[Kolokotronis]

“Dulles lays out a clear case that the Western Church was not wrong in doing what it did. Dulles states that the “filoque” is “not the only orthodox way of expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit”, it does communicate an important truth.”

Dulles is simply wrong. Filioque does not mean “through the Son” which is an acceptable formulation and which many of the Fathers quite rightly taught; “per filium” does.

By the way, “filioque” might well be useful against Arianism, even if it is error, while “per filium” wouldn’t be particularly useful.

[CTrent1564]

I don’t think Cardinal Dulles said that. On page 31 in Section 1 of his paper “Historical Background”, he clearly states “the addition of the filoque, that is to say, the assertion that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

In section II of his paper, he gives 3 suggestions as to how the Western Church could handle the filoque when discussing full communion with the Eastern Church.

Regards

[Cronos]

By the way, “filioque” might well be useful against Arianism, even if it is error, while “per filium” wouldn’t be particularly useful.

A very good point when you take it in conjunction with where the filioque was first added in -- in Visigothic Spain. Spain in the 500s was ruled by the Visigoth Germanic kings who were Arians (viz. they believed that Jesus was a created being, one step lower than God, but above the angels).