[kosta50]

K[osta], Certainly one cannot arbitrarily change the creed, just as one cannot arbitrarily change the flag. But what law cites whether one can expand the Creed?

There is nothing to expand. The Creed deals with the origins of the Holy Trinity. There is also nothing to stop the Church from teaching those who are not undergoing catechisis the difference between the origin of divinity (the monarchy of the Father) and the Divine Economy of our salvation, in which the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father through the Son.

Catechism and Creed are two different things. You can expand all you want as an expansion, but not change the Creed.

This presumes that there is no authority at all besides an ecumenical council; in one swoop, you invalidate not only the papacy, but also the Roman patriarchy

It does not invalidate the papacy. It is latter-day Roman Catholicism that completely invalidates the council authority. In the Undivided Church of the first millennium, the pope was an integral part of the councils but not the sole or even the final authority. The 'authority" of the pope to proclaim dogma without a council is a Vatican I aberration.

I disagree with the Orthodox concern that somehow the Filioque Creed risks doctrinal confusion, because, as I wrote K, the creed plainly states that the Son is begotten of the Father.

Well, apparently it does.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Kosta, for all your protestations, it appears to me and most observers that the Orthodox are capitulating with the Roman church (and thus the correct interpretation of the Filioque), and not the other way around.

That's good news.

Gotta run.