Since I was talking about the creed, and the theologians you cite were talking about Lyons II, I don't see how it's relevant. Lyons II was talking about beliefs, not the creed. The creed is an expression of some of our beliefs, but not of all of them.
The articles of the Union of Brest were all approved by Pope Clement VIII in 1595, including art. 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 anotherwe 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.
Seems +BXIV disagrees with gbcdoj.
How does he disagree with me? Please see post #17.
I don't see how it's relevant that all the Byzantine Rite Catholics you know happen to reject this Catholic dogma. Where does the Church approve this? The Solemn Profession of Paul VI, given on June 30, 1968 as "a firm witness to the divine Truth entrusted to the Church to be announced to all nations", states:
We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love.
"Since I was talking about the creed, and the theologians you cite were talking about Lyons II, I don't see how it's relevant. Lyons II was talking about beliefs, not the creed. The creed is an expression of some of our beliefs, but not of all of them."
Oh, please! The entire theological discussion was about the Creed. The condemnation your theologians refered to in 2003 are of those Christians who do not accept the innovative position of the Latin Church on the procession of the Holy Spirit as expressed in the the filioque addition to the 381 Creed. What they were doing becomes even more clear when they state that the 381 Creed without the filioque is normative and should be the one used in catechesis.
As for +BXIV, his encyclical clearly states that a number of times Rome required that Eastern Christians recite the filioque, apparently at the Pope's whim. It is therefore incorrect for you to assert that the Uniates were never required to recite the filioque. Apparently they can be so required whenever the master in Rome feels like telling them to.
"We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love."
Is this some new form of the Creed or another attempt to save face and preserve some modicum of the Frankish formulation?
Saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love, is NOT the same as saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
You don't seem to understand. Saying what you just said depersonalizes the Holy Spirit and reduces him to being a non-person. Plus, it establishes a semi-Sabellianism with the Holy Spirit.
The Melkite Church believes there were only Seven Ecumenical Councils, and those convened since 1054 are not validly ecumenical because it takes the assent of all of the patriarchates to make a council ecumenical, not just the Pope of Rome alone.
St. Gennadius of Constantinople who is considered a saint by both Rome and Orthodoxy held this to be true.
If tagging a council with the term ecumenical makes it so, how do you deal with the fact the so-called Fourth Council of Constantinople, held in 869, was annulled by John VIII, and the council of 879 declared itself ecumenical. cf. Francis Dvornik.