Anglicans encouraged to drop Filioque

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We use the historic BCP and have no plans to change or eliminate the Creed, the Confession of Sins, the Absolution, the Comfortable Words, or to add a new rite.
The Creed of 351 before the filioque was added?
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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?
http://conciliaranglican.com/2011/07/15/ask-an-anglican-the-filioque/

For those in the Anglican Communion, the filioque has been optional for some time.
http://conciliaranglican.com/2011/07/15/ask-an-anglican-the-filioque/

Lambeth accepted the argument that the addition was made without approval of the Church as a whole, after the promos that no changes would be made.

Personally, I find it curious that so many Anglicans accept the Roman addition in this case, while opposing the other Roman additions.
 
Upvote 0

CanadianAnglican

Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic
May 20, 2014
432
104
Visit site
✟9,623.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
We use it at our BCP service because it was in the BCP. We don't use it in the BAS service because it was removed from the BAS in Canada per the 1978 agreement with the East. I'm not sure this new agreement will really do anything. Either national churches have already agreed to remove it or they haven't based on the agreement with the East. If they still want to keep it (for whatever reason) and the agreement with the Eastern Orthodox isn't compelling, I'm not sure why the same agreement with the same arguments with the Oriental Orthodox would be more compelling.

Personally I drop it from the Creed (do not say it) because it is Catholic, and am not fluent enough in theology to understand fully the orthodoxy of what it proclaims. I've heard Eastern Orthodox comments that it falls into error, etc, but it deals with the trinity and I pretty much just prefer to leave the trinity as a Divine Mystery because it's just a lot easier on the old noggin that way.

Just by way of mention, ACNA's new BCP (or maybe it's still for trial use) places it in parentheses and leaves it up to the discretion of the local parish (or maybe bishop) whether or not to use it.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We use it at our BCP service because it was in the BCP. We don't use it in the BAS service because it was removed from the BAS in Canada per the 1978 agreement with the East. I'm not sure this new agreement will really do anything. Either national churches have already agreed to remove it or they haven't based on the agreement with the East. If they still want to keep it (for whatever reason) and the agreement with the Eastern Orthodox isn't compelling, I'm not sure why the same agreement with the same arguments with the Oriental Orthodox would be more compelling.

Personally I drop it from the Creed (do not say it) because it is Catholic, and am not fluent enough in theology to understand fully the orthodoxy of what it proclaims. I've heard Eastern Orthodox comments that it falls into error, etc, but it deals with the trinity and I pretty much just prefer to leave the trinity as a Divine Mystery because it's just a lot easier on the old noggin that way.

Just by way of mention, ACNA's new BCP (or maybe it's still for trial use) places it in parentheses and leaves it up to the discretion of the local parish (or maybe bishop) whether or not to use it.
 
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

graceandpeace

Episcopalian
Sep 12, 2013
2,985
573
✟22,175.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The Episcopal Church resolved to remove the filoque from the creed in future prayer books in 1994

Ok, that does sound familiar, thanks.

I've thought for awhile that it would make sense to drop it. Parishes would need to make sure they educate the laity first.
 
Upvote 0

everbecoming2007

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2012
1,417
283
wherever I am at any given moment
✟70,470.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
We recite the filioque. Though a canon of the Nicene Council is often referenced against altering even a word of the creed a whole new paragraph on the Holy Spirit was subsequently added by an ecumenical council indicating that it is the substance of the doctrine that is of most importance. In fact, the Armenian Rite version of the creed has many additions none of which I would deem a change in doctrine, however. Google "Armenian Nicene Creed" if that interests you- it is an ancient variation. I seem to have read that such variations were not uncommon or controversial in the ancient church. Given that it seems unreasonable to me for such variations to divide churches.

While some Orthodox theologians do not actually condemn the doctrine behind the filioque I have not come across any who wouldn't require it to be dropped in the event of ecclesial reunion. Others condemn it as heretical and claim that while the Catholic Church today teaches the filioque is a procession from the Father through the Son, it at one time taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same way as the Father. Some even claim the West worships a different Trinity for this reason.

I believe the East probably varied in its reaction to the filioque before the schism as it does today. It was wrong for the West to impose the filioque on the East. But so far as I have been able to determine the Western Nicene churches still teach that the Father is the source of the whole Trinity and the filioque should be interpreted accordingly. I do not drop the phrase.

It would not offend me if my parish excised the filioque but it is useless as an ecumenical venture as some Orthodox have noted. For the purists the underlying doctrine must also be renounced and the filioque cannot ever be allowed as even an option in any liturgy. Otherwise we are just playing nice.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We recite the filioque. Though a canon of the Nicene Council is often referenced against altering even a word of the creed a whole new paragraph on the Holy Spirit was subsequently added by an ecumenical council indicating that it is the substance of the doctrine that is of most importance. In fact, the Armenian Rite version of the creed has many additions none of which I would deem a change in doctrine, however. Google "Armenian Nicene Creed" if that interests you- it is an ancient variation. I seem to have read that such variations were not uncommon or controversial in the ancient church. Given that it seems unreasonable to me for such variations to divide churches.

While some Orthodox theologians do not actually condemn the doctrine behind the filioque I have not come across any who wouldn't require it to be dropped in the event of ecclesial reunion. Others condemn it as heretical and claim that while the Catholic Church today teaches the filioque is a procession from the Father through the Son, it at one time taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same way as the Father. Some even claim the West worships a different Trinity for this reason.

I believe the East probably varied in its reaction to the filioque before the schism as it does today. It was wrong for the West to impose the filioque on the East. But so far as I have been able to determine the Western Nicene churches still teach that the Father is the source of the whole Trinity and the filioque should be interpreted accordingly. I do not drop the phrase.

It would not offend me if my parish excised the filioque but it is useless as an ecumenical venture as some Orthodox have noted. For the purists the underlying doctrine must also be renounced and the filioque cannot ever be allowed as even an option in any liturgy. Otherwise we are just playing nice.

Given that the filioque was added, imposed on the East, and has no reason for being there, I see nothing wrong with playing nice, as you put it.
 
Upvote 0

everbecoming2007

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2012
1,417
283
wherever I am at any given moment
✟70,470.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I've read different things on that. It may have begun appearing in the West to combat certain teachings as did the variations of the Armenian version of the creed and other ancient variations.
My point here is that such variations to the creed are not ubique to the West. There are at least a couple of Eastern variations, one other appearing in the Chaldean rite.

I did acknowledge it was wrong to impose the filioque on the East. That doesn't necessarily mean we should abolish it anymore than we would Western liturgical customs that were once forced on Easteners,
 
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

Rachel96

Active Member
May 23, 2013
127
72
Australia
✟18,466.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I... am reasonably certain I normally say it (I'm running through in my head right now to work it out and I honestly don't know). I don't have a problem with the filioque, though. Actually, I'd rather have it, because if "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son", then they're in a trinity, the three of them, when he (it?) comes. If "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father", then I wonder what happened to the Son and why there are only two aspects to the Trinity.

I agree we shouldn't force the East to say it, but I'd rather have it. They don't say "Lord, have mercy", either, as I understand it, just "Christ, have mercy" three times. Perhaps we should drop that, too.
 
Upvote 0

Rachel96

Active Member
May 23, 2013
127
72
Australia
✟18,466.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Do you have a problem saying Christ was "incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," rather than saying, "incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Father of the Virgin Mary," or some similar alteration?

To be honest, I hadn't really paid much attention to and/or thought much about the filioque until I read this thread. I'll have to give that one some thought...

It's not really the same thing, though, based on my argument that each aspect of the Trinity could act on its own (eg, proceed from somewhere, or incarnate something of someone) but that there are still three of them from which the one part is coming. Now I'm just confusing myself. Someone let me know if I'm being heretical.
 
Upvote 0

CanadianAnglican

Evangelical charismatic Anglican Catholic
May 20, 2014
432
104
Visit site
✟9,623.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Here are my own thoughts, so far as I've looked into it.

From Scripture it is very clear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (St Jn 14. 26 & 15. 26), but there are arguments to be made that the Holy Spirit may also proceed from the Son (see again St Jn 15. 26a "I will send...") as well. The Roman Catholic Church has also argued that because all that is the Father's is also the Son's (St Jn 16. 15), then the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is the Father's, is also the Son's.

I've also heard some arguments about how in some of the Epistles it refers to Christ's spirit effectively, but I think that's immaterial to the question of procession of the Spirit. That's trinitarian, but procession is not.

Ultimately the summation there is that the Holy Spirit definitely proceeds from the Father, but also might proceed from the Son. In my view it's also something that's not necessarily answerable. So then what situations arise out of this with respect to the use/non-use of the filoque? If the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and you omit it, you are correct. If you include it, you are incorrect. If the Holy Spirit indeed does proceed from both the Father and the Son and you omit it your position is true but incomplete and if you include it, you are correct.

That said, when the Nicene Creed was established, it was accepted, East and West, without the filioque. The addition of the filioque has never been received by the whole Church, even though its creation predates the great schism. By what authority was it added? Can a bishop change the ecumenical creeds? Can the Roman Catholic Church change it? Can the Episcopal Church of the United States? Can the Anglican Communion as a whole?

I would argue that none of those bodies have the authority to alter the creeds from what has been universally received. They have the authority to establish peculiar/particular creeds of their own, but they certainly wouldn't carry the same authority as the Nicene Creed.

The second point alone about the authority is my main reason for omitting the creed, though I find, given the uncertainty, that being partly right is better than being partly wrong.
 
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

Shane R

Priest
Supporter
Jan 18, 2012
2,276
1,097
Southeast Ohio
✟536,041.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
It's really a question of whether "proceeds" references the Holy Spirit in essence/substance or in energies. Do to the creed's tone and context of referring to the essence/substance of the Son, I think the creed is making a parallel declaration for the Spirit. In such a context, the filioque is indeed error and erroneous. I have not said it for a long while.

But, if the creed could reasonably be argued to refer to the Spirit in his energies, the filioque might be justifiable. However, why would the creed discuss the essence of Christ and the energies of the Spirit? It is an illogical transition.
 
Upvote 0