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.
I think if you read my responses to Dr. E you will find some of the reasons the Greeks cannot agree to the use of the filioque.
The Symbol (Creed) expresses the eternal attributes of God; it does not address the roles of the Divine Hypistases in real time in the Divine Economy of our salvation, but deals with the eternal origins of both the Son and the Spirit.
The Catholic Church teaches the same thing no matter whether we speak of the Latin or Greek side, namely that ther is one but one, eternal origin, God the Father, for both the Son and the Spirit.
The Latin meaning of the word procedere is not limited to the oriign but also includes the temporal hypostatic economy of the Spirit, potenytially leading some to teach double origin (as apparently the reformed seem to be doing).
The issue with the Symnbol is also canonical. And by that I mean legal. We cannot arbitrarily add a black star to the American Flag to signify that the nation was built by non-whites, for example, a statement that is intrisically true but also wrong because thew white stars do not represent white people.
Yet we can all appreciate the fact that such an idea may be appealing to some. Such a change, even if it were supported in some parts of the country, cannot be made without the Congress and without the President approving it. It would require a constitutional amendement to do so.
No such constitutional amendment was done by the ecclesial congress (ecumenical council) that would have made Filioque a valid addition to the Creed (and for a good theological reason it was never contemplated). You can argue that, after the Schism, the west enacted such a change in what they called "ecumenical" councils but reason should tell you that this will never hold water.
We cannot be in interocmmunion as long as our porfession of faith is different, even by one word, as the American Symbol of the Nation is not official if it has one black star in it no matter how much it may make sense.
If we allow such a change without proper authoirty (Congress, President), then anyone wold be free to add whatever color they choose to any number of stars, or change the number of stripes on the Flag, etc.
That does not mean that such a change symbolizes some truth; it simply means that the change is unauthorized.
Apparently now much of the push for ecumenicism rests on the words "from" and "through," as if they meant the same thing, when of course, they do not.
If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son, then that is tantamount to saying the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and the Son is simply a conduit which ultimately erodes the Trinity.
Which as Rome has rightly pointed out, contradicts Scripture and many church fathers...
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost" -- John 20:22"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." -- John 16:7
"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]). Augustine "If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]). "[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term 'principally' because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29). "Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]). Cyril of Alexandria "Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]). Council of Toledo "We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible...The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447])."The Athanasian Creed