Quecumque vult (Whoever wishes) - also called the Athanasian Creed.

[The Liturgist]

Quecumque Vult originated around (perhaps as early as 415 AD) at the time of Ephesus (431 AD) or perhaps before.

All research I have seen dates it to no earlier than 500 AD. That said it does not constitute a violation of the Canons of the Council of Ephesus in and of itself.

 

[The Liturgist]

But Catholics do call both Quecumque Vult and the Apostles Creed creeds. And for good reasons.

Well, considering the Roman Catholic Church disregards many canons of the Ecumenical Councils, such as canons 6, 7 and 20 of Nicaea, this is less of a problem than the filioque. But I do find it seriously annoying that Rome has not transposed the Apostolic Canons and the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils (except for those of Trullo, which Rome neither participated in nor agreed to, therefore Trullo is ecumenical only within the context of Eastern Orthodoxy) into the Code of Canon Law. Indeed I wish a future Pope would replace the Code of Canon Law with a modified edition of the Pedalion, which is the Eastern Orthodox nomocanon, which I propose modifying so as to remove those parts of the Council of Trullo that are incompatible with the traditional Roman, Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rite liturgies and their derivative uses, such as the Dominican, Carmelite and Carthusian Rifes, and use the Pedalion outright for the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

 

[FenderTL5]

The EO does not accept the Filioque at all because it was later added on.

That is historical fact, but it is not heresy, and the Roman patriarch does accept it so it is used in the western rites.

Ive heard many discussions on whether the filioque is heretical or not. In most cases that distinction hinges on the construct of "and the Son" or "through the Son"
In either case, it's rejected because it violates the canons of Ephesus.
As far as I'm concerned as a member of laity; there's no substitute for the Nicene Creed, as established in council, as the statement of faith. However I'm open to use outside of that role.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Ive heard many discussions on whether the filioque is heretical or not. In most cases that distinction hinges on the construct of "and the Son" or "through the Son"
In either case, it's rejected because it violates the canons of Ephesus.
As far as I'm concerned as a member of laity; there's no substitute for the Nicene Creed, as established in council, as the statement of faith. However I'm open to use outside of that role.

In discussions I've had about this topic it is the post Photios era that sees accusations of heresy made by some from the East. In the Catholic west the filioque is not regarded as even slightly heretical.

 

[The Liturgist]

In discussions I've had about this topic it is the post Photios era that sees accusations of heresy made by some from the East. In the Catholic west the filioque is not regarded as even slightly heretical.

Actually the Catholics agreed to drop the filioque in order to restore the communion St. Photios the Great correctly suspended over this issue, but then changed their mind. The Orthodox graciously did not push the matter, and in the end the actual cause of the Great Schism was Rome excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054, and the Schism was made lasting by the devastation inflicted on the Orthodox in the crusades, especially the absurd Fourth Crusade (which fatally weakened the Byzantine Empire, making Turkocratia inevitable unless the faith had been surrendered in order to secure military assistance as was arranged at the Council of Florence, but the laity bravely rejected that council as a Latrocinium, keeping their faith at the very high price of Turkocratia.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

in the end the actual cause of the Great Schism was Rome excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054

It was a mutual excommunication from what I recall. But truly it was bad politics all around that created the schism, mutual antipathy between Latin speaking west and Greek speaking east.