[TexConfederate1861]

You should read the scripture: "whom I shall send to you FROM THE FATHER, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds FROM THE FATHER, he shall bear witness to me"

And then there is that other small matter of the anethemas placed on anyone who adds or takes away from the Creed, placed by the Ecumenical Councils.......Even a joint Orthodox-Catholic Committee has ruled that the filioque should not be in the creed. When the Ecumenical Patriarch & Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass, the Filioque was not used. Read the Creed on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica, NO filioque there either.

[AnalogReigns]

I think its fair to say the filoque was used as an excuse for the Great Schism of 1054, while the underlying causes were political and professional rivalries. True there is a difference but the Trinity of God remains with either understanding.

[joseph20]

You should read the scripture: "whom I shall send to you FROM THE FATHER, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds FROM THE FATHER, he shall bear witness to me"

How should this mean only "from the Father", when the preceding clause makes the statement that Jesus shall send the Holy Spirit?

Read the "WHOM I SHALL SEND TO YOU" clause. How can your position be upheld, when this line clearly states that the Holy Spirit is being sent by Jesus (as well as from the Father obviously)?

On another point, why did focus only on John 15:26? Did you ignore the other scripture readings (John 16:7, John 20:22, and John 16:15) that support the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

[joseph20]

And then there is that other small matter of the anethemas (sic) placed on anyone who adds or takes away from the Creed, placed by the Ecumenical Councils

The Council of Ephesus (held in 431) was held for the reason of dealing with Nestorius--the heretic Bishop of Constantinople (and his followers).

The sixth session of the Council (in which the anathema decision was made) dealt only with the matter of two Nestorianizing priests. This anathema ruling is contained in a letter from Cyril to Nestorius and therefore must be interpreted in the context of dealing with Nestorius and his followers.

Your position on this matter improperly interprets this decree as meant to be taken far too literally. For if you take it in absolute literal form, then any deviation from the original Greek version of the Creed (approved at Ephesus and including the anathema) would be cause for excommunication:

Πιστεύομεν εις ένα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητήν ουρανού και γης, ορατόν τε πάντων και αοράτων. Και εις ένα Κύριον Ιησούν Χριστόν, τον Υιόν του Θεου τον μονογενή, τον εκ του Πατρός γεννηθέντα προ πάντων τον αιώνων· φως εκ φωτός, Θεόν αληθινόν εκ Θεου αληθινού, γεννηθέντα οι ποιηθέντα, ομοούσιον το Πατρί, δι' ου το πάντα εγένετο. Τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός. Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν. Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι. ἢ κτιστόν, τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

Do you recite your creed in Greek? Or, if you dare to translate it into your native language (I presume English), do you recite the anathema that comes at the end of the Creed? See below for the anathema:

But those that say, There was a time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made of that which previously was not, or that he was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

If your argument is followed out, then every Roman Catholic priest should be excommunicated and every Roman Catholic layman should be anathemized. Such a position is entirely untenable.