History of Filioque clause

	Revision 13 . . December 6, 2001 12:05 am by Asa Winstanley [+papacy link]
	Revision 12 . . December 4, 2001 1:23 am by (logged).146.101.xxx [Expanded the history; not sure of the date of that Synod of Toledo: 447 or 589?]
	Revision 11 . . (edit) December 4, 2001 1:00 am by MichaelTinkler
	Revision 10 . . (edit) December 4, 2001 1:00 am by MichaelTinkler
	Revision 9 . . October 23, 2001 3:15 am by (logged).20.225.xxx [added heresies back in -- see talk for explanation]

---

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 3c3

The Roman Catholic Church has not proved unwilling to negotiate on the topic -- the Eastern rite churches of the Catholic Church -- the Maronites, the Melkites, the Ruthenians, etc. -- returned to union with the papacy at various dates but were not required to say the "and the Son" formula in their liturgies. This may also suggest that filioque clause dispute is merely a symptom of the larger dispute concerning papal authority.

The Roman Catholic Church has not proved unwilling to negotiate on the topic -- the Eastern rite churches of the Catholic Church -- the Maronites, the Melkites, the Ruthenians, etc. -- returned to union with the Papacy at various dates but were not required to say the "and the Son" formula in their liturgies. This may also suggest that filioque clause dispute is merely a symptom of the larger dispute concerning papal authority.