View source for Filioque

{{Short description|Latin term meaning "and from the Son" appended to the Nicene Creed}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2020}}
{{Title language|la}}
{{Technical|date=February 2013}}
[[File: Filioque.JPG|thumb|The Holy Spirit coming from both the Father and the Son, detail of the Boulbon Altarpiece, {{c.|1450}}. Originally from the high altar of the Chapelle Saint-Marcellin, [[Boulbon]], France, now in the [[Louvre]], Paris.]]
{{Catholicism–Eastern Orthodoxy sidebar}}

'''{{lang|la|Filioque}}''' ({{IPAc-en|ˌ|f|ɪ|l|i|ˈ|oʊ|k|w|i|,_|-|k|w|eɪ}} {{respell|FIL|ee|OH|kwee|,_-|kway}}; {{IPA|la-x-church|filiˈokwe|lang|link=yes}}), a [[Latin]] term meaning "and from the Son", was added to the original [[Nicene Creed]], and has been the subject of great controversy between [[Eastern Christianity|Eastern]] and [[Western Christianity]]. The term refers to the Son, [[Jesus Christ]], with the Father, as the one shared origin of the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]]. It is not in the original text of the Creed, attributed to the [[First Council of Constantinople]] (381), which says that the [[Eternal procession of the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit proceeds]] "from the [[God the Father|Father]]" ({{langx|el|τὸ ἐκ του Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον}}) without the addition "and the [[God the Son|Son]]".{{sfn|RCA|2002|p=70}}

In the late 6th century, some [[Latin Church]]es added the words "and from the Son" ({{lang|la|Filioque}}) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what many [[Eastern Orthodox Christians]] have at a later stage argued is a violation of Canon VII<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html| title = Canon VII}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=February 2020}} of the [[Council of Ephesus]], since the words were not included in the text by either the [[First Council of Nicaea]] or that of Constantinople.<ref>For a different view, see e.g. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html Excursus on the Words πίστιν ἑτέραν]</ref>{{full citation needed|date=February 2020}} The inclusion was incorporated into the [[liturgical]] practice of Rome in 1014, but was rejected by Eastern Christianity.

Whether that term {{lang|la|Filioque}} is included, as well as how it is translated and understood, can have major implications for how one understands the doctrine of the [[Trinity]], which is central to the majority of Christian churches. For some, the term implies a serious underestimation of [[God the Father]]'s role in the Trinity; for others, its denial implies a serious underestimation of the role of [[God the Son]] in the Trinity.

The term has been an ongoing source of difference between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, formally divided since the [[East–West Schism]] of 1054.{{sfnm|Congar|1959|1p=44|Meyendorff|1987|2p=181|NAOCTC|2003}} There have been attempts at resolving the conflict. Among the earlier works that have been used in support of the compatibility of Filioque with Orthodox dogmatic teachings are the works of [[Maximus the Confessor]] in early 7th century, [[canonized]] independently by both Eastern and Western churches. Differences over this and other doctrines, and mainly the question of [[Primacy of the Bishop of Rome|the disputed papal primacy]], have been and remain the primary causes of the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western churches.{{sfn|Larchet|2006|p=188}}{{sfn|WCCFO|1979}}

==Nicene Creed==
The Nicene Creed as amended by the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381 includes the section:

{| class="wikitable"
|- Valign=top
! width=400 |Greek original
! width=400 |Latin translation
! width=400 |English translation
|-
| {{lang|grc|Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον, τὸ ζῳοποιόν}} || {{lang|la|Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem,}} || And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
|-
| {{lang|grc|τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,}} || {{lang|la|qui ex Patre procedit,}} || who proceeds from the Father,
|-
| {{lang|grc|τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,}} || {{lang|la|qui cum Patre, et Filio simul adoratur, et cum glorificatur,}} || who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
|-
|}

The controversy arises from the insertion of the word {{lang|la|Filioque}} ("and the Son") in the line:

{| class="wikitable"
|- Valign=top
! width=400 |Greek
! width=400 |Latin
! width=400 |English translation
|-
| {{lang|grc|τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς '''{{em|καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ}}''' ἐκπορευόμενον,}} || {{lang|la|qui ex Patre '''{{em|Filioque}}''' procedit,}} || who proceeds from the Father '''{{em|and the Son}}''',        
|-
|}

==Controversy==
The controversy referring to the term {{lang|la|Filioque}} involves four separate disagreements:
* Controversy about the term itself
* Controversy about the [[orthodoxy]] of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, to which the term refers
* Controversy about the legitimacy of inserting the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
* Controversy about the authority of the Pope to define the orthodoxy of the doctrine or to insert the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Although the disagreement about the doctrine preceded the disagreement about the insertion into the Creed, the two disagreements became linked to the third when the pope approved insertion of the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in the 11th century. Anthony Siecienski writes that "Ultimately what was at stake was not only God's trinitarian nature, but also the nature of the Church, its teaching authority and the distribution of power among its leaders."{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=4–5}}

[[Hubert Cunliffe-Jones]] identifies two opposing Eastern Orthodox opinions about the ''Filioque'', a "liberal" view and a "rigorist" view. The "liberal" view sees the controversy as being largely a matter of mutual miscommunication and misunderstanding. In this view, both East and West are at fault for failing to allow for a "plurality of theologies". Each side went astray in considering its theological framework as the only one that was doctrinally valid and applicable. Thus, neither side would accept that the dispute was not so much about conflicting dogmas as it was about different ''[[theologoumenon|theologoumena]]'' or theological perspectives. While all Christians must be in agreement on questions of [[dogma]], there is room for diversity in theological approaches.{{sfn|Cunliffe-Jones|2006|pp=208–209}}

This view is vehemently opposed by those in Eastern Orthodox Church whom Cunliffe-Jones identifies as holding a "rigorist" view. According to the standard Eastern Orthodox position, as pronounced by [[Photius]], [[Mark of Ephesus]] and 20th century Eastern Orthodox theologians such as [[Vladimir Lossky]], the ''Filioque'' question hinges on fundamental issues of dogma and cannot be dismissed as simply one of different ''theologoumena''. Many in the "rigorist" camp consider the ''Filioque'' to have resulted in the role of the Holy Spirit being underestimated by the Western Church and thus leading to serious doctrinal error.{{sfn|Cunliffe-Jones|2006|pp=208–209}}

In a similar vein, Siecienski comments that, although it was common in the 20th century to view the ''Filioque'' as just another weapon in the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople and although this was occasionally the case, for many involved in the dispute, the theological issues outweighed by far the ecclesiological concerns. According to Siecienski, the deeper question was perhaps whether Eastern and Western Christianity had wound up developing "differing and ultimately incompatible teachings about the nature of God". Moreover, Siecienski asserts that the question of whether the teachings of East and West were truly incompatible became almost secondary to the fact that, starting around the 8th or 9th century, Christians on both sides of the dispute began to believe that the differences ''were'' irreconcilable.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=4–6}}

From the view of the West, the Eastern rejection of the ''Filioque'' denied the [[consubstantiality]] of the Father and the Son and was thus a form of crypto-[[Arianism]]. In the East, the interpolation of the ''Filioque'' seemed to many to be an indication that the West was teaching a "substantially different faith". Siecienski asserts that, as much as power and authority were central issues in the debate, the strength of emotion rising even to the level of hatred can be ascribed to a belief that the other side had "destroyed the purity of the faith and refused to accept the clear teachings of the fathers on the Spirit's procession".{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=4–6}}

==History==
{{Main|History of the Filioque controversy}}

===New Testament===
It is argued that in the relations between the persons of the [[Trinity]], one person cannot "take" or "receive" ({{lang|grc|λήμψεται}}) anything from either of the others except by way of procession.{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Double Procession of the Holy Spirit"}} Biblical texts such as John 20:22<ref>{{bibleverse|John|20:22}} ("He breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit")</ref> were seen by Fathers of the Church, especially [[Athanasius of Alexandria]], [[Cyril of Alexandria]] and [[Epiphanius of Salamis]], as grounds for saying that the Spirit "proceeds substantially from both" the Father and the Son.<ref>Maximus the Confessor, ''Letter to Marinus'' (PG 91:136), cited in {{harvtxt|Meyendorff|1987|p=93}}</ref> Other texts that have been used include Galatians 4:6,<ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|4:6}}(And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”)</ref> Romans 8:9,<ref>{{bibleverse|Romans|8:9}}(But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.)</ref> Philippians 1:19,<ref>{{bibleverse|Philippians|1:19}}(for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance.)</ref> where the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of the Son", "the Spirit of Christ", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", texts in the [[Gospel of John]] on the sending of the Holy Spirit by Jesus,<ref>{{bibleverse|John|14:16}}; {{bibleverse|John|14:26}}; {{bibleverse|John|15:26}}</ref> and John 16:7.<ref>{{bibleverse|John|16:7}}(Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.)</ref>{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Double Procession of the Holy Spirit"}} Revelation 22:1<ref>{{bibleverse|Revelation|22:1}}(Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb)</ref> states that the river of the Water of Life in Heaven is "flowing from the throne of God and of the [[Lamb of God|Lamb]]", which may be interpreted as the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. Tension can be seen in comparing these two passages:
* John 14:26 NASB – [26] "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
* John 15:26 NASB – [26] "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"

Siecienski asserts that "the New Testament does not explicitly address the procession of the Holy Spirit as later theology would understand the doctrine", although there are "certain principles established in the New Testament that shaped later Trinitarian theology, and particular texts that both Latins and Greeks exploited to support their respective positions vis-à-vis the {{lang|la|Filioque}}".{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=17}} In contrast, [[Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen]] says that Eastern Orthodox believe that the absence of an explicit mention of the double procession of the Holy Spirit is a strong indication that the {{lang|la|Filioque}} is a theologically erroneous doctrine.{{sfn|Kärkkäinen|2010|p=276}}

===Church Fathers===

====Cappadocian Fathers====
{{See also|Cappadocian Fathers}}
[[Basil of Caesarea]] wrote: "Through the one Son [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father".<ref>Basil of Caesarea ''De Spiritu Sancto'' 18.45 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/De Spiritu Sancto/Chapter 18|NPNF2 8:28]]), in {{harvtxt|Anderson|1980|p=72}}</ref> He also said that the "natural goodness, inherent holiness, and royal dignity reaches from the Father through the only-begotten ({{lang|grc|διὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς}}) to the Spirit".<ref>Basil of Caesarea ''De Spiritu Sancto'' 18.47 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/De Spiritu Sancto/Chapter 18|NPNF2 8:29–30]]), in {{harvtxt|Anderson|1980|p=75}}</ref> However, Siecienski comments that "there are passages in Basil that are certainly capable of being read as advocating something like the {{lang|la|Filioque}}, but to do so would be to misunderstand the inherently soteriological thrust of his work".{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=40}}

[[Gregory of Nazianzus]] distinguished the coming forth ({{lang|grc|προϊεον}}) of the Spirit from the Father from that of the Son from the Father by saying that the latter is by generation, but that of the Spirit by procession ({{lang|grc|ἐκπρόρευσις}}),<ref>Gregory of Nazianzus ''Oratio 39'' 12 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VII/Orations of Gregory Nazianzen/Oration 39|NPNF2 7:356]]), in {{harvtxt|Daley|2006|p=133}}</ref> a matter on which there is no dispute between East and West, as shown also by the Latin Father [[Augustine of Hippo]], who wrote that although biblical exegetes had not adequately discussed the individuality of the Holy Spirit:

{{Blockquote|they predicate Him to be the Gift of God, {{interp|and they infer|orig=so that we may believe}} God not to give a gift inferior to Himself. {{interp|From that, they|orig=At the same time they hold by this position, namely, to}} predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; {{interp| |orig=for Christ is the only one [so begotten]:}} nor {{interp| |orig=as [begotten]}} of the Son, {{interp| and|orig=like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while}} they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, {{interp|except|orig=but [admit Him to owe it]}} to the Father, {{interp| |orig=of whom are all things;}} lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning {{interp| |orig=(ne duo constituamus principia isne principio),}} which would be an assertion at once {{interp| |orig=most}} false and {{interp| |orig=most}} absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of {{interp|[[Manichaeism]]|orig=certain heretics}}.{{refn|Augustine of Hippo, ''De fide et symbolo'' 9.19 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/A Treatise on Faith and the Creed/Chapter 9|NPNF1 3:329–330]]).}}{{refn|Augustine of Hippo, ''De Trinitate'' 15.26.47 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book XV/Chapter 26|NPNF1 3:225]]); {{harvnb|Elowsky|2009|p=225}}, "The Spirit of both is not ''begotten'' of both but ''proceeds'' from both"}}}}

[[Gregory of Nyssa]] stated:
{{blockquote|The one (i.e. the Son) is directly from the First and the other (i.e., the Spirit) is through the one who is directly from the First ({{lang|grc|τὸ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου}}) with the result that the Only-begotten remains the Son and does not negate the Spirit's being from the Father since the middle position of the Son both protects His distinction as Only-begotten and does not exclude the Spirit from His natural relation to the Father.{{refn|Gregory of Nyssa, ''Ad Ablabium'' (PG 45:133; [[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume V/Dogmatic Treatises/On 'Not Three Gods.'|NPNF2 5:331–336]]); {{harvnb|Siecienski|2010|p=43}}}}}}

==== Alexandrian Fathers ====

[[Cyril of Alexandria]] provides "a host of quotations that seemingly speak of the Spirit's 'procession' from both the Father and the Son". In these passages he uses the Greek verbs {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}} (like the Latin {{lang|la|procedere}}) and {{lang|grc|προχεῖσθαι}} (flow from), not the verb {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}}, the verb that appears in the Greek text of the Nicene Creed.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=48–49}}

{{Blockquote|text=Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it|author=Saint Cyril of Alexandria|source=Treasure of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, thesis 34}}

Epiphanius of Salamis is stated by Bulgakov to present in his writings "a whole series of expressions to the effect that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, out of the Father and the Son, from the Father and out of the Son, from Both, from one and the same essence as the Father and the Son, and so on". Bulgakov concludes: "The patristic teaching of the fourth century lacks that exclusivity which came to characterize Orthodox theology after Photius under the influence of repulsion from the Filioque doctrine. Although we do not here find the pure {{lang|la|Filioque}} that Catholic theologians find, we also do not find that opposition to the {{lang|la|Filioque}} that became something of an Orthodox or, rather, anti-Catholic dogma."{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|pp=81–82}}{{efn|name=Epiphanius|The longer form of the creed of Epiphanius (374) included the doctrine: {{lang|grc|ἄκτιστον, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἰοῦ λαμβανόμενον}} ("uncreated, who proceeds from the Father and is received from the Son").{{refn|Epiphanius of Salamis, ''Ancoratus'', cap. 120 ({{harvnb|DH|2012|loc=n. 44}}; [[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Second Ecumenical Council/The Holy Creed|NPNF2 14:164–165]]).}}}}

Regarding the Greek Fathers, whether Cappadocian or Alexandrian, there is, according to Siecienski, no citable basis for the claim historically made by both sides, that they explicitly either supported or denied the later theologies concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son. However, they did enunciate important principles later invoked in support of one theology or the other. These included the insistence on the unique hypostatic properties of each Divine Person, in particular the Father's property of being, within the Trinity, the one cause, while they also recognized that the Persons, though distinct, cannot be separated, and that not only the sending of the Spirit to creatures but also the Spirit's eternal flowing forth ({{lang|grc|προϊέναι}}) from the Father within the Trinity is "through the Son" ({{lang|grc|διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ}}).{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=33–34}}

==== Latin Fathers ====

Siecienski remarked that, "while the Greek fathers were still striving to find language capable of expressing the mysterious nature of the Son's relationship to the Spirit, Latin theologians, even during Cyril's lifetime, had already found their answer – the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ({{lang|la|ex Patre et Filio procedentem}}). The degree to which this teaching was compatible with, or contradictory to, the emerging Greek tradition remains, sixteen centuries later, subject to debate."{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=50}}

Before the creed of 381 became known in the West and even before it was adopted by the First Council of Constantinople, Christian writers in the West, of whom [[Tertullian]] ({{c.|160|220}}), [[Jerome]] (347–420), [[Ambrose]] ({{c.|338–397}}) and [[Augustine]] (354–430) are representatives, spoke of the Spirit as coming from the Father and the Son,{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Double Procession of the Holy Spirit"}} while the expression "from the Father through the Son" is also found among them.{{refn|name=TertullianAdversusPraxea4|Tertullian ''Adversus Praxeas'' 4 ([[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Praxeas/IV|ANF 3:599–600]]): "I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son"}}{{refn|Tertullian ''Adversus Praxeas'' 5 ([[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Praxeas/V|ANF 3:600–601]]).}}{{sfn|O'Collins|Farrugia|2015|p=157}}

In the early 3rd century [[Roman province of Africa]], Tertullian emphasises that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power,{{refn|Tertullian ''Adversus Praxeas'' 2 ([[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Praxeas/II|ANF 3:598]]).}} which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit.{{refn|Tertullian ''Adversus Praxeas'' 13 ([[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Praxeas/XIII|ANF 3:607–609]]).}} Using the metaphor the root, the shoot, and the fruit; the spring, the river, and the stream; and the sun, the ray, and point of light for the unity with distinction in the Trinity, he adds, "The Spirit, then, is third from God and the Son, ..."

In his arguments against [[Arianism]], [[Marius Victorinus]] ({{c.|280–365}}) strongly connected the Son and the Spirit.{{refn|Marius Victorinus ''Adversus Arium'' 1.13, 1.16; {{harvnb|Kelly|2014|p=358}}.}}

In the mid-4th century, [[Hilary of Poitiers]] wrote of the Spirit "coming forth from the Father" and being "sent by the Son";{{refn|Hilary of Poitiers, ''De Trinitate'' 12.55 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/Title Page/De Trinitate or On the Trinity/De Trinitate or On the Trinity/Book XII|NPNF2 9:233]]), quoted in {{harvtxt|NAOCTC|2003}}}} as being "from the Father through the Son";{{refn|Hilary of Poitiers, ''De Trinitate'' 12.56 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/Title Page/De Trinitate or On the Trinity/De Trinitate or On the Trinity/Book XII|NPNF2 9:233]]), quoted in {{harvtxt|NAOCTC|2003}}}} and as "having the Father and the Son as his source";{{refn|Hilary of Poitiers, ''De Trinitate'' 2.29 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/Title Page/De Trinitate or On the Trinity/De Trinitate or On the Trinity/Book II|NPNF2 9:60]]), quoted in {{harvtxt|NAOCTC|2003}}}} in another passage, Hilary points to John 16:15<ref>{{bibleverse|John|16:15}}</ref> (where Jesus says: "All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare it to you"), and wonders aloud whether "to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father".{{refn|Hilary of Poitiers, ''De Trinitate'' 8.20 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/Title Page/De Trinitate or On the Trinity/De Trinitate or On the Trinity/Book VIII|NPNF2 9:143]]), quoted in {{harvtxt|NAOCTC|2003}}}}

In the late 4th century, [[Ambrose of Milan]] asserted that the Spirit "proceeds from ({{lang|la|procedit a}}) the Father and the Son", without ever being separated from either.{{refn|Ambrose of Milan, ''De Spiritu Sancto'' 1.11.120 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/On the Holy Spirit/Book I/Chapter 12|NPNF2 10:109]]).}}
Ambrose adds, "[W]ith You, Almighty God, Your Son is the Fount of Life, that is, the Fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life ..."{{refn|Ambrose of Milan, ''De Spiritu Sancto'' 1.15.172 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/On the Holy Spirit/Book I/Chapter 16|NPNF2 10:113]]).}}

"None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit's mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God's eternal being."{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}}

[[Pope Gregory I]], in Gospel Homily 26, notes that the Son is "sent" by the Father both in the sense of an eternal generation and a temporal Incarnation. Thus, the Spirit is said to be "sent" by the Son from the Father both as to an eternal procession and a temporal mission. "The sending of the Spirit is that procession by which It proceeds from the Father and the Son."<ref>{{cite book|author=Gregory I|year=1990|title=Forty gospel homilies|series=Cistercian studies series|volume=123|others=Translated by David Hurst|location=Kalamazoo, MI|publisher=Cistercian Publications|isbn=978-0-87907623-8|page=202|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=acbYAAAAMAAJ}} (PL 76, 1201 ff)</ref> In his ''[[Moralia in Iob]]'', initially composed while he was {{lang|la|apocrisarius}} at the imperial court of Constantinople and later edited while Pope of Rome, Gregory wrote, "But the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, in all things has Him (the Holy Spirit) both always and continually present. For the same Spirit even in substance is brought forth from Him ({{lang|la|quia et ex illo isdem Spiritus per substantiam profertur}}.) And thus, though He (the Spirit) abides in the holy Preachers, He is justly said to abide in the Mediator in a special manner, for that in them He abides of grace for a particular object, but in Him He abides substantially for all ends."<ref>{{cite book|author=Gregory I|title=Morals on the Book of Job|url=http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book02.html}}PL 75:599A)</ref> Later in the ''Moralia'' (xxx.iv.17), St. Gregory writes of the procession of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son while defending their co-equality. Thus, he wrote, "[The Son] shews both how He springs from the Father not unequal to Himself, and how the Spirit of Both proceeds coeternal with Both. For we shall then openly behold, how That Which Is by an origin, is not subsequent to Him from Whom It springs; how He Who is produced by procession, is not preceded by Those from Whom He proceeded. We shall then behold openly how both The One [God] is divisibly Three [Persons] and the Three [Persons] indivisibly One [God]."<ref>{{cite book|author=Gregory I|title=Morals on the Book of Job|url=http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book30.html}}PL 75)</ref>

Later in his ''Dialogues'', Gregory I took the {{lang|la|Filioque}} doctrine for granted when he quoted John 16:7,<ref>{{Bibleverse|John|16:7|NRSV}}</ref> and asked: if "it is certain that the Paraclete Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son, why does the Son say that He is about to leave so that [the Spirit] who never leaves the Son might come?"{{refn|Gregory I, ''Dialogues'', [http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0062/_P13.HTM bk. 2 ch. 38]}} The text proposes an eternal procession from both Father and the Son by the use of the word "always" ({{lang|la|semper}}). Gregory I's use of {{lang|la|recessurum}} and {{lang|la|recedit}} is also significant for the divine procession because although the Spirit always proceeds ({{lang|la|semper procedat}}) from the Father and the Son, the Spirit never leaves ({{lang|la|numquam recedit}}) the Son by this eternal procession.{{refn|{{cite conference|last=Rigotti|first=Gianpaolo|year=2005|chapter=Gregorio il Dialogo nel Mondo Bizantino|editor-last=Gargano|editor-first=Innocenzo|title=L'eredità spirituale di Gregorio Magno tra Occidente e Oriente|conference=Simposio internazionale Gregorio Magno 604–2004, Roma 10–12 marzo 2004|language=it|location=Negarine, IT|publisher=Il segno|page=278|isbn=9788888163543}}}}{{discuss|section=Dialogues of Pope Gregory I may be pseudepigraphical|date=November 2015}}

====Modern Christian theologians====
[[Yves Congar]] commented, "The walls of separation do not reach as high as heaven."{{sfn|Congar|1983|p=89}}{{Explain|date=November 2015|reason=Looking at Google Books preview, Congar was comparing the different vocabularies in a § titled "A Note on Augustine's Theology of the Trinity and the Eastern Tradition", this sentence is completely without context.}} And [[Aidan Nichols]] remarked that "the {{lang|la|Filioque}} controversy is, in fact, a casualty of the theological pluralism of the patristic Church", on the one hand the Latin and Alexandrian tradition, on the other the Cappadocian and later Byzantine tradition.{{sfn|Nichols|2010|p=255}}

Among 20th-century Protestant theologians, [[Karl Barth]] was perhaps the staunchest defender of the ''Filioque'' doctrine. Barth was harshly critical of the ecumenical movement which advocated dropping the ''Filioque'' in order to facilitate reunification of the Christian churches. Barth's vigorous defence of the ''Filioque'' ran counter to the stance of many Protestant theologians of the latter half of the 20th century who favoured abandoning the use of the ''Filioque'' in the liturgy.{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}}{{sfn|Guretzki|2009|p=12}}

=== Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds ===
[[File:Council of Constantinople 381 BnF MS Gr510 fol355.jpg|thumb|First Council of Constantinople with halo-adorned Emperor [[Theodosius I]] (miniature in ''Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus'' (879–882), Bibliothèque nationale de France)]]
{{Main|Nicene Creed}}

The original Nicene Creed – composed in Greek and adopted by the [[first ecumenical council]], Nicaea I (325) – ended with the words "and in the Holy Spirit" without defining the procession of the Holy Spirit. The procession of the Holy Spirit was defined in what is also called the Nicene Creed, or more accurately the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]], which was also composed in Greek.

Traditionally, the  Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is attributed to the [[First Council of Constantinople]] of 381, whose participants, primarily Eastern bishops,{{sfn|Percival|1900|p=162}} met, decided issues (legates of [[Pope Damasus I]]{{sfn|Kelly|2009|p=5}} were present).<ref>{{cite web|last=Galavotti|first=Enrico|title=L'Idea di Pentarchia nella Christianità|language=it|website=homolaicus.com|url=http://www.homolaicus.com/storia/medioevo/pentarchia.htm|quote=I vescovi dell'occidente non parteciparono neppure all'incontro sinodale, per cui fino alla seconda metà del VI sec. non lo riconobbero come ecumenico.}}</ref>{{Self-published source|date=November 2015}}{{Better source needed|reason=Galavotti is self published and in Italian, one of the existing sources may have this factoid.|date=November 2015}}{{contradictory inline|reason=Pope Leo I received the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed at Chalcedon I in 451.|date=December 2015}}

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is not documented earlier than the Council of Chalcedon (451),{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2005|p=3}} which referred to it as "the creed [...] of the 150 saintly fathers assembled in Constantinople" in its acts.{{sfn|Tanner|1990|p=84}} It was cited at Chalcedon I on instructions from the representative of the Emperor who chaired the meeting and who may have wished to present it as "a precedent for drawing up new creeds and definitions to supplement the Creed of Nicaea, as a way of getting round the ban on new creeds in" Ephesus I canon 7.{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2005|p=3}} The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was recognized and received by Leo I at Chalcedon I.<ref name=CCC247/>{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} Scholars do not agree on the connection between Constantinople I and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which was not simply an expansion of the Creed of Nicaea, and was probably based on another traditional creed independent of the one from Nicaea.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Nicene Creed |encyclopedia = Encyclopædia Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413955/Nicene-Creed |access-date=9 November 2012}}</ref>

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is roughly equivalent to the [[Nicene Creed#Original Nicene Creed of 325|Nicene Creed]] plus two additional articles: one on the Holy Spirit and another about the Church, baptism, and resurrection of the dead. For the full text of both creeds, see [[Comparison of Nicene Creeds of 325 and 381|Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381]].

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed article professes:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto;"
|-
|{{gray|{{lang|grc|Καὶ εἰς}}}}||{{gray|{{lang|la|Et in}}}}||{{gray|And in}}
|-
|{{gray|{{lang|grc|τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον}},}}||{{gray|{{lang|la|Spiritum Sanctum}},}}||{{gray|the Holy Spirit,}}
|-
|{{gray|{{lang|grc|τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν}},}}||{{gray|{{lang|la|Dominum et vivificantem}},}}||{{gray|the Lord, the giver of life,}}
|-
|{{gray|{{lang|grc|τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον}},}}||{{gray|{{lang|la|qui ex Patre procedit}},}}||{{gray|who proceeds from the Father.}}
|-
|{{gray|{{lang|grc|τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ}}}}||{{gray|{{lang|la|Qui cum Patre et Filio}}}}||{{gray|With the Father and the Son}}
|-
|{{gray|{{lang|grc| συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον}},}}||{{gray|{{lang|la|simul adoratur et conglorificatur}};}}||{{gray|he is worshipped and glorified.}}
|-
|{{gray|{{lang|grc|τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν}}.}}||{{gray|{{lang|la|qui locutus est per prophetas}}.}}||{{gray|He has spoken through the Prophets.}}
|}

It speaks of the Holy Spirit "proceeding from the Father" – a phrase based on John 15:26.<ref>{{bibleverse|John|15:26}}</ref>

The Greek word {{lang|grc|{{linktext|ἐκπορευόμενον}}}} ({{transliteration|grc|ekporeuomenon}}) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb {{lang|la|{{linktext|procedere}}}} (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.{{sfn|Thiselton|2013|p=400}} Frederick Bauerschmidt notes that what Medieval theologians disregarded as minor objections about ambiguous terms, was in fact an "insufficient understanding of the semantic difference" between the Greek and Latin terms in both the East and the West.{{sfn|Bauerschmidt|2005|p=98}}{{efn|{{harvtxt|Congar|1959|pp=30–31}} points out that provincialism – about theological terms which shape ideas in source languages but do not map to exact terms in target languages, including: {{transliteration|grc|prosōpon}}, {{lang|la|hypostasis}}, and {{lang|la|substantia}} – contributes to "estrangement on the level of thought and mutual understanding."}} The West used the more generic Latin term {{lang|la|procedere}} (to move forward; to come forth) which is more synonymous with the Greek term {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}} ({{transliteration|grc|proienai}}) than the more specific Greek term {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}} ({{transliteration|grc|ekporeuesthai}}, "to issue forth as from an origin").{{sfn|Bauerschmidt|2005|p=98}} The West traditionally used one term and the East traditionally used two terms to convey arguably equivalent and complementary meaning, that is, {{transliteration|grc|ekporeuesthai}} from the Father and  {{transliteration|grc|proienai}} from the Son.{{sfn|Bauerschmidt|2005|p=98}}{{sfn|Thiselton|2013|p=400}} Moreover, the more generic Latin term, {{lang|la|procedere}}, does not have "the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms."{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}} It is used as the Latin equivalent, in the [[Vulgate]], of not only {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}}, but also {{lang|grc|ἔρχεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προσέρχεσθαι}}, and {{lang|grc|προβαίνω}} (four times) and is used of Jesus' originating from God in John 8:42,<ref>{{bibleverse|John|8:42|ESV}}</ref> although at that time Greek {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}} was already beginning to designate the Holy Spirit's manner of originating from the Father as opposed to that of the Son ({{lang|grc|γέννησις}} — being born).{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=59}}

=== Third Ecumenical Council ===
{{Further|Council of Ephesus}}
The third Ecumenical council, Ephesus I (431), quoted the creed in its 325 form, not in that of 381,{{sfn|Percival|1900|p=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html 231b]}} decreed in Ephesus I canon 7 that:{{blockquote|{{interp| |orig=When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that}} it is unlawful {{interp| |orig=for any man}} to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different {{interp| |orig=({{lang|grc|ἑτέραν}}).}} Faith as a rival to that established by the {{interp| |orig=holy}} Fathers assembled {{interp| |orig=with the Holy Ghost}} in Nicæa. {{interp| |orig=But}} those who {{interp| |orig=shall dare to}} compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; {{interp| |orig=bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy;}} and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized. {{interp| |orig=And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.}}{{sfn|Percival|1900|p=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html 231b]}}{{efn|Ephesus I canon 7 was translated into English in the late 19th century in {{harvtxt|Percival|1900|pp=231–234}} and translated in the late 20th century in {{harvtxt|Tanner|1990|pp=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P12.HTM 65–66]}}}}}}

Ephesus I canon 7 was cited at the [[Second Council of Ephesus]] (449) and at the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (451), and was echoed in the Chalcedon definition.{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2005|pp=8, 111}} This account in the 2005 publication concerning the citing by Eutyches of Ephesus I canon 7 in his defence was confirmed by Stephen H. Webb in his 2011 book ''Jesus Christ, Eternal God''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Webb|first=Stephen H.|year=2011|title=Jesus Christ, eternal God : heavenly flesh and the metaphysics of matter|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19982795-4|page=314|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C6gdEqy6ICwC&pg=PA314}}</ref>{{Relevance inline|sentence|date=November 2015}}

Ephesus I canon 7, against additions to the Creed of Nicaea, is used as a polemic against the addition of {{lang|la|Filioque}} to the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]],{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(b)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/bible-history/church-history/fifth-century Fifth Century]"}}<ref>{{cite web|last=Bonocore|first=Mark|date=12 December 2006|title=Filioque: a response to Eastern Orthodox objections|website=catholic-legate.com|location=Ottawa, CA|publisher=Catholic Legate|url=http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070707163502/http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html|archive-date=7 July 2007|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Self-published source|date=November 2015}} In any case, while Ephesus I canon 7 forbade setting up a different creed as a rival to that of Nicaea I, it was the creed attributed to Constantinople I that was adopted liturgically in the East and later a Latin variant was adopted in the West. The form of this creed that the West adopted had two additions: "God from God" ({{lang|la|Deum de Deo}}) and "and the Son" ({{lang|la|Filioque}}).{{sfn|Nichols|2010|p=254}} Strictly speaking, Ephesus I canon 7 applies "only to the formula to be used in the reception of converts."{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2005|p=323}}

[[Philippe Labbe]] remarked that Ephesus I canons 7 and 8 are omitted in some collections of canons and that the collection of [[Dionysius Exiguus]] omitted all the Ephesus I canons, apparently considered that they did not concern the Church as a whole.{{sfn|Percival|1900|p=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.ix.html 231a]}}

=== Fourth Ecumenical Council ===
{{Further|Council of Chalcedon}}
At the fourth ecumenical council, Chalcedon I (451), both the Nicene Creed of 325 and the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]], were read, the former at the request of a bishop, the latter, against the protests of the bishops, on the initiative of the emperor's representative, "doubtless motivated by the need to find a precedent for drawing up new creeds and definitions to supplement the Creed of Nicaea, as a way of getting round the ban on new creeds in" Ephesus I canon 7.{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2005|p=3}} The acts of Chalcedon I defined that:{{blockquote|{{interp| |orig=These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that}} no one shall {{interp| |orig=be suffered to}} bring forward a different faith {{interp| |orig=({{lang|grc|ἑτέραν πίστιν}})}}, nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. {{interp|Those who|orig=But such as dare}} either {{interp| |orig=to}} put together another faith, or {{interp| |orig=to}} bring forward or {{interp| |orig=to}} teach or {{interp| |orig=to}} deliver a different Creed {{interp| |orig=({{lang|grc|ἕτερον σύμβολον}}).}} to {{interp|those who|orig=as}} wish to be converted {{interp| |orig=to the knowledge of the truth,}} from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, {{interp| |orig=the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy;}} but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized. {{interp| |orig=After the reading of the definition, all the most religious Bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers: let the metropolitans forthwith subscribe it: let them forthwith, in the presence of the judges, subscribe it: let that which has been well defined have no delay: this is the faith of the Apostles: by this we all stand: thus we all believe.}}{{sfn|Percival|1900|p=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiii.html 265]}}}}

===Possible earliest use in the Creed===
Some scholars claim that the earliest example of the {{lang|la|Filioque}} clause in the East is contained in the West Syriac recension of the profession of faith of the [[Church of the East]] formulated at the [[Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon]] in Persia in 410.{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2005|p=193|ps=:"We acknowledge the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who [is]<!-- bracketed interpolation as in Price & Gaddis --> from the Father and the Son."}}{{efn|Indications of "filioque language can also be found in certain early Syriac sources," according to {{harvtxt|Plested|2011}}.}} This council was held some twenty years before the [[Nestorian Schism]] that caused the later split between the [[Church of the East]] and the Church in the Roman Empire.<ref>{{cite book |last=O'Leary |first=De Lacy |author-link=De Lacy O'Leary |title=The Syriac Church and Fathers |publisher=Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London 1909, reproduced by Gorgias Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-1-931956-05-5 |chapter=The Nestorian Schism}}</ref> Since wording of that recension ("who is from the Father and the Son") does not contain any mention of the term "procession" or any of the other particular terms that would describe relations between Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, the previously mentioned claim for the "earliest use" of {{lang|la|Filioque}} clause is not universally accepted by scholars{{Who|date=March 2019}}. Furthermore, another recension that is preserved in the East Syriac sources of the Church of the East contains only the phrase "and in the Holy Spirit".{{sfn|Brock|1985|p=133|ps=, quoted in {{harvtxt|Panicker|2002|pp=58–59}}}}

Various professions of faith confessed the doctrine during the patristic age. The {{lang|la|Fides Damasi}} (380 or 5th century), a profession of faith attributed to Pseudo-Damasus or [[Jerome]], includes a formula of the doctrine.{{sfnm|DH|2012|1loc=n. 71|Kelly|2014|2p=360}}<ref>{{Cite CCC|2.1|193|quote=None of the creeds from the different stages in the Church's life can be considered superseded or irrelevant.}}</ref> The {{lang|la|Symbolum Toletanum I}} (400), a profession of faith legislated by the [[First Council of Toledo|Toledo I synod]], includes a formula of the doctrine.{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 188}} The [[Athanasian Creed]] (5th century), a profession of faith attributed to Pseudo-Athanasius, includes a formula of the doctrine.{{sfnm|PCPCU|1995|DH|2012|2loc=n. 75}}

The generally accepted first found insertion of the term {{lang|la|Filioque}} into the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]], in Western Christianity, is in acts of the [[Third Council of Toledo]] (Toledo III) (589),{{sfnm|DH|2012|1p=160|Louth|2007|2p=142|Kelly|2014|3pp=360–362}} nearly two centuries later, but it may be a later interpolation.{{sfnm|DH|2012|1p=160|Kelly|2014|2p=362}}{{efn|An additional profession of faith in the acts of Toledo III, The Profession of Faith of King Reccaredus, included the doctrine but not the term: "{{lang|la|Spiritus aeque Sanctus confitendus a nobis et praedicandus est a Patre et Filio procedere et cum Patre et Filio unius esse substantiae}}."{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 470}}}}

===Procession of the Holy Spirit===
As early as the 4th century, a distinction was made, in connection with the Trinity, between the two Greek verbs {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}} (the verb used in the original Greek text of the 381 Nicene Creed) and {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}}. [[Gregory of Nazianzus]] wrote: "The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth ({{lang|grc|προϊέναι}}) from the Father indeed, but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but by Procession ({{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}})".{{refn|Gregory of Nazianzus ''Oratio 39'' 12 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VII/Orations of Gregory Nazianzen/Oration 39|NPNF2 7:356]]).}}

That the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son in the sense of the [[Latin]] word {{lang|la|procedere}} and the [[Greek language|Greek]] {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}} (as opposed to the Greek {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}}) was taught by the early 5th century by [[Cyril of Alexandria]] in the East.{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Double Procession of the Holy Spirit"}}{{refn|Cyril of Alexandria, ''Thesaurus'', (PG 75:585).}} The [[Athanasian Creed]], probably composed as early as the mid 5th-century,<ref>{{cite web|last=Krueger|first=Robert H.|year=1976|title=The origin and terminology of the Athanasian Creed|website=wlsessays.net|publisher=Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Digital Library|url=http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2744|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151109062820/http://www.wlsessays.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/2744/KruegerOrigin.pdf|archive-date=9 November 2015|url-status=dead|id=Presented at Western Pastoral Conference of the Dakota-Montana District, Zeeland, ND, 5–6 October 1976}}</ref> and a dogmatic epistle of [[Pope Leo I]],{{refn|name=LeoI447|Pope Leo I ''Quam laudabiliter'' c. 1 (PL 54:680–681); {{harvnb|DH|2012|loc=n. 284}}}}<ref name="CCC247">{{Cite CCC|2.1|247}}</ref>{{efn|"The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding". In the original Latin: "{{lang|la|Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non-factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens}}".}} who declared in 446 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.<ref name="CCC247"/>

Although the Eastern Fathers were aware that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was taught in the West, they did not generally regard it as heretical.{{sfn|Dulles|1995|pp=32, 40}} According to [[Sergei Bulgakov]] "a whole series of Western writers, including popes who are venerated as saints by the Eastern church, confess the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son; and it is even more striking that there is virtually no disagreement with this theory."{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=90}} In 447, Leo I taught it in a letter to a Spanish bishop and an anti-[[Priscillianism|Priscillianist]] council held the same year proclaimed it.{{refn|name=LeoI447}} The argument was taken a crucial step further in 867 by the affirmation in the East that the Holy Spirit proceeds not merely "from the Father" but "from the Father {{em|alone}}".{{sfn|Guretzki|2009|p=8}}{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=95}}

The {{lang|la|Filioque}} was inserted into the Creed as an anti-Arian addition,{{sfn|Marthaler|2001|pp=248–249}}{{sfn|Irvin|Sunquist|2001|p=340}}{{sfn|Dix|2005|pp=485–488}} by the [[Third Council of Toledo]] (589), at which King [[Reccared I]] and some [[Arians]] in his [[Visigothic Kingdom]] converted to orthodox, Catholic Christianity.{{sfn|Hinson|1995|p=220}}{{sfn|Louth|2007|p=142}}{{efn|While Reccared I converted to Catholicism, his successor [[Liuva II]] reverted to Arianism.{{sfn|Hinson|1995|p=220}}}} The Toledo XI synod (675) included the doctrine but not the term in its profession of faith.{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 527}}

Other Toledo synods "to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality" between 589 and 693.{{sfnm|PCPCU|1995|DH|2012|2loc=nn. 470, 485, 490, 527, 568}}

The {{lang|la|Filioque}} clause was confirmed by subsequent synods in Toledo and soon spread throughout the West, not only in Spain, but also in [[Francia]], after [[Clovis I]], king of the [[Salian Franks]], converted to Christianity in 496; and in England, where the [[Council of Hatfield]] (680), presided over by Archbishop of Canterbury [[Theodore of Tarsus]], a Greek,{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=88}} imposed the doctrine as a response to [[Monothelitism]].{{sfn|Plested|2011}}

However, while the doctrine was taught in Rome, the term was not professed liturgically in the Creed until 1014.{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}}

In the [[Vulgate]] the Latin verb {{lang|la|procedere}}, which appears in the {{lang|la|Filioque}} passage of the Creed in Latin, is used to translate several Greek verbs. While one of those verbs, {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}}, the one in the corresponding phrase in the Creed in Greek, "was beginning to take on a particular meaning in Greek theology designating the Spirit's unique mode of coming-to-be [...] {{lang|la|procedere}} had no such connotations".{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=59}}

Although [[Hilary of Poitiers]] is often cited as one of "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the {{lang|la|filioque}}", Siecienski says that "there is also reason for questioning Hilary's support for the {{lang|la|Filioque}} as later theology would understand it, especially given the ambiguous nature of (Hilary's) language as it concerns the procession."{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=53}}

However, a number of [[Latins (Middle Ages)|Latin]] [[Church Fathers]] of the 4th and 5th centuries explicitly speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father and the Son", the phrase in the present Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Examples are what is called the creed of Pope Damasus I,{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=57}} [[Ambrose of Milan]] ("one of the earliest witnesses to the explicit affirmation of the Spirit's procession from the Father {{em|and}} the Son"),{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=57}} Augustine of Hippo (whose writings on the Trinity "became the foundation of subsequent Latin trinitarian theology and later served as the foundation for the doctrine of the {{lang|la|filioque}}").{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=59}} and Leo I, who qualified as "impious" those who say "there is not one who begat, another who is begotten, another who proceeded from both [{{lang|la|alius qui de utroque processerit}}]"; he also accepted the [[Council of Chalcedon]], with its reaffirmation of the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]], in its original "from the Father" form,{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=63–64}} as much later did his successor [[Pope Leo III]] who professed his faith in the teaching expressed by the {{lang|la|Filioque}}, while opposing its inclusion in the Creed.{{sfn|Plested|2011}}

Thereafter, [[Eucherius of Lyon]], [[Gennadius of Massilia]], [[Boethius]], [[Agnellus, Bishop of Ravenna]], [[Cassiodorus]], [[Gregory of Tours]] are witnesses that the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son was well established as part of the (Western) Church's faith, before Latin theologians began to concern themselves about {{em|how}} the Spirit proceeds from the Son.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=64–66}}

[[Pope Gregory I]] is usually counted as teaching the Spirit's procession from the Son, although Byzantine theologians, quoting from Greek translations of his work rather than the original, present him as a witness against it, and although he sometimes speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father without mentioning the Son. Siecienski says that, in view of the widespread acceptance by then that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it would be strange if Gregory did not advocate the teaching, "even if he did not understand the {{lang|la|filioque}} as later Latin theology would – that is, in terms of a 'double procession'."{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=70–71}}

==="From the Father through the Son"===
Church Fathers also use the phrase "from the Father through the Son".{{refn|name=TertullianAdversusPraxea4}}{{refn|John of Damascus, ''Expositio Fidei'' 1.12 ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/John of Damascus/An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith/Book I/Chapter 12|NFPF2 9:15]])}} Cyril of Alexandria, who undeniably several times states that the Holy Spirit issues from the Father {{em|and}} the Son, also speaks of the Holy Spirit coming from the Father {{em|through}} the Son, two different expressions that for him are complementary: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father does not exclude the Son's mediation and the Son receives from the Father a participation in the Holy Spirit's coming.{{sfn|Boulnois|2003|pp=106–108}}{{efn|{{harvtxt|Boulnois|2003|pp=106–107}} notes that some ascribe an opinion about the {{lang|la|Filioque}} to Cyril of Alexandria by "quotations grouped in anthologies" without analysis or context. The reason Cyril asserted a dependence was "the continuity between economy and theology" in his analysis of the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit. Cyril's reasons "correspond to different mechanisms" within the Trinity "which break up the simplistic opposition between the Latin schema of the triangle and the Greek model of the straight line." Boulnois thinks it is "impossible to classify Cyril unilaterally by applying {{interp| |orig=to him}} a later conflict which, {{interp| |orig=besides,}} is largely alien to him."}} Cyril, in his ninth anathema against Nestorius, had stated that the Spirit was Christ's own Spirit, which led [[Theodoret of Cyrus]] to question whether Cyril was advocating the idea that "the Spirit has his subsistence from the Son or through the Son". For Theodoret this idea was both "blasphemous and impious [...] for we believe the Lord who has said: 'the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father...{{'"}}. Cyril denied that he held this teaching, leading Theodoret to confirm the orthodoxy of Cyril's trinitarian theology, since the Church had always taught that "the Holy Spirit does not receive existence from or through the Son, but proceeds from the Father and is called the proprium of the Son because of his consubstantiality.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=49}} The phrase "from the Son or through the Son" continued to be used by Cyril, albeit in light of the clarification.{{sfn|Congar|1983|p=35|ps=, quoted in {{harvtxt|Farrelly|2005|p=119}}}} The Roman Catholic Church accepts both phrases, and considers that they do not affect the reality of the same faith and instead express the same truth in slightly different ways.<ref name=CCC248>{{Cite CCC|2.1|248}}</ref>{{sfn|Davies|1993|pp=205–206}} The influence of Augustine of Hippo made the phrase "proceeds from the Father through the Son" popular throughout the West,{{sfn|Davies|1987|p=}}{{Page needed|date=November 2015}} but, while used also in the East, "through the Son" was later, according to Philip Schaff, dropped or rejected by some as being nearly equivalent to "from the Son" or "and the Son".{{sfn|Schaff|1885|loc=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.iii.html §108 II]:|ps= "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the {{lang|la|per Filium}}, as being nearly equivalent to {{lang|la|ex Filio}} or {{lang|la|Filioque}}, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father"}} Others spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding "from the Father", as in the text of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which "did not state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father {{em|alone}}".{{sfn|O'Collins|Farrugia|2015|p=158}}

===First Eastern opposition===
[[File:Maximus the Confessor.jpg|thumb|287x287px|[[Maximus the Confessor]]]]
The first recorded objection by a representative of Eastern Christianity against the Western belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son occurred when [[Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople]] ({{Reign|642|653|lk=abbr}}) made accusations against either [[Pope Theodore I]] ({{Reign|642|649|lk=abbr}}) or [[Pope Martin I]] ({{Reign|649|653|lk=abbr}}) for using the expression.{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|pp=91–92}} Theodore I excommunicated Paul II in 647 for [[Monothelitism]].{{sfn|Norwich|1997|p=99}} In response to the attack by Paul, Maximus the Confessor, a Greek opponent of Monothelitism, declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of "and the Son" because the Romans "have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of [[Cyril of Alexandria]] [...] On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession – but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence." He also indicated that the differences between the Latin and Greek languages were an obstacle to mutual understanding, since "they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do".{{refn|Maximus the Confessor, ''[http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/185-maximus-to-marinus Letter to Marinus]'', (PG 91:136).}}

===Claims of authenticity===
At the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th century, the Church of Rome was faced with an unusual challenge regarding the use of Filioque clause. Among the Church leaders in Frankish Kingdom of that time a notion was developing that Filioque clause was in fact an authentic part of the original Creed.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=92}} Trying to deal with that problem and its potentially dangerous consequences, the Church of Rome found itself in the middle of a widening rift between its own Daughter-Church in Frankish Kingdom and Sister-Churches of the East. Popes of that time, [[Pope Hadrian I|Hadrian I]] and [[Pope Leo III|Leo III]], had to face various challenges while trying to find solutions that would preserve the unity of the Church.{{sfn|Meyendorff|1996|p=38}}

First signs of the problems were starting to show by the end of the reign of Frankish king [[Pepin the Short]] (751–768). Use of the {{lang|la|Filioque}} clause in the Frankish Kingdom led to controversy with envoys of the Byzantine Emperor [[Constantine V]] at the Synod of Gentilly (767).{{sfn|Maas|1909}}{{sfn|Hinson|1995|p=315}}{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=90}} As the practice of chanting the interpolated Latin {{lang|la|Credo}} at [[Mass (liturgy)|Mass]] spread in the West, the {{lang|la|Filioque}} became a part of [[Latin liturgical rites|Latin liturgy]] throughout the Frankish Kingdom. The practice of chanting the Creed was adopted in Charlemagne's court by the end of the 8th century and spread through all of his realms, including some northern parts of Italy, but not to Rome, where its use was not accepted until 1014.{{sfn|Dix|2005|pp=485–488}}{{sfn|Louth|2007|p=142}}

Serious problems erupted in 787 after the [[Second Council of Nicaea]] when Charlemagne accused the Patriarch [[Tarasios of Constantinople]] of infidelity to the faith of the First Council of Nicaea, allegedly because he had not professed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son", but only "through the Son". [[Pope Adrian I]] rejected those accusations and tried to explain to the Frankish king that pneumatology of Tarasios was in accordance with the teachings of the holy Fathers.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=91}}{{sfn|Nichols|2010|p=237}}{{efn|Charlemagne's legates claimed that Tarasius, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father {{em|through the Son}} (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne's protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759–810).}} Surprisingly, efforts of the pope had no effect.

The true scale of the problem became evident during the following years. The Frankish view of the {{lang|la|Filioque}} was emphasized again in the {{lang|la|[[Libri Carolini]]}}, composed around 791–793.{{efn|Following this exchange of letters with the pope, Charlemagne commissioned the {{lang|la|Libri Carolini}} (791–793) to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council.{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}}}} Openly arguing that the word {{lang|la|Filioque}} was part of the Creed of 381, the authors of {{lang|la|Libri Carolini}} demonstrated not only the surprising lack of basic knowledge but also the lack of will to receive right advice and counsel from the Mother-Church in Rome. Frankish theologians reaffirmed the notion that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father {{em|through the Son}}.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=91–93}}{{sfn|Nichols|2010|p=237}} That claim was both erroneous and dangerous for the preservation of the unity of the Church.

In those days, another theological problem appeared to be closely connected with the use of {{lang|la|Filioque}} in the West. In the late 8th century, a controversy arose between Bishop [[Elipandus of Toledo]] and [[Beatus of Liébana]] over the former's teaching (which has been called [[Spanish Adoptionism]]) that Christ in his humanity was the adoptive son of God. Elipandus was supported by Bishop [[Felix of Urgel]]. In 785, Pope Hadrian I condemned the teaching of Elipandus. In 791, Felix appealed to Charlemagne in defense of the Spanish Adoptionist teaching, sending him a tract outlining it. He was condemned at the Synod of Regensburg (792) and was sent to Pope Hadrian in Rome, where he made of profession of orthodox faith, but returned to Spain and there reaffirmed Adoptionism. Elipandus wrote to the bishops of the territories controlled by Charlemagne in defence of his teaching, which was condemned at the [[Council of Frankfurt]] (794) and at the Synod of [[Friuli]] (796). The controversy encouraged those who rejected Adoptionism to introduce into the liturgy the use of the Creed, with the {{lang|la|Filioque}}, to profess belief that Christ was the Son from eternity, not adopted as a son at his baptism.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=93–94}}{{sfn|Dales|2013|pp=61–67}}

At the Synod of Friuli, [[Paulinus II of Aquileia]] stated that the insertion of {{lang|la|Filioque}} in the 381 Creed of the [[First Council of Constantinople]] was no more a violation of the prohibition of new creeds than were the insertions into the 325 Creed of the [[First Council of Nicaea]] that were done by the First Council of Constantinople itself. What was forbidden, he said, was adding or removing something "craftily [...] contrary to the sacred intentions of the fathers", not a council's addition that could be shown to be in line with the intentions of the Fathers and the faith of the ancient Church. Actions such as that of the First Council of Contantinople were sometimes called for in order to clarify the faith and do away with heresies that appear.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=93}}{{sfn|Nichols|2010|p=238}}{{sfn|Kelly|2014|p=364}} The views of Paulinus show that some advocates of Filioque clause were quite aware of the fact that it actually was not part of the Creed.{{sfn|Nichols|2010|p=238}}

Political events that followed additionally complicated the issue. According to [[John Meyendorff]],{{sfn|Meyendorff|1996|pp=41–43, 195–197}} and [[John Romanides]]<ref name="Romanides1">{{cite web|last=Romanides|first=John S.|title=Franks, Romans, feudalism, and doctrine|website=romanity.org|url=http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm}}</ref> the Frankish efforts to get new [[Pope Leo III]] to approve the addition of {{lang|la|Filioque}} to the Creed were due to a desire of [[Charlemagne]], who in 800 had been crowned in Rome as Emperor, to find grounds for accusations of heresy against the East. The Pope's refusal to approve the interpolation of the {{lang|la|Filioque}} into the Creed avoided arousing a conflict between East and West about this matter. During his reign ({{Reign|795|816|lk=abbr}}), and for another two centuries, there was no Creed at all in the [[Roman rite]] Mass.

Reasons for the continuing refusal of the Frankish Church to adopt the positions of the Church of Rome on necessity of leaving Filioque outside of Creed remained unknown. In 808 or 809 apparent controversy arose in Jerusalem between the Greek monks of one monastery and the Frankish Benedictine monks of another: the Greeks reproached the latter for, among other things, singing the creed with the {{lang|la|Filioque}} included.{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}}{{sfn|Schmaus|1975}}{{sfn|Harnack|1898|loc=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma5.ii.ii.i.vi.iv.html ch. 6 §2]}} In response, the theology of the {{lang|la|Filioque}} was expressed in the 809 local [[Council of Aachen (809)]].{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}}{{sfn|Harnack|1898|loc=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma5.ii.ii.i.vi.iv.html ch. 6 §2]}}{{sfn|Bray|1983|p=121}}

Faced with another endorsement of the Filioque, Pope Leo III denied his approval and publicly posted the Creed in Rome without the Filioque, written in Greek and Latin on two silver plaques, in defense of the Orthodox Faith (810) stating his opposition to the addition of the {{lang|la|Filioque}} into the Creed.{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Filioque"}}{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=91–93}}{{sfn|Nichols|2010|pp=238–239}} Although Leo III did not disapprove the {{lang|la|Filioque}} doctrine, the Pope strongly believed the clause should not be included into the Creed.{{sfn|Maas|1909}}{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}}{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Filioque"}}{{efn|"Leo III defended the Filioque outside the Creed.}} In spite of the efforts of the Church of Rome, the acceptance of the Filioque clause in the Creed of the Frankish Church proved to be irreversible.

===Photian controversy===
Around 860 the controversy over the {{lang|la|Filioque}} broke out in the course of the disputes between Patriarch [[Photios I of Constantinople|Photius of Constantinople]] and Patriarch [[Ignatius of Constantinople]]. [[Pope Nicholas I]] contended that Patriarch Ignatios of Constantinople was deposed in 858 and Photius I raised to the patriarchal see in violation of ecclesiastical law and at a Roman synod held in April 863, he excommunicated Photius.<ref name=O'Malley>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sWHwrmZowu8C&dq=Cadaver+Synod&pg=PA80|title=A History of the Popes: From Peter to the Present|first=John W. O'Malley|last=SJ|date=16 November 2009|publisher=Government Institutes|isbn=978-1-58051-229-9 |via=Google Books}}</ref> In 867 Photius was Patriarch of Constantinople and issued an ''Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs'', and called a council in Constantinople in which he charged the Western Church with [[heresy]] and schism because of differences in practices, in particular for the {{lang|la|Filioque}} and the authority of the Papacy.{{sfn|Schaff|1885|loc=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.v.iv.html §70]}} The situation had escalated from issues of jurisdiction and custom to include matters of dogma. This council declared Pope Nicholas anathema, excommunicated and deposed.{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Photius"}}

Photius excluded not only "and the Son" but also "through the Son" with regard to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit: for him "through the Son" applied only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the sending in time).{{sfn|Chadwick|2003|p=154|ps=: "Photius could concede that the Spirit proceeds through the Son in his temporal mission in the created order but not in his actual eternal being"}}{{sfn|Schaff|1885|loc=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.iii.html §108 II]|ps=: "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the ''per Filium'', as being nearly equivalent to ''ex Filio'' or ''Filioque'', or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father"}}{{sfn|Meyendorff|1986|loc=[http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Meyendorff_12.html §2]|ps=: "[[Nikephoros Blemmydes|Blemmydes]] {{interp|...&nbsp;was}} committed to {{interp|...}} church unity and defended the idea that the image of the Spirit's procession 'through the Son', can serve as a bridge between the two theologies. {{interp|...&nbsp;He}} collected patristic texts using the formula 'through the Son' and attacked those Greeks who out of anti-Latin zeal, were refusing to give it enough importance. In general, and already since Photius, the Greek position consisted in distinguishing the ''eternal'' procession of the Son from the Father, and the ''sending'' of the Spirit ''in time'' through the Son and by the Son. This distinction between the eternal processions and temporal manifestations was among the Byzantines the standard explanation for the numerous New Testament passages, where Christ is described as 'giving' and 'sending' the Spirit, and where the Spirit is spoken of as the 'Spirit of the Son'. In his letters {{interp|...}} Blemmydes {{interp|...}} avoided the distinction between eternity and time: the patristic formula 'through the Son' reflected both the eternal relationships of the divine Persons and the level of the 'economy' in time."}} He maintained that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is "from the Father {{em|alone}}".{{refn|Photius, ''Epistula 2'' (PG 102:721–741).}}{{Verify quote|date=December 2015}} This phrase was verbally a novelty,{{sfn|Papadakis|1997|p=113}}{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=168}} however, Eastern Orthodox theologians generally hold that in substance the phrase is only a reaffirmation of traditional teaching.{{sfn|Papadakis|1997|p=113}}{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=168}} [[Sergei Bulgakov]], on the other hand, declared that Photius's doctrine itself "represents a sort of novelty for the Eastern church".{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=144}} Bulgakov writes: "The Cappadocians expressed only one idea: the monarchy of the Father and, consequently, the procession of the Holy Spirit precisely from the Father. They never imparted to this idea, however, the exclusiveness that it acquired in the epoch of the Filioque disputes after Photius, in the sense of {{transliteration|grc|ek monou tou Patros}} (from the Father alone)";{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=80}} Nichols summarized that, "Bulgakov finds it amazing that with all his erudition Photius did not see that the 'through the Spirit' of Damascene and others constituted a different theology from his own, just as it is almost incomprehensible to find him trying to range the Western Fathers and popes on his Monopatrist side."{{sfn|Nichols|2005|p=157}}

Photius's importance endured in regard to relations between East and West. He is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church and his line of criticism has often been echoed later, making reconciliation between East and West difficult.

At least three councils – [[Council of Constantinople (867)]], [[Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic)]] (869), and [[Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox)]] (879) – were held in Constantinople over the actions of Emperor [[Michael III]] in deposing Ignatius and replacing him with Photius. The Council of Constantinople (867) was convened by Photius to address the question of Papal Supremacy over all of the churches and their patriarchs and the use of the {{lang|la|Filioque}}.{{sfn|Fortescue|1908|pp=147–148}}{{sfn|Louth|2007|p=171}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Tougher|first=Shaun|year=1997|title=The reign of Leo VI (886–912): politics and people|series=Medieval Mediterranean|volume=15|location=Leiden [u.a.]|publisher=Brill|isbn=9789004108110|page=69|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iPquae5A4zIC&pg=PA69}}</ref>{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=103}}

The council of 867 was followed by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic), in 869, which reversed the previous council and was promulgated by [[Diocese of Rome|Rome]]. The Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox), in 879, restored Photius to his see. It was attended by Western legates Cardinal Peter of St Chrysogonus, Paul Bishop of Ancona and Eugene Bishop of Ostia who approved its canons, but it is unclear whether it was ever promulgated by Rome.{{sfn|Fortescue|1911}}

===Adoption in Latin liturgies===

Latin liturgical use of the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]] with the added term spread between the 8th and 11th centuries.<ref name=CCC247/>

Only in 1014, at the request of King [[Henry II of Germany]] (who was in Rome for his coronation as [[Holy Roman Emperor]] and was surprised by the different custom in force there) did [[Pope Benedict VIII]], who owed to Henry II his restoration to the papal throne after usurpation by [[Antipope Gregory VI]], have the Creed with the addition of {{lang|la|Filioque}}, sung at Mass in Rome for the first time.{{sfn|Dix|2005|pp=485–488}} In some other places {{lang|la|Filioque}} was incorporated in the Creed even later: in parts of southern Italy after the [[Council of Bari]] in 1098<ref name="Kidd2013">{{cite book|last= Kidd|first=B. J.|title= Churches of Eastern Christendom – From A.D. 451 to the Present Time|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=tc5FAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA252|year=1927|publisher= Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-21278-9|pages= 252–3}}</ref> and at Paris seemingly not even by 1240,{{sfn|Nichols|1995|p=76}} 34 years before the [[Second Council of Lyon]] defined that the Holy Spirit "proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son, not as from two principles but from a single principle, not by two spirations but by a single spiration".{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 850}}{{sfn|Tanner|1990|p=314}}

Since then the {{lang|la|Filioque}} phrase has been included in the Creed throughout the [[Latin Church]] except where [[Greek language|Greek]] is used in the liturgy.{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}}<ref>
{{cite book|year= 2005|script-title= el:Ρωμαϊκό Λειτουργικό|trans-title= Roman Missal|language= el|edition= 3rd|publisher= Συνοδική Επιτροπή για τη θεία Λατρεία|volume= 1|page= 347}} {{ISBN missing|date=November 2015}}
</ref>

Its adoption among the [[Eastern Catholic Churches]] (formerly known as Uniate churches) has been discouraged.<ref name=Brest/>{{dead link|date=April 2020}}<ref>
{{cite book
 | last1 = Manoussakis
 | first1 = John Panteleimon
 | chapter = The Procession of the Holy Spirit
 | title = For the Unity of All: Contributions to the Theological Dialogue between East and West
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=kwL1BgAAQBAJ
 | location = Eugene, Oregon
 | publisher = Wipf and Stock Publishers
 | date = 2015
 | page = 15
 | isbn = 9781498200431
 | access-date = 25 April 2020
 | quote = Today the ''filioque'' clause is not obligatory for the Eastern-rite Catholics, and it has been omitted from the text of the Creed by a decision of the Greek Catholic hierarchy (31 May 1973).
}}
</ref>

===East–West controversy===
{{Main|East–West Schism}}
Eastern opposition to the {{lang|la|Filioque}} strengthened after the 11th century East–West Schism. According to the synodal edict, a Latin anathema, in the excommunication of 1054, against the Greeks included: "{{lang|la|ut Pneumatomachi sive Theomachi, Spiritus sancti ex Filio processionem ex symbolo absciderunt}}"{{sfn|Will|1861|p=163}} ("as pneumatomachi and theomachi, they have cut from the Creed the procession of the holy Spirit from the Son").{{Whose translation|date=November 2015}} The Council of Constantinople, in a synodal edict, responded with anathemas against the Latins:"{{sfn|Will|1861|p=159|ps=: "{{lang|grc|πρὸς ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις μηδὲ ἐννονειν όλως εθελοντές, ἐν οἷς τὸ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ φασὶν ἐκπορεύεθαι, ὅτι ούτε από εὐαγγελιστῶν τὴν φωνὴν ἔχουσι ταύτην, ούτε από οικουμενικής συνόδου τὸ βλασφήμων κέκτηνται δόγμα. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ήμάν φησί: "τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται". Οἱ δὲ τῆς κοινῆς δυσσεβείας πατέρος τὸ πνεῦμα φασὶν, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται}}}} ("And besides all this, and quite unwilling to see that it is they claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not [only], but also from the Son – as if they have no evidence of the evangelists of this, and if they do not have the dogma of the ecumenical council regarding this slander. For the Lord our God says, "even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father (John 15:26)". But parents say this new wickedness of the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."{{Whose translation|date=November 2015}})

Two councils that were held to heal the break discussed the question.

The [[Second Council of Lyon]] (1274) accepted the profession of faith of Emperor [[Michael VIII Palaiologos]]: "We believe also {{angle bracket|in}} the Holy Spirit, fully, perfectly and truly God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, fully equal, of the same substance, equally almighty and equally eternal with the Father and the Son in all things."{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 853}} and the Greek participants, including Patriarch [[Joseph I of Constantinople]] sang the Creed three times with the {{lang|la|Filioque}} clause. Most Byzantine Christians feeling disgust and recovering from the Latin Crusaders' conquest and betrayal, refused to accept the agreement made at Lyon with the Latins. Michael VIII was excommunicated by [[Pope Martin IV]] in November 1281,<ref>{{cite book|last=Reinert|first=Stephen W.|year=2002|chapter=Fragmentation (1204–1453)|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aItUoYO90UwC&pg=PA258|editor-last=Mango|editor-first=Cyril|title=The Oxford History of Byzantium|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19814098-6|page=258}}</ref> and later died, after which Patriarch Joseph I's successor, [[Patriarch John XI of Constantinople]], who had become convinced that the teaching of the Greek Fathers was compatible with that of the Latins, was forced to resign, and was replaced by [[Patriarch Gregory II of Constantinople]], who was strongly of the opposite opinion.{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=104}}

Lyons II did not require those Christians to change the recitation of the creed in their liturgy.

Lyons II stated "that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but one, not from two spirations but by only one," is "the unchangeable and true doctrine of the orthodox Fathers and Doctors, both Latin and Greek."{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 850}} So, it "condemn{{interp|ed}} and disapprove{{interp|d of}} those who {{interp| |orig=presume to}} deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Father and Son or who {{interp| |orig=rashly dare to}} assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles, not from one."{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}}{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 850}}

The local Orthodox [[Council of Constantinople (1285)]] was called in response to Lyons II and repudiated the union of the Churches, condemning the pro-Unionist patriarch [[John XI Beccus]], and giving a more explicit condemnation of the ''Filioque'' than any earlier councils. It specifically condemned:

* that the Father is, through the Son, the essential cause of the Spirit.
* that the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son.
* that the preposition “through” is equivalent to “from.”
* that the one unique essence and divinity of the Father and the Son is the cause of the Spirit.
* that the Father and the Son together constitute a single cause in the procession of the Spirit.
* that the procession of the Spirit from the Father is an activity of the essence, not of the hypostasis.
* that the expression “through the Son,” when used in reference to the creation of the world, indicates that the Son is the primordial or initial cause.
* that the Son is the “fountain of life” or the cause of life in the procession of the Spirit, just as the Virgin is said to be the fountain of life in giving birth to Christ.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Papadakis |first=Aristeides |title=CRISIS IN BYZANTIUM The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289) |publisher=Fordham University Press |year=1983 |isbn=978-0881411768 |location=New York |pages=159–164}}</ref>

[[Image:Palaio.jpg|thumb|left|John VIII Palaiologos by [[Benozzo Gozzoli]]]]
Another attempt at reunion was made at the 15th century [[Council of Florence]], to which Emperor [[John VIII Palaiologos]], [[Ecumenical Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople]], and other bishops from the East had gone in the hope of getting Western military aid against the looming [[Ottoman Empire]]. Thirteen public sessions held in [[Ferrara]] from 8 October to 13 December 1438 the {{lang|la|Filioque}} question was debated without agreement. The Greeks held that any addition whatever, even if doctrinally correct, to the Creed had been forbidden by Ephesus I, while the Latins claimed that this prohibition concerned meaning, not words.{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Florence, Council of"}}

During the Council of Florence in 1439, accord continued to be elusive, until the argument prevailed among the Greeks themselves that, though the Greek and the Latin saints expressed their faith differently, they were in agreement substantially, since saints cannot err in faith; and by 8 June the Greeks accepted the Latin statement of doctrine. Joseph II died on 10 June. A statement on the {{lang|la|Filioque}} question was included in the {{lang|la|Laetentur Caeli}} decree of union, which was signed on 5 July 1439 and promulgated the next day – Mark of Ephesus was the only bishop not to sign the agreement.{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Florence, Council of"}}

The Eastern Church refused to consider the agreement reached at Florence binding,{{Explain|date=November 2015|reason=How does something that is agreed to by all representative bishops, except one, change into a lack of consensus?}} since the death of Joseph II had for the moment left it without a Patriarch of Constantinople. There was strong opposition to the agreement in the East, and when in 1453, 14 years after the agreement, the promised military aid from the West still had not arrived and [[Fall of Constantinople|Constantinople fell]] to the Turks, neither Eastern Christians nor their new rulers wished union between them and the West.

===Councils of Jerusalem, AD 1583 and 1672===
The Synod of Jerusalem (1583) condemned those who do not believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in essence, and from Father and Son in time. In addition, this synod re-affirmed adherence to the decisions of [[Nicaea I]]. The [[Synod of Jerusalem (1672)]] similarly re-affirmed procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.<ref>Schaff, Philip (1876). [https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.vii.html «The Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus, A.D. 1672»]. ''Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes''. I-The History of Creeds: §17.</ref>

===Reformation===
Although the Protestant Reformation challenged a number of church doctrines, they accepted the {{lang|la|Filioque}} without reservation. However, they did not have a polemical insistence on the Western view of the Trinity. In the second half of the 16th century, Lutheran scholars from the [[University of Tübingen]] initiated a dialogue with the [[Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople]]. The Tübingen Lutherans defended the {{lang|la|Filioque}} arguing that, without it, "the doctrine of the Trinity would lose its epistemological justification in the history of revelation." In the centuries that followed, the {{lang|la|Filioque}} was considered by Protestant theologians to be a key component of the doctrine of the Trinity, although it was never elevated to being a pillar of Protestant theology.<ref>{{cite book|last=Oberdorfer|first=Bernd|year=2006|chapter={{thinsp}}'...&nbsp;who proceeds from the Father' and the Son? The use of the Bible in the filioque debate: a historical and ecumenical case study and hermeneutical reflections|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aDbXC1wJZPoC&pg=PA155|editor1-last=Helmer|editor1-first=Christine|editor2-last=Higbe|editor2-first=Charlene T.|title=The multivalence of biblical texts and theological meanings|series=Symposium series|volume=37|location=Atlanta, GA|publisher=Society of Biblical Literature|isbn=978-1-58983-221-3|page=155}}</ref> Zizioulas characterizes Protestants as finding themselves "in the same confusion as those fourth century theologians who were unable to distinguish between the two sorts of procession, 'proceeding from' and 'sent by'."<ref>{{cite book|last=Zizioulas|first=John D.|editor-last=Knight|editor-first=Douglas H.|title=Lectures in Christian Dogmatics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9DyU-OXaz9UC&pg=PA78|access-date=23 December 2011|date=28 February 2009|publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-567-03315-4|page=78}}</ref>

==Present position of various churches==

=== Catholicism ===
The Catholic Church holds, as a truth [[dogma]]tically defined since as far back as [[Pope Leo I]] in 447, who followed a [[Latin Church|Latin]] and [[Church of Alexandria|Alexandrian]] tradition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.{{refn|name=LeoI447}} It rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds jointly and equally from two principles (Father and Son) and teaches dogmatically that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle".{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 850}}{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} It holds that the Father, as the "principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that he, as Father of the only Son, is with the Son the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds.<ref name=CCC248/>

It also holds that the procession of the Holy Spirit can be expressed as "from the Father through the Son". The agreement that brought about the 1595 [[Union of Brest]] expressly declared that those entering full communion with Rome "should remain with that which was handed down to (them) in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son".<ref name=CCC248/><ref name=Brest>{{cite web |url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM |title=Article 1 of the Treaty of Brest |publisher=Ewtn.com |access-date=25 April 2013 |archive-date=3 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232253/https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The Catholic Church recognizes that the Creed, as confessed at the [[First Council of Constantinople]], did not add "and the Son", when it spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, and that this addition was admitted to the Latin liturgy between the 8th and 11th centuries.<ref name=CCC247/> When quoting the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]], as in the 2000 document ''[[Dominus Iesus]]'', it does not include ''Filioque''.<ref>{{cite web|author=Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith |date=6 August 2000 |title=Dominus Iesus |website=vatican.va |location=Vatican City |url=https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html |access-date=25 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130411015820/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html |archive-date=11 April 2013 |url-status=dead |at=n. 1 }}</ref> It views as complementary the Eastern-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father" (profession of which it sees as affirming that the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son) and the Western-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", with the Eastern tradition expressing firstly the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit, and the Western tradition giving expression firstly to the consubstantial communion between Father and Son.<ref name=CCC248/>

The monarchy of the Father is a doctrine upheld not only by those who, like Photius, speak of a procession from the Father alone. It is also asserted by theologians who speak of a procession from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son. Examples cited by Siecienski include [[Bessarion]],{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=163|ps=: "This teaching neither denied the monarchy of the Father (who remained principal cause) nor did it imply two causes, since the Latins affirmed that the Son is, with the Father, a single spirating principle"}} Maximus the Confessor,{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=81|ps=: "Maximus affirmed that the Latin teaching in no way violated the monarchy of the Father, who remained the sole cause (μία αἰτἰα) of both the Son and the Spirit"}} Bonaventure,{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=127|ps=: "In advocating the ''filioque'', Bonaventure was careful to protect the monarchy of the Father, affirming that the 'Father is properly the One without an originator, ... the Principle who proceeds from no other, the Father as such{{'"}}}} and the [[Council of Worms (868)]],{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=105|ps=: "While clearly affirming the monarchy of the Father, who remained 'fountain and origin of the whole Trinity' (''fons et origo totius Trinitatis''), so too is the Latin teaching"}} The same remark is made by [[Jürgen Moltmann]].{{efn|Similarly Moltmann observes that "the filioque was never directed against the 'monarchy' of the Father" and that the principle of the "monarchy" has "never been contested by the theologians of the Western Church". If these statements can be accepted by the Western theologians today in their full import of doing justice to the principle of the Father's "monarchy", which is so important to Eastern triadology, then the theological fears of Easterners about the filioque would seem to be fully relieved. Consequently, Eastern theologians could accept virtually any of the Memorandum's alternate formulae in the place of the filioque on the basis of the above positive evaluation of the filioque which is in harmony with Maximos the Confessor's interpretation of it. As Zizioulas incisively concludes: The "golden rule" must be Maximos the Confessor's explanation concerning Western pneumatology: by professing the filioque our Western brethren do not wish to introduce another {{lang|grc|αἴτον}} in God's being except the Father, and a mediating role of the Son in the origination of the Spirit is not to be limited to the divine Economy, but relates also to the divine {{lang|grc|οὐσία}}.{{sfn|Stylianopoulous|1984|pp=29–30}}}} The [[Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity]] (PCPCU) also stated that not only the Eastern tradition, but also the Latin ''Filioque'' tradition "recognize that the 'Monarchy of the Father' implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause ({{lang|grc|αἰτία}}) or Principle (''{{lang|la|principium}}'') of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}}

The Catholic Church recognizes that, in the Greek language, the term used in the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]] ({{lang|grc|ἐκπορευόμενον}}, "proceeding") to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot appropriately be used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in other languages.{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} For this reason, even in the liturgy of [[Latin Church]] Catholics, it does not add the phrase corresponding to ''Filioque'' ({{lang|grc|καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ}}) to the Greek language text of the Creed containing the word {{lang|grc|ἐκπορευόμενον}}.{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} Even in languages other than Greek, it encourages [[Eastern Catholic Churches]] to omit the ''Filioque'' from their recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, even in [[Eastern Catholic liturgy|Eastern Catholic liturgies]] that previously included it.<ref name="Younan2015"/>

=== Lutheranism ===
Traditionally, the [[Lutheranism|Lutheran Churches]], especially those of Western Christendom, affirm and employ the ''Filioque'' in the [[Nicene Creed]]. The [[Eastern Lutheranism|Eastern Lutheran Churches]] do not typically make use of the ''Filioque'' in the recitation of the Nicene Creed.<ref>{{cite web |title="And the Son" |url=https://wels.net/faq/and-the-son/ |publisher=[[Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod]] |access-date=13 May 2025 |date=22 March 2021}}</ref>

Through [[ecumenism|ecumenical dialogue]] with the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]es, the [[Lutheran World Federation]] recommended: "we suggest that the translation of the Greek original (without the Filioque) be used in the hope that this will contribute to the healing of age-old divisions between our communities and enable us to confess together the faith of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381)."<ref>{{cite web |title=COMMON STATEMENT ON THE FILIOQUE: The Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue Between the Lutheran World Federation and the Orthodox Church |url=https://lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/Lutheran-Orthodox-Joint-Statement-Filioque-EN.pdf |publisher=[[Lutheran World Federation]] |access-date=13 May 2025 |date=27 May 2024}}</ref>

===Anglicanism===
The 1978 and 1988 [[Lambeth Conferences]] advised the [[Anglican Communion]] to omit printing the ''Filioque'' in the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]].{{sfnm|Lambeth Conference|1978|1loc=res. 35.3|Lambeth Conference|1988|2loc=res. 6.5}} In 1993, a joint meeting of the Anglican Primates and Anglican Consultative Council, passed a resolution urging Anglican churches to comply with the request to print the liturgical Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed without the ''Filioque'' clause.{{sfn|ACC|1993|loc=res. 19}} The recommendation was not specifically renewed in the 1998 and 2008 Lambeth Conferences and has not been implemented.<ref>See, for instance, [http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/creeds/iss_doctrine_creeds_nicenetext.asp The Nicene Creed – texts] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140514041717/http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/creeds/iss_doctrine_creeds_nicenetext.asp |date=14 May 2014 }}</ref>

In 1985 the General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA) recommended that the ''Filioque'' clause should be removed from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, if this were endorsed by the 1988 Lambeth Council.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=85176 |title=General Convention Sets Course For Church 19 September 1985 |publisher=Episcopalarchives.org |date=19 September 1985 |access-date=25 April 2013}}</ref> Accordingly, at its 1994 General Convention, the Episcopal Church reaffirmed its intention to remove the ''Filioque'' clause from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the next revision of its ''[[Book of Common Prayer]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=1994-A028 |title=Resolution 1994-A028, "Reaffirm Intention to Remove the Filioque Clause From the Next Prayer Book."|publisher=Episcopalarchives.org |access-date=25 April 2013}}</ref> The Episcopal ''Book of Common Prayer'' was last revised in 1979, and has not been revised since the resolution.

The [[Scottish Episcopal Church]] does not print the ''Filioque'' clause in its modern language liturgy (published 1982), though previous liturgies from 1929 and 1970 which have the ''Filioque'' remain authorised.<ref name="ScottishLiturgy1970">{{Cite book |url=https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/scottish-liturgy-1970.pdf |title=Scottish Liturgy 1970 |first=Edward |last=Brechin |location=Edinburgh |publisher=General Synod Office of the Scottish Episcopal Church |orig-date=Originally published June 1987<!--I think?--> |page=6 |year=2001 |access-date=22 August 2025 |isbn=0-905573-47-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/Scot_Scottish_Communion.htm | title=The Scottish Book of Common Prayer (1929): Holy Communion, Scottish Rite }}</ref> The 1987 revision of the Scottish Liturgy of 1970 did not remove the Filioque clause, although it had already been omitted from the 1982 liturgy, promulgated five years earlier.<ref name="ScottishLiturgy1970"/>

===Moravianism===

The [[Moravian Church]] has never used the ''Filioque''.

The confession of ''The Easter Litany of the Moravian Church'' of 1749 states: "I believe in the Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father, and whom our Lord Jesus Christ sent after he went away, that he should abide with us forever.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Pelikan |first1=Jaroslav |title=Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition |date=12 December 2005 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0-300-10974-0 |page=480 |language=en}}</ref>

===Eastern Orthodoxy===
{{Main|Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque}}
There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the ''filioque'' as heresy.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://stelias-lacrosse.org/files/homilies/Sunday-of-the-Nicene-Fathers-2016.pdf|title=Sunday of the Nicene Fathers 2016}}</ref>

The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone as "One God, One Father",{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(a)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/one-god-one-father One God, One Father]"}}
Lossky insisted that any notion of a double procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son was incompatible with Eastern Orthodox theology. For Lossky, this incompatibility was so fundamental that "whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole [[dogma]]tic grounds of the separation of East and West".{{sfn|LaDue|2003|p=63}}{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=163}} Eastern Orthodox scholars who share Lossky's view include [[Dumitru Stăniloae]], [[John Romanides]], [[Christos Yannaras]],<ref>{{cite book|last=Yannaras|first=Christos|title=Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic self-identity in the modern age|others=Translated by Peter Chamberas and Norman Russell|location=Brookline, MA|publisher=Holy Cross Orthodox Press|isbn=9781885652812|date=January 2006}}</ref>{{Failed verification|talk=|reason=The names Lossky Stăniloae Romanides Yannaras do not appear together in LaDues Book, but they do appear together on p15 of Orthodox Constructions of the West|date=November 2015}} and [[Michael Pomazansky]]. [[Sergei Bulgakov]], however, was of the opinion that the ''Filioque'' did not represent an insurmountable obstacle to reunion of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.{{sfn|LaDue|2003|p=63}}

====Views of Eastern Orthodox saints====
Although [[Maximus the Confessor]] declared that it was wrong to condemn the Latins for speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the addition of the ''Filioque'' to the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]] was condemned as heretical by other saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including [[Photios I of Constantinople|Photius the Great]], [[Gregory Palamas]] and [[Mark of Ephesus]], sometimes referred to as the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. However, the statement "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" can be understood in an orthodox sense if it is clear from the context that "procession from the Son" refers to the sending forth of the Spirit ''in time'', not to an eternal, double procession within the Trinity itself which gives the Holy Spirit existence or being. Hence, in Eastern Orthodox thought, Maximus the Confessor justified the Western use of the ''Filioque'' in a context other than that of the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]].{{sfn|Pomazansky|1984|loc=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM "On the procession of the Holy Spirit"]}}{{efn|Pomazansky wrote that "Maximus the Confessor ... justified {{interp|the Westerners}} by saying that by the words 'from the Son' {{interp|the Westerners}} intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is ''given'' to creatures through the Son, that He is ''manifested'', that He is ''sent'' — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him."{{sfn|Pomazansky|1984|loc=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM "On the procession of the Holy Spirit"]}}}} and "defended {{interp|the ''Filioque''}} as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ''through'' the Son".{{sfn|Dulles|1995|pp=32, 40}} Saint [[Theophylact of Ohrid]] likewise maintained that the difference was linguistic in nature and not really theological, urging a spirit of conciliation on both sides over a matter of customs.<ref>Fr John Meyendorff, ''Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes'', 2nd ed. (NY: Fordham U, 1979)</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://philosophiajournal.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/20-38-philosophia-26-2020-theophylact.pdf|title=A Discourse by Theophylact of Bulgaria to One of His Disciples Regarding the Charges Against the Latins}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/12/saint-theophylact-of-ochrid.html | title=Saint Theophylact of Ochrid }}</ref>

{{Blockquote|...it is said not that {{interp|the Holy Spirit}} has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that {{interp|the Holy Spirit}} proceeds from the Father and has the same nature as the Son, is in fact the Spirit of the Son as being One in Essence with Him.|[[Theodoret of Cyrus]], ''On the Third Ecumenical Council''{{thinsp}}{{sfn|Pomazansky|1984|loc=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM "On the procession of the Holy Spirit"]}}}}

According to [[Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos]], an Eastern Orthodox tradition is that [[Gregory of Nyssa]] composed the section of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed referring to the Holy Spirit adopted by the [[Second Ecumenical Council]] at Constantinople in 381.{{efn|In icons{{Explain|date=November 2015|reason=Dating from when?}} of the Second Ecumenical Council, St. Gregory is presented as the recording clerk of the Synod, "and, as is believed, was the one who gave the final form to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and formulated the article about the Holy Spirit: 'And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets{{'"}}.<ref>{{cite web|last=Vlachos|first=Hierotheos|title=Life after death|website=pelagia.org|url=http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.08.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010210094757/http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.08.htm|archive-date=10 February 2001|url-status=dead}}</ref>}} Siecienski doubts that Gregory of Nyssa would have endorsed the addition of the ''Filioque'', as later understood in the West, into the Creed, notwithstanding that Gregory of Nyssa reasoned "there is an eternal, and not simply economic, relationship of the Spirit to the Son".{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=43–45}}

====Eastern Orthodox view of Roman Catholic theology====
Eastern Orthodox theologians (e.g. Pomazansky) say that the Nicene Creed as a [[Symbol of Faith]], as [[dogma]], is to address and define church theology specifically the Orthodox Trinitarian understanding of God. In the hypostases of God as correctly expressed against the teachings considered outside the church. The Father [[Hypostatic union|hypostasis]] of the Nicene Creed is the origin of all. Eastern Orthodox theologians have stated that New Testament passages (often quoted by the Latins) speak of the economy rather than the ontology of the Holy Spirit, and that in order to resolve this conflict Western theologians made further doctrinal changes, including declaring all persons of the Trinity to originate in the essence of God (the heresy of [[Sabellianism]]).{{sfn|Lossky|1997|pp=48–57}} Eastern Orthodox theologians see this as teaching of philosophical speculation rather than from [[Theoria#Eastern Orthodox Church|actual experience of God via ''theoria'']].

The Father is the eternal, infinite and uncreated reality, that the Christ and the Holy Spirit are also eternal, infinite and uncreated, in that their origin is not in the ''[[ousia]]'' of God, but that their origin is in the [[hypostasis (philosophy)|hypostasis]] of God called the Father. The double procession of the Holy Spirit bears some resemblance{{efn|Photius states in section 32 "And again, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son likewise is begotten of the Father, then it is in precisely this fact that the Father's personal property is discerned. But if the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceed from the Son (as this [[delirium]] of theirs would have it) then the Spirit of the Father is distinguished by more personal properties than the Son of the Father: on the one hand as proceeding from the equality of the Son and the Spirit, the Spirit is further differentiated by the two distinctions brought about by the dual procession, then the Spirit is not only differentiated by more distinctions than the Son of the Father, but the Son is closer to the Father's essence. And this is so precisely because the Spirit is distinguished by two specific properties. Therefore He is inferior to the Son, Who in turn is of the same nature as the Father! Thus the Spirit's equal dignity is blasphemed, once again giving rise to the Macedonian insanity against the Spirit."{{sfn|Farrell|1987|pp=75–76}}}} to the teachings of [[Macedonius I of Constantinople]] and his sect called the [[Pneumatomachians]] in that the Holy Spirit is created by the Son and a servant of the Father and the Son. It was Macedonius' position that caused the specific wording of the section on the Holy Spirit by St [[Gregory of Nyssa]] in the finalized [[Nicene creed]].{{sfn|Pomazansky|1984|loc=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P17.HTM "The equality of honor and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit"]}}{{efn|"However, the chief of the heretics who distorted the apostolic teaching concerning the Holy Spirit was" [[Macedonius I of Constantinople]], in the 4th century, who found followers "among former Arians and Semi-Arians. He called the Holy Spirit a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son. Accusers of his heresy were" Church Fathers like [[Basil of Caesarea]], [[Gregory of Nazianzus]], [[Athanasius of Alexandria]], [[Gregory of Nyssa]], [[Ambrose]], [[Amphilochius of Iconium]], [[Diodorus of Tarsus]], "and others, who wrote works against the heretics. The false teaching of Macedonius was refuted first in a series of local councils and finally at" Constantinople I. "In preserving Orthodoxy," Nicaea I completed the Nicaean Symbol of Faith "with these words: 'And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets', as well as those articles of the Creed which follow this in the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith."{{sfn|Pomazansky|1984|loc=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P17.HTM "The equality of honor and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit"]}}}}

The following are some Roman Catholic dogmatic declarations of the ''Filioque'' which are in contention with Eastern Orthodoxy:
# The [[Fourth Council of the Lateran]] (1215): "The Father is from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both."{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 800}}
# The [[Second Council of Lyon]], session 2 (1274): "{{interp|We confess faithfully and devoutly that}} the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Father and Son, not as from two principles, but as from one, not by two spirations, but by one only."{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 850}}
# The Council of Florence, session 6 (1439):  "We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/Florence.htm#3 |title=Eccumenical Council of Florence and Council of Basel |publisher=Ewtn.com |access-date=25 April 2013 |archive-date=25 April 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090425150516/http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
# The Council of Florence, session 8 in ''[[Bull of Union with the Greeks|Laetentur Caeli]]'' (1439), on union with the Greeks: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. ... And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=nn.1300–1301|ps=, quoted in {{Cite CCC|2.1|246}}}}
# The Council of Florence, session 11 (1442), in ''Cantate Domino'', on union with the Copts and Ethiopians: "Father, Son and Holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; ... the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. ... Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle."{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=nn.1330–1331}}
# In particular the condemnation,{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}} made at the Second Council of Lyons, session 2 (1274), of those "who {{interp|presume to}} deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son or who {{interp|rashly dare to}} assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles, not from one."{{sfn|DH|2012|loc=n. 850}}

In the judgment of these Orthodox,{{Who|date=December 2015}} the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being (equally) from both the Father and the Son, making the ''Filioque'' a double procession.{{efn|Lossky wrote: "If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as the hypostatic cause of the consubstantial hypostases, we find the 'simple Trinity', where the monarchy of the Father conditions the personal diversity of the Three while at the same time expressing their essential unity."{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=176}}}}{{sfn|Kulakov|2007|p=177}}{{discuss|section=Lossky in Kulakov}}

They{{Who|date=December 2015}} perceive the West as teaching through more than one type of theological ''Filioque'' a different origin and cause of the Holy Spirit; that through the dogmatic Roman Catholic ''Filioque'' the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son and not a free, independent and equal to the Father hypostasis that receives his uncreatedness from the origin of all things, the Father hypostasis. Trinity expresses the idea of message, messenger and revealer, or mind, word and meaning. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in one God the Father, whose person is uncaused and unoriginate, who, because He is love and communion, always exists with His Word and Spirit.{{efn|In the Byzantine period the Orthodox side accused the Latin speaking Christians, who supported the ''Filioque'', of introducing two Gods, precisely because they believed that the ''Filioque'' implied two causes – not simply two sources or principles – in the Holy Trinity. The Greek Patristic tradition, at least since the Cappadocian Fathers identified God with the person of the Father, whereas, Augustine seems to identify him with the one divine substance (the ''deitas'' or ''divinitas'').{{efn|Gregory Palamas asserted, in 1351, "that the Holy Spirit 'has the Father as foundation, source, and cause', but 'reposes in the Son' and 'is sent – that is, manifested – through the Son'. (ibid. 194) In terms of the transcendent divine energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, 'the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son over all those worthy of it', a communication which may even be broadly called 'procession' (ekporeusis)."}}{{refn|Gregory Palamas, ''Confession'' (PG 160:333–352), quoted in {{harvtxt|NAOCTC|2003}} from trans. in {{harvtxt|Meyendorff|1974|pp=231–232}}}}}}

====Eastern Orthodox theology====
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity theology starts with the Father hypostasis, not the essence of God, since the Father is the God of the Old Testament.{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(a)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/one-god-one-father One God, One Father]"}} The Father is the origin of all things and this is the basis and starting point of the Orthodox trinitarian teaching of one God in Father, one God, of the essence of the Father (as the uncreated comes from the Father as this is what the Father is).{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(a)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/one-god-one-father One God, One Father]"}} In Eastern Orthodox theology, God's uncreatedness or being or essence in Greek is called ''[[ousia]]''.{{sfn|Papanikolaou|2011}} Jesus Christ is the Son (God Man) of the uncreated Father (God). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the uncreated Father (God).{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(a)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/the-three-divine-persons The three Divine Persons]"}}

God has existences ([[hypostasis (philosophy)|hypostases]]) of being; this concept is translated as the word "person" in the West.{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(a)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/the-three-divine-persons The three Divine Persons]"}} Each hypostasis of God is a specific and unique existence of God.{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(a)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/the-three-divine-persons The three Divine Persons]"}} Each has the same essence (coming from the origin, without origin, Father (God) they are uncreated).{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(a)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/the-three-divine-persons The three Divine Persons]"}} Each specific quality that constitutes an hypostasis of God, is non-reductionist and not shared.{{sfn|Hopko|n.d.(a)|loc="[http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/the-three-divine-persons The three Divine Persons]"}} The issue of ontology or being of the Holy Spirit is also complicated by the ''Filioque'' in that the [[Christology]] and uniqueness of the hypostasis of Jesus Christ would factor into the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. In that Jesus is both God and Man, which fundamentally changes the hypostasis or being of the Holy Spirit, as Christ would be giving to the Holy Spirit an origin or being that was both God the Father (Uncreated) and Man (createdness).

The [[immanence]] of the Trinity that was defined in the finalized Nicene Creed. The economy of God, as God expresses himself in reality (his energies) was not what the Creed addressed directly.{{sfn|McGuckin|2011b|pp=170–171}} The specifics of God's interrelationships of his existences, are not defined within the Nicene Creed.{{sfn|McGuckin|2011b|pp=170–171}} The attempt to use the Creed to explain God's energies by reducing God existences to mere energies (actualities, activities, potentials) could be perceived as the heresy of semi-[[Sabellianism]] by advocates of [[Personalism]], according to Meyendorff.{{sfn|Meyendorff|1996|p=178}}{{sfn|Ware|1993|loc=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P12.HTM God in Trinity]}} Eastern Orthodox theologians have complained about this problem in the Roman Catholic dogmatic teaching of ''[[actus purus]]''.{{sfn|Meyendorff|1986|loc=[http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Meyendorff_13.html §3]|ps=: "The Orthodox side ... was gradually transcending a purely defensive stand, by discovering that the real problem of the ''Filioque'' lies not in the formula itself, but in the definition of God as ''actus purus'' as finalized in the ''De ente et essentia'' of Thomas Aquinas, vis-à-vis the more personalistic trinitarian vision inherited by the Byzantines from the Cappadocian Fathers."}}

==== Modern theology ====

Modern Orthodox theological scholarship is split, according to William La Due, between a group of scholars that hold to a "strict traditionalism going back to Photius" and other scholars "not so adamantly opposed to the ''filioque''".{{sfn|LaDue|2003|p=63}} The "strict traditionalist" camp is exemplified by the stance of Lossky who insisted that any notion of a double procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son was incompatible with Orthodox theology. For Lossky, this incompatibility was so fundamental that, "whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole [[dogma]]tic grounds of the separation of East and West".{{sfn|LaDue|2003|p=63}}{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=163}} Bulgakov, however, was of the opinion that the ''Filioque'' did not represent an insurmountable obstacle to reunion of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches,{{sfn|LaDue|2003|p=63}} an opinion shared by {{interlanguage link|Vasily Bolotov|ru|Болотов, Василий Васильевич}}.{{sfn|Balthasar|2005|p=209}}

Not all Orthodox theologians share the view taken by Lossky, Stăniloae, Romanides and Pomazansky, who condemn the ''Filioque''.<ref name="LutheranOrthodox1998">{{cite web|date=4 November 1998|title=A Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity|website=elca.org|location=Carefree, AZ|url=http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/A_Lutheran_Orthodox_Common_Statement_on_Faith_in_the_Holy_Trinity.pdf|at=n11|access-date=8 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716115404/http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/A_Lutheran_Orthodox_Common_Statement_on_Faith_in_the_Holy_Trinity.pdf|archive-date=16 July 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Kallistos Ware]] considers this the "rigorist" position within the Orthodox Church.{{sfn|Ware|2006|p=209}} Ware states that a more "liberal" position on this issue "was the view of the Greeks who signed the act of union at Florence. It is a view also held by many Orthodox at the present time". He writes that "according to the 'liberal' view, the Greek and the Latin doctrines on the procession of the Holy Spirit may both alike be regarded as theologically defensible. The Greeks affirm that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ''through'' the Son, the Latins that He proceeds from the Father ''and'' from the Son; but when applied to the relationship between Son and Spirit, these two prepositions 'through' and 'from' amount to the same thing."{{sfn|Ware|2006|p=208}} The ''Encyclopedia of Christian Theology'' lists Bolotov,{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}} Paul Evdokimov, I. Voronov and S. Bulgakov as seeing the ''Filioque'' as a permissible theological opinion or "theologoumenon".{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}} Bolotov defined theologoumena as theological opinions "of those who for every catholic are more than just theologians: they are the theological opinions of the holy fathers of the one undivided church", opinions that Bolotov rated highly but that he sharply distinguished from dogmas.{{sfn|AOJDC|1984|loc=n. 45}}

Bulgakov wrote, in ''The Comforter'', that:{{blockquote|It is a difference of theological opinions which was dogmatized prematurely and erroneously. There is no dogma of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and therefore particular opinions on this subject are not heresies but merely dogmatic hypotheses, which have been transformed into heresies by the schismatic spirit that has established itself in the Church and that eagerly exploits all sorts of liturgical and even cultural differences.{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=148}}}}

[[Karl Barth]] considered that the view prevailing in Eastern Orthodoxy was that of Bolotov, who pointed out that the Creed does not deny the ''Filioque'' and who concluded that the question had not caused the division and could not constitute an absolute obstacle to intercommunion between the Eastern Orthodox and the [[Old Catholic Church]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Barth|first=Karl|title=Church Dogmatics|volume=1|isbn=9780567050595|at=part 1, p. 479|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rdWH9HogDsgC&pg=PA479|date=8 May 2004|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic }}</ref> David Guretzki wrote, in 2009, that Bolotov's view is becoming more prevalent among Orthodox theologians; and he quotes Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos as arguing that "the theological use of the ''filioque'' in the West against Arian subordinationism is fully valid according to the theological criteria of the Eastern tradition".{{sfn|Guretzki|2009|p=119}}

[[Yves Congar]] stated in 1954 that "the greater number of the Orthodox say that the ''Filioque'' is not a heresy or even a dogmatic error but an admissible theological opinion, a 'theologoumenon{{'"}}; and he cited 12th century bishop [[Nicetas of Nicomedia]]; 19th century philosopher [[Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher)|Vladimir Solovyov]]; and 20th century writers Bolotov, Florovsky, and Bulgakov.{{sfn|Congar|1959|pp=147–148|loc=n. 28}}

===Oriental Orthodox Churches===
{{Main|Oriental Orthodoxy}}
All [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]] (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Malankaran) use the original [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]],<ref>{{cite web| url = http://mosc.in/the_church/the-ecumenical-council-of-nicea-and-nicene-creed| title = Geevarghese Mar Yulios: Ecumenical Council of Nicea and Nicene Creed}}</ref> without the Filioque clause.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://mosc.in/the_church/oriental-and-eastern-orthodox-churches| title = Paulos Mar Gregorios: Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches}}</ref>{{sfn|Krikorian|2010|pp=49, 53, 269}}

===Church of the East===
Two of the present-day churches derived from the Church of the East, the [[Assyrian Church of the East]] and the [[Ancient Church of the East]], do not use "and the Son" when reciting the Nicene Creed. A third, the [[Chaldean Catholic Church]], a ''[[sui iuris]]'' [[Eastern Catholic Church]], in 2007 at the request of the [[Holy See]], removed "and the Son" from its version of the Nicene Creed.<ref name="Younan2015">{{cite web|last=Younan|first=Andrew|date=13 July 2015|title=Q & A on the Reformed Chaldean Mass|website=kaldu.org|location=El Cajon, CA|publisher=Chaldean Catholic Diocese of St. Peter the Apostle|url=http://kaldu.org/2015/07/the-reformed-chaldean-mass/|access-date=10 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151110233538/http://kaldu.org/2015/07/the-reformed-chaldean-mass/|archive-date=10 November 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref>

==Recent theological perspectives==
<!--Comment this out pending discussion on the Talk Page
Some theologians have even envisaged as possible acceptance of ''Filioque'' by the Eastern Orthodox Church or of "from the Father alone" by the Roman Catholic Church (André de Halleux).{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}} -->

===Linguistic issues===
{{See also|Perichoresis}}

Ware suggests that the problem is of semantics rather than of basic doctrinal differences.<ref name="LutheranOrthodox1998"/><ref>{{cite book|last=Zoghby|first=Elias|year=1992|title=A voice from the Byzantine East|others=Translated by R. Bernard|location=West Newton, MA|publisher=Educational Services, [Melkite] Diocese of Newton|isbn=9781561250189|page=43|quote=The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences. —Kallistos Ware}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The work is a translation into English and there are already a few works by Ware that may contain the equivalent|date=November 2015}} The [[English Language Liturgical Consultation]] commented that "those who strongly favour retention of the ''Filioque'' are often thinking of the Trinity as revealed and active in human affairs, whereas the original Greek text is concerned about relationships within the Godhead itself. As with many historic disputes, the two parties may not be discussing the same thing."<ref>{{cite web|author=English Language Liturgical Consultation|date=May 2007|orig-year=1988|edition=electronic|title=Praying together|website=englishtexts.org|publisher=English Language Liturgical Consultation|url=http://www.englishtexts.org/praying.pdf|page=21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070702021454/http://www.englishtexts.org/praying.pdf|archive-date=2 July 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In 1995, the {{abbr|PCPCU|Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity}} pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}} and the Latin verb ''{{lang|la|procedere}}'', both of which are commonly translated as "proceed". It stated that the Greek verb {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}} indicates that the Spirit "takes his origin from the Father&nbsp;... in a principal, proper and immediate manner", while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}} in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore, {{lang|grc|ἐκπορευόμενον}} ("who proceeds"), used in the [[Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]] to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, cannot be appropriately used in the Greek language with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages.{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}}

Metropolitan [[John Zizioulas]], while maintaining the explicit Orthodox position of the Father as the single origin and source of the Holy Spirit, declared that {{harvtxt|PCPCU|1995}} shows positive signs of reconciliation. Zizioulas states: "Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son's involvement in the procession of the Spirit. [[Gregory of Nyssa]] explicitly admits a 'mediating' role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition {{lang|grc|δία}} (through) the Son ({{lang|grc|εκ Πατρός δι'Υιού}}), as Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest?" Zizioulas continues: "The Vatican statement notes that this is 'the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox'. I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the 'single cause' principle to which I have just referred." Zizioulas adds that this "constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the 'Filioque' problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible".{{sfn|Zizioulas|1996}}

===Some Orthodox reconsideration of the ''Filioque''===
Russian theologian Boris Bolotov asserted in 1898 that the ''Filioque'', like Photius's "from the Father ''alone''", was a permissible theological opinion (a theologoumenon, not a dogma) that cannot be an absolute impediment to reestablishment of communion.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=190–191}}{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Florovsky|first=Georges|year=1975|chapter=Nineteenth Century ecumenism|title=Aspects of church history|series=Collected works of Georges Florovsky|volume=4|location=Belmont, MA|publisher=Nordland|isbn=978-0-91312410-9|chapter-url=http://www.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org//rr/lode/florovsky4.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725105220/http://www.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org//rr/lode/florovsky4.pdf|archive-date=25 July 2011|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=November 2015}} Bolotov's thesis was supported by Orthodox theologians Bulgakov, Paul Evdokimov and I. Voronov, but was rejected by Lossky.{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}}

In 1986, Theodore Stylianopoulos provided an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion.{{sfn|Stylianopoulous|1984}} Ware said that he had changed his mind and had concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may ''both'' have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings.<ref>{{cite speech|last=Ware|first=Kallistos|title=[s.n.?]|date=May 1995|location=Aiken, SC}} Quoted in {{cite web|title=The Father as the source of the whole Trinity |website=geocities.com |url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/5kmlDaaHh?url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html |archive-date=25 October 2009 |url-status=dead  }}</ref> For some Orthodox,{{Who|date=November 2011}} then, the ''Filioque'', while still a matter of conflict, would not impede full communion of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches if other issues were resolved. But 19th century Russian [[Slavophile]] theologian [[Aleksey Khomyakov]] considered the ''Filioque'' as an expression of formalism, rationalism, pride and lack of love for other Christians,{{Relevance inline|discuss=Khomyakov in Lossky|date=November 2015}}{{efn|name=Lossky|Lossky wrote that for Khomyakov, "legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the ''filioque'' clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. 'In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility.' In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super-rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house."<ref>{{cite book|last=Lossky|first=Nikolai|year=1951|title=History of Russian philosophy|others=Translated|location=New York|publisher=International Universities Press|oclc=258525325|page=37}}</ref>{{Relevance inline|discuss=Khomyakov in Lossky|date=November 2015}}}} and that it is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel, has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church, and remains a fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West.

Romanides too, while personally opposing the ''Filioque'', stated that Constantinople I was not ever interpreted "as a condemnation" of the doctrine "outside the Creed, since it did not teach that the Son is 'cause' or 'co-cause' of the existence of the Holy Spirit. This could not be added to the Creed where 'procession' means 'cause' of existence of the Holy Spirit."<ref name="Romanides1987">{{cite web|last=Romanides|first=John S.|date=14 September 1987|title=The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984|website=romanity.org|url=http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000119130217/http://romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm|archive-date=19 January 2000|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Inclusion in the Nicene Creed===

Eastern Orthodox Christians object that, even if the teaching of the ''Filioque'' can be defended, its medieval interpretation and unilateral interpolation into the Creed is anti-canonical and unacceptable.{{efn|name=Lossky}}{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}} "The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church."{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} The Catholic Church allows liturgical use of the [[Apostles' Creed]] as well of the Nicene Creed, and sees no essential difference between the recitation in the liturgy of a creed with orthodox additions and a profession of faith outside the liturgy such that of [[Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople]], who developed the Nicene Creed with an addition as follows: "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father ''through the Son''".{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} It sees the addition of "and the Son" in the context of the Latin ''{{lang|la|qui ex Patre procedit}}'' (who proceeds from the Father) as an elucidation of the faith expressed by the Church Fathers, since the verb ''{{lang|la|procedere}}'' signifies "the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit".{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}}

Most Oriental Orthodox churches have not added the ''Filoque'' to their creeds but the [[Armenian Apostolic Church]] has added [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/creed.pdf elucidations] to the Nicene Creed.{{sfnm|Campbell|2009|1p=38|Nersessian|2010|2p=33}} Another change made to the text of the Nicene Creed by both the Latins and the Greeks is to use the singular "I believe" in place of the plural "we believe", while all the Churches of [[Oriental Orthodoxy]], not only the Armenian, but also the [[Coptic Orthodox Church]],<ref>[http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/liturgy/liturgy_of_st_basil.pdf St Basil Liturgy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120305010008/http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/liturgy/liturgy_of_st_basil.pdf |date=5 March 2012 }}, pp. 13–15</ref> the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eotc.faithweb.com/orth.html#CREED |title=The faith that was formulated at Nicaea |publisher=Eotc.faithweb.com |date=25 December 1994 |access-date=25 April 2013}}</ref> the [[Malankara Orthodox Church]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=217 |title=The Nicene Creed |publisher=Malankaraorthodoxchurch.in |access-date=25 April 2013}}</ref> and the [[Syriac Orthodox Church]],<ref>{{cite web |author=George Kiraz |url=http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Common/NiceneCreed.html |title=The Nicene Creed |publisher=Sor.cua.edu |date=8 June 1997 |access-date=25 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120507074543/http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Common/NiceneCreed.html |archive-date=7 May 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> have on the contrary preserved the "we believe" of the original text.

===Focus on Saint Maximus as a point of mutual agreement===
Recently, theological debate about the ''Filioque'' has focused on the writings of Maximus the Confessor. Siecienski writes that "Among the hundreds of figures involved in the filioque debates throughout the centuries, Maximus the Confessor enjoys a privileged position." During the lengthy proceedings at Ferrara-Florence, the Orthodox delegates presented a text from Maximus the Confessor that they felt could provide the key to resolving the theological differences between East and West.<ref>{{cite conference|last=Siecienski|first=A. Edward|year=2003|title=Missed opportunity: the Council of Ferrara-Florence and the use of Maximus the Confessor's theology of the filioque|conference=Twenty-Ninth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Lewiston, ME, 16–19 October 2003}} Abstracted in {{cite journal|year=2003|title=Twenty-Ninth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference|journal=Abstracts of Papers|publisher=Byzantine Studies Conference|issn=0147-3387|url=http://www.bsana.net/conference/archives/2003/abstracts_2003.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105191316/http://www.bsana.net/conference/archives/2003/abstracts_2003.html|archive-date=5 January 2009|url-status=live}}</ref>

The {{abbr|PCPCU|Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity}} states that, according to Maximus, the phrase "and from the Son" does not contradict the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father as first origin (ἐκπόρευσις), since it concerns only the Holy Spirit's coming (in the sense of the Latin word ''{{lang|la|processio}}'' and Cyril of Alexandria's {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}}) from the Son in a way that excludes any idea of [[subordinationism]].{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}}{{efn|"The ''Filioque'' does not concern the {{lang|grc|ἐκπόρευσις}} of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity," according to {{Harvtxt|PCPCU|1995}}, "but manifests his {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}} (''{{lang|la|processio}}'') in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's monarchy".}}

Orthodox theologian and Metropolitan of Pergamon, [[John Zizioulas]], wrote that for Maximus the Confessor "the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}} ({{transliteration|grc|ekporeuesthai}}) but the {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}} ({{transliteration|grc|proienai}}) of the Spirit".{{sfn|Zizioulas|1996}}

Zizioulas also wrote that "Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a "cause" other than the Father. The notion of "cause" seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a "cause" (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque."{{sfn|Zizioulas|1996}} This is precisely what Maximus said of the Roman view, that "they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession".

The {{abbr|PCPCU|Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity}} upholds the monarchy of the Father as the "sole Trinitarian Cause [''aitia''] or principle [''principium''] of the Son and the Holy Spirit".{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} While the Council of Florence proposed the equivalency of the two terms "cause" and "principle" and therefore implied that the Son is a cause (''aitia'') of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, the {{abbr|PCPCU|Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity}} distinguishes "between what the Greeks mean by 'procession' in the sense of taking origin from, applicable only to the Holy Spirit relative to the Father (''ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon''), and what the Latins mean by 'procession' as the more common term applicable to both Son and Spirit (''{{lang|la|ex Patre Filioque procedit}}''; ''ek tou Patros kai tou Huiou proion''). This preserves the monarchy of the Father as the sole origin of the Holy Spirit while simultaneously allowing for an intratrinitarian relation between the Son and Holy Spirit that the document defines as 'signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit'."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Del Cole |first=Ralph |date=Spring 1997 |title=Reflections on the Filioque |journal=Journal of Ecumenical Studies |volume=34 |issue=2 |location=Philadelphia, PA |publisher=Temple University |page=202 |issn=0022-0558 |url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-55540667 |url-access= |via= }}{{dead link|date=July 2021}} Previously accessed via {{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3236/is_2_34/ai_n28699494/pg_4/?tag=content;col1 |title=Reflections on the Filioque |page=4 of online text |via=Find Articles |access-date=25 April 2013 }}{{dead link|date=May 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

Roman Catholic theologian [[Avery Dulles]] wrote that the Eastern fathers were aware of the currency of the ''Filioque'' in the West and did not generally regard it as heretical: Some, such as Maximus the Confessor, "defended it as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son".{{sfn|Dulles|1995|pp=32, 40}}

Pomazansky and Romanides<ref name="Romanides1987"/> hold that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the ''Filioque'' as dogma for the whole church. While accepting as a legitimate and complementary expression of the same faith and reality the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son,<ref name="CCC248"/> Maximus held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church that "the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit":{{refn|{{harvnb|Siecienski|2010|p=90}} "Adhering to the Eastern tradition, [[John of Damascus|John]] affirmed (as Maximus had a century earlier) that 'the Father alone is cause [''αἴτιος'']' of both the Son and the Spirit, and thus 'we do not say that the Son is a cause or a father, but we do say that He is from the Father and is the Son of the Father'."}} and wrote a special treatise about this dogma.<ref name="Romanides1987"/>{{sfn|Pomazansky|1984|loc=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM "On the procession of the Holy Spirit"]}} The Roman Catholic Church cites Maximus as in full accord with the teaching on the ''Filioque'' that it proposes for the whole Church as a dogma that is in harmony with the formula "from the Father through the Son",{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} for he explained that, by ''ekporeusis'', "the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit", but that, by {{transliteration|grc|proienai}}, the Greek verb corresponding to ''{{lang|la|procedere}}'' (proceed) in Latin, the Spirit comes through the Son.{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} Later again the Council of Florence, in 1438, declared that the Greek formula "from the Father through the Son" was equivalent to the Latin "from the Father and the Son", not contradictory, and that those who used the two formulas "were aiming at the same meaning in different words".<ref>{{cite book|last=McBrien|first=Richard P.|year=1994|title=Catholicism|edition=New|location=New York|publisher=HarperSanFrancisco|isbn=978-0-06-065404-7|page=[https://archive.org/details/catholicism0002mcbr/page/329 329]|url=https://archive.org/details/catholicism0002mcbr|url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Gaillardetz|first=Richard R.|year=1997|title=Teaching with authority: a theology of the magisterium in the church|series=Theology and life series|volume=41|location=Collegeville, MN|publisher=Liturgical Press|isbn=978-0-8146-5529-0|pages=96–97|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u9VOAzAZM8YC&pg=PA96}}</ref>{{sfn|Rush|1997|p=168}}{{sfn|Kasper|2004|p=109}}

===''Per Filium''===
Recently, some Orthodox theologians have proposed the substitution of the formula ''ex Patre per Filium'' / εκ του Πατρός δια του Υιού (from the Father through the Son) instead of ''ex Patre Filioque'' (from the Father and the Son).<ref name="Breck2001">{{cite book|last=Breck|first=John|year=2001|title=Scripture in tradition: the Bible and its interpretation in the Orthodox Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6r7lQ6np94YC&pg=PA176|publisher=St Vladimir's Seminary Press|isbn=978-0-88141-226-0|page=176}}</ref>

==Recent attempts at reconciliation==
Starting in the latter half of the nineteenth century, ecumenical efforts have gradually developed more nuanced understandings of the issues underlying the ''Filioque'' controversy and worked to remove them as an obstruction to Christian unity. Lossky insists that the ''Filioque'' is so fundamentally incompatible with Orthodox Christianity as to be the central issue dividing the two churches.{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=163}}{{efn|Lossky wrote that "Whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole dogmatic grounds for the separation of East and West. All the other divergences which, historically, accompanied or followed the first dogmatic controversy about the Filioque, in the measure in which they too had some dogmatic importance, are more or less dependent upon that original issue. ... If other questions have arisen and taken the first place in more recent inter-confessional debates, that is chiefly because the dogmatic plane on which the thought of theologians operates is no longer the same as it was in the medieval period."{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=163}}}}

Western churches have arrived at the position that, although the ''Filioque'' is doctrinally sound, the way that it was inserted into the Nicene Creed has created an unnecessary obstacle to ecumenical dialogue. Thus, without abandoning the ''Filioque'', some Western churches have come to accept that it could be omitted from the Creed without violating any core theological principles. This accommodation on the part of Western Churches has the objective of allowing both East and West to once again share a common understanding of the Creed as the traditional and fundamental statement of the Christian faith.<!-- hubpages.com is on the spam blacklist; need to get this page whitelisted before it can be included <ref name=MacKinlay>{{cite web |first=Brian |last=McKinlay |title=The Filioque in the Nicene Creed: a hindrance to Christian unity |url=http://brianmckinlay.hubpages.com/hub/The-Filioque-in-the-Nicene-Creed |access-date=19 December 2011}}</ref> -->

===Catholic Church===
Popes [[John Paul II]] and [[Benedict XVI]] have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs [[Patriarch Demetrius I of Constantinople|Demetrius I]] and [[Bartholomew I]] in Greek without the ''Filioque'' clause.{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}}<ref>{{cite web|author=Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations |date=29 June 2004 |title=Presentation of the celebration [of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul] |website=vatican.va |location=Vatican City |url=https://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2004/documents/ns_lit_doc_20040629_rite_en.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040806145711/https://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2004/documents/ns_lit_doc_20040629_rite_en.html |archive-date=6 August 2004 |url-status=dead |at=n. 17  }}</ref>

===Old Catholic Church===
Immediately after the [[Old Catholic Church]] separated from the [[Catholic Church]] in 1871, its theologians initiated contact with the Orthodox Church. In 1874–75, representatives of the two churches held "union conferences" in [[Bonn]] with theologians of the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church in attendance in an unofficial capacity. The conferences discussed a number of issues including the filioque controversy. From the outset, Old Catholic theologians agreed with the Orthodox position that the ''Filioque'' had been introduced in the West in an unacceptably non-canonical way. It was at these Bonn conferences that the Old Catholics became the first Western church to omit the ''Filioque'' from the Nicene Creed.{{sfn|Guretzki|2009|p=11}}{{sfn|Moltmann|1993|pp=179–180}}<ref name="ThomasWondra2002">{{cite book|last1=Thomas|first1=Owen C. |last2=Wondra|first2=Ellen K.|author-link2=Ellen Wondra |title=Introduction to theology|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1dK4Ay-bhbcC&pg=PA221|access-date=22 December 2011|date=1 July 2002|publisher=Church Publishing, Inc.|isbn=978-0-8192-1897-1|page=221}}</ref>

===Anglican Communion===
Three [[Lambeth Conferences]] (1888, 1978 and 1988) have recommended that the ''Filioque'' be dropped from the Nicene Creed by churches that belong to the Anglican Communion.<!--<ref name=MacKinlay />-->

The 1930 Lambeth Conference initiated formal theological dialogue between representatives of the Anglican and Orthodox churches.<ref name="KennedyKennedy2008">{{cite book|author1=David J. Kennedy|author2=David Kennedy|title=Eucharistic Sacramentality in an Ecumenical Context: The Anglican Epiclesis|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6twuk5c8OSYC&pg=PA87|year=2008|publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.|isbn=978-0-7546-6376-8|page=87}}</ref> In 1976, the Agreed Statement of the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission recommended that the ''Filioque'' should be omitted from the Creed because its inclusion had been effected without the authority of an Ecumenical Council.{{sfn|AOJDC|1976|loc=nn. 19–21}}

In 1994, the General Convention of the [[Episcopal Church (US)]] resolved that the ''Filioque'' should be deleted from the Nicene Creed in the next edition of the [[Book of Common Prayer|Prayer Book]].<ref name="ArmentroutSlocum2005">{{cite encyclopedia|year=2005|orig-year=1999|title=Filioque|editor1-last=Armentrout|editor1-first=Duncy S.|editor2-last=Slocum|editor2-first=Robert Boak|encyclopedia=An Episcopal dictionary of the church: a user-friendly reference for Episcopalians|location=New York|publisher=Church Publishing|isbn=978-0-89869-211-2|page=203|url=http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/109399_14370_ENG_HTM.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141104041452/http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/109399_14370_ENG_HTM.htm|archive-date=4 November 2014|url-status=dead|via=episcopalchurch.org|access-date=12 November 2015}}</ref> The enthronement ceremonies of four recent [[archbishops of Canterbury]] ([[Robert Runcie]], [[George Carey]], [[Rowan Williams]], [[Justin Welby]]) included recitations of the Nicene Creed that omitted the ''Filioque''; this has been considered to have been "a gesture of friendship toward Orthodox guests and their Communions".<ref name="Buchanan2006">{{cite book|last=Buchanan|first=Colin Ogilvie|title=Historical dictionary of Anglicanism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G5Ig4SDJFgkC&pg=PA187|year=2006|publisher=Scarecrow Press|isbn=978-0-8108-5327-0|page=187}} Note: Published before [[Justin Welby]]'s enthronement</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.anglicannews.org/media/1041790/enthronementservice-v2-print_1.pdf |title=The Inauguration Of The ministry Of The One Hundred And Fifth Archbishop Of Canterbury Justin Portal Welby |access-date=2024-01-09 |website=Anglican Communion News Service |publication-date=2013-03-21 |page=32 }}</ref>

At the end of October 2017 theologians from the Anglican Communion and Oriental Orthodox Churches signed an agreement on the Holy Spirit. This is the culmination of discussions which began in 2015. The statement of agreement confirms the omission of the Filioque clause.<ref name="angl_Hist">{{Cite web | title = Historic Anglican – Oriental Orthodox agreement on the Holy Spirit signed in Dublin | work = anglicannews.org | date = 2 November 2017 | access-date = 2 November 2017 | url = http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2017/11/historic-anglican-oriental-orthodox-agreement-on-the-holy-spirit-signed-in-dublin.aspx }}</ref>

===World Council of Churches===
In 1979, a study group of the [[World Council of Churches]] examined the ''Filioque'' question and recommended that "the original form of the Creed, without the ''Filioque'', should everywhere be recognized as the normative one and restored, so that the whole Christian people may be able ... to confess their common faith in the Holy Spirit".{{sfn|Vischer|1981|pp=3–18}} However, nearly a decade later, the WCC lamented that very few member churches had implemented this recommendation.{{sfn|Guretzki|2009|p=12}}

===Joint statement of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians===
The ''Filioque'' was discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological Consultation]], in 2002. As a result of these contemporary discussions between both churches, it has been suggested that the orthodox could accept an "economic" filioque that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Paraclete]]), but it would not be the official orthodox doctrine, but what the Fathers called a theologoumenon, a theological opinion.

In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, ''The Filioque: a Church-dividing issue?'', which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology.{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}} The recommendations include:

# That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
# That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
# That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
# That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
# That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
# That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the [[Nicene Creed#Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed|Creed of 381]], use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
# That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by [[Pope Paul VI]], declare that the condemnation made at the [[Second Council of Lyons]] (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the ''Filioque'' is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.{{sfn|NAOCTC|2003}}

===Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on the Filioque===
In July 2024, within the framework of the official dialogue between Lutheran and Orthodox Churches, a common statement has been issued, which acknowledged that "the Filioque was inserted in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin Church in response to the heresy of Arianism centuries after the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed’s composition", stated that "the reformers inherited the Creed with the Filioque as part of the Latin tradition, and did not consider it problematic" and suggested that "the translation of the Greek original (without the Filioque) be used in the hope that this will contribute to the healing of age-old divisions".<ref>{{cite web |title=Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on the Filioque |url=https://lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/Lutheran-Orthodox-Joint-Statement-Filioque-EN.pdf |publisher=The Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue Between the Lutheran World Federation and the Orthodox Church |access-date=3 May 2025}}</ref>

==Summary==
While the Filioque doctrine was traditional in the West, being declared dogmatically in 447 by Pope Leo I, the Pope whose ''Tome'' was approved at the [[Council of Chalcedon]],{{refn|Leo I, Letter 28 ''to Flavian'' ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/The Tome of St. Leo|NPNF2 14:254–258]])}}<ref name="CCC247"/> its inclusion in the Creed appeared in the [[Arian controversy|anti-Arian]] situation of [[History of Spain#Gothic Hispania (5th–8th centuries)|7th-century Spain]]. However, this dogma was never accepted in the East. The ''Filioque'', included in the Creed by certain anti-Arian councils in Spain,{{sfn|Meyendorff|1996|p=37}} was a means to affirm the full divinity of the Son in relation to both the Father and the Spirit.{{sfn|Irvin|Sunquist|2001|p=340}}<ref>{{cite book|author=Episcopal Church. Standing Liturgical Commission|year=1998|title=Enriching our worship: supplemental liturgical materials|others=Note is signed Ruth Meyers|location=New York|publisher=Church Publishing|isbn=978-0-89869275-4|pages=75–77 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6DcyyQH4uSIC&pg=PA75|quote=restor[ing] the original wording of the Nicene Creed is not primarily a theological issue. The relation of the Holy Spirit to the first and second persons of the Holy Trinity remains a matter of theological discussion and is ultimately unknowable ...}}</ref>{{sfn|Papadakis|Meyendorff|1994|p=228}}

A similar anti-Arian emphasis also strongly influenced the development of the liturgy in the East, for example, in promoting prayer to "Christ Our God", an expression which also came to find a place in the West,<ref>{{cite book|last=Vaughan|first=Herbert|author-link=Herbert Vaughan|year=1901|chapter=Homage to Christ our God and King|chapter-url=https://archive.org/stream/themasterpieceso00unknuoft#page/11/mode/1up|editor-last=Ringrose|editor-first=Hyacinthe|title=The masterpieces of Catholic literature, oratory and art ...|volume=2|ol=7039999M|page=9}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pierpoint|first=Folliot S.|year=1990|chapter=For the beauty of the Earth|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mPqN_R-waqUC&pg=PA331|editor-last=Osbeck|editor-first=Kenneth W.|title=Amazing grace: 366 inspiring hymn stories for daily devotions|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=Kregel|isbn=978-0-82543425-9|page=[https://archive.org/details/amazinggrace366i00osbe_0/page/331 331]|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/amazinggrace366i00osbe_0/page/331}}</ref> where, largely as a result of "the Church's reaction to Teutonic Arianism", {{"'}}Christ our God' ... gradually assumes precedence over 'Christ our brother{{'"}}.<ref>{{cite book|last=Austin|first=Gerard|year=1999|chapter=Liturgical history: restoring equilibrium after the struggle with heresy|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SAfiLkjoI-sC&pg=PA39|editor1-last=Pierce|editor1-first=Joanne M.|editor2-last=Downey|editor2-first=Michael|title=Source and summit: commemorating Josef A. Jungman, S.J.|location=Collegeville, MN|publisher=Liturgical Press|page=39|isbn=9780814624616}}</ref> In this case, a common adversary, namely [[Arianism]], had profound, far-reaching effects, in the orthodox reaction in both East and West.{{Relevance inline|paragraph|date=November 2015|reason=Not about filioque.}}

Church politics, authority conflicts, ethnic hostility, linguistic misunderstanding, personal rivalry, forced conversions, large scale wars, political intrigue, unfilled promises and secular motives all combined in various ways to divide East and West.

The doctrine expressed by the phrase in Latin (in which the word "procedit" that is linked with "Filioque" does not have exactly the same meaning and overtones as the word used in Greek) is definitively upheld by the Western Church, having been dogmatically declared by Leo I,<ref name="CCC247"/> and upheld by councils at Lyon and Florence{{sfn|Cunliffe-Jones|2006|pp=208–209}} that the Western Church recognizes as ecumenical, by the unanimous witness of the Latin Church Fathers (as Maximus the Confessor acknowledged) and even by Popes who, like Leo III, opposed insertion of the word into the Creed.{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=92}}{{sfn|Congar|1959|p=53}}

That the doctrine is heretical is something that not all Orthodox now insist on. According to Ware, many Orthodox (whatever may be the doctrine and practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church itself) hold that, in broad outline, to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father ''and'' the Son amounts to the same thing as to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ''through'' the Son, a view accepted also by the Greeks who signed the act of union at the Council of Florence.{{sfn|Ware|2006|p=208}} For others, such as Bolotov and his disciples, the ''Filioque'' can be considered a Western ''theologoumenon'', a theological opinion of [[Church Fathers]] that falls short of being a dogma.{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}}{{sfn|AOJDC|1984|loc=n. 45}} Bulgakov also stated: "There is no dogma of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and therefore particular opinions on this subject are not heresies but merely dogmatic hypotheses, which have been transformed into heresies by the schismatic spirit that has established itself in the Church and that eagerly exploits all sorts of liturgical and even cultural differences."{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=148}}

==See also==
{{Portal|Christianity}}
* [[Social trinitarianism]]
*[[Divine filiation]]

==References==
===Notes===
{{Notelist}}

===Citations===
{{Reflist}}

===Sources===
{{Refbegin|2|indent=yes}}
* {{cite web|author=Anglican Communion. Lambeth Conference 11 |date=13 August 1978 |title=Resolution 35 |website=anglicancommunion.org |location=London |publisher=Anglican Communion Office |url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1978/resolution-35-anglican-orthodox-theological-dialogue |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201201143824/https://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1978/resolution-35-anglican-orthodox-theological-dialogue |archive-date=1 December 2020 |ref={{harvid|Lambeth Conference|1978}}  }}
* {{cite web|author=Anglican Communion. Lambeth Conference 12 |date=14 August 1988 |title=Resolution 6 |website=anglicancommunion.org |location=London |publisher=Anglican Communion Office |url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1988/resolution-6-anglican-orthodox-relations |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201201154450/https://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1988/resolution-6-anglican-orthodox-relations |archive-date=1 December 2020 |ref={{harvid|Lambeth Conference|1988}}  }}
* {{cite web|author=Anglican Consultative Council 9|date=January 1993|title=Resolutions|website=anglicancommunion.org|location=Cape Town, ZA|publication-place=London|publisher=Anglican Communion Office|url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc9/resolutions.cfm#s19|access-date=25 April 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080830014529/http://anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc9/resolutions.cfm|archive-date=30 August 2008|url-status=live|ref={{harvid|ACC|1993}}}}
* {{cite web|author=Anglican–Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission|date=19 July 1976|title=The Moscow Agreed Statement 1976 |website=anglicancommunion.org|location=London|publisher=Anglican Communion Office|publication-date=2007|url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103815/the_moscow_statement.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906130934/http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103815/the_moscow_statement.pdf|archive-date=6 September 2015|url-status=live|ref={{harvid|AOJDC|1976}}}}
* {{cite web|author=Anglican–Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission|date=19 August 1984|title=The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984|website=anglicancommunion.org|location=London|publisher=Anglican Communion Office|publication-date=2007|url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103812/the_dublin_statement.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906122036/http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103812/the_dublin_statement.pdf|archive-date=6 September 2015|url-status=live|ref={{harvid|AOJDC|1984}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Balthasar|first=Hans Urs von|year=2005|chapter=On the filioque|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vPn1ZmsMJuUC&pg=PA209|title=Theo-logic: theological logical theory|volume=3|others=Translated by Adrian J. Walker|location=San Francisco|publisher=Ignatius Press|isbn=978-0-89870-720-5}}
* {{cite book|author=Basil of Caesarea|year=1980|title=On the Holy Spirit|series=Popular patristics|volume=5|others=Translated by David Anderson|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press|isbn=978-0-91383674-3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BcmPV9fjBxYC&pg=PA122|ref={{harvid|Anderson|1980}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Boulnois|first=Marie-Odile|year=2003|chapter=The mystery of the trinity according to Cyril of Alexandria: the deployment of the triad and its recapitulation into the unity of divinity|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cmivAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA106|editor1-last=Weinandy|editor1-first=Thomas G.|editor2-last=Keating|editor2-first=Daniel A.|title=The theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: a critical appreciation|location=London [u.a.]|publisher=T&T Clark|isbn=978-0-567-08900-7}}
* {{cite journal|last=Bray |first=Gerald |year=1983 |orig-year=Tyndale historical theology lecture, 1982 |title=The Filioque clause in history and theology |journal=Tyndale Bulletin |volume=34 |issue=1 |location=Cambridge |publisher=Tyndale House |pages=91–144 |doi=10.53751/001c.30585 |s2cid=245875581 |issn=0082-7118 |url=http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716095849/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf |archive-date=16 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite book|last=Brock|first=Sebastian|year=1999|orig-year=chapter first published in 1985|chapter=The Christology of the Church in the East in the synods of the fifth to early seventh centuries: preliminary considerations and materials|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GC4vwTXJSaMC&pg=PA282|editor-last=Ferguson|editor-first=Everett|title=Doctrinal diversity: varieties of early Christianity|series=Recent studies in early Christianity|volume=4|location=New York|publisher=Garland|isbn=978-0-81533071-4|pages=126, 133 in 1985 original (pp. 282, 289 in 1999 faximile)|ref={{harvid|Brock|1985}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Bulgakov|first=Sergius|year=2004|title=The Comforter|others=Translated by Boris Jakim|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=William B. Eerdmans|isbn=978-0-8028-2112-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VX6-DWe9AhUC}}
* {{cite book|last=Campbell|first=Ted|year=2009|title=The Gospel in Christian traditions|location=Oxford[u.a.]|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19537063-8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UzHNWxy6eJ4C&pg=PA38}}
* {{cite book|last=Chadwick|first=Henry|year=2003|title=East and West: the making of a rift in the Church|series=Oxford history of the Christian Church|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19926457-5|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199264575.001.0001|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/eastwestmakingof0000chad}}
* {{cite book|last=Congar|first=Yves|year=1959|title=After nine hundred years: the background of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches|others=Translated|location=New York|publisher=Fordham University Press|isbn=978-0-58523800-5|url=https://archive.org/details/afterninehundred027313mbp}}
* {{cite book|last=Congar|first=Yves|year=1983|title=I Believe in the Holy Spirit|volume=3|others=Translated by David Smith|location=New York|publisher=Seabury Press|isbn=978-0-22566355-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jQtCAQAAIAAJ}}
* {{cite book|year=2005|editor1-last=Cross|editor1-first=Frank L.|editor2-last=Livingstone|editor2-first=Elizabeth A.|title=Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|location=Oxford |publisher=University Press|isbn=978-0-19-280290-3|ref={{harvid|ODCC|2005}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Cunliffe-Jones|first=Hubert|year=2006|title=A History of Christian Doctrine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hbqG3XZrpEkC&pg=PA207|publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-567-04393-1}}
** {{harvc|last=Ware|first=Kallistos|chapter=Christian theology in the East 600–1453|in=Cunliffe-Jones|year=2006}}
* {{cite book|last=Dales|first=Douglas|year=2013|title=Alcuin II: a study of his theology|location=Cambridge|publisher=James Clarke|isbn=978-0-22717394-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gpsABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA318}}
* {{cite book|last=Davies|first=Brian|year=1993|title=The thought of Thomas Aquinas|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-826753-9|doi=10.1093/0198267533.001.0001|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TxrDzeKU2VsC&pg=PA186}}
* {{cite book|last=Davies|first=Rupert E.|year=1987|title=Making sense of the creeds|location=London|publisher=Epworth|isbn=9780716204336|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3TAQAQAAIAAJ}}
* {{cite encyclopedia|editor1-last=Denzinger|editor1-first=Heinrich|editor2-last=Hünermann|editor2-first=Peter|editor3-last=Fastiggi|editor3-first=Robert L.|editor4-last=Nash|editor4-first=Anne Englund|display-editors=2|year=2012|encyclopedia=Enchiridion symbolorum: a compendium of creeds, definitions and declarations of the Catholic Church|edition=43rd|isbn=978-0898707465|location=San Francisco|publisher=Ignatius Press|ref={{harvid|DH|2012}}|title=Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals}}
* {{cite book|last=Dix|first=Gregory|year=2005|orig-year=1945|title=The shape of the liturgy|edition=facsimile of 1945 2nd ed. with 2005 introduction as New|location=London [u.a.]|publisher=Continuum|isbn=978-0-82647942-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zTdm1WjdfKUC&pg=PA487}}
* {{cite journal|last=Dulles|first=Avery|date=April 1995|title=The Filioque: what is at stake?|journal=Concordia Theological Quarterly|volume=59|issue=1–2|location=Fort Wayne, IN|publisher=Faculty of Concordia Theological Seminary|issn=0038-8610|url=http://www.ctsfw.edu/about/faculty/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041021103955/http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1232|archive-date=21 October 2004|url-status=dead|pages=31–47, at 32, 40}}
* {{cite book|editor-last=Elowsky|editor-first=Joel C.|year=2009|chapter=Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]|title=We believe in the Holy Spirit|series=Ancient Christian doctrine|volume=4|pages=217–234|location=Downers Grove, IL|publisher=InterVarsity Press Academic|isbn=978-0-83082534-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OOHfnXCquOgC}}
* {{cite book|last=Farrelly|first=John|year=2005|title=The Trinity: rediscovering the central Christian mystery|location=Lanham|publisher=Sheed & Ward|isbn=978-0-7425-3226-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cSxtAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA119}}
* {{cite book|last=Fortescue|first=Adrian|year=1908|title=The Orthodox Eastern Church|edition=2nd|location=London|publisher=Catholic Truth Society|oclc=880670516|ol=14032785M|hdl=2027/uva.x000470485}}
* {{Cite CE1913|last=Fortescue|first=Adrian|wstitle=Photius of Constantinople|volume=12}}
* {{cite book|author=Gregory of Nazianzus|year=1893|chapter=Select orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen|title=S. Cyril of Jerusalem; S. Gregory Nazianzen|series=A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series|volume=7|others=Translated by Charles E. Browne & James E. Swallow|location=New York|publisher=Christian Literature|isbn=9780195372045|oclc=8862602}} – also via ''[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207 ccel.org]''.
* {{cite book|author=Gregory of Nazianzus|year=2006|title=Gregory of Nazianzus|others=Translated by Brian Daley|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-41512180-4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e99kuBuG2G4C|ref={{harvid|Daley|2006}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Guretzki|first=David|year=2009|title=Karl Barth on the Filioque|series=Barth studies|location=Farnham, UK|publisher=Ashgate|isbn=978-0-7546-6704-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MMrNOda45acC&pg=PA11}} A close examination of Karl Barth's defense of the filioque and why his position is closer to an Eastern perspective than has typically been assumed.
* {{cite book|last=Harnack|first=Adolph|year=1898|title=History of dogma|volume=5|others=Translated by James Millar|location=London|publisher=Williams & Norgate|isbn=9780195372045|oclc=589804627|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma5}}
* {{cite book|last=Hinson|first=E. Glenn|year=1995|title=The church triumphant: a history of Christianity up to 1300|location=Macon, GA|publisher=Mercer University Press|isbn=978-0-86554436-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cY1SymrAGeEC&pg=PA315}}
* {{cite book|last=Hopko|first=Thomas|date=n.d.|title=Doctrine and Scripture|series=The Orthodox faith|volume=1|publisher=Orthodox Christian Publication Center{{thinsp}}/{{thinsp}}Orthodox Church of America|ref={{harvid|Hopko|n.d.(a)}}|url=http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine-scripture}}
* {{cite book|last=Hopko|first=Thomas|date=n.d.|title=Church History|series=The Orthodox faith|volume=3|publisher=Orthodox Christian Publication Center{{thinsp}}/{{thinsp}}Orthodox Church of America|ref={{harvid|Hopko|n.d.(b)}}|url=http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history}}
* {{cite book|last1=Irvin|first1=Dale T.|last2=Sunquist|first2=Scott|year=2001|title=History of the world Christian movement|volume=1|location=Edinburgh|publisher=T&T Clark|isbn=978-0-56708866-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C2akvQfa-QMC&pg=PA299}}
* {{cite book|last=Kasper|first=Walter|year=2004|chapter=The renewal of pneumatology in contemporary Catholic life and theology: towards a rapprochement between east and west|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oh5krtBReQ8C&pg=PA96|title=That they may all be one: the call to the unity|location=London [u.a.]|publisher=Burns & Oates|isbn=978-0-86012379-8}}
* {{cite book|last=Kelly|first=Joseph F.|year=2009|title=The ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church : a history|location=Collegeville, MN|publisher=Liturgical Press|isbn=978-0-81465703-4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pg35WfMdM-QC&pg=PT19}}
* {{cite book|last=Kelly|first=John N. D.|author-link=John Norman Davidson Kelly|year=2014|orig-year=ed. published 1972|title=Early Christian creeds|edition=3rd|location=New York [u.a.]|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-31787173-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UXIABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA364}}
* {{Cite book|last=Krikorian|first=Mesrob K.|year=2010|title=Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches: Christology in the Tradition of the Armenian Apostolic Church|publisher=Peter Lang|isbn=9783631581216|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iFEqAQAAMAAJ}}
* {{cite encyclopedia|year=2005|title=Filioque|editor1-last=Lacoste|editor1-first=Jean-Yves|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Christian theology|location=New York|publisher=Routledge|volume=1|isbn=9780203319017|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nzTkg_A6CWkC&pg=PA1762|page=583|ref={{harvid|ECT|2005}}}}
* {{cite book|last=LaDue|first=William J.|year=2003|title=The Trinity guide to the Trinity|location=Harrisburg, PA|publisher=Trinity Press International|isbn=978-1-56338-395-3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0WvgLlSKW7oC&pg=PA63}}
* {{cite book|last=Larchet|first=Jean-Claude|year=2006|chapter=The question of the Roman primacy in the thought of Saint Maximus the Confessor|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3mxbj99yRaQC&pg=PA188|others=Translated by Brian Farrell|editor-last=Kasper|editor-first=Walter|title=The Petrine ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in dialogue: academic symposium held at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity|publisher=Paulist Press|isbn=978-0-80-914334-4}}
* {{Cite book|last=Kärkkäinen|first=Veli-Matti|author-link=Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen|title=Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective|year=2002|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=Baker Academic|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XI6iB7Cry6AC|isbn=9780801024481}}
* {{Cite book|editor-last=Kärkkäinen|editor-first=Veli-Matti|editor-link=Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen|title=Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology|year=2010|location=Louisville, KY|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=buA7YKLWe6YC|isbn=9780664231361}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Kinnamon|editor1-first=Michael|editor2-last=Cope|editor2-first=Brian E.|year=1997|orig-year=1996|title=The ecumenical movement: an anthology of key texts and voices|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=Eerdmans|isbn=978-0-8028-4263-3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MJKuXYlO5YUC}}
**{{harvc |last=World Council of Churches. Commission on Faith and Order |c={{interp|Klingenthal Memorandum:}} The ''Filioque'' clause in ecumenical perspective {{interp|1979}} |p=172 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MJKuXYlO5YUC&pg=PA172 |in1=Kinnamon |in2=Cope |year=1997 |id=CITEREFWCCFO1979}}
* {{cite book|last=Kulakov|first=Mikhail|year=2007|chapter=Vladimir Nikolaievich Lossky (1903-1958) – Commentary|editor1-last=Witte|editor1-first=John|editor2-last=Alexander|editor2-first=Frank S.|title=The teachings of modern Orthodox Christianity on law, politics, and human nature|location=New York [u.a.]|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-231-14265-6|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=THpyJ0jBeH0C&pg=PA177}}
* {{cite book|last=Lossky|first=Vladimir|year=1997|orig-year=1957|title=Mystical theology of the Eastern Church|others=Translated by members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius|location=Cambridge, UK|publisher=James Clarke|isbn=978-0-22767919-7|pages=48–57|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kIcSCgAAQBAJ}}
* {{cite book|last=Lossky|first=Vladimir|year=2003|orig-year=1974|chapter=The procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian theology|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qL5xOU_iGKQC&pg=PA163|editor-last=Clendenin|editor-first=Daniel B.|title=Eastern Orthodox theology: a contemporary reader|edition=2nd|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=Baker Academic|isbn=978-0-8010-2651-5}} Chapter was first published in
* {{cite book|last=Louth|first=Andrew|year=2007|title=Greek East and Latin West: the church, AD 681-1071|series=Church history|volume=3|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimirs Seminary Press|isbn=978-0-88141-320-5}}
* {{Cite CE1913|last=Maas|first=Anthony|wstitle=Filioque|volume=6}}
* {{cite book|last=Marthaler|first=Berard L.|year=2001|orig-year=1993|chapter=Principle of unity, cause of division: the "''Filioque''"|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c9NFb1TlfX0C&pg=PA248|title=The Creed: the Apostolic faith in contemporary theology|edition=Rev.|location=Mystic, CT|publisher=Twenty-Third Publications|isbn=978-0-89622537-4|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/creedapostolicfa0000mart}}
* {{cite book|last=Maspero|first=Giulio|year=2007|title=Trinity and man: Gregory of Nyssa's Ad Ablabium|series=Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae|volume=86|location=Leiden [u.a.]|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-9-00415872-6|page=150|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oUxMt6N18p0C&pg=PA150}}
* {{cite encyclopedia|editor-last=McGuckin|editor-first=John A.|year=2011 |encyclopedia=The encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity |publisher=Blackwell Publishing|isbn=9781405185394|via=Blackwell Reference Online|title=The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity: N-Z}}
** {{harvc|last=Papanikolaou|first=Aristotle|chapter=Holy Trinity|url=http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781405185394_chunk_g978140518539410_ss1-11|in=McGuckin|year=2011}}
** {{harvc|last=Plested|first=Marcus|chapter=Filioque|url=http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781405185394_chunk_g97814051853948_ss1-4|in=McGuckin|year=2011}}
** {{harvc|last=Trostyanskiy|first=Sergey|chapter=Holy Spirit|p=|url=http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781405185394_chunk_g978140518539410_ss1-10|in=McGuckin|year=2011}}
* {{cite book|last=McGuckin|first=John A.|year=2011b|orig-year=2008|title=The Orthodox Church: an introduction to its history, doctrine, and spiritual culture|location=Hoboken, NJ|publisher=Wiley|isbn=978-1-4443-3731-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KLIFfmipXcoC&pg=PA170}}
* {{cite book|last=Meyendorff|first=John|year=1974|title=A study of Gregory Palamas|others=Translated by George Lawrence|edition=2nd|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press}}
* {{cite conference|last=Meyendorff|first=John|year=1986|chapter=Theology in the thirteenth century: methodological contrasts|chapter-url=http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Meyendorff_12.html|title=The 17th International Byzantine Congress : major papers|conference=The 17th International Byzantine Congress, Dumbarton Oaks/Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 3–8 August 1986|location=New Rochelle, NY|publisher=A.D. Caratzas|isbn=978-0-89241444-4|via=myriobiblos.gr}}
* {{cite book|last=Meyendorff|first=John|year=1987|orig-year=©1983|title=Byzantine Theology: historical trends and doctrinal themes|edition=2nd rev.|location=New York|publisher=Fordham University Press|isbn=978-0-8232-0967-5|pages=60–61, 91–94, 106–113, 181, 188–189|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C&pg=PA181}}
* {{cite book|last=Meyendorff|first=John|year=1996|orig-year=First ed. published 1960|editor-last=Lossky|editor-first=Nicolas|title=The Orthodox Church: its past and its role in the world today|others=Translated by John Chapin|edition=4th rev.|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press|isbn=978-0-91383681-1|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E16XzwPdJtsC}}
* {{cite encyclopedia|last=Nersessian|first=Vrej Nerses|title=Armenian Christianity|year=2010|orig-year=2007|editor-last=Parry|editor-first=Ken|encyclopedia=The Blackwell companion to Eastern Christianity|location=Malden, MA|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|series=Blackwell companions to religion|isbn=978-1-44433361-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC&pg=PA33}}
* {{cite book|last=Moltmann|first=Jürgen|year=1993|orig-year=©1981|title=The Trinity and the kingdom: the doctrine of God|others=Translated by Margaret Kohl|edition=reprint|location=Minneapolis, MN|publisher=Fortress Press|isbn=978-0-8006-2825-3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=D1ENDrMTaDsC&pg=PA179}}
* {{cite book|last=Nichols|first=Aidan|year=1995|title=Light from the East: authors and themes in Orthodox theology|location=London|publisher=Sheed & Ward|isbn=978-0-7220-5081-1}}
* {{cite book|last=Nichols|first=Aidan|year=2005|chapter=The place of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity|title=Wisdom from above: a primer in the theology of Father Sergei Bulgakov|location=Leominster|publisher=Gracewing|isbn=978-0-85244642-3|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UWTCRF7nQRMC&pg=PA157}}
* {{cite book|last=Nichols|first=Aidan|year=2010|title=Rome and the Eastern Churches: a study in schism|edition=2nd|location=San Francisco, CA|publisher=Ignatius Press|isbn=9781586172824|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Hje62q52XNsC&pg=PA255}}
* {{cite web|author=North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation|date=25 October 2003|title=The Filioque: a Church dividing issue?|website=usccb.org|location=Washington, DC|publisher=United States Conference of Catholic Bishops|url=http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130220120953/http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm|archive-date=20 February 2013|url-status=live|ref={{harvid|NAOCTC|2003}}}} Also archived as{{cite web|url=http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html |title=The Filioque: a Church-dividing issue? |access-date=25 June 2010 |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100806122533/http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html |archive-date=6 August 2010  }}  from ''scoba.us''. New York: Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas.
* {{cite book|last=Norwich|first=John J.|year=1997|title=A Short History of Byzantium|publisher=Knopf|isbn=978-0-679-45088-7}}
* {{cite book|last1=O'Collins|first1=Gerald|last2=Farrugia|first2=Mario|year=2015|title=Catholicism: the story of Catholic Christianity|edition=2nd|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-872818-4|pages=157–161|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728184.001.0001|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yb5TBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA158}}
* {{cite book|last=Panicker|first=Mathunny John|year=2002|chapter=Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon 410|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wF1LP6FbjgQC&pg=PA58|title=The person of Jesus Christ in the writings of Juhanon Gregorius Abu'l Faraj commonly called Bar Ebraya|series=Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte|volume=4|location=Münster [u.a.]|publisher=LIT Verlag|isbn=978-3-82583390-9|pages=58–59}}
* {{cite book|last1=Papadakis|first1=Aristeides|last2=Meyendorff|first2=John|year=1994|title=The Christian East and the rise of the papacy: the Church 1071–1453 A.D.|series=The Church in history|volume=4|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press|isbn=978-0-88141058-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xHvYAAAAMAAJ|pages=232–238, 379–408}}
* {{Cite book|last=Papadakis|first=Aristeides|title=Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289)|year=1997|orig-year=1983|edition=Rev.|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press|isbn=9780881411768|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TUBllg0JpgUC}}
* {{cite book|editor-last=Percival|editor-first=Henry R.|year=1900|title=The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church|series=A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series|volume=14|others=Translated by the editor|location=New York|publisher=Scribners|oclc=887871796|ol=25507835M|pages=231–234|url=https://archive.org/stream/sevenecumenicalc00perc#page/231/mode/1up}} – also via ''[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214 ccel.org]''.
* {{cite book|author=Photius I, Patriarch of Constantinople|year=1987|editor-last=Farrell|editor-first=Joseph P.|title=The mystagogy of the Holy Spirit|series=Fathers of the church|others=Translated by the editor|location=Brookline, MA|publisher=Holy Cross Orthodox Press|isbn=978-0-31761415-2|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y8XYAAAAMAAJ|ref={{harvid|Farrell|1987}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Pomazansky|first=Michael|year=1984|editor-last=Rose|editor-first=Seraphim|title=Orthodox dogmatic theology: a concise exposition|others=Translated by the editor|edition=IntraText CT|location=Rome|publisher=Èulogos SpA|publication-date=4 May 2007|url=http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM|via=intratext.com}}
* {{cite news|author=Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity|date=20 September 1995|title=The Greek and Latin traditions regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit|newspaper=L'Osservatore Romano|edition=Weekly English|page=3|url=https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/greek-and-latin-traditions-regarding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040903132523/http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM|archive-date=3 September 2004|url-status=live|ref={{harvid|PCPCU|1995}}|via=ewtn.com}}
* {{cite book|year=2005|editor1-last=Price|editor1-first=Richard|editor2-last=Gaddis|editor2-first=Michael|title=The acts of the Council of Chalcedon|series=Translated texts for historians|volume=45|others=Translated by the editors|location=Liverpool|publisher=Liverpool University Press|isbn=978-0-85323039-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=PA323}}
* {{cite book|author=Reformed Church in America. Commission on Theology|year=2002|chapter=The Nicene Creed and the Procession of the Spirit|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V1mZXIGNqCgC&pg=PA70|editor-last=Cook|editor-first=James I.|title=The Church speaks: papers of the Commission on Theology, Reformed Church in America, 1959–1984|series=Historical series of the Reformed Church in America|volume=40|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=Eerdmans|isbn=978-0-80280980-3|ref={{harvid|RCA|2002}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Rush|first=Ormond|year=1997|title=The reception of doctrine: an appropriation of Hans Robert Jauss' reception aesthetics and literary hermeneutics|series=Tesi gregoriana. Teologia|volume=19|location=Rome|publisher=Gregorian University Press|isbn=978-8-87652-744-9|page=168|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KfZeoo0_ULgC&pg=PA168}}
* {{cite book|last=Schaff|first=Philip|year=1885|title=History of the Christian Church|volume=4|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.iii.html}}
* {{cite encyclopedia|last=Schmaus|first=Michael|year=1975|title=Holy Spirit|editor1-last=Rahner|editor1-first=Karl|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of theology: the concise Sacramentum mundi|location=New York|publisher=Crossroad|isbn=9780860120063|pages=646–647|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WtnR-6_PlJAC&pg=PA646}}
* {{cite book|last=Siecienski|first=A. Edward|year=2005|title=The use of Maximus the Confessor's writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439)|location=Ann Arbor, MI|publisher=UMI Dissertation Services}}
* {{Cite book|last=Siecienski|first=Anthony Edward|year=2010|title=The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=auT8VbgOe48C|isbn=9780195372045}}
* {{cite conference|last=Stylianopoulous|first=Theodore|year=1984|chapter=The Filioque: dogma, theologoumenon or error?|editor1-last=Stylianopoulos|editor1-first=Theodore G|editor2-last=Heim|editor2-first=S. Mark|title=Spirit of truth: ecumenical perspectives on the Holy Spirit|conference=Holy Spirit Consultation, 24–25 October 1985, Brookline, Massachusetts|location=Brookline, MA|publisher=Holy Cross Orthodox Press|publication-date=1986|isbn=978-0-91765139-7}} – also [https://web.archive.org/web/20090902093104/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/stylianopoulos_filioque.html archived] from ''goecities.com'' transcription of {{cite journal|year=1986|title=The Filioque: dogma, theologoumenon or error?|journal=The Greek Orthodox Theological Review|volume=31|issue=3–4|location=Brookline, MA|publisher=Greek Orthodox Theological Institute Press|pages=255–288|issn=2169-6861}}
* {{cite book|title=Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils|editor1-last=Tanner|editor1-first=Norman|editor2-last=Alberigo|editor2-first=Giuseppe|location=Washington, DC|publisher=Georgetown University Press|year=1990|volume=1|ref={{harvid|Tanner|1990}}}}
* {{cite wikisource |author=Tertullian |year=1887 |class=book |editor1-last=Roberts |editor1-first=Alexander |editor2-last=Donaldson |editor2-first=James |editor3-last=Coxe |editor3-first=A. Cleveland |plaintitle=Latin Christianity: its founder, Tertullian |series=The Ante-Nicene Fathers: the writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325 |location=Buffalo |publisher=Christian Literature |edition=American |volume=3 |others=Chapter translated by Peter Holmes |chapter=Against Praxeas |wslink=Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion |ref={{harvid |Tertullian |''Against Praxeas''}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Thiselton|first=Anthony C.|year=2013|title=The Holy Spirit: in biblical teaching, through the centuries, and today|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=William B. Eerdmans|isbn=978-0-80286875-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UfzVK8t_lgQC&pg=PA400}}
* {{cite book|author=Thomas Aquinas|year=2005|editor-last=Bauerschmidt|editor-first=Frederick C.|title=Holy Teaching: introducing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=Brazos|isbn=978-1-58743035-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_Okm2tfRNJoC&pg=PA98|ref={{harvid|Bauerschmidt|2005}}}}
* {{Cite book|editor-last=Vischer|editor-first=Lukas|editor-link=Lukas Vischer (theologian)|chapter=The Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective|title=Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy|year=1981|location=London|publisher=Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge|pages=3–18|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SdLYAAAAMAAJ|isbn=9782825406625}}
* {{cite book|last=Ware|first=Timothy (later religious name Kallistos)|year=1993|title=The Orthodox Church|edition=IntraText CT|location=Rome|publisher=Èulogos SpA|publication-date=29 May 2007|url=http://www.intratext.com/x/eng0804.htm|via=intratext.com}}
* {{cite book|year=1861|chapter=Edictum Pseudosynodi Constantinopolitanae|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=97IWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA155|language=el, la |editor-last=Will|editor-first=Cornelius|title=Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant|location=Paris [u.a.]|publisher=Lipsiae et Marpurgi|oclc=680484996|pages=155–168}}
* {{cite journal|last=Zizioulas|first=Ioannis|year=1996|title=One single source: an Orthodox response to the clarification on the Filioque|journal=30 Days in the Church and in the World|volume=9|location=Newton, NJ|publisher=Italcoser|page=42|issn=0897-2435|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AOYtAAAAYAAJ}} Transcribed in {{cite web|last=Zizioulas|first=John|date=n.d.|title=One single source: an Orthodox response to the clarification on the Filioque|website=orthodoxresearchinstitute.org|location=[s.l.]|publisher=Orthodox Research Institute|url=http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130113042447/http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=13 January 2013|access-date=23 December 2011}} Commentary on {{harvtxt|PCPCU|1995}}
{{Refend}}

===Further reading===
{{refbegin|2|indent=yes}}
* Bradshaw, David. ''Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.&nbsp;214–220.
* Farrell, Joseph P. ''[http://dialectic.wordpress.com/ghd/ God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences]''. Bound edition 1997. Electronic edition 2008.
* Gemeinhardt, Peter (2002). ''Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frühmittelalter'' [The filioque controversy between the Eastern and Western churches in the early Middle Ages]. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, volume 82. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, {{ISBN|3-11-017491-X}}.
* Groppe, Elizabeth Teresa. ''Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit''. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. See esp. pp.&nbsp;75–79, for a summary of Congar's work on the ''Filioque''. Congar is widely considered the most important Roman Catholic ecclesiologist of the twentieth century. He was influential in the composition of several Vatican II documents. Most important of all, he was instrumental in the association in the West of pneumatology and ecclesiology, a new development.
* Haugh, Richard. ''Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy''. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.
* John St. H. Gibaut, "The ''Cursus Honorum'' and the Western Case Against Photius", ''Logos'' 37 (1996), 35–73.
* {{cite book|editor-last=Habets|editor-first=Myk|year=2014|title=Ecumenical perspectives on the Filioque for the 21st century|series=T&T Clark theology|location=London; New York|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic|isbn=978-0-56750072-4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=v9TeBAAAQBAJ}}<!-- parked, might read and add these broad 21st cent. perspectives -->
* [[Joseph Jungmann|Jungmann, Joseph]]. ''Pastoral Liturgy''. London: Challoner, 1962. See "Christ our God", pp.&nbsp;38–48.
* [[James Likoudis|Likoudis, James]]. ''Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism''. New Rochelle, New York: 1992. An apologetic response to polemical attacks. A useful book for its inclusion of important texts and documents; see especially citations and works by [[Thomas Aquinas]], O.P., [[Demetrios Kydones]], Nikos A. Nissiotis, and Alexis Stawrowsky. The select bibliography is excellent. The author demonstrates that the ''Filioque'' dispute is only understood as part of a dispute over papal primacy and cannot be dealt with apart from [[ecclesiology]].
* Marshall, Bruce D. "''Ex Occidente Lux?'' Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology", ''Modern Theology'' 20:1 (January 2004), 23–50. Reconsideration of the views of Aquinas, especially on deification and grace, as well as his Orthodox critics. The author suggests that Aquinas may have a more accurate perspective than his critics, on the systematic questions of theology that relate to the ''Filioque'' dispute.
* Oberdorfer, Bernd (2001). ''Filioque. Geschichte und Theologie eines ökumenischen Problems'' [Filioque. The history and theology of an ecumenical problem]. Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie, volume 96. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, {{ISBN|3-525-56207-1}}.
* Reid, Duncan. ''Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology''. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.
* Smith, Malon H. ''And Taking Bread: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054''. Paris: Beauschesne, 1978. This work is still valuable for understanding cultural and theological estrangement of East and West by the turn of the millennium. Now, it is evident that neither side understood the other; both Greek and Latin antagonists assumed their own practices were normative and authentic.
* Webb, Eugene.  ''In Search of The Triune God: The Christian Paths of East and West''. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2014.
* Ware, Timothy (Kallistos). ''The Orthodox Way''. Revised edition. Crestwood, New York: 1995, pp.&nbsp;89–104.
{{refend}}

<!-- {{No more links}}

 Please be cautious adding more external links.

Wikipedia is not a collection of links and should not be used for advertising.

 Excessive or inappropriate links will be removed.

 See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details.

If there are already suitable links, propose additions or replacements on
the article's talk page, or submit your link to the relevant category at
the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) and link there using {{Dmoz}}. -->

{{Christian theology}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Filioque| ]]
[[Category:Christian terminology]]
[[Category:Western Christianity]]
[[Category:Nicene Creed]]