[Canticle_of_Deborah]

It depends. Removal of it could construe a change of belief for Catholics. Given the turmoil in the West, changing the words could be a very bad thing for us. It would be tantamount to denying the divinity of Christ (for us). However, if both East and West agree theologically then I don't see why we can't maintain the current status, superfluous words or not.

I agree with your post #9. Nicely stated.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Removal of it could construe a change of belief for Catholics.

Your statement implies that the removals that occurred between the Nicene Creed and the Creed of Constantinople constituted a "change in belief" for Catholics. I will note the phrases removed below:

After "the only begotten born of the Father" delete: "that is of the substance of the Father, God of God"

After "by whom all things were made" delete the words: "which are in heaven and on earth"

Similarly, your statement implies that additions also constitute a change in Faith for Catholics (in which case the Filioque definitely comes in for condemnation as "another Gospel").

It would be tantamount to denying the divinity of Christ (for us).

The divinity of Christ is quite safe with the phrase "one in being with the Father".

[TexConfederate1861]

The reason is the same: BECAUSE IT WASN'T AUTHORIZED BY THE CHURCH IN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. THE WHOLE CHURCH...NOT THE POPE, NOT A LOCAL SYNOD.

Plain & Simple. This actually gives me hope that just MAYBE the schism can be healed.

Let's see how they do with the Infallibility issue.....