As you might have suspected, the only real reason I posted that was to poke a little fun at our Catholic friends, since NONE of them challenged Kosta's earlier statement of the Orthodox view on the subject. Since that statement jumped off the page at me, I would have thought, etc. etc. :) I only learned what the filioque even is on the L&E thread. I do realize that it is a huge issue for you all, and I respect that. It just hasn't reached major issue status for me yet.
[+Gregory Palamas:] It is from the Logos's discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says 'the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father' (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father.
Thanks for the quote (and the link). This verse is interesting, but I have to admit that I am not the guy to be debating this. :) I know that I don't even fully understand why this is important yet. FWIW, I found part of an argument from the other side on New Advent:
As to the Sacred scripture, the inspired writers call the holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
This is under the filioque section. The argument sort of sounds like "sent by" and "proceed from" are the same thing. I remember something about them being very different, but I couldn't explain it well to anyone. :)
In any event, I am not sure of statements from Palamas such as "Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father." Since everyone agrees that all Three are co-eternal, I don't see how these go together.
It is important because it effects the monarchy of The Father.
Is there a way to summarize how this is?
It is good to hear that both sides are seeming to come together on the issue.
Because the distinctions are too subtle to be arguing over on a thread when the basics of faith are questioned. The Catholic Church sanctions the Creed without the filioque also when the flock prefers it that way.