Thanks PJ, that's the kind of discussion I was going for. I'm not anti-Roman (no more than I am anti-Eastern or Orientalist ... though I admit to being a former Orientophile, or maybe Reformed Orientophile?
.) I do have a broad view towards reunion of the churches, and as to the origins of us Western Orthodox tend to feel very close to both the Old Catholic and Anglo-Catholic traditions (which is why I am protective of the Anglican Use against those who don't understand, though Anglican Use Catholic liturgy isn't quite my 'cup of tea'.)
Can you provide a link or elaborate concerning the "original Greek text of the Athanasian Creed"?
Yes - the Athanasian creed exists in many Greek and Slavonic manuscripts, though it eventually fell out of use - the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed replacing it in liturgical use due to application of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. The original version found in the Greek and Russian Horologion is that found in The "Saint Dunstan's Plainsong Psalter" of Lancelot Andrewes Press (co-developed by Western rite Orthodox and Continuing Anglicans.) In that version of the Quicunque vult
the original phrasing is translated into English as "The Holy Ghost is of the Father: neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding." The surviving Latin texts (which are all later) have the filioque inserted before "neither made nor created." Which is why I don't agree with those who consider the Athanasian creed as 'local', it is in fact universal in the Church - and is a Greek creed originally (and it was a source, I believe, for the development of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.) Now - I'll agree that the Apostle's Creed is a local creed (Roman), as is the Patrician creed (Irish) as well as other local creeds.
As for the other two things, I would say the Catholic Church is considering doing precisely what you are suggesting -- see the recommendations of the NA joint consultation. (BTW, I don't think "the Holy Spirit proceeding from two sources" is a fair description of Catholic theology in any case.)
Yes. However, I'm unsure how the USCCB's statement on the filioque from the joint consultation is being taken worldwide in the Catholic Church. I do agree that "procession from two sources" is not the Catholic theology: though, education being what it is in the modern Roman Catholic Church, there are plenty of clergy and laity who still hold to that idea. (Same way I agree that most Oriental Non-Chalcedonians are absolutely not Monophysites - but I've come across clergy and laity specifically in the Ethiopian church who will insist that they are.) I think the Orthodox do need to understand this difficulty in educating people.
...then I wouldn't see any need to condemn Patriarch Photius. (Although I wouldn't mind being educated a little more about the specific anathema you're referring to -- what did it say, and when?)
The condemnation is in the RCC's 8th Council which reads in part: "... as well as for the expulsion and condemnation of Photius, the upstart and usurper, should be maintained and observed together with the canons there set forth, unchanged and unaltered, and no bishop, priest or deacon or anyone from the ranks of the clergy should dare to overturn or reject any of these things." (From the Legion of Mary website.)
That I would hope to be officially overturned (as was the excommunication of Constantinople back in the 1960s), and St. Photius added to the universal calendar (to share in common with Eastern Catholics as well as Orthodox.) I don't believe St. Photius is just some 'local Eastern hero', but a universal Saint.
Concerning the various canons you mention from Lateran II and Lateran IV, it seems clear to me that not all of those things are still in force (which is a relief to me, since I have many times attended a liturgy celebrated by a married Melkite priest). Hence your complaints are reasonable, but just a couple centuries late.
Yes - but I'm looking for canons to be ratified which officially overturn those canons.
Merely allowing it to Byzantine Catholics or Anglican Use convert clergy by Indult isn't enough of a guarantee. (And, for the Melkites - they only have it again because the recent trend has been to encourage them to follow the Pedalion and Byzantine typikon.) The Lateran canons are still in full force as regards the clergy of the West - again, which us Western Orthodox, Old Catholics, and many Anglo-Catholics disagree with (and agree with the East rather.)
However, I don't see any need for the west to practice paedocommunion or paedoconfirmation, seeing as it isn't their tradition. If anything, Orthodox and ECs should instead be complaining about the fact the Latin Church currently gives communion to children who have not yet been chrismated/confirmed -- contrary to the traditional order, baptism-confirmation-eucharist.
Well, it is our Western tradition - but it was supressed (though part of it was also because at one point in history our response to having few bishops with large territories was different than the East's response to the same issue - the East allows priest's to confirm by anointing with the chrism and laying on of hands as the Bishop's vicar.) The end of paedocommunion in the Roman church was cointerminus with the communing of the laity with only one of the species (the Body of Christ, and not the Blood of Christ.) The disingenous answer to the latter was to condemn them for the supposed 'implication' that they were only getting 'part of Christ' (which wasn't the point.) Communing in one kind was the departure from tradition, and the return to communing in both kinds a return to tradition (which I must applaud.)
As regards paedocommunion - the Twent-First session of the Council of Trent in Canon IV says : "-If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema." That 'years of discretion' item is a bit odd - allowing adults to deny children the sacrament of communion arbitrarily (for their age? for their lack of reason? I know plenty of unreasonable or unintelligent folk - some adults worse than my own children, who still commune of necessity.) That is exactly what I refer to.
I do agree that the abuse of giving communion to children who have not been confirmed/chrismated should be addressed: but I firmly believe the best step is to institute what we Western Orthodox do... chrismation given at the baptism, as it was anciently in the West, and where the bishop is not available the priest to do so as the vicar of the Bishop. (Which I think is another think that Rome needs to discuss further in council, Vatican II partly doing that work - more discussion on what is the ministry of the bishop.) If the local bishop commands it, or allows it of his clergy, and it is not contrary to the Apostolic tradition - I don't see why it should present a problem.
My words about Calvinism - I was probably unclear on that point. There does need to be a more strenuous condemnation on certain heresies of the Protestants, and from my perspective the canons of Trent on those same issues approach Jansenism or Calvinism to a certain degree. (Of course, much of it might not be in the texts of Trent itself, but in how I read it - as there is much in the ethos of American and Irish Catholicism - and English Catholicism, which seems to still reflect Jansenism. Things might be, and are probably different among Hispanic, Italian, French, Spanish or other Catholics.) In that way, I believe that the Orthodox churches preserved the Apostolic tradition concerning such things as Justification, Original Sin, and Predestination. I'm not suggesting the extreme of the 'Orthodox is totally different' crowd that tries to make an exotic quasi-Buddhist counter-cultural religion out of Orthodoxy - I am suggesting that in the Counter-Reformation, the attempt to separate from the Protestants unintentionally tainted Roman theology as expressed in the council (ie, becoming the enemy.) Again - I don't say that as an attack, but as a fellow Westerner who am just as concerned about the damage done by the Reformation - and would undo it as much as possible, while also repenting of the errors of the Medieval church (nominalism, collaboration with the State in oppression, over-definition of the Faith to the point of error, etc.)