The filioque denies the monarchy of the Father as the origin of everything, including existence itself. It changes the Church’s understanding, such as it is, of the very nature of God. To that extent it is heretical unless the 2 local Latin Councils which proclaimed it are in fact ecumenical councils, which Orthodoxy and so far as I know at least one Eastern Church in communion with Rome. hold. Many people understandably argue that it is too fine a theological point to stand in the way of a reunion, that the Laity simply doesn’t care or understand. Personally, I think that in the East that is demonstrably untrue and in the end it will be up to the Orthodox laity as to whether or not any reunion succeeds. You know, some Nestorians argued that the term Christotokos was as appropriate for Panagia as Theotokos, claiming the distinction between “Christ bearer” and “God bearer” was a distinction without a difference. We know what happened to the Nestorians.
I don’t believe that Rome is overly wedded to the filioque. In fact, the normative form for the Creed when being used for catechesis or when prayed in Greek is without the filioque. That said, I simply don’t see this being overcome short of a new Ecumenical Council.
The first verse of Holy Scripture attributes creation of all that has come into existence to the Holy Trinity, does it not? The self-existence of the Holy Trinity is indeed, however, attributed to the Person of the Father. The filioque was not a matter of issue until the 7th Century.
Semantically it is difficult for a believer to ascertain what is meant by “proceeding from.” Technical terms have arisen throughout Church history that, to this day, beg for clarification so that we believe and teach in accord with what we receive from Above. That Ambrose of Milan had no problem with the filioque lends itself to some latitude in considering the nature and extent of any division along this line.
As to the filioque somehow effecting what the Church confesses in regard to the nature of God, this is true. What I am unable to ascertain, however, is how this pays out down the line in exercising faith and piety. Does it somehow detract from the merits and righteousness of Christ and His bodily participation in this creation to raise us up at the Last Day?
Thank you for your response to this. I gather from your screen name you are well-acquainted with the Eastern confession, for which I hold great admonition and respect. The subject we are discussing is one with which I am only mildly acquainted, having just begun to read some of the earliest fathers of the Church in an effort to understand the controversies encountered by the Church through the ages and how they are recycled in our age.
I haven't seen any Latin catechetical manual that does not have the filioque. But you're right on the Greek, and there's a good reason for it: The Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin procedere do not exactly mean the same thing.
Should this analysis pan out, both sides should be able to hold to their traditional positions pretty easily.