Filioque

===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>