There was also the issue of the "trinity".
According to the Wikipedia:
Filioque controversy
In the late 6th century, some Latin-speaking churches added the words "and from the Son" (
Filioque) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what many Eastern Orthodox Christians have at a later stage argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople. This was incorporated into the liturgical practice of Rome in 1014.
Filioque eventually became one of the main causes for the East-West Schism in 1054, and the failures of the repeated union attempts.
The
Vatican stated in 1995 that, while the words καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ("and the Son") would indeed be
heretical if used with the Greek verb ἐκπορεύομαι—which is one of the terms used by
St. Gregory of Nazianzus and the one adopted by the Council of Constantinople—the word
Filioque is not heretical when associated with the Latin verb
procedo and the related word
processio. Whereas the verb ἐκπορεύομαι (from ἐκ, "out of" and πορεύομαι "to come or go") in Gregory and other Fathers necessarily means "to originate from a cause or principle," the Latin term
procedo (from
pro, "forward;" and
cedo, "to go") has no such connotation and simply denotes the communication of the Divine Essence or Substance. In this sense,
processio is similar in meaning to the Greek term προϊέναι, used by the Fathers from Alexandria (especially
Cyril of Alexandria) as well as others. Partly due to the influence of the Latin translations of the New Testament (especially of John 15:26), the term ἐκπορευόμενον (the present participle of ἐκπορεύομαι) in the creed was translated into Latin as
procedentem. In time, the Latin version of the Creed came to be interpreted in the West in the light of the Western concept of
processio, which required the affirmation of the
Filioque to avoid the heresy of
Arianism."
Wikipedia
Two Fundamentalists once said:
Dr. Jimmy Draper:
A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice, but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.
Ernest Reisinger wrote:
DANGERS OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS
One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.
Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.
The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).
I really love this statement:
"However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth.
They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority."
God Bless
Till all are one.