Replies

I am afraid that the details of the controversy too great to go into here. I will just give a part of the problem by quoting from the statement of Metropolitan John of Pergamon that I mentioned before:

Another important point in the Vatican document is the emphasis it lays on the distinction between ekporeusis and processio. It is historically true that in the Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between ekporeuesthai and proeinai, the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit's derivation from the Father alone, whereas proienai was used to denote the Holy Spirit's dependence on the Son owing to the common substance or ousia which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or hypostasis receives from the Son, too, as ousiwdws that is, with regard to the one ousia common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ousia, but not of hypostasis.
However, as the document points out, the distinction between ekporeuesthai and proeinai was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, to denote both realities. Is this enough to explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the Filioque? Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the ekporeuesthai but the proeinai of the Spirit.
This remains a valid point, although the subsequent history seems to have ignored it. The Vatican statement underlines this by referring to the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church today the Filioque is omitted whenever the Creed is used in its Greek original which contains the word ekporeuesthai.

(Sorry, I do not know how to include the Greek characters.)

This is only one point which the Metropolitan addresses. As you can see it is anything but cut and dry. I encourage to read the whole document. But for now I will ask again: If because of language difficulties we do not know exactly what the other is saying, is it not rash judgment to accuse one another of heresy?