The final authority on what the Church teaches are Ecumenical Councils. The EC composed and finalized the Christian Symbol of Faith (the Creed) and prohibited anyone from adding or substracting from it (unless another EC needs to clarify it -- as was the case with the Holy Ghost of the Nicene Creed).
The bottom line is this: the Creed was approved in its finalized form (without the Filioque) in all subsequent councils. If the Latin Church found it necessary to describe the "mechanics" of Trinitarian economy for whatever reason, it had no authority to unilaterally insert the Filioque into the Creed, which was done in the 11th century before the Great Schism as a concession to the semi-heretical (semi-iconoclastic) Frankish kings, who were also the guardians of the Pope.
St. Maximos the Confessor, just as St. Chrysostom, was one of those eastern Bishops very close to Rome and very fond of the Pope. After all, it was a Pope, in whom St. Maximos sought refuge, who saved the Church from iconoclastic heresy in the East, but it was also a Pope who embraced Monothelism which St. Maximos denied, and was proven wrong by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and subsequent Popes.
The so-called Photian synod, which re-instated St. Photius and agreed with him, was ratified by a Pope and this settled the Filioque controversy, although it was not an ecumnical synod (which would have been the 8th). It also annuled the so-called 8th Ecumenical Synod 10 years prior, which the Roman Catholic Church counts as the "8th" although it was condemned by the Photian Synod, the condemnation having been approved by Pope himself.
The bottom line is this: individual fathers make opinions; Ecumenical Councils decide what is orthodoxy and what is heresy. The ECs are infallible because they represent the entire Church; individual fathers are not.
If any Ftaher says anything that is contrary to the proclamations of Ecumenical Synods, the Ftaher is wrong. Plain and simple.
But you misunderstood my reasoning for quoting St. Maximus. I was not trying to prove that the Catholics were correct but only that in the early Church there was disagreement as to whether the Filioque was considered contrary to the teaching of the Councils.
If the Latin Church found it necessary to describe the "mechanics" of Trinitarian economy for whatever reason, it had no authority to unilaterally insert the Filioque into the Creed
I have already conceded that this action was uncanonical but, again, that is not the same as heretical and does not justify the anathemas proclaimed by the Orthodox.
The bottom line is this: individual fathers make opinions; Ecumenical Councils decide what is orthodoxy and what is heresy.
Agreed (did I actually say that word?) ;-) But as of yet no ecumenical council has that the Latin theology of Filioque is heretical and contrary to the councils of the past. Why is it so hard to leave the question at that?
Agreed (did I actually say that word?) ;-) But as of yet no ecumenical council has declared that the Latin theology of Filioque is heretical and contrary to the councils of the past. Why is it so hard to leave the question at that?
Scholasticism is precisely the point, imo.
I contribute little here because of the emphasis on it. I prefer to bask in my memories of Tbilisi liturgies last month, and as I do, I recall that after all, the Orthodox church is experiential, not scholastic.
Why dig up writings from the 5th century when you could go to liturgy in a church from the 5th century? This taught me far more than anything written from those times, and in a way far more deeply ensconced.