I think I tried to make this point earlier in the discussion. The evidence in Bede is that either he, or the Council of Hatfield in 680 supported a theology of Double Procession. The anathemas of Ephesus I suspect dissuaded them from any attempt to change the Nicene Creed.The doctrine of the filioque has always been a part of English Christianity. Bede, HE 4.17. But I deem it unlikely that the filioque phrase was in the Nicene Creed as it was recited in the earliest English churches. So there is no contradiction between holding the doctrine on the one hand, and translating the Greek text of the creed accurately on the other.
The Church I belong to has been encouraged by the Lambeth Fathers on three occasions to consider the change. I hope that we do. I don't think it will fix anything, but at least it would show an openness to fix things.My church isn't going to change it, so I think of the matter as a minor academic one, with emphasis upon minor.
To answer your question, the reason that I mentioned Cranmer was because as I understand it he represents a wing of Anglicanism today, as. Albion wrote earlier in this section that he generally shares Cranmer's views on the Eucharist.BTW, do you think that 21st Century Anglicanism is equivalent to the teachings of Cranmer?
Would you be able to find any Anglican commentaries on the verse 1 Cor 11:29:In any case, I think that we are nitpicking if we reject Calvinists because their view of Real Presence is insufficient.
In your quote above, Calvin asserts that the bread is a symbol and that the body symbolized is also present. But in the passage, do you find Calvin asserting that this presence is in the bread? For example, Calvin asserts that you partake of Jesus, but do you read this as Calvin asserting that this particular kind of partaking means by mouth?Calvin explained his view of the Eucharist in his Institutes:
"The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us."
. "For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us."Dear Mark,
To answer your question, the reason that I mentioned Cranmer was because as I understand it he represents a wing of Anglicanism today, as. Albion wrote earlier in this section that he generally shares Cranmer's views on the Eucharist.
Would you be able to find any Anglican commentaries on the verse 1 Cor 11:29:
"For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."
I was unable to.
In your quote above, Calvin asserts that the bread is a symbol and that the body symbolized is also present. But in the passage, do you find Calvin asserting that this presence is in the bread? For example, Calvin asserts that you partake of Jesus, but do you read this as Calvin asserting that this particular kind of partaking means by mouth?
Hello, Mark!. "For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us."
You can choose to be believe that Calvin did not really mean it when he said "that the BODY ITSELF is given to us." After all, amy think that Jesus was kidding in the Book of John when he said that we were to chew his body.
19. The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way...; and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor assigns to him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth.
Calvin... invokes reason in his polemic against both the Lutherans and the Romans. (p. 55)
[Calvin wrote:]"A doctrine carrying many absurdities with it is not true. The doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ is involved in many absurdities; therefore it follows that it is not true..." (pp.207-208)
"There is nothing more incredible than that things severed and removed from one another by the whole space between heaven and earth should not only be connected across such a great distance..."
http://www.godrules.net/library/calvin/142calvin_b12.htm[The Lutheran Westphal] accumulates all the passages in which the bread of the sacred Supper is called the body of Christ. Any one endued with moderate judgment will not only laugh at the silly garrulity of the man, but also feel indignant that such a show is made out of nothing. ... The only question is, Whether he means that the bread is his body properly and without figure, or whether he transfers the name of the tiling signified to the symbol?
...
The fiction which the [Lutheran] men of Bremen obtrude for the genuine sense, viz., This is my body which is broken for you or distributed in the bread, is nothing better than a brutish profanation, which will I hope excite the disgust; of all the godly against them and their error, which they cannot defend without perverting every thing.
Anglicans encouraged to drop filioque from Nicene Creed
Thoughts?
I usually recite the Filioque but occasionally drop it. TEC approved an update to the BOCP, I wonder if the phrase will be dropped?
What about your church?
ACNA's liturgical resources place it in parentheses and admit that it is basically a historical relic of Roman Catholic influence, even though it was never accepted in any of the ecumenical councils (which would be the only authority that could legitimately change the creed). I'm not sure why it wasn't just done away with entirely.
John 15:26, "But when the Helper comes, whom I WILL SEND to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who PROCEEDS from the Father, he will bear witness about me."
Also, is changing the Nicene Creed really going to make the Orthodox Churches happy all of a sudden?
However, they acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church's who by the way will never drop the Filioque.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.
John 15:26
‘When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
John 20:22
When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.
The truth is scripture is as supportive of the western position as it is of the Eastern Position. One of the problems with the filioque is that it inelegantly expresses a theology of double procession which leaves it open to a range of heterodox interpretations. To suggest that John 15:26 is the end of the discussion because it is scriptural is a weak argument. I am certain you would not want to use the same logic with Psalm 137:9, in support of infanticide.
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!
The Orthodox are not noted for the embracing of novelty, and indeed it is anathema to them. I for one do not suggest that discontinuing the insertion of the filioque will make the Orthodox love us, though I am certain that they have more respect for us than you suggest. I do however suggest that the logic should be that we should express the faith in the words agreed to and support by three oecumenical councils.
I am not so certain about this, to quote Monte Python, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, and it is clear that more than one Pope when saying to Nicene Creed with the Oecumenicasl Patriarch have omitted the Filioque. Times are a changing.
And are any of these theologians eastern theologians?A google search will immediately show that many other theologians also consider 15:26 as a proof text.
The Filioque does open a discussion about procession. One of the problems it presents is that it does not answer it. Both Augustine and Aquinas argued for double procession, clarifying their position that where the Spirit might be said to have proceeded from the Son, in the first instance the Spirit has proceeded from the Father, and even in cases where it appeared to be contemporaneous (as if a single procession) in the first instance the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Many who assert the filique are not so fine on this theological point.I don’t think including the filioque is going to lead to a heterodox belief. Makes no sense to me. I think the exact opposite. Excluding “and the Son” is more likely to do that; which could lead to interpreting the Son as somehow subordinate or not co-equal to the Father.
Whilst I may not quite express it in these terms I do understand that Holy Scripture is the bedrock of the tradition, and we call it the canon for it is the measure of the tradition. The movement of the Spirit in Genesis 1, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Baptism narratives point to a procession of the Spirit from the Father. I previously referred to John 14:26 which also expresses procession from the Father, and in one breath I have acknowledged John 15:26 where an understanding of double procession is more clearly expressed.They at least both hold Holy Scripture as Supreme.
And are any of these theologians eastern theologians?
The Filioque does open a discussion about procession. One of the problems it presents is that it does not answer it. Both Augustine and Aquinas argued for double procession, clarifying their position that where the Spirit might be said to have proceeded from the Son, in the first instance the Spirit has proceeded from the Father, and even in cases where it appeared to be contemporaneous (as if a single procession) in the first instance the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Many who assert the filique are not so fine on this theological point.
Whilst I may not quite express it in these terms I do understand that Holy Scripture is the bedrock of the tradition, and we call it the canon for it is the measure of the tradition. The movement of the Spirit in Genesis 1, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Baptism narratives point to a procession of the Spirit from the Father. I previously referred to John 14:26 which also expresses procession from the Father, and in one breath I have acknowledged John 15:26 where an understanding of double procession is more clearly expressed.
It is a principle of Anglican theology that one not expound one part of scripture in a manner that is repugnant to another. That I believe is the nature of the position taken by both Aquinas and Augustine.
The history of the Filioque is a little mirky. It make an appearance in the Carolingian period where the Popes expressed a view that it should not be used, and Charlmagne HRE batted on using it as a mark of distinction from the Byzantines. Ultimately there was a lot more politics than piety involved, and ultimately when it was used in Rome on the 14th of February 1014, it was used as a rod to assert the universal sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome.
In short, and without criticism, I vary from you view that the filioque is scriptural.
I have been clear about procession. In that sense I believe the Filioque can be accepted as true, though a particularly inelegant and unnecessarily ambiguous expression of it. As such I can simply just get my head around Article 5.I grant that you make some very good points. Yes, the filioque was added in a very aggressive non-ecumenical way. And it makes perfect sense to officially recognize (in solidarity), that it was added in a way it should not have been. A sincere apology should be sent to them. They should in turn forgive; but not insist. A Creed is not an authoritative statement of Christian belief.
What if, "We believe in God the Father Almighty" was never part of the Creed because the council was mainly concerned with Christ's deity. Very possibly someone could have added that later on also.
In the same 39 Articles that you quote where we are instructed to not expound any one piece of scripture we also have Article 5 of the 39 Articles. You have to throw out Article 5. The founders of the Anglican Church believe scripture taught the filioque as did many of the Apostolic Fathers.
Jesus Christ fully took on human flesh. In that historical moment, it makes sense to state that the text indicates that the Holy Spirit descended from the Father. Yes, I've read that argument. But immediately thought how shortsighted it is. God is the Alpha and Omega. The Creed should speak to that; not one moment in time and space.
I'm very evangelical and hold to a high standard of scripture. Personally, I wish that Anglicanism was more concerned with building ecumenical relationships with Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and than Roman Catholic/Orthodox (in that order). Most protestants agree with Rome regarding the filioque, but it has not helped build ecumenical relationships.
In this particular debate, I really think that the Roman Catholic Church's theology makes the most sense. These links will take you to multiple texts since you insist that John 15:26 was expounded too much.
How can we use Scripture to show the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?
Filioque
Some suggest that it means that the Spirit always proceeds from the Son which I would struggle to accept, as the Baptism narratives would then be about a self authentication which is clearly not the point.
When the RCC Mass is said in Greek the creed does not include the Filioque as they believe that in Greek it carries a sense of origin which would be a contradiction with the patristic section of the Creed.
That of course is one of the Easts problems with it. They reject absolutely the stance of the pneumatomaci as do I.At the same time, I guess I don't fully understand. The trinity is always was and is. God hovering over the water as a spirit, does not deny that the Son was still not present. I don't understand why the "sense of origin matters" since God always was.
I had no intent of suggesting that was your position, however the Filioque has the possibility of being so embraced. That is why I have suggested it is an inelegant expression of double procession.Never heard of pneumatomaci before. Apparently, Wikipedia said it was a heresy in the 4th century. You compared what I wrote to a 4th century heresy, which is a postion compatible with western evangelical theology or a complete mischaracterization of what I wrote.
Once again, I think the Catholic Church explains this very well.
"Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation."
That is exactly what I DID NOT write. Nothing with what you quoted comes close to saying that the Holy Ghost derives it's "origin" from the Son alone. Never wrote that, nor mean that. The Holy Spirit, proceeds from the Father and the Son. Three persons, one being.
"As to Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Christ (Rom., viii, 9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matt., x, 20) and the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, 11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22; Acts, ii, 33; Tit., iii, 6), just as the Father sends the Son (Rom., viii, 3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John, xiv, 26)."
Filioque