[FormerLib]

It is always interesting to see developments such as this but I am not going to get my hopes up on this one. Yes, the filioque was inserted to fight a heresy that the Orthodox will agree needed to be answered but clearly disagreed with the method used to do that.

In this thread, I already see that some questions are being raised about how the Creed will be interpreted in the West without the filioque. Will an old schism close just to open a new one?

The other important item is that the disagreement over the insertion of the additional language into the Creed comes back to the question of who would have the autority to make such a change, a single Patriarch or a Council.

That question will require a lot more work than the one they've addressed in this article.

[OldCorps]

The other important item is that the disagreement over the insertion of the additional language into the Creed comes back to the question of who would have the autority to make such a change, a single Patriarch or a Council.

Canon law tells us that the highest decision making body of the Church is an Oecumenical Council. There is no way that any council is ever going to revise the Creed. Additionally, there are also canons that state a presiding hierarch must submit to his synod...that they must act as one.