The "current" Nicene Creed is actually the version of the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Both the Eastern and Western Churches recognize the first seven ecumenical councils. The Catholic Church held a bunch more in the Middle Ages (a couple of which tried unsuccessfully to undo the East/West schism of 1054), but only two since the end of the Council of Trent.

Here is one of the best summaries of the Creed issue. He was written by the late Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, and published in a Lutheran theological scholarly journal. I have a file that I Downloaded years ago and was fortunate to find this copy of it linked on this site.

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/the-filioque-what-is-at-stake/

The Latin Tradition has a long history of teaching the filioque as a legitimate doctrine regardless if it is in the Nicene-Constantinopolian Creed, which wasn’t affirmed as an ecumenical council till Chalcedon in 451AD [I am talking about Constantinopile 381] for if you look at the Creed recited at Ephesus in 431, it is in the Nicene version of 325.

I'm curious what a new creed would look like that represents the true catholic faith as understood by the Roman Catholic Church

The old one, which we recite (or sing) at Mass every Sunday, works just fine, thanks. :-)

Were not sales of indulgences down again this year

They've been at zero since about 1550. How can they be "down again this year"? Oh, I get it: they're down to zero, again this year, just like it's been for the last 464.

Historically, the person in the East who called councils was the Byzantine Emperor, not the Patriarch. With no Emperor since 1453 ... ??

And the Russians are correct that the EP is not their ecclesial superior.

“They’ve been at zero since about 1550. How can they be “down again this year”?”

Don’t kid yourself. Just this week a fellow Catholic assured me they still exist.

Personally, I’ve not seen the published income numbers this year, so I don’t have an opinion.

In any case, I suppose you have to take that up with the Office of Vatican Translation.

Not being Romanish, I Googled this up for you from Catholic Answers... There may be an official office of indulgences too. I don't know.

Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences?

Full Question

One of the causes of the Reformation was the selling of indulgences. Does the Catholic Church still sell them?

Answer

That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences--but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.

In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: "Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray."

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses:

Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18, Jn 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.
In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod. (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences)

In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina (cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. [Northport, New York: Costello, 1980], 62-79).

it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished

Thank you. That's what I said: the sale of indulgences has been abolished for 460+ years.

Just this week a fellow Catholic assured me they still exist.

I never said indulgences "don't exist". I said they aren't *sold*. There is no money involved when I read my Bible for 30 minutes, receive communion, make a good confession, and say three prayers for the intentions of the Pope. Do you see money there? There isn't any, unless you count the wear and tear on my good shoes and gas to drive to church.

But you do that, too, don't you?

There may be an official office of indulgences too.

There is an official book - "The Raccolta"

http://www.loretopubs.org/raccolta-the.html

And the Russians are correct that the EP is not their ecclesial superior.

By the same tokens, neither is the Bishop of Rome.

Metropolitan Hilarion, the chairman of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Department of External Church Relations, said that the Ecumenical Patriarch had not consulted with the leaders of other Orthodox churches before meeting with the Pope, according to the report.

I wonder what Metropolitan Alexander, of the Latvian Orthodox Church, thinks about this?

“I never said indulgences “don’t exist”. I said they aren’t *sold*.”

First, they were sold.
Second, they could be sold again in the same way - without sanction, but probably with knowledge.
Third, I expect money doesn’t overtly change hands. It is likely more of a large gift to the church in exchange.
Fourth, they do not publicize this.

“There is no money involved when I read my Bible for 30 minutes, receive communion, make a good confession, and say three prayers for the intentions of the Pope.”

If you think you get indulgence brownie points for doing any of that, you are far outside the Biblical teaching.

“But you do that, too, don’t you?”

Dear friend, if you are asking if I read God’s Holy Word, certainly. Partake of the Lord’s Supper, certainly. Confess my sins, certainly. “Three prayers for the intentions of the pope”, no. Nor do I have the false belief that any of that earns salvation, or time off for good behavior.

“Thank you. That’s what I said: the sale of indulgences has been abolished for 460+ years. “

Abolished as the official position of the Roman church, yes. In actuality, who knows. They claim they were not sanctioned originally, but it was widely known. It seems doubtful that Rome was unaware.

The old one, which we recite (or sing) at Mass every Sunday, works just fine, thanks. :-)

Yes, we recite one of the three Ecumenical Creeds every week. The purpose of the creeds is to clearly define the catholic faith to distinguish those who are inside the church and those who are not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that Rome does not accept the creeds as a sufficient test of catholic belief. There are additional stipulations and axiomatic beliefs that are required to be considered part of the church.

Well, bowl me over with a feather....more confusion?

Judging by the comments from the Patriarch of Moscow, the head line is wrong.

I’m seeing it commonly translated as “synod,” which is also what the patriarch called the ecumenical council of Nicea. Which is perfectly ambiguous.

We’re staying with the old one. OK, so we added “and the Son,” sparking a bug sticking point between East and West. So that issue will have to be resolved.

When they say “ecumenical council” do they mean “Ecumenical Council” or do they just mean “a council with a bunch of ecumenist?” Because the news of the former would be earth-shattering.

========================================

I think that the 2025 Council will be a continually developing "work in progress," whether it's capitalized or not.