After a mere cursory reading of Torrance and Moltmann, a few salient factors are already coming into focus. One of those factors it the two authors very different opinions regarding the filioque. To put it simply, Torrance believes it was a good addition, while Moltmann is very critical of it, and lays part of the blame for the minimalization of the Spirit at the feet of this addition.
I’ve come to the opinion that i need to comprehend more deeply what’s at stake theologically in this issue. So, i would love to hear what anyone thinks would make for helpful reading on this topic.
Stubbed Toes 
Read the bit on the filioque in Yves Congar’s I Believe in the Holy Spirit.
At some point, Torrance an some EO patriarchs came to an agreement on the Trinity, so his views on the filioque didn’t ultimately bother them…
Travis,
Thanks for stopping by, and for the suggestion. I would love to read on Torrance’s engagement with EO thinkers on this subject, especially since Moltmann seems to claim that he relies on a more “Eastern” understanding of the Trinity.
Derek
I’d suggesst reading up on Arianism, since the filioque arose out of the conflit with later Spanish Arianism. Also, Photios’ Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit is a key historical work from the Orthodox perspective. Then Gregory of Cyprus and the council of Blachernae.
Congar’s work on the filioque in the I Believe set is deficient for the following reasons. He admits not having read the principle Eastern sources and so his comments are rather speculative.
Have you read Lossky’s The mystical theology of the Eastern Church?
I’m not sure I ever quite understood the issue. I think one of Moltmann’s criticism as that forcing the issue caused an unnecessary split between the east and the west.
I wonder if both sides were missing the other side’s point. Maybe the ‘filioque’ folks wanted to emphasize Christ’s full deity and equality with the father; maybe those in the East wanted to emphasize the Spirit’s deity.
But I admit to having read none of the original sources.