Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

I'd appreciate it if we would not cite private communication here, not put words in my mouth that I didn't say, and not take specific cases (such as encountering a semi-Pelagian-to-Pelagian mindset among some people) and apply it to all ("Dave said the Orthodox are Pelagians!"). My purpose, obviously, was not to say anything of the kind. Rather, it was to point out that divisions and uncertainty and lack of precision exist even in Orthodoxy, and wrong or innovative theology can also spring up there. But your response makes it seem that you're unable to tolerate any critique of Orthodoxy. If you ask for opinions, why publicly trash me like this when I share mine?

SemperFidelis said:

To the OP,

Please don't take this as me taking a shot at you, but what exactly is it that is keeping you even somewhat interested in the Catholic Church? Or are you even actually at all interested? I only ask because all I've really seen in this thread is post after post of all the terrible things you've seen and experienced in the Catholic Church and how the Orthodox do all those things so well. Again, don't take this as me having a go at you, I'm just interested is all.

On a related topic, you must have had the worst imaginable luck out of basically any person in (at least) the Western world to have so many absolutely appaling experiences the Catholic Church, when so many other people here could probably write page after page of overwhelmingly positive experiences about their time in the Church.

I pray you find what you are looking for and the God will guide you where he wishes.

Blessings,

Steve

Click to expand...

Curious as well.

Joining you in prayer.

It might be the EENS salvation doctrine that is keeping him attached somewhat to Holy Mother Church. Perhaps he is aware of the serious ramifications of automatic excommunication, which would result if he converted to another faith?

If you don't believe the RCC is the true Church I don't see how that applies.

The most recent Catholic Catechism interpreted this to mean that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

The Church acknowledges that we are united albeit imperfectly.

If you don't believe the RCC is the Church then you don't believe it.

It's still Christianity.

An Eastern Orthodox bishop has expressed this doctrine as follows:[3]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
—Kallistos Ware

The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned (see below).

​

Click to expand...

Continued- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

An Eastern Orthodox bishop has expressed this doctrine as follows:[3]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
—Kallistos Ware

The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned (see below).

​

Click to expand...

Continued- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

I found myself nodding along to Quanta Cura's posts and I'd like to see you address those, unless I missed it?

It's natural for a Church to take on some of the culture of the people, it's not a problem that Greek Orthodox communities tend to be 'very Greek' (I have family in the Greek Orthodox Church). The same is true for some Catholic parishes which have their own cultural identity - my last parish had an awesome Korean community, they really know how to do Catholicism! My current parish is imo very American (I live in Australia). Culturally we have to be open to new things (note I said culturally, I'm veing specific) in a parish so as to include people as the convert - I would hope this is true of both Catholicism AND Orthodoxy, is it? Greek is no better than Korean, and American is no better than Mexican.

Personally I find it hard to know what the Orthodox believe on some issues, eg. some tell me contraception is not allowed, others tell me it is. Some tell me they don't believe in sex before marriage and others tell me it's ok to live together if you're engaged. If you're Orthodox how do you know what to believe (a question, not sarcasm).

this is how I understand it
the Bible talks about the Church as a community, so there are only a few apostolic communities that can be traced back to the time of Christ as even being an option
the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Anglicans and the smaller splinter groups that broke off of each of those (old calinderists, old catholic, continuing anglican ect ect ect)
Now there are all these interesting debates on theology and church rules and stuff
and this stuff is important
and as an educated person in the 21 century I should study these things
but the Church is 2,000 years old
and for the vast majority of this time most people could not read, and those who could read most could not afford to own many books
for most of Christian history only the elite could have the time, money and education to really study all these differant churches
are you telling me God set up a system where only the elite few would be able to find the Church? the rest it would be more to do with the luck of what country you were born in
God has blessed us with some great theology and teaching of the Church, but He also gave us the Pope, the Bishop of Rome a symbol of unity that even simple people can understand, now we have deep theology and teachings, but we also have something even simple people can understand

Rhamiel said:

this is how I understand it
the Bible talks about the Church as a community, so there are only a few apostolic communities that can be traced back to the time of Christ as even being an option
the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Anglicans and the smaller splinter groups that broke off of each of those (old calinderists, old catholic, continuing anglican ect ect ect)
Now there are all these interesting debates on theology and church rules and stuff
and this stuff is important
and as an educated person in the 21 century I should study these things
but the Church is 2,000 years old
and for the vast majority of this time most people could not read, and those who could read most could not afford to own many books
for most of Christian history only the elite could have the time, money and education to really study all these differant churches
are you telling me God set up a system where only the elite few would be able to find the Church? the rest it would be more to do with the luck of what country you were born in
God has blessed us with some great theology and teaching of the Church, but He also gave us the Pope, the Bishop of Rome a symbol of unity that even simple people can understand, now we have deep theology and teachings, but we also have something even simple people can understand

Click to expand...

I think this is to the point, except the bit about Rome.

In reality, the kind of people you are talking about didn't hae the ability to make decisions about that kind of thing much either. If they were Eastern they followed what the patriarch and local priest said, and after the schism period they were no longer in communion with Rome. Similarly most of the English after the English Reformation just kept on going to their own local parish and that was that. And those who lied in a parish or area that retained Catholic roots because of a Catholic local leader were more likely to remain Catholic. If the local churches were Cathar, that's what most people were.

In the end, almost everyone has always just gone along with whatever the local church was, be it EO, OO, CC, or something else. I mean, most people considered going to the next town a big trip, it isn't like there were options even apart from the information required to choose between them.

I agree that it is hard to imagine God expecting more from these people. I tend to think doing one's best to sort out with the information and options one has is probably all we can do, and there isn't much point in worrying about t beyond that. Either God is the sort of guy who will accept that, or he isn't, and if it is the latter than we are probably in trouble anyway.

Michie said:

If you don't believe the RCC is the true Church I don't see how that applies.

The most recent Catholic Catechism interpreted this to mean that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

The Church acknowledges that we are united albeit imperfectly.

If you don't believe the RCC is the Church then you don't believe it.

It's still Christianity.

Click to expand...

This seems logical, but I have met Catholics (and fundamentalists with similar issues) who despite being pretty sure on an intellectual level found it very hard to get beyond being told from the time they are young that they are cutting themselves off from God if they leave the CC.

And for people who were brought up in any church, they often have a lot of affectionate feelings for it and comfortable memories.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

Isn't it interesting though, that the ecumenical councils permitted divorce? The early ecumenical councils also decreed that worship should be done standing up!

Click to expand...

You need to supply evidence for this one my friend. I have done a lot of reading of the ECs and have never seen a canon that allowed remarriage after divorce. The ECs allow you to remarry twice and please show me where that is in the ECs. If you cannot please recant this claim.

Also you have to understand what doctrine (which cannot be changed) and practice (which can be changed). Liturgical norms are not doctrine, but rather practice and can be changed.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

No offense to you either, Dave, but this seems to be the new line you're using whenever you disagree with Eastern thinking. You convert it into a Protestant line. Not everything we disagree with comes from Protestantism. The Orthodox were disagreeing with the West very effectively 500 years before the Baptists and Lutherans and Calvinists came along. It's not a Protestant mindset at all....

Click to expand...

Indeed, the first to protest. Now show me where they got the authority to do so.

Certainly ecf's and martyrs disagree with their movement. As well as Paul who loathed schisms.


1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
21 Corinthians 11:18
For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it.

And you're putting words in my mouth with, as you often say, a gross oversimplification. I never said Orthodoxy is right or the True Church because "they're still here." In fact, if you took the time to read what I wrote, you'd notice that I said there are MANY communions still here and they are NOT legit just because they're here. I said the Orthodox are here AND they've maintained the deposit of faith, IMHO, better than Catholicism. You yourself have told me even recently that the Orthodox are probably much more true to the Fathers even than Rome. So I'm trying to figure out how you can be much more true to the Fathers and yet "just here?" and also Pelagian? from this Protestant angle? True to the Fathers and yet Pelagian...

Click to expand...

Again, how can it be better if they removed themselves from the Church?

The chair of Peter is the foundation.
Eastern Bishops recorded that to be truth. How can they deny the ecf's? And how can we accept that denial?

If they removed themselves, and that they did - for the Pope would not excommunicate an entire arm of the Church - how can they say they have the Church if they deny the headship Christ established?

This above all things - proves the error.

It takes no mental gymnastics unless you oversimplify, which you have done. Only a fool would claim that the Tome of Leo or the other great popes of the days of the great ecumenical councils were worthless or not significant. Show me an Orthodox Christian that does believe that? It's absurd. Pope St. Gregory III helped squash iconoclasm the first time around, Pope Hadrian helped nail it the second time around. Pope St. Gregory I is a titan of a theologian revered by Orthodox AND EVEN CALVIN! So to think that one must loathe all popes to be Orthodox, not sure why that would ever happen? But your assumption, which I reject, is that Orthodox MUST admit that, since popes were great theologians off and on for centuries must somehow translate to a permanent infallibility and universal supremacy? Now that is a leap of gymnastics IMHO. :o So it's pretty much a strawman to say that the Orthodox in some camps always hated popes (they don't hate them now for that matter) and reject their significance and on the other hand others are insane for thinking the West dipped into schism and sharky waters by leaving Orthodoxy. That's been the maintained position of the East for 1,000 years. I hardly think guys like St. Gregory Palamas, who maintains your position A there, is a mental gymnast!

Click to expand...

The fact is, if they honored the place the Pope was given, they would not have left the Church.

The Pope could not leave the Church - he is the foundational headship - always.
It would be impossible to remove himself from what he is.

Councils were used for the purpose of ascertaining heresy.
The thing is this - there was no heresy. Period.

Jesus said to Peter 'WHATSOEVER you BIND will also be bound in Heaven.'

IE - you are my voice and what you say is as it is in Heaven too.
AND if the Pope allowed the prayer of the West to include the filioque, the East should have followed suit - except they put the councils above the statement of Christ.

It is good to have councils, it keeps all of them together in mind, and always in the history - they deferred to the Pope.

ONLY the Pope could excommunicate.
So the East excommunicated themselves because they never had such an authority to excommunicate a Pope.

There is really nothing to compare this to - since Christ and His Church is unique... but Paul made a wonderful analogy. Can the body say to the hand it has no use for it? No.

How can the East cut themselves off from the head and live or thrive?
They exist.

The Patriarchs are hammering out the role of the Pope in the current councils of our times. It is said - via prophesy - they shall reunite. Obviously, historical writings will concrete this.

As always, the Pope is the servant to the others - as husband and wife are to serve one another, but the husband is the head - as the Pope is the head of the Church.

Humility and grace will intercede, God willing.

You're making some dissarayed leaps here now with the rest....bashing tollhouses, etc. If you read the theology, it's no more "bizarre" than the idea of purgatory or Mary appearing to three Portuguese children and spiraling the sun around, right? "Bizarre" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm assuming you haven't read about the visions of many Orthodox saints about tollhouses? It's not like some crazy Easterner pulled this out of his hat on a drug trip?

Click to expand...

Scriptures say things related to purgation - toll houses - and the concept is totally foreign to all of scriptures.

Scriptures:
You shall be saved thru fire.
You shall be in jail with torturers til the last farthing is paid.

And of course Paul seeks mercy for his friend in death. He seeks prayer. That the LORD have mercy on him.

Never in all of the historical writings do we see toll houses.
Where did that even come from?
Tempted by demons after death?

Jesus says we can be forgiven sins after death - the next life - but not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Forgiveness comes thru the fire.

No where in toll houses is there anything about the scriptural fire.

I'd hardly liken calendar disputes to the severity and damage of Vatican II! Imagine the Orthodox suddenly pulling down their icons and turning the priest around, knocking down the iconostasis, bringing in hymns from the negro spirituals, making informalities commonplace, shortening things, taking away the incense. That never happened. If I have to choose between a calendar beef or that.....bring on the calendar...

Click to expand...

My priest uses incense during some special occasions during the year.
Which as we know, or should know - Christianity is the continuance of Judaism.
In Judaism, only once a year incense was used.
So this is NOT - and this is an important issue throughout all of this - this is not the important things of the Church. Practices do not make or break the Church. Outward signs do not make the Church. IT is the teachings.

Peter was given the Teacher position.

How can the East sustain teaching without the Teacher appointed by Christ??

NOW that issue is the primary concern or should be for ALL Churches.
Because Churches are here to teach - not show off bells or whistles.

Just as the Jews showed their faith ceremoniously and hypocritically through washing hands and worrying about Jesus doing a miracle on the Sabbath.

When it was Jesus who chastised them for ignoring the Laws of God yet worried about how they practiced the faith in symbolic terms.

Why, Because Jesus was concerned about the TEACHINGS.
As we all should be.

"strange and historically inaccurate" is all relative. The Orthodox would say the reverse is true. I don't recall the East changing the Creeds without asking the pope in the first millenium? When did that happen? But it happened in other places....

Click to expand...

The Creed is not the Church, or the foundation.

BUT for in case you think they are squeaky clean in the respect of the councils, epic fail on their part.

The council ALSO said Alexandria would be second after Rome, and without the Popes consent they made Constantinople second to Rome.

Ahhhhhhhh - so they did not keep the councils as they say.

As for petty squabbles, they haven't affected morality, theology, or holiness or, for that matter, unity. All the churches are united in the U.S. They just need realignment with the patriarchs. The immigration of the Orthodox is a long and tough story. The Russians in Alaska, for that matter, or the Russian immigrant who came here to escape the USSR, or the Serbs and other groups that came into different states over time for various reasons. Their patriarchs oversaw them and it is the discussion still doing on to put the U.S. Church under one patriarchate. The OCA is the most likely destination. But to oversimplify multiple patriarchs as some kind of crisis, big mistake.

Click to expand...

They didnt affect unity?

Really?

Then why did they cause the Church to split. To tear the seams of the cloth of Christ?

It was, i remind you, the East who walked away. The Pope sent his legates to excommunicate ONE Bishop. ONLY one. The Bishop of Constantinople.
Which the Pope had that right. Though he died before the legates got there - so it would be incumbent on the next Pope to carry out that decision.
However; the Bishop who instigated the break from the Church in the first place had previously scratched the Popes name off the diptychs and closed Roman Churches in the area.

WITHOUT provocation.

He then led the others to revolt - not from one man - no - indeed if he had it would have been a council including all to ascertain the POPE be removed, not remove themselves from the entire Western branch and their Teacher.

They walked away.

They didnt hold a council - because there was no purpose. There was nothing the standing Pope had done. The Bishop took the actions upon himself because the emperor was pushing this.

As for labeling the Orthodox as semi-pelagian or even worse, pelagian, that's intellectual dishonesty and downright wrong at worst, inaccurate at best. While I know that 99% of folks in this thread disagree with me (and I totally respect that!!!! and expect it) I wouldn't think many in here would buy that charge for a second?

Also, nobody is saying that the reason Catholicism could be wrong is due to the Novus Ordo alone. But I will agree that the Divine Liturgy is more inspiring!

As for polemics and anti-Catholic sentiments in Orthodox parish, that's very anecdotal and person on your part. I'm blown away that most Catholics I talk to don't even have the knowledge as to who the Orthodox are!!! Most Catholics in my area say they must be Jews or something? The priests I have talked with try to scare me away from Orthodoxy with those tried and true scare tactics of "Hey, they're too ethnic! Do you really want to hang out with a bunch of Rooskies!?" and "Oh man, they won't accept you in that Serb parish because you're Anglo!" and "they aren't part of Christ's one true Church" etc. Half the time you get the disrespectful, "what the heck is Orthodoxy? Oh yeah, those weird Russians with long beards and stuff?" So negative chit chat is all relative...

Click to expand...

Until they reunite, they do not have the teacher or headship established by Christ.
So how do you know - again - if you have the correct interpolation of the teachings?
Simply - you do not know, and if Christ's promise means anything to anyone - they would stand behind the one who literally holds the keys to Heaven.

But thats a choice each have to make.

I stay with the keys. And even in some writing - Chrysostom, he says all have keys - it was demonstrated to all of them that Peter holds them.
ANOTHER big indication who their teacher is.
For if someone has the keys - do we not go to them to unlock the door??
Certainly, no one can steal the keys Christ laid down on Peter. Impossible.

For the keys unlock. Christ did not trust them in the hands of the others, but for one to hold all.

Think about these things.

MKJ said:

I think this is to the point, except the bit about Rome.

In reality, the kind of people you are talking about didn't hae the ability to make decisions about that kind of thing much either. If they were Eastern they followed what the patriarch and local priest said, and after the schism period they were no longer in communion with Rome. Similarly most of the English after the English Reformation just kept on going to their own local parish and that was that. And those who lied in a parish or area that retained Catholic roots because of a Catholic local leader were more likely to remain Catholic. If the local churches were Cathar, that's what most people were.

In the end, almost everyone has always just gone along with whatever the local church was, be it EO, OO, CC, or something else. I mean, most people considered going to the next town a big trip, it isn't like there were options even apart from the information required to choose between them.

I agree that it is hard to imagine God expecting more from these people. I tend to think doing one's best to sort out with the information and options one has is probably all we can do, and there isn't much point in worrying about t beyond that. Either God is the sort of guy who will accept that, or he isn't, and if it is the latter than we are probably in trouble anyway.

Click to expand...

yeah most people just go along with whatever the majority is
but Jesus said that the road to salvation is a narrow road
St.Thomas More did not go along with the majority, and neither have many of the saints, many of the Saints have been martyered for refusing to follow the local leaders

Rhamiel said:

yeah most people just go along with whatever the majority is
but Jesus said that the road to salvation is a narrow road
St.Thomas More did not go along with the majority, and neither have many of the saints, many of the Saints have been martyered for refusing to follow the local leaders

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. St Thomas was an educated man, and one with some independance and power. Even knowing he was risking his own neck, he had some resources to leave his family. That is a very unusual situation historically.

Most people were not educated - they could not read, and in many cases they were not really even free. They were totally dependent on their local church for teaching, they were totally dependent on the lord they served and were expected to follow him in his religious decisions. Most of the time they were busy working, or starving, or both.

How some man who knew not even the basics of theology, who could not read, who couldn't speak Latin, who was old and toothless at 30, who was starving a good part of the time, was was supposed to work out the relative truth of, say, Catharism or the Lutherans vs the Catholic Church, or which really held any authority, is beyond me.

If you think God is holding people to that kind of standard, then I am very sorry.

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? Ephesians 4:4

...

6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. Matthew 12:30 He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; John 10:30 and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one. 1 John 5:7 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
.....


CHURCH FATHERS: Treatise 1 (Cyprian of Carthage)

He gives an equal power. Not that he says they are equal to Peter, but they get an equal power [amongst themselves] to forgive sins.
He states it is from the one - from the beginning - Peter - to which unity comes.
They all have honor and power - but he repeats it is from the one that unity comes.

Those NOT in [with the one] unity - do they know they are in the CHURCH?



CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Cyprian of Carthage

ST Cyprian.

WarriorAngel said:

Indeed, the first to protest. Now show me where they got the authority to do so.

Click to expand...

This comment is unfair, no? What were the Orthodox "protesting" exactly? They simply would not change the faith and the Creed that had already been canonically established. This is not the same at all as what gave rise to the Protestant reformation.

If you do want to play that game though, they got the authority from the Councils that demanded that the Creed could not be changed without another Council.

InnerPhyre said:

This comment is unfair, no? What were the Orthodox "protesting" exactly? They simply would not change the faith and the Creed that had already been canonically established. This is not the same at all as what gave rise to the Protestant reformation.

If you do want to play that game though, they got the authority from the Councils that demanded that the Creed could not be changed without another Council.

Click to expand...

They were protesting, on the side of the emperor who desired Constantinople be head. That the city was vastly more remarkable than Rome since they took much of the art work from Rome - donated to them of course - so they could built it up.

It was a political move.

The 'heresy' the Bishop claimed - would that not have been council worthy?
Why not?

reason; it was ironed out that it was not a disputation of the Creed's original teaching, which is the profession of faith, but rather the Western culture kept it.
It is not in fact heretical at all. WHICH is why the Bishop had no legs in it for a council to be held.

And the Filioque was around for 500 years prior to the current standing Pope of that time.

SO that Bishop had nothing to go on. How does a Bishop - excommunicate not a single person but an entire Church arm - and do so without provocation?

The only one who created the problem was the Bishop of Constantinople by lead of the emperor. And it had a LOT to do with power and prestige and nothing to do with teaching.

There was a lot of mistrust within the Church against the West - because of language barriers and cultural standing, but there was no purpose for a council. ..ergo no council was held.
IF they used the proper channels - held a council - they would still be unable to commit heresy against the West and they knew it, so that path was left undone.

AND if you demand that the council alone stands as the mark of truth, then you are forced to admit that the East erred in changing the voices of the council that said Alexandria was second to Rome.

AS we know, the East later tried to rescind that position with Constantinople. Taking the chair of a Patriarch - and placing to a Bishoprik of all things.
AND still tried to do so without Rome's approval, so it was never once ecumenical.. nor could it be anything but anathema - if anyone wishes to judge.

Furthermore; the Creed could not be changed from it's truth - which to suggest 'and the Son' or 'Through the Son' is heretical defies the Apostle John and Tradition...of the other findings of the Trinitarian truth.

The council clearly did not intend for the truth to be negated if it needed clarification and in the West it did.
And the Son - which was not an addition but a clarification - was necessary to counter heresy.

Unless anyone deny what Christ said that HE would send the Holy Spirit. And it is or should be common understanding that all three are One.