OO View on Filioque in Depth critiquing

[dóxatotheó]

Filique is a part of the creed which the Romans added, but was not accepted by the Orthodox Church These are a bunch of OOs answers to the filioque controversy this is not my works links been posted but this is a slight summary of what our theologians have stated about the belief.

Orthodox Creed "And we believe in the holy Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from the father."

Catholic Creed "And we believe in the holy Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from the father and the son"

The Son proceeds from the Father. This is a perpetual procession. When we say "proceed", it may give the impression that what has come forth from its origin did not exist before. But this is NOT the case with the Trinity. The Son proceeds from the father. He is a perpetual Son to a perpetual Father; co-existing with the Father, perpetually united in the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father.
To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the 2nd Person of the Trinity (The Logos) would mean that there is an imbalance or change or roles between them.
Our church also had an agreement with the Anglican church on this what it states The agreement states: “We accept that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, based on the Scriptures, is intended to imply the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Oriental Orthodox Churches consider the addition of Filioque as an error since it breaks the order within the Trinity and puts into question the Father’s role as source, cause, and principle of both the Son and the Spirit".
Now you may ask about scripture defending filioque Revelation 22:1
First we must define the Latin word Proceed-it and Greek Word “ἐκπορευόμενον” . Both have different meaning but doesn’t have same exact parallel translation.
ἐκπορευόμενον about generation before time and space existed
but Proceed-it about flowing where time and space existed.
When the Greeks spoke of the “procession” of the Holy Spirit, they had in mind the Greek word, ekporeusis, the term, in fact, used in John 15:26 cited above, when Jesus said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” This term refers to the essential and “first” origin of the Holy Spirit, which the Greeks are right, is from the Father alone. It is the teaching of all Christians, East and West, that the Father is the soul monarch, or source (Gr. arche) of the entire Godhead. Greek has another term, proienai, which is used among the Greek fathers for the Son’s role involving not the “first” origin of the Holy Spirit; rather, the procession of the Person of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son that in no way denies the Father as first principle of life on the Godhead.
Unfortunately, the Latins used procedit (“proceeds”) from the Vulgate translation of John 15:26 that has a more general meaning that can incorporate either ekporeusis or proienai in Greek. The Latins emphasized a meaning akin to proienai.
Thus, the Latins never intended to deny the sole monarchy of the Father, while some in the East seemed not to be able to understand the Western concept of “procedit.”
Add to this the problem of the Greek word arche (“beginning,” or “source”) translated into Latin as principio (“beginning,” or “principle”) and we have more trouble. For the Greeks, there cannot be two “sources” or “causes” (arche) of the divine life of God. And the Latin fathers agree. But following St. Augustine, the Latin fathers and theologians would speak of the Father as Principium Impricipatum (an “unbegun beginning”) and the Son as Principium Principiatum (a “begun beginning”) allowing them to harmonize the truth that both the Father and the Son are the single principle (principio) of the procession of the Person of the Holy Spirit while never denying the uniqueness of the Father as “principle without principle.”'
They also might quot St. Augustine this what he truly says
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as principle, and, through the latter’s timeless gift to the Son, from the Father and the Son in communion (St. Augustine, De Trinitate, XV, 25, 47).
Agreeing on the Holy Spirit
Filioque

 

[Erik Nelson]

With the Ascension (30 AD), Jesus Christ was Glorified, from which point:

Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."​

Including the direction of the Holy Spirit:

John 20:22
And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit"​

Indeed:

Revelation 22:1
"Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb" [= et filioque]

John 7:37-39
And on the last, and great day of the festivity, Jesus stood and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.​

Dr. Taylor Marshall, Antichrist and Apocalypse: The 21 Prophecies of Revelation Unveiled and Described
Why Is the Holy Spirit Compared to Water? by Don Stewart (blueletterbible.org)

 

[The Liturgist]

@dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko how do you feel about this?

 

[StephenMosesDioscorus]

Our Oriental Orthodox church has always rejected the filioque, following the revelation of scripture, the early patristic witness, and the ecumenical council of Constantinople.

Fr. Tadros Malaty, a contemporary Oriental Orthodox theologian, writes, "The Orthodox Church insists on refusing the addition of the Filioque because of the early Church’s experience and teach ing about the Holy Spirit are reflected on her creeds. None of the ancient creeds and liturgies embraced the Filioque notion. The Epistola Apostolorum, the Old Creed of Alexandria, the so-called Egyptian Church Order, the fourth century Alexandrian and Antiochene Creeds, the Creeds of Capadocia etc."

St. Athenagoras says, "The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him and returning back again like a beam of the sun "

St. Gregory the Theologian says, "The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth from the Father indeed, but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not generation but by procession."

St. Gregory of Nyssa says, "Thus, the characteristic of the Father’s Person cannot be transferred to the Son or to the Spirit. It is the characteristic of the Father to exist without cause. This does not apply to the Son and the Spirit, for the Son 'went out from the Father.' The scripture states, 'and the Spirit proceeds from God' and 'from the Father.'"

Our Oriental Orthodox church has maintained this patristic understanding throughout her history.

For example, St. Yousab El-Abah, in the 18th Century, writes, "The self is the producer of speech, and thus it [speech] is the Son. Life is exuded from the self and say that it is the Holy Spirit. Thus, we say as you have said that the Father is ever-existent of Himself, speaks through the Son, who is the Living Word by means of life which is the Holy Spirit. Life is existent by the self and which is the Father, speaking by the trait of speech which is the Son and alive by its own characteristic, life, which is the Holy Spirit. This is our statement of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being one God."


St. Yousab El Abah goes on to condemn the filoque, he continues, "Even until now there is a Christian sect that believes something opposed to what I have said. They say that the Person of God is alive and produces speech. The self brings forth speech which is the Word of God, and life, which is the Holy Spirit, proceeds from speech and the self."

He then affirms a polemic made against the filioque. St Yousab records the polemic, saying, "This belief [the filioque] is contradicted in every philosophical, logical, and legal aspect because God is one essence, with one living, speaking self. If life and speech are produced from one self, speech is born and life is exuded from it. How, then, can they say that life proceeds from both the self and speech? Thus, this saying of theirs results in the divine essence being divided into two selves, or rather two deities or gods. Their opinion is founded on the self being the Father, speech is the son of the self, and life is the son of speech such that their own religion is contradictory to their opinions and beliefs. Their saying that the Father is only a father is invalidated since he then becomes both a father and grandfather. I mean by this that he is the father of speech and the grandfather of life. Their statement about the Son being only a son is also invalidated because he has become a son to the self and a father to life, such that this son is both born and gives birth. It also invalidates their statement about life proceeding only from the self since they say that it proceeds from speech and that speech is a producer of it. In such a manner, they quantify the divine essence, saying that half of life proceeds from the self, and the other half proceeds from speech. Based on this statement, it can be concluded that life has two spirits: one that proceeds from the self and another that proceeds from speech. If it so, then speech needs to produce its own speech and, from there, there must be two selves and thus two gods."

As such, the filioque has always been condemned by the Oriental Orthodox church.

 

[StephenMosesDioscorus]

I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read oration 31 by St. Gregory the Theologian

 

[The Liturgist]

I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read oration 31 by St. Gregory the Theologian

Indeed, this oration is superb.

It is also ecumenically useful in that it predates the Nestorian and Chalcedonian schisms, and thus can be seen as an explanation for why the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, and historically, until the 8th century, the Roman Catholic Church, chose to reject the filioque.

One thing I love about the Coptic Church is the intense veneration of the Cappadocians, which we also see reflected in the use of a Coptic translation of the Egyptian form of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, and the use of the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Theologian, which as far as I am aware only the Coptic church uses.

 

[Tigran1245]

The issue of the filioque was considered by the council and theologians of the Armenian Church. Armenian theologians, having studied the issue, made the judgment that the doctrine of the Filioque, in general, is not heretical, since it has many justifications in Scripture and the works of the fathers, however, the presence of some counter-arguments and the unconventionality of such a doctrine for the AAC do not allow accepting this Roman teaching as a teaching of AAC.

Therefore, the final verdict for the entire Armenian Church is that we do not condemn the doctrine of the filioque, and even consider it appropriate to use it in the Roman Church, but for ourselves we do not accept such a teaching.

 

[The Liturgist]

The issue of the filioque was considered by the council and theologians of the Armenian Church. Armenian theologians, having studied the issue, made the judgment that the doctrine of the Filioque, in general, is not heretical, since it has many justifications in Scripture and the works of the fathers, however, the presence of some counter-arguments and the unconventionality of such a doctrine for the AAC do not allow accepting this Roman teaching as a teaching of AAC.

Therefore, the final verdict for the entire Armenian Church is that we do not condemn the doctrine of the filioque, and even consider it appropriate to use it in the Roman Church, but for ourselves we do not accept such a teaching.

Interesting.

By the way how familiar are you with Armenian liturgics? I particularly like the setting of the Patarag by Komitas (Badarak by Gormidas in the other dialect), although I also like the more commonly heard Yekmalian setting.

I particularly love the Anaphora of St. Athanasius used in the Armenian liturgy, although unfortunately there used to be more anaphoras used up until the severe Turkish persecutions in the 12th and 13th century, I believe there are manuscripts for around 14 including a Presanctified liturgy, which is more than the three still used by the Copts, but less than the 86 or so that are theoretically available for use in the Syriac Orthodox church (in practice, only four of these are commonly used in the US, but English translations exist of fifteen or so), and the Ethiopians have fourteen anaphoras, but mainly use two or three of them. They also have an Anaphora dedicated to St. Athanasius, but which is different from the Armenian version which is in fact a variant on the Divine Liturgy of St. James.

 

[Tigran1245]

Interesting.

By the way how familiar are you with Armenian liturgics? I particularly like the setting of the Patarag by Komitas (Badarak by Gormidas in the other dialect), although I also like the more commonly heard Yekmalian setting.

I particularly love the Anaphora of St. Athanasius used in the Armenian liturgy, although unfortunately there used to be more anaphoras used up until the severe Turkish persecutions in the 12th and 13th century, I believe there are manuscripts for around 14 including a Presanctified liturgy, which is more than the three still used by the Copts, but less than the 86 or so that are theoretically available for use in the Syriac Orthodox church (in practice, only four of these are commonly used in the US, but English translations exist of fifteen or so), and the Ethiopians have fourteen anaphoras, but mainly use two or three of them. They also have an Anaphora dedicated to St. Athanasius, but which is different from the Armenian version which is in fact a variant on the Divine Liturgy of St. James.

Unfortunately, I don’t know much about liturgical issues. I am more fond of theological questions and apologetics of our Orthodox confession. And in these topics I am ready to support the discussion.