Filioque

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1986, Theodore Stylianopoulos provided an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion.{{sfn|Stylianopoulous|1984}} Ware said that he had changed his mind and had concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may ''both'' have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings.<ref>{{cite speech|last=Ware|first=Kallistos|title=[s.n.?]|date=May 1995|location=Aiken, SC}} Quoted in {{cite web|title=The Father as the source of the whole Trinity |website=geocities.com |url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/5kmlDaaHh?url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html |archive-date=25 October 2009 |url-status=dead  }}</ref> For some Orthodox,{{Who|date=November 2011}} then, the ''Filioque'', while still a matter of conflict, would not impede full communion of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches if other issues were resolved. But 19th century Russian [[Slavophile]] theologian [[Aleksey Khomyakov]] considered the ''Filioque'' as an expression of formalism, rationalism, pride and lack of love for other Christians,{{Relevance inline|discuss=Khomyakov in Lossky|date=November 2015}}{{efn|name=Lossky|Lossky wrote that for Khomyakov, "legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the ''filioque'' clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. 'In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility.' In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super-rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house."<ref>{{cite book|last=Lossky|first=Nikolai|year=1951|title=History of Russian philosophy|others=Translated|location=New York|publisher=International Universities Press|oclc=258525325|page=37|isbn=9780195372045}}</ref>{{Relevance inline|discuss=Khomyakov in Lossky|date=November 2015}}}} and that it is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel, has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church, and remains a fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West.

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

===Inclusion in the Nicene Creed===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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