Anglicans encouraged to drop Filioque

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Unfortunately since decisions were taken by Anglicans to drop or make optional the filioque, the very delightful prospect of Anglican-Orthodox reconciliation has become less likely due to other more substantial divergences. The Continuing Anglicans are still very much in a place where reconciliation is a theoretical possibility, but I fear some might prove disinterested in this based on an attachment to the 1928 American BCP, which is a very excellent service book, the basis of some Western Rite Orthodox service books, but the filioque poses a problem.

On this point however reconciliation might well be possible if the filioque can be understood as referring to the sending of the Spirit as opposed to the triadological origination thereof. This approach is the one taken by many Orthodox described by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware as "doves" on the issue.

As an aside, I am suprised more low church groups in the US do not use the 1892 BCP, which has less Anglo Catholic influence than the 1928, and is much closer to the 1662 BCP.

I should also mention I myself am somewhat of a BCP enthusiast, an enthusiast of liturgy in general; the BCP is particularly interesting however. My favourite edition is the 1928 Deposited Book, which unfortunately never received parliamentary approval.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rakovsky
Upvote 0

Padres1969

Episcopalian
Nov 28, 2015
403
181
San Diego
✟28,176.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Still recite the Filioque at my parish. And frankly I hope we will continue to do so. I don't think it's a huge difference with or without, but it is a minor theological change that I don't personally agree with. Though that could be almost 2 decades of Catholic programming speaking.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
As an aside, I am suprised more low church groups in the US do not use the 1892 BCP, which has less Anglo Catholic influence than the 1928, and is much closer to the 1662 BCP.
It's a subject that surfaces from time to time, but the 1928 book is still published and available for purchase. I don't think that the 1892 book is.
 
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
It's a subject that surfaces from time to time, but the 1928 book is still published and available for purchase. I don't think that the 1892 book is.

Fair enough, although print on demand makes this less relevant than it once was. So if you really wanted 1892, you could have it, with relatively little expense.

By the way, there was one version of the 1928 BCP that can only be described as a typographic masterpiece. One of the most elegant works of design I have seen.
 
Upvote 0

Feuerbach

Continuing Anglican
Sep 14, 2015
121
55
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Visit site
✟8,072.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
http://www.anglicannews.org/news/20...raged-to-drop-filioque-from-nicene-creed.aspx

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?

Like Albion, we use the historic BCP so the filioque will be a part of that for the foreseeable future, though were there ever to be serious conversations between the Orthodox and continuing Anglicans, dropping it wouldn't bother me one bit.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

CanadianAnglican

Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic
May 20, 2014
432
104
Visit site
✟9,623.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shane R
Upvote 0

Padres1969

Episcopalian
Nov 28, 2015
403
181
San Diego
✟28,176.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
Probably because it was used for well over a millennium by the western churches, including the Anglicans. And many would still include it as they do believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from both God the Father and Christ. Question I'd have for anyone in the ACNA, does your church still say it verbally as part of your services or is it omitted because it's in the parenthesis?
 
Upvote 0

CanadianAnglican

Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic
May 20, 2014
432
104
Visit site
✟9,623.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I don't say it at all. It's still in the '62 prayer book (ACoC) but was completely removed in the Book of Alternative Services. I think with ACNA it's optional. I've never attended the local ACNA parish so I have no idea what their practice is. My understanding is that it's optional (hence the parentheses), and varies from parish to parish.

That said, I do know that although the Nicene Creed was fixed to reflect the West's lack of authority in adding to the Nicene Creed, there are still plenty of Anglicans who believe double-procession is theologically valid, and its teaching is still permissible, you simply can't require it as an article of faith.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have done a bit of work on the area of the Filioque Clause, and I felt that I should clarify a few issues in the discussion, with no disrespect intended.

The issue is about The Nicene Creed.

In 321 the Holy Fathers gathered in assembly in Nicaea at the behest of the Emperor, Constantine, in order to settle the Arian Dispute. The creed of that council formulated to specifically address that question and included anathemas.

Some years later Constantine in the last year of his life baptised by Eusebius, an Arian Bishop.

Between the Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople, the Cappadocian Fathers did a lot of theological work on the Creed, Trinitarian Belief, and the role of the Spirit. Their work, together with the Creed of the Council of Nicaea formed the basis of the great work of the 1st Council of Constantinople, The Nicene Creed.

In 381 the Holy Fathers gathered in assembly in Constantinople. The Creed of this Council is now referred to as the Nicene Creed, and it is the Nicene Creed we say today, except that in much of the western church the Filioque has been inserted.

Following the Council of Constantinople, Ambrose of Milan wrote to the Pope arguing for the Apostles Creed. It may well be that Ambrose maintained a good relationship with the Arians, although he himself was clearly and upholder of the Catholic Faith. The Creed Ambrose promoted, is generally accepted as the baptismal symbol in the West, whereas in the East the only Creed is the Creed of the Councils.

In 435 the Council of Ephesus was called. Following an outbreak of the Nestorianism, who had developed their own version of the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus condemned the Nestorian position. It was the Council of Ephesus that pronounced anathemas on those who added to, or took away from, the Nicene Creed.

In 451 the Council of Chalcedon met to discuss heresies surrounding the nature of the relationship between the divinity and the humanity of Christ. This led to what is called the Chalcedonian Definition. This Council affirmed the Nicene Creed and the anathemas of Ephesus.

Arianism had continued to spread and in the mid-6th century much of Iberia (Spain Portugal and parts of Gaul) was Arian. In the wake of a number of events, Reccared the King, renounced Arianism and embraced the Holy Catholic Faith. In 587 at the Third Council of Toledo Reccared formerly renounced Arianism and embraced the Catholic Faith. This was strategically important and improved the Roman influence, and diminished Byzantine influence in the Western region of the Empire. There are suggestions that this was the Council that inserted the Filioque Clause to the Creed. The record of the Council, which is now accessible on-line shows this to not be the case. Link is below, the text is in Latin. What this Council did do, however, was require that the Nicene Creed be sung on Sundays and Holy Days. It is possible (maybe even likely) that following this the Church in Iberia may have lost version control of the Nicene Creed. There are a number of variations around Iberia following this.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

680 and the Synod of Hatfield is sometimes suggested as the introduction of the Filioque into England. The Venerable Bede is sometimes cited as the authority for this conclusion, however this is based on the Toledo argument. Without Toledo, and with Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, having his background in the East, and no real evidence in Bede or The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I have concluded it probably did not happen at Hatfield.

Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short, thought the Byzantines had dropped the Filioque from the creed. The logical conclusion of this is that by the md 700’s the Filioque was being said in Gaul. The Synod of Frankfurt in 794 required the Filioque to be inserted in the Nicene Creed. The reason given was to combat an outbreak of the heresy ‘Spanish Adoptionism’ which is a distortion of Paul’s kenotic Christology. Some part of this must be seen in the light of Charlemagne’s determination to differentiate and dominate the Byzantines.

In 796 at the Synod of Friuli, again under the auspices of Charlemagne the position of the Nicene Creed in the liturgy was moved from the traditional position before the Sursum Corda to the western position, after the Gospel.

In 809 following a local Council in Aix la Chappelle (near Paris) Charlemagne sent emissaries to ask the Pope to allow the insertion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. The mind of the Pope on this was clear, and indeed he ordered the Nicene Creed be inscribed on two silver shield (one in Latin one in Greek) and hung beside the tomb of Peter. This is without the Filioque. The French continued to include the Filioque.

Following a fairly secular period in the Papacy saw the rise of the Tusculan Popes. In 1014 the Papal States were under great territorial pressure from the Saracen in the South and the Normans in the North, and Benedict sought the assistance of Henry II (Germany) to free the Papal States, and when he crowned Henry Holy Roman Emperor (and generally thought to be at Henry’s request) The Nicene Creed was part of the liturgy including the Filioque for the first time in Rome.

The East objected and a discussion ensued concerning the Pope’s authority to add something to the Creed of the Councils. In 1054 Pope Leo excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Celarius however before it was delivered to the Patriarch in Hagia Sophia, Leo died. When the Patriarch received it he excommunicated, the now dead, Leo (though the Patriarch was unaware of the Pope’s physical condition). The great Schism had come to pass.

Twelve years later in 1066 the Norman’s, at the Popes authority and carrying Papal Banners, invaded England. Following the conquest William deposed the English Bishops and replaced them with Norman and Italian Bishops, and the Bishop of Salisbury was asked to draw up a new Sarum rite in keeping with the Latin rite used in Rome. We do know that from that time the Filioque was part of the English liturgical environment. I have now evidence it was used in England in any widespread way before that.

At the time of the Separation of the English Church, (perhaps more like an Ecclesiastical Brexit than a Reformation) and the rendering of the liturgy in the vulgar tongue (English), practice seems universally to have included the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. It should be remembered that 1549 was developed from the existing rites, but in English, perhaps less elaborate in ritual, and a notable balance between the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Sacrament.

Since the rise of the Oxford movement, and a growing appreciation of the Eastern Orthodox position/s, there has been a growing whisper about that perhaps the Filioque Clause should not be in the creed. On three occasions the Lambeth Fathers have met and called upon member Churches to give serious consideration to dropping it as they revise their liturgies. This has had a lukewarm response generally, however to the mood to drop it I believe is growing. Several documents from the Communion, especially in dialogue with the East, suggest dropping the Filioque. I suspect that part of the reason for the lukewarm response is that significant change to the Nicene Creed in Common Worship (the new e-rite resource) though there is an option to omit it, it is a bit hard to find.

This link is a search of the Anglican Communion documents referencing the Filioque clause.

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/DocLibSearchResults.aspx

This is the link to alternatives to the Creed, including the Nicene Creed without the Filioque.

https://www.churchofengland.org/pra...ter,-collects-and-other-resources/creeds.aspx

Hopefully these will help people who want to search further.

It should be noted that it is quite reasonable to embrace a theology of double procession and not include the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. The two are separate issues. To my mind, one of the problems is that the meaning of the word ‘and’ has shifted slightly, and for some it may have taken their theology with it.

It is quite clear that the Holy Spirit originates in and proceeds from the Father always. It is also clear that there are clear examples where it is makes sense to speak of Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, such as where he breathed on them and said ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. What we should be reluctant to say is that the Holy Spirit always proceeds from the Son, and such an understanding makes hard reading of the annunciation and the Baptism of Jesus. In a sense this may be about a distinction between point of departure, and point of origin.

Both Augustine and Aquinas are quite clear on this point. And only one of them used the Filioque.

For Myself.

I no longer say the Filioque, and I have got quite used to taking a breath after Father as the Creed rolls along. My reasons for this are,
  • It is the faith of the Whole Church
  • It is the faith of the Councils
  • The Lambeth Fathers on three occasions have encouraged me in this
  • I don’t like how it got to be there.
  • I do not think it is the right way to express double procession
  • On this point I think the Eastern Orthodox are correct
  • Having read and prayed about it my inner conviction is to omit it.
  • It adds little value and takes away much unity.
I have many friends who say it, and I am not aware of anybody else in the congregation I attend who does not say it. There are people in the congregation who are aware that I do not say it, however nobody asks why, they just accept it. I have discussed it with my Parish Priest, and she seemed to feel it was of little consequence.

I have discussed it with a number of friends (mainly in orders), and have been surprised to discover that a number of them also never say it themselves, though they happily run off liturgies that include it. A couple of them have taken the approach of including it in the liturgy in italics.

At one stage I thought not saying it was radical, I now see it as conservative.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I no longer say the Filioque, and I have got quite used to taking a breath after Father as the Creed rolls along. My reasons for this are,
  • It is the faith of the Whole Church
I have many friends who say it, and I am not aware of anybody else in the congregation I attend who does not say it. .
I wonder if I'm the only one who sees a glaring contradiction in this line of thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feuerbach
Upvote 0

Feuerbach

Continuing Anglican
Sep 14, 2015
121
55
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Visit site
✟8,072.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Philip,

Thank you for your thorough explanation of how you came to your views. I hope you don't mind my asking why aren't you a part of one of the Orthodox churches? Since the Creed, as it exists in the traditional Prayer Book (I do not know about the current alternative liturgies in Australia) includes the filioque and one of the defining characteristics of being an Anglican is praying according to the Prayer Book, aren't you in effect affirming that you disagree with your own tradition on one of the central dogmatic questions of Christianity? Dropping it as part of an ecumenical liturgy and/or as part of some Anglican-Orthodox merger (this is obviously an unlikely hypothetical) is one thing, but it seems to me that trying to slice it out of Anglicanism like it's not a serious issue is quite another [I also couldn't help but call to mind that the Articles of Religion (which I note you did not mention) not only affirm double procession (Article V), but that Church councils are not 100% authoritative or accurate (Articles 19 & 21).].
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Philip,

Thank you for your thorough explanation of how you came to your views. I hope you don't mind my asking why aren't you a part of one of the Orthodox churches?

You speak as if one chooses which church to attend and join based on the use of an outdated phrase by much of the West.

The Orthodox were right then, and are right now. However, this issue is not why folks choose churches. I also used the Orthodox translation when saying the Our Father. Clearly, God is to protect us from the Evil One, not from evil (a truly terrible translation)/

The Anglican Communion has long allowed the use and the non-use of the offending words. It is included in prayer books as it is part of the Anglican tradition. However, as was noted above, Anglicans consider this issue of little import.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You speak as if one chooses which church to attend and join based on the use of an outdated phrase by much of the West.
I think, from reading the posts, that's it's more the case that Feuerbach is saying "If that is a big-time concern of yours, then the most logical way to approach it might be...."
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I think, from reading the posts, that's it's more the case that Feuerbach is saying "If that is a big-time concern of yours, then the most logical way to approach it might be...."

I understand. I simply strongly disagree with that position. The reality is that there are many, many substantive differences between 21st Century Anglicanism and 21st Century Orthodoxy than how often we say a couple of extra words in the Creed. As the priest was cited above, it is of little import. As Phillip, I don't say the offending words. I haven't for years. And yes, I think that what the RCC did in adding the words was strongly objectionable.

The bottom line is that whether a particular parish frowns on our skipping the phrase is really not very important.

As yes, if Anglicanism was all about the details of prayer books from the 16th Century, I guess the issue might be deemed more importent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I understand. I simply strongly disagree with that position. The reality is that there are many, many substantive differences between 21st Century Anglicanism and 21st Century Orthodoxy
This filioque controversy doesn't seem the place to plant the flag and make anyone's last stand, however. And there's nothing wrong with staying with the faith of our fathers, with the historic Anglican use, even as we acknowledge that the Orthodox have a different POV about this matter.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
This filioque controversy doesn't seem the place to plant the flag and make anyone's last stand, however. And there's nothing wrong with staying with the faith of our fathers, with the historic Anglican use, even as we acknowledge that the Orthodox have a different POV about this matter.

Agreed
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I wonder if I'm the only one who sees a glaring contradiction in this line of thought.
When he says it is the faith of the whole church what he may mean is that what the church actually believes is in accordance with the original version, not the filioque. The church - East and West - both actually belief that the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit is the father, not the son, as for example the holy spirit descended onto the Son at Epiphany.

Philip has done extensive research on this question. And even though people may say the filioque, Philip's contention is that their actual theology is really in line with the original wording of the Creed, which lacked the filioque.

It is a case of "Look at what I mean, not what I say". Mainstream Christians mean that the Holy Spirit's origin comes from the Father, and that after its formation the Spirit descended onto the Son.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I wonder if I'm the only one who sees a glaring contradiction in this line of thought.
Yes. I do.

It is common practice in Anglican Churches around here to introduce the Nicene Creed with the words 'Let us profess the faith of the Church'. As such I can not find a better point at which I can find the Church in a formal creed sense expressing the faith of the Church than the Oecumenical Councils - Constantinople 1, Ephesus, Chalcedon. Since 1054 it has not been possible to achieve that.

Perhaps my point in acknowledging I have friends all over the shop on this, is about me underlining the fact that I do not think it is the main agenda.

Thank you for your thorough explanation of how you came to your views. I hope you don't mind my asking why aren't you a part of one of the Orthodox churches?
That is a good question. A friend of mine, some 40 years ago, who was probably the first person to alert me to the idea that the Filioque was a later insertion, and at that stage I thought he was probably wrong. He had a great affinity to many things Orthodox, and ultimately joined an Orthodox Church (Greek). They loved him for not being Greek, and they swamped him with all things Greek, and ultimately when we all thought he was happy and Greek, we discovered he was having a huge struggle with the cultural disconnection from his roots and forebears. He ultimately returned to Anglicanism. He has now died in the arms of that part of the Church that raised him in faith.

Anglicanism is sometimes seen as a strange community of faith, in that we have Bishops, and require people to make their own decisions. It is an elastic band, and the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer are part of our rich inheritance and guide, however much of our requirement of our members is that with Scripture, Tradition and Reason, they work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

I believe that ultimately the Anglican Church will drop the Filioque, and probably the Latin church will as well. As an Anglican I believe I am free not to say it, as that is what my informed conscience has dictated. So ultimately, despite the huge love and respect I have for the Orthodox in general, I recognise that culturally I am not Eastern, and rather than pretend to be, the loving response is to be authentically Anglican, not say the Filioque, not make a big fuss about it, and ensure that I have done things decently and in order. I hope in the midst of that you will understand both the gist and the ghist of what I am saying.
As yes, if Anglicanism was all about the details of prayer books from the 16th Century, I guess the issue might be deemed more important.
Mark, thank you for your support, I am encouraged and feel you have understood what I was trying to say.

adoramus te dominie
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Philip,

Thank you for your thorough explanation of how you came to your views. I hope you don't mind my asking why aren't you a part of one of the Orthodox churches? Since the Creed, as it exists in the traditional Prayer Book (I do not know about the current alternative liturgies in Australia) includes the filioque and one of the defining characteristics of being an Anglican is praying according to the Prayer Book, aren't you in effect affirming that you disagree with your own tradition on one of the central dogmatic questions of Christianity? Dropping it as part of an ecumenical liturgy and/or as part of some Anglican-Orthodox merger (this is obviously an unlikely hypothetical) is one thing, but it seems to me that trying to slice it out of Anglicanism like it's not a serious issue is quite another [I also couldn't help but call to mind that the Articles of Religion (which I note you did not mention) not only affirm double procession (Article V), but that Church councils are not 100% authoritative or accurate (Articles 19 & 21).].
The prayer book went through major revisions. Some versions of the Prayer Book were intended to deny the real presence in the bread, while others were edited to be open to the possibility of the real presence in the bread. If one lived through the time of those revisions, if one had a correct and consistent position, one might not always be praying according to the prayer book.

And then you have to ask whether the prayer book is infallible?
Anglicanism accepts the first four councils and it also accepts the prayer books. But the prayer books and the councils might not always match each other and according to Anglicanism, neither is infallible.

It sounds like what Philip is doing is going by the early councils on this major issue, not by the Anglican prayer books, which have changed over the centuries (and after all have only been affirmed by a minor part of Christianity, unlike the Four Councils).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0