that they are orthodox. Nevertheless, to do so means that you must find some way to say that non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians are really saying the same thing (and many have tried to do this!), or you need to conclude that the 4th Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo had erred. As for me (as long as I am still in the Roman Catholic Church) I have to side with Pope Leo, whom the Council said that when he spoke it was St Peter who spoke! If I someday return to Orthodoxy (as long as it is the Antiochian Orthodox) I then may be at liberty to say that God was crucified for us.

I really have no good answer for this quandary!

 

[Cecilianus]

Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us

This is actually monophytism. Peter the fuller, the then patriarch of Antioch added the last stance, ‘who was crucified for us’. This is non chalcedonean.

In the original antiochene liturgy, the stance ‘who was crucified for us’ is not there. This was added by Peter the fuller after chalcedon.

I found that in my syro malabar catholic church, it is sung as,
Holy God, Holy and Mighty,
Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us.

I found the same in chaldean and maronite churches.

In syro malankara catholic church, it is sung as
Holy God, Holy and Mighty,
Holy and Immortal, who wast crucified for us,
have mercy on us.

In the prayer books of syro malabar catholic church, i found it as
Holy God, Holy and Mighty,
Holy and Immortal,
oh Jesus Christ who wast crucified for us,
have mercy on us.

Note the difference. From this I found that non oriental churches or catholic churches do not recognize that God itself was crucified. They think that God and Christ are two.

But the oriental churches (Antiochene) think that God himself was crucified.

It clearly shows that confusion is there now also.

Only the Nestorians believe that “God and Christ are two” - no Roman or Byzantine Catholic ever entertained such a silly notion. And I don’t think that the Antiochenes really believe that God the Father was crucified.

 

[Cecilianus]

GOd made flesh WAS crucified, if you are malabarese, or syro-malabar, you are Catholic, and Catholics believe this:

The Word took flesh of the Virgin, the fullness of humanity.

He made it one with his divinity without change confusion comingling or separation.

His Humanity is not his divinity, and his divinity is not his humanity.

The Difference continues in the union:

But it is the WORD HIMSELF who became flesh.

Therefore, it is the Word incarnate, the Word made flesh who died on the cross: Not that the Godhead suffered, but He who was the Word suffered in the flesh.

One of the trinity suffered for us and was crucified, died, and rose again IN THE FLESH.

That flesh was not another man. That flesh was God’s flesh, for God made it his own.

He is not a loose association of Divine Person and Human Person under the one Mask (Prosopon) of a Physical reality.

He is one DIvine Person who took Flesh of the Virgin with a rational soul and all its properties, including its energy intellect and will, and he MADE IT HIS OWN in an ineffable union.

The One Christ is the One God, and the One GOd is the One Christ, he is emmanuel, he is our true savior, he is God-With-Us.

We do not speak of two after the union, we speak of One incarnate nature of God the word that preserves intact and inviolate all the properties of humanity and Divinity iwthout any mixing or fluidity, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite Says, One Theandric (God-man) Nature.
Yet he who is one wills severally in accordance with the energies of the humanity and in accordance with the energies of the divinity which are preserved in the One incarnate nature of God the Word. St. Cyril taught thus, II Constantinople Taught thus and III COnstantinople taught thus.

The Flesh of Christ is the flesh of God.

It is St. Cyril of Alexandria who is the Doctor of the Incarnation, not THeodore of Mopsuestia, not John of Antioch, Not Theodoret of Cyr or Paul of Samosata or Ibas of Edessa, not mar Babai who is the Doctor of the Incarnation: His works are the standard, as they judged even the Tome of Leo.

Peter was making St. Cyrils point by modifying his liturgy, and as Patriarch of his see, he had the right to do so. It is not unorthodox to say God died in the flesh.

Anathema to Eutyches
Anathema to Apollinaris
Anathema to Nestorius
Anathema to Theodore of Mopsuestia.
This is the Faith of our Fathers.

There are no monophysites.

Amen!

 

[Gregory_I]

I think Chalcedon would be much more palatable if they had made it CLEAR that their acknowledgement of IN two natures was in line with Cyril in this sense:

St. Cyril said AFTER THE UNION that we are not to speak of two natures, but one nature of the word incarnate: For UNION is just that: a UNITY, and a unity is single, and if single, then one. But not elementally one, not one like fluids are one, but one in composition.

Cyril also said we distinguish the natures and their activities and properties after the union, nevertheless, we do not divide the natures, we recognize the continuing difference, but abstractly, in theory, in contemplation of Christ. THat which is united cannot be divided: What has been “oned” cannot be “twoed.”

If Chalcedon had admitted to the TWO natures being spoken of as in the contemplation of Christ, but not as though he were TWO, then it probably would have been more clear.

Nevertheless, a small perfectly Orthodox caveat is how I accept them :

" We acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ is of two natures, Of the Divinity of the Father, and of the Humanity of the Virgin. We also acknowledge these two natures are in HIM, and he is in the Two Natures WHICH HAVE COME TOGETHER IN AN INEFFABLE AND HYPOSTATIC UNION." AFter this union, there is only one Lord One Christ, One incarnate God.

That is my personal synopsis of Both Ephesus and Chalcedon. Both of which acknowledge the communication of idioms, something very hard for the Assyrians to do.

John VIII, the Second council of COnstantinople clearly teaches that one of the Trinity was incarnate and crucified for us. God himself did Die for us, because Christ was God who made the muanity HIS OWN. From the instant of his conception, there was never a second when the Man in the womb of the Virgin was other than the Word; The Manhood is HIMSELF, His, REALLY GOD, REALLY MAN, Not two, but ONe CHrist, Fully Human, Fully Divine!

He Is in Heaven, He is on the Cross, He is in the tomb, he is in hades, and he is at the RIght hand of the Father, now, forever, and at all times!

If it was not God who died for us, but only a seperate human nature, what good would that be? How would there ver be any enduring value to Christ’s sacrifice unless God himself died for us?

 

[Gregory_I]

JOHN VIII, LOOK HERE!:

THe council of COnstantinople II was convened to deal with Nesotrianizing bishops who were using Chalcedon as an excuse for Nestorianism. It’s Capitula is very insightful:

Canon VII

If anyone using the expression, “in two natures,” does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema

Canon VIII

If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance ***[made by a mixture] ***of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.

For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

Canon IX.

If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence (φύσιν ἤγουν οὐσίαν) of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.

***Canon X.

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.***

= Christological Trisagion=OK!

DOwn with those who divide the ONe incarnate Christ!

 

[jimmy]

In non-Chalcedonian churches, the Trisagion is sung with the following addition: “Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us!” My understanding is that (at least prior to Vatican II) the addition is ommited in these churches that are in union with Rome (e.g. Copts and Chaldeans), and that the Synodikon of Holy Orthodoxy anathematizes “Peter the Fuller, the fool” for making this insertion, which is regarded as Eutychian and patripassionist.

My question, especially directed at the non-Chalcedonians here, is - how do you yourselves regard the theological significance of the “who wast crucified for us”? At face value to me it doesn’t seem like it should be a point of contention - God hung on the Cross, not just his human nature. Why do Catholics omit this phrase, and why is Peter the Fuller anathematized in the Synodikon?

It is sung by the Maronites as well.

It is essentially an affirmation of the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the unity of Christ. The non-Chalcedonians are staunch Cyrillians.

Chances are that the line predates Peter the Fuller. It became contentious because it seems to contradict the teaching of the Tome of P. St. Leo, which seperated the attributes of Christ into the two natures of Christ. So according to Leo, Christ died in his humanity, not his divinity. It wasn’t until later that the Chalcedonian theology developed so that this would fit. It was Leontius of Byzantium in the sixth century who spoke of the human nature of Christ being enhypostasized, or brought up into the divine person/hypostasis of the Son. So God was truely born from Mary, and God truely died on the cross because the human nature was truely his own. In this way the statement of the non-Chalcedonian version of the trisagion becomes less contentious.

 

[malphono]

It is sung by the Maronites as well.

FWIW, I’ve never heard it done in the SOC fashion. If you can, PM me with a few more details.

 

[JohnVIII]

…So according to Leo, Christ died in his humanity, not his divinity. It wasn’t until later that the Chalcedonian theology developed so that this would fit. …enhypostasized…

I would give alot to know for sure if what [user]jimmy[/user] said is in fact 100% true! Namely that, “according to Leo, Christ died in his humanity, not his divinity”.

 

[Gregory_I]

Here is the Problem: Leo does not speak clearly and definitely about the two natures being united as though the flesh was no longer the flesh of a man, but the flesh of God. He is very grudging in accepting the communication of idioms: observe:

So without leaving his Father’s glory behind, the Son of God comes down from his heavenly throne and enters the depths of our world, born in an unprecedented order by an unprecedented kind of birth. In an unprecedented order, because one who is invisible at his own level was made visible at ours. The ungraspable willed to be grasped. Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time. **The Lord of the universe veiled his measureless majesty and took on a servant’s form. **The God who knew no suffering did not despise becoming a suffering man, and, deathless as he is, to be subject to the laws of death. By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt [of original sin]. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin’s womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man.

( SEe, it’s not outright Nestorianism, but he uses terms and expressions that seem to weaken the union)

There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. **The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man. God, by the fact that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; man, by the fact that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” God, by the fact that “all things were made through him, and nothing was made without him,” man, by the fact that “he was made of a woman, made under the law.” The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels’ voices announce the greatness of the most High. Herod evilly strives to kill one who was like a human being at the earliest stage the Magi rejoice to adore on bended knee one who is the Lord of all. And when he came to be baptised by his precursor John, the Father’s voice spoke thunder from heaven, to ensure that he did not go unnoticed because the divinity was concealed by the veil of flesh: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Accordingly, the same one whom the devil craftily tempts as a man, the angels dutifully wait on as God. Hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep are patently human. But to satisfy five thousand people with five loaves; to dispense living water to the Samaritan woman, a drink of which will stop her being thirsty ever again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink; to rebuke the storm and level the mounting waves; there can be no doubt these are divine.

So, while leo does use terms like union, and single person, Nestorius accepted the use of these terms because Leo does not speak of hypostasis ( individually subsistent being; Person), he speaks of one Prosopon (Concrete reality; mask).

In Catering to the terminology of Nestorius, he alienated that part of the church that had fought so hard against him. Nestorius himself accepted Leo’s tome. WHen the enemy of Orthodoxy accepts something as Orthodox, scratch your beard and go “hmmmmm…”

I believe Leo taught a UNION. I believe he taught a single Person. But he comes awfully close to dividing Christ: Natures are not centers of activity, PEOPLE are. Natures define the type of activities, but only ONE PERSON acts win accordance with the properties of both natures in the ineffable union.

By Making Natures the centers of individual activities, it appears like he introduces two forms, two persons, and not the One incarante Nature (person/being) of God the Word.

Every being has a nature, and every nature has a being: A single being in two natures is a non-sequitur for the non-chalcedonians- Two natures=two beings. One incarnate nature=One incarnate being.

 

[jimmy]

FWIW, I’ve never heard it done in the SOC fashion. If you can, PM me with a few more details.

The Trisagion for Good Friday in the anaphora of the signing of the chalice has the response “Christ crucified for us, have mercy on us.”

It is generally Christological though and changes with the season. After the resurrection the response is ‘Christ risen from the dead have mercy on us.’

 

[Cecilianus]

It is generally Christological though and changes with the season. After the resurrection the response is ‘Christ risen from the dead have mercy on us.’

As it is in the non-Chalcedonian churches.

 

[malphono]

The Trisagion for Good Friday in the anaphora of the signing of the chalice has the response “Christ crucified for us, have mercy on us.”

It is generally Christological though and changes with the season. After the resurrection the response is ‘Christ risen from the dead have mercy on us.’

OK, now I see what you mean. FYI, those responses are rather recent (1992) additions and (with the exception of Easter through New Sunday, i.e. “White Week”) aren’t really traditional anyway. If you’re interested, there’s a little more in a PM.

In any case, though, keep in mind that those are responses to the Trisagion, rather than the Trisagion itself. Big difference there. The Christological nature of the response can be justified by the liturgical feast (or season), and so it really doesn’t have much to do with Chalcedon. Not so for the Trisagion itself, of course.

Even if one were to downplay the difference between the text and response, notice the difference in wording. The non-Chalcedonian Trisagion lacks the proper noun “Christ” and uses “Who” instead, thus rendering the entire thing as Christological. In the Maronite rendering, the response uses the proper noun “Christ” and is a plea for Christ’s mercy. So, the Trisagion itself is still understood as Trinitarian.

 

[Gregory_I]

Is there something WRONG with the whole Trisagion being Christological? Because we have to distinguish trisagion, and trisagion.

In the Coptic liturgy (St. Basil) There is the Trisagion sung as follows:

**Holy God, Holy Almighty, Holy
Immortal, Who was born of the Virgin,
have mercy upon us.
Holy God, Holy Almighty, Holy
Immortal, Who was crucified for us,
have mercy upon us.
Holy God, Holy Almighty , Holy
Immortal, Who rose from the dead and
ascended into heaven, have mercy
upon us.**Glory be to the Father, and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit, both now and
always, and unto the ages of ages.
Amen. O Holy Trinity, have mercy upon
us.

AFTER tthe initial praise to the Son, the whole Trinity is then Praised for the work of the son, therefore, the Trinity is properly introduced, and the Refrain, “O holy Trinity…” makes sense, because it is distinct from the address given to the Son.

Now, later in the Liturgy, comes this phrase:

Congregation:
The Congregation may sing another appropriate song
(Aspasmos), instead of the following:**The Cherubim worship You, and the
Seraphim glorify You, proclaiming and
saying:**At the conclusion, the Congregation sings the Hymn of the
Seraphim:Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of hosts; Heaven
and earth are full of Your holy glory.

Along with:
Holy, Holy, Holy, truly O Lord, our God,
Who formed us, created us and placed
us in the paradise of joy. When we
disobeyed Your commandment by the
guile of the serpent, we fell from eternal
life, and were exiled from the Paradise
of joy. You have not abandoned us to
the end, but have always visited us
through Your holy prophets, and in the
last days, You did manifest Yourself to
us, who were sitting in darkness and
the shadow of death, through Your
Only-Begotten Son, our Lord God and
Savior Jesus Christ, Who of The Holy
Spirit and of the Holy Virgin Mary.

Which is clearly Trinitarian since it references the Whole Godhead.

SO, it depends on which Trisagion.



It is both Trinitarian AND Christological, and I would even Go so far as to say that it expresses the Trinitarian truth THat each of the two persons dwell in the other. The Father and Spirit Dwell in the SOn, The Son and the Spirit Dwell in the Father, and the SOn and the Father Dwell in the Spirit, in real distinction without separation.

 

[malphono]

Is there something WRONG with the whole Trisagion being Christological? Because we have to distinguish trisagion, and trisagion. …

SO, it depends on which Trisagion. …

I read this post, closed it, and came back. Maybe it’s just me today but after reading it again and again, I’m still confused.

There is one prayer called the Trisagion. The non-Chalcedonian Churches (COC, SOC) accept Peter the Fuller’s change to make it Christological. Chalcedon says it’s Trinitarian in nature, so of course the Chalcedonian Churches do not.

I’m not at all sure what the Preface and the Hymn of the Angles (aka “Sanctus”) has to do with this discussion. It’s part of the Anaphora in the first place, and is actually directed to the Father. Despite the repetition of the word Agios in Greek, it is not liturgically considered another Trisagion. (In Syriac, the construction is different, so the difference between the two is very clear. I’m not familiar with the Coptic text, but I suspect it also doesn’t allow for any misconception…)

 

[jimmy]

I read this post, closed it, and came back. Maybe it’s just me today but after reading it again and again, I’m still confused.

There is one prayer called the Trisagion. The non-Chalcedonian Churches (COC, SOC) accept Peter the Fuller’s change to make it Christological. Chalcedon says it’s Trinitarian in nature, so of course the Chalcedonian Churches do not.

I’m not at all sure what the Preface and the Hymn of the Angles (aka “Sanctus”) has to do with this discussion. It’s part of the Anaphora in the first place, and is actually directed to the Father. Despite the repetition of the word Agios in Greek, it is not liturgically considered another Trisagion. (In Syriac, the construction is different, so the difference between the two is very clear. I’m not familiar with the Coptic text, but I suspect it also doesn’t allow for any misconception…)

I think the sanctus is often called the trisagion, particularly in the west.

 

[Gregory_I]

I think that it is kind of ridiculous to split those hairs.

Trisagion means THrice holy. It is a reference to the Thrice holy hymn that the seraphim chanted to God.

Now, this thrice-holy hymn occurs in two forms and in two places in the liturgy, as indicated above. The Form of the Trisagion using holy and immortal, according to the Copts, was first sung by angels to Jesus when he was in the tomb, as witnessed by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who then cried out "Holy God! Holy Mighty! Holy and Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us. Thus they were confirmed in their Faith that Christ was GOd himself, and no mere man.

THe other usage of the hymn is in the preface, and either way you look at it ALSO harkens back to Isaiah 6:3, and is addressed to God.

Plus, I quote from the Coptic service book:

"These prayers have their roots in The Book of Isaiah and The Book
of Revelation.
St. John said; "Each of the four living creatures
had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under
his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy,
holy is the Lord God Almighty, Who was, and Is, and Is to
come.”

“Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to
Him Who sits on the throne and Who lives for ever and ever, the
twenty-four elders fall down before Him Who sits on the throne,
and worship Him Who lives for ever and ever. They lay their
crowns before the throne and say: “You are worthy, our Lord and
God, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all
things, and by Your will they were created and have their being.”
(Rev 4:8-11) (NIV)”

"Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering
thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand.
They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, Who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor
and glory and praise!” (Rev 5:11-12) (NIV)

** “This is our eternal hymn, by which we give praise to the Holy Trinity, and in which we find a fountain of love, peace, joy, righteousness and divine love.”**

SO, the Trisagion sung Earlier is Christological, the Trisagion that comes later in the preface is trinitarian. Plus, let’s remember, Jesus did not offer himself up only to the Father, but to the whole Trinity. He offered himself to the Father, himself, and the holy spirit.