A Healing Astonishment. Catholic Self-Criticism Following the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue in Belgrade

What is at stake? The contentious issue was a section in the document deliberated during the meeting, a paragraph on the authority of Ecumenical Councils. It states that, in the second millennium, the East and the West continued to hold "general councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople". Bishop Hilarion is right in emphasising the fact that no pan-Orthodox Council has taken place after the 7th Ecumenical Council in Nicea in the year 787. He states that for the Orthodox tradition "communion with the See of Constantinople" has never been regarded as a criterion for the legitimacy of a council in the same way as did the communio with Rome in the West. Within the order (taxis) of Patriarchates, Constantinople holds the second place; since the disruption of the communio with the bishop of Rome it has ascended to the position of an "honorary pre-eminence" amongst the remaining patriarchates. However, neither historically nor ecclesiologically does this validate the notion of a "second primate" that could complement the Roman primate on the same level albeit in a different shape.

Even I know that the Orthodox never claimed that any of their latter councils were ecumenical and that union with the Ecumenical Patriarch was never regarded in a similar fashion as union with Rome is with Catholics. How was this put in the document and how could it have been approved by the Orthodox side (even despite the objection of the Moscow delegation)?

Well, some of us Orthodox (certainly myself and the late Fr. John Romanides Memory eternal!) consider two other councils to have been Ecumenical: the Council of Constantinople that restored St. Photius to the Patriarchate and anathematized the anti-Photian synod the Latins later started calling "the Eighth Ecumenical Council", despite Pope John VIII's accession to the Acta of the Council that restored St. Photius and anathematized it; and the Palamite Synods.

Both have the common charateristics of the Ecumenical Councils: they were called by an Emperor for the peace of the Church, they were broadly representative of the Church, and were subsequently accepted throughout the Church. It is only out of courtesy to our separated Latin bretheren that we do not commonly style them the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils, a courtesy not returned by the Latin claim to have held 14 more that were never accepted in the East.

Doesn't truth possess a courtesy all its own?

The Eastern Churches can have no ecumenical council without Rome. The Catholic Church can have an ecumenical council without the Eastern Churches.

The Catholic Church can have an ecumenical council without the Eastern Churches.

To the Orthodox Churches, such a council is merely a local council with no authority over any of the Orthodox Churches.

Rubbish, it never did.

You will note I do not credit the Latin church's claim to catholicity by accepting its self-designation.

The Latins fell into heresy in the 11th century, and the Orthodox Church (so named only because the Latins so loudly use the name "Catholic") is the One Holy, Apostolic Church spoken of in the Creed.

You wrote: "Rubbish, it never did."

Um, yeah it did.

"You will note I do not credit the Latin church's claim to catholicity by accepting its self-designation."

Thankfully what YOU credit is of no importance in this debate.

"The Latins fell into heresy in the 11th century,..."

No, actually they didn't. But we know Eastern Christians were overwhelmed with heresy again and again (by their own admission) throughout the history of the early Church: Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism -- all started in the East and overwhelmed not just various diocese but sometimes Patriarchs as well. That never happened to the Bishop of Rome.

"...and the Orthodox Church (so named only because the Latins so loudly use the name "Catholic") is the One Holy, Apostolic Church spoken of in the Creed."

Uh, actually the Catholic Church calls itself that because that's what it is. The Eastern Orthodox use of "Orthodox" is more of a prideful thing. Also, many Eastern Orthodox use the term "Orthodox Catholic" so I don't know why you're crying over this. And the Eastern Orthodox churches are anything but ONE.

and the Orthodox Church (so named only because the Latins so loudly use the name "Catholic") is the One Holy, Apostolic Church spoken of in the Creed.

I realize that's what they believe.

The rhetorical trick of using East v. West, rather than Latin v. Orthodox (or Greek, if you insist) is a bit thin.

Shall I list the heresies the West participated in?

Montanism, Pelagianism, monthelitism (got a Pope of Rome condemned by an Ecumenical Council), filioquism, Catharism, Hussiteism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, anabaptism. Should I really go on?

Tossing all the heresies we fought off back in the early days in with Holy Orthodoxy under the name "Eastern" is a cheap debater's trick. If you can saddle us with all of them, we get to lump "Western" all together and saddle you with the entire history of all the doctrinal deviations in the West, how many sects are you up to now? 20,000?

The filioque is heresy. Period. It is contrary to the plain words of Our Lord, who speaks of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father. It is contrary to the Acta of the Holy Ecumenical Councils. It does violence to the Father as the principle of unity in the Godhead, replacing Him with the impersonal nature, leaving as St. Photius the Great put it "a semi-Sabellian monster". The Tomus of 1285 admits an eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, but repudiates the False Union Council of Lyons' Acta, insisting on the Father as the arche of unity in the Godhead, and the sole cause of the Spirit.

We learned the skill of deposing heretical patriarchs, even from sees with Apostolic foundations. You in the West never got any practice in the old days, so when you got your first Germanic Pope, who shared the Frankish enthusiasm for heretical triadology, you've been stuck with it ever since.

And actually, given that it isn't just me, but a lot of our faithful, especially among our monastics, and the more traditional of our bishops, and the fact, as I pointed out in another post, that the Church's (in common usage the Orthodox Church's) magesterium permeates the entire body of the faithful, rather than being concentrated in patriarchs, in a way, it does matter what I credit.

I only pray for the good of the Church and the world that the current Germanic Pope of Rome (of whom, incidently, I have become rather fond, surely the best you've had since your schism from the Church--he's given to quoting Cabasilas on the Holy Icons and Orthodox Emperors on Islam, and seems willing to climb down from the unsupportable notion of papal primacy that the misfortune of having only one see with Apostolic foundation in the Western patriarchate created) will manage to undo the damage wrought by the first so that the Orthodox faith may again be confessed throughout the West.

Uh, actually the Catholic Church calls itself that because that's what it is.

You can call yourself the Queen of Sheba, but that doesn't make it so. Perhaps the fact that the rest of the world knows you as the Roman Catholic Church instead should settle that.

You can call yourself the Queen of Sheba, but that doesn't make it so.

That dodge works both ways ... I call your Church "Orthodox" only as a courtesy.

the rest of the world knows you as the Roman Catholic Church

The "rest of the world" can pound sand. They're wrong about a whole lot of other things too ...

And actually, given that it isn't just me, but a lot of our faithful, especially among our monastics, and the more traditional of our bishops, and the fact, as I pointed out in another post, that the Church's (in common usage the Orthodox Church's) magesterium permeates the entire body of the faithful, rather than being concentrated in patriarchs, in a way, it does matter what I credit.

Under this ecclesiology you should accept that the magisterium permeates the entire body of the faithful, both Western/Latin and Eastern/Greek and not just those of the Eastern/Greek churches. So the fact that we Latins do not share in your estimation of our alleged heresy should give you pause; unless, of course, you believe that the Greeks posses a charism of infallibility not shared by their Latin brothers.

you wrote:

"The rhetorical trick of using East v. West, rather than Latin v. Orthodox (or Greek, if you insist) is a bit thin."

No trick. Just history. Is it not true that the Eastern Orthodox, until very recently, were located ENTIRELY in the East? Is “Constantinople” in Paris? [Come to think of it, is there a Constantinople?] Is Moscow in Ireland? Is Antioch in Germany?

"Shall I list the heresies the West participated in?"

Go ahead. Please note, however, I made no similar statement. I wrote the following: "But we know Eastern Christians were overwhelmed with heresy again and again (by their own admission) throughout the history of the early Church: Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism -- all started in the East and overwhelmed not just various diocese but sometimes Patriarchs as well. That never happened to the Bishop of Rome."

At times Patriarchs not only invented heresies (e.g. Nestorianism) but also taught heresies. That never happened in Rome. That is a significant difference.

"Montanism, Pelagianism, monthelitism (got a Pope of Rome condemned by an Ecumenical Council), filioquism, Catharism, Hussiteism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, anabaptism. Should I really go on?"

Go on all you like since you're not making any worthwhile point. No pope ever invented any of the above doctrines (whether heretical or orthodox). Also no pope formally taught any heretical doctrine either. You are so desperate to try and prove ANYTHING that you have thrown in Protestant "isms" as if they have anything to do with a single pope. What pope embraced Anabaptism? None. And although Eastern Orthodox apologists make a good argument that a myth has been created there is still reason to believe Patriarch Cyril Lukaris was far too interested in Calvinism to say the least: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ca4_loukaris.aspx

"Tossing all the heresies we fought off back in the early days in with Holy Orthodoxy under the name "Eastern" is a cheap debater's trick."

No trick. They are heresies are they not? They were embraced by numerous Eastern prelates were they not? Was not Nestorius a Patriarch? And is Constantinople in the East compared to the West?

"If you can saddle us with all of them, we get to lump "Western" all together and saddle you with the entire history of all the doctrinal deviations in the West, how many sects are you up to now? 20,000? "

None. My Church has no sects at all. We have about 22 or 24 churches, but no sects at all. There were (and are) numerous heretics in the West, but none of them ever ran the Church. You can't say the same. I wish you could. Why do you think so many ancient heresies came from the East anyway? Why is that? If you want to say that most modern heresies come from the West I would agree. None of them dominate my Church, originated in my Church or are taught by my Church, however. I wish you could say the same for your past.

"The filioque is heresy. Period. It is contrary to the plain words of Our Lord, who speaks of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father."

And then Our Lord breathed out the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles, right? So could it be that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as so many Eastern Fathers acknowledged (e.g. John Damascene, Cyril of Alexandria)?

"It is contrary to the Acta of the Holy Ecumenical Councils."

No, actually it isn't. You really don't understand this do you? You also put yourself in a bit of a quandrary here. If you're telling me that the Church is wrong than the Eastern Orthodox were, again, easily overwhelmed by "heresy" when so many of their bishops sought unity with the Church in 1274 and 1439, at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. Also, it has been admitted by some Eastern Orthodox since about the 13th century on that no ecumenical council ever condemned the entire Western Church and excommunicated its members. Because of that they argued that the Westerners should not be denied Communion because of the filioque in their Creed. So which is it? You really can't decide as a group can you? You have no real unity. You come to no real conclusions. You spin your wheels. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

“It does violence to the Father as the principle of unity in the Godhead, replacing Him with the impersonal nature, leaving as St. Photius the Great put it "a semi-Sabellian monster".”

Nonsense. It does nothing but make clear the reality of the Holy Spirit. St. Photius has been dead for centuries. Where is this “semi-Sabellian monster” he spoke of? Where? In what theologian’s work? In what pope’s encyclical? Where?

“The Tomus of 1285 admits an eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, but repudiates the False Union Council of Lyons' Acta, insisting on the Father as the arche of unity in the Godhead, and the sole cause of the Spirit.”

So the Eastern Orthodox repudiated something that some of them had previously agreed to? Why does that not surprise me? So when were they right? When they agreed or when they repudiated their agreement? Keep spinning those wheels.

“We learned the skill of deposing heretical patriarchs, even from sees with Apostolic foundations.”

We’ve never needed a skill like that except for when we’ve had to deal with Easterners. Sometimes Eastern Christians came to the Pope and asked him to depose their heretical patriarchs. Gee, I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox would have, repeatedly, thought he had the power to do such?

“You in the West never got any practice in the old days, so when you got your first Germanic Pope, who shared the Frankish enthusiasm for heretical triadology, you've been stuck with it ever since.”

First Germanic pope? There were never ANY Germanic popes since there is no such people, but it is a COLLECTION of peoples. Let me guess: have you been influenced by the subtle racism of Fr. Romanides?

I doubt that you know – since this is a point of history – that the first “Germanic” pope was Boniface II who lived several centuries before the Filioque Controversy began. He died in 530. He was an Ostrogoth. Again, this is historical fact. Why would you know it?

“And actually, given that it isn't just me, but a lot of our faithful, especially among our monastics, and the more traditional of our bishops, and the fact, as I pointed out in another post, that the Church's (in common usage the Orthodox Church's) magesterium permeates the entire body of the faithful, rather than being concentrated in patriarchs, in a way, it does matter what I credit.”

I generally agree, but for different reasons.

“I only pray for the good of the Church and the world that the current Germanic Pope of Rome (of whom, incidently, I have become rather fond, surely the best you've had since your schism from the Church--he's given to quoting Cabasilas on the Holy Icons and Orthodox Emperors on Islam,…”

He is a very good pope. Not the best, but he is very good. God placed him where he is precisely so you could notice him. It takes that much to make the obvious plain to some.

“… and seems willing to climb down from the unsupportable notion of papal primacy that the misfortune of having only one see with Apostolic foundation in the Western patriarchate created)…”

He’s not climbing down from anywhere. He is merely making plain what always was. The pope is the pope. Boniface is no different at all in that than any other previous pope. He certainly is no different in that than his predecessors of the last century. It has just taken you this long to see what was obvious to the rest of us. Also, when you have the only absolutely necessary apostolic see you need only one. There were 12 Apostles, yet not all left important sees till modern times. “Constantinople” is about as important in real terms today as…well…maybe some Estonian parishes really need it. That’s okay. Westerners will save it and revive it. After all, Westerners may get the Turks to re-open the “Constantinople’s” theological college soon.

“… will manage to undo the damage wrought by the first so that the Orthodox faith may again be confessed throughout the West.”

Boniface II wrought no destruction. Neither will Benedict XVI. We already confess orthodoxy, thanks.

Reader David, honestly, I would suggest you read more. Try history. Then at least you will know who Boniface II is.

You wrote:

"You can call yourself the Queen of Sheba, but that doesn't make it so. Perhaps the fact that the rest of the world knows you as the Roman Catholic Church instead should settle that."

And that isn't so. The English speaking world, and increasingly Dutch and German speaking nations and peoples and some others, use the sixteenth century phrase "Roman Catholic", but few others. The phrase is only about 470 years old. It is not the name of my Church in any of its foundational documents, great legal documents before the sixteenth century or in any of its official universal catechisms, Bibles, codes of Canon Law, encyclicals, etc. http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

If you don't believe me, simply look it up in the full edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. I just discovered there is a snipet f that here in this article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

Your words make it plain that the phrenoma of the Latin church is very far indeed from Holy Orthodoxy. You focus on the Patriarch, on 'agreed statements' between delegations of bishops (as at Lyons and Florence) or groups of academic theologians (in the link you cite), projecting the Western unbalanced monarchical ecclesiology onto the East, and denying the role of the whole Church in the reception of councils as Ecumenical. Lyons and Florence were repudiated by the faithful in the East immediately--the faithful who had stood firm against all the heresies you enumerate, offering up countless martyrs to God at the hands of heretical Emperors. So long as you Latins deny the true catholicity of the Church, its sobornost, to use the Slavic term, and think only in terms of decisions are taken by hierarchs, rather than by the Church as a whole, I fear that union remains far off, however many 'agreed statements' on this or that theological issue are issued.

Doubtless you will write some long disquisition on how the condemnation of Pope Honorius for monothelitism was somehow really not a condemnation, or that he didn't really embrace the heresy, that his letters burned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not teach monothelitism, or some such nonsense. If you do not argue the point, your assertion that no Pope of Rome taught heresy is void even without the establishment of the heretical nature of the filioque. If you do argue the point, you argue not with me, but with the Harps of the Spirit who spoke at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Of course, who knows, if a Pope of Rome should again confess the Orthodox Faith, maybe the lot of you will follow. Pope Honorius may perversely serve the cause of unity by providing a basis for repudiating the untenable notion of papal infallibility promulgated by the penultimate of the local councils you Latins misname 'ecumenical,' and perhaps with it the arrogant notion of primacy accreted to the proper place of the Bishop of Rome since the papal oath dropped the anathema against Honorius at about the time of your schism.

Ah, I forgot Boniface II, and Gregory V, too! I should have said 'Frankish' Pope, but that would have ruined the nice rhetorical symmetry in my hopes for Benedict XVI. Too bad, and you got more cheap debating points.

You wrote:

“Your words make it plain that the phrenoma of the Latin church is very far indeed from Holy Orthodoxy.”

So pointing out that you are in error about who the first “Germanic” pope was somehow is a reflection on my distance from orthodoxy? No, it merely shows how little you know and how embarrassed you are about it.

“You focus on the Patriarch, on 'agreed statements' between delegations of bishops (as at Lyons and Florence) or groups of academic theologians (in the link you cite), projecting the Western unbalanced monarchical ecclesiology onto the East, and denying the role of the whole Church in the reception of councils as Ecumenical. Lyons and Florence were repudiated by the faithful in the East immediately--the faithful who had stood firm against all the heresies you enumerate, offering up countless martyrs to God at the hands of heretical Emperors.”

So? You are making a non-point. If you are admitting, one way or another, that Eastern prelates are historically mired in heresy (either in the view of Westerners or because they embraced Western ‘agreed statements’), I’ll agree with you. You don’t seem to even realize that this is exactly what you’re doing. Either many Eastern prelates were heretics or they were heretics. Not much of a choice there.

“So long as you Latins deny the true catholicity of the Church, its sobornost, to use the Slavic term, and think only in terms of decisions are taken by hierarchs, rather than by the Church as a whole, I fear that union remains far off, however many 'agreed statements' on this or that theological issue are issued.”

I’ve never denied the true catholicity of the Church. I just don’t assume you are the person to define it. Also, unity will not be decided by you, Dave, in any case. Isn’t that the truth?

“Doubtless you will write some long disquisition on how the condemnation of Pope Honorius for monothelitism was somehow really not a condemnation, or that he didn't really embrace the heresy, that his letters burned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not teach monothelitism, or some such nonsense.”

I see no reason to do any of the above.

“If you do not argue the point, your assertion that no Pope of Rome taught heresy is void even without the establishment of the heretical nature of the filioque.”

Untrue. Whether or not I choose to argue with you about Honorius is completely unconnected and irrelevant to any actual objective heresy supposedly being officially taught by any pope, ever. You don’t seem to realize that you are actually saying that for something to be true someone must argue against it WITH YOU. That’s hilarious! Thus, according to your own irrational argument, facts matter not at all. All that matters is whether or not someone chooses to argue with you on the general issue you raise and frame.

“If you do argue the point, you argue not with me, but with the Harps of the Spirit who spoke at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.”

Actually not at all. Condemnation by a council is proof of a condemnation and not of guilt or objective heresy. You seem not to realize this. You really don’t understand the history of the Church or logic do you?

“Of course, who knows, if a Pope of Rome should again confess the Orthodox Faith, maybe the lot of you will follow.”

Every pope has confessed the orthodox faith. I wish the Eastern Orthodox could claim as much for themselves.

“Pope Honorius may perversely serve the cause of unity by providing a basis for repudiating the untenable notion of papal infallibility…”

Untenable? It seems to be holding up rather well. It certainly seems to be holding up better in modern times than the phanar of “Constantinople”.

“… promulgated by the penultimate of the local councils you Latins misname 'ecumenical,'”

Nothing was misnamed. It also was not a local council. Local councils do not have bishops from multiple continents. Are you as poorly schooled in geography as you are in Church history and logic?

“…and perhaps with it the arrogant notion of primacy accreted to the proper place of the Bishop of Rome since the papal oath dropped the anathema against Honorius at about the time of your schism.”

The schism is yours, not ours. Just as you have had no unity, no catholicity. Already some Eastern prelates, non-Chalcedonian mostly, have said they are no longer in schism with the West. More will follow – and I don’t just mean Macedonian priests either.

“Ah, I forgot Boniface II, and Gregory V, too! I should have said 'Frankish' Pope, but that would have ruined the nice rhetorical symmetry in my hopes for Benedict XVI. Too bad, and you got more cheap debating points.”

No, I merely demonstrated that you have no idea of what you’re talking about. And saying “Frankish” pope wouldn’t have changed much either. It would not surprise me if you would sacrifice truth for “rhetorical symmetry”. Of course you would. The truth means so little to you after all.

That’s okay. We already knew that didn’t we?

So long as you Latins deny the true catholicity of the Church, its sobornost, to use the Slavic term, and think only in terms of decisions are taken by hierarchs, rather than by the Church as a whole, I fear that union remains far off, however many 'agreed statements' on this or that theological issue are issued.

Your ecclesialogy is seriously flawed. First it assumes that if there is a split between the bishops and the laity on the question of theology then the laity, and not the bishops who are the successors of the apostles, must be right. If so, then the bishops and their councils are denuded of authority and are completely useless.

Even with this, you conflate the consensus fidelium of the entire Church with that of the Greek laity only. You ignore the fact that the laity in the Latin West do not share in the judgment of the Greeks in the East. If we are to look at views of the entire Church (both Latin and Greek), as you claim you wish to do, then it is clear that there is no Church wide consensus that the Latins have fallen into heresy. Additionally, there has been no authoritative Church wide authority that has ruled that it has.

Nor can you argue that if the laity of only one part of the Church rejects a council that it shows that the council was in error. For if you did then you would have to reject Chalcedon and the following councils since they were rejected by the laity in Syria and Egypt, forming the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Please explain how the opinion of the Greek laity should be given any more weight than that of Syria or Egypt, not to mention that of the entire Latin church?

Actually, Orthodox ecclesiology assumes that whoever is preserving the Faith inviolate is right. In extrordinary times, as when Emperors are pushing the hierarchs to come to compromises, the laity, monastics, ordinary clergy and a minority of the hierarchs sometimes are the ones to preserve the Faith. It was not merely the "Greek laity" but the entire local Church of Russia, Bishop Isidore exepted, along with St. Mark of Ephesus and the Greek laity and ordinary clergy and a fair number of the hierarchs who, under Imperial pressure had assented at Florence, once they got back to their own sees, who rejected Florence/Ferrar.

Orthodox bishops will exhort their flock to learn the Faith, and to show them out the doors of the church if they should ever teach heresy, even as St. Paul cursed even himself should he teach a 'different Gospel'. This mixture of authority over the Church and submission to the Church in the role of the bishop is nowhere present in your notion of authority if you regard Orthodox ecclesiology as abolishing their authority. Rather, it seems to us that the Latin papacy abolishes the authority of bishops by making all the authority the Orthodox see in each bishop, and more, reside solely in the Bishop of Rome. Bishop Maximus of Pittsburgh described your papal ecclesiology as turning your bishops 'into acolytes'.

Innovation contrary to what was receive from the Apostles is heresy. It is not by appeal to the consensus fidelium that the Orthodox hold the filioque to be heretical, but because it is contrary to Our Lord's words, and to the declarations of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, of which Lyons is not one, and because it has baleful noetic consequences, among which, many of our monastics would argue, are the arrogant papal claims themselves: having overthown the single person of the Father as the arche of unity in the Godhead, the West compensates by creating a single person, the Pope of Rome, are the arche of the unity of the Church. I do not expect you to either follow or credit their reasoning--it flows from the phrenoma of the Church, from which the West has been distant for centuries.

Actually, Orthodox ecclesiology assumes that whoever is preserving the Faith inviolate is right.

This is circular, and frankly, self-serving reasoning and gives no guidance to resolving disputes when conflicting parties both claim that they are preserving the Faith inviolate.

It was not merely the "Greek laity" but the entire local Church of Russia ...

I was using the term "Greek" to include all those who follow Constantinople, not just the ethnic Greeks. Similarly "Latin" is here used to include all those who follow Rome. I have hesitated to use "Eastern" because this would also include the non-Chalcedonian Egyptians and Syrians. In any case, it is just a shorthand that should be recognized as including the Russians and Balkans.

Orthodox bishops will exhort their flock to learn the Faith, and to show them out the doors of the church if they should ever teach heresy, even as St. Paul cursed even himself should he teach a 'different Gospel'.

But the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox make the exact same claim. I have yet to see an explanation that would justify the rejection of Lyon II and Florence by the Eastern Orthodox that could not also be used by the Oriental Orthodox in rejecting Chalcedon. Additionally, can you show me where it was acknowledge that the laity could reject the authority of an ecumenical council prior to the Schism?

Innovation contrary to what was receive from the Apostles is heresy.

But Catholics would claim that they have not introduced any innovations contrary to what was received from the Apostles. Although the Orthodox have made this claim no ecumenical council has so declared. Nor can you appeal to the opinion of the Orthodox bishops and laity if you do not give equal weight to the Catholic bishops and laity.

It is not by appeal to the consensus fidelium that the Orthodox hold the filioque to be heretical, but because it is contrary to Our Lord's words, and to the declarations of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, of which Lyons is not one ...

This is merely the private opinion of Orthodox theologians but has never been so declared by the universal Church. By unilaterally declaring that the Latins are in heresy the Orthodox are violating their own ecclesialogy which holds that bishops only have jurisdiction over their own territories. If the Greek bishops had a dispute with their Latin brothers they should have brought this before a council.

... the Holy Ecumenical Councils, of which Lyons is not one ...

By what objective criterion can you deny that Lyons was indeed an ecumenical council? Please do not appeal to its rejection by the Greek laity for the Oriental Orthodox of Egypt and Syria can make the same claim in denying Chalcedon.

I do not expect you to either follow or credit their reasoning--it flows from the phrenoma of the Church, from which the West has been distant for centuries.

A bit condescending, no? I follow the reasoning but find it wanting. As for this being the phrenoma of the Church, you are again conflating this with the reasoning of the Greeks alone. Catholic theology is firmly rooted in the Fathers. You should remember, though, that there were Latin Fathers who are just as authoritative as their Greek counterparts.