Michael Bushnell writes;  >The so-called Creed of Athanasius, however, has always been a Western >creed, and has always had the filioque.  The Orthodox have said that >they accept all that it says, with the exception of the filioque, but >it is not "in use."  Which is exactly what I pointed out.  (Though I was wrong about your use of the Creed, the 1913 Catholic Encylcopedia in which I read about it said the Orthodox do use the Creed minus the filioque.  Apparently that has changed.)  The Athanasian Creed has always had the Filioque, the Nicene - Constantinopolitan did not. 	Of course the Orthodox did not delete the Filioque from the Nicene Creed (it wasn't there to begin with), but they certainly did from the Athanasian Creed, which did have it from the beginning. 	I might point out that the whole problem started over the difference in ways of explaining the generation of the Blessed Trinity, the East emphasizing the idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, and the West using proceeding from the Father and the Son.  In fact, some, such as Tertullian, used both formulations (see below)  	"Following, therefore, the form of these examples, I profess that I do call God and His Word, - the Father and and His Son, - two.  For the root and the stem are two things, but conjoined; the fountain and the river are two kinds, but indivisible; the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones.  Anything which proceeds from another must necessarily be a second to that from which it proceeds; but it is not on that account separated from it.  Where there is second, however, there are two; and where ther is third, there are three.  The Spirit, then, is third from God and the Son, just as the third from the root is the fruit of the stem, and third from the fountain is the stream from the river, and thrid from the sun is the apex of the ray." 	-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 8, 5 (about 213 AD)  and  	"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" 	-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 4, 1 (about 213 AD)  And as St. Thomas showed in his Summa Theologica Part 1, Question 36, Articles 2 and 3, there is no contradiction between the two methods of generation, and in fact, the two methods of reckoning the procession emphasize what St. Augustine, among others taught, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but He proceeds from the Father in a more preeminent way.  	"For whatever the Son has, He has from the Father, certainly He has it from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him ... For the Father alone is not from another, for which reason He alone is called unbegotten, not, indeed, in the Scriptures, but in the practice of theologians, and of those who employ such terms as they are able in a matter so great.  The Son, however, is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, and since the Father gives to the Son all that He has without any interval of time, the Holy Spirit proceeds jointly from both Father and Son.  He would be called Son of the Father and of the Son if, which is abhorent to everyone of sound mind, they had both begotten Him.  The Spirit was not begotten by each, however, but proceeds from each and both." 	-St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, 15, 26, 47 (400 to 416 AD)  So, in a sense, all of the formulations are correct (to the West at least), because the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, but in proceeding from the Son, the orgin of that procession is the procession from the Father, so the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father through the Son, but as all that the Son has is from the Father, the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father, without any mention of the Son being necessary. 	In any case, I am happy to know that I follow in the beliefs of Pope St. Leo I, St. Fulgence of Ruspe, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope St. Damsus I, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Tertullian, and others among the Fathers, who all have very quotable quotes supporting the Catholic position, which I enunciated above. 	As for the issue of the adoption of another Creed being forbidden, I will point out that the Holy Fathers of Ephesus and Chalcedon both spoke of the Creed of Nicea in their statement forbidding anyone "to produce, write, or compose a confession of faith other than the one defined by the Fathers of Nicea."  That Creed is a different Creed than that of Constantinople, which is commonly called the Nicene Creed.  Not of course in that they were condemning the adoption of the Constantinopolitan Creed, which is but an enlargement upon the Creed of Nicea, but that they were condemning the impious opinions of Nestorious, who had adopted a radically different Creed from the one used by the Church, which among other things denied the procession of the Holy Spirit form the Son.  Thus, the additions of the Constantinopolitan Creed were not thought to be in violation of this, and as the Council Chalcedon also affirmed the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which Nestorius denied, they could hardly have been against explaining in a fuller way the Creed, for they themselves approved of previous additions to it.  And if the further explanations of the Creed made in Constantinople were not denigrating of the work done by the Holy Fathers of Nicea or in any way heretical, it follows that the Council of Toledo was fully able to add what was not disputed by the faithful to the Creed so as to combat the impieties of the Arians in Spain, because the filioque was not in dispute in the Church until many years later under Photius and others.  And that the filioque was not disputed, I provide more quotes below.  	"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it." 	-St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, Thesis 34, (423-425 AD)  	"The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or of the Son only, but he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.  For it is written: `If anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him'; and again it is written: `If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.'  When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of whom the Son himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit `proceeds from the Father,' and that `He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you.'" 	-Pope St. Damasus I, The Decree of Damasus, 1 (382 AD)  	"The only-begotten Holy Spirit has neither the name of the Son nor the appelation of Father, but is called Holy Spirit, and is not foreign to the Father.  For the Only-begotten Himself calls Him: `the Spirit of the Father,' and says of Him the `He proceeds from the Father,' and `will receive of mine,' so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit divine, ... of God, and He is God.  For he is Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son of the Father and of the Son, a third by appelation.... 	"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor is the Spirit created." 	-St. Epiphanius of Salamis (which is on Cyprus), The Man Well-Anchored, 8 and 75 (374 AD)  	"Concerning the Holy Spirit, I ought not to remain silent, nor yet is it necessary to speak.  Still, on account of those who do not know Him, it is not possible for me to be silent.  However it is necessary to speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, His Sources." 	-St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trintiy, 2, 29 (356 to 359 AD)  	Thus, as I have pointed out before, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Africa, Egypt, Palastine, and the lands of the Greeks, all of Christnedom at that time, all have Fathers who can be cited to show that they confess the doctrine expressed by the filioque.  I suggest to those of the Orthodox Church that they come up with some of the Fathers, besides St. John of Damascus who all will admit denied the filioque, to support their views.  It is not enough to bring up the "proceeds from the Father" line of the Creed or the Gospel of John, for that says what we believe also.  But it does not say the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, only that He does proceed from the Father.