Filioque

==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}}</ref> Romans 8:9,<ref>{{bibleverse|Romans|8:9}}</ref> Philippians 1:19,<ref>{{bibleverse|Philippians|1:19}}</ref> where the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of the Son", "the Spirit of Christ", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", and 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}}</ref>{{sfn|ODCC|2005|loc="Double Procession of the Holy Spirit"}} Revelation 22:1<ref>{{bibleverse|Revelation|22:1}}</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 Roman Catholic 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}}

=== 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 [[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 Confessor.jpg|thumb|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. Faced with another endorsement of the Filioque clause at the Frankish [[Council of Aachen (809)]] 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.

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}}

===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]]. 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]}} This moved the issue from jurisdiction and custom to one 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 the Roman Rite===

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}}

[[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 characterize 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>