Just for the record. St. Maximums the Confessor went to Latin North Africa, renounced Greek Church, the Patriarch and the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, and called himself Latin who speaks Greek. He approved everything that came from the Old Rome, and followed Western theology. In perspective, it is not surprising that he though the filoque was legitimate.
No one is disputing the elegance and the complexity of Latin. The fact is, however, that Latin became a liturgical lengauge from Greek and that it did not have necessarily the concepts and words equiavlent to those in Greek and that many Latin-speaking clergy didn't speak Greek that well (even St. Augustine is known to have chosen words that do not correspond to the Greek original). And, yes Greek was the language of the Church for quite some time. Latin did not have the necessary complexity of a liturgical language from the start.
Maybe the hints of filioque can be found before the 6th century, but it was specifically introduced into the Creed in Spain in response to the Arian heresy. Even if it was theologically acceptable, the fact is -- and the popes knoew that the additions to the Creed could only be done by Ecumenical Councils. The fact is also that the Greeks were later being accused for "removing" it from the Creed.
The role of the pope as the final arbiter of disputes is something that developed over time and through the efforts of people like Irenaeus and is not something that is found in the early church organization, before the monarchical episcopates emerged in the 2nd century. There is no Bible-based office of the pope, but thanks for clarifying how the Byzantine Catholic churches relate to him.
I am not sure when the east and the west started to differ in their teaching of the Blessed Mother of God, but I believe that the current teaching of the Roman Catholic Church dates to the 13th century at the onset. The orthodox belief was always that she was cleansed of all sin at the moment of conception (and her death) but that she was not conceived free of sin. In other words, the only One conceived free of sin was Jesus. Placing Theotokos on the same plane with Jesus would make her more than human.
However, reading your interesting answers one must wonder why the Churches are still apart. Why is it not possible to go to the status post Seventh Ecumenical Council and throw all these doctrinal issues on the table and explain them in a brotherly manner as two versions of the same orthodox faith expressed in two different manners and let the Synod vote on them? If we are just two faces of the same coin, what is amiss?
Personal vitriol. People drag so much non-theological baggage with them with regard to east/west discussions it prevents an, if not dispassionate, at least a mutually respectfully starting point in working toward reunification. This forum is a microcosm of displaying what divides east from west; distinctions with out difference become insurmountable obstacles and hard definitions vs. mystery create the illusion of incompatibility.
But knowing the subject matter and the players involved, at least on this forum, I¡¦m sure some will disagree;)
If I were the Pope and you the Patriarch ...
The same question applies to the relationship of both our Churches to the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, and Syraics).
If we are just two faces of the same coin, what is amiss?
Pride and fear. Pride (why should we compromise by even discussing these issues??? they are the heretics, not us!!!) and fear (but what if it is us who really are wrong???).