How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic? I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned. That is false. It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident." Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?
Just to keep it brief: Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?
At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.
You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology. That is what they could agree on. It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.
Let me start by saying that I'm not a fan of elijahmaria. You may not have been aware of that because I've been trying to follow the old saying of "If you don't have anything nice to say ..." Hence, I rarely say anything to or about elijahmaria.
But, having said that, I also want to point out that it isn't really unusual for a Catholic or
Orthodox to question or flat-out reject statements from Catholic-Orthodox dialogues. Just consider how some of your fellow Orthodox view the Balamand Agreement.
One way to look at it is that if a statement isn't rejected by some people (possibly angrily rejected), than it probably wasn't worth saying in the first place.
Anyhow, it's getting harder and harder for elijahmaria to say anything that surprises me. I say just be glad that she likes the 1995 Clarification, and don't bother trying to get her to like the 2003 statement.