Taking issue with the opinion that the Holy Spirit is the love between Father and Son is as absurd as one taking issue with Catholicism over limbo. Of course it happens occasionally but it shouldn't. Neither idea is dogmatic and binding.
I would never claim that there is no such thing as a legitimate opinion. Some opinions are legitimate and some aren't.
The historical case of the immaculate conception illustrates both: at one point in time (e.g. Aquinas' day) it was legitimate to believe in it or to not believe in it. But it is also clear that nowadays the IC is not a matter of opinion; that is to say, believing that Mary was not immaculately conceived is not an acceptable opinion nowadays.
That's not what I was claiming. I was claiming that as long as it still retains the status of "opinion" and not "dogma" it is not binding upon the entire Church. Your failure to recognize this indicates ignorance of Catholic teaching.
Yes, Wyatt, you have a point, and one we as Orthodox often forget.1. The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.
Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.2. Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.
Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena-opinion. Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus
Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived. Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.
I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way. I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith. In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not. They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.
I think I have written about this here previously? Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.
There actually is a great gulf between our Churches on this matter. The certainty of our faith is grounded in our Tradition,. The certainty of the Roman Catholic faith is grounded in magisterial statements. In other words, the faith is effectively taken out of the hands of the Church as a whole. The faithful are disenfranchised and the faith is posited in the hands of a small elite group known as the "Magisterium." I frankly would not wish to be in communion with a Church which has this disjunct between its upper echelon and the great majority of its members.