Filioque

====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}}}}}}