As a traditionalist and admirer of your site, I don't want to be critical but feel I should make a couple of points of clarification:

1) The Greek version of the Creed is the original and did not contain the filioque.

2) Even were the Patriarch to say the filioque the schism would not be resolved, as many issues, most related to Church governance remain.

3) Officially the Greek Orthodox are not in heresy, but are considered schismatic.

God Bless

Cyprian :

Thanks Kevin. Yes, there is much to be overcome, but professing the Faith is the necessary beginning. Because the Filioque is an article of the Faith, denying it constitutes heresy. Hence, the Orthodox are in heresy for that. Unfortunately, there is more than just the Filioque, I think.

How does the event improve because a 4th-Century creed was recited? Although the creed wasn't heretical, Bartholomew is a heretic and the pope let him pretend to profess the true faith.

I don't think it had much to do with improving the ceremony, the Holy Father was following what has become the standard protocol for these events. They also celebrate the Feast of St. Andrew together (that's Constantinople's patronal feast)with a Creed sans Filioque.

Unlike the Catholic faithful, who seem to tolerate most anything from their Bishops, had Bartholomew said the Creed with the Filioque his faithful would at lease TRY to lynch him.

The differences mentioned exist and need to be addressed, but I believe we should allow the Pope to conduct diplomacy with schismatics and heretics according to his own judgment. We don't know what his strategy is, so in charity, we should assume good intent.

As it is, Pope Benedict is making many positive changes. May God bless him and guide him.

Cyprian :

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope Leo II wrote of Pope Honorius, "`With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.' That is, he did not insist on the `two operations', but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up."

Is it unfair, or disrespectful, to point out this similarity? Perhaps we're too close to it all, and perhaps we've been desensitized by thirty years of the same. Should we just look the other way?

I should point out the simple fact that Eastern Catholics are not required to use the Filioque.

Additionally, Pope Clement VIII allowed the Ukrainian Greek Catholics to reject the double procession of the Holy Spirit at the Union of Brest in 1596:

"1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

Cyprian :

Thanks John.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445)."

The Synod of Brest in 1596 could not have allowed denial of the Filioque, but only use of ancient creeds which did not contain it.