“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.
Any subsequent Ecumenical Council is their equal.
And I didn't mean inject error--I meant change the words by which the dogmatic truth is expressed. Totally different.
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.
Remember we are talking here only about the canon that apparently (I don't believe it did, but I'll grant the argument) forbade any change in wording of the Creed. The concepts within the Creed are dogmatic and eternal. But regulations concerning how or when those concepts are put into words can be changed. See the difference? If the words themselves were dogmatic and the Creed could not be added to, then by what right did the Fathers of 381 dare to add to the words given them by the Fathers of Nicaea?