Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

As For The Trisagion

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Daniel
    The phrases were first added to counter the Nestorian heresy, since it was considered, correctly, that no Nestorian would be able to confess that one of the
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 3, 2001
      The phrases were first added to counter the Nestorian heresy, since
      it was considered, correctly, that no Nestorian would be able to
      confess that one of the Holy Trinity had been crucified.

      Information about the Theopaschite formula is as follows:

      The so-called Scythian monks, who came up with the Theopaschite
      formula in the late 510s, were accomplished theologians and Latin

      As an ecclesiastical matter occasion for controversy came from Peter
      the Fuller's addition to the Trisagion, making it read " Holy God,
      Holy the Mighty One, Holy the Immortal One who was crucified for us."

      After the death of Anastasius the theopaschitic controversy broke out
      again. At the beginning of the year 519 there appeared in the capital
      many monks (called in the sources Scythic monks, who in the great
      schism between Rome and Constantinople had held with Rome) with the
      motto " one of the Trinity has suffered in the flesh," which seems to
      have called forth opposition. But they found support for their
      formula in the sentences of the Henoticon. At Constantinople at that
      time all seemed to him worthy, he used it as a means to win over the
      Severians and received the sentence into the confession of faith
      incorporated into the codex which in 533 he sent to Pope John IL,
      which that pope (534) and his successor Agapetus T. (536) confirmed,
      while the Acoimetes monks were excommunicated by John, and the fifth
      ecumenical council at Constantinople pronounced excommunication
      against those who did not confess that " the Lord Jesus Christ,
      crucified in the flesh, was true God and lord of glory and one of the
      holy Trinity." The right to the admission of the now widely accepted
      sentence in the trisagion was not expressed. The extension of the
      trisagion remained a peculiar possession of the Monophysites, and in
      692 the Trullan council anathematized it (canon 81).

      From the Dialogue:
      Consequently the expression such as "Who was crucified for us" in the
      Trisagion Hymn can be understood in Christological interpretation.
      While the hymn without this phrase can be understood both in
      Trinitarian or Christological senses.

      From Father Meyendorff:
      The author remarks appropriately that the controversial addition by
      Peter the Fuller of the words "crucified for us" to the Trisagion,
      needs not be regarded as heretical as long as the Trisagion, "Holy
      God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal," is understood as a prayer to Christ
      and not as a hymn to the Trinity.

      In Alexandria and the Alexandrian circles the trisagion had become a
      Christological hymn before the crisis at Chalcedon, this is evidenced
      by the fact that it is first recorded at around the time of Chalcedon
      and by the time of Peter the Fuller in 476 the theopaschite phrase
      was accepted generally speaking by both Antiocheans and Alexandrians.
      I say this because Calendio, the Chalcedonian claimant of the
      Antiochean episcopate, accepted it with the modification, O Christ
      our King. And the Emperor Justinian also accepted it as being
      Orthodox in a Christological rather than Trinitarian context.

      The Chalcedonian Scythian monks of Constantinople, before 519, were
      using the phrase 'one of the Trinity was crucified' as a test against
      Nestorianism and this was accepted as Orthodox in 553 at the council
      of Constantinople, but the West rejected it and considered it

      Context is everything. If the hymn is used Christologically, as it
      always is among the Oriental Orthodox, and was 1500 years ago, then
      the additions add to the Orthodoxy of the hymn since they confess
      that Christ who is truly God was really born of the Virgin, crucified
      and arose from the dead. In fact the Hymn in Coptic use is as follows:

      Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was born of the Virgin,
      have mercy upon us.
      Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have
      mercy upon us.
      Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who arose from the dead and
      ascended into heaven, have mercy upon us.

      This is completely blameless in a Christological context and no
      OO Christian imagines that they are addressing the Trinity when
      they sing this hymn. The criticisms made by John of Damascus against
      the OO use of the hymn are without value since they arrogantly assume
      that since the Chalcedonians are using the hymn without additions in
      a Trinitarian sense then everyone else must be using the hymn in a
      Trinitarian sense also and therefore be expressing heresy.

      A quick search on the Internet shows that the Armenian Catholics also
      use the modified Trisagion. These are CATHOLICS, therefore it has
      already been accepted by the Romans that the modified Trisagion is
      appropriate as a Christological hymn.

      If we always try to remember that most people in the 4th/5th/6th
      centuries did not wish to profess either the Nestorian or Eutychian
      heresy then all of their statements are explicable.

      It is a little contradictory of the EO tradition that the Orthodox
      teaching that one of the Holy Trinity was crucified is accepted, yet
      a Christological hymn expressing that teaching is anathematised. Even
      more contradictory is the fact that the Romans can accept the use of
      this hymn while I guess the anathema against it remains among the EO.

      In Our Lords Love
      Thomas Daniel
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.