Orthodoxy vs Catholisism

[Spirithound]

How is it that a MAJOR responsibility such as Vicor of Christ Infalible teacher of Christs church…was completely unknown by Antioc-Constantenople etc…etc…

You should do some research on this, find out whether the Bishop of Rome was ever consulted by another Bishop. But really, don’t expect too much in the way of ex cathedra statements. There’s a reason we call it the “extraordinary Magesterium”.

How is it that when the Bishop of Rome made an adjustment in the creed…EVERY other sea responded negatively…and completely disagree on the procession of The Holy Spirit.

It was a linguistic problem. The Latins didn’t speak Greek very well, and the Greeks didn’t speak Latin very well.

Keep in mind that all 4 of the Eastern Patriarchate Sees have Eastern Catholic Patriarchs governing them now. (Although the Orthodox also have their Patriarchs).

Also I was told that Rome made the new creed optional for some churches. This bothered me…Its true or not, why is it optional?

Perhaps this is evidence that both mean the same thing. Remember that there is often more than one way to express truth.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’ve given 12 reasons why I believe the “Holy Fire” is not miraculous @ forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4126777&postcount=2, and though several of my friends here have issued rebuttals I will address them when I get a chance.

There are so many sites proving Catholicism to be the true Faith so I will explain how it is that, in light of EENS, genuine miracles can sometimes occur outside of the visible confines of the Catholic Church:
There are sometimes genuine miracles outside of the visible confines of the Church. The only true miracles of this sort are worked by and through persons of good faith (e.g. Raphael, Nicholas, and Irene of Lesvos) and in support of Catholic truth which the separated churches have maintained to varying degrees. There are certain Eastern Orthodox individuals, who in the Church’s words, despite being “outside the visible boundaries of the Church,” nonetheless retain an “imperfect communion with the Catholic Church” because they value and practice “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements, all of these coming from Christ and leading back to Him.”{1} They can be very holy because they celebrate often the Sacraments they retained from the Catholic Church. Thus God grants these almost “crypto-Catholics” the charism of miracles.

1. God never works miracles that justify and sanctify error/heresy and schism. Thus, any Orthodox “miracles” of this breed are not real miracles by God, but the product of (1) demons; (2) imagination; (3) hallucination; (4) exaggeration; (5) legendary accretion; or (6) outright fabrication. Note also that many of the alleged miracles were not verified by and might not pass by the bar set by the strict Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Modern miracles must be subjected to the rigorous investigation of this holy body. Genuine miracles were worked by the most holy jurisdictionally Eastern Orthodox men Gregory Palamas and Sergius of Radonezh, which is why these two men are officially Catholic saints.{2}
2. We must point out some important differences between Catholic miracles and Orthodox miracles. There is nothing in genuine Orthodox miracles that cannot be found in genuine Catholic miracles. The converse is not true. (1) We see the stigmata virtually exclusively among Catholics, and (2) resurrection of the dead is much more often accomplished by Catholics. Also, (3) there have been many true miracles that have proved Catholic doctrines which the Orthodox have (often dogmatically) forsaken, e.g. Eucharistic miracles with unleavened as opposed to leavened bread, God endorsing the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Theotokos proclaiming her Immaculate Conception to St. Bernadette Soubirous.{3} Another salient difference is (4) whereas Catholic wonderworkers come from all classes and vocations, Orthodox wonderworkers, for all intents and purposes, come from only three groups: ascetics, clergy, and royalty (e.g. according to compelling reports,{4} Emperor and Autocrat Nicholas II of All the Russias). The former two categories are most often intertwined, e.g. Seraphim of Sarov and John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Fransisco were ascetic clergymen who apparently worked many true miracles.{5} Moreover, (5) the number of wonderworking Orthodox people pales in comparison to the number of Catholic wonderworkers because the Church that the Lord Jesus Christ founded is and subsists in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and these Catholics are able to achieve even greater holiness than their separated brethren because they are in full and perfect communion with the only Church that possesses the fullness of truth.
3. So, for the aforementioned reasons, even genuine Eastern Orthodox miracles are no problem for Catholics: I have explained how that is possible in light of the true and infallibly defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, reassured you that God does not work miracles to glorify falsehood, and distinguished in five ways the aspects of the (much smaller in number and more limited in scope) Orthodox miracles from the ubiquitous Catholic miracles which directly confirm the truth of Catholicism.

Notes and references in next post…

One of the problems I have with Old Calendarists is that try to use “miracles” to prove their side. “Only an evil generation seeks a sign.” The Fathers warn of seeking signs, and counsel to ignore a miracle if you see one. Perhaps that is behind your allegation that the Orthodox have fewer miracles. I remember when I embraced Orthodoxy, I prayed that I not see a miracle until my Faith did not need it. 2 years, when I saw my first miracle, I wondered, what now. I’ve seen many since, but they are only icing on the cake.

How can’t the Orthodox take your arguements and reverse them?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I read the link and acording to it. The Eastern side of the church had people present at the councils where these matters where discused, AND AGREED WITH THEM.

However some how an adition was made to the creed…although the Pope did not want it, And a leader in the east used it as an excuse to break from rome.

However the doctrine of prosesion from The Son was originally agreed on.

Do I have it correct?

No.

No one, even from Rome, was present when the filioque, the clause you are talking about, was inserted.

Rome, for a long time forbade the additon in the Creed. Pope Leo III, after forbidding Charlemagne from adding it to the Creed again, set up the original Creed on silver tablets on the doors of St. Peter’s and the wall of St. Paul without the Wall, with the inscription under it “HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI” (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26).

The councils who speak of are ones where the emperor, trying to get military aid from the West for the Muslims, was forced to compel some bishops to agree with the demands of the Vatican (I never see anyone on the Vatican’s side complain of this Caesaropapism). These bishops would then renounce when they returned East, or were deposed by the Orthodox. Once, the Frank ambassador complained to a imperial princess for leading the opposition to these compromises of the Faith in exchage for military aid. “Better my brother’s empire perish than the purity of the Orthodox Faith,” she replied. The most important of these “councils” was Florence: there one bishop, St. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign (ironically, the Latin theologians said during the council that St. Mark was the only one of intelligence on the Greek side). The bishops who signed said that it was contingent on a synod confirming it in the East (the bishops claimed later that they were held under duress in Florence): when they returned either they renounced it or were deposed. No ratifying synod was ever held.

The leader in the East you speak of was St. Photius. He complained of the Franks spreading the Creed with the filioque in the East. He also sent missionaries to the Slavs, SS Cyril and Methodius, but the Germans, with Rome’s blessing supressed the mission.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I want to put this on here because I love it.

The first documented use of the Filioque was in an EO Church in the Middle East.

Peace

What you are refering to is the Synod Seleucia, which was in the East, but since it was Nestorian, no, it wasn’t EO. Nor is it really the filioque, as the verb which make the “and” part questionable wasn’t there.

This is discussed on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4105443&highlight=Seleucia#post4105443

 

[mtr01]

No. Papal infallibility did not exist as a belief in those days.

The bishop of Rome had no authority to teach such an idea, and no ability to stop eastern Catholics (for that is what they are) from taking communion in their own churches. No, Rome was not correct or incorrect, Papal infallibility was not even discussed in those centuries. It really had nothing whatever to do with the schism, although today it is a major additional obstacle to reunion.
No, because papal infallibility did not exist as a doctrine. Neither did universal jurisdiction.

To borrow a quote from the movie Independence Day, “that’s not entirely accurate.” I have pasted this to another thread where the issue infallibility was raised, and I think it would be appropriate here. From the letter of Pope Agatho read at the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople:

To these same commissioners we also have given the witness of some of the holy Fathers, whom this Apostolic Church of Christ receives, together with their books, so that, having obtained from the power of your most benign Christianity the privilege of suggesting, they might out of these endeavour to give satisfaction, (when your imperial Meekness shall have so commanded) as to what this Apostolic Church of Christ, their spiritual mother and the mother of your God-sprung empire, believes and preaches, not in words of worldly eloquence, which are not at the command of ordinary men, but in the integrity of the apostolic faith, in which having been taught from the cradle, we pray that we may serve and obey the Lord of heaven, the Propagator of your Christian empire, even unto the end.

Here pope Agatho refers to the Church of Rome as “spiritual mother” of the Church Fathers, as well as of the entire empire. (Note that “Apostolic Church” and “Apostolic See” refer to the Church of Rome; “Catholic Church” is used by Pope Agatho to refer to the entire Church - this is seen more clearly in the next quote:

because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.

Here Pope Agatho explains that under Christ’s shield, the Church of Rome has never erred from the Truth, and further asserts the Roman Church’s authority, which has been faithfully followed by the whole Church, Ecumenical Councils, and the orthodox Fathers. Pope Agatho then goes even further and states that not only has Rome never erred, but by the promises of Christ to Peter, Rome could *never *err from the truth:

cont’d

 

[excaliber]

Because there is more to this than theology. The West, starting in France and Spain, added it to fight heresy. The word makes theological sense in Latin, and it has been defined correctly. It does not translate the same into Greek. Nor did the definition. Now, the West, almost without regard to the implications to the East but with the intention of continual protection of the faith, added it into the Latin that was used. The Greeks, though it could be explained to their satisfaction one the huberous on both sides was reduced, still bore ill will to Rome for adding it in.

Yes, they knew about it before Rome put it in. I see no issue with it. The Creed is correct either way.

Something dosent sound right.

There were greeks at the councils
that dealt with the Filique doctrine.
If they agreed with it, they must have understood it.

If the Orthodox had the Filique in one of there churches…how could
they not have understood it?

 

[mtr01]

cont’d from above

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the ** Christian** faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself which he uttered in the** holy** Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing

Now, I suppose it could be argued that these were novelties, and that the Eastern patriarchs did not accept the claims. However, upon writing back to Pope Agatho, the Council Fathers wrote:

Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical ** pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church**. Therefore to you, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles.

Further, it could be argued that the Fathers were referring solely to Pope Agatho’s doctrine. However, the letter goes on to state:

And then one of our number, the most holy præsul of this reigning Constantinople, in the first place assenting to the orthodox compositions sent by you to the most pious emperor as in all respects agreeable to the teaching of the approved Fathers and of the God-instructed Fathers, and of the holy five universal councils

Thus, it is incorrect that the early Church, especially in the east were unaware of any infallibility claimed by Rome, nor of Rome’s authority over the whole Church. In fact, the Fathers of an Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople itself, described the Pope’s letter expounding these doctrines as “divinely written” as though by Peter himself.

note: all emphasis mine. The full text of the Council proceedings can be found here.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You said several times that Papal infalibility did not exist before the schism.

However I thought there were ancient writings that have early christians from WAY before the schism, admiting that the bishop rome had the athority of St.Peter?

One, that assumes that St. Peter had infallibility. The ECF don’t teach that, and it was even denied up to 1870 by bishops etc. under the Vatican.

And none other than Pope St. Gregory the Great of Rome says that Rome, Alexandia and Antioch are one Petrine See.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Because there is more to this than theology. The West, starting in France and Spain, added it to fight heresy. The word makes theological sense in Latin, and it has been defined correctly. It does not translate the same into Greek. Nor did the definition. Now, the West, almost without regard to the implications to the East but with the intention of continual protection of the faith, added it into the Latin that was used. The Greeks, though it could be explained to their satisfaction one the huberous on both sides was reduced, still bore ill will to Rome for adding it in.

Yes, they knew about it before Rome put it in. I see no issue with it. The Creed is correct either way.

Yes, they knew about it before Rome put it in. And condemned it, as did Rome.

If the Creed is correct eithter way, why does the Vatican forbid the filioque in the Greek?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Rather than go on an exhaustive dissertation on history, let me just suggest that when you look at a picture of history due caution requires that you consider who is painting the picture. Polemics and honesty are uneasy travelling companions. This forum is real good for polemics, not so hot for learning history. Go elsewhere for that.

Now who’s right when it comes to all of the areas of dipute that you have raised? You might be convinced by someone or by yourself on any given point, but when do you know that you’ve considered everything and are absolutely right? Under these conditions how are we ever to know?

Fortunately, God did not leave us to judge debates between theologians. Instead he made it utterly simple to see where the true Church is. He said to Peter “thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:13-19) Where there is Peter, there is the true Church.

St. Peter’s successor, St. Ignatius in c. 105 wrote “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” No mention of a supreme pontiff, or of a “bishop appointed by Rome.”

Many try to neutralize this passage by saying that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome and martyred there, which is clearly false, or by saying that Jesus was somehow not really saying what he clearly was saying. But viewing these things prayerfully, with the realization that the gospel was meant to be understood by the plowman as well as the theologian will lead to clarity.

Finally, ask yourself this: when you find yourself confused, is God the author of that confusion? If he isn’t, then who is?

Read Matthew 16:23, a mere four verses from your proof text.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You should do some research on this, find out whether the Bishop of Rome was ever consulted by another Bishop.

And if any other bishop was consulted by another bishop.

Or if any pope was rebuked by all the other bishops (look up Pope Victor I).

Or if any pope was anathematized by all the other bishops (look up Pope Honorius).

Or if any pope ever consulted and followed another bishop (look up Pope Vigilius, and Pope Zosimos).

But really, don’t expect too much in the way of ex cathedra statements. There’s a reason we call it the “extraordinary Magesterium”.

So useful that we can’t be told which documents are expressions of it.

It was a linguistic problem. The Latins didn’t speak Greek very well, and the Greeks didn’t speak Latin very well.

Keep in mind that all 4 of the Eastern Patriarchate Sees have Eastern Catholic Patriarchs governing them now. (Although the Orthodox also have their Patriarchs).

Actually, no.

Constantinople used to have a Latin patriarch, but that was abolished within our lifetimes. The Vatican has no patriarch there.

The Vatican has two in Alexandria. The Vatican had a Latin patriarch, but they never set foot in Alexandria, but lived on in Rome, but that was abolished in our lifetime too. Btw, the title Pope was first given to this See: the Orthodox Pope and Patriarch still has it, but none of the Vatican’s patriarchs do.

The Vatican has three patriarchs in Antioch. There was a Latin fourth, who went the way of New Rome.

The Vatican has a Latin patriarch in Jerusalem, which it revived around Vatican I. There’s also another patriarch who is the same as one of the ones in Antioch.

Multiple patriarchs. Do we see this in the Ancient Church?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

To borrow a quote from the movie Independence Day, “that’s not entirely accurate.” I have pasted this to another thread where the issue infallibility was raised, and I think it would be appropriate here. From the letter of Pope Agatho read at the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople:Here pope Agatho refers to the Church of Rome as “spiritual mother” of the Church Fathers, as well as of the entire empire. (Note that “Apostolic Church” and “Apostolic See” refer to the Church of Rome; “Catholic Church” is used by Pope Agatho to refer to the entire Church - this is seen more clearly in the next quote:
Here Pope Agatho explains that under Christ’s shield, the Church of Rome has never erred from the Truth, and further asserts the Roman Church’s authority, which has been faithfully followed by the whole Church, Ecumenical Councils, and the orthodox Fathers. Pope Agatho then goes even further and states that not only has Rome never erred, but by the promises of Christ to Peter, Rome could *never *err from the truth:

cont’d

And yet those same fathers anathematized Agatho’s predecessor in the See of Old Rome.

 

[mtr01]

And yet those same fathers anathematized Agatho’s predecessor in the See of Old Rome.

You know that is a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say the facts do not support your conclusions. Regardless, it is painfully obvious to anyone who reads the letter that the Eastern Church certainly was well aware of infallibility tied to Rome, and to Rome’s authority over the entire Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

cont’d from above

Now, I suppose it could be argued that these were novelties, and that the Eastern patriarchs did not accept the claims. However, upon writing back to Pope Agatho, the Council Fathers wrote:Further, it could be argued that the Fathers were referring solely to Pope Agatho’s doctrine. However, the letter goes on to state:Thus, it is incorrect that the early Church, especially in the east were unaware of any infallibility claimed by Rome, nor of Rome’s authority over the whole Church. In fact, the Fathers of an Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople itself, described the Pope’s letter expounding these doctrines as “divinely written” as though by Peter himself.

note: all emphasis mine. The full text of the Council proceedings can be found here.

A more complete text is here:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.html

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You know that is a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say the facts do not support your conclusions.

Let the readers judge:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4127802&highlight=Honorius#post4127802

Regardless, it is painfully obvious to anyone who reads the letter that the Eastern Church certainly was well aware of infallibility tied to Rome, and to Rome’s authority over the entire Church.

And yet they the Council anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome as a heretic.

 

[Spirithound]

Constantinople used to have a Latin patriarch, but that was abolished within our lifetimes. The Vatican has no patriarch there.

The Vatican has two in Alexandria. The Vatican had a Latin patriarch, but they never set foot in Alexandria, but lived on in Rome, but that was abolished in our lifetime too. Btw, the title Pope was first given to this See: the Orthodox Pope and Patriarch still has it, but none of the Vatican’s patriarchs do.

The Vatican has three patriarchs in Antioch. There was a Latin fourth, who went the way of New Rome.

The Vatican has a Latin patriarch in Jerusalem, which it revived around Vatican I. There’s also another patriarch who is the same as one of the ones in Antioch.

Multiple patriarchs. Do we see this in the Ancient Church?

Thank you for the correction. I suspect we don’t see multiple patriarchs in the ancient Church because nobody envisioned people migrating but wanted to keep their old Liturgies.

 

[StRaphael]

Who cares? If your faith is dependent on miracles you should probably spend less time on a discussion forum and more time in prayer.

My brother in Christ Joe, I care that objective criteria does not get unfairly dismissed and labeled subjective. Happily, I pray to God and the saints all day! The grassroots of the Faith is the miracle of the Resurrection of the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God. My faith is based on several years of near-constant study of Biblical passages, Patristics, and history but I want to reassure Excaliber that miracles do not prove Eastern Orthodoxy to be true and Catholicism false.

Can you imagine one of the great Catholic saints going to such lengths to “disprove” Orthodox miracles? Somehow I doubt it. It shows a marked lack of spiritual maturity.

I am not certain what specifically they would do since I am a fallible, ignorant sinner. I make my arguments out of zeal for defending the Catholic faith and not losing Excaliber to Eastern Orthodoxy and letting doubt torment him. I pray that I help him get started on RCIA promptly and help him to become truly convinced, and that the Holy Spirit makes him truly committed. The saints aren’t pluralists. They would, if it meant preventing the loss of a soul, show that Eastern Orthodox miracles have not and do not prove that Eastern Orthodoxy is true. Hopefully I can imitate the most holy prince of theologians, the intellectually formidable and logically forceful doctor St. Thomas Aquinas, to that extent.

My friend I’m not judging you as I’m in no position to judge anyone, I’m just offering some brotherly advice based on what you have written. Your faith in the truthfulness of Catholicism and your spiritual well being will be served far more by proactively living a Catholic life, going to church, prayer and almsgiving.

Praise be to God; these things are becoming a bigger part of my life every day. I pray especially to God Himself, the Theotokos, St. Raphael, and St. Christopher.

Constantly trying to tear down anothers faith in the long run can only serve to separate you from God.

I love and admire and do not disparage the remarkable devoutness of the Eastern Orthodox, but I do attack false (and often anti-ecumenical) claims to the effect that the truth subsists in the Eastern Orthodox Church and not the Catholic Church, in this case claims which argue from miracles. I thus rest my case on these matters.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Joe, God bless you for your charity and for the invaluable advice from the wonderworking Seraphim of Sarov; I hope to hate the sin (falsehood, error) and love the sinner in imitation of this holy exhortation!

Will R. Huysman
+JMJ

 

[excaliber]

One, that assumes that St. Peter had infallibility. The ECF don’t teach that, and it was even denied up to 1870 by bishops etc. under the Vatican.

And none other than Pope St. Gregory the Great of Rome says that Rome, Alexandia and Antioch are one Petrine See.

Do you have the quotes of these bishops under the vatican?

So far I have seen the bishop of rome compared to peter. terms such as the chair of St.Peter.

If Peter was no different then any other apostle…what is the term "chair of St.Peter mean…or any other reference to peter?

So far it looks like the eastern bishops did Know about the Filique , If representatives of the East were at the Councils. And if One refused to sign of on it…then they did know.

Several questions come to mind.
WHY did that one Greek representative not sign…was it the teaching…or changing the creed?

If Simon had no athority why was his name changed to rock…why was not ALL the apostles names not changed?

If all bishops are equal in athority.
On what bases can any bishop say another is incorect in faith and morals.

If all are equal…were the councils a majority vote wins type thing?
For example other churches vote on maters of faith and morals every so many years.
Was that what councils were before the split?

And are all Orthodox…including oriental Orthodox united on the isues that we face in todays modern world?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thank you for the correction. I suspect we don’t see multiple patriarchs in the ancient Church because nobody envisioned people migrating but wanted to keep their old Liturgies.

No body, except the Latins, were migrating.

 

[josephdaniel29]

My friend I’m afraid you’re getting a little confused.

So far I have seen the bishop of rome compared to peter. terms such as the chair of St.Peter.

I’ve heard the Chair of Peter referring to Rome, Antioch and all of the episcopate as a whole and any combination of the three.

So far it looks like the eastern bishops did Know about the Filique , If representatives of the East were at the Councils. And if One refused to sign of on it…then they did know.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “know about the filioque.” I know about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’m not sure that proves much.

Several questions come to mind
WHY did that one Greek representative not sign…was it the teaching…or changing the creed?

Probably some of both. There was and sometimes still is misunderstanding on both sides.

If Simon had no athority why was his name changed to rock…why was not ALL the apostles names not changed?

Other Apostles had their names changed.

If all bishops are equal in athority.
On what bases can an eastern bishop say he is incorect?

It’s not the bishops per se but rather the witness of the Church. Whatever actions Rome has taken unilaterally, if they be contrary to the received faith, the Orthodox cannot accept.

based of what do the orthodox say
the double prosesion is false?

Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils.

Did the east hold a council?

We did have a council and so did Rome. The First and Second Ecumenical Councils defined the Creed and all of the Patriarchs, including Rome signed on.

If all are equal who dose the church go to…INSTEAD of spliting?

Wherever the Church determines. Any authority in the way of Church government or spiritual matters given to a primatial bishop are his because the rest of the episcopate has ceded it to him. In the ancient Church both Rome and Constantinople had appellate jurisdiction in different types of cases. Both had this because the other bishops ceded it to them.

Yours in Christ
Joe