Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Filioque & Eleven Eastern Church Fathers

Filioque & Eleven Eastern Church Fathers

Last updated on: October 23, 2026 at 11:06 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Filioque & Eleven Eastern Church Fathers 2026-10-23T11:06:25-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo credit: The doctrine of the filioque, from the the high altar of the chapelle Saint-Marcellin, Boulbon, France, c. 1450. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

The filioque (the Latin term for “And the Son”) refers to the belief that that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Jesus. This clause is included in the Nicene Creed, but the Eastern Orthodox believe it to be a late-arriving heresy. Yet it wasn’t controversial until the second half of the 9th century, when the Eastern and Western wings of the Catholic Church began to divide, and many revered and venerated Eastern Church fathers taught it, as I will now document (my bolded emphases).

*****

Origen (c. 185-c. 254)

We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ. (Commentaries on John, 2:6)

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 210–270)

[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; . . . (Confession of Faith)

St. Athanasius (c. 297-373)

The Holy Spirit, being that which proceeds from the Father, is ever in the hands of the Father Who sends and of the Son Who conveys Him, by Whose means He filled all things. (Statement of Faith, 4)

The Spirit Himself takes from the Son, . . . of the Son Himself, all things partake according to the grace of the Spirit coming from Him; and this shews that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from the Father . . . (Four Discourses Against the Arians, I, 15-16)

He had poured the Spirit on us; now to give the Spirit with authority, is not in the power of creature or work, but the Spirit is God’s Gift. For the creatures are hallowed by the Holy Spirit; but the Son, in that He is not hallowed by the Spirit, but on the contrary Himself the Giver of it to all, is therefore no creature, but true Son of the Father. And yet He who gives the Spirit, the same is said also to be made; that is, to be made among us Lord because of His manhood, while giving the Spirit because He is God’s Word. (Ibid., II, 18)

For there is but one form of Godhead, which is also in the Word; and one God, the Father, existing by Himself according as He is above all, and appearing in the Son according as He pervades all things, and in the Spirit according as in Him He acts in all things through the Word. (Ibid., III, 15)

The Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. . . . whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word. . . . it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, through whom we are found to be in God, and in this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, He wills that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. . . . that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. (Ibid., III, 24-25)

If the Spirit knew, much more must the Word know, considered as the Word, from whom the Spirit receives; . . . (Ibid., III, 44; NPNF2-4)

. . . the Saviour . . . that Sower of grace, and Bestower of the Spirit . . . (Festal Letter #10, 4)

For He was truly the splendour of the light, and the Word of God. And thus as a river from the fountain he gave drink also of old to Paradise; but now to all men He gives the same gift of the Spirit, and says, ‘If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink.’ Whosoever ‘believeth on Me, as saith the Scripture, rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly.’ This was not for man to say, but for the living God, Who truly vouchsafes life, and gives the Holy Spirit. (Ibid., #44)

St. Basil the Great (c. 330-379)

Lately when praying with the people, and using the full doxology to God the Father in both forms, at one time “with the Son together with the Holy Ghost,” and at another “through the Son in the Holy Ghost,” I was attacked by some of those present on the ground that I was introducing novel and at the same time mutually contradictory terms. (The Holy Spirit, 3)

One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity. (Ibid., 45)

And as Paraclete He expresses in Himself the goodness of the Paraclete who sent Him, and in His own dignity manifests the majesty of Him from whom He proceeded. . . . Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. (Ibid., 46-47)

Since, then, the Holy Ghost, from Whom all the supply of good things for creation has its source, is attached to the Son, and with Him is inseparably apprehended, and has Its being attached to the Father, as cause, from Whom also It proceeds; It has this note of Its peculiar hypostatic nature, that It is known after the Son and together with the Son, and that It has Its subsistence of the Father. The Son, Who declares the Spirit proceeding from the Father through Himself and with Himself, . . . (Letter #38 to his brother Gregory, 4)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-387)

He is called also the Spirit of God and Christ, as Paul writes, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. [Rom 8:9] He is called also the Spirit of the Son of God, as it is said, And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son. [Gal 4:6] He is called also the Spirit of Christ, as it is written, Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify; [1 Pet 1:2] and again, Through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. [Phil 1:19] (Seventeenth Catechetical Lecture, 4)

St. Gregory Nyssa (c. 335-c. 394)

And if the Son, always appearing with the thought of the Father, is always found in the category of existence, what danger is there in owning the Eternity of the Only-begotten, Who has neither beginning of days, nor end of life Hebrews 7:3. For as He is Light from Light, Life from Life, Good from Good, and Wise, Just, Strong, and all else in the same way, so most certainly is He Eternal from Eternal. But a lover of controversial wrangling catches up the argument, on the ground that such a sequence would make Him Ungenerate from Ungenerate. Let him, however, cool his combative heart, and insist upon the proper expressions, for in confessing His ‘coming from the Father?’ he has banished all ideas of Ungeneracy as regards the Only-begotten; and there will be then no danger in pronouncing Him Eternal and yet not Ungenerate. On the one hand, because the existence of the Son is not marked by any intervals of time, and the infinitude of His life flows back before the ages and onward beyond them in an all-pervading tide, He is properly addressed with the title of Eternal; again, on the other hand, because the thought of Him as Son in fact and title gives us the thought of the Father as inalienably joined to it, He thereby stands clear of an ungenerate existence being imputed to Him, while He is always with a Father Who always is, as those inspired words of our Master expressed it, bound by way of generation to His Father’s Ungeneracy. Our account of the Holy Ghost will be the same also; the difference is only in the place assigned in order. For as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit’s subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory due. (Against Eunomius, Book I, 42; PG 45: 464 B-C)

While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father. (On “Not Three Gods” [To Ablabius] )

It is the characteristic of the Father to exist without cause. This does not apply to the Son and the Spirit; for the Son went out from the Father, as says the Scripture, and the Spirit proceedeth from God and from the Father. But as the being without cause, which belongs only to the Father, cannot be adapted to the Son and the Spirit, so again the being caused, which is the property of the Son and of the Spirit, cannot, by its very nature, be considered in the Father. On the other hand, the being not ungenerated is common to the Son and the Spirit; hence in order to avoid confusion in the subject, one must again search for the pure difference in the properties, so that what is common be safeguarded, yet what is proper be not mixed. For He is called the Only-Begotten of the Father by the Holy Scripture; and this term establishes His property for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also said to be from the Father, and is testified to be the Son’s. For it says: If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His**.** Hence the Spirit that is from God is also Christ’s; but the Son, who is from God, neither is nor is said to be from the Spirit; and this relative sequence is permanent and inconvertible. Hence the sentence cannot properly be resolved and reversed in its meaning so that, as we say the Spirit to be Christ’s, we might also call Christ the Spirit’s. (The Lord’s Prayer, The Beatitudes [Ancient Christian Writers, No. 18; The Newman Press, 1954], translated and annotated by Hilda C. Graef, pp. 54-55)

Some have questioned the text immediately above, claiming that it contains later Latin interpolations, but scholarship rules this out:

The literary and manuscript evidence shows that the Filioque is a genuine portion of the sermon. In Cardinal Mai’s edition of the text, the fragment including the second ‘ek’ [from] was cited by the Doctrina Patrum de Verbi Incarnatione, which is as early as 700 AD. The Codex Vaticanus Graecus 2066 (7th or 8th century) contains the sermon with this passage as well. Even F. Diekamp showed that the phrases used by St. Grgeory of Nyssa occurred, even sometimes verbatim, in other writings of his, and there were parallels in style and vocabulary. The second ‘ek’ is even in the oldest Syriac manuscript, which pre-dates the Greek manuscripts. Therefore, this objection is not supported by the manuscript evidence. (Opera exegetica In Exodum et Novum Testamentum: Volume 2 De oratione dominica, De beatitudinibus (Gregorii Nysseni Opera, 7/2) (Ancient Greek Edition), edited by Johannes Francis Callahan [Brill, 1992], pp. 8-9)

St. Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398)

As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father,” nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son. (The Holy Spirit, 37)

St. Epiphanius (c. 315-403)

. . . the Holy Spirit [who proceeds] from the Father and through the Only-begotten, . . . (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III. De Fide (Second, revised Edition), translated by Frank Williams [Brill, Leiden-Boston 2013], Volume 79, pp. 564-565; section 44, 3)

The Father is light, the Son is the Father’s light, and the Holy Spirit is light and a Source springing from a Source, [that is], from the Father and the Only-begotten—the Holy Spirit. “For out of his belly shall flow rivers of water springing up unto eternal life; but,” says the Gospel, “he said this of the Holy Spirit.” (Ibid., p. 380; section 54, 1)

If, therefore, “he proceeds from the Father” and “will receive from what is mine,” the Lord says, just as, “no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father,” thus I dare to say that [no one knows] Spirit except the Son from whom he receives and the Father from whom he proceeds. (2) And [no one knows] the Son and the Father, except the Holy Spirit, the one who truly glorifies, the one who teaches all things, the one who bears witness concerning the Son, who is from the Father, who is of the Son, . . . (Ibid., pp. 165-169; chg. 73)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444)

For One indeed is the Nature of the Godhead, but the Father exists in His Proper mode and the Son too and likewise the Spirit: yet are all things wrought by the Father and through the Son in the Spirit, . . . For confessedly was He being glorified, the Spirit working Divine signs*;* yet not as a God-clad man, gaining this thing from an alien and superior Nature, even as do we, but rather as using of His own Spirit: for He was God by Nature and not alien to Him is His Spirit. Hence we say that not from without nor by adoption has the operation of the Spirit been given to Him . . . From within therefore and from Himself is His Spirit, And an evident demonstration of this will be His being able to supply It to others too and not of measure, as the blessed Evangelist saith. . . . our Lord Jesus Christ, putting forth the Spirit out of His own fulness, even as doth the Father Himself, gives It not as of measure to those who are worthy to receive It. . . . working Divine signs through His own Spirit. (Tomes Against Nestorius: IV, 1)

Christ Himself dwells in us through the Holy Ghost, Which is His own too, even as God the Father’s. And this Himself ratifies to us saying, “But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of the Truth, Which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me.” . . . all things have been done by the Father through the Son in the Spirit and nothing be done by God the Father, save in this very way . . . For He is as Word Giver of word and Bestower of the Spirit, as having It as His own Naturally; even as the Father Himself too. . . . His (it is manifest) is the Spirit, as proceeding through His Ineffable Nature Itself and Consubstantial with Him, and He will not need the might that is from It as something external and adventitious, but will use Him rather as His own Spirit, and will render Himself terrible to the devils through Him. . . . For as the Holy Ghost proceedeth out of the Father being His by Nature, in equal wise is He through the Son Himself too, His Naturally and Consubstantial with Him. Hence even though He be glorified through the Spirit, yet is He conceived of as glorifying Himself through His own Spirit, . . . (Ibid., IV, 2-3)

For that in regard to His Being He would neither be in need of Baptism nor of partaking the Holy Ghost, the fact that He is Bestower of the Spirit will be sufficient to prove. (Book III Against Theodore of Mopsuestia, 2)

For observe, when calling the Comforter “the Spirit of truth,” that is, His own, He says that He comes from the Father. For as the Spirit naturally belongs to the Son, being in Him and proceeding through Him, so also He belongs to the Father. (Commentary on John, v. 14:26-27)

He calls the Comforter the Spirit of Truth, that is, His own Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is not in truth alien from the Substance of the Only-begotten, but proceeds naturally from it, having no separate existence from Him so far as identity of nature is concerned, even though He may be in some sort conceived of as having a separate existence. . . . He would not then foretell things to come, as I have done, if He did not indeed exist in Me and proceed through Me, and if He were not Consubstantial with Me.” . . . He is Consubstantial with the Son, and divinely proceeds through Him, exercising universally His entire activity and power, that Christ says, “He shall receive of Me.” . . . the statement that His Spirit receives something from the Only-begotten is wholly unimpeachable and cannot be cavilled at. For proceeding naturally as His attribute through Him, and having all that He has in its entirety, He is said to receive that which He has. (Ibid., v. 16:12-14)

For the Spirit belongeth unto God the Father, and none the less also unto the Son Himself, not as distinct Entities, or as though He was inherent or existed in Either divisibly; but, inasmuch as the Son by Nature proceeds from the Father and is in Him (being the true Offspring of His Essence), the Spirit—-Which is the Father’s by Nature—-is brought down to men; shed forth indeed from the Father, but through the Son Himself conveyed to the creature; . . . we maintain that the Son has an independent existence, but still inheres in His Father, and has in Himself Him that begat Him; and that the Spirit of the Father is indeed the Spirit of the Son; and that, when the Father sends or promises to distribute the Spirit to the Saints, the Son also vouchsafes the Spirit to them as His own, because of His identity in Substance with the Father. And that the Father works in every respect through Him He has Himself very clearly pointed out to us in the words: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the Comforter cannot come unto you; but when I depart I will send Him unto you. And again: I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter. Plainly here He promises to send us the Comforter. . . . the Spirit is not separate from the Son, in Substance at any rate, inasmuch as He exists in Him and proceeds through Him. (CA, Commentary on John, v. 17:18-19)

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662)

[The Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, 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–but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. (Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136; he also used the expression: dia mesou tou Logou, “by means of the Word.” – Quaestiones et dubia, Interr. XXXIV [PG 90, 813B] )

By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten. (Questions to Thalassium, 63)

St. John Damascene (c. 675-749)

I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him. (Dialogue Against the Manicheans, 5)

For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son. . . . proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son . . . But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause. (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I, 8 and 12)

***

Photo credit: The doctrine of the filioque, from the the high altar of the chapelle Saint-Marcellin, Boulbon, France, c. 1450. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: The filioque (Latin for “and the son”) is a doctrine regarding procession, held by Catholics but not Orthodox. I show how eleven Eastern fathers (incl. Basil & Athanasius) taught it.

*
***
*

Practical Matters: This is the most comprehensive and multi-faceted Catholic apologetics blog: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT. I offer more than 5,000 free online articles, fifty-nine books, and many scores of videos at the Catholic Bible Highlights YouTube channel (please subscribe!). If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider financially supporting it. PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Dave Armstrong Bookstore”. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million!