You insist on the validity of men's opinions from 1,000 years ago, yet you complain the article from 1909 is too old to be trusted.
Apparently New Advent thinks it can be trusted and thinks it's still Catholic dogma -- which it is, and rightly so.
All your attempts at watering down your distinctions with Rome do not include this subject. You and Rome stand at odds as you have for centuries.
And regardless of your discomfort with this obvious difference with Rome (with whom, gasp, Protestants agree), it's even more disturbing that your belief contradicts God's word. As New Advent correctly reminds us from Scripture...
"Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; John 16:7; John 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26)."
We have honest and fraternal disagreements on some theological issues of shared beliefs.
LOL. Well, which is it? Is Filioque an "honest disagreement" or a "shared belief?"
Because it sure looks like you want it both ways.
I do find this fascinating, however, especially when MarkBSnr writes in post 853: "Most of us Romanists will side with the Orthodox in terms of the Filioque. It is not an issue."
New Advent begs to differ.
I would very much like other Roman Catholics' opinions on Filioque. Does the Holy Ghost proceed from both God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son, as Catholics and Protestants have believed for nearly two centuries?
Or are the Orthodox correct in believing the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Son?
Because again, NEW ADVENT on Filiogue denounces the Orthodox error.
That should read 20 centuries.
Yes, recommendations are that, but they are recommendations made by a joint commission of Orthodox and Catholic bishops, backed by both Churches.
Are you suggesting that Catholic bishops are openly promoting what the Church (according to you) considers heresy?
New Advent, contrary to the way you present here, intentionally or not, is not the official mouth piece of the Catholic Church. It is no more official than Wikipedia.
Catholic dogma affirms Filioque. Period
Yes it does, and the Council of Lyons (1274) condemns those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.”
This condemnatuion is entirely based on the Latin meaning of the word to proceed which is fundamentally different from the Greek term used in the Symbol of Faith of 381 AD.
If you had read the whole Conference I linked you would have understood, but since you choose ignorance of the subject you can continue making erroneous conclusions.
The linguistic divide between the East and the West was complete by the 5th century. By the 8th century, not even the Latin bishops knew enough Greek to be able to read it comprehensively.
Historical facts point to the growing division between the East and the West due to the fact that Latin is not equivalent to Greek. St. Augustine made serious theological erros by incorrectly translating from Greek. The Filioque is a serious misunderstanding based on the linguistic constraints of Latin vis a vis Greek.
The Greek word translated as "proceeds" has an "ek" (equivalent to English "ex"), which unmistakeably means from, an origin. The Latin words procedere has no intrinsic origin in its meaning.
The Creed, as it was originally devised specifically and unambiguously establishes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as the origin, as the Father is not only the source of all thing, but of the divinity as well.
The Orthodox Church does not, and never did, deny that the Holy Spirit goes from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Father, or that both the Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (which, in the words of Christ Himself, proceeds from [ekporeuetai] the Father [cf John 15:26—which you choose to ignore, conveniently]) on the Divine Economy of our salvation, but not eternally.
The eternal procession of the Spirit has to do with His own existence and that is only from the Father, lest there be a double origin; as regard His existence, in the word of +Gregory Palamas, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church teaches the very same thing—one origin. This is what has been taught from the beginning and this is what the Church teaches to this day.
Well, which is it? Is Filioque an "honest disagreement" or a "shared belief?"
It's both.
Does the Holy Ghost proceed from both God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son...
In the Divine Economy of our salvation (in finite time), from both. But, as far as the origin of His existence is concerned, the HS eternally proceeds from the Father.
... as Catholics and Protestants have believed for nearly [20] centuries?
The Protestants were not around for 20 centuries. The Latins officially professed the same "erroneous" Creed as the Greeks, without the filioque, for the first 11 centuries. That's what made communion between the Greeks and Latins possible, that's what made it One Church.
New Advent begs to differ
Apparently the Catholic Church does not abide by the New Advent, Dr. E. If it did, then the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome would be in "error" (heresy) for omitting the Filioque, as they do, and couldn't be in communion with Rome!
Because again, NEW ADVENT on Filiogue denounces the Orthodox error
How can the absence of the Filioque in the original Symbol be an "error" when it was never there to begin with?
ON NEW ADVENT:
I don’t even remember what this thread is about anymore, but I’ll wade in to straighten this mess out about one of the most annoying web quirks around: New Advent
>> Apparently New Advent thinks it can be trusted and thinks it’s still Catholic dogma — which it is, and rightly so. <<
No, New Advent think it can get a lot of content on line for next to zero cost. So who’s New Advent? Just a layman named Kevin Knight.
New Advent was largely a LAYMAN’S encyclopedia, written based on what was available to those layman. It wasn’t a work of great scholarship; it wasn’t apologetic; it wasn’t authoritative. The relevance of it being old is simply because it indicates how limited the information going into it was. In the 1909 America, there simply wasn’t a lot of Catholic scholarship. There was no internet, and frankly, they didn’t even have a lot of great works translated into English from Latin, Aramaic, or whatever else.
It’s what is on-line because of copyright laws: it’s the public domain so an amateurish web author got it up cheap. It’s not on-line because of its excellence. And you get what you pay for. It’s useful: it’s got a great library of documents that’s much more accessible than the Vatican web site’s.
ON THE LARGER ISSUE:
Without reading through the whole post to make sure of the context, it seems like New advent’s assertion that the filioque represents Catholic doctrine is quite very sound; it IS part of the “Profession of Faith.” It seems to me much of the medieval controversy over it was that it seemed to signify Western influence. Is the filioque infallibly declared? No. But not everything that may be in error might be in error. Most doctrines aren’t infallible only because they’ve never been challenged.
Frankly, the filioque issue is about the only one where I have trouble respecting the (sectarian) Orthodox view. To anathematize the West because it holds something to be true would seem to require it being demonstrated to be false. And while the Orthodox make a great argument that it wasn’t demonstrated to be true, their seems to be utter silence on demonstrating it to be false, misleading, or something like that.
I put “sectarian” in parentheses, because I mean to refer only to those Orthodox who treat Photius’ excommunication of the West as if it were infallible. I understand that the Greeks recognize a potential way of using the original Greek word in a way that the Latin words cannot be used, but which might pose some theological troubles. The Latin church has responded with, “yes, but you do realize that’s not what we mean when we say that, don’t you?” I think some sort of accompanying clarification of what is meant should resolve everything, and a mutual recognition that the Latins aren’t heretics for stating what they state, but that the Greeks have good cause to not to do so.