It is true, you have accused me of being a liar everytime I bring it up. But based on all the information available, I have to bring it up. The Bible was not Canonized at Nicea, the Canon of Scripture was not even a topic of conversation at Nicea, that is a common liberal misconception of Nicea.
What info? It is bad.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Scripture#The_Canon_of_Scripture
The problem with the NT, I think, is that since there aren't any surviving records of the cannon explicitly written down in any form, people infer there was no cannon. But among Bishops there was an agreement of which books were valid and invalid, and it must have been written somewhere. By the time of the First Council it was already agreed upon, yet there seem to be no surviving written lists of the NT until St. Athanasius, which he learned from his Bishop who had been at the First Council, so we can infer the cannon was already long accepted at that point.
As for the OT, it was always the Septuagint.
You should watch the Cyril Lucaris video I shared. It seems that the Synod is understood to be seen as an Ecumenical Council by the higher-ups. I never said it was a Council, all I've said is I've never been able to find the modern Orthodox Canon of Scripture anywhere else than in that Synod.
Understood by whom? People who've never spoken to or read anything from Orthodox Bishops? Which Orthodox sources do you quote regarding our own Synods?
If I want to understand Martin Luther, I quote Luther directly. I don't quote some guy claiming to represent Luther, right? Likewise you need Orthodox sources to understand Orthodox writings, synods, etc.
The Filioque in itself is a Biblical doctrine. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit. That's why the Church Fathers believed in it.
This is the real reason for the Schism.
Yes, the assertion of the Pope over all was the real deal breaker, but the Filioque is only a minor heresy in comparison. On the heretic scale, I think it only gets a 2 or 3 out of 10. That's why it was tolerated for centuries. Not even close as something like Arianism, Nestorianism, or many other heresies which were hell-worthy.
The Filioque is a difficult subject due to translation issues, I believe, as the words "proceed" and "send" meant very different things in Ancient Hebrew. This is why tradition is important. It's clear from reading the Early Councils of the Church that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but also comes through the Son.
Thus, because of this inherent difficulty in understanding a complex theological subject, I believe it was a quite forgivable heresy and not something schism worthy. Clergy could agree to disagree, but when there was an insistence on changing the Creed directly with no council, it was intolerable.
Had there been a Council on the subject, the Filioque would have been defeated, but many Western Churches would have continued to profess their belief in it, and yet no schism would have occurred as long as the Creed remained unchanged. People's private beliefs would have been in conflict but it would not have resulted in excommunications, which is observed since St. Augustine.
There is room for healthy disagreement in Christ's Church as long as common tenants of Liturgy are observed.
