False. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not (well, at least should not) deny the theological implications of the Filioque. The Second Council of Nicaea, accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church, has a final professional of faith which includes: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (AD 787).
I cannot find that formulation in the acts or canons of that council; I would be grateful for the reference. Even so, though, it's not that simple. What you say may be true if one assumes that "through the Son" means the same thing as "and the Son". But the Orthodox, at least, didn't think they meant the same thing.
The Filioque was merely an update to the Nicene Creed using this formulation.
If you mean that the Nicene Creed was "updated" to match the creed you say was promulgated at Nicaea II then that's not true; the Filioque was of Spanish origin and predated Nicaea II.
The dispute is about whether the Pope had the authority to add the Filioque to the Nicene Creed without ecumenical authority.
Of course, but there were still theological differences. It wasn't
just about tampering with ancient creeds.
Given the East-West Schism was sparked by the Patriarch of Constantinople doing something far more significant than that (attempting to enforce using leavened bread for the Holy Eucharist in all dioceses), I would hope that this issue should be settled sometime soon.
No, the condemnation of 1054, not the schism itself, was sparked by that. It is only in retrospect that the events of that year, and the disputes leading up to them, have been interpreted as the moment of schism; most people of the time seem not to have regarded the Catholics and Orthodox as in schism from each other, as the letters of Theophylact of Ochrid attest. The real breach came in the wake of the Fourth Crusade, I think, and the previous century and a half were retrospectively reinterpreted in the light of the bitterness of that incident.
Seems like the right thread to ask this question:
I recently came across a brief mention of Emperor Constantine V Copronymus and Iconoclasm in my encyclopedia. According to the encyclopaedia entry Constantine V "rigidly enforced a decree forbidding the use of images in worship, and he opposed monasticism. A serious result of this policy was the loss of Rome and, ultimately, of Italy to the Byzantines. Pope Zacharias broke with Constantine, and Pope Stephen II placed Rome under the protection of Pepin the Short."
How accurate is this? I don't know that much about the period, but I do know this is around the time that the great expansion of Islam through conquest took place, which would certainly have troubled Byzantium. I would imagine this would have far more to do with the Byzantines losing their hold on Italy than a decree against images and monasticism. Sure, pissing off the Pope might make holding Italy more difficult, but it's not as if the Pope had an army to kick the Byzantines out. Either somebody else did, or they chose to leave, as I don't see this sort of thing provoking enough of a popular uprising to force a Byzantine retreat.
As the others have said, it is hard to see how iconoclastic policies of Constantine V could have led to the loss of Italy. I must add that Constantine didn't simply make a decree against images, he persecuted those who disobeyed the decree. Also, he didn't promulgate any decree against monasticism - rather, he bitterly persecuted the monasteries, because they were strongholds of iconophilism, and did his best to humiliate the monks (e.g. forcing the ecumenical patriarch to marry, eat meat, and listen to music, or forcing a whole load of monks to take part in a parade at the hippodrome where they had to hold hands with women - rather enlightened really, one might think...).
