[american colleen]

No the arguement lies in whether in causing the procession of the Holy Spirit towards His manifestation to us, the Father gives to the Son to also be a cause, or whether the Son is a mediate point in the spirit's manifestation, and then whether these positions are truly distinct and irreconciliable.

If your really smart that is the argument ;-)

I read the Creed the "Orthodox way" and I read the Creed the "Catholic way" and I still think of St. Patrick and the shamrock. And then I think of how God has no beginning and no end. And then I realize He is unfathomable and I'm fine with that.

But the arguements I've always heard re: the insertion of the filioque in the Creed by the "Latins" is an arguement on the right of anyone to add anything to the original Creed - the argument over the phrase seems secondary. But I've been wrong a coupla times in my life.

[FormerLib]

But the arguements I've always heard re: the insertion of the filioque in the Creed by the "Latins" is an arguement on the right of anyone to add anything to the original Creed...

That will always be a major part of the Orthodox objection to the filioque.

...the argument over the phrase seems secondary.

How true! But I would say it as "almost being secondary."