This is the same thing St. Maximos the Confessor related. Charlemagne changed this, with the support of the Papacy.
In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace Panagiotis,
I do believe, regardless of the historical baggage thrown around to obscure it, it to be a wisest course of action to take, then and now. Please be aware that 'many' Orthodox and Catholic Saints articulated what the western Church expressed in the inclusion of the Filioque. it was nothing new nor innovative and it was clearly not heretical.
As early as St. Athanasius (d. 373), in at least three places, refers to the "dependence in origination of the Spirit in the Son."
He uses the expression para tou Logou in Contra Arian. III, 24 (PG 26, 376A) - Ad Ser. I, 20 (PG 26, 580A) - Id., III, 5 (PG 26, 632C).
My beloved St. Epiphanius (367-403) refers to the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son in Ancoratus, 6 (PG 43, 25C) - Id., 7 (PG 43, 28A) - Id., 11 (PG 43, 36C) - Id., 67 (PG 43, 137B) - Id., 73 (PG 43, 153A) - Id., 120 (PG 43, 236 B) - Panarion, Haer. LXII (PG 41, 1056). He also said that the Spirit is "has his consubstantial being"
from the Father and the Son in Ancoratus, 8 (PG 43, 29C) - Id., 9 (PG 43, 32C) - Id., 67 (PG 43, 137B) - Id., 70 (PG 43, 148A) - Id., 71 (PG 43, 148B) - Id., 72 (PG 43, 152B) - Id., 75 (PG 43, 157A) - Panarion, Haer. LXIX, 54 (PG 42, 285D).
St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) used a great variety of formulae to express the relationship between the Spirit and the Son:The Spirit is proper to the Son
in Comm. in Ioel XXXV (PG 71, 377D) --De recta fide ad Theod. XXXVII (PG 76, 1189A) --De SS. Trin. Dial. VII (PG 75, 1093A) --Comm. in Ioan. II (PG 71, 212B) He comes from the Son
- see texts above; He proceeds from the Son
in Adv. Nest. IV, 1 (PG 76, 173A-B); He proceeds from the Father and the Son
in De recta fide ad Reg. Or. alt. LI (PG 76, 1408B) - De ador. I (PG 68, 148A); He proceeds from the Father through the Son
in De ador. I (PG 68, 148A) - Adv. Nest. IV, 3 (PG 76, 184D)
I have already mentioned the evidence from St. Maximus the Confessor for the "through the Son."
He also used the expression: dia mesou tou Logou, "by means of the Word."
- Quaestiones et dubia, Interr. XXXIV (PG 90, 813B).
As much as I can appreciate St. Photius, I ultimately believe he used this thorne to create great division between the East and the West through polemics and polarization. Much of modern polemics for this comes from Photius and his rhetoric. Upon deeper reflection I do believe that we can and well heal the wounds which such activities have borne on both sides and the orthodoxy and catholicity of the Filioque will be brought to the light of day. Amen.
Progressive theology i.e. every generation of Christians grow closer with new revelation is a deviation from the Early Church Fathers. I reject the position of "the saints in one age could have a deeper understanding of the faith than saints in another". This Western ideal, which I upheld in my earlier years is now more foreign to me than ever. How could anyone claim to be as closer to the truth than say, St. John the Apostle, St. Polycarp or St. Vasilios? Teresa of Avila has wisdom, but I could never say that she had a new revelation to give or even be closer than the three I mentioned though I profess to have no insight into their hearts except through the legacy they left behind. So essentially with this type of thinking, every generation is given more and more of God's revelation. Well it is definitely not visible.
As much as I would love to discuss this, this position has little bearing to a discussion of the Filioque. I would like to address this on perhaps another thread though.
No. He put a band-aid on the issue and attempted to keep the peace. The Devil within Charlemagne put the bullet in St. Maximos' dialogue. And may our betters come to the Truth and be able to humbly lay aside heresy.
Just be sure whom you believe on this matter. I have listed the ones whom I am willing to stand or fall.