Of course, but we are talking about out in the boondocks of rural Greece where religion and nationality are conflated in the popular mind.
Not all rural Greeks would think any such thing of course, but my monastic informant insisted that there were peasants who did indeed hold such views. If that doesn't sound too elitist and 'classist'.
Back to the OP ...
Given that no amount of conciliar creedal formularies or individual 'statements of belief' guarantee absolutely tight orthodoxy in the pews, the plastic bucket seats or among the benches, what can we do to foster closer ties?
Heck, my brother knew a woman in a Baptist church in South Wales who thought that John the Baptist set up the Baptist Church.
Conversely, he also knew an old lady in an Anglican parish who thought that John the Baptist wrote the New Testament.
I'm sure many of the people who attend my parish haven't the foggiest idea what it's all about - other than that it's about God in some way.
Lex orandi, lex credendi is one thing but ...
I remember a poll that was done among a particular network of 'new church'/restorationist leaders which had some surprising results. A very small minority didn't get the right answers on some very straightforward Christological and Trinitarian questions. I suspect this was more due to a lack of appropriate theological vocabulary than outright heretical views, but language is important and with all due respect to those of us who don't follow formal creeds and rubrics, this is one of the reasons why, pains in the butt as we undoubtedly are, the Orthodox insist on such things.
There's no guarantee that it'll percolate into the pews or out into the world of course.
By the way @Gamma Gamaliel since the Vatican document The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Roman church has accepted the original 381 Creed without the filioque as fully orthodox. I would look for formal recognition of that very soon, considering Leo's ecumenical bent.
However--and this is a big "however"--
Saying that a shorter version of one's own accepted creed is ALSO fully orthodox, is not at all the same thing as saying that one's own accepted (longer) creed is wrong. I'm not aware of anyone (among the current contenders, I mean, not Arians etc) who thought it unorthodox. Why would they? You might as well think that the First Article all by itself is unorthodox. Of course it's not! It's incomplete, but not unorthodox.
The real question is whether 381 can and should replace the Nicene Creed-with-Filioque at all times and places. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been settled--certainly not in the affirmative. And THAT is the real issue between the churches.
I fear you are mistaking a minor point for real movement on the Filioque.
The deal of it is the 381 creed was the one that was approved by all the bishops attending the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. The Western version of the creed (with Filioque) was never approved in an Ecumenical Council. The matter is settled as far as the Orthodox are concerned and more western denominations are agreeing with them. The 381 creed does not have to be approved by anyone else.
You may call this a minor point, but it did lead to the great schism of the church in 1054.
Let's get past this issue, and let the healing begin.
For those of us who believe the Filioque is correct, simply ignoring it isn't going to "let the healing begin." It must either be decided one way or the other, or all agree to leave it as a matter on which different opinions may be held without loss of fellowship.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is almost universally recognised by Christian groups which look back to early times of Christianity as a basic statement of Christian belief..The 'filioque' first appeared in official written form in 589A.D. at the Third council of Toledo. The present Catholic teaching,( for .Catholics of the Roman rite,Byzantine rite and others within the community led by the Bishop of Rome),is that the 'filioque' should be accepted but not necessarily recited in liturgical use as it remains a barrier to the profession of a common Christian faith. Pope Paul VI recited in meetings with Orthodox the Creed in its earlier form and of course whole communities of Byzantine rite Catholics and others regularly recite the Creed without the 'filioque'
Most Western Protestant churches deriving from the 16th Century Reformation officially accept the Creed with the 'filioque'. German Lutheran communities change,however, 'eine heilige katholische Kirche' (one holy Catholic Church) to 'eine heilige christliche Kirche' (one holy Christian church). I don't know if American Lutherans do this
More modern Evangelical churches will generally have a statement of belief which has to be adhered to if one wishes to be a full member of the community. This 'What we believe' may be more rigorously imposed upon those desirous of membership than the ancient Creeds of both East and West.
Can't speak for what the German Lutherans are now doing. The American Lutherans used to say, "The Holy Christian Church," but since the mid sixties ELCA Lutheran hymnals have "The holy catholic church."
I don't understand why removing the filioque has become the shibboleth that it has. Believing in the filioque does not mean a lack of respect for Christians who disagree, so why is its removal seemingly now expected as just being part and parcel of ecumenical relations with apparently no equivalent move from the Orthodox? It's not like the Orthodox are now being expected to believe in original sin in return or whatever.
I think it has to do primarily with the Western Church having added to/altered the Creed as approved by the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. In other words, what is being asked/done is not so much trying to meet in the middle as it is acknowledging that a creed adopted by Ecumenical Councils can/should only be altered by an Ecumenical Council, and that doctrinal issues aside, it was inappropriate for one part of the Church to unilaterally change the Creed.
OK so why can't an Ecumenical Council then retroactively approve the filioque instead?
For those of us who believe the Filioque is correct, simply ignoring it isn't going to "let the healing begin." It must either be decided one way or the other, or all agree to leave it as a matter on which different opinions may be held without loss of fellowship.
Well, quite. I must admit to feeling quite annoyed by such decisions being taken on my behalf in the name of a level of unity I haven't actually agreed to, which does exactly the opposite of fostering unity. It feels like being signed up to a statement I don't believe in.
Maybe I'm just strange but when I say the Creed in church I view it as a theological statement, not a political one. Theologically I believe that the Father and the Son also proceed from the Holy Spirit, because my understanding of the Trinity is that there is no hierarchy between the three Persons and that all proceed from each other equally.
In terms of unity, I am personally more interested in unity between churches working together - I don't need theological unity in order to have practical friendship, nor would I expect it.
@Gamma Gamaliel I assume not intentional, but referring to "Original Son" in your comment is quite a good pun...! Fwiw I'm not a huge fan of Augustine in general and I'm not actually really wedded to Original Sin - but it does feel a bit like Western churches are making all the ecumenical moves here without the Orthodox changing anything. I realise that the issues around the filioque are more about political issues around ecumenical councils, and that it's not actually about who is being expected to do the unity legwork - but unfortunately that's not what it feels like.
I don't understand why removing the filioque has become the shibboleth that it has. Believing in the filioque does not mean a lack of respect for Christians who disagree, so why is its removal seemingly now expected as just being part and parcel of ecumenical relations with apparently no equivalent move from the Orthodox? It's not like the Orthodox are now being expected to believe in original sin in return or whatever.
I think it has to do primarily with the Western Church having added to/altered the Creed as approved by the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. In other words, what is being asked/done is not so much trying to meet in the middle as it is acknowledging that a creed adopted by Ecumenical Councils can/should only be altered by an Ecumenical Council, and that doctrinal issues aside, it was inappropriate for one part of the Church to unilaterally change the Creed.
OK so why can't an Ecumenical Council then retroactively approve the filioque instead?
So far as I know, it could. But that requires convening of an ecumenical council, and it requires very broad recognition of such a council’s ecumenical legitimacy.
The improved relations between the RCC and churches from the Reformation in the West has gone hand in hand with people cooperating together in various activities outside church. In our area Food Banks and charity shops are staffed predominantly by church people from a variety of places. Barriers are broken down, old wives tales are addressed and common ground is found.
I wonder what opportunity there is for widespread cooperation in Orthodox lands, or in S America, Africa and Asia. How do you break down barriers and address misconceptions if you can't meet?
Incidentally here's a Vatican report that points out that a formal schism was never declared between East and West, but that named individuals were eccommunicated not entire Churches. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-01/lifting-anathemas-60-years-paul-vi-anathagoras-koch-getcha.html
Yes, @Nick Tamen is right, an Ecumenical Council could retrospectively agree to the inclusion of the filioque clause. Whether it would is a moot point of course. Besides, given the debacle when Patriarch Bartholomew called an Ecumenical Council for the Eastern Orthodox Churches - big bust up - it's hard to see how such a Council could be convened within the bickering Orthodox family let alone Christendom as a whole.
@Pomona - yes, various 'Western' Churches are making all the running when it comes to making ecumenical overtures to the Orthodox. In fairness to Patriarch Bartholomew he's very keen on ecumenical relations and he gets a lot of stick for that from some of the beardy-wierdies on Mount Athos as well as die-hards and blow-hards in various jurisdictions.
Don't expect any concessions from the Orthodox any time soon.
When you believe your group has the 'fullness of the faith' - or are at least working towards it - then it's easy to take the 'ecumenical' stance of - 'Right, why don't you join us then?'
I'd like to think I'm personally more flexible than that, but then I'm not in charge.
Those who believe that the filioque clause should be in the Creed have to demonstrate that by scripture and tradition - or Tradition.
People can believe that the filioque clause is justified as much as they like but they'd have to put forward a pretty good case to convince the Orthodox who are predisposed against it for the reasons I've outlined.
For my own part, I'm not one of those who thinks the sky is about to fall in unless the clause is dropped, but neither do I believe it should have been inserted unilaterally nor do I think it's consonant with scripture - unless it's understood in temporal rather than eternal terms. Perhaps I've missed something. What that might be is probably best explored in another thread.
I really can't understand why anyone would object to its removal. I don't know what it adds apart from confusion.
Well, because it's being removed on behalf of people who do believe in it in order to please people in another church who we're not in communion with anyway. Like you said, we're doing all the running. I also don't see how the filioque adds confusion, it's a pretty straightforward sentence.
I'm not sure why you can't understand that some people like myself and Lamb Chopped do actually believe in the filioque. Surely then it's reasonable to not want it removed?
I sincerely am not bothered by the Orthodox not believing in it. I don't feel the need to prove why I believe in a faith matter, but likewise wouldn't expect them to have to prove why they don't believe in it. I don't feel like being expected to change my beliefs is actually unity.
The improved relations between the RCC and churches from the Reformation in the West has gone hand in hand with people cooperating together in various activities outside church. In our area Food Banks and charity shops are staffed predominantly by church people from a variety of places. Barriers are broken down, old wives tales are addressed and common ground is found.
I wonder what opportunity there is for widespread cooperation in Orthodox lands, or in S America, Africa and Asia. How do you break down barriers and address misconceptions if you can't meet?
Incidentally here's a Vatican report that points out that a formal schism was never declared between East and West, but that named individuals were eccommunicated not entire Churches. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-01/lifting-anathemas-60-years-paul-vi-anathagoras-koch-getcha.html
Certainly in my experience local relationships between RC and Protestant churches are good, and are usually based on practical working together eg via food banks. I think that this is really where unity matters the most - because it also really affects evangelism too, much moreso than theological unity. I don't need to agree with every belief held by a church in order to work on a project together.
That said, the reverse also applies - sometimes there is stronger allyhood between different denominations than between opposite ends of a denomination.
Well, because it's being removed on behalf of people who do believe in it in order to please people in another church who we're not in communion with anyway. Like you said, we're doing all the running. I also don't see how the filioque adds confusion, it's a pretty straightforward sentence.
I'm not sure why you can't understand that some people like myself and Lamb Chopped do actually believe in the filioque. Surely then it's reasonable to not want it removed?
I sincerely am not bothered by the Orthodox not believing in it. I don't feel the need to prove why I believe in a faith matter, but likewise wouldn't expect them to have to prove why they don't believe in it. I don't feel like being expected to change my beliefs is actually unity.
Sure, I get that. But is the corollary of what you are saying is that you'd expect the Orthodox to change their views on this issue in order to tie in with what @Lamb Chopped and yourself believe. I'm not actually sure Lamb Chopped would agree with your take on the Trinity but she can speak for herself on that one.
I think this may be a matter for another thread, but FWIW I can understand why the clause was inserted - in Spain initially - in a laudable attempt to refute Arianism by emphasising the co-equality of the Father and the Son. Full marks.
However, in doing so, from an Orthodox perspective, it introduces potential problems and can lead to forms of Modalism.
It's not that I believe that the clause is wicked and evil and responsible for all the ills in the world since it was unilaterally adopted, it's more that I feel it's redundant and doesn't add anything to our understanding of the Trinity that couldn't be made from the Creed as it was originally agreed.
I'm not saying that everyone who recites the Creed with the filioque clause in it is a modalist of some kind. Far from it. But it can confuse matters which is why I think it's better left out.
That isn't to say I'd visit your respective churches and wrestle you to the ground for reciting it.
I'd love to see the Orthodox play soft ball rather than hard ball in ecumenical relations but I can't see what we'd be expected to 'trade' in this instance. What would you want us to drop to compensate you for omitting the filioque clause?
Theologically I believe that the Father and the Son also proceed from the Holy Spirit, because my understanding of the Trinity is that there is no hierarchy between the three Persons and that all proceed from each other equally.
I am probably showing my ignorance here but:
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal).
@Gamma Gamaliel I explicitly said that I *don't* expect the Orthodox to change their beliefs. I don't think a change in beliefs is necessary on either side. I don't understand why, from the Orthodox perspective, Orthodox and Western churches can't have a closer relationships without changing beliefs on the filioque. It can't simultaneously be a huge hindrance and also not a big deal.
Frankly I think that unity in terms of working together at a local level needs to come first. Statements of unity without experience of being hands on the ground together is worthless. If local Orthodox churches were regularly involved in running food banks and playgroups, then perhaps it would be different - but in my experience they're not.
Also as an aside, I only brought up Lamb Chopped as an example of someone who also believes in the filioque - no other theological agreement was inferred. Although, that said, I would be surprised if the LCMS stance on the Trinity was wildly different.
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal?
As I understand it, the Orthodox of that sort are strong believers in the monarchy of the Father - and the co-equality of the Son and Spirit. It is of course required for logical consistency that if the procession of the Spirit from the Son as well as the Father implies subordination of the Spirit to the Son, then the Spirit is subordinate to the Father.
I am not personally convinced that the procession of the Spirit implies subordination and I find the resulting assertion of the monarchy of the Father suspect.
But I think there's a strong temptation to rationalise the version in our tradition.
@Gamma Gamaliel I explicitly said that I *don't* expect the Orthodox to change their beliefs. I don't think a change in beliefs is necessary on either side. I don't understand why, from the Orthodox perspective, Orthodox and Western churches can't have a closer relationships without changing beliefs on the filioque. It can't simultaneously be a huge hindrance and also not a big deal.
Frankly I think that unity in terms of working together at a local level needs to come first. Statements of unity without experience of being hands on the ground together is worthless. If local Orthodox churches were regularly involved in running food banks and playgroups, then perhaps it would be different - but in my experience they're not.
They should be.
I know instances of Orthodox parishes distributing food to people in poverty without making a big song and dance about it and also making donations to initiatives run by non-Orthodox churches to help the homeless etc.
But yes, more should be done and in collaboration with other churches too.
It seems to me that removing the filioque isn't saying the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, it's merely not asserting that the Spirit does i.e. it is something on which there is not ecumenical agreement even if some of us believe it. The whole point of the creed is to include beliefs that are both shared and necessary.
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal?
As I understand it, the Orthodox of that sort are strong believers in the monarchy of the Father - and the co-equality of the Son and Spirit. It is of course required for logical consistency that if the procession of the Spirit from the Son as well as the Father implies subordination of the Spirit to the Son, then the Spirit is subordinate to the Father.
I am not personally convinced that the procession of the Spirit implies subordination and I find the resulting assertion of the monarchy of the Father suspect.
But I think there's a strong temptation to rationalise the version in our tradition.
The 'monarchy' of the Father in the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is to do with source and origin not the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
All the Divine persons are co-equal and co-eternal.
I'm sure the LCMS believe that too.
The issue is one of roles as it were. The Father eternally begets, the Son is eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeds.
Apologies, @Pomona, I misunderstood what you wrote earlier and my suggestion that you might be on a different page to @Lamb Chopped was misleading. I take that back.
We are all Trinitarian believers and I'm not suggesting that anyone here is deficient in that respect.
Nevertheless, whilst I understand what the filioque clause aims to assert, I feel it can inadvertently confuse and make it look as if the Holy Spirit is subordinate and some kind of afterthought.
I'm not saying individual Orthodox believers have doctorates in Trinitarian doctrine. They can be pretty slapdash. But there is an attempt within Orthodoxy to assert the co-equality of the Persons of the Godhead which, in our view, the filioque clause can confuse or undermine.
I'm not saying those who insist on retaining the filioque clause are setting out to do that or out to be mischievous. But the filioque clause can be misunderstood. Which is why it's better, in our view, not to add it retrospectively and unilaterally.
Comments
Surely, per Galatians 3:18, Christians can't be Greek (or Jewish for that matter)?
Not all rural Greeks would think any such thing of course, but my monastic informant insisted that there were peasants who did indeed hold such views. If that doesn't sound too elitist and 'classist'.
Back to the OP ...
Given that no amount of conciliar creedal formularies or individual 'statements of belief' guarantee absolutely tight orthodoxy in the pews, the plastic bucket seats or among the benches, what can we do to foster closer ties?
Heck, my brother knew a woman in a Baptist church in South Wales who thought that John the Baptist set up the Baptist Church.
Conversely, he also knew an old lady in an Anglican parish who thought that John the Baptist wrote the New Testament.
I'm sure many of the people who attend my parish haven't the foggiest idea what it's all about - other than that it's about God in some way.
Lex orandi, lex credendi is one thing but ...
I remember a poll that was done among a particular network of 'new church'/restorationist leaders which had some surprising results. A very small minority didn't get the right answers on some very straightforward Christological and Trinitarian questions. I suspect this was more due to a lack of appropriate theological vocabulary than outright heretical views, but language is important and with all due respect to those of us who don't follow formal creeds and rubrics, this is one of the reasons why, pains in the butt as we undoubtedly are, the Orthodox insist on such things.
There's no guarantee that it'll percolate into the pews or out into the world of course.
The deal of it is the 381 creed was the one that was approved by all the bishops attending the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. The Western version of the creed (with Filioque) was never approved in an Ecumenical Council. The matter is settled as far as the Orthodox are concerned and more western denominations are agreeing with them. The 381 creed does not have to be approved by anyone else.
You may call this a minor point, but it did lead to the great schism of the church in 1054.
Let's get past this issue, and let the healing begin.
Can't speak for what the German Lutherans are now doing. The American Lutherans used to say, "The Holy Christian Church," but since the mid sixties ELCA Lutheran hymnals have "The holy catholic church."
OK so why can't an Ecumenical Council then retroactively approve the filioque instead?
Well, quite. I must admit to feeling quite annoyed by such decisions being taken on my behalf in the name of a level of unity I haven't actually agreed to, which does exactly the opposite of fostering unity. It feels like being signed up to a statement I don't believe in.
Maybe I'm just strange but when I say the Creed in church I view it as a theological statement, not a political one. Theologically I believe that the Father and the Son also proceed from the Holy Spirit, because my understanding of the Trinity is that there is no hierarchy between the three Persons and that all proceed from each other equally.
In terms of unity, I am personally more interested in unity between churches working together - I don't need theological unity in order to have practical friendship, nor would I expect it.
I wonder what opportunity there is for widespread cooperation in Orthodox lands, or in S America, Africa and Asia. How do you break down barriers and address misconceptions if you can't meet?
Incidentally here's a Vatican report that points out that a formal schism was never declared between East and West, but that named individuals were eccommunicated not entire Churches. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-01/lifting-anathemas-60-years-paul-vi-anathagoras-koch-getcha.html
@Pomona - yes, various 'Western' Churches are making all the running when it comes to making ecumenical overtures to the Orthodox. In fairness to Patriarch Bartholomew he's very keen on ecumenical relations and he gets a lot of stick for that from some of the beardy-wierdies on Mount Athos as well as die-hards and blow-hards in various jurisdictions.
Don't expect any concessions from the Orthodox any time soon.
When you believe your group has the 'fullness of the faith' - or are at least working towards it - then it's easy to take the 'ecumenical' stance of - 'Right, why don't you join us then?'
I'd like to think I'm personally more flexible than that, but then I'm not in charge.
Those who believe that the filioque clause should be in the Creed have to demonstrate that by scripture and tradition - or Tradition.
People can believe that the filioque clause is justified as much as they like but they'd have to put forward a pretty good case to convince the Orthodox who are predisposed against it for the reasons I've outlined.
For my own part, I'm not one of those who thinks the sky is about to fall in unless the clause is dropped, but neither do I believe it should have been inserted unilaterally nor do I think it's consonant with scripture - unless it's understood in temporal rather than eternal terms. Perhaps I've missed something. What that might be is probably best explored in another thread.
I really can't understand why anyone would object to its removal. I don't know what it adds apart from confusion.
I'm not sure why you can't understand that some people like myself and Lamb Chopped do actually believe in the filioque. Surely then it's reasonable to not want it removed?
I sincerely am not bothered by the Orthodox not believing in it. I don't feel the need to prove why I believe in a faith matter, but likewise wouldn't expect them to have to prove why they don't believe in it. I don't feel like being expected to change my beliefs is actually unity.
Certainly in my experience local relationships between RC and Protestant churches are good, and are usually based on practical working together eg via food banks. I think that this is really where unity matters the most - because it also really affects evangelism too, much moreso than theological unity. I don't need to agree with every belief held by a church in order to work on a project together.
That said, the reverse also applies - sometimes there is stronger allyhood between different denominations than between opposite ends of a denomination.
Sure, I get that. But is the corollary of what you are saying is that you'd expect the Orthodox to change their views on this issue in order to tie in with what @Lamb Chopped and yourself believe. I'm not actually sure Lamb Chopped would agree with your take on the Trinity but she can speak for herself on that one.
I think this may be a matter for another thread, but FWIW I can understand why the clause was inserted - in Spain initially - in a laudable attempt to refute Arianism by emphasising the co-equality of the Father and the Son. Full marks.
However, in doing so, from an Orthodox perspective, it introduces potential problems and can lead to forms of Modalism.
It's not that I believe that the clause is wicked and evil and responsible for all the ills in the world since it was unilaterally adopted, it's more that I feel it's redundant and doesn't add anything to our understanding of the Trinity that couldn't be made from the Creed as it was originally agreed.
I'm not saying that everyone who recites the Creed with the filioque clause in it is a modalist of some kind. Far from it. But it can confuse matters which is why I think it's better left out.
That isn't to say I'd visit your respective churches and wrestle you to the ground for reciting it.
I'd love to see the Orthodox play soft ball rather than hard ball in ecumenical relations but I can't see what we'd be expected to 'trade' in this instance. What would you want us to drop to compensate you for omitting the filioque clause?
I am probably showing my ignorance here but:
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal).
Have I got that the wrong way round ?
Frankly I think that unity in terms of working together at a local level needs to come first. Statements of unity without experience of being hands on the ground together is worthless. If local Orthodox churches were regularly involved in running food banks and playgroups, then perhaps it would be different - but in my experience they're not.
I am not personally convinced that the procession of the Spirit implies subordination and I find the resulting assertion of the monarchy of the Father suspect.
But I think there's a strong temptation to rationalise the version in our tradition.
They should be.
I know instances of Orthodox parishes distributing food to people in poverty without making a big song and dance about it and also making donations to initiatives run by non-Orthodox churches to help the homeless etc.
But yes, more should be done and in collaboration with other churches too.
The 'monarchy' of the Father in the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is to do with source and origin not the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
All the Divine persons are co-equal and co-eternal.
I'm sure the LCMS believe that too.
The issue is one of roles as it were. The Father eternally begets, the Son is eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeds.
Apologies, @Pomona, I misunderstood what you wrote earlier and my suggestion that you might be on a different page to @Lamb Chopped was misleading. I take that back.
We are all Trinitarian believers and I'm not suggesting that anyone here is deficient in that respect.
Nevertheless, whilst I understand what the filioque clause aims to assert, I feel it can inadvertently confuse and make it look as if the Holy Spirit is subordinate and some kind of afterthought.
I'm not saying individual Orthodox believers have doctorates in Trinitarian doctrine. They can be pretty slapdash. But there is an attempt within Orthodoxy to assert the co-equality of the Persons of the Godhead which, in our view, the filioque clause can confuse or undermine.
I'm not saying those who insist on retaining the filioque clause are setting out to do that or out to be mischievous. But the filioque clause can be misunderstood. Which is why it's better, in our view, not to add it retrospectively and unilaterally.