Filioque

===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}}