I never knew about this before.  In Vatican II, it has become "acceptable" to allow Eastern churches to drop the Filioque cause, which of course was one of the reasons for the Orthodox schism, their rejection of this clause.  

Therefore, this practice hints at acceptance of the Orthodox, just like Ratzinger suggested acceptance of the Anglicans recently ( hinting that we are all one big happy family ).  The problem is that Rome is not really Catholic so it can't really bridge any gap with the Orthodox or anyone else.

Here is Ratzinger saying the Nicene Creed sans Filioque along with the Orthodox patriarch.



The woman who posted this, Anna Paitian, is formerly Orthodox.  I barely pay attention to what is going on in that world, but maybe I should.  When I saw this I nearly leapt out of my seat.  

Here is proof that that is indeed what is happening in the video, "Father Z's" blog where he praises this act of apostasy.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/benedict-xvi-and-bartholomew-i-together-the-creed-in-greek/

By the way, I already know what you will say, Caminus.  You will say that if he is a true Pope, he can remove the Filioque if he wants.  But even if he were, which he's not, he can't.

Since the Creed was written at the Council of Nicea without the filioque, not reciting it cannot be heretical.  The flioque was added by the Roman Church.  

I've also read a number of explanations of what Eastern and Western theologians mean by the procession of the Holy Ghost and, quite frankly, I don't understand the controversy.  This is because detailed explanations always seem to indicate that the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father through the Son means exactly the same as the Catholic undertanding of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son.  

I don't see a doctrinal issue and have never understood this to be a doctrinal issue even though the great theologians did so.  Of course, the problem with my inablitly to understand is probably my own.  But one cannot declare a Creed approved at an Ecuмenical Council to be heretical.

I think that the problem is really one of the refusal of the Orthodox to accept Roman authority in matter and the fact that the Roman Church has always desired more precision in theological terminology than the Eastern Churches.  Perhaps the Western mind simply demands the filioque to understand the doctrine while the Eastern mind is more mystical and undemanding.  The same can be said of the term, "transubstantiation."  The Orthodox don't necessarily condemn the doctrine, merely the precision that the Romans insist upon.

Since researching this issue, I have come to the conclusion that the filioque is a matter that concerns unity rather than doctrine.  The Eastern Uniate Churches accept the filioque in principle but (like traditional Catholics) insist on keeping faithful to their tradition from antiquity.

He is the anti-pope of anti-popes, it seems. Just getting worse as we go along this streak, huh everyone? I wonder what the next "pope" of the Vatican will be like.

No telling. Some people think that Cardinal Burke would be the end to the crisis, but I highly doubt it. He would probably be about the same as Benedict, except perhaps slightly closer to the Traditional side. Regardless of who gets elected, I gaurantee things won't get much better, if any better at all.

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

He is the anti-pope of anti-popes, it seems. Just getting worse as we go along this streak, huh everyone? I wonder what the next "pope" of the Vatican will be like.

This video and all the other evidence will fall on deaf ears though, Raoul, we all know that. I just see scripture from the Bible and prophecy play out more and more every day... pearls before swine 1000%.

An Anti-Pope of an Anti-Pope is a Pope. Also you can increase something to the tune of 1000%(multiplication) but you cannot have 1000% of something as 100% is totality.

Is your point to sound like you are incredibly more intellectual than I, or you are right and I am wrong?

It's called an "internet post". This is the Crisis forum, aka the Traditional Catholic refuge and battlezone against heretics.

Way to go L.Phan for taking out the spirit from the letter.. you know very well what I meant by anti-pope of anti-popes. It wasn't said in a hierarchical sense, but in a qualitative sense in jest. I'll translate:

Benedict XVI is the most amazingly bold and destructive heretical anti-pope of all in the history of the world and thus the existence of the militant Church on earth.