What thgey wrote is not binding. The pronoucements of an Ecumenical Council are.
We have always understood the procession of the Spirit in this context, and that is the context in which the Latin half of the Church (and the Pope too I'll wager) originally ratified and accepted the language of the Creed.
So have wee. Read +Greagory Palamas (13th century). There is no doubt that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, but, as +Palamas puts it, as regards His existence, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Remember, although the Word and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, it is the Father who gave rise to everything and all, including the divivity, and is the only one without a cause.
Filioque disregards thre fundamental statement of the source from which He proceeds, as regards His existence.
I am confident that while the Pope will defend the Catholic faith, he is very much aware of the correctness of the Greek position. If a language cannot adequately translate the original, then the language is inadequate to use in translation.
Well, as Cheverus said, we have wandered far off topic, and moreover I am in no way qualified to judge the theology behind the filioque. Wiser heads than we are working on it, and they are increasingly saying there may be not be as much of a problem as we once thought.
And kosta, if you interpreted my argument as supporting the actions of the Romanian bishop, I didn’t express myself clearly. I don’t think he should have done it, and I am strongly opposed to full intercommunion at this point in time (at least where there is no existing tradition of it). This thread all but proves we are not quite there yet.