The Filioque as an Over-Thousand-Year-Old Aporia in Orthodox–Catholic Relations: The Vatican’s 1995 Clarification on the Procession of the Holy Spirit as a Source of Hope for Changes in the Doctrine and Liturgical Practice of the Roman Catholic Church

Abstract

This article examines the Filioque controversy as a thousand-year-old aporia in Roman Catholic–Orthodox relations, focusing on the 1995 Vatican Clarification, The Greek and Latin Traditions about the Procession of the Holy Spirit. It explores whether the dispute is a fundamental ontological disagreement regarding the hypostatic origin of the Spirit or a linguistic byproduct of translating the Greek term ekporeusis into the Latin processio. The study analyzes diverse theological responses to “the Clarification”. Roman Catholic perspectives investigate contemporary “reconceptions”—including simultaneous, nonsequential models and nonlinear geometric metaphors—while attempting to reconcile the “Monarchy of the Father” with the dogmatic authority of the Councils of Lyon II and Florence. Conversely, Orthodox theologians emphasize patristic rigor, insisting on a strict distinction between “Theology” (eternal life) and “Economy” (historical actions) while rejecting “Rahner’s Rule”. Ultimately, the research highlights that the unilateral canonical addition of the Filioque remains the primary ecclesiological barrier to unity. The article asserts that only deep, synodal dialogue, rather than administrative clarifications, can resolve this historical impasse and restore a common confession of faith.

1. Introduction

The 1995 document The Greek and Latin Traditions about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, prepared by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is widely referred to as “The Clarification” or “The 1995 Vatican’s Clarification of the Procession of the Holy Spirit”, provoked various reactions from theologians both Roman Catholic and Orthodox. For over a thousand years, the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit has divided the Christian East from the Christian West. The question remains open as to why, despite numerous attempts to overcome the theological impasse that concerns the deepest essence of the Christian faith, namely the Trinitarian dogma, the Filioque issue continues to divide Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The official international doctrinal dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which has been ongoing for over sixty years, only named the essence of the problem. The Second Plenary Meeting of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in Munich (30 June to 6 July 1982), in the statement The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity expressed clearly the task to be achieved: “Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the Eucharist by this Son upon whom He reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).” (International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church 1996, p. 56). Unfortunately, so far it has not been possible to reach a common position that would be satisfactory for both sides. It had originally seemed that “The Vatican’s Clarification of the Procession of the Holy Spirit” would bring about significant changes in both the teaching and liturgical practice of the Roman Catholic Church thanks to which the most important obstacle on the path to unity with the Orthodox Church would be removed.

The 1995 document raised many hopes for accelerating the process of return to unity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as it clearly stated that: “The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (pege) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.” (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity 1995, p. 4). The authors of “The Clarification”, while recognizing the validity of the Eastern Christian concept of the “Father’s Monarchy”, made efforts to explain that the Western Christian Filioque concept also finds its justification. For this purpose, references are made to the teachings of both Western and Eastern Church Fathers. The selection of source material, its use and interpretation sparked lively discussions, with arguments both for and against the Filioque presented. Interestingly, not only Orthodox theologians, but also Catholic theologians had many critical comments regarding the content of the document. Among the problems pointed out by dogmatists regarding the origin of the Holy Spirit, it seems that from the ecumenical point of view it is particularly important to find an answer to the question whether the Filioque is merely a linguistic issue (resulting from the difficulties in faithfully translating Greek terms into Latin) or an ontological issue (relating to the personhood of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity).

A deeper theological insight into the understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit required taking into account New Testament data, semantic divergences in the Greek and Latin concepts, translation problems, and differences between the dogmatic tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers (Christian East) and the Augustinian tradition (Christian West). The lack of action by the Holy See over thirty years regarding the removal of the Filioque from the Creed, as proposed by Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians, is difficult to understand from the ecumenical point of view. This is a real sign that the Filioque remains an aporia in Catholic–Orthodox relation. The word aporia, in contemporary English also apory, is of the Greek origin, meaning impasse or perplexing difficulty.

Aporia is a philosophical concept that seems to capture the essence of the problem of the procession of the Holy Spirit very well. Although the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged in “The Clarification” that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it simultaneously sought to justify His origin from the Son as well. John E. Thiel stresses that aporia can be very helpful in the theological investigations, because it enhances appreciation for the complexity of theological hermeneutics (Thiel 2023). Aporia does not necessarily arise through dilemmatic reasoning. In early Greek philosophy, cases in which thought culminates in a strict dilemma—two equally unacceptable and supposedly sole alternatives—are in fact uncommon. Nor must perplexity always be produced by explicit argument; it may emerge simply where one no longer sees how to proceed or what can intelligibly be said. What seems most essential to the arising of aporia is the emergence, by whatever means, of at least an apparent contradiction (Palmer 2018).

To understand the depth of the theological impasse in the ecumenical relations between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, several critical questions must be addressed: does the Filioque represent a fundamental ontological disagreement regarding the personhood of the Holy Spirit, or is it primarily a linguistic byproduct of translation difficulties between Greek and Latin terms? How do contemporary Roman Catholic “reconceptions,” including simultaneous act models and nonlinear geometric metaphors, attempt to overcome traditional sequential Trinitarian models while maintaining the “Monarchy of the Father”? To what extent can the 1995 Vatican Clarification effectively harmonize the Father’s status as the “sole source” with the dogmatic authority of the Councils of Lyon II and Florence, which identify the Father and Son as a “single principle”? In what ways does the Orthodox rejection of “Rahner’s Rule” and the insistence on a strict distinction between “Theology” (eternal life) and “Economy” (actions in history) challenge the validity of projecting the Spirit’s temporal mission back into His eternal nature? Finally, how does the unilateral canonical addition of the Filioque represent the primary ecclesiological barrier to unity, and would its removal from the Creed be the only path to restoring an authentic “one faith”?

2. Roman Catholic Theologians’ Appraisal of the 1995 Vatican Clarification

The 1995 document clarifies that the historical conflict over the Filioque stems from a linguistic false equivalence between the Greek ekporeusis and the Latin procession. In the Greek tradition, ekporeusis refers exclusively to the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father as the sole source (pege) and “principle without principle” (arche anarchos) of the Trinity, maintaining the “Monarchy of the Father” as the unique Trinitarian cause (aitia). Conversely, the Latin processio is a broader term signifying the communication of the consubstantial divine essence from the Father to the Son and, through or with the Son, to the Holy Spirit. This distinction ensures that the Latin tradition, in confessing the Filioque, does not posit a second source of the Godhead but rather affirms the consubstantial communion of the divine persons.

From an ecumenical standpoint, the text proposes a “legitimate complementarity” between Eastern and Western pneumatologies, asserting that both traditions confess the same mystery of faith from distinct yet compatible perspectives. The Filioque is situated as a Western safeguard for Trinitarian consubstantiality intended to emphasize that the Spirit is of the same nature as the Son, without contradicting the normative and irrevocable value of the original Greek Creed of 381. The document identifies the patristic formula “through the Son” (dia tou Hiou) as the essential theological bridge, allowing both traditions to recognize the Spirit’s eternal relationship to the Son while preserving the Father’s role as the primary origin of the entire Trinity.

Roman Catholic theologians disagree on their assessment of The Greek and Latin Traditions about the Procession of the Holy Spirit. For example, Édouard Divry and David Coffey have criticized “The Clarification”, while Jean-Miguel Garrigues has defended it.

According to Édouard Divry this document failed to achieve its intended ecumenical breakthrough, because it relied disproportionately on the Council of Constantinople I (381) while potentially overshadowing or even retracting the dogmatic weight of the Councils of Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439) (Divry 2022). Therefore “The Clarification of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity about «the Greek and Latin traditions regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit» (1995) did not entail an impulse of agreements, either with the Orthodox or with the Catholics.” (Divry 2022, p. 417). Additionally, the document’s overemphasis on the Council of Constantinople I (381) hinders the universal reception of the Latin position. In Divry’s opinion, by giving disproportionate weight to the 381 Council, the “Clarification” inadvertently marginalized the dogmatic contributions of later Latin councils like Lyon II and Florence, which are essential to Western theology (cf. Divry 2022, p. 422). He is also convinced that the Councils of Lyon II and Florence made significant, yet overlooked, concessions to the Greeks by choosing the formulation ex Patre Filioque. He explains that by using the particle “ex” instead of the traditional Latin “a,” the Western Church made a linguistic gesture toward the East, as “ex” can bridge the gap between the immanent and economic Trinity (cf. Divry 2022, p. 417). So, for him is evident that “The Council of Constantinople (381) undoubtedly used this passage of John 15:26 to pair economic with the particle parà to reach the trinitarian immanence with the particle ek: «the Spirit who proceeds from (ek) the Father».” (Divry 2022, p. 424). Hence, the logical consequence of the above thesis is the defense of the Filioque by the Roman Church as a legitimate development from implicit to explicit faith in response to heresy. And the Magisterium had an obligation to combat errors regarding the Holy Spirit’s divinity (cf. Divry 2022, p. 427).

David Coffey, also criticizes “The Clarification”, suggesting that the document may weaken the Latin tradition enshrined in the decrees of the Council of Florence by making too many concessions in terminology (Coffey 2003). Although this is “an ecumenically sensitive document designed to show that the Western Filioque does not contradict the Eastern tradition, but complements it […] room exists for both approaches” (Coffey 2003, p. 9). In his critique of the document, Coffey highlights three issues. First, Part 2 offers an overly Western interpretation of dia tou Hiou, overstating the degree of agreement between East and West on this formula. Second, Part 3 tries to reconcile Latin and Alexandrian statements of the Filioque with non-Alexandrian Eastern affirmations of ex Patre by assigning the former to the realm of consubstantiality and the latter to personhood and the monarchy of the Father. This distinction is too simplistic. While it applies to some Latin and Alexandrian texts (including those cited), it does not apply universally, since many such statements address the Spirit’s very personhood. Indeed, the Council of Florence explicitly teaches that the Holy Spirit receives both consubstantiality and personhood from the Father and the Son as from one principle. Third, the omission of the Council of Florence in Part 4 is a serious flaw. Despite its shortcomings, Florence remains the Catholic Church’s most authoritative statement on the Filioque (cf. Coffey 2003, pp. 9–13).

It is worth noting that Dominican theologian Jean-Miguel Garrigues strongly defended “The Clarification” against the criticism that it contradicted the teaching of the Council of Florence (Garrigues 1995; cf. Garrigues 1981). In his very short article published in 1995, around the time the document was released, he argued that it is an indisputable fact that at the Council of Florence it was decreed that in relation to the Holy Spirit, the Son together with the Father is what the Greek call “cause” (aitia) and the Latins “principle” (principium). He is of the opinion that the Council of Florence was not mentioned in the Clarification because the Orthodox revoked the union immediately after its conclusion due to the lack of freedom of the Eastern bishops, which was caused by the political conditions of the Byzantine Empire (cf. Garrigues 1995, p. 502). Of course, this historical argument is not sufficient. Garrigues’s further argument is strictly theological. In relation to the procession of the Holy Spirit, the important question is what kind of unity between the Father and the Son enables them to be one principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit (cf. Garrigues 1995, pp. 502–3). In answer to this question, he refers to the teaching of the Council of Constantinople, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as Father, and being the Father results from being in relationship to the Only-Begotten Son, as the one who defines the Father as Father. Therefore the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from them (the Father and the Son) as from ‘the sole paternal principle’ (Fr. seul principe paternel) (Garrigues 1995, p. 503). But unfortunately, does this type of argument not reduce the Filioque to the per Filium?

American Roman Catholic priest and scholar—Thomas G. Weinandy OFM Cap addressed the 1995 Vatican document by summarizing its main points, raising theological concerns, and ultimately proposing a radical “reconception” of the Trinity to move past the historical impasse. Weinandy acknowledges several positive aspects of the document. He notes the document “unequivocally asserts” that the Spirit takes his origin from the Father alone, upholding the Monarchy of the Father as the “sole source” as it is stated in the 381 Creed. He highlights the document’s recognition of the Creed of Constantinople as the “normative and irrevocable” expression of common faith. He also recognizes the document’s attempt to show that the Filioque is in harmony with the original Symbol and that Eastern and Western traditions are complementary. And he credits the document for clarifying that the dispute often stems from the (mis)translation of terms such as ekporeuetai and proienai. Despite these positives, Weinandy offers several critiques and identifies what he believes the document fails to resolve. He argues the document fails to clearly distinguish the specific sense of “originating” (ekporeusis) from the “common procession” (proienai) or “filial generation”. He is critical of the formula “through the Son,” warning that if left alone, it can imply a linear emanation that jeopardizes the equality of the Persons and the unity of the Godhead. His strongest criticism is against the document’s insistence on a “consecutive” or sequential order within the Trinity—where the Spirit follows the relationship of the Father and Son. He views this as a “poisonous residue” of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy that implies priority and precedence. He notes the document fails to mention that the West (via Augustine and Aquinas) used the Filioque specifically to distinguish the Spirit’s procession from the Son’s generation, a point he considers essential. Weinandy also believes the document—and tradition in general—fails to give the Holy Spirit an active role in the constitution of the immanent trinitarian relationship. To ensure the Catholic doctrine can be accepted by the Orthodox Church, Weinandy suggests the Trinity must be understood as one simultaneous, nonsequential act. He argues that the Father begets the Son “in or by the Holy Spirit,” meaning the Spirit proceeds from the Father as the “one in whom the Son is begotten.” This removes the sense of “after” or sequence (cf. Weinandy 2010, pp. 53–85). Weinandy calls for both Churches to formulate a new common Creed that “transcends or goes beyond the past”. He even offers a draft stating that the Spirit “comes forth (ekporeuetai) from the Father as the one in whom the Son is begotten and who proceeds (proesi) from and through the Son in communion with the Father” (Weinandy et al. 1996).

Paul McPartlan, an English priest and specialist in systematic theology, indicated that Weinandy’s proposal—specifically the idea that “the Father begets the Son in or by the Holy Spirit”—succeeds in improving the simultaneity of the three Persons within a single trinitarian act. He recognized this as a move away from the sequential models that Weinandy criticized. Despite the aforementioned improvement, McPartlan argued that Weinandy’s scheme remains fundamentally linear. He suggested that while traditional “filioquists” favor a “Father-Son-Spirit” line, Weinandy simply proposes a different line of “Father-Spirit-Son”. For McPartlan, true communion (koinonia) cannot be achieved by simply reordering a linear process. He questioned whether the Spirit in Weinandy’s model is truly recognized as a “third Person” in loving communion, or if the Spirit remains a “go-between figure” acting merely as a bond of communion between the Father and the Son. McPartlan identified Weinandy’s approach with Karl Rahner’s axiom, which asserts that the Trinity as revealed in history (economic) is identical to the Trinity as it is in itself (immanent) (Rahner 1966, p. 87). It must be explained that the rule, also known as Rahner’s “Grundaxiom”, asserts that the triune God who reveals Himself through the Son and Spirit in history (the economy) is identically the same as the God who exists eternally in His inner divine life (immanence). The first part of the rule effectively guards against modalism by ensuring that God’s historical manifestations are not mere “masks” but true expressions of His eternal being; conversely, the second part (“vice versa”) posits the immanent Trinity as the necessary condition for the possibility of God’s free self-communication in the history of salvation. While widely influential in twentieth-century theology, the axiom has been criticized for potentially collapsing divine transcendence into salvation history or suggesting that God’s being is entirely exhausted by His actions in time (cf. Siecienski 2010, pp. 200–1; Gunton 2003, p. 43). On this basis, McPartlan suggested that Weinandy is in danger of being “unilateral” by reading scriptural data from the economy of salvation directly back into the immanent Trinity and restructuring the latter accordingly. McPartlan emphasized the “gulf of unknowability” that separates the way God reveals Himself in history from the necessary mystery of God’s eternal nature (Weinandy et al. 1996, pp. 367–70).

Stratford Caldecott also commented on Weinandy’s reflections on “The Clarification”. Caldecott expresses broad agreement with his objectives and methodology. He supported Weinandy’s call for a development of doctrine that allows the Church to escape a purely linear or sequential understanding of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity. For him, as well as for Weinandy the Trinity is a simultaneous act rather than a sequence of events. Caldecott suggested that McPartlan’s view of Weinandy as “excessively linear” may be a “misinterpretation”. To resolve this, Caldecott proposed shifting the “image-system” used to describe the Trinity. His original contribution is a nonlinear, geometric metaphor designed to break the deadlock between Eastern and Western traditions. He notes that the West typically thinks in one straight line (Father → Son → Spirit), while the East thinks in two straight lines (Father → Son and Father → Spirit). Taking into account these two models of thinking about the Holy Trinity, Caldecott proposed the circular Trinitarian model as a “straight line within a circle”. The generation of the Son is represented by a straight line from the Father to the Son. And the spiration of the Spirit is represented by a circular movement that “breathes forth” from the Father and, by definition, returns to Him. In this model, the Spirit as Reconciler traverses the same “distance” from Self to Other as the Son but does so through spiration. Caldecott describes the Spirit as the one who “brings the Son back to the Father” and overcomes otherness in a communion of love. This model can serve as a help in the integration of Western and Eastern Traditions, because it allows the Son to be generated “in” the Spirit. It accounts for the Spirit appearing to “proceed” from the Son (the Western view) as the Spirit returns to the Father, while maintaining the Father as the ultimate source (the Eastern view). By using this circular metaphor, Caldecott believes he can capture both sets of scriptural data—where the Spirit follows the Son and where the Spirit precedes the Son—without falling into the trap of chronological or ontological “priority” (Weinandy et al. 1996, pp. 370–73).

3. Orthodox Theologians’ Evaluation of the 1995 Vatican Clarification

“The Greek and Latin Traditions Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit” was initially met with a positive reception by some Orthodox theologians known to be close to Latin positions. Boris Bobrinskoy, honorary dean of the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, stated: “Reading these lines, one might be surprised that the question of the dogmatic disagreement between our Churches still remains open.” (Bobrinskoy 1996, p. 89; cf. Bobrinskoy 1981). In line with Bobrinskoy was another French theologian, Olivier Clément. He commented on ‘The Clarification’ with hope for significant changes to come in the Roman Catholic Church: “This admirably argued note could well mark the end of the Filioque controversy.” (Clément 1996, p. 2).

Bishop Kallistos (Ware) offered a nuanced assessment of the 1995 Vatican document during a “Kairos” symposium, which was organized by the Centre for Faith & Culture at Westminster College, Oxford. While he welcomed “The Clarification” as a “genuine and ‘reassuring’ advance” in several respects, he also expressed his criticism. According to him, the document’s vocabulary and some theological explanations are not free from ambiguities. He argued that while the Filioque might not be heretical as the document’s authors understand it, its implications within the Creed remain “obscure and confusing”. He specifically objected to the historical formulation from the Second Council of Lyons (1274), which states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from “one single principle”. His concern was not that this implied the procession of the divine essence but rather its tendency “to reduce the Trinity to a Duality”. In his opinion, the document fails to address the “real ecumenical problem”, because the core issue is not the theological interpretation of the Filioque but the right of the Latin Church to have made the insertion unilaterally into a dogmatic symbol that had already been agreed upon by the whole Church at an Ecumenical Council. For this reason, he suggested that the word Filioque should be removed from the Creed. This would allow the topic to be debated properly at the level of theologoumena (theological opinions) rather than as a mandated dogma. In summary, while acknowledging the document’s progress in reconciling trinitarian theologies, Bishop Kallistos maintained that the ecclesiological and canonical issues regarding how the Creed was altered remain a significant hurdle (Weinandy et al. 1996, pp. 354–55).

Even more critical than Bishop Kallistos Ware in his assessment of “The Clarification” was Jean-Claude Larchet—a specialist in the field of Orthodox Christian Patristics. In his opinion, the document’s primary claim, that the conflict resulting from the introduction of the Filioque into the Creed and Western theology is merely a semantic issue between the Greek ekporeusis and the Latin processio is a reductionist oversimplification that ignores the profound theological depth of the historical controversy. Rejecting the “Linguistic Misunderstanding” Theory, Larchet asserts that the Roman Catholic Church by this document attempts to justify the Son’s role by distinguishing between the Spirit’s hypostatic origin from the Father and a “procession according to the nature” from the Father and the Son. This distinction is foreign to Orthodox patristic thought, where the Spirit receives both His person (hypostasis) and His nature (essence) from the Father alone. The French theologian accuses the authors of “The Clarification” of the misinterpretation of the thought of such Church Fathers as St. Maximos the Confessor or St. Cyril of Alexandria, suggesting that the two saints just mentioned taught about the eternal mediation of the Son. He points out that when these Fathers use the phrase “through the Son,” (per Filium) they refer to the economic manifestation of the Spirit in the world or the eternal radiation of divine energies, not the Spirit’s personal origin. Apart from that, the 1995 document erroneously attempts to isolate the Cappadocian tradition by grouping the Latin and Alexandrian traditions together as if they held a common Filioquist view. Larchet argues that the true “line of rupture” is not between East and West, but between the common patristic tradition and the specific developments of Augustinian theology. One of the effects of Augustine of Hippo’s theology was the depersonalization of the Holy Spirit. By asserting that the Son communicates the divine nature to the Spirit, “The Clarification” confuses the personal properties of the Father (as the unique source) with the properties of the common divine essence. If the Son acts as a “source” of the Spirit’s nature, the Holy Spirit is effectively subordinated or treated as a product of the common essence rather than a distinct Person. In summary, for this Orthodox theologian, “The Clarification” remains anchored in a quadruple confusion: of hypostatic with properties of the Divine essence, of the Persons of the Holy Trinity with one another, of who is the Holy Trinity ad intra with who is the Holy Trinity in the economy of salvation, and of the Divine essence with the Divine energies (cf. Larchet 1999).

In assessing “The Clarification” from an Orthodox perspective, it seems necessary to also take into account the theological reflections of Professor Gregory Larentzakis, which greatly influenced the Final Communiqué Recommendations of the theological symposium organized by the Pro Oriente Foundation, under the aegis of Cardinal Christoph von Schönborn, on 15–17 May 1998 (Stirnemann and Wilflinger 1998). The gathering was a formidable assembly of over 40 participants, including Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed theologians. In this high-stakes environment, Professor Larentzakis served as a decisive intellectual pivot, navigating the historical and dogmatic nuances of the debate to ensure the integrity of the Orthodox witness (Martzelos 2016, pp. 183–84). A central pillar of Larentzakis’s intervention was the rigorous maintenance of the patristic distinction between Theology—the eternal trinitarian relations—and Economy—the Spirit’s temporal mission in the world. He identified a fundamental hermeneutical impasse rooted in linguistic ambiguity: the Greek Fathers used the term ekporeuesthai strictly for the eternal origin of the Spirit from the Father (the sole arche), while using proienai to describe the Spirit’s economic manifestation. The Latin procedere, conversely, conflates both meanings, which Larentzakis argued is the root of Western confusion. He grounded this in a precise linguistic analysis of John 15:26, rejecting Rudolf Schnackenburg’s “synonymous parallelism” which sought to equate the Spirit’s origin with His mission. Larentzakis countered this by pointing to the different grammatical tenses used in the original Greek. The verb pempso is in the future tense (“I will send”). It refers specifically to the “economic mission” of the Holy Spirit—His being sent into the world and history at a specific time. But the verb ekporeuetai is in the present tense (“proceeds”). In the Patristic tradition it refers to the eternal, timeless relationship of the Spirit to the Father. These words are used for two different events. By refuting the idea of parallelism, prof. Larentzakis reinforced the Orthodox position that theology (the eternal life of the Trinity) and economy (God’s actions in time) must remain distinct. He asserted that the Patristic interpretation, which recognizes this distinction, is the only authentic basis for understanding the Johannine text and the resulting Trinitarian dogma (cf. Martzelos 2016, pp. 184–85). This Greek theologian also rejected the influential Western theological axiom (Karl Rahner’s Rule) that equates the Economic Trinity with the Immanent Trinity. He concluded that because the divine essence is inaccessible, God’s actions in history (Economy) do not reveal His inner essence (Theology) (cf. Martzelos 2016, p. 186). According to Prof. Larentzakis, the original form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (without the Filioque) must be recognized as the sole unifying and binding confession for all Christians. It is essential for ecumenical progress (cf. Martzelos 2016, pp. 189–90). It is also worth noting the this Greek theologian criticized the Vatican’s attempt to have “The Clarification” signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch without prior theological debate, citing the historical failure of the Council of Lyons as a warning. He strategically utilized Pope Paul VI’s 1974 letter to Cardinal Willebrands regarding the 700th anniversary of the Second Council of Lyons (1274), stating the Paul VI referred to Lyons not as an “Ecumenical Council” but as a “General Synod of the West” and underlining that this Pope admitted that Lyons failed because the Latin Church imposed its own pneumatology and ecclesiology on the Greeks without the opportunity for authentic dialogue. By citing Paul VI’s own admission, Larentzakis argued that any attempt to “settle” the Filioque via unilateral Vatican clarifications, rather than through deep, synodal dialogue, was historically destined for failure. He strongly insisted the dialogue, not administrative pressure, is the only instrument capable of restoring the “one faith.” (cf. Martzelos 2016, pp. 190–91). The interventions of Professor Larentzakis were instrumental in shifting the 1998 conference from a passive reception of the Vatican text to a rigorous critical analysis. His focus on the “double problem” of the Filioque—both tis canonical addition and its dogmatic content—ensured that the Final Communiqué Recommendations moved beyond mere diplomatic politeness. The ultimate success of the 1998 Vienna Conference and the resulting clarity of its recommendations are a testament to Larentzakis’s decisive presence. As George Martzelos concluded, it was Larentzakis’s grounding in patristic rigor that allowed the participants to bypass a potential hermeneutical impasse, providing a clear path toward an authentic and common confession of the Holy Spirit (cf. Martzelos 2016, pp. 191–92).

For Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) the 1995 document is “a very valuable statement on the thorny issue of the Filioque”. In reference to “The Clarification” he suggested the equation of the monarchy of the Father taught by the Eastern Church Fathers with St. Augustine’s view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “principaliter”. The Metropolitan of Pergamon asks: “Does the expression “principaliter” necessarily preclude making the Son a kind of secondary cause in the ontological emergence of the Spirit?”. According to him “The Filioque seems to suggest two sources of the Spirit’s personal existence, one of which (the Father) may be called the first and original cause (principaliter), while the other one (the Son) may be regarded as a secondary (not principaliter) cause, but still a “cause” albeit not “principaliter”. He stresses that it is accidental that already since the time of Photius, the Greek theologians used the expression: “monos aitios o Pater”, i.e., the Father is the sole cause of the Son as well as of the Spirit. This phrase is not entirely identical to the Augustinian word principaliter. This is evident if we take into account the teaching of the Second Council of Lyon, according to which the Father as the Father of His Son is “together with Him the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds”. Metropolitan John also wonders whether the Roman practice of omitting the Filioque during the occasional liturgical recitation of the Creed in Greek (which includes the word ekporeuesthai) is sufficient, or whether Orthodox Christians should insist that the Filioque also be removed from the Latin text of the Creed. In his opinion: “It would seem difficult to imagine a situation whereby Greek and Latin Christians would recite the Creed together without using a common text”. He sees a particularly significant difficulty in the last part of the document, which describes the Holy Spirit as the Gift of love from the Father to the Son and tries to expand on the Augustinian very famous phrase “nexus amoris”. The document highlights a classic East–West theological tension regarding the distinction between God’s eternal nature (the immanent Trinity) and His historical actions (the divine economy). While it correctly affirms the irreversible Trinitarian order—where the Spirit is “of the Son” but not vice versa—it problematically relies on economic biblical texts to describe the Spirit’s eternal procession. Ultimately, while the Orthodox fully accept the Filioque within the divine economy, they strongly reject its projection into the immanent Trinity. Therefore, Metropolitan John stresses that “The Filioque in no way can be projected from the Economy into the immanent Trinity, and the same is true also of any form of Spirituque that might be detected—this is in fact possible—from the relation of Christ to the Spirit in the history of salvation”. In concluding his reflections, the Metropolitan of Pergamon expresses his conviction that the 1995 document “constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the Filioque problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible” (Zizioulas 2002).

4. Conclusions

The source material reveals that Catholic and Orthodox theologians find common ground in their foundational Trinitarian principles. Both traditions agree that the “Monarchy of the Father” is central; the Father is the “principle without principle” (arche anarchos) and the “sole source” (pege) of the Trinity. Furthermore, there is a shared recognition that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 remains the “normative and irrevocable” expression of common faith. Both sides also acknowledge that the historical impasse was significantly exacerbated by linguistic shifts, particularly the difficulty of translating the specific Greek term for eternal origin (ekporeusis) into the more general Latin term for procession (processio).

Roman Catholic theologians generally emphasize the development of doctrine and the logical consistency of Trinitarian relations. They often view the Filioque as a necessary historical addition to clarify the divinity of the Holy Spirit and to distinguish His procession from the Son’s generation. Contemporary Catholic “reconceptions” attempt to move away from linear models to describe the Trinity as a simultaneous act or a circular movement, where the Spirit can proceed from the Father through the Son without implying a chronological “sequence” or compromising the Father’s priority. However, Catholic scholars remain divided on the 1995 Clarification; some fear it marginalizes the dogmatic weight of the Western Councils of Lyon II and Florence, which define the Father and Son as “one single principle” of the Spirit.

Orthodox theologians, conversely, emphasize patristic rigor and a strict distinction between “Theology” (God’s eternal life) and “Economy” (God’s actions in history). They reject the “linguistic misunderstanding” theory as a reductionist oversimplification, arguing that the Filioque represents a fundamental ontological error. From the Orthodox perspective, the Spirit receives His personhood (hypostasis) and nature from the Father alone; to suggest otherwise risks “depersonalizing” the Spirit or treating Him as a product of the common divine essence and undermining the monarchy of the Father. They strongly oppose “Rahner’s Rule” (identifying the economic and immanent Trinity), maintaining that the Spirit’s temporal mission “through the Son” in the world cannot be projected back into His eternal origin.

Ultimately, the most significant divergence is ecclesiological. While Catholic theologians defend the Filioque as a legitimate dogmatic development, Orthodox theologians like Bishop Kallistos Ware and Professor Gregory Larentzakis view its unilateral canonical addition as the “real ecumenical problem”. They argue that the Latin Church had no right to alter a universal Symbol of faith without an Ecumenical Council. Consequently, while Catholics seek to clarify the Filioque’s meaning to make it acceptable to the East, the Orthodox insist that restoring “one faith” requires the removal of the term from the Creed and a return to deep, synodal dialogue rather than unilateral administrative “clarifications”.

5. Recommendations for the Resolution of the Filioque Aporia

To conclude these reflections, it seems appropriate to set out some key recommendations that would help to finally resolve the aporetic situation caused by the Filioque. In light of the ongoing theological dialogue, the Holy See should restore the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 as the “normative and irrevocable” expression of common faith for both East and West. It is recommended that any further attempts to clarify the Trinitarian dogma avoid unilateral administrative pressure and instead embrace deep, synodal dialogue that respects the historical and canonical sensitivities of all Christian traditions. Jointly, theologians emphasize that the “Monarchy of the Father” must be unequivocally upheld as the “sole source” (pege) and “principle without principle” (arche anarchos) of the Holy Spirit’s eternal origin. Furthermore, the Holy See should consider a transition from viewing the Filioque as a dogmatic mandate to treating it as a subject for rigorous theological inquiry (theologoumena).

Some Roman Catholic theologians recommend that the Roman Catholic Church continue to explore radical “reconceptions” of the Trinity to overcome the limitations of linear and sequential models. They suggest that the Trinity be understood as a simultaneous, nonsequential act, where the Father begets the Son “in or by the Holy Spirit,” effectively removing the problematic sense of chronological “priority”. To ensure continuity with the Latin tradition, it is recommended that the Church better articulate how the Filioque remains a legitimate development of doctrine intended to safeguard the Spirit’s divinity, while simultaneously ensuring that such clarifications do not marginalize the dogmatic weight of the medieval Western Councils of Lyon II and Florence. Other Catholic scholars even propose the formulation of a new common Creed that “transcends the past” by integrating the Western “procession from the Son” with the Eastern “Father as the ultimate source” through nonlinear, geometric metaphors. It is also worth mentioning such eminent Catholic theologians as Yves Congar (cf. Congar 1983, pp. 204–9), Walter Kasper (cf. Kasper 1984, p. 222), or André de Halleux (de Halleux 1981), who explicitly called for the removal of the Filioque from the Latin Creed or replacing it with St. Basil the Great’s formula “through the Son” (dia tou Hiou). In his treatise On the Holy Spirit this phrase appears in the sentence: “The Holy Spirit is one, and we speak of Him as unique, since through the one Son He is joined to the Father” (Basil the Great 1980, 18.45, p. 72; PG 32:152B). The use of the preposition “through” (dia) refers to the Trinitarian order (taxis) in God and the communication of divine attributes.

Orthodox theologians strongly recommend the immediate removal of the Filioque from the Latin text of the Creed to restore an authentic and common confession of faith. They insist upon a strict hermeneutical distinction between “Theology” (the eternal Trinitarian relations) and “Economy” (the Spirit’s temporal mission in the world), arguing that the Spirit’s actions in history cannot be projected into His eternal nature. Consequently, they recommend the rejection of “Rahner’s Rule” and any theological model that suggests the Son acts as a “secondary cause” in the ontological emergence of the Spirit. To achieve lasting unity, Orthodox theologians emphasize that the Father must be recognized as the “sole cause” (monos aitios) of the Spirit’s hypostatic personhood and essence. Finally, they caution against “unilateral Vatican clarifications,” asserting that only a return to patristic rigor and a shared Ecumenical Council can provide a clear path toward the restoration of “one faith”.

The question remains as to why the Holy See, despite many ecumenical declarations, has not, for over thirty years since the publication of the document The Greek and Latin Traditions about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, removed the Filioque from the liturgical Credo, or replaced it with the formula “through the Son,” which would have enabled a new phase of doctrinal dialogue with the Orthodox Church.