Zemo, when will you get the courage to deal with the following already posted to you once before:
"Uh, you do realize that 1) filioque didn't start with the Franks right? I mean, you did know that it was discussed in Toledo in 447 didn't you? You do realize that the Franks were not EVEN BAPTIZED CHRISTIANS AT THAT POINT RIGHT? 2) it isn't a change in doctrine (even some EOs admit this)."
Or how about:
"A change in doctrine would be like when some EOs renounced the Assumption of Mary for no other reason than the fact that the Catholic Church defined it as doctrine in 1950!!! How disgusting! That's the sort of lunacy that follows in the wake of anti-Catholic hatred."
Any comment? Attempt at refutation? Links to books you haven't actually read and don't understand?
Because of this deliberate policy, the Filioque question was about to take on irreparable dimensions. Up to this time, the Filioque was a Frankish political weapon which had not yet become a theological controversy because the Romans hopefully believed that the Papacy could dissuade the Franks from their doctrinal dead-end approach. When it became clear that the Franks were not going to retreat from these politico-doctrinal policies, the Romans accepted the challenge and condemned both the Filioque and the Frankish double position on icons at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879 in Constantinople-New Rome.
Still, filioque continued to be used by the Franks and spread to the Germans. The filioque began to be used in Rome, probably first at the coronation of Henry II in 1014. Historians see this as a passive acceptance by the pope (Benedict VIII) due to his reliance on the Germans for military protection. From that time, the Romans began adding the filioque to the creed and have continued doing so.