Replies

“With respect, those differences should have been addressed in an ecumenical council before communion was broken.”

Would Rome have respected the decision of an ecumenical council in the 11th century anymore than it respected the ecumenical council mandated wording of the Creed in the 4th? Somehow or other I sincerely doubt it, P.

FL is right. The differences TODAY have to be dealt with by an ecumenical council of TODAY. False ecumenism and, frankly, cheap showboating like this Romanian Metropolitan demonstrated, gets us nowhere. This is quite unlike what is going on in the Arab Orthodox community where world events, history and shared culture make their de facto intercommunion something we should recognize and the hierarchs should allow by economia.

Would Rome have respected the decision of an ecumenical council in the 11th century anymore than it respected the ecumenical council mandated wording of the Creed in the 4th? Somehow or other I sincerely doubt it, P.

Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence: that it would have been Rome that would have had to modify its position. As a lawyer I am surprised at you. : )

I'm not sure we can say that the Council forbade changes in the wording of the Creed so much as the faith contained in it:

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

That can be interpreted as forbidding changes in wording, but it's not an open and shut case. If one changed the wording but did not change the faith expressed of the Creed, would that violate the Canon? I'm not sure it would. One could argue that the filioque does represent a different faith--but I don't think the Fathers really dealt with the issue of the procession of the Spirit, and who knows whether they held it or not.

In any case, an equal cannot bind an equal. So even if this canon did prohibit any additions to the Creed--it being a disciplinary matter and not part of the received and unchangeable Apostolic Tradition--any subsequent Council could easily revoke the prohibition.

Would Rome have respected the decision of an ecumenical council in the 11th century anymore than it respected the ecumenical council mandated wording of the Creed in the 4th? Somehow or other I sincerely doubt it, P[etrosius]

Correct. Remember the "8th" (Photian) Council(s)? First there was one that condemned +Photius and was signed by a Pope, then 10 years later on the dime, that one was annulled and a "new" 8th council restored Photius and dropped filioque, and was signed by a Pope (a different one). Then, after the Great Schism, Rome reverted back to "first" 8th Council that condemned +Photius and it's still the "official" 8th Council in the Latin Church.