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.
This morning, I happened to catch the end of CTV's live coverage of the pope's general audience. It is customary for the Holy Father to receive visiting bishops and cardinals. Hot on the heels of a Maronite bishop was an Orthodox prelate. The only photo I could find is from the Catholic Press Photo web site.
Unidentified Ortodox greets Pope Benedict XVI as he leads his weekly general audience in Saint Peter's square at the Vatican. May 28, 2008
“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.”
What? Of course they did. “And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father; Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.”
“In any case, an equal cannot bind an equal.”
What is the equal to the Ecumenical Councils at Nicea and Constantinople which could not be bound and thus free to inject error into the Creed?
“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.”
A dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council accepted by The Church is not a disciplinary matter nor are concilliar prohibitions of any change in dogma. Were that to be true, we could simply call an ecumenical council, invite Rome, have Rome foolishly accept and then, frankly quite easily, abrogate all of Vatican I and Trent as local councils dealing with disciplinary matters. We could then move on to demote Rome to the lowest level of patriarchate in recognition of the apostasy into paganism of the West. Constantinople wouldn’t be far behind and Moscow would assume the position of primus.
The Greek/Orthodox position is that filioque does change the faith. That's why we are not in communion, Claud. It is very important to affirm that the Spirit eternally proceeds form the Father, that there can be no possibility of double origin.
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
Ecumenical Councils are part of the Holy Tradition and cannot be changed or revoked. They are believed inspired and inerrant. The Creed must not be changed on a whim. The only other possibility that would "justify" it would be to infer that the Creed contained error.