[CTrent1564]

Kolokotronis:

To be fair, the fillioque was being discussed in the 4th century by a whole host of Latin/Western Fathers. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Saint Hillary of Potiers and Saint Augustine all wrote in favor of it. Now the Latin Church put it into the Creed that was recited in the Liturgies of the West, that is correct, but ROme has never stated that the East had to add it, even though at times some “More Catholic than the Pope” types have made claims that to not use it is heresy, which again, Rome clearly says that it is not heresy to favor the Eastern Formula.

And while we are at the Creed of Nicea, it was Rome’s Consubsantial which in Greek is “Homooousios” that was the orthodox formula that refuted Arius. The Latin Bishop of Hosius and the 2 Papal legates were ones who brought the term from the West, and it became the term that was used. So great Latin term Consubstantial with the Father (referring to Christ), the term Catholics in the Roman Tradition here at Mass means clearly Christ is One in Substance with Father, but it also implies he is one in substance with our humanity. Of course, you as an Orthodox Christian already know this.

With many of these FR Prots here, and “every man/woman and their Bible and No Creed” Theology, it is Chaos Theology.

[Kolokotronis]

As I said, the filioque was added "a bit later on". It was certainly discussed as early as the 6th century in the West. Some Orthodox say it is heretical. I wish I could say that even a tiny minority in The Church understood the concept of the "monarchy of the Father", but I can't and we know that +BVI favored the original version for catechesis. In any event, it's not you Latins I worry about when I start fulminating about heresy!

"Consubstantial" is an interesting word in English. I don't think it is sufficient to convey “Homooousios” which really relates to essence, the ousia, rather than substance and with God, Ο ΩΝ, the distinction is important.