Rome used to be Orthodox. Their apostasy is due maimly to two factors: the (forged) Donation of Constantine...

Rome used to be Orthodox. Their apostasy is due maimly to two factors: the (forged) Donation of Constantine, and the Pornocracy

The Filioque is the Latin doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as principle (principle in Latin means the source or basis of something’s existence). That is the official Roman explanation of what “Filioque” means in the Creed. This is distinct from the Orthodox doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense that the Son gives the Spirit to us, somewhat analogically to how the Spirit gave us the Son through the Son’s earthly conception. In Orthodoxy, the Father alone is the Spirit’s principle, whereas in Filioqueism, the Father-Son is the principle of the Spirit, whereas the Father alone is the principle of the Father and the Son. The Latin perspective lead to an obviation of the significance of the New Testament Pentecost. For example, Christ promised the Spirit of Truth would given to the Church to guide and administrate her; Catholics blurred the Spirit’s coming with the principle of the Spirit’s existence, which greatly marginalized the former. This meant Catholics no longer saw the Spirit of Truth as strongly as an administrator and preserver of truth given to the Church, which is why they needed the Pope, who took over the role of the Spirit of Truth. Also, Latin mysticism was massively impaired by this: you see, in the Old Testament, only prophets had access to the Holy Spirit, so only they had mystical experiences. With the New Testament Pentecost, such direct and mystical experience of God is offered to everyone. Prior to the schism, the writings of Saint Isaac the Syrian and Saint John of the Ladder (who both wrote about how to have mystical experiences with God) were both highly esteemed and read in the West. After the schism, their relevance was gradually reduced; today, they are still considered very important in the Orthodox Church, but for the Romans they are little more than academic curiosities.

Cont

Rome initially rejected the Filioque. Pope Leo III was the first Pope was faced with its addition (prior to him, some churches in the West used it, but it had not reached Rome). Carolingian envoys were sent to him to ask he add it to the Creed (as transcript of this exchanged can be found in “Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy”). Pope Leo at first told them no, he would not officially add it in writing, but if they wished they might say it in the service, but no writing would be changed. They continued to pressure and pester him, and he finally told them not only would he not add it, but that now he was forbidding them from singing it, and said he had no authority to unilaterally alter the Nicene Creed, stating, “I will not say I prefer myself to the Fathers. And far be it from me to count myself their equal." To emphasize the finality of his decision, he had the Creed without the Filioque engraved on two silver tablets. A few decades later, his decision would be upheld in the Council of 879, which anathematized the Filioque and Pope Nicholas I for espousing Papal supremacy; this council was affirmed by Pope John VIII, which ended the Photian Schism. However, in 1014, after pressure from Henry II of Germany, Pope Benedict VIII added the Filioque. Benedict owed Henry big time because the later restored him to his see after the antipope took it. And that is how it got in the Latin Creed today.
There is a popular quote used by Catholics ascribed to Kallistos Ware: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences." This quote is fabricated, and the work by Ware it is ascribed to, does not exist.

>dogmatical metaphysics

read Kant
pleb

>Kant rejects mysticism and revelation so you're a pleb if you don't too

Nope

pleb

You are simply too Enlightened for me, good sir

Kant doesn't reject revelation, he only rejects it as a basis of knowledge.

Constructing a massive metaphysical system of the true nature of reality based on nothing other than your fucking feels, and worse, then proceeding to politicize it, is almost impossibly arrogant.

>Also, Latin mysticism was massively impaired by this: you see, in the Old Testament, only prophets had access to the Holy Spirit, so only they had mystical experiences.

Which is exactly why The Roman Church is vastly superior to the embarrassing wizardmen of the East.
Christ means absolutely nothing without accepting the filioque, Orthodoxy can barely be called Christianity at all.

Saying revelation is nothing but feels is rejecting it. Besides, Kant strangely sidesteps Hume's observation that knowledge is ingrained by sentiment and reasoning is efficacious only when it stirs the sentiment that something is true.

>Which is exactly why The Roman Church is vastly superior to the embarrassing wizardmen of the East.
From a wordly perspective, not from a spiritual one