Filioque

==Present position of various churches==

=== Catholic Church ===
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"/>

===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]] no longer prints the ''Filioque'' clause in its modern language liturgies.

===Protestantism===
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 defense of the ''Filioque'' ran counter to the stance of many Protestant theologians of the latter half of the 20th century who favored abandoning the use of the ''Filioque'' in the liturgy.{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}}{{sfn|Guretzki|2009|p=12}}

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

===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>[https://stelias-lacrosse.org/files/homilies/Sunday-of-the-Nicene-Fathers-2016.pdf 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>[https://philosophiajournal.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/20-38-philosophia-26-2020-theophylact.pdf 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>