So now the issue of the filique is ho-hum? Do you have an "official" Church comment that states this?
I will say the more I mulled over your comment the more perplex I became. (Yes, I do meditate on your words while cutting the grass.) I hear a great deal about the "authority" of the church, and yet you chided a priest for not knowing the Church's stance on the filique. In fact you are saying that the priest writing is completely wrong and I should know better.
What you are essentially saying is that priest does not know what is the correct doctrine of the Orthodox Church and, presumably, you do. It is possible that some rogue priest is out there spreading all sorts of things that are contrary to the Church. This is what you're saying. But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching?
I hear the Catholics and Orthodox complain that Protestants interpret their own writings and have no authority to submit to. Yet this is precisely what you are doing. There isn't really any different. You are saying this priest is wrong and ignore his article as "predestrian". This is your interpretation. Not any different then us Protestants.
The filioque issue is not a doctrine but it is a doctrinal issue.
Now, no Orthodox priest in good standing with the Church will question the error of the filioque and be an Orthodox priest in good standing with his bishop. I didn't see his site and it really doesn't matter: as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, filioque is a canonical violation, which also happens to be doctrinally wrong: the Spirit, as regards his existence, does not originate "and from the Son".
But then again, aren't you suppose[d] to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching?
First of all the priest is a bishop's lieutenant and can act only on permission of his bishop to whom the priest owes absolute obedience. Catholic priest may, and I emphasize may, be different. An Orthodox priest may not even serve the liturgy unless she has a written permission to do so from his bishop.
As for the people of God, the "congregation", submitting to the Bishop, yes, only if he is orthodox. UNorthodox bishops are kicked out in Eastern churches. The tradition is guarded by the people and is in the hands of the people of God. If they see something new they will confront the clergy and demand an explanation, even physically attack them! Kolo has a good video of people stopping a bishop for changing the liturgical language from koine to modern Greek. If the people of God see innovation, they put their clergy in place. You are mixing up the Latin Church with Orthodoxy, HD.
Oh no, not at all. It's hardly ho hum. What we don't care about is what other people believe within their own church or ecclesial group. It's up to them. We know what the correct, canonical wording of the Creed is. If other people pray it differently, then their bishops are not and cannot be in communion with our bishops. What we believe is well known (it has been in this case since the 380s) and available to everyone for the asking. If people don't want it, what are we supposed to do, get mad?
Now, as for the comments of the priest you quoted, as I said, his comments on the filioque are pedestrian (not "predestrian")in the sense that they are common and everyday...not incorrect. What is incorrect, HD, is that the filioque is a "stumbling block" to a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church. The filioque is simply and completely unacceptable as a change to the Creed or the theology of The Church as expressed in the Creed, absent an ecumenical council making the change. As Kosta and I have said on many occasions here, unless Rome believes the exact same things as we do, there will be no communion among our bishops and theirs. The Laous tou Theou won't allow it.
"But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching? "
I am under no authority to "submit" myself to the teaching of any priest except when he, as the representative of the bishop, teaches the dogma or canonical discipline of The Church. Whether or not the filioque is a merely a "stumbling block" to reunion of the Church of Rome with the rest of The Church is not a matter of the dogma or canonical discipline of Orthodoxy. Let me give you a more concrete example. Suppose my metropolitan and my parish priest were to teach that Panagia was bodily assumed into heaven ( I happen to believe that) and then demanded upon penalty of anathema that I believe that. I could and likely would publicly refuse to comply...and I would be within my rights, indeed I would be fulfilling my duty to The Church because the bodily assumption of the Theotokos is not dogma but rather theologoumennon which I may believe or not as I choose. I cannot, however, be ordered to believe it and if a bishop or priest were to order me to believe it, the appropriate penalty for them is removal from their office.
HD, our ecclesiology, and the relationships among the hierarchy, clergy, monastics and the laity within it, is very, very different from what you are used to, among Latins or protestants, in the West.