Filioque: Difference between revisions

{{Short description|Latin term meaning "and from the Son" appended to the Nicene Creed}}

{{Title language|la}}

{{Technical|date=February 2013}}

[[File: Filioque.JPG|thumb|The Holy Spirit coming from both the Father and the Son, detail of the Boulbon Altarpiece, {{c.|1450}}. Originally from the high altar of the Chapelle Saint-Marcellin, [[Boulbon]], France, now in the [[Louvre]], Paris.]]

{{Catholicism–Eastern Orthodoxy sidebar}}

In the late 6th century, some [[Latin Church]]es added the words "and from the Son" ({{lang|la|Filioque}}) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what many [[Eastern Orthodox Christians]] have at a later stage argued is a violation of Canon VII<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html| title = Canon VII}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=February 2020}} of the [[Council of Ephesus]], since the words were not included in the text by either the [[First Council of Nicaea]] or that of Constantinople.<ref>For a different view, see e.g. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html Excursus on the Words πίστιν ἑτέραν]</ref>{{full citation needed|date=February 2020}} The inclusion was incorporated into the [[liturgical]] practice of Rome in 1014, but was rejected by Eastern Christianity.

[[Hubert Cunliffe-Jones]] identifies two opposing Eastern Orthodox opinions about the ''Filioque'', a "liberal" view and a "rigorist" view. The "liberal" view sees the controversy as being largely a matter of mutual miscommunication and misunderstanding. In this view, both East and West are at fault for failing to allow for a "plurality of theologies". Each side went astray in considering its theological framework as the only one that was doctrinally valid and applicable. Thus, neither side would accept that the dispute was not so much about conflicting dogmas as it was about different ''[[theologoumenon|theologoumena]]'' or theological perspectives. While all Christians must be in agreement on questions of [[dogma]], there is room for diversity in theological approaches.{{sfn|Cunliffe-Jones|2006|pp=208–209}}

In a similar vein, Siecienski comments that, although it was common in the 20th century to view the ''Filioque'' as just another weapon in the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople and although this was occasionally the case, for many involved in the dispute, the theological issues outweighed by far the ecclesiological concerns. According to Siecienski, the deeper question was perhaps whether Eastern and Western Christianity had wound up developing "differing and ultimately incompatible teachings about the nature of God". Moreover, Siecienski asserts that the question of whether the teachings of East and West were truly incompatible became almost secondary to the fact that, starting around the 8th or 9th century, Christians on both sides of the dispute began to believe that the differences ''were'' irreconcilable.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=4–6}}

===New Testament===

* John 14:26 NASB – [26] "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

* John 15:26 NASB – [26] "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"

[[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}}

{{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"}}}}

[[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>

====Modern Christian theologians====

At the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th century, the Church of Rome was faced with an unusual challenge regarding the use of Filioque clause. Among the Church leaders in Frankish Kingdom of that time a notion was developing that Filioque clause was in fact an authentic part of the original Creed.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=92}} Trying to deal with that problem and its potentially dangerous consequences, the Church of Rome found itself in the middle of a widening rift between its own Daughter-Church in Frankish Kingdom and Sister-Churches of the East. Popes of that time, [[Pope Hadrian I|Hadrian I]] and [[Pope Leo III|Leo III]], had to face various challenges while trying to find solutions that would preserve the unity of the Church.{{sfn|Meyendorff|1996|p=38}}

Serious problems erupted in 787 after the [[Second Council of Nicaea]] when Charlemagne accused the Patriarch [[Tarasios of Constantinople]] of infidelity to the faith of the First Council of Nicaea, allegedly because he had not professed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son", but only "through the Son". [[Pope Adrian I]] rejected those accusations and tried to explain to the Frankish king that pneumatology of Tarasios was in accordance with the teachings of the holy Fathers.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|p=91}}{{sfn|Nichols|2010|p=237}}{{efn|Charlemagne's legates claimed that Tarasius, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father {{em|through the Son}} (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne's protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759–810).}} Surprisingly, efforts of the pope had no effect.

===Photian controversy===

Photius excluded not only "and the Son" but also "through the Son" with regard to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit: for him "through the Son" applied only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the sending in time).{{sfn|Chadwick|2003|p=154|ps=: "Photius could concede that the Spirit proceeds through the Son in his temporal mission in the created order but not in his actual eternal being"}}{{sfn|Schaff|1885|loc=[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.iii.html §108 II]|ps=: "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the ''per Filium'', as being nearly equivalent to ''ex Filio'' or ''Filioque'', or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father"}}{{sfn|Meyendorff|1986|loc=[http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Meyendorff_12.html §2]|ps=: "[[Nikephoros Blemmydes|Blemmydes]] {{interp|...&nbsp;was}} committed to {{interp|...}} church unity and defended the idea that the image of the Spirit's procession 'through the Son', can serve as a bridge between the two theologies. {{interp|...&nbsp;He}} collected patristic texts using the formula 'through the Son' and attacked those Greeks who out of anti-Latin zeal, were refusing to give it enough importance. In general, and already since Photius, the Greek position consisted in distinguishing the ''eternal'' procession of the Son from the Father, and the ''sending'' of the Spirit ''in time'' through the Son and by the Son. This distinction between the eternal processions and temporal manifestations was among the Byzantines the standard explanation for the numerous New Testament passages, where Christ is described as 'giving' and 'sending' the Spirit, and where the Spirit is spoken of as the 'Spirit of the Son'. In his letters {{interp|...}} Blemmydes {{interp|...}} avoided the distinction between eternity and time: the patristic formula 'through the Son' reflected both the eternal relationships of the divine Persons and the level of the 'economy' in time."}} He maintained that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is "from the Father {{em|alone}}".{{refn|Photius, ''Epistula 2'' (PG 102:721–741).}}{{Verify quote|date=December 2015}} This phrase was verbally a novelty,{{sfn|Papadakis|1997|p=113}}{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=168}} however, Eastern Orthodox theologians generally hold that in substance the phrase is only a reaffirmation of traditional teaching.{{sfn|Papadakis|1997|p=113}}{{sfn|Lossky|2003|p=168}} [[Sergei Bulgakov]], on the other hand, declared that Photius's doctrine itself "represents a sort of novelty for the Eastern church".{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=144}} Bulgakov writes: "The Cappadocians expressed only one idea: the monarchy of the Father and, consequently, the procession of the Holy Spirit precisely from the Father. They never imparted to this idea, however, the exclusiveness that it acquired in the epoch of the Filioque disputes after Photius, in the sense of {{transliteration|grc|ek monou tou Patros}} (from the Father alone)";{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=80}} Nichols summarized that, "Bulgakov finds it amazing that with all his erudition Photius did not see that the 'through the Spirit' of Damascene and others constituted a different theology from his own, just as it is almost incomprehensible to find him trying to range the Western Fathers and popes on his Monopatrist side."{{sfn|Nichols|2005|p=157}}

===East–West controversy===

{{Main|East–West Schism}}

Eastern opposition to the {{lang|la|Filioque}} strengthened after the 11th century East–West Schism. According to the synodal edict, a Latin anathema, in the excommunication of 1054, against the Greeks included: "{{lang|la|ut Pneumatomachi sive Theomachi, Spiritus sancti ex Filio processionem ex symbolo absciderunt}}"{{sfn|Will|1861|p=163}} ("as pneumatomachi and theomachi, they have cut from the Creed the procession of the holy Spirit from the Son").{{Whose translation|date=November 2015}} The Council of Constantinople, in a synodal edict, responded with anathemas against the Latins:"{{sfn|Will|1861|p=159|ps=: "{{lang|grc|πρὸς ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις μηδὲ ἐννονειν όλως εθελοντές, ἐν οἷς τὸ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ φασὶν ἐκπορεύεθαι, ὅτι ούτε από εὐαγγελιστῶν τὴν φωνὴν ἔχουσι ταύτην, ούτε από οικουμενικής συνόδου τὸ βλασφήμων κέκτηνται δόγμα. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ήμάν φησί: "τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται". Οἱ δὲ τῆς κοινῆς δυσσεβείας πατέρος τὸ πνεῦμα φασὶν, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται}}}} ("And besides all this, and quite unwilling to see that it is they claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not [only], but also from the Son – as if they have no evidence of the evangelists of this, and if they do not have the dogma of the ecumenical council regarding this slander. For the Lord our God says, "even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father (John 15:26)". But parents say this new wickedness of the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."{{Whose translation|date=November 2015}})

===Reformation===

==Present position of various churches==

=== Catholicism ===

It also holds that the procession of the Holy Spirit can be expressed as "from the Father through the Son". The agreement that brought about the 1595 [[Union of Brest]] expressly declared that those entering full communion with Rome "should remain with that which was handed down to (them) in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son".<ref name=CCC248/><ref name=Brest>{{cite web |url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM |title=Article 1 of the Treaty of Brest |publisher=Ewtn.com |access-date=25 April 2013 |archive-date=3 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232253/https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Lutheranism ===

Through [[ecumenism|ecumenical dialogue]] with the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]es, the [[Lutheran World Federation]] recommended: "we suggest that the translation of the Greek original (without the Filioque) be used in the hope that this will contribute to the healing of age-old divisions between our communities and enable us to confess together the faith of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381)."<ref>{{cite web |title=COMMON STATEMENT ON THE FILIOQUE: The Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue Between the Lutheran World Federation and the Orthodox Church |url=https://lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/Lutheran-Orthodox-Joint-Statement-Filioque-EN.pdf |publisher=[[Lutheran World Federation]] |access-date=13 May 2025 |date=27 May 2024}}</ref>

In 1985 the General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA) recommended that the ''Filioque'' clause should be removed from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, if this were endorsed by the 1988 Lambeth Council.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=85176 |title=General Convention Sets Course For Church 19 September 1985 |publisher=Episcopalarchives.org |date=19 September 1985 |access-date=25 April 2013}}</ref> Accordingly, at its 1994 General Convention, the Episcopal Church reaffirmed its intention to remove the ''Filioque'' clause from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the next revision of its ''[[Book of Common Prayer]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=1994-A028 |title=Resolution 1994-A028, "Reaffirm Intention to Remove the Filioque Clause From the Next Prayer Book."|publisher=Episcopalarchives.org |access-date=25 April 2013}}</ref> The Episcopal ''Book of Common Prayer'' was last revised in 1979, and has not been revised since the resolution.

===Moravianism===

===Eastern Orthodoxy===

{{Main|Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque}}

There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the ''filioque'' as heresy.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://stelias-lacrosse.org/files/homilies/Sunday-of-the-Nicene-Fathers-2016.pdf|title=Sunday of the Nicene Fathers 2016}}</ref>

Eastern Orthodox theologians (e.g. Pomazansky) say that the Nicene Creed as a [[Symbol of Faith]], as [[dogma]], is to address and define church theology specifically the Orthodox Trinitarian understanding of God. In the hypostases of God as correctly expressed against the teachings considered outside the church. The Father [[Hypostatic union|hypostasis]] of the Nicene Creed is the origin of all. Eastern Orthodox theologians have stated that New Testament passages (often quoted by the Latins) speak of the economy rather than the ontology of the Holy Spirit, and that in order to resolve this conflict Western theologians made further doctrinal changes, including declaring all persons of the Trinity to originate in the essence of God (the heresy of [[Sabellianism]]).{{sfn|Lossky|1997|pp=48–57}} Eastern Orthodox theologians see this as teaching of philosophical speculation rather than from [[Theoria#Eastern Orthodox Church|actual experience of God via ''theoria'']].

The following are some Roman Catholic dogmatic declarations of the ''Filioque'' which are in contention with Eastern Orthodoxy:

===Oriental Orthodox Churches===

{{Main|Oriental Orthodoxy}}

All [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]] (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Malankaran) use the original [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]],<ref>{{cite web| url = http://mosc.in/the_church/the-ecumenical-council-of-nicea-and-nicene-creed| title = Geevarghese Mar Yulios: Ecumenical Council of Nicea and Nicene Creed}}</ref> without the Filioque clause.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://mosc.in/the_church/oriental-and-eastern-orthodox-churches| title = Paulos Mar Gregorios: Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches}}</ref>{{sfn|Krikorian|2010|pp=49, 53, 269}}

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".

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}}

===Catholic Church===

===Old Catholic Church===

===Anglican Communion===

===Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on the Filioque===

==Summary==

A similar anti-Arian emphasis also strongly influenced the development of the liturgy in the East, for example, in promoting prayer to "Christ Our God", an expression which also came to find a place in the West,<ref>{{cite book|last=Vaughan|first=Herbert|author-link=Herbert Vaughan|year=1901|chapter=Homage to Christ our God and King|chapter-url=https://archive.org/stream/themasterpieceso00unknuoft#page/11/mode/1up|editor-last=Ringrose|editor-first=Hyacinthe|title=The masterpieces of Catholic literature, oratory and art ...|volume=2|ol=7039999M|page=9}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pierpoint|first=Folliot S.|year=1990|chapter=For the beauty of the Earth|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mPqN_R-waqUC&pg=PA331|editor-last=Osbeck|editor-first=Kenneth W.|title=Amazing grace: 366 inspiring hymn stories for daily devotions|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=Kregel|isbn=978-0-82543425-9|page=[https://archive.org/details/amazinggrace366i00osbe_0/page/331 331]|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/amazinggrace366i00osbe_0/page/331}}</ref> where, largely as a result of "the Church's reaction to Teutonic Arianism", {{"'}}Christ our God' ... gradually assumes precedence over 'Christ our brother{{'"}}.<ref>{{cite book|last=Austin|first=Gerard|year=1999|chapter=Liturgical history: restoring equilibrium after the struggle with heresy|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SAfiLkjoI-sC&pg=PA39|editor1-last=Pierce|editor1-first=Joanne M.|editor2-last=Downey|editor2-first=Michael|title=Source and summit: commemorating Josef A. Jungman, S.J.|location=Collegeville, MN|publisher=Liturgical Press|page=39|isbn=9780814624616}}</ref> In this case, a common adversary, namely [[Arianism]], had profound, far-reaching effects, in the orthodox reaction in both East and West.{{Relevance inline|paragraph|date=November 2015|reason=Not about filioque.}}

The doctrine expressed by the phrase in Latin (in which the word "procedit" that is linked with "Filioque" does not have exactly the same meaning and overtones as the word used in Greek) is definitively upheld by the Western Church, having been dogmatically declared by Leo I,<ref name="CCC247"/> and upheld by councils at Lyon and Florence{{sfn|Cunliffe-Jones|2006|pp=208–209}} that the Western Church recognizes as ecumenical, by the unanimous witness of the Latin Church Fathers (as Maximus the Confessor acknowledged) and even by Popes who, like Leo III, opposed insertion of the word into the Creed.{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=92}}{{sfn|Congar|1959|p=53}}

* {{cite book|last=Harnack|first=Adolph|year=1898|title=History of dogma|volume=5|others=Translated by James Millar|location=London|publisher=Williams & Norgate|isbn=9780195372045|oclc=589804627|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma5}}

* {{cite book|last=Hinson|first=E. Glenn|year=1995|title=The church triumphant: a history of Christianity up to 1300|location=Macon, GA|publisher=Mercer University Press|isbn=978-0-86554436-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cY1SymrAGeEC&pg=PA315}}

* {{cite book|last1=Irvin|first1=Dale T.|last2=Sunquist|first2=Scott|year=2001|title=History of the world Christian movement|volume=1|location=Edinburgh|publisher=T&T Clark|isbn=978-0-56708866-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C2akvQfa-QMC&pg=PA299}}

* {{cite book|last=Kasper|first=Walter|year=2004|chapter=The renewal of pneumatology in contemporary Catholic life and theology: towards a rapprochement between east and west|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oh5krtBReQ8C&pg=PA96|title=That they may all be one: the call to the unity|location=London [u.a.]|publisher=Burns & Oates|isbn=978-0-86012379-8}}

* {{cite book|last=Nichols|first=Aidan|year=2005|chapter=The place of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity|title=Wisdom from above: a primer in the theology of Father Sergei Bulgakov|location=Leominster|publisher=Gracewing|isbn=978-0-85244642-3|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UWTCRF7nQRMC&pg=PA157}}

* {{cite book|last=Nichols|first=Aidan|year=2010|title=Rome and the Eastern Churches: a study in schism|edition=2nd|location=San Francisco, CA|publisher=Ignatius Press|isbn=9781586172824|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Hje62q52XNsC&pg=PA255}}

* {{cite book|last=Norwich|first=John J.|year=1997|title=A Short History of Byzantium|publisher=Knopf|isbn=978-0-679-45088-7}}

* {{cite book|last1=O'Collins|first1=Gerald|last2=Farrugia|first2=Mario|year=2015|title=Catholicism: the story of Catholic Christianity|edition=2nd|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-872818-4|pages=157–161|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728184.001.0001|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yb5TBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA158}}

{{refbegin|2|indent=yes}}

* Bradshaw, David. ''Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.&nbsp;214–220.

* Gemeinhardt, Peter (2002). ''Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frühmittelalter'' [The filioque controversy between the Eastern and Western churches in the early Middle Ages]. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, volume 82. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, {{ISBN|3-11-017491-X}}.

* Groppe, Elizabeth Teresa. ''Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit''. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. See esp. pp.&nbsp;75–79, for a summary of Congar's work on the ''Filioque''. Congar is widely considered the most important Roman Catholic ecclesiologist of the twentieth century. He was influential in the composition of several Vatican II documents. Most important of all, he was instrumental in the association in the West of pneumatology and ecclesiology, a new development.

* Haugh, Richard. ''Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy''. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.

* John St. H. Gibaut, "The ''Cursus Honorum'' and the Western Case Against Photius", ''Logos'' 37 (1996), 35–73.

* [[Joseph Jungmann|Jungmann, Joseph]]. ''Pastoral Liturgy''. London: Challoner, 1962. See "Christ our God", pp.&nbsp;38–48.

* [[James Likoudis|Likoudis, James]]. ''Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism''. New Rochelle, New York: 1992. An apologetic response to polemical attacks. A useful book for its inclusion of important texts and documents; see especially citations and works by [[Thomas Aquinas]], O.P., [[Demetrios Kydones]], Nikos A. Nissiotis, and Alexis Stawrowsky. The select bibliography is excellent. The author demonstrates that the ''Filioque'' dispute is only understood as part of a dispute over papal primacy and cannot be dealt with apart from [[ecclesiology]].