I was emphasizing God's overwhelming and lopsided relationship to counter the Protestant notion of some "fellowship" or "partnership," which trickles into the sola scriptura arrogance that tends to make every man his own pope and a "junior partner" in God's Firm. Christian God is humble. Protestants don't know what that means; they are directed to "sin boldly" by Luther.
Let's not fool ourselves that our response to God is of any real value to Him save for His love for us. And you point to a very important detail: that we must give ourselves totally to God and I will say that none of us does. The woman who gave her last two copper coins to God, gave little, but she gave everything to Him. That's what Christ taught us. He taught us that she loved God with all her heart, mind and soul.
Theologically, the [filioque] formula is acceptable (though I think "through" rather than "and" would be better)
Theologically, it is understandable inasmuch as it shows Latin error. +Gregory Palams describes the Holy Spirit as the eros (love) between the Father and the Son, as the Latin theologians do, but he makes sure to underscore that the Holy Spirit exists only from the Father, as does the Son. We could go on, of course, but the original Creed goes to the very eternal fountain of Divinity which is unmistakably and incorruptibly associated only with the Father, as the source of everything and all, including the Divinity.
I thought so. We must steer the middle ground on this - not forgeting Whom God is, nor that He has given us a great dignity (as in Psalms 8 or Genesis 1).
that we must give ourselves totally to God and I will say that none of us does. The woman who gave her last two copper coins to God, gave little, but she gave everything to Him
Good point. To God, WHAT we give it immaterial. It is what it means to US, I believe. If it is out of surplus wealth, what sort of sacrifice is that?
but he makes sure to underscore that the Holy Spirit exists only from the Father, as does the Son
Rest assured the formula change NEVER meant to imply that we believe in TWO divine principles. But I understand that the word "and" can give that impression. That is why I, personally, thought "through" would make more sense, as then it more clearly describes the Spirit's origin within the Godhead from the Father. The beliefs we share from Nicea has not changed, just the wording. It is the belief, not the words, which are infallible. If there is an Ecumenical Council, perhaps we'll see a quick change there. I don't know what it would take to change the formula, ecclesiastically, but it would be a step forward, and would not deny anything of the faith.
Regards