www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Pope's shift of emphasis to that of a local bishop?

Well, I've always said that Rome had something of a moral responsibility for rehabilitating the Eastern Catholics, because it is in large part responsible for their lamentable condition. That said, the Ruthenians made their bed, and now they must lay in it. As for the RDL, in typical Ruthenian fashion, it will quietly be discarded without anyone acknowledging so, and will be replaced by any number of alternatives, according to the inclinations of individual parish priests working to save their churches. But, if everything plays out according to type, at the end of the day the Ruthenian faithful themselves will probably reject the option of fully celebrating the Divine Liturgy according to the Slavonic Recension, whether in English or in Slavonic. Neither will they ever accept celebration of Vespers and Orthros according to the normative texts, but instead will opt for whatever is most convenient and least onerous for them.

Perhaps we can just have a reunification Ecumenical Council and come up with a different Creed that would add the other issues we have dealt with over time and also resolve the issue of the Filioque. Perhaps different wordings would be more agreeable to both sides and we don't have to go back use the Creed according to which side won the debate, rather just use an entirely new Creed that everyone can agree on.

From his first speech:

He is pope BECAUSE he is Bishop of Rome . . .

I'm excited to see what the Pope plans to do with the office of the Papacy. Its just one of the many things that needs to be ironed out with the Orthodox Church but it is also one of the big ones.. If Pope Francis can fix this one issue during his Pontificate, it would be a smoother (relatively speaking) sailing on the path to reunion. Perhaps we can just have a reunification Ecumenical Council and come up with a different Creed that would add the other issues we have dealt with over time and also resolve the issue of the Filioque. Perhaps different wordings would be more agreeable to both sides and we don't have to go back use the Creed according to which side won the debate, rather just use an entirely new Creed that everyone can agree on.

Now, that's a novel solution!

The question that comes to my mind, then, is: what, besides the Filioque, do you see as being an issue? It certainly would seem a lot simpler to eliminate this one word, which all scholars agree is a later addition anyway, and embrace the symbol of faith that has had pride of place among various credal formulas for more than 1600 years.

I am not for the creation of a new creed. I like the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and think it is perfectly sufficient for expressing the Church's faith.

There are many more new heresies since the time it was written that we need to address today. Many Protestants can recite the Creed and be truthful in what they profess, yet we say we are not of the same faith. As noted in my comment above, more things need to be expounded to affirm what the One True Faith really believes.

Has much been said or heard about his meeting tomorrow with the EC Churches?

When new heresies arose during the first millennium new councils were called, but the Creed of 381 remained untouched. I have no problem with the Church holding new councils to deal with new heresies or other crises, but I see no reason to create a new creed.

Here's the thing, the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox profess the same Creed. And even some Protestants too. Yes we all admit we do not believe in the same thing. You don't find a problem in that?

Things that can be improved is adding "ever" to "Virgin Mary".

I do not support any changes in the creed, because in the end changes (like when the West added the filioque) will just create new ecclesial divisions.