just to clarify, which among the 4 is a heresy
1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father through the Son.
2. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father and the Son.
3. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father through the Son.
4. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son.
The first two don't make any sense. Aitia
is a noun, not a verb. To proienai
is usually used by the Greek Fathers to refer to the Spirit's "progression" or even worldly manifestation, i.e. proceeding forth unto the Church and filling Her with Grace. Thus, an Orthodox could agree with either 3 or 4.
You're going to get into trouble if you say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai
) from the Father and the Son." That's when St. Photios will call you out. Along similar lines, the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae in the 13th century declared that the Spirit proceeds eternally
and according to essence ONLY from the Father. So, if you consider that binding, then any Patristic language that suggests otherwise should be interpreted in that light, and it would be a heretical no-no to speak of proceeding from the Father through the Son (ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon
Personally, I say just stick with the Creed of 381 and leave it at that. Why bother with anything else?
If you want to read a summary of the history and theological implications, go here: http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html