I can't imagine it that important if it was sometimes used and sometimes not.
As this source states (Anglican): The addition of the filioque by Toledo was not necessarily intended to be a permanent change to the creed....
http://conciliaranglican.com/2011/07/15/ask-an-anglican-the-filioque/
So to me it is clear.
Very grateful for the conversation on the matter.
“I can’t imagine it that important if it was sometimes used and sometimes not.”
So you don’t believe what The Reader David posted earlier? After all he posted this:
“It seems not to have taken, since the coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the filioque...”
So which is it? We KNOW the Filioque clause WAS USED. It might very well have NOT BEEN USED at times as well. Thus, what I said makes the most sense - it wasn’t always used, but was used, and used in more ways than the Eastern Orthodox and their faux histories would care to admit. And I have demonstrated this by posted ACTUAL HISTORICAL SOURCES. Your real dispute now seems to be with The Reader David who tried to deny that “It seems not to have taken” - when all the evidence shows it did.
By the way, earlier you also you posted this:
“A banner, blessed by the Pope for the invasion of England, was sent to William from the Holy See, and the clergy of the Continent upheld his intended invasion as being in the Cause of God, a Holy War, a Crusade.”
Since the first crusade was THIRTY YEARS after 1066 what you said there is literally not possible as you’ve written it.
Now, back to The Reader David’s comment:
“It seems not to have taken, since the coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the filioque...”
One question I would ask is, “How do we know that is true?” Is The Reader David relying on himself as a source?:
SbdcnDavid:
-— Quote from: Ebor on May 31, 2009, 11:29:31 AM -—
-— Quote from: SbdcnDavid on May 31, 2009, 01:13:06 AM -—There is a strong case that the Church in the British Isles remained Orthodox until 1066 (and diocese by diocese until the forcible replacement of English or Celtic bishop with Norman bishops). The coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the heretical interpolation. Saxon nobles who fled the Norman conquest mostly went to Kiev or Constantinople. Indeed Harold’s daughter married Prince Vladimir Monomach of Kiev. The English Church was, moreover out of communion with Rome at the time of the mutual anathemas in 1054 over an investiture issue, so that the William had a Papal order to reduce the English Church to papal juridsiction. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=21518.30;wap2
Compare the names:
The_Reader_David and SbdcnDavid.
Compare the statements:
Posted at FR:
“It seems not to have taken, since the coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the filioque, and a great many Saxon nobles fled to Orthodox lands in the wake of the Norman conquest, including Harold’s daughter, who married Prince Vladimir Monomamach.”
Posted at the other site linked to above:
“The coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the heretical interpolation. Saxon nobles who fled the Norman conquest mostly went to Kiev or Constantinople. Indeed Harold’s daughter married Prince Vladimir Monomach of Kiev.”
So does The Reader David have an actual historical primary source or even a reputable secondary source for this claim: “the coronation rite for Harold Godwinson included the Creed without the filioque”? I mean, it might be true - which would change nothing I’ve said for everything I have said has been absolutely correct about the Filioque in pre-Conquest England, but is The Reader David’s claim even accurate?