True or not, that could in theory make Philip feel better about things, but I don't see any evidence that he's uncomfortable with his choice of version as he recites it at present.
Dear Albion,
Your previous point was that Philip's belief that his silence during the filioque phrase was inconsistent with his belief that he was in agreement with the Christian Church as a whole. In my last message, I suggested a way that Philip's beliefs on the question could be consistent with the Christian Church, including Anglicans' beliefs.
In your reply above, you begin "True or not... but..." It sounds like you are making a kind of rebuttal or downplaying the importance of what I just said.
In his message below,
Philip appeared to me to reply by describing Anglicanism in terms of the
39 Articles of Religion:
If you want me to be candid and frank about this point. The 39 acknowledge the Councils and three creeds. The Prayer Books of the times then seem to have been marginally inconsistent with this position by including the Filioque. In truth I think that was because that was not on the radar at the time, it was simply an 'Ecclesiatical Brexit' rather than a European Reformation. I suspect that had Cranmer, Parker, and others looked at what we look at today they may have been more consistent with the 39 on this point. I should also point out that 1549 and 1552 and Elizabethan Prayer book all predate the 39.
This reminds me of a previous discussion that you and I had,
Albion.
Previously I had always thought that Anglicanism taught like Lutheranism does that Christ's body is directly present in the Eucharist bread itself. Last year however you surprised me by arguing that in fact
(1) Anglicanism does not teach a direct, real, objective presence in the bread itself
(2) That the "Real Presence" only means that Jesus in heaven is "really present" in relation to believers during the Eucharist ritual, not that Jesus' body has a real, objective presence in the physical bread on earth.
(3) That 1. and 2. above were the teachings of Anglicanism because they are in the 39 Articles of Religion.
I know that within Anglicanism there are various trends and groups, like Evangelical Anglicans, the Oxford Movement, Anglo-Catholics, Low and High Anglicans, etc. Philip mentioned to me that he used to be an Evangelical Anglican. Can you please tell me which branch, if any, of Anglicanism you most identify with?
It sounds to me like you would be in line with the Anglicanism of Cranmer, NT Wright, and/or of Evangelical Anglicanism, based on your positions (1, 2, 3) above.