It is interesting that you say that an article which most likely comes under the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church has no merit. As I recall, the article had the ecclesiastical approval of the bishop and as you know the teachings of a bishop come under the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church and these teachings do have merit for a faithful Catholic.
“The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son.”
“The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church.”
I agree with you that the term “double procession” is thoroughly misleading. The Councils themselves EXPLICITLY reject procession from two sources. I won’t even seek to justify that error from the Catholic Encyclopedia (though Latins might attempt to do so by saying that it is understandable “with explanation”). That is why I felt it was disingenuous of you to compare the authority of the Councils (which are infallible) to the authority of the Encylopedia.
As regards the
imprimatur, brother Aramis has sufficiently explained to you the matter, but it seems that is not sufficient for you. Perhaps the following further explanation may help.
First of all, if you want to get a gauge of the authority that determined the appropriateness of the contents for the Faithful, then you don’t look at the
imprimatur, but rather the
nihil obstat. Many times, the two are granted by the same authority. Other times it is not. Though the
imprimatur of the Catholic Encyclopedia was granted by a bishop, the
nihil obstat was not.
Perhaps a history of the matter may be appropriate. In the ancient past, the
nihil obstat and
imprimatur was under the direct purview of the Pope. Later it came under the purview of a papal commission. Much later (IIRC, around the time of the Council of Trent) the local bishop gained purview over the matter. Even later (at the turn of the 19th-2oth century), the matter was turned over to specially appointed local episcopal commissions. It is rare for a bishop to have a direct hand (much less the Pope) in the granting of the
nihil obstat and
imprimatur.
So in many cases, not even the ordinary magisterium is involved in determining the doctrinal appropriateness of the contents of a book to be published - ONLY the permission for it to be printed is granted by the local ordinary. Even then, as stated, the permission is granted by the episcopal commission in the name of the local ordinary, not the ordinary
in personam.
When all is considered, the publishing of a book does not fall under the direct purview of the ordinary magisterium, much less the extraordinary magisterium. Only books that are explicitly intended for catechetical purposes would have the direct purview of the ordinary magisterium (or should). Merely informative books such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, or a history book on the Church, etc. do not.
Blessings,
Marduk
.