The Filioque

[Alonso_Castillo]

The Eternal procesion of the Holy Spirit From The Fater and the Son was always understood that Way in the Church of Spain, The first council of Toledo assembled in the year 397 - 400 (only 16 years after the birth of the creed of Constantinople) established such teaching, even more, among Orthodoxy there are two saints of the Spanish Church who ratified such teaching in the third and the Fourth councils of Toledo, saint Leandrus of Seville headed the third council of Toledo and Saint Isidore of Seville headed the Fourth.

This is the Creed of the First Council of Toledo:

Incipit regula fidei catholicae contra omnes hereses, quam maxime contra priscillianistas, episcopi Terraconenses Carthaginenses, Lusitani et Betici fecerunt, ex praecepto papę Urbis Leonis, et ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et superscripta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano.

Credimus [c] in unum verum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra, unum deum et unam esse divinae substantiae trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse filium ipsum, sed habere filium qui pater non sit. Filium non esse patrem, sed filium dei de patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens. Pater est cuius vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo bene complacuit, ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a patre exivi, et a deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclytus spiritus est, de quo filius ait: Nisi ||fol. 63rb|| abiero ego ad patrem, paraclytus non veniet. Hanc trinitatem personis distinctam, substantia unitam virtute et potestate [d] et maiestate indivisibilem indifferentem, preter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam vel angeli vel spiritus vel virtutis alicuius quae deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur filium dei deum natum a patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Marię virginis atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine susce[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]e duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum. Hunc et esurisse, et sitisse, et doluisse, et flevisse, et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a Iudeis crucifixum et sepultum, et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis, et quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam dei filium, et filium dei hominis filium appellamus. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanę credimus carnis. Animam autem hominis, non divinae esse substantiae aut dei patris, sed creaturam dei voluntate creatam.

The Third Coucil of Toledo, hold in 589, Was headed by saint Leandrus and ratified the Procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son that the First Council of Toledo established:

Id est ut confiteamur esse patrem qui genuerit ex sua substantia filium sibi coequalem et coaeternum. Non tamen ut ipse idem sit natus ingenitus, sed persona alius sit pater qui genuit, alius sit filius qui fuerit generatus, unius tamen uterque substantiae in divinitate subsistat. Pater ex quo sit filius, ipse vero ex nullo sit alio. Filius quia habeat patrem, sed sine initio et sine diminutione, in ea qua patri coęqualis et coaeternus est divinitate subsistat. Spiritusque sanctus confitendus a nobis, et praedicandus est a patre et filio procedere, et cum patre et filio unius esse substantiae. Tertiam vero in trinitate spiritus sancti esse personam, qui tamen communionem habet cum patre et filio in divinitatis essentia. Haec enim sancta trinitas, unus est deus pater, et filius et spiritus sanctus, cuius bonitate hominis licet bona sit condita creatura per adsumptam tamen a filio humani habitus formam, a damnata progenie reformamur, ad beatitudinem pristinam. Sed sicut vere salutis indicium est trinitatem in unitate, et unitatem

The Fourth Council of Toledo hold in 633 and headed by Saint Isidore, taught again what the first Council of Toledo said:

ANNO TERTIO REGNANTE DOMNO [e] NOSTRO GLORIOSISSIMO principe Sisenando, die nonas decembris, era DCLXXXI. Dum studio amoris Christi ac diligentia religiosissimi Sisenandi regis Ispaniae atque Galliae sacerdotes apud Toletanam urbem in nomine domini convenissemus, ut eius imperiis atque iussis commoti a nobis agitaretur a quibusdam ecclesiae disciplinis tractatus, primum gratias salvatori nostro deo omnipotenti egimus, post haec antefato ministro eius excellentissimo et glorioso regi, cuius tanta erga deum devotio extat, ut non solum in rebus humanis, sed etiam in causis divinis sollicitus maneat. Hic quippe dum in basilica beatissimę et sanctę martyris Leocadiae omnium nostrum pariter iam coetus adesset pro merito fidei suae cum magnificentissimis et nobilissimis viris ingressus, primum coram sacerdotibus dei humi prostratus, cum lacrimis et gemitibus pro se interveniendum domino postulavit. Deinde religiosa prosecutione synodum exhortatus [f] est, ut paternorum decretorum memores ad confirmanda in nobis iura ecclesiastica studium preberemus, et illa corrigere, quae dum per neglegentiam in usum venerunt, contra ecclesiasticos mores ||fol. 72ra|| licentiam [g] sibi de usurpatione fecerunt. Talibus [h] igitur eius monitis congaudentes necessarium extitit iuxta eius nostrumque votum tractare quae competunt, sive in sacramentis divinis quae diverso atque inlicito modo in Spaniarum ecclesiis celebrantur, seu quae in moribus prave usurpata nos[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ur. Et quoniam generale concilium agimus, oportet primum nostrae vocis sermonem de deo esse. Ut post professionem fidei sequentia operis nostri vota quasi super fundamentum firmissimum disponantur. http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_046a.htm#tn84 Quemadmodum a sanctis patribus accepimus, patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum unius deitatis atque substantiae confitemur. In personarum diversitate trinitatem credentes, in divinitate unitatem praedicantes. Nec personas confundimus, nec substantiam separamus. Patrem a nullo factum vel genitum dicimus, filium a patre non factum sed genitum asserimus. Spiritum vero sanctum, nec creatum nec genitum, sed procedentem ex patre et filio profitemur. Ipsum autem dominum Iesum Christum, dei filium et creatorem omnium ex substantia patris ante saecula genitum, descendisse ultimo tempore pro redemptione mundi a patre, qui numquam desinit esse cum patre. Incarnatus est enim ex spiritu sancto, et sancta gloriosa dei genitricę virgine [k] Maria, et natus ex ipsa solus, idem dominus Iesus Christus unus in sancta trinitate, anima et carne perfectus, sine peccato suscipiens hominem, manens quod erat, adsumens quod non erat. Aequalis patri secundum divinitatem, minor patre secundum humanitatem, habens in una persona duarum naturarum proprietatem [l]. Naturae enim in illo duae, deus et homo. Non autem duo filii et dii duo, sed idem una persona in utraque natura perferens passionem et mortem pro nostra salute, non in virtute divinitatis, sed in infirmitate humanitatis. Descendit ad inferos, ut sanctos qui ibi tenebantur erueret, et devicto mortis imperio resurrexerit. Assumptus in caelis venturus est in futurum ad iudicium vivorum et mortuorum. Cuius morte et sanguine mundati remissionem peccatorum consecuti sumus. Resuscitandi ab eo in die novissima in ea qua nunc vivimus carne, et in ea qua resurrexit idem dominus forma. Percepturi ab ipso, alii pro iustitiae meritis vitam aeternam, alii pro peccatis supplicii aeterni sententiam. Haec ||fol. 72rb|| est catholicae ecclesiae fides, hanc confessionem conservamus atque tenemus. Quam quisque firmissime custodierit perpetuam salutem habebit.

From the year 400 to the year 1054 nobody broke communion with the church of Spain for that teaching. there came many ecumenical councils after Toledo and non of those councils ever pointed against Toledo.

This is an icon of saint Isidore at the extreme left, and saint Leandrus at the extreme right:

It was not until late 800's that Phosius mistagogy stood against the Church of Rome and the use of Filioque. But mainly for political reasons. Constantinople was anti Carlomagne and didn't want a pope under the proteccion of a Western Emperor.

 

[ArmyMatt]

that doesn't matter. saints and even councils have been wrong. every ecumenical council, that even Rome signed off on, after Constantinople said that one cannot add or subract from the Creed.

 

[tapi]

The VAST majority of historians and thelogians agree that the filiogue was first inserted to the Creed by the third council of Toledo in 589.

Every single source I was able to locate, even on the net, shows the Creed of Toledo 1st as having the Orthodox version (without the filiogue) - for example see here, Fourth Century Christianity Home » Creed of the First Council of Toledo


Alonso, where did you come with the idea that the first council of Toledo would include the filiogue? Please do share with us the source

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

that doesn't matter. saints and even councils have been wrong. every ecumenical council, that even Rome signed off on, after Constantinople said that one cannot add or subract from the Creed.

The Creed was not radical for the 654 years between Toledo's profession of faith in communion with the greeks before the schism. Post schism Greeks became far more radicalized and far more autrotoph and closed minded. As I have refereed, 654 years of communion between the Church of Spain (supporting filioque) and the Church of Greece more than testify that modern greeks are not equal to ancient greeks, you have move far from the original stand of the ancient East Christianity which was in communion with Spain.

And if Saint Leandrus and Saint Isidore of Seville taught heresy then ancient greeks were also heretics by not condemning their heresies but promoting them to sainthood, OR, what is more evident, modern Greeks have moved away from the original stand of ancient greeks and have made innovations by radicalizing the things that ancient greeks did not.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

The VAST majority of historians and thelogians agree that the filiogue was first inserted to the Creed by the third council of Toledo in 589.

Every single source I was able to locate, even on the net, shows the Creed of Toledo 1st as having the Orthodox version (without the filiogue) - for example see here, Fourth Century Christianity Home » Creed of the First Council of Toledo


Alonso, where did you come with the idea that the first council of Toledo would include the filiogue? Please do share with us the source

If you want to see the sources of the councils which I reffered not from a protestant page I advice you to go to:

There is the full first council:

Concilium Toletanum primum

The third council of Toledo:

Synodus Toletana tertia

The Fourth council of Toledo:

Concilium Toletanum quartum

The page source:

Benedictus Levita

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Creed was not radical for the 654 years between Toledo's profession of faith in communion with the greeks before the schism. Post schism Greeks became far more radicalized and far more autrotoph and closed minded. As I have refereed, 654 years of communion between the Church of Spain (supporting filioque) and the Church of Greece more than testify that modern greeks are not equal to ancient greeks, you have move far from the original stand of the ancient East Christianity which was in communion with Spain.

And if Saint Leandrus and Saint Isidore of Seville taught heresy then ancient greeks were also heretics by not condemning their heresies but promoting them to sainthood, OR, what is more evident, modern Greeks have moved away from the original stand of ancient greeks and have made innovations by radicalizing the things that ancient greeks did not.

one is not a heretic for promoting a wrong idea, one is a heretic for leaving the Church after professing something wrong. saints have been wrong, councils have been wrong. the ecumenical councils, which say that one cannot alter the Creed, are not. you are basically saying that this local council has more weight then all the Ecumenical Councils that followed. and there were local councils that condemned the filioque before the Schism, even signed off by Popes.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

one is not a heretic for promoting a wrong idea, one is a heretic for leaving the Church after professing something wrong. saints have been wrong, councils have been wrong. the ecumenical councils, which say that one cannot alter the Creed, are not. you are basically saying that this local council has more weight then all the Ecumenical Councils that followed. and there were local councils that condemned the filioque before the Schism, even signed off by Popes.

Has any of the arrian bishops of Antioch, Constantinople, or wherever, been proclaimed saint?

There you have the evident falsehood of your argument.

Or filioque was heretic and required the excomunication of the entire church of spain, or filioque was not heretic and the radicalization postschism of the greeks is an innovation and lacks of historicity and apostolicity. Even more 16 years after th first council of Constantinople many of the counciliar bishops lived and very well had to be aware of the teachings of the Church of Spain and could have called for a new council and condem the teaching of Spain, and they did not.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Has any of the arrian bishops of Antioch, Constantinople, or wherever, been proclaimed saint?

Arian, no. but St Gregory of Nyssa believed in universal salvation, which is heresy.

Or filioque was heretic and required the excomunication of the entire church of spain, or filioque was not heretic and the radicalization postschism of the greeks is an innovation and lacks of historicity and apostolicity. Even more 16 years after th first council of Constantinople many of the counciliar bishops lived and very well had to be aware of the teachings of the Church of Spain and could have called for a new council and condem the teaching of Spain, and they did not.

you still are not explaining how the ECUMENICAL COUNCILS say you cannot change the Creed, and why we should listen to one local council, that was condemned, rather than the ecumenical ones

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Arian, no. but St Gregory of Nyssa believed in universal salvation, which is heresy.

i have heard from you or one of your coreligionaries that eventually God will save even satan.

you still are not explaining how the ECUMENICAL COUNCILS say you cannot change the Creed, and why we should listen to one local council, that was condemned, rather than the ecumenical ones

Has any of those ecumenical councils ever proclamed that Toledo councils were wrong? It has to be by naming specifically to Toledo's Church understanding. Because I have not seen in any of Toledo's creed the Constantinople Sign of Faith but formulas more alike to Quicumque Sign of Faith atributed to Saint Athanasius or Saint Hillarius of Poitiers. I mean, I don't see the redaction of Constantinople creed in the quptes I brought, so speaking literally the formula of Constantinople was not altered but in exchange Toledo was explaining broadly the Faith that the Spanish Church had received and which is consistent with Constantinople I Formula.

Has any Ecumenical Council declared that by no way the Holy Spirit is able to procede from the Father and the Son??? Is the Sign of Constantinople saying that The Holy Spirit procedes from the Father ALONE? And finally, Why did it has to pass 654 years from Toledo's I proclamation of Faith, Filioque included, and the Schism of Constantinople with the church of Toledo?

The answer is that Filioque was never ever the true reason of schism.

 

[truefiction1]

Still doesn't matter, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father: not from the Father and the Son. This erroneous teaching (the filioque) is the product of the vain philosphy based theology of some men. It is not Truth. The Filioque was in fact the reason for the schism, and remains at the heart of the division between the Eastern and Western theological and ecclesiological differences to this very day because it highlights the different approach to theology that exists between the Church of the East and the Church of the West.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Still doesn't matter, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father: not from the Father and the Son. This erroneous teaching (the filioque) is the product of the vain philosphy based theology of some men. It is not Truth. The Filioque was in fact the reason for the schism, and remains at the heart of the division between the Eastern and Western theological and ecclesiological differences to this very day because it highlights the different approach to theology that exists between the Church of the East and the Church of the West.

Spanish Councils where not of Philosophers, you are totally mistaken, I have proven 654 years of communion of spanish church and greek church that is enough to prove the fake of your argument.

 

[truefiction1]

Spanish Councils where not of Phillosopher you are totally mistaken, I have proven 654 years of communion of spanish church and greek church that is enough to prove the fake of your argument.

Any doctrine which attempts to define the persons of the Holy Trinity, and the nature of the relationships between the persons, has failed to recognize that our very limited (created) intellect, along with all words or symbols it can conjure, cannot even begin to describe the Almighty Trinity. Therefore, the filioque, and even the Roman Catholic doctrine of divine "simplicity", is false, because they put forth a pretense that we understand something about the nature of God, which we in actuallity do not and can not understand. The Spaniards were mistaken, as was Augustine, from whom they drew their ideas. All we can know of the procession of the Holy Spirit is that it is "from the Father", because Christ stated it thus. We cannot understand the nature of the procession, so we must leave it at that. The Greek fathers all knew this, which is why the Nicene creed does not include the phrase "and the Son". They understood how important it is for us not to pretend to know and understand things about God that we cannot possibly know and understand. This is why we must renounce the filioque, as well as the intellecual boldness of Western Church leaders who have worked too hard to define so many matters of faith and the Church, and have defined them incorrectly. We don't renounce the innovations because we want to: we renounce them because we must. We have no choice. That is all there is to it.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Any doctrine which attempts to define the persons of the Holy Trinity, and the nature of the relationships between the persons, has failed to recognize that our very limited (created) intellect, along with all words or symbols it can conjure, cannot even begin to describe the Almighty Trinity.

Yes, but for that reason radicalism was never the rule in the church of the first 1054 years of history in this matter.

Therefore, the filioque, and even the Roman Catholic doctrine of divine "simplicity", is false, because they put forth a pretense that we understand something about the nature of God, which we in actuallity do not and can not understand.

No body says that we understand but that we receive from the appostles as revealed, Bible in hand and by the writings of the fathers , synods and councils, who transmited us the faith. We are not innovating in faith we are recognizing and defending what we received. And tha church of Spain had had councils no more that 16 years after the council of Constantinople I, in which it is evident that christian believed since then in the procesion of the Holy Spirit from The Father and the Son. I brought the proves of it. And I also brought the proves that in the orthodox church there is no one council anathemazing Saint Isidore and Saint Leandrus by heading the councis of Toledo which ratified the filioque.

The Spaniards were mistaken, as was Augustine, from whom they drew their ideas.

No, Spanish received the faith before Augustine, and even saint Ambrose who converted Saint Augustine hada already stated the procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

All we can know of the procession of the Holy Spirit is that it is "from the Father", because Christ stated it thus.

He also stated that he can blow the Holy Spirit:

John 20, 23​

{20:22} When he had said this, he breathed on them. And he​

said to them: “Receive the Holy Spirit.

Saint Ambrose of Milan explains the verse (Concerning Repentance, Capter 2, Paragraph 8)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34061.htm

8. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained. John 20:22-23 So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?

San Ambrose clearly explains that The Lord Jesus gave the apostles the Holy Spirit, by blowing to them as the verse quoted say, in orther for them to be able to Forgive sins.

Also the Appstle Saint John show in the apocalipse that the Holy Spirit come from the Thorne of God and the Lamb of God.

Apocalipse 22, 1​

{22:1} And he showed me the river of the
water of life, shining like crystal, proceeding from the throne​

of God and of the Lamb.

On this quote Saint Ambrose of Milan says:

St. Ambrose On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 20 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34023.htm)

The river flowing from the Throne of God is a figure of the Holy Spirit, but by the waters spoken of by David the powers of heaven are intended. The kingdom of God is the work of the Spirit; and it is no matter for wonder if He reigns in this together with the Son, since St. Paul promises that we too shall reign with the Son.

153. And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. Revelation 22:1-2

154. This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. John 7:37-38 Therefore the river is the Spirit.

155. This, then, is in the throne of God, for the water washes not the throne of God. Then, whatever you may understand by that water, David said not that it was above the throne of God, but above the heavens, for it is written: Let the waters which are above the heavens praise the Name of the Lord. Let them praise, he says, not let it praise. For if he had intended us to understand the element of water, he would certainly have said, Let it praise, but by using the plural he intended the Powers to be understood.

156. And what wonder is it if the Holy Spirit is in the throne of God, since the kingdom of God itself is the work of the Holy Spirit, as it is written: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:17 And when the Saviour Himself says, Every kingdom divided against itself shall be destroyed, Matthew 12:25 by adding afterwards, But if I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils, without doubt the kingdom of God has come upon you, Matthew 12:27 He shows that the kingdom of God is held undivided by Himself and by the Spirit.

157. But what is more foolish than for any one to deny that the Holy Spirit reigns together with Christ when the Apostle says that even we shall reign together with Christ in the kingdom of Christ: If we are dead with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with Him. 2 Timothy 2:11-12 But we by adoption, He by power; we by grace, He by nature.

158. The Holy Spirit, therefore, shares in the kingdom with the Father and the Son, and He is of one nature with Them, of one Lordship, and also of one power.

We cannot understand the nature of the procession, so we must leave it at that.

We leave it at the point in which God revealed to us. We are not saying that the holy spirit comes from the Father and the Son only for moking on greeks, We deffend the tradition that was given by the fathers since the old times.

The Greek fathers all knew this, which is why the Nicene creed does not include the phrase "and the Son".

The Greek Fathers knew of the Council of Toledo 1st because it was hold only 16 years after Constantinople 1st. And no one of the greek fathers of the first council of Constantinople ever said that such teaching was heretic. And even more, such teaching was ratified in the third and the fourth councils of Toledo. And the Schism came more than 645 year after.

They understood how important it is for us not to pretend to know and understand things about God that we cannot possibly know and understand.

they never rejected The teachings of Toledo.

This is why we must renounce the filioque,

No, that is why we can not reject Filioque, because Constantinople Fathers never rejected Toledo formula, and never made an immediate council to reject it.

as well as the intellecual boldness of Western Church

very Kind of You.

leaders who have worked too hard to define so many matters of faith and the Church,

Like contraception in the Orthodox?

and have defined them incorrectly. We don't renounce the innovations because we want to: we renounce them because we must.

Filioque is not an innovation, Is pure revelation.

We have no choice. That is all there is to it.

Well

I have shown that Eastern Orthodoxy has no historical argument to say that Filioque is the cause of schism, Because for 654 years The Teaching of the Church of Spain which is in line with the teaching of the Scriptures, and the interpretations of the Fathers, Western and Eastern, Was always accepted by the Greeks of old (Pre-phosius and pre-schism)

It was not until Phosius that Bizantine politics demanded a way to make divisions of the church of Constantinople and the Church of Rome. Primarily because Charlemagne had assembled a united Western Roman Empire, And The emperor of Constantinople felt betrayed by the Pope of Rome when the pope of Rome Crowned Charlemagne as emperor, And Phosius took as banner the filioque in the year 891. After many year of dialogue communion remained.


The reasons of divisions between Catholics and Orthodox are away from Filioque. And I would say it is more grave The laxity in the doctrines of contraception among Orthodox which harms the gospel, than the filioque which was never rejected by the fathers of the council of Constantinople who knew of Toledo.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have shown that Eastern Orthodoxy has no historical argument to say that Filioque is the cause of schism, Because for 654 years The Teaching of the Church of Spain which is in line with the teaching of the Scriptures, and the interpretations of the Fathers, Western and Eastern, Was always accepted by the Greeks of old (Pre-phosius and pre-schism)

well, Pope John VIII I think signed off on a council that excommunicated anyone who used the filioque

 

[ArmyMatt]

and there is a reason that the Creed that is insribed on those tablets in Rome are done without the filioque

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

well, Pope John VIII I think signed off on a council that excommunicated anyone who used the filioque

He wanted Phosius to settle down, Phosius wanted independence and used filioque as blackmail. Pope John VIII didn't see any problem in accepting some conditions from the east in order to avoid schism, but Phosius and the Church of Constantinople kept on their fight against the supremacy of Rome.
in 870 the Byzantine Empire was very strong and Phosius used the power of the empire to negotiate with he pope:

But for the years of the council of Florence the bizantine Empire was like this:

In the years of Pope John VIII Constantinople almost ruled over Rome. But in the Years of the council of Florence, Otomans were almost ruling over Constantinople. With Focious Greeks were arrogant, but with Ottomans they signed Filioque.

It was politics, Besides, for the years of Focio, The first council of Toledo had already passed almost 500 years.

By the way the Church of Constantinople rules over 5000 christians in Turkey, and even though that is called a Patriarchate. According to Wikipedia there are 15,000 Catholics in Istambul. almos 3 times the number of Orthodox.

All around the world Constantinople has 1'500,000 members. Even the church of my city has far more members, in Guadalajara. Something is just very wrong.

Even the Spanish church in the worst years of Muslim oppression was able to reject Muslims. Even with filioque, but since Phosius Constantinople was constantly falling.

 

[Shiranui117]

Whoops, didn't see that this was supposed to be 1v1.

 

[Knee V]

I agree that the Filioque clause was not the cause of the schism. The cause of the schism was papal triumphalism. Forcing the change to the creed was just one symptom of that disease.

 

[Lukaris]

I think Charlemagne also used the filioque as political leverage against the east (before Photius of course).

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I think Charlemagne also used the filioque as political leverage against the east (before Photius of course).

Chalemagne did not innovate the Filique. I have shown that the Church of Spain has always proclamed the Filioque even since 400 in the Fist Council of Toledo. I also have shown that Filioque was a teaching even from Saint Ambrosius of Milan, Saint Isidore of Seville, saint Leandrus of Seville, and of course Saint Agustin. I have also shown that Saint abrosius speaks of the Apocalipse 22, 1 showing that the Holy Spirit Flows from the Throne of God (the Father) and the Lamb (the Son).

For the time of Charlemagne, The Church of Spain, France, Germany, England, etc, Have already been using the filioque, as a teaching of the Western Fathers and as revealed by the Sacred Scripture.

Even Saint John Chrysostomos hesitates when explaining John 20:22, in a clear sign that the procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Son was something not fully clear, and he expreses such hesitation by saying "some say", as showing full concience that others in communion also say other things.

Saint John Chrysostom lived from 347 to 407 so he was aware of the Council of Concstantinople I and Toledo I.