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?
KOSTA: It's both.
lol. In a nutshell.