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.
K.,
Certainly one cannot arbitrarily change the creed, just as one cannot arbitrarily change the flag. But what law cites whether one can expand the Creed? What authority issued such a law, that such a law should be ecumenical, even over-riding the patriarchs? And your analogy of changing a star to black doesn’t hold, because there is a flasehood therein: that the other white stars represent white people. There is no falsehood in the filioque.
>> 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. <<
This presumes that there is no authority at all besides an ecumenical council; in one swoop, you invalidate not only the papacy, but also the Roman patriarchy.
I must disagree with your assertion that the doctrine of the trinity is corroded by the assertion that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not in the same manner from the Son. The Son is God *from* God, light *from* light, one in being with the Father, yet *begotten* by the Father. Each relation to the Holy Spirit is unique. If we acknowledge that the Son is begotten by the Father, and that the Father is not begotten by the Son, have we corroded the doctrine of the trinity?
In this manner, the New Advent encyclopedia isn’t wrong per se, but it fails to convey an expression which was not commonly formulated in its time.
I disagree with the Orthodox concern that somehow the Filioque Creed risks doctrinal confusion, because, as I wrote K, the creed plainly states that the Son is begotten of the Father.