Yes, the Filioque is important.

[Constantine the Sinner]

I've seen some Orthodox before who don't really see how the Filioque is seriously heretical, so I'll explain it (mainly from Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, by Saint Photius the Great) for those who don't know.

The insertion of the Filioque was justified in the West by stating that since the Father and the Son are one in essence, the Spirit must proceed from both (do not listen to Catholics who say the Filioque can mean from the Father and through the Son, the dogmatic Catholic understanding of the Filioque is that the Father and Son are a joint principle, that is, beginning or origin, of the Spirit). Saint Photius said the Patristic understanding is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father's person, not his essence. The idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father's essence is incoherent, because that would mean the Spirit would have to proceed from himself (being one essence with the Father and the Son), unless he had a different essence than the Father (which would be bitheism, or perhaps a form of Macedonianism). This isn't just an argument about jargon, the distinction between person and essence is the very Patristic foundation of the description of God as both one and three, and extremely important for the Crucifixion (Christ was crucified in person, but not in divine essence, else the entire Trinity would be crucified).

Remember, the Filioque is not just what it says, it is an expression of a very different dogmatic understanding of the Trinity, one which is very much heretical.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yep, semisabellianism at best

 

[Lukaris]

Cut & Paste from the 1845 English translation of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow re the 8th article of the Nicene Creed:

66. What is the Creed?

The Creed is an exposition, in few but precise words, of that doctrine which all Christians are bound to believe.

67. What are the words, of this exposition?

8. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the Prophets.

On the Articles of the Creed.

The eighth article, of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Ghost;

On the Eighth Article.
238. In what sense is the Holy Ghost called the Lord?

In the same sense as the Son of God, that is, as very God.

239. Is this witnessed by holy Scripture?

It is plain from the words spoken by the Apostle Peter to rebuke Ananias: Why hath Satan fitted thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? and further on, Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Acts v. 3, 4.

240. What are we to understand by this, that the Holy Ghost is called the Giver of life?

That he, together with God the Father and the Son, giveth life to all creatures, especially spiritual life to men.

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. John iii. 5.

241. Whence know we that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father?

This we know from the following words of Jesus Christ himself: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. John xv. 26.

242. Does the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father admit of any change or supplement?

No. First, because the Orthodox Church, in this doctrine, repeats the very words of Jesus Christ; and his words, without doubt, are an exact and perfect expression of the truth. Secondly, because the second œcumenical Council, whose chief object was to establish the true doctrine respecting the Holy Ghost, has without doubt sufficiently set forth the same in the Creed; and the Catholic Church has acknowledged this so decidedly, that the third œcumenical Council in its seventh canon forbade the composition of any new Creed.

For this cause John Damascene writes: Of the Holy Ghost, we both say that he is from the Father, and call him the Spirit of the Father; while we nowise say that he is from the Son, but only call him the Spirit of the Son. (Theol. lib. i. c. 11; v. 4.)

243. Whence does it appear that the Holy Ghost is equally with the Father and the Son, and, together with them, to be worshiped and glorified?

It appears from this, that Jesus Christ commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.Matt. xxviii. 19.

244. Why is it said in the Creed that the Holy Ghost spake by the prophets?

This is said against certain heretics, who taught that the books of the Old Testament were not written by the Holy Ghost.

245. Does holy Scripture witness that the Holy Ghost really spake by the prophets?

The Apostle Peter writes: For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet. i. 21.

246. Did not the Holy Ghost speak also by the Apostles?

Certainly he did. Unto the prophets, says also the Apostle Peter, it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Pet. i. 12.

247. Why, then, is there no mention of the Apostles in the Creed?

Because when the Creed was composed none doubted of the inspiration of the Apostles.

248. Was not the Holy Ghost manifested to men in some very special manner?

Yes. He came down upon the Apostles, in the form of fiery tongues, on the fiftieth day after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

249. Is the Holy Ghost communicated to men even now likewise?

He is communicated to all true Christians. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?1 Cor. iii. 16.

250. How may we be made partakers of the Holy Ghost?

Through fervent prayer, and through the Sacraments.

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Luke xi. 13.

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Titus iii. 4-6.

251. What are the chief gifts of the Holy Ghost?

The chief and more general are, as reckoned by the Prophet Isaiah, the following seven: the spirit of the fear of God, the spirit of knowledge, the spirit of might, the spirit of counsel, the spirit of understanding, the spirit of wisdom, the spirit of the Lord, or the gift of piety and inspiration in the highest degree. Isaiah xi. 2.

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church • Pravoslavieto.com

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Every morning when I wake up, to get my vocal chords in sync with my brain and to keep my wits sharp, I say, "semisabellianism semisabellianism semisabellianism!!" I hear it's what Freddie Mercury, Phil Collins, and Hall and Oates did to keep their throats sharp before a big gig.

yep, semisabellianism at best

 

[Alegrias16]

As I've been reading and learning in these beginning steps towards Orthodoxy, I've realized just how damaging the filioque has been to my understanding of the Holy Spirit. (I'm from an Anglican background.) By relegating the Holy Spirit to kind of a side bar, it seriously stunted my learning growing up.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As I've been reading and learning in these beginning steps towards Orthodoxy, I've realized just how damaging the filioque has been to my understanding of the Holy Spirit. (I'm from an Anglican background.) By relegating the Holy Spirit to kind of a side bar, it seriously stunted my learning growing up.

'twas one of St Augustine's speculations that the West dogmatized

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Every morning when I wake up, to get my vocal chords in sync with my brain and to keep my wits sharp, I say, "semisabellianism semisabellianism semisabellianism!!" I hear it's what Freddie Mercury, Phil Collins, and Hall and Oates did to keep their throats sharp before a big gig.

Then you`re deffinitely awake at the end of your prosedure

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

You guys know about the developments in doctrine as seen in the west vs the east I suppose?
There has been pressing heresy that we`ve been forced to hit back against at both camps.

The Filiouqe was issued as a culumination of our fight against those who claimed that Christ was less God than the Father.
To my aknowledge that heresy (Arius and his cult) wasnt an issue in the east which made such a development unnessesary at best.

To my aknowledge the Paternology has been the focus in the east. The Father as the Godhead that is.

IMHO and this is just that my own opinion not enforced upon anybody so bear with me, we all agree that there is Perfect harmony within and among the three persons of the holy Trinity.
We may explain said harmony differently but basically it seems as if the Filioque was more a culumination of a growing divide amongst the east and the west more than a horrifying difference IMHO, again in my honest opinion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You guys know about the developments in doctrine as seen in the west vs the east I suppose?

we don't develop doctrine, we only develop the articulation.

The Filiouqe was issued as a culumination of our fight against those who claimed that Christ was less God than the Father.

right, but it was based on reason and not Divine Revelation.

To my aknowledge that heresy (Arius and his cult) wasnt an issue in the east which made such a development unnessesary at best.

no it began in the East and was a problem for all of us, it only stuck around in the West. it was not needed ever because of what the Creed also says about Christ.

To my aknowledge the Paternology has been the focus in the east. The Father as the Godhead that is.

IMHO and this is just that my own opinion not enforced upon anybody so bear with me, we all agree that there is Perfect harmony within and among the three persons of the holy Trinity.
We may explain said harmony differently but basically it seems as if the Filioque was more a culumination of a growing divide amongst the east and the west more than a horrifying difference IMHO, again in my honest opinion.

no, because the filioque not only violates Councils 3 and 4, it completely throws off the balance of the Godhead, because you have a divine quality shared by Two Persons that is not shared by the Third

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Stabat,

Development of Doctrine, the arguments Cardinal Newman used in justifying Catholic innovations, isn't compelling to me in the least. The deposit of Faith is just that, a deposit. Truth is static. I understand that there were heretics trying to diminish Christ's consubstantial equality with the Father, but adding to the Creed was not the correct approach. Arius himself sought to diminish Christ as a creature, and the boys at Nicaea created the Creed to smack the heresy of Arianism down. It was not only clear, but imperative that not one word of the Creed be altered be it through addition or deletion. How the East or West sees God is immaterial to the fact that the Creed was agreed to by East and West as not only sufficient, but beautiful and perfect. Anathemas were attached to the idea of its alteration. And the West knew this plainly. There is loud and public evidence of the Popes not accepting the filioque as official Western dogma and allowing (why? i'll never know!) the Spaniards to keep it. Honestly it was the Franks obsessed with its addition to the Creed. The bulk of the West was opposed for centuries. It eventually became a political forced-hand by the Franks.

I think the "horrifying" aspect you mention isn't that the West completely misunderstood the harmony of the Trinity. I don't think they did. The horror is that they'd think they can alter the Creed. A united Church cannot have two creeds. When I dabbled in Eastern Catholicism, this reality became apparent to me. It's utterly bizarre. How our sister Anhelyna can reconcile that stuff is beyond me, God bless her.

The disturbing trend I saw and continue to see in Catholicism is a type of theological and liturgical evolution mindset. Things must constantly change. The Orthodox Church is quite different in that regard. There is no "new" understanding or re-thinking things or jettisoning of the ancient, just the occasional need to clarify when one of the flock falls astray.

You guys know about the developments in doctrine as seen in the west vs the east I suppose?
There has been pressing heresy that we`ve been forced to hit back against at both camps.

The Filiouqe was issued as a culumination of our fight against those who claimed that Christ was less God than the Father.
To my aknowledge that heresy (Arius and his cult) wasnt an issue in the east which made such a development unnessesary at best.

To my aknowledge the Paternology has been the focus in the east. The Father as the Godhead that is.

IMHO and this is just that my own opinion not enforced upon anybody so bear with me, we all agree that there is Perfect harmony within and among the three persons of the holy Trinity.
We may explain said harmony differently but basically it seems as if the Filioque was more a culumination of a growing divide amongst the east and the west more than a horrifying difference IMHO, again in my honest opinion.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Hi Stabat,

Development of Doctrine, the arguments Cardinal Newman used in justifying Catholic innovations, isn't compelling to me in the least. The deposit of Faith is just that, a deposit. Truth is static. I understand that there were heretics trying to diminish Christ's consubstantial equality with the Father, but adding to the Creed was not the correct approach. Arius himself sought to diminish Christ as a creature, and the boys at Nicaea created the Creed to smack the heresy of Arianism down. It was not only clear, but imperative that not one word of the Creed be altered be it through addition or deletion. How the East or West sees God is immaterial to the fact that the Creed was agreed to by East and West as not only sufficient, but beautiful and perfect. Anathemas were attached to the idea of its alteration. And the West knew this plainly. There is loud and public evidence of the Popes not accepting the filioque as official Western dogma and allowing (why? i'll never know!) the Spaniards to keep it. Honestly it was the Franks obsessed with its addition to the Creed. The bulk of the West was opposed for centuries. It eventually became a political forced-hand by the Franks.

I think the "horrifying" aspect you mention isn't that the West completely misunderstood the harmony of the Trinity. I don't think they did. The horror is that they'd think they can alter the Creed. A united Church cannot have two creeds. When I dabbled in Eastern Catholicism, this reality became apparent to me. It's utterly bizarre. How our sister Anhelyna can reconcile that stuff is beyond me, God bless her.

The disturbing trend I saw and continue to see in Catholicism is a type of theological and liturgical evolution mindset. Things must constantly change. The Orthodox Church is quite different in that regard. There is no "new" understanding or re-thinking things or jettisoning of the ancient, just the occasional need to clarify when one of the flock falls astray.

Thanks for answering my post , I'll come back at you with a more meaningful response as soon as I have the needed energy.

God bless you.

 

[buzuxi02]

The insertion of the Filioque was justified in the West by stating that since the Father and the Son are one in essence, the Spirit must proceed from both (do not listen to Catholics who say the Filioque can mean from the Father and through the Son, the dogmatic Catholic understanding of the Filioque is that the Father and Son are a joint principle, that is, beginning or origin, of the Spirit). Saint Photius said the Patristic understanding is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father's person, not his essence. The idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father's essence is incoherent, because that would mean the Spirit would have to proceed from himself (being one essence with the Father and the Son), unless he had a different essence than the Father (which would be bitheism, or perhaps a form of Macedonianism). This isn't just an argument about jargon, the distinction between person and essence is the very Patristic foundation of the description of God as both one and three, and extremely important for the Crucifixion (Christ was crucified in person, but not in divine essence, else the entire Trinity would .

One area I have to give Fr. Thomas Hopko credit is he was one of the only that said the west needs to reaffirm the Father as the sole cause of the entire Godhead. The opening article of the Creed designated the Father as the (un)originate source for the entire Trinity.

I think a lack of emphasis of God the Father as the sole fountainhead of the entire Trinity has created the opposite extremes of groups like the JW and oneness pentecostals.
This is why I think the so-called Athanasian Creed is insufficient and should be allowed to fall out of usage. The overemphasis on the consubstantiability of the persons and a lack of clarity on the Father being the causality of the other two hypostasis.

 

[dzheremi]

As I've been reading and learning in these beginning steps towards Orthodoxy, I've realized just how damaging the filioque has been to my understanding of the Holy Spirit. (I'm from an Anglican background.) By relegating the Holy Spirit to kind of a side bar, it seriously stunted my learning growing up.

Absolutely. I can remember when I was still Roman Catholic reading about St. Augustine's idea of the Holy Spirit being a "bond of love" between the Father and the Son and just thinking "Well, that's not what the creed says...it says the Holy Spirit is the Lord, the giver of life; how can a feeling or a bond be the Lord?" So I knew there was something fishy going on, but couldn't really articulate it in a way that got my fellow Roman Catholics to understand what the problem was. I'd say that it violates the creed and they'd look at me like I was weird because "it's not in the Creed" ...yeah, well, neither was the filioque, but look at where we are now regarding that! And of course it's this kind of thinking that lead to the invention of the filioque in the first place, as it makes the Holy Spirit's existence dependent upon the Father and the Son, which, in addition to just being flat out wrong and nonsensical, contradicts the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when He refers to the Holy Spirit as He "Whom the Father will send in My name" (John 14:26), and not "Whom I and the Father have manifested as the product/result/manifestation of our bond of love" or whatever.

There's this weird, mushy-headed de-Personalization of the Holy Spirit in some western Christian traditions that is so very off-putting and harmful.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Absolutely. I can remember when I was still Roman Catholic reading about St. Augustine's idea of the Holy Spirit being a "bond of love" between the Father and the Son and just thinking "Well, that's not what the creed says...it says the Holy Spirit is the Lord, the giver of life; how can a feeling or a bond be the Lord?" So I knew there was something fishy going on, but couldn't really articulate it in a way that got my fellow Roman Catholics to understand what the problem was. I'd say that it violates the creed and they'd look at me like I was weird because "it's not in the Creed" ...yeah, well, neither was the filioque, but look at where we are now regarding that! And of course it's this kind of thinking that lead to the invention of the filioque in the first place, as it makes the Holy Spirit's existence dependent upon the Father and the Son, which, in addition to just being flat out wrong and nonsensical, contradicts the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when He refers to the Holy Spirit as He "Whom the Father will send in My name" (John 14:26), and not "Whom I and the Father have manifested as the product/result/manifestation of our bond of love" or whatever.

There's this weird, mushy-headed de-Personalization of the Holy Spirit in some western Christian traditions that is so very off-putting and harmful.

Well, the Trinity is complex so St. Augustine's formulation of the Holy Ghost as a bond of love in the Trinity makes more sense at least to me than you try to dum it down to.
In the process of singling out the uniqueness of each person in the Trinity one may easily end up underestimating the complete and utterly harmony within it.
There is no conflict, there is no competition.

St Augustine only emphasise that fact, the HS is painting Christ for Our eyes which is really to say that He`s reflecting the love of Christ.
Isnt the Holy Spirit love and wisdom? comfort and guidance?

I'm sorry but I love orthodoxy for so many reasons one weighting heavier than the other and one day I might even follow you guys into the church, but this Filioque issue is as I see it a nitpicking thing.
It hasnt led to any disasterous misunderstandings, at least officially in its millenna long history in the Western Church.

The whole idea of seperation between one or the other is as dubious to me as the trying to treat a part of the body as a individual subject without concern for the entirety of the entire body.

Filioque is just an emphasis thats all and Im sure if a reunification was close by (which it really isnt of course) Rome would be willing to drop the addition to please those who doesnt appreciate it, though its highly redundant to do so imho.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The real difference between Rome and Constantinopel at the time was very complex and far more geopolitical than the filioque addition to the Creed.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Hi Stabat,

Development of Doctrine, the arguments Cardinal Newman used in justifying Catholic innovations, isn't compelling to me in the least. The deposit of Faith is just that, a deposit. Truth is static. I understand that there were heretics trying to diminish Christ's consubstantial equality with the Father, but adding to the Creed was not the correct approach. Arius himself sought to diminish Christ as a creature, and the boys at Nicaea created the Creed to smack the heresy of Arianism down. It was not only clear, but imperative that not one word of the Creed be altered be it through addition or deletion. How the East or West sees God is immaterial to the fact that the Creed was agreed to by East and West as not only sufficient, but beautiful and perfect. Anathemas were attached to the idea of its alteration. And the West knew this plainly. There is loud and public evidence of the Popes not accepting the filioque as official Western dogma and allowing (why? i'll never know!) the Spaniards to keep it. Honestly it was the Franks obsessed with its addition to the Creed. The bulk of the West was opposed for centuries. It eventually became a political forced-hand by the Franks.

I think the "horrifying" aspect you mention isn't that the West completely misunderstood the harmony of the Trinity. I don't think they did. The horror is that they'd think they can alter the Creed. A united Church cannot have two creeds. When I dabbled in Eastern Catholicism, this reality became apparent to me. It's utterly bizarre. How our sister Anhelyna can reconcile that stuff is beyond me, God bless her.

The disturbing trend I saw and continue to see in Catholicism is a type of theological and liturgical evolution mindset. Things must constantly change. The Orthodox Church is quite different in that regard. There is no "new" understanding or re-thinking things or jettisoning of the ancient, just the occasional need to clarify when one of the flock falls astray.

So if I understand you correct the main problem as it appears to you is that its a willed provokation and it lead to a "two-creed Church" ?
I see the akwardness that follows the fact that we cannot recite the Creedo without having to supress one of us beliefs.

Isnt it obvious that this is the culumination of something far larger and deeper divide than a little addition to the Creed?
The need to make that addition despite havoc in the East says alot about the need to provoke Constantinopel and this was a the final provokation the East could handle.

We know historically just how different Our two churches had grown in hundreds of years already so this was a spark.

 

[~Anastasia~]

From all I have read and heard, I would agree that the addition to the Creed was more of a symptom of a larger problem when it happened. By itself, if no other problems existed, I would be surprised if it led to a permanent schism.

But as to the Filioque itself, I too (as essentially a westerner) thought it sounded like quibbling, and no real change to theology led from it. Even after listening to a few hours' discussion on that topic by Orthodox teachers. But over a few years' time, revisiting, and thinking ever more deeply about it, I have grown to understand that it does represent a difference in theology from what my Protestant background inferred, and Orthodoxy. I've never been Catholic so I really can't speak to how they view the Holy Trinity. But it has distorted the thinking of many Protestants. As such, I would have to agree that it IS an important issue, not only whether a single leader had the authority to change the Creed, but the theology derived from the Filioque itself (at least by Protestants).

From this end of history, we probably have a different focus on the issues, since things have happened since the first introduction of the Filioque.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

From all I have read and heard, I would agree that the addition to the Creed was more of a symptom of a larger problem when it happened. By itself, if no other problems existed, I would be surprised if it led to a permanent schism.

But as to the Filioque itself, I too (as essentially a westerner) thought it sounded like quibbling, and no real change to theology led from it. Even after listening to a few hours' discussion on that topic by Orthodox teachers. But over a few years' time, revisiting, and thinking ever more deeply about it, I have grown to understand that it does represent a difference in theology from what my Protestant background inferred, and Orthodoxy. I've never been Catholic so I really can't speak to how they view the Holy Trinity. But it has distorted the thinking of many Protestants. As such, I would have to agree that it IS an important issue, not only whether a single leader had the authority to change the Creed, but the theology derived from the Filioque itself (at least by Protestants).

From this end of history, we probably have a different focus on the issues, since things have happened since the first introduction of the Filioque.

I shouldve made it clearer than by western Christianity I refered to the Catholic Church not Protestants of different flavors.
Youre absolutley correct that there are some gross heresies around in those circles when it comes to the Holy Ghost.

My jaw has dropped quite alot at times when Ive spoken to protestants about the Holy Ghost.
The spiritfilled ones are perhaps the worst...

 

[GregConstantine]

The main point Stabat Mater, is that, the Church (Rome included) agreed not to change the Creed unilaterally. Rome was a staunch supporter of this agreement. Pope Leo went so far as to put two plaques on the walls of St Peters, one in Greek, and one in Latin, of the Creed without the Filioque. Pope Leo was adamant that Rome follows the decrees of the ecumenical councils, and had harsh words for anyone who wanted to change the Creed.


So, if a Roman Catholic truly believes what her church teaches about the papacy, why would they ignore or brush aside what Pope Leo did and said regarding the Filioque and the Creed?


You can say it's nickpicking, we would say we are being faithful, and we would include Pope Leo as one of the faithful.


Rome unilaterally changed the Creed, we can talk until the cows come home all about the theological implications of believing the filioque as opposed to not believing it (and we should, but that IMO is secondary) the fact of the matter is, Rome went against the clear decree of the ecumenical council, and went against the teachings and decrees of one of her own Popes!


How one not see this as a problem is beyond me. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but, I have to ask, is there something about this that is not clear?

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The main point Stabat Mater, is that, the Church (Rome included) agreed not to change the Creed unilaterally. Rome was a staunch supporter of this agreement. Pope Leo went so far as to put two plaques on the walls of St Peters, one in Greek, and one in Latin, of the Creed without the Filioque. Pope Leo was adamant that Rome follows the decrees of the ecumenical councils, and had harsh words for anyone who wanted to change the Creed.


So, if a Roman Catholic truly believes what her church teaches about the papacy, why would they ignore or brush aside what Pope Leo did and said regarding the Filioque and the Creed?


You can say it's nickpicking, we would say we are being faithful, and we would include Pope Leo as one of the faithful.


Rome unilaterally changed the Creed, we can talk until the cows come home all about the theological implications of believing the filioque as opposed to not believing it (and we should, but that IMO is secondary) the fact of the matter is, Rome went against the clear decree of the ecumenical council, and went against the teachings and decrees of one of her own Popes!


How one not see this as a problem is beyond me. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but, I have to ask, is there something about this that is not clear?

As in Pope Leo I ?
Wasnt he pope sometime in the fourth or fifth Century?

Well I havent investigated this particular dissagreement in dept, Filioque that is.
As I said it feels mostly political and used as a tool to once and for all suffocating the longlived Arian heresy.

I mean to have read polemics attached to the very same Plaques from Catholic side, but I havent enough knowledge to really go toe to toe over Filioque in here.

If the timeera is of his pontificate was that early on (approx 13 centuries before the Infall dogma and 5-600 years prior to the filioque dogma) his intentions may not have been anything but his own perhaps?
I dont know...

Did he release any Encyklicas or Bulls on the subject as far as you know?