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.
There is nothing to expand. The Creed deals with the origins of the Holy Trinity. There is also nothing to stop the Church from teaching those who are not undergoing catechisis the difference between the origin of divinity (the monarchy of the Father) and the Divine Economy of our salvation, in which the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father through the Son.
Catechism and Creed are two different things. You can expand all you want as an expansion, but not change the Creed.
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
It does not invalidate the papacy. It is latter-day Roman Catholicism that completely invalidates the council authority. In the Undivided Church of the first millennium, the pope was an integral part of the councils but not the sole or even the final authority. The 'authority" of the pope to proclaim dogma without a council is a Vatican I aberration.
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.
Well, apparently it does.