[tjwmason]

My question now is, who stuck in "and the Son," and why?

It was used in a letter of Pope Leo I, and was added to the Creed by the Council of Toledo (447); this was re-iterated when the 3rd Synod of Toledo (589) resulted in the submission of the Visigoths. The Visigoths had been Arians, and the addition of the clause was used to strengthen the position of Our Lord as being the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

The Theology was accepted by Leo III (9th century), though he kept the text of the Creed without it. This is the position of the Eastern Catholics (groups of Orthodox who have returned to the Catholic Church, but kept their rites and traditions). It was formally accepted as part of the Nicene Creed by the Council of Lyons (1274) by which time the Orthodox had separated.

[dsc]

Thanks.

Let me think. (Sound of wooden gears grinding.)

If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, one God in Three Persons, then anything that proceeds from the Father is also proceeding from the Son, no?

Hey, I don't understand the Trinity anyway. This is one battle I couldn't figure out which side to fight on.