James hopefully the last Council held on this issue will clarify things:
[b:6uc7ciyj]Council of Florence (1439). [/b:6uc7ciyj]
[i:6uc7ciyj]”The Latins state that by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they do not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor do they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or two spirations. Rather they assert that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted up to now” (cf. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna 1973, p. 526).[/i:6uc7ciyj]
Let me know if this helps.
It would if the catechism quoted above didn’t say the exact opposite. Your quote appears to be stating the Orthodox position, albeit in rather woolly sounding language. I admit that it may sound perfectly precise to you but, being unfamiliar with Roman Catholic phraseology, it seems less than explicit to me. I suspect, despite my mild confusion, that this quote would be an acceptable position for us, so long as the offending words were removed from the Creed (which does talk of eternal origins and not anything else).
The problem I have is that the catechism quote states very clearly and explicitly the exact doctrine that we consider heretical. Now, this may be the fault of the writers rather than the teaching of the RCC, but one of your quotes is clearly wrong unless the RCC teaches contradicting dogma, which even I can’t believe. I’ve seen RC laiety slug it out over the meaning of the filioque, some holding to the one view and some to the other and I’ve never seen either side come up with the definitive position of your Church. I’m sure that this is down to you having badly catechised lay folk (we have the exact same problem, though usually on lesser issues than this one), but the obvious way to fix this would be for your Church to come out, reject the filioque in the Creed and explain clearly what the acceptable filioque doctrine is. This would have the double advantage of bringing our two churches much closer to reunion and healing some serious doctrinal issues within your own church. I agree that the original addition of the filioque was an honest attempt to combat heresy and that there is nothing wrong with that intention, but I see nothing but bad fruits in the adoption of that doctrine, the worst of which is the current nearly 1000 year schism. The sooner you lose the interpolation, the sooner you’ll find the schism heals.