Reclaiming Pneumatology of Saint Augustine

Does Augustine really teach filioque?

It is widely acknowledged that our most holy Western theologian, after Hilary and Ambrose, is regarded as having taught what Roman Catholics believe, namely the Filioque. Only a mind devoid of reason would dare to suggest otherwise, for is it not evident from the text? Have you not read "De Trinitate"?

However, as paradoxical as it may seem, one who has truly engaged with Augustine's "De Trinitate" would realize that Augustine does not, in fact, teach the Filioque.

Before you dismiss this as the ramblings of a desperate Orthodox adherent, know that my concern is not whether he taught it or not. My authority lies with the Cappadocian Fathers, who are the true authorities on theology, not Saint Augustine. Yet, I will not allow our Church Father to be misinterpreted by heretics, nor will I blame him for something he may have taught inadvertently or mistakenly. We are all aware that Saint Augustine held various erroneous views throughout his life, many of which he later retracted. It is precisely for this reason that he is mentioned as one to be followed in every way by the Council of Constantinople in 553.

We follow in everything the holy fathers and doctors of the holy church of God, that is, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus and Leo, and we accept everything written and taught by them on the orthodox faith and for the condemnation of heretics. ¹

Interestingly, this very Council (Constantinople 553) speaks explicitly about the procession of the Holy Spirit solely from the Father, denying its procession from the Son. This is evident when they argue against the Christology of Theodoret, without addressing his theology. In fact, they assert that Nestorius and his followers did not err in theology, but in Christology.

He [Saint Cyril of Alexandria] also blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, saying that he does not proceed from the Father, in accordance with the Lord’s saying, but has his existence from the Son. ²

But that is an entirely different topic that deserves its own article.

That being said, let us proceed to discuss Saint Augustine and his view on the origination of the Holy Spirit. I am aware that what you are about to read may seem like a conspiracy theory, but hear me out!

Council of Florence defines filioque

First, we must establish what the Filioque even means, not just literally as in "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque)," but theologically as it has been dogmatized.

Florence states following:

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause(αιτιαν), and according to the Latins as principle(αρχην) of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.³

From a mere reading of the text, it appears to assert that both the Father and the Son are co-cause or a single cause of the Spirit's essence and subsistent being, and that the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks, as αἰτία (aitia) or in Latin principium, just like the Father.

Does Augustine believe this?

Depending on the time period and place when this question is asked, you would receive different answers. Did Maximus think this? Photius? Palamas? Ephesus? Gennadios? Anselm? Lombard? Aquinas?

During that time, there were numerous interpolations not just of the works of Saint Augustine but also of other Fathers who were falsely attributed statements they never made nor believed. There were also numerous additions and "corrections" by certain individuals during that time. For all of this exhausting work, we have to thank Adam Zoernikav, who gave his best to 'collect' every manuscript and edition and prove once and for all that the Latins of that time were rife with forgeries. It is because of him and many others that we today have critical editions of various works from different Church Fathers, distinguishing spurious and dubious prefixes from the genuine texts. You can read partially about this yourself here → ⁴

Analyzing "De Trinitate"

Augustine warns us in Book 1 that this work is experimental. He advises that if we have any problems or questions, we should ask him directly, inform him, or even ignore this work if we find issues with it. Alternatively, he suggests that we should consult the Greeks. Here are the places where he essentially conveys this:

Accordingly, dear reader, whenever you are as certain about something as I am go forward with me; whenever you stick equally fast seek with me; whenever you notice that you have gone wrong come back to me; or that I have, call me back to you. In this way let us set out along Charity Street together, making for him of whom it is said, Seek his face always…

So whoever reads this and says, “This is not well said, because I do not understand it,” is criticizing my statement, not the faith; and perhaps it could have been said more clearly—though no one has ever expressed himself well enough to be understood by everybody on everything. The person then who feels this grievance against my discourse should see if he can understand others who have busied themselves with such matters and such questions, when he fails to understand me. If so, let him lay my book aside (or throw it away if he prefers) and spend his time and effort on the ones he does understand…

On the other hand, if anyone reads this work and says, “I understand what is being said, but it is not true,” he is at liberty to affirm his own conviction as much as he likes and refute mine if he can. If he succeeds in doing so charitably and truthfully, and also takes the trouble to let me know (if I am still alive), then that will be the choicest plum that could fall to me from these labors of mine. If he cannot do me this service, I would be only too pleased that he should do it for anybody he can…

I do not doubt, of course, that some people who are rather slow in the uptake will think that in some passages in my books I meant what I did not mean, or that I did not mean what in fact I did. Nobody, I trust, will think it fair to blame me for the mistake of such people if they stray off the path into some falsehood in their effort to follow and their failure to keep up with me, while I am perforce picking my way through dark and difficult places. After all, no one would dream of blaming the sacred authors of God’s own books for the immense variety there is of heretical errors, though all the heretics try to defend their false and misleading opinions from those very scriptures. Undoubtedly, though, it is required of me by the gentle authority of Christ’s law, which is charity, that when people think I meant something false in my books which in fact I did not and this falsehood is disliked by one and welcomed by another, I should prefer to be censured by the censurer of falsehood than to receive its praiser’s praises. The first, though he is wrong to blame me, since I did not in fact mean what he thinks I did, is right to blame the error; but the second is neither right in praising an opinion that truth condemns, nor right in praising me for something he thinks I meant that truth condemns.⁵

And here in his book On Christian Doctrine:

Now among translations themselves the Italian is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression. And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is pre-eminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation, that among that number of men there was but one voice. And if, as is reported, and as many not unworthy of confidence assert, they were separated during the work of translation, each man being in a cell by himself, and yet nothing was found in the manuscript of any one of them that was not found in the same words and in the same order of words in all the rest, who dares put anything in comparison with an authority like this, not to speak of preferring anything to it? And even if they conferred together with the result that a unanimous agreement sprang out of the common labor and judgment of them all; even so, it would not be right or becoming for any one man, whatever his experience, to aspire to correct the unanimous opinion of many venerable and learned men. Wherefore, even if anything is found in the original Hebrew in a different form from that in which these men have expressed it, I think we must give way to the dispensation of Providence which used these men to bring it about, that books which the Jewish race were unwilling, either from religious scruple or from jealousy, to make known to other nations, were, with the assistance of the power of King Ptolemy, made known so long beforehand to the nations which in the future were to believe in the Lord. And thus it is possible that they translated in such a way as the Holy Spirit, who worked in them and had given them all one voice, thought most suitable for the Gentiles. But nevertheless, as I said above, a comparison of those translators also who have kept most closely to the words, is often not without value as a help to the clearing up of the meaning. The Latin texts, therefore, of the Old Testament are, as I was about to say, to be corrected if necessary by the authority of the Greeks, and especially by that of those who, though they were seventy in number, are said to have translated as with one voice. As to the books of the New Testament, again, if any perplexity arises from the diversities of the Latin texts, we must of course yield to the Greek, especially those that are found in the churches of greater learning and research.⁶

Florence quotes from Augustine

Florence quotes Saint Augustine in order to support one principle argument, here is what this quote says in context:

If therefore what is given also has him it is given by as its origin, because it did not receive its proceeding from him from anywhere else, we must confess that the Father and the Son are the origin of the Holy Spirit; not two origins, but just as Father and Son are one God, and with reference to creation one creator and one lord, so with reference to the Holy Spirit they are one origin; but with reference to creation Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are one origin, just as they are one creator and one lord. [Florence quote ends here]

[But Saint Augustine continues] Now an even deeper question arises: the Son by being born not only gets his being the Son but quite simply his being; does the Holy Spirit in the same way not only get his being gift by being given, but also quite simply his being?⁷

We can see from the text that it does not speak about giving being (which in the Latin root word would be "to be" or latin "sit") but about being given, which refers to economic procession. The Holy Spirit bestows gifts on us and is Himself a gift from the Father and the Son to us. Also, notice (when you refer to this paragraph) that Augustine doesn’t directly answer that question. Truthfully, some Roman Catholics might argue that it follows logically from reading his previous paragraphs. While that could be true, it is highly unlikely because Augustine states otherwise later on. In conclusion this quote, by itself, in no way, shape, or form, speaks about the hypostatic procession of the Spirit.

This is why it is crucial to read the actual text being quoted, as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details."

So, does Augustine teach that the Father and the Son are co-cause or a single cause of the Spirit's essence and subsistent being? I would argue no, because he says the following in "De Trinitate":

And yet it is not without point that in this triad only the Son is called the Word of God, and only the Holy Spirit is called the gift of God, and only the Father is called the one from whom the Word is born and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. I added “principally,” because we have found that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son.⁸

The text, in which Saint Augustine writes, makes a clear distinction between "principally proceeding" and "proceeding."

Principally proceeding obviously entails that Father is the sole principle, and best example of that is his mind analogy which he mentions in Book 9:

When, therefore, the mind knows itself, it alone is the parent of its own knowledge; for it is itself both the thing known and the knower of it. But it was knowable to itself also before it knew itself, only the knowledge of itself was not in itself so long as it did not know itself. In knowing itself, then, it begets a knowledge of itself equal to itself… Why therefore may it not be said by loving itself to have begotten its own love, as by knowing itself it has begotten its own knowledge? Is it because it is thereby indeed plainly shown that this is the principle of love, whence it proceeds? For it proceeds from the mind itself, which is lovable to itself before it loves itself, and so is the principle of its own love by which it loves itself.⁹

The Mind as the Parent of Knowledge

In this text, Saint Augustine discusses the concept of the mind being the sole parent of its own knowledge, where the mind knows itself and begets its own knowledge. This relationship represents the dynamic between the Father and the Son.

Saint Augustine explores the idea that the mind was knowable to itself even before knowing itself, emphasizing the eternal existence of the Son (knowledge) and the continuous self-awareness of the Father.

Love caused by the Mind

The text also delves into the notion that the mind, by loving itself, begets its own love, representing the Spirit. This establishes the principle of love proceeding from the mind, signifying the origin of its own love.

In his other work he also says this:

They[Greeks] hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia isne principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics.¹⁰

Relation to the Father and the Son

The text addresses the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, asserting that the Holy Spirit owes its existence to the Father, from whom all things come.

Rejection of Heretical Assertion

It rejects the idea of establishing two beginnings without beginning, deeming it false and absurd, and not in line with the Catholic faith but characteristic of the error of certain heretics. Heretics claim that the Father and the Son are “one beginning” or principle of the Spirit. Augustine asserts that the Father alone is the Beginning and Principle. He affirms this not only here but in other places as well.

He also says in his work On Symbol of Faith

[T]he Holy Spirit owes His existence to the Father, from Whom everything comes, lest we should find ourselves postulating two principles of origin without an origin, an assertion that would be totally false, utterly absurd, and contrary to the Catholic faith.”

And to make things even more interesting, I would dare to say that he even agrees with Council of Blachernae, which is that Spirit is manifested by or through the Son

So then, can we even ask whether the Holy Spirit had proceeded already from the Father when the Son was born, or whether he had not yet done so, and only once the Son had been born did he proceed from them both, seeing that there is no such thing as time in that sphere? We were able to ask this kind of question where we found that will proceeds first in time from the human mind to look for something which when found might be called offspring; and when this was already brought forth or begotten, that earlier will was perfected by resting in it as in its end, and so what had begun as a questioning appetite ended as an enjoying love which now proceeded from both, that is from the begetting mind and the begotten notion, as from parent and offspring. ¹¹

Here he gives a temporal example where the mind alone causes thought and will, but once the will rests in thought, it is called love and thus is said to proceed from both non causally. Fyi manifestation simply means making something known, both Father and the Son make known or manifest the Spirit, that is their love which they have in common.

What is Saint Augustine Essentially Saying?

The essential teaching of Saint Augustine is that the Father is the source (αἰτία/principle) of both the Son and the Spirit—one by begetting as the Son, and the other by principally proceeding as a Gift to the Son, where He rests.

What do post-schism patristics say about Augustine?

Church fathers agree with this interpretation of the Saint Augustine, here is proof!

Saint Philaret of Moscow says in his book “Talks of a Skeptic and a Believer on the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church”

C. — Do you not see then that Blessed Augustine is right in maintaining, as a clear and just thing, that, just as the will proceeds from knowledge, so the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?

S. — I see now that this explanation is entirely in conformity with the doctrine of the Eastern Church. However, I had been told about it in a completely different way.

C. — I know why we did it! If you are not afraid of fatigue, you can yourself examine which of me and of the other interpreters have most faithfully rendered the thoughts of Blessed Augustine. I have quoted

his words to you as they are found in almost all the manuscripts, and particularly in the older ones; the others have communicated them to you from the editions printed by the partisans of the Western Church.

…

C. — In the writings of Blessed Augustine alone, Adam Zernikov and Theophane Procopowiez have found more than fifty passages where the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit is professed as the Eastern Church teaches it to this day. Among these passages there are some whose authenticity is [not?] doubted by anyone. Such is, for example, the following passage from the book Contra sermonem Arianorum, ch. 23 [the following appears to be a misquotation of the latter part of the first paragraph in the chapter, though it is possible there are differences in the Latin manuscript tradition not acknowledged in PL 42:700].

“Let no one think that the Holy Spirit is from Him (that is, from the Son), just as He (the Son) is from the Father; on the contrary, both are of the Father, this one is born, that one proceeds; but these two acts are, no doubt, very difficult to distinguish in the depth of this (divine) nature.”

Among the great number of analogous testimonies which are met with among the writers of the East and of the West, I will cite for you that of Pope Damasus and of the whole Council of Rome. The authenticity of this testimony cannot be called into doubt, for Augustine and Theodoret, the first in Africa, the last in Asia, reported it, one in Latin, the other in Greek, in the same way and almost at the same time, and certainly without copying each other. At the Council of Rome, Pope Damasus, in concert with several bishops, issued a profession of faith, in which are found, among others, these words quoted by Augustine and Theodoret:

“If anyone does not say that the Holy Spirit is really and truly of the Father, as the Son is of the substance of God and is himself God, the word of God, let him be anathema!”¹²

Saint Gennadios says:

Therefore, the teachers from Asia (which includes Augustine) say that the Holy Spirit proceeds(ἐκπορευόμενον) from the Father, and no one has said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But everyone says that it is given, sent, supplied, and such things, in which there is no apparent cause from person to person but rather from both jointly to the external effect. And for this reason, not only do they say it proceeds from the Father through the Son, but also simply from the Father and the Son, without adding that the Holy Spirit is sent or given by the Father, as well as through the Son, because it is naturally in him, and consubstantial with him. And thus, they agree precisely with the common canon of faith, as has been well demonstrated in the earlier confession.¹³

Little bit earlier he says following:

I say that, even if Augustine says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is not necessary for us to think according to the opinion of Augustine that the entire Church changed through him.¹⁴

In previous treatise he notes following:

Thus, Augustine wisely advises in his letter to Fortunatus: “Let even the discourses of well-known and celebrated individuals, though they may be regarded by us as canonical Scriptures, be received with due honor, so that we may not, in the zeal for our own opinions, despise what is their due, if we should ever happen to find anything in their writings different from our own sentiments or from the truth as manifested by God either through others or ourselves.”

…

Gregory of Nyssa in harmony with the blessed Augustine in his defense of the Hexaemeron, says, “Let our own views, like a sort of exercise, be considered by those who happen to encounter them, causing no harm to anyone if they find anything in our statements contrary to common opinion. For we do not make our discourse a dogma, giving occasion to those who would attack; and we acknowledge that we exercise our minds with the presented ideas, not providing explanatory instruction to those who follow.”¹⁵

Saint Mark of Ephesus says many times in his works that Augustine is orthodox, like for example:

The appellation "Son" signifies these two things: the relationship to the Father, insofar as He has His being from Him, and the same substance as Him; for every son is consubstantial with his father. The same is implied by the term "generation," by which both the cause of existence and consubstantiality are aptly indicated. However, it is not the same for the Holy Spirit; neither the appellation of procession nor the term itself. When we hear "the Spirit of the Father," we understand it as a gift of the Father, something conferred upon us, sanctifying us, and working within us. For the Lord says, "The Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." Hence, the Spirit of the Son is also called the same; for, as blessed Augustine says, it is a common gift of both. Whenever, however, we hear of the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, then we grasp the cause from which He has existence and His very hypostasis. ¹⁶

Saint Photius says in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit

Therefore, when He brightly extols the teaching that He will receive, He explicitly proclaims the reason why He shall receive: not in order to say that the Spirit will proceed from Himself, nor does He do so that the divine substance may be understood. — Consider, O man, the Lord's words! — From whom will the Spirit receive, so that at His coming He may announce it unto you? Although He had previously spoken these words, He confirms them by saying again, That One will receive of Mine and announce it to you. (John 16:14) He then more clearly reveals the meaning of the words That One will receive of Mine, he quickly adds, All things which the Father has are Mine (John 16:15), so that the word Mine means That One receives from the Father, Who is Mine. However, the Son, not content to stop with just the conception that that One will receive, goes on to unfold this teaching yet more perfectly by saying, That One receives from that which is Mine. (John 16:15) According to this line of reasoning, the Mine to which He refers is the Father because the things that are Mine are in the Father. In other words, the Spirit receives from the Father because that which is from the Father is that which is mine. So I say that whenever that which is mine is said, it is necessary for us to raise our thoughts to that which is the Son's, that is, the Father, and not to turn them to any other hypostasis. There is no excuse for you to hide, wrapping yourselves up in your quest, for it was chiefly on your account the other fantasies were refuted in advance by the words, All that the Father has is mine

This clearly is a reference to what Saint Augustine says in De Trinitate:

Let us compare the case of the Holy Spirit, who is not of course said to have emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:7). But the Lord does say, When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will teach you all truth. For he will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak, and will tell you of the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will receive of mine and will tell it to you (Jn 16:13). Now unless he had gone on immediately to say All that the Father has is mine; that is why I said, he will receive of mine and will tell it to you (Jn 16:14)we might perhaps have supposed that the Holy Spirit is born of Christ as he himself is of the Father. About himself he says My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me (Jn 7:16); and about the Holy Spirit, He will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak; and, because he will receive of mine and will tell it to you (Jn 16:13). But he gives his reason for saying, He will receive of mine; namely, All that the Father has is mine; that is why I said he will receive of mine (Jn 16:14). And so we are left to understand that the Holy Spirit has of the Father’s just like the Son. How does he? In the way we mentioned above: When the advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear testimony about me (Jn 15:26). So it is as proceeding from the Father that he is said not to speak from himself.¹⁷

There are also plenty of places where doctrine of Saint Augustine is mentioned in Saint Gregory Palamases works, life for example his mind analogy:

Since the goodness which proceeds by generation from intellectual goodness as from a source is the Word, and since no intelligent person could conceive of a word without spirit, for this reason the Word, God from God, possesses also the Holy Spirit proceeding together with him from the Father. But this is spirit not in the sense of the breath which accompanies the word passing through our lips (for this is a body and is adapted to our word through bodily organs); nor is it spirit in the sense of that which accompanies the immanent and the discursive word within us, even though it does so incorporeally, for that too entails a certain motion of the mind which involves a temporal extension in conjunction with our word and requires the same intervals and proceeds from incompletion to completion. But that Spirit of the supreme Word is like an ineffable love of the Begetter towards the ineffably begotten Word himself. The beloved Word and Son of the Father also experiences this love towards the Begetter, but he does so inasmuch as he possesses this love as proceeding from the Father together with him and as resting connaturally in him. From the Word who held concourse with us through the flesh we have learned also the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father, and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Son. For he says, "The Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father," in order that we may recognize not a Word alone but also a Spirit from the Father, who is not begotten but who proceeds, but he belongs also to the Son who possesses him from the Father as Spirit of truth, wisdom and word. For truth and wisdom constitute a word appropriate to the Begetter, a Word which rejoices together with the Father who rejoices in him, according to what he said through Solomon, "I was the one [i.e., Wisdom] who rejoiced together with him." He did not say "rejoiced" but "rejoiced together with," for this pre-eternal joy of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit in that he is common to them by mutual intimacy. Therefore, he is sent to the worthy from both, but in his coming to be he belongs to the Father alone and thus he also proceeds from him alone in his manner of coming to be.¹⁸

This obviously echoes Augustines mind analogy mentioned above from Book 9.

I can quote so many stuff and so many people that agree with what I am saying, but I would make this article in a book if I did that. I think that this would be enough for now.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Saint Augustine does not teach the Florentine Filioque. Instead, he teaches the Eastern Orthodox understanding: the Father and the Son send forth the Spirit as a Gift to us or eternally between each other, because the Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son. The Father is the Cause or Principle of both—one by begetting, the other by principally proceeding. Translating this into Greek, the Son is γεννάσι from the Father, and the Spirit is ἐκπορευόμενον from the Father. When the Spirit is sent forth from both, the term would be προϊέναι, which aligns with the teaching of every single Greek Father.

1. Acts of Council of Constantinople 553, Price, Richard, p139

2. Acts of Council of Constantinople 553, Price, Richard, p361

3. Council of Florence, Session 6—6 July 1439

4. https://books.google.rs/books?id=LWBKAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=sr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false ; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tractatus_theologici_orthodoxi_de_proces/3EpBAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA479&printsec=frontcover ; https://zoernikav.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/ [English translation]

5. Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Holy Trinity Book 1, 5-6; Mainly I am using this book → Saint Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, Introduction, translation and notes by Edmund Hill, O.P., editor John E. Rottele, O.S.A, New City Press, Hyde Park, New York. But I also use others like from Philip Schaff

6. Saint Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine”, in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 542–543.

7. Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Holy Trinity Book 5, 15-16

8. Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Holy Trinity Book 15, 29

9. Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Holy Trinity Book 9, 18

10. Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Faith and the Creed, Chapter 9, Paragraph 19, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/s/schaff/npnf103/cache/npnf103.pdf

11. Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Holy Trinity Book 15, 47

12. Philaret of Moscow, Talks of a Skeptic and a Believer on the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church

13. Saint Gennadios Scholarios, Second Treatise on Procession of the Holy Spirit

14. ibid

15. Saint Gennadios Scholarios, First Treatise on Procession of the Holy Spirit

16. Saint Mark of Ephesus, PO 17 266-7

17. Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Holy Trinity Book 2, Chapter 1, Paragraph 5

18. Saint Gregory Palamas, One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, Chapter 36