Filioque

==== 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}}