Filioque

=== 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"/>