In the pieces of info that I have gleaned over the years, the issue seems to be the fact that the West did not consult with the East on the issue of changing the creed.
I seem to have found a verse in scripture that models the original statement. So, it may come across as scandalous to the EO that the West would try to ‘go one up’ on scripture.
I just ran across a one-page brochure about the O-church, in which they describe the Western church as “going beyond” the New Testament, as in the previous paragraph.
Oh, yeah, I introduced myself as a Catholic to a GO priest, and he just about melted down in front of me, at this wedding. The point is made, that they take this issue and some subsequent issues like the dogmas of Mary and the papal infallibility as invalid.
I heard Fr. Benedict Groeschel say that the ‘filioque’ was inserted to counteract Arianism, which was ‘bigger’ in the West than in the East, anyway. That’s why the West thought it was important to insert it.
In Pope Benedict’s book, Introduction to Christianity, he lays out how the creeds were baptismal statements, in the first instance. They expand on Christ’s command to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Do you sense that the Church is trying to downplay all this, by allowing the Apostles’ Creed to be substituted for the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed? I do. It sidesteps the whole issue.
On the other hand, yes, the original language of the Church was Greek, and there should be a lot of sensitivity for that, but I don’t think they should get overly carried away with that, like they seem to have.