The Trisagion?

[SyroMalankara]

The Byzantine interpretation of the Trisagion is that the hymn is addressed to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. This makes sense to me especially since the Trisagion originated in the Byzantine tradition.

Dear Very Rev. Father, with the utmost respect, how in the WORLD did you come to that conclusion? This Byzantine or bust tendency among the EO is no better than the Latin preeminentists.

The Coptic, Syriac non-EO Traditions are far older than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostomos; and many are from the Apostles directly - if anything, the Coptic/Syriac Tradition of the Trisagion is the original one and you should be satisfied that both Churches are willing to accept EO changes.

 

[SyroMalankara]

From Father Peter of the British Orthodox Church (Under the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchal See of Alexandria) [tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=10266.0]:](http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=10266.0]

The Trisagion was first of all a hymn to Christ used in the See of Antioch. The Oriental Orthodox continue to use it in a Christological manner. We know that even strict Chalcedonian two-nature supporters also used it in a Christological sense in Antioch.

It began to be used in a Trinitarian sense in Constantinople, and when Constantinople came to dominate the Imperial Church it also insisted that its understanding and use of the Trisagion be accepted.

But the original use was as a Christological hymn. The Trinitarian use is a relative novelty. Not disqualified because of that, but a novelty none the less. Therefore the Chalcedonians do not have a leg to stand on when criticising the more traditional Christological use.

In this Christological sense there is no problem at all with any additions to the Trisagion. If the hymn is addressed to Christ then it is entirely reasonable to say ‘…who was crucified for us…’. Even strict Chalcedonians in Antioch used it in a Christological manner because this was how it was first used. So they added ‘…Christ the King, who was crucified for us…’

There is no reason for the Trisagion to be a point of controversy unless Chalcedonians choose to ignore the history of the use of the Trisagion outside of Constantinople - unfortunately they sometimes have. I don’t sense that most Chalcedonians in the modern time do, not least because the history is clear.

The Chalcedonians have suggested that it was used first at Chalcedon, by angels even. But we know that it had already been in use in Syria for 100 years before that. Indeed the Syrian tradition is that it was heard as the song of the Angels waiting in the tomb of Christ.

… [continued]

The Trisagion as a hymn to Christ and with the Christological addition, ‘…thou who wast crucified for us…’ was used in Antioch during the episcopate of Eustathius (325-330), and therefore had a history of 140 years of use before the time of Peter the Fuller.

John of Damsacus is therefore incorrect at least, and unfair and polemical at worst, when he calls Peter the Fuller a blasphemer, and an introducer of a fourth person into the Trinity.

It is also the case that the Maronite Christians of the Lebanon, who are Chalcedonian and in communion with Rome, also used the Trisagion as a Christological hymn and with the Christological addition at least to the 16th century.

Ephraim of Amida, a Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, writes that the people of Syria and Antioch address the hymn to Christ, with the Christological additions, while those of Constantinople address it to the Trinity. He says that it is permissible to address the hymn to Christ with the addition.

Indeed we even find Avitus, bishop of Vienne (d. 518) praising the singing of the Trisagion with the Christological addition.

It seems reasonable to conclude that it was only at first used in a Trinitarian manner in Constantinople, and the opposition of Constantinople to other uses caused these other uses to be deprecated as Constantinople gained universal authority (and also eliminated all other liturgical uses). But it was not so at first, and even Chalcedonians are found using the Christological Trisagion without concern.

The comments of John of Damascus are part of the historical revisionism which took place within the Chalcedonian community. (However much he is to be valued as a source of EO thought).

Father Peter

 

[ronyodish]

FWIW and IIRC (Rony, please correct me if I’m mistaken), the Chaldeans & ACoE use it in the Trinitarian sense.

malphono,

You are correct that we and the ACoE use it in a Trinitarian sense.

God bless,

Rony

 

[malphono]

malphono,

You are correct that we and the ACoE use it in a Trinitarian sense.

Thank you, Rony.

The Maronite Church shares more of the Edessene tradition with the Chaldeans/ACoE than does the SOC, and it’s for that reason that I said in an [post=11216082]earlier post[/post] that the Christological interpretation of the Trisagion is not part of our Maronite tradition. For us, the Trisagion is traditionally Trinitarian in nature. Now, the revisionists have, along with destroying any vestige of the traditional dialogue, made it into a makhlouta (a mixed-up mess, for those who don’t understand Levantine dialect). At certain times of the year, it’s Trinitarian, but at other times it’s Christological. :hypno: It’s almost like the Abbot & Costello “whose on first?” skit. Can’t keep track of it without a program.

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

The Byzantine interpretation of the Trisagion is that the hymn is addressed to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. This makes sense to me especially since the Trisagion originated in the Byzantine tradition. It is understood as a hymn sung by the angelic hosts to God who is Trinity. However, I personally, here I cannot speak for my Church, have no problem with the Oriental Orthodox treating the Trisagion as an hymn to Christ.

Archpriest John W Morris

The Trisagion or Qadishat is very Semitic. Having roots in the Seraphic hymn in the book of Isiah.

Tradition has it that it was Nicodemus who proclaimed the Qadishat after removing Christ’s body from the cross.

It is foolish to say that the trisagion originated in the Byzantine tradition. Constantinople only became the second Rome in 381. Prior to that the Byzantine Liturgy was non-existant (although the liturgies may have been in the Greek-language they were not byzantine rite). Antiochene Liturgies both Syriac and Greek (The Liturgy of St James the Just) were using the Trisagion long before the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom even exited.

EDIT: also important to note that the Byzantine Rite is derived from the Antiochene Rite anyway.

 

[patrick457]

The Trisagion or Qadishat is very Semitic. Having roots in the Seraphic hymn in the book of Isiah.

Tradition has it that it was Nicodemus who proclaimed the Qadishat after removing Christ’s body from the cross.

I think that’s the Oriental tradition - that when Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus’ body down from the cross (or when they buried Him), they exclaimed what would become the Trisagion. AFAIK the Byzantine version of the origin of the Trisagion is that when a mighty earthquake struck Constantinople in September 25, 438 (Theodosius II was the emperor then), the emperor and the patriarch St. Proclus rallied the people to chant Kyrie eleison for heavenly assistance. Suddenly, before the sight of everyone, a boy who was present was swept up to heaven, where he heard the angels singing the Trisagion before the divine throne. When he came back down to earth he exhorted the patriarch to recite the hymn he had heard from the heavenly hosts. When Proclus and the people used this hymn, the earthquakes suddenly stopped; in commemoration of this, the Trisagion was said to have been inserted into the liturgy by Proclus.

 

[frjohnmorris]

From Father Peter of the British Orthodox Church (Under the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchal See of Alexandria) [tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=10266.0]:](http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=10266.0]

The Trisagion was first of all a hymn to Christ used in the See of Antioch. The Oriental Orthodox continue to use it in a Christological manner. We know that even strict Chalcedonian two-nature supporters also used it in a Christological sense in Antioch.

It began to be used in a Trinitarian sense in Constantinople, and when Constantinople came to dominate the Imperial Church it also insisted that its understanding and use of the Trisagion be accepted.

But the original use was as a Christological hymn. The Trinitarian use is a relative novelty. Not disqualified because of that, but a novelty none the less. Therefore the Chalcedonians do not have a leg to stand on when criticising the more traditional Christological use.

I am not quite sure that is true. According to Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Trisagion was revealed to a boy who was taken up into heaven as the people were gathered to pray during an earthquake. He heard the angels chanting the Trisagion Hymn to God when Proklos was Patriarch of Constantinople in 447. Thus, it was originally addressed to the entire Trinity.

The change in the wording to “was crucified for us” which made it a Hymn to Christ was introduced by Peter the Fuller the Non-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch (471–488)

That being said, I do not think that this disagreement has any theological significance and therefore should not be a matter that contributes to the division of our Churches.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

I would like to believe this, Father, but I have been alive for too long. Persistent EO objections to our “monophysite” use of the Trisagion (which is actually rooted in a completely different narrative tradition regarding how we received the Triasgion into the Church), the manner in which we Cross ourselves (which, again, is actually rooted in a completely different understanding of what the motions themselves mean), the use of cymbals and triangle in the Coptic liturgy (this is one that I am sympathetic to, but still see as a result of Byzantine misunderstanding of their use/unacceptable insistence that we follow the Byzantine way because that is supposedly self-evidently “the Orthodox way”), our iconography, etc. lead me to believe that our traditions would not be left alone or respected, or at least that we would face resumed significant pressure to be as you are, because there are some in your communion whose opinions carry much weight who cannot imagine any other way of being Orthodox. This is unacceptable, and I am happy to report that many more EO who I have known are with us in seeing it as unacceptable, but the fact that these issues and others like them reoccur on a relatively consistent basis shows that it is not as simple as signing an agreement that we accept the doctrinal stances of the later post-Chalcedonian councils. Some Byzantines will not accept anything that they themselves do not practice, and are quite openly hostile to the suggestion that their standards are not the be all and end all of Orthodox Christianity. And our patrimony, as it is the expression of our distinctly non-Byzantine and non-Chalcedonian theology and all that this entails, is everything to us, so we guard it very jealously. Believe me, if I wanted to be a Byzantine, I could’ve done so quite easily in comparison to what was involved in converting to the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox communion, or for that matter staying in it. We will either be allowed to follow in the footsteps of our fathers unimpeded by anyone, or we will remain separated. The examples that I have given above can and should rightfully be counted as externals (and it is not as though there is no difference in tradition in that sense among the EO, anyway; Georgian Christianity is after all very different from Romanian and so forth), but hopefully the underlying and very real difference in theological expressions that led them to develop as they have are not lost. Much more substantive examples (e.g., The Syrian Fraction; the writings and teachings of various non-Chalcedonians who are honored in our communion and condemned in yours; etc.) could be marshalled to support this point, and ultimately the EO would need to accept these as equally Orthodox as their own expressions if we are to have a snowball’s chance in Scetis of reuniting, just as OO holdouts would need to accept EO expressions as equally Orthodox (from what I have seen, this is basically a non-issue for the OO in the modern day, with the exception of questions surrounding Chalcedon itself; by way of example, my own parish is full of copies of the Orthodox Study Bible, freely available to any who want to to read what our priests openly call “an Orthodox translation” of the Bible, as opposed to the Arabic translations which were done by Protestants).

I am aware of the agreement affecting sacraments given in both churches to married EO-OO couples and their children within the patriarchal territory of Alexandria (not anywhere outside of it). Have there been subsequent agreements signed since the early 2000s?

I do not think that any competent Orthodox authority would expect the Non-Chalcedonians to Byzantize their Liturgy if we reached complete doctrinal agreement. . We already have a great deal of diversity of practice within the Byzantine Churches. There are significance between Greek and Russian liturgical traditions. There are also Western Rite Orthodox parishes who do not even use the Byzantine Rite, but use the Anglican Eucharistic service with a few divisions to conform to Orthodox theology or the Tridentien Mass also with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

It is foolish to say that the trisagion originated in the Byzantine tradition. Constantinople only became the second Rome in 381. Prior to that the Byzantine Liturgy was non-existant (although the liturgies may have been in the Greek-language they were not byzantine rite). Antiochene Liturgies both Syriac and Greek (The Liturgy of St James the Just) were using the Trisagion long before the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom even exited.

EDIT: also important to note that the Byzantine Rite is derived from the Antiochene Rite anyway.

That is not quite correct. The Byzantine Liturgy is actually a sub set of the West Syrian Liturgical Family which goes back to the Liturgy of St. James. Remember St. John Chrysostom came from Antioch to Constantinople and brought his Antiochian liturgical traditions with him. Some modern scholars argue that the Anaphora of St. John Chrystostom is actually an adaptation of the ancient Anaphora of Antioch.
Therefore it was not “non-existent” but evolved out of the original Liturgy of the Church of Antioch or the West Syrian Liturgy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[twf]

The Trisagion has made it’s way into the Western devotional praxis via the chaplet of Divine Mercy. In that context I have always taken it as Trinitarian…though I’m not sure if St Faustina actually stated as much.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear Very Rev. Father, with the utmost respect, how in the WORLD did you come to that conclusion? This Byzantine or bust tendency among the EO is no better than the Latin preeminentists.

The Coptic, Syriac non-EO Traditions are far older than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostomos; and many are from the Apostles directly - if anything, the Coptic/Syriac Tradition of the Trisagion is the original one and you should be satisfied that both Churches are willing to accept EO changes.

Regardless of how or when the Trisagion originated, we know that its original wording was that still used in the Byzantine Liturgy, because we can date the addition of the words “was crucified for us” to Peter the Fuller who became the anti-Calcedonian Patriarch of Antioch in 470. Peter the Fuller was a Monophysite who believed that the Father and the Holy Spirit were crucified with the Son. Acceptance of the change became a symbol of the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon as a result. source Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/11768a.htm
Because the words, “was crucified for us.” were associated with Monophysitism, it is understandable why the Council in Trullo would object to their use.

Obviously if the modern non-Chalcedonians interpret the Trisagion as a hymn to Christ alone, I do not see how anyone could find it objectionable. However, if it is addressed to the Trinity, it is obvious that there are problems with it.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

While I am hesitant to contribute again to this thread after unsubscribing, I must speak up in favor of the history of the Trisagion as it has been known in Antioch for centuries, not against any other tradition concerning it (as in Constantinople), but because it is simply untrue that Patriarch Peter is responsible for the claimed addition. Iraqi historian and Syriac scholar Matti Moosa relates, in his book “The Maronites in History” (1986/2005; p.69 and following), that the controversial phrase was in use in Syria 140 years before Peter the Fuller and actually dates back to Patriarch Eustace (Eutathius), who was patriarch of Antioch from 325-330, obviously predating Chalcedon. The preexisting tradition of using the phrase in Antioch is confirmed by subsequent non-Chalcedonian writers (Zachariah of Mitylene), as well as Chalcedonians (Ephraim of Amida), though there are some modern Chalcedonian writers who attribute it to others who notably also predate Peter the Fuller and Chalcedon, such as Rabula of Edessa (d. 435).

 

[frjohnmorris]

While I am hesitant to contribute again to this thread after unsubscribing, I must speak up in favor of the history of the Trisagion as it has been known in Antioch for centuries, not against any other tradition concerning it (as in Constantinople), but because it is simply untrue that Patriarch Peter is responsible for the claimed addition. Iraqi historian and Syriac scholar Matti Moosa relates, in his book “The Maronites in History” (1986/2005; p.69 and following), that the controversial phrase was in use in Syria 140 years before Peter the Fuller and actually dates back to Patriarch Eustace (Eutathius), who was patriarch of Antioch from 325-330, obviously predating Chalcedon. The preexisting tradition of using the phrase in Antioch is confirmed by subsequent non-Chalcedonian writers (Zachariah of Mitylene), as well as Chalcedonians (Ephraim of Amida), though there are some modern Chalcedonian writers who attribute it to others who notably also predate Peter the Fuller and Chalcedon, such as Rabula of Edessa (d. 435).

It may be true that Euthathius used the phrase “was crucified for us” in the Trisagion. However, it is also doubtful since the tradition is that the Trisagion hymn was revealed after a child was taken to heaven in about 450 during an earthquake in Constintinople and heard the angels singing the Trisagion hymn. That, of course would be 120 years after Euthathius. We know that the Trisagon was sung at Chalcedon. However there is also a Byzantine tradition that the angels sang the Trisagion Hymn as the body of Christ was taken to His tomb.
In any case, there is no doubt that Peter the Fuller introduced the phrase to show his sympathy for the Monophysites and rejection of Chalcedon. That made the phrase a symbol of the rejection of Chalcedon.
Today, I understand that the non-Chalcedons consider the Trisagion a hymn to Christ. However, that does not mean that that the phrase “was crucified for us” was not introduced by Peter the Fuller to show rejection of Chalcedon or that he understood the hymn as addressed to Christ and not the Holy Trinity.
I agree with the non-Chalcdonians that the declaration of Chalcedon can be misinterpreted in a Nestorian manner, as Calvin did. However, that does not mean that the Fathers of Chalcedon meant it to be interpreted in conformity with Nestorianism. A study of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon make it clear that the council endorsed the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria who is quoted favorably in the acts of the council. St. Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch and the Tome of Leo were both read and the council declared that “Everlasting be the name of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing…” The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon also began with an affirmation of the Council of Ephesus which condemned Nestorianism. That Chalcedon never intended to accept Nestorianism was also made clear by the II Council of Constantinople in 553, which repeated the condemnation of Nestorianism and mandated that Chalcedon be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Therefore the criticism of the non-Chalcedonians that Chalcedon repudiated the Council of Ephesus and adopted Nestorianism is unjustified.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

If it is true that Eustathius of Antioch introduced the phrase, “was crucified for us” into the Trisagion, it had dropped out of use in Antioch long before Peter the Fuller became Patriarch of Antioch, because if it were already accepted in Antioch, there would not have been a controversy over its use. However, we know that Peter the Fuller caused a controversy when he introduced the phrase into the Trisagion in Antioch. That is a good indication that it was Peter the Fuller who introduced the phrase “who was crucified for us” into the singing of the Trisagion at Antioch.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

Father, with due respect, the tradition of Constantinople is but one within the whole church, and cannot reasonably be asserted to be “the” tradition, as you have put it, particularly as regards this subject. Patriarch Eustace reigned over the See of Antioch prior to the founding of the Byzantine Empire itself in AD 330, so it makes very little sense to assert that any sort of primacy be given to the Constantinopolitan tradition in this case. The Triasgion was found in Syria with the disputed phrase before there was even a Constantinople to speak of.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, with due respect, the tradition of Constantinople is but one within the whole church, and cannot reasonably be asserted to be “the” tradition, as you have put it, particularly as regards this subject. Patriarch Eustace reigned over the See of Antioch prior to the founding of the Byzantine Empire itself in AD 330, so it makes very little sense to assert that any sort of primacy be given to the Constantinopolitan tradition in this case. The Triasgion was found in Syria with the disputed phrase before there was even a Constantinople to speak of.

I have written several times that I do not think that those of us who adhere to the Byzantine understanding that the Trisagion is addressed to the Trinity should have any problem with the Non-Chalcedonians over the issue since they follow a different tradition that addresses the Trisagion Hymn to Christ.
I honestly do not think that anyone can prove the historical origins of the Trisagion Hymn. Even our Byzantine tradition teaches that the angels sung the Trisagion Hymn as Christ’s Body was born to the tomb. Despite another Byzantine tradition about the boy who was taken to Heaven during the earthquake. All that we really know is that it is an ancient hymn.

I am certainly not anti-Antioch. I am proud to serve in the North American Archdiocese of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch .

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

If it is true that Eustathius of Antioch introduced the phrase, “was crucified for us” into the Trisagion, it had dropped out of use in Antioch long before Peter the Fuller became Patriarch of Antioch, because if it were already accepted in Antioch, there would not have been a controversy over its use. However, we know that Peter the Fuller caused a controversy when he introduced the phrase into the Trisagion in Antioch. That is a good indication that it was Peter the Fuller who introduced the phrase “who was crucified for us” into the singing of the Trisagion at Antioch.

Archpriest John W. Morris

According to Chalcedonian Patriarch Ephraim of Amida (d. 545), the Syrians/Antiochians use the Triasgion with the controversial phrase as a hymn to Christ, while the people of Constantinople reject the phrase since they reject that interpretation of the Trisagion. As Ephraim of Amida significantly postdates Peter the Fuller (d. 488), the idea that the phrase had dropped out of use by the time of Peter the Fuller is not sustainable, even with reference to your own church’s historical sources.

 

[Zekariya]

I am certainly not anti-Antioch. I am proud to serve in the North American Archdiocese of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch .

Father, this statement says that you are not anti-Antioch because you belong to the Greek Orthodox Antiochian Patriarchate. You do realize that the Antioch of the Eastern Orthodox Church was not always a carbon copy of Constantinople with many of the Syriac traditions either replaced or absorbed into the predominate Byzantine traditions?

 

[malphono]

If it is true that Eustathius of Antioch introduced the phrase, “was crucified for us” into the Trisagion, it had dropped out of use in Antioch long before Peter the Fuller became Patriarch of Antioch, because if it were already accepted in Antioch, there would not have been a controversy over its use. However, we know that Peter the Fuller caused a controversy when he introduced the phrase into the Trisagion in Antioch. That is a good indication that it was Peter the Fuller who introduced the phrase “who was crucified for us” into the singing of the Trisagion at Antioch.

That the Christological formula had been used previously is pretty clear, but it doesn’t seem to have been a universal practice. So, perhaps it would be more to the point to say that what we know is that there was controversy when Peter the Fuller required the Christological formula to be added the Trisagion.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, this statement says that you are not anti-Antioch because you belong to the Greek Orthodox Antiochian Patriarchate. You do realize that the Antioch of the Eastern Orthodox Church was not always a carbon copy of Constantinople with many of the Syriac traditions either replaced or absorbed into the predominate Byzantine traditions?

Many of the Byzantine traditions originated in Antioch. We do not use Syriac because our people do not speak Syriac. In the Middle East, we use Arabic. In the US we use English.We are not a carbon copy of Greek practice, because have our own traditions that differ from Greek usage. We are part of the multi-national Eastern Orthodox Church because our people did not follow the non-Chalcedonians into schism from the rest of the Church.
Actually in Arabic, we are called Roman Orthodox because our people were placed in the Roman nation by the Turks.

Archpriest John W. Morris