Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.
There's a difference here that I will note from my point of view. There is no such thing as development of doctrine in the Catholic Church IF by that you mean the Truth changes over time. No. Revelation does not change. We can however grow in deepening understanding of the Truth, and find better ways perhaps of articulating that Truth but the Truth, or Revelation, does not alter.
As I said the Filioque does not change any of the truth. It is simply a way of distinguishing elements of the truth, and as such, filioque is ancient as a teaching in any event.
So my point was that it is NOT an innovation and it is NOT a heresy so it need not to change.
Would you agree, however, that when Rome has tried to explain aspects and justify positions with reason that their bowing to logic has caused the original truth they were trying to explain to be eroded? (ie original sin leads to the Immaculate Conception) I just see Rome's need to be justified to the world and to science bothersome. Plus to me Petrine Supremacey is a "new" revelation.
I am not going to tackle petrine or primatial power and authority here. I think I'll leave that for the moment to our bishops.
Original sin: with respect, I would like to at least make an assertion or maybe two.
Original sin as understood by the Catholic Church has nothing to do with personal sin guilt. It also has very little to do with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in terms of "leading" to it.
When the Church teaches about the stain of original sin they are talking about a darkening of the intellect [nous] and a weakening of the will, a loss of original justice which is a state in which our will is aligned with the will of God, a state where we seek the good first, not last or later, and good is defined as that which is part of God's Providence. Evil is not a part of His Providence. But we come to know and to do evil because of the original sin of the ancestor Adam.
That stain is laved away in Baptism, so that we are illumined in Baptism just as you are in Orthodoxy. But what remains is suffering, death and corruption of the body and that will not end till we are raised up on the last day.
So what is said about the Mother of God is that she came into her Personhood already illumined, never having been turned away from the good...She came into being as a whole person, fully alive in God's Providence, as we become, however briefly, at the moment of our Baptism. That is what Immaculate Conception means.
So she will die, she can suffer, she can corrupt, just like the rest of us, and she can be tempted though her inclination is to always turn toward the good. But she must, just as we do, work to discern the good.
Orthodoxy comes so close to accepting that premise that you will say that it happens to her in the womb...where the Catholic Church says it happens at the moment of her becoming in the womb. It is an assertion of Faith, not logic.