T
Thomas48
Guest
That is true, here is an example of the Malabar East Syriac version of that hymn
.youtube.com/watch?v=qZesw-cn9iM
- Status
.youtube.com/watch?v=qZesw-cn9iM
S
shlomo3amrooh
Guest
Very beautiful voice. However the Syriac is horribly pronounced.That is true, here is an example of the Malabar East Syriac version of that hymn
youtube.com/watch?v=qZesw-cn9iM
try this:
youtube.com/watch?v=FuNl-UUykD0
T
Thomas48
Guest
Yes haha, that’s why I put “Malabar East Syriac” the Syriac spoken in the Syro Malabar Church has been transformed over the centuries to be easier on the Malayalee tounge
.
M
malphono
Guest
As I see it, there are two things simultaneously involved here, one being the pronunciation itself. There, the difference is sort of subtle, with certain letters or combinations of letters pronounced in a rather unique way by the Syro-Malabars. Among other things (and I don’t off-hand recall what they are), there is usually, e.g, a “nun” added to the word “qadish” so that it sounds like “qaNdish” when spoken, but it’s written correctly. I recall many years ago reading a pronunciational guide for Syro-Malabar Syriac, which made note of the variations, but I don’t have the book handy and don’t recall how much of an explanation the author gave for the variations.shlomo3amrooh;11248526:
Yes haha, that’s why I put “Malabar East Syriac” the Syriac spoken in the Syro Malabar Church has been transformed over the centuries to be easier on the Malayalee tounge
The other thing is that the cadence is quite different, and it seems to me that’s the most noticeable thing. It’s very distinctly Malayali and, whereas I find it a little strange to the ear, it does seem work well with both the original Malayali tunes and the way various Syriac tunes have been adapted.
FWIW, over the years I’ve notice a similar difference in cadence with the Syro-Malankara, but not so much the pronunciational variations.
Just for the purpose of clarification in the thread, I suppose I should also note that, although it contain the same words, the Lakhu Mara really has nothing to do with the Trisagion. I believe it’s considered more of an embolism of the Lord’s Prayer.
S
shlomo3amrooh
Guest
But the Lakhu Mara has nothing to do with the Lord’s Prayer or the trisagion?As I see it, there are two things simultaneously involved here, one being the pronunciation itself. There, the difference is sort of subtle, with certain letters or combinations of letters pronounced in a rather unique way by the Syro-Malabars. Among other things (and I don’t off-hand recall what they are), there is usually, e.g, a “nun” added to the word “qadish” so that it sounds like “qaNdish” when spoken, but it’s written correctly. I recall many years ago reading a pronunciational guide for Syro-Malabar Syriac, which made note of the variations, but I don’t have the book handy and don’t recall how much of an explanation the author gave for the variations.
The other thing is that the cadence is quite different, and it seems to me that’s the most noticeable thing. It’s very distinctly Malayali and, whereas I find it a little strange to the ear, it does seem work well with both the original Malayali tunes and the way various Syriac tunes have been adapted.
FWIW, over the years I’ve notice a similar difference in cadence with the Syro-Malankara, but not so much the pronunciational variations.
Just for the purpose of clarification in the thread, I suppose I should also note that, although it contain the same words, the Lakhu Mara really has nothing to do with the Trisagion. I believe it’s considered more of an embolism of the Lord’s Prayer.
Lakhu Mara d-kulla mawdenan,
w-lakh Ysho’ Mshyha mshabhynan
d-attu Mnahmana d-paghrayn,
w-attu Paroqa d-nawshathan.
We give you thanks, O Lord of all,
we glorify you, Jesus Christ;
you raise our bodies into life,
you are the Savior of our souls.
M
malphono
Guest
I know … oopps … sorry.
Not one of my better mornings to be sure. I was thinking one thing and typed another. Don’t ask …
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
The Council in Trullo, a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical which was ratified by the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II in 787, officially condemned modifying the Trisagion from its original form, “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us,” because the Coptic version had a monophysite origins. Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) also condemned the Oriental version in a letter to the Armenians.
In the Byzantine Rite the Trisagion is sung during processions and before the Epistle during the Divine Liturgy.
Archpriest John W. Morris
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
said:
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
It does or at least used to during the veneration of the Cross on Good Friday.
Archpriest John W. Morris
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
It is sung as a dialogue during an hierarchical Divine Liturgy, that is a Divine Liturgy celebrated by a Bishop in the Byzantine Rite.
By the way Holy is pronouned ayios in Greek. The H is silent and the g is pronounced as a y.
Archpriest John W. Morris
D
dzheremi
Guest
Father, please observe that we in the Oriental Orthodox communion have always condemned monophysitism, and hence that label is inappropriate in describing our Christology (which is more specifically termed miaphysitism, in keeping with the original Greek formula given by St. Cyril of Alexandria, whose Christology we claim as our own: μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη mia physis tou theou logou sesarkōmenē – one (mia) nature of the Word of God incarnate). I know it has historical, and to some degree of contemporary, currency in your communion, but it is incredibly inaccurate and deeply offensive. This is by no means a modern stance or correction of any supposed heresy, either. Consider, for instance, the prayer of the confession of the priest in the Liturgy of St. Basil as it is celebrated in our Coptic Orthodox Church:
*Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint May. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen. * (Emphases added.)
*Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint May. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen. * (Emphases added.)
M
malphono
Guest
Peter the Fuller was certainly ambitious, and badly coveted the Patriarchal throne, but I’m not so sure he was actually a heretic. A miaphysite? Most likely yes. But a monophysite? Well, maybe, but even so, whether or not the addition of “Who was crucified for us” is heresy is debatable. The Trisagion can be taken in a Chistological sense, and in that sense, the “Who was crucified for us” is certainly an orthodox interpretation.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I chose my words very carefully. I did not write that the Copts are monophysites, but that this particular alteration was considered monophysite by the supporters of Chalcedon. I also later mentioned that Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theologians have met and have agreed that we share a common understanding of Christology and that at this point the only real basis of our division is that we consider some people heretics that the Oriental Orthodox consider saints.
Archpriest John W. Morris
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Patriarch Peter (Gnapheus) condemned Nestorianist tendencies among those who accepted Chalcedon, he was a miaphysite according to the Cyrillic teaching, shared by St. Isaac of Antioch.
A brief history multiple hellenization/byzantinization and a few latinization attempts on the Armenian Apostolic Church: readperiodicals.com/201206/2670021681.html
A brief history multiple hellenization/byzantinization and a few latinization attempts on the Armenian Apostolic Church: readperiodicals.com/201206/2670021681.html
Continued… readperiodicals.com/201206/2670021681.html#ixzz2gfwbtXhw
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Eastern Orthodox have closer relations with the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox Churches than we do with the Armenian Church because of geography. There are both Eastern Orthodox and Copts in Egypt and both Eastern Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox in Syria and Lebanon. They have achieved a great degree of cooperation, especially because Christians facing rising Islamic radicalism feel an need to come together to support each other in the face of persecution. The Antiochian Orthodox Metropolitan and Syriac Orthodox Bishop of Aleppo were together on a mission to free a Maronite priest form the Muslims, when they were kidnapped. . Whereas the Armenian Church is mostly located in Armenia and parts of present day Turkey where there are few, if any, Eastern Orthodox. Thus thee are fewer contacts. My impression from reading history is that the Armenians rejected Chalcedon because of a bad translation of its doctrinal decisions into Armenian. In a very real sense the whole division between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox is due to semantics. The Greek language used by Chalcedon was sufficiently different from the Greek used by St. Cyril that when Chalcedon spoke of “two natures,” the people who eventually became Oriental Orthodox heard, “two persons” which is not what Chalcedon meant. That is why the 5th Council had to clarify that Chalcedon was never meant to be a repudiation of St. Cyril’s Christology. I would be less than honest if I were not to admit that resistance to Byzantine imperialism and local nationalism played a role in the division. This was also a problem for those who remained Eastern Orthodox such as the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem which fell under Greek rule especially under the Turks. In 1899, the Arabs in the Patriarchate of Antioch revolted and elected an Arab Patriarch of Antioch which caused a temporary schism from Constantinople. There are still problems with Greek domination of Jerusalem. Some of the controversy over liturgical differences were, I think, more a result than a cause of the schism. The Armenian Liturgy is very close to the Byzantine Liturgy. It is true, however, that the universal Christian practice is to mix water with the wine for the Eucharist including the other Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Archpriest John W. Morris
The Council of Trullo specifically created canons against Roman practices. The Council of Trullo was not ratified by Rome. Here are a few noticeable reasons as to why:
On all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord’s day and the holy day of the Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be said [instead of the Divine Liturgy (Mass)]. - Canon LII
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.liii.html
Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canon shall immovably stands fast which says: “If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off.” - Canon LV
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.lvi.html
In some pictures of the venerable icons, a lamb is painted to which the Precursor points his finger, which is received as a type of grace, indicating beforehand through the Law, our true Lamb, Christ our God. Embracing therefore the ancient types and shadows as symbols of the truth, and patterns given to the Church, we prefer “grace and truth,” receiving it as the fulfilment of the Law. In order therefore that “that which is perfect” may be delineated to the eyes of all, at least in coloured expression, we decree that the figure in human form of the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world, Christ our God, be henceforth exhibited in images, instead of the ancient lamb, so that all may understand by means of it the depths of the humiliation of the Word of God, and that we may recall to our memory his conversation in the flesh, his passion and salutary death, and his redemption which was wrought for the whole world. - Canon LXXXII
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.lxxxiii.html
Bold is mine. Red with brackets is my further clarification.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Duly noted, Father. I would add, however, that this is a distinction without a difference, as the Copts also treat the Trisagion as a Christological hymn, in common with our Antiochian non-Chalcedonian brothers, so an attack on this so-called “addition” (which, if you read carefully the history surrounding the controversy, cannot truly be laid at the feet of Patriarch Peter, at least so far as concerns the Trisagion as it was recited in Syria in his day and before) is also an attack on our common OO tradition, Antiochian and Alexandrian alike.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
The 7th Ecumenical Council, the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787 ratified the decisions of the Council in Trullo as a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680. Therefore Eastern Orthodox consider the Council in Trullo as having ecumenical authority. You are right the Council in Trullo does represent the beginning of the estrangement between East and West. I do not think that any Orthodox authority would consider differences like those criticized in the canons that you mentioned justification for continuing the schism provided the more important differences are resolved. The Council in Trullo also criticized mandatory celibacy and the practice whereby the Western Church would ordain a married man if he agrees to cease having sexual relations with his wife. I think that the differences that this canon reflects is more serious than how one portrays Christ or whether of not one fasts on Saturdays and Sundays of Great Lent, because it reveals a much more positive view towards sex in the East than that which is held in the post-Augustinian West which associates sex with the transmission of original sin. Although we would agree that the sexual relationship between a husband and wife must be open to the creation of new life, we would not agree that every time that a married couple has sex that they have to be open to the creation of new life at that particular time. I personally do not understand the moral difference between what the Catholics call natural family planning and using non-abortive methods of conception control. Although there are some who disagree, chiefly those overly influenced by certain ultra-conservative monastic circles, most Orthodox theologians and Bishops do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church on contraception and would see nothing wrong with a married couple using non abortive methods of conception control for the right reasons such as the spacing of the birth of children, the inability of the family to afford another child, and the threat that another pregnancy could pose to the health of the mother.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Archpriest John W. Morris
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I agree with you the misunderstanding was due to the fact that in Eastern Orthodox theology the Trisagion is an hymn to the Holy Trinity while in the Oriental Orthodox Churches the Trisagion is an hymn to Christ.
One must sort out the real issues from the petty ones. By 692, the conflict had reached the point of pettiness on both sides. 1,300 years later what seemed like major issues do not seem so important. Unfortunately, there are still extremists on both sides who resist anything that might look like a compromise on the Christological dogma of the Church. To be truthful after Chalcedon, both sides went to excesses. Had the Copts shown the flexibility that St. Cyril showed in his important accommodation with John of Antioch, the schism would not have happened. However had the Byzantine Emperors also showed some flexibility and not resorted to force to try to make the Copts accept Chalcedon without reservation and shown proper respect for the autocephalous status of the Coptic Church the schism would not have happened. However, on behalf of the Chalcedonians, the 5th Ecumenical Council of 553 was an effort to assure the non-Chalcedonians that we the Chalcedonians do not interpret Chalcedon in a way that conflicts with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. As I mentioned earlier without the refinements of the 5th Council, it is possible to affirm Chalcedon in Nestorian manner as Calvin did.
Archpriest John W. Morris
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Yet it is the East which has consistently allowed a married man to separate from his wife to become a bishop, most recently Patriarch Alexii II of blessed memory.
Some do, some don’t - I’ve read Met. Hilarion’s statements (antiochian.org/node/17198) against artificial contraception, almost identical to the Catholic teachings.
I suppose it’s as simple as “it’s physically in the way, also a barrier in a spiritual way.”
- Status