The driving conflict for the 1054 Great Schism was over the insertion of the *filioque* (and from the Son) into the Nicene Creed. The Western, largely Latin speaking churches said that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *and the Son*" while the Eastern, largely Greek-speaking said simply "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father". This lead to the separation and mutual excommunication of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. My question concerns the Eastern Orthodox perspective on this, particularly historically as I am aware that some modern EO theologians have downplayed the difference. If *filioque* is regarded as heresy, what then does the EO make of pre-schismatic Latin saints who used the term? For instance, in Augustine's *De Trinitate*, Book IV chapter 5 argues that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son: > Nor, by the way, can we say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well. I have heard that other Latin fathers such as Jerome and Ambrose also taught *filioque*. If *filioque* is regarded as heresy by EO theologians, how are Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose regarded as saints?

Depending on your tradition, the [Nicene Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) may or may not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father: > (Greek) τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον - who from the Father proceeds
(Latin) qui ex Patre **Filioque** procedit - who from the Father **and the Son** proceeds This has been a point of contention between the Orthodox and Western churches, the latter category including both Catholics and Protestants, for at least a thousand years, contributing to the [Great Schism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism) . I have read about the history of "[filioque](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) " but I have basically no idea what the theological difference is meant to be. I understand that there is some doubt about whether "ἐκπορευόμενον" means the same thing as "procedit", so both versions could be right (and apparently we all agree it would be wrong to insert "and the Son" into the Greek) but I don't see what either version of "proceeding" is meant to imply about the nature of the Trinity. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father alone, what does that actually mean for our understanding of God?

When was the Filioque clause added to the creed and what is the reason for that? Did the eastern fathers believe in the filioque?

I was thinking about the mention of the Father in the NT with the definite article, first example is John 1:1. In the rest of the NT there is always a theological reverence towards the Father that must be noticed. One quick example is 1 Tim 6:16 "who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see." I do not want to make this question long, so there we go: don't you think that by affirming filioque we actually run over the role (economy, not ontology) of the Father in the New Testament?

The following is intended to correlate to classical scholastic terminology, to whit: Nature = essence, as in "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the Trinitarian 'nature' of God." Person = mode of particular operation, as in "the Son is the second "person" of the Trinity, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made..." The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all co-eternal and co-equal. ### Question If the the persons of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - are co-eternal and *co-equal*, **and** the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son... Wouldn't the Father and the Son need to proceed from the Spirit as well in order to maintain the triad of equal procession from all three? It seems as though, since the Holy Spirit doesn't have the faculty of bestowing procession upon the Father and the Son, then that gives the Holy Spirit one *less* faculty than the rest, which in turn subordinates the Holy Spirit to receive procession only. Doesn't this infringe on the Spirit's co-equality? This question derives from my study of the and drawn out debate concerning the validity of the *filioque*.

On OrthodoxWiki it says that the filioque violates the Canons of the Council of Ephesus, because it's an addition to the Nicene Creed. The Catholic Encyclopedia says "[But] that creed itself would be abolished by this decree if it is taken too literally." But does not elaborate much on this. If the problem is taking the canons "too literally" then how should the canons be read? How do Catholics explain that the *filioque* does not violate Ephesus?

Given the Filioque (the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), how can the Holy Spirit be considered God? Given that God is necessary, it seems to me that the Filioque implies the Holy Spirit is contingent on the Father and the Son, but that means it’s not necessary. Am I misunderstanding the Filioque here? Can someone provide a way to solve this apparent contradiction?

For those who do not agree with Sola Scriptura, which is scripture alone is the source for all things pertaining to your salvation, they often quote this from Paul. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15 For them, this is their proof text that you should hold Traditions as salvific. To what specific "traditions" actually extant in Paul's time is he speaking? Are they the four Marian dogmas? Are they the filioque? Are they Peter's successors are the head of the church? Exactly what are they? How do you know? If one doesn't know, why would someone place their trust in them for their salvation?

There have been many attempts from among both Catholic1 and Eastern Orthodox2 theologians to revisit the theology behind the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in light of recent ecumenical dialogue in the past decades following the Second Vatican Council. One of the leading figure important in the dispute on the Latin theology of filioque is St. Thomas Aquinas , respected by both Catholics3 and Eastern Orthodox4. Among the Latin fathers there are two school of thoughts on *filioque*: 1. Monarchical filioque is popularized by St. Anselm of Canterbury and Bl. Duns of Scotus. Whereby the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is constituted to be principaliter and immediate while the procession through the Son is secondary and mediate. 2. Diarchical filioque is a popular view among neo-Thomists who reread the procession of the Holy Spirit to be identical from both the Father and the Son. There is no distinction in the procession itself, with the sole distinction is only in respect to the two spirators as they are distinct from one another. While there is no dispute that Thomas was advancing St. Augustine's *filioque*, a disagreement in regards to whether or not his filioque is monarchical versus diarchical remain unresolved. Which of these two camps did he fall into? --------------------------------- 1 Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes the dean of Ss. Cyril and Methodius Metropolitan Seminary of Byzantine Catholic Church in Pittsburgh has been one among many who popularized a renewal of interest in the Thomist-Scotist debate on the filioque within Catholicism and on its impact on Catholic–Orthodox dialogue. 2 Dr. David Gilbert, an Eastern Orthodox scholar has been one among many who in the past decade is revisiting the Palamite solution on the theology behind the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in terms of energetic procession. 3 Recognized as a Doctor of the Church in the Catholic Church. 4 Highly praised by Gennadius II Scholarius, a 15th century Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, a Byzantine Thomist, a prophet , and a saint venerated on August 25th in the Greek Orthodox church . "Would O excellent Thomas that you had not been born in the West. Then you would not have needed to defend the deviations of the church there ... you would have been as perfect in theology as you are in ethics." *Oeuvres Complètes de Georges Scholarios*, eds. Petit, Sidéridès, Jugie (Paris 1928–1936) vol VI, 1.

In Western Christian worship, there is a part where the faithful say "One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, (together) with the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God the Father. Amen." In Eastern Christianity they say "One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen." Since the quote is partly scriptural (Phillipians 2:11), I can see where the Eastern version comes from (though this may not be the rigorous explanation of how it came to be in the Liturgy), but I have not yet been able to track down where/when/how/why the phrase 'with the Holy Spirit' was inserted in the Western rite. Some thoughts/possibilities: - It was inserted to make the prayer 'more' Trinitarian. (Counterpoint: Why then would the Eastern Orthodox not include it?) - It was inserted as a consequence of the Filioque clause in the Latin creed. I.e. if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, one might want to make mention of that in a sentence extolling Christ. (Counterpoint: Why would the Eastern Orthodox not include it? Well--they reject the filioque clause. In that case, what is the reason for Paul or the early Church Fathers to omit the Holy Ghost in such a sentiment, either in Scripture or in the Liturgy?) Overall, I must ask: Is the addition of 'with the Holy Spirit' (in the above prayer) primarily of theological or cultural/traditional origin? A more advanced answer would lay out the history of such an insertion. But I'm also happy with references I can read on my own. Thank you.

>Filioque is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Orthodox Wiki, 2015). 1. What is the Biblical Basis of Eastern Orthodox Christians that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone?

In studying the Orthodox doctrines I have noticed that there is controversy about the nature of the Spirit and that the word 'filioque' is tossed around. What I am wondering is, what is the underlying concept whereby Catholic and Protestant ideas about the Trinity conflict with Eastern Orthodox? What is the real issue that keeps Orthodox on their own with respect to the Spirit proceeding from the Father only and not from the Son?

The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father: >and [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who **proceeds** from the Father. > >καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον καὶ Ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς **ἐκπορευόμενον**, The word ἐκπορευόμενον is a participle derived from the Greek verb ἐκπορεύομαι. I'm assuming that the authors of the Nicene Creed derived that statement of faith from John 15:26 which states, >But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which **proceedeth** from the Father, he shall testify of me: (KJV) > >ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς **ἐκπορεύεται** ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ The point is that the Holy Spirit is said to "proceed" from the Father. Now, concerning the Son, in John 8:42 , it is written, >Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I **proceeded** forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. (KJV) > >εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ **ἐξῆλθον** καὶ ἥκω οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν There, the author uses a conjugation of the Greek verb ἐξέρχομαι. 1. What is the difference between the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the manner in which the Son proceeds from the Father, between ἐκπορεύομαι and ἐξέρχομαι, respectively? 2. Why is it commonly confessed (e.g., in the Nicene Creed) that the Holy Spirit, but not the Son, "proceeds" from the Father? (There's also at least one verse, totally unrelated context, mind you, that features both verbs: Matt. 15:18 .)

In the past, extremely influential Eastern theologians (Photius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, etc.) have rejected the [Filioque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) on important theological grounds. Likewise, the Latin Catholic church insists on the insertion of "and the Son" into the Nicene creed. What is the weight of importance for the Filioque in Reformed theology...or is it somewhat of a non-factor in the grand scheme?

In order to contextualize the question I add the following quote from the wikipedia article concerning Filioque clause: > Filioque, Latin for "and (from) the Son", is a phrase found in the > form of Nicene Creed in use in the Latin Church. It is not present in > the Greek text of the Nicene Creed as originally formulated at the > First Council of Constantinople, which says only that the Holy Spirit > proceeds "from the Father" I've been reading about this issue and cannot find a clear biblical basis either for or against the Filioque clause. However, I think there are some verses that can be applied either for or against. For example, John 20:22 can be applied for by saying that the Spirit is proceeding from Christ. On the other hand, it can be applied against by saying that the Spirit is actually proceeding from the Father but *through* the Son. For that reason I am asking if somebody knows more biblical arguments for and against the Filioque.