OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 04:44:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal...  (Read 3059 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,100



« on: July 05, 2011, 11:40:20 AM »

Lately, I've been reading a few liturgical histories and comparing texts, and one thing that strikes me as interesting is the OO additions to the "Holy God, Holy Mighty..." prayer, quoted here from a Coptic prayer book:

Quote
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who was born of the Virgin, have mercy on us.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who was crucified for us, have mercy on us.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who rose from the dead and ascended into the heavens, have mercy on us.

It's my understanding that these additions (for the EO, "have mercy on us" follows directly after "Immortal") were placed in the text during the Christological controversy, but because I am of poor intellect indeed, I can't quite make the significance of the addition in light of the controversy.

Can someone explain?
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL ORTHODOX CHURCH
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2011, 12:13:23 PM »

It was part of the theopaschite controversies after Chalcedon.

Basically, the original version of the prayer, without the relative clause, was considered to be addressed to the Trinity. Peter the Fuller, a staunch non-Chalcedonian, who had assumed the See of Antioch after driving out the Chalcedonian Patriarch, changed it to: "...Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us."

Chalcedonians were naturally wont to oppose innovations from Peter. They also felt that is was ambiguous (grammatically and doctrinally): If the relative clause refers to Christ, then it's fine; if it refers to the Trinity, then there's a problem. A compromise was suggested ..."Holy Immortal, Christ the King who was crucified for us..." but Peter rejected this, which the Chalcedonians took as a sign that Peter's faction actually did want to ascribe crucifixion and suffering to the Godhead itself, not just the God-Man, Christ.

Over time, various OO sources have added lots of relative clauses to the prayer, while the Byzantine and Roman rites have kept it in its unexpanded form.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2011, 12:33:12 PM »

It was part of the theopaschite controversies after Chalcedon.

Basically, the original version of the prayer, without the relative clause, was considered to be addressed to the Trinity. Peter the Fuller, a staunch non-Chalcedonian, who had assumed the See of Antioch after driving out the Chalcedonian Patriarch, changed it to: "...Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us."

Chalcedonians were naturally wont to oppose innovations from Peter. They also felt that is was ambiguous (grammatically and doctrinally): If the relative clause refers to Christ, then it's fine; if it refers to the Trinity, then there's a problem. A compromise was suggested ..."Holy Immortal, Christ the King who was crucified for us..." but Peter rejected this, which the Chalcedonians took as a sign that Peter's faction actually did want to ascribe crucifixion and suffering to the Godhead itself, not just the God-Man, Christ.

Over time, various OO sources have added lots of relative clauses to the prayer, while the Byzantine and Roman rites have kept it in its unexpanded form.
Now that is quite telling! I wonder what my more knowledgeable fellow OOs have to say about that.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Fr.Kyrillos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2011, 01:05:42 PM »

Isa 6
Quote
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said:

      “ Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;
      The whole earth is full of His glory!”
and

John 12
Quote
37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:
      “ Lord, who has believed our report?
      And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?"
39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
       40 “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
       Lest they should see with their eyes,
      Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
      So that I should heal them.”
 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.

Is not St. John the Evangelist indicating that Isaiah saw Christ and they proclaimed Holy, Holy, Holy (the Trisagion)?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 01:07:38 PM by Fr.Kyrillos » Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2011, 01:25:52 PM »

I find it strange Peter rejected this addition as it further clarified the Trisagion. Is Peter the Fuller a Saint in the OO Churches?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 01:29:11 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2011, 01:41:54 PM »

Is not St. John the Evangelist indicating that Isaiah saw Christ and they proclaimed Holy, Holy, Holy (the Trisagion)?

That part of Isaiah is the scriptural source of another hymn in the Liturgy ("Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth..."), not the Trisagion before the readings, which is a later addition to the Antiochene liturgy.

But do we know (for sure) the reason Peter the Fuller rejected the addition "Christ the King"?...I find it strange Peter rejected this addition as it further clarified the Trisagion.

He was a very obstinate dude who stuck to his guns. He didn't actually believe it referred to the Trinity.

Interestingly, this was part of his larger attempt to insert doctrinal elements into the Liturgy. For example, he was the first to have the Creed recited during the Liturgy -- and that spread everywhere.

Is Peter the Fuller a Saint in the OO Churches?

Dunno. He signed the Henotikon, so I don't know if you'd hold that against him. On the other hand, he sacked the Chalcedonian clergy in Antioch after doing so.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 01:42:54 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2011, 01:44:14 PM »

Very interesting. As for him signing the henoticon... I know St Severus disliked the henoticon because it was too ambiguous and it did not deal with the issue of Chalcedon.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2011, 04:47:14 PM »

The Trisagion is documented in Syria a hundred years at least before Chalcedon and it was always considered a Christological hymn. The Chalcedonian tradition that it was first heard at Chalcedon cannot be true because there are documents referring to it long before.

It was in fact only in Constantinople that it was given a Trinitarian direction.

Peter the Fuller objected to the addition .. Christ the King, who wast crucified for us ... on properly Christological grounds. Calandion, who was a strict Chalcedonian, was willing to speak of Christ being crucified, but was not willing to speak of the Word of God being crucified. Therefore he referred the crucifixion only to Christ, the name of the man, or the man assumed by the Word, and not to the Word Himself. This is why Peter the Fuller rejected it - quite properly too.

Of course the later Chalcedonian narrative insists that the Trisagion is only ever Trinitarian. History shows this claim to be manifestly false. And it is also rather duplicitous of John of Damascus, who must have know that the Syrians used the Trisagion in a Christological sense, to assert that they were making the Trinity the subject of the incarnation.

Even ancient scholars in Rome accepted that the Trisagion was Christological and that the additions were entirely correct when used Christologically. And even the Maronites used the Trisagion in a Christological sense. It was only Constantinople which used it in a Trinitarian sense.

Making the Trisagion a Trinitarian hymn is solely the work of the Chalcedonian Imperial might being able to assert what is true, even if it is not. Had it not been for such an exercise of force then it would surely have been possible for all sides to see that the Trisagion could be used correctly in both ways.

What is absolutely clear from explicit documentary evidence is that the non-Chalcedonians HAVE NOT changed the Trisagion. They use it as it was first created and used, and as they have always used it.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2011, 04:56:37 PM »

The Trisagion is documented in Syria a hundred years at least before Chalcedon and it was always considered a Christological hymn. The Chalcedonian tradition that it was first heard at Chalcedon cannot be true because there are documents referring to it long before.

It was in fact only in Constantinople that it was given a Trinitarian direction.

Peter the Fuller objected to the addition .. Christ the King, who wast crucified for us ... on properly Christological grounds. Calandion, who was a strict Chalcedonian, was willing to speak of Christ being crucified, but was not willing to speak of the Word of God being crucified. Therefore he referred the crucifixion only to Christ, the name of the man, or the man assumed by the Word, and not to the Word Himself. This is why Peter the Fuller rejected it - quite properly too.

Of course the later Chalcedonian narrative insists that the Trisagion is only ever Trinitarian. History shows this claim to be manifestly false. And it is also rather duplicitous of John of Damascus, who must have know that the Syrians used the Trisagion in a Christological sense, to assert that they were making the Trinity the subject of the incarnation.

Even ancient scholars in Rome accepted that the Trisagion was Christological and that the additions were entirely correct when used Christologically. And even the Maronites used the Trisagion in a Christological sense. It was only Constantinople which used it in a Trinitarian sense.

Making the Trisagion a Trinitarian hymn is solely the work of the Chalcedonian Imperial might being able to assert what is true, even if it is not. Had it not been for such an exercise of force then it would surely have been possible for all sides to see that the Trisagion could be used correctly in both ways.

What is absolutely clear from explicit documentary evidence is that the non-Chalcedonians HAVE NOT changed the Trisagion. They use it as it was first created and used, and as they have always used it.
Thank you for that Father Peter. I knew that the Nestorians rejected the phrase "the Word died", but, I would have thought the "Holy God, Holy mighty, Holy immortal" which preceded the clause "Christ the king"... would have precluded any Nestorian interpretation. Initially I thought that perhaps this was the reason Peter rejected the addition, but as I said, I thought "Holy God"... would have annulled any sort of Nestorian interpretation into the Trisagion. Also, is Peter an OO Saint?

Thanks again,
Severian
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 04:57:20 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2011, 05:05:13 PM »

I suppose that the Fathers were very cautious about the semi-Nestorian practice of ascribing the incarnation to Christ - the man assumed and anointed by the Word, rather than to the Word Himself incarnate.

I would imagine that it was considered quite possible for a semi-Nestorian to address praise to God the Word as Holy, and then turn in his reflections to the man Christ who was crucified. If you read a modern study of Theodoret, for instance, such as the excellent one by Paul Clayton, then it becomes clear that a false and defective Christology can very easily hide behind words that have a possibly Orthodox meaning.

The fact that Calandion could not accept Holy God ... who was crucified for us, but could accept Holy God ... Christ the King who was crucified for us, seems to me to show that he was not confessing that the Word of God was crucified but that the Christ was crucified.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2011, 05:44:16 PM »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2013, 01:16:06 PM »

Was not this the song the angels began to sing as Christ was taken down from the cross? Yet St Joseph of Arimathea interjected saying "who wast crucified".

If Peter the Fuller is recognised as a saint by any Church, I can't find any reference to this after a brief browse. On the other hand, his contemporary St Peter (Mongus) of Alexandria is recognised as a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2013, 02:07:34 AM »

Isn't the tradition that Trisagion was sung by Nicodemus?

While taking the body of Christ off the cross with Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus saw Jesus Christ's eyes open and then shouted "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal". Traditionally, it is also considered proof that his Divinity did not part from his humanity.
Logged

NULL
Antonis
Prodigal
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 1,024


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2013, 01:17:40 AM »

I was reminded of this thread when I was reading through the Canons of Trullo and found this:

Canon 81
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.


Thought it might be interesting to the posters here. Not intended as an attack!
Logged

For peace in the whole world,
for the stability of the holy churches of God,
and for the unity of all,
let us pray to the Lord.
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 774

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2013, 05:50:15 PM »

We excommunicated people over how they sang a hymn, one entirely theologically appropriate in its context. Somehow I don't think this reflects well on us :-).

I was reminded of this thread when I was reading through the Canons of Trullo and found this:

Canon 81
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.


Thought it might be interesting to the posters here. Not intended as an attack!
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 121


« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2013, 06:35:07 PM »

We excommunicated people over how they sang a hymn, one entirely theologically appropriate in its context. Somehow I don't think this reflects well on us :-).

Here is a Catholic commentary on the Quinisext Council or Council of Trullo. It must be noted that the Latin view is that the Council of Trullo is not ecumenical and that the Greeks themselves recognized the need for Papal (Roman) ratification of a council for ecumenicity. From a Roman view, about half of the 102 canons were against the Latin church.  

Regardless of the ecumenicity of the Council of Trullo's canons, let's see what this Catholic commentator said on Canon 81.
"Canon LXXXI

The council forbids the addition of the phrase "Who was crucified for us, have mercy on us," to the Trisagion hymn. The penalties of deposition and excommunication apply.

Though this phrase can be given an orthodox interpretation, it was abused by heretics to suggest a single theandric nature in Christ, since it says the one who is crucified (human) is the one who has mercy (divine). Peter Fullo added this phrase in 478 with the intent of implying that the true God died on the Cross. Those who insist on retaining this unnecessary phrase may justly be suspected of Monophysitism, hence the penalty of excommunication."
The commentator's phrase that is most alarming is "implying that the true God died on the Cross." This apparently Nestorian comment corroborates Fr Peter's observations against those who reject the Trisagion additions are rejecting fundamental anti-Nestorian Cyrillian theology.

Not only does this Oriental Orthodox theologically appropriate Trisagion hymn reflect badly on the Council of Trullo and Eastern Orthodoxy, it also reflects an anti-Oriental Orthodox prejudice that is dangerously close to Nestorianism.

Now regarding the Oriental tradition that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus sang the Trisagion, commonly taught among the Coptic Church, does not have any manuscript evidence until the 8th/9th century with Bar Siba. And thought this might seem too late, it is contemporary to the earliest Chalcedonian history by John of Damascus in the 8th century and much earlier than the 14th century Chalcedonian historians like Necephorus Callistus who give the origin of the Trisagion to a miracle during the episcopacy of Proclus between 434 and 436 AD. This speaks only of written manuscript evidence.

It is quite probable that an oral tradition of the Trisagion origin to Joseph and Nicodemus is much earlier.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 06:35:27 PM by Remnkemi » Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 774

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2013, 12:06:02 AM »

I think it safe to say many Byzantine Orthodox don't take Trullo seriously - a quick scan of the first thirty canons indicates that canons 5-6, 10-11, 14-15, 24, and 27 are not generally followed (occasional exceptions - like the Russians' adherence to canon 6 - not withstanding of course).

We excommunicated people over how they sang a hymn, one entirely theologically appropriate in its context. Somehow I don't think this reflects well on us :-).

Here is a Catholic commentary on the Quinisext Council or Council of Trullo. It must be noted that the Latin view is that the Council of Trullo is not ecumenical and that the Greeks themselves recognized the need for Papal (Roman) ratification of a council for ecumenicity. From a Roman view, about half of the 102 canons were against the Latin church.  

Regardless of the ecumenicity of the Council of Trullo's canons, let's see what this Catholic commentator said on Canon 81.
"Canon LXXXI

The council forbids the addition of the phrase "Who was crucified for us, have mercy on us," to the Trisagion hymn. The penalties of deposition and excommunication apply.

Though this phrase can be given an orthodox interpretation, it was abused by heretics to suggest a single theandric nature in Christ, since it says the one who is crucified (human) is the one who has mercy (divine). Peter Fullo added this phrase in 478 with the intent of implying that the true God died on the Cross. Those who insist on retaining this unnecessary phrase may justly be suspected of Monophysitism, hence the penalty of excommunication."
The commentator's phrase that is most alarming is "implying that the true God died on the Cross." This apparently Nestorian comment corroborates Fr Peter's observations against those who reject the Trisagion additions are rejecting fundamental anti-Nestorian Cyrillian theology.

Not only does this Oriental Orthodox theologically appropriate Trisagion hymn reflect badly on the Council of Trullo and Eastern Orthodoxy, it also reflects an anti-Oriental Orthodox prejudice that is dangerously close to Nestorianism.

Now regarding the Oriental tradition that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus sang the Trisagion, commonly taught among the Coptic Church, does not have any manuscript evidence until the 8th/9th century with Bar Siba. And thought this might seem too late, it is contemporary to the earliest Chalcedonian history by John of Damascus in the 8th century and much earlier than the 14th century Chalcedonian historians like Necephorus Callistus who give the origin of the Trisagion to a miracle during the episcopacy of Proclus between 434 and 436 AD. This speaks only of written manuscript evidence.

It is quite probable that an oral tradition of the Trisagion origin to Joseph and Nicodemus is much earlier.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 12:06:21 AM by kijabeboy03 » Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2013, 04:19:37 PM »

Isn't the tradition that Trisagion was sung by Nicodemus?

While taking the body of Christ off the cross with Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus saw Jesus Christ's eyes open and then shouted "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal". Traditionally, it is also considered proof that his Divinity did not part from his humanity.

Thank you for saying. Not sure whether Joseph, Nicodemus or both were the ones who sang/spoke but the point of the hymn originating at this time is the same regardless.
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
Pharaoh714
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 147


Lord Have Mercy! Christ Save me.


« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2013, 05:36:11 AM »

Isn't the tradition that Trisagion was sung by Nicodemus?

While taking the body of Christ off the cross with Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus saw Jesus Christ's eyes open and then shouted "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal". Traditionally, it is also considered proof that his Divinity did not part from his humanity.

Thank you for saying. Not sure whether Joseph, Nicodemus or both were the ones who sang/spoke but the point of the hymn originating at this time is the same regardless.


Yes, this Hymn in the Coptic Rite is directed towards the Son.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE3Og5CEYIE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hRmcrU3Gcs
Logged

"If I say, "My foot slips," Your mercy, O LORD, will hold me up. In the multitude of my anxieties within me, Your comforts delight my soul." Psalm 94:18-19
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,377


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2013, 01:03:40 AM »

Toward the end of the video linked below, you can hear an Armenian choir singing the Trisagion:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,53025.new.html#new
Logged

Tags: trisagion Peter the Fuller 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.1 seconds with 47 queries.