Anglicans encouraged to drop Filioque

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Regarding the East - West cultural thing, I try to be international in outlook. Jesus was part of the Greek-Jewish world of the 1st century, and the Greek Orthodox, like Messianic Judaism, are to a major extent also part of that culture. So even though it can be a different culture, it can be more authentic Christianity.

Nonetheless, I do understand what you mean by cultural issues. Greeks in particular can be very culturo-centric at times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Anglicanism accepts the first four councils and it also accepts the prayer books.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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.
But it (Creed minus the filioque) certainly does not represent the faith of the whole church. It's not even the faith of most of it.

Beyond that, it is peculiar thinking, I noted, to say that you're the only one in the congregation praying it without the filioque...and then talk about wanting to be in step with the whole church.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
But it (Creed minus the filioque) certainly does not represent the faith of the whole church. It's not even the faith of most of it.

Beyond that, it is peculiar thinking, I noted, to say that you're the only one in the congregation praying it without the filioque...and then talk about wanting to be in step with the whole church.
A way to resolve the seeming contradiction is to propose that Philip is praying words that match mainstream Christian theology as actually intended, while the others in the congregation intend to say what, as a matter of linguistics, Philip is actually saying.

To give an analogy,
imagine that mainstream Christians, including Anglicans, believe that God incarnated, taking on flesh and a body. At this point, God has a body, and it would be incorrect to deny that God has a body.

Now imagine that a Christian sect such as the Anglicans made an assertion that God does not have a body. In making this assertion, the sect only intended to talk about God in his divinity as distinct from the incarnation, that is, the sect only intended to talk about God before and apart from the incarnation.

As a simple matter of grammar then it's wrong to assert simply that God does not have a body. This statement can only be true when it is qualified, eg. "God does not have a human body, apart from the incarnation".

Now imagine that someone like Philip comes along and fails to affirm the sect's declaration that "God does not have a body". His justification for this can be that his theology is in line with what mainstream Christianity as well as the sect's members actually intends to assert. As a matter of linguistics, the sect's assertion is incorrect, but as a matter of intent, the sect and its members are not in denial of the incarnation. Thus Philip would be in step with the whole church as far as its actual beliefs are concerned.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
A way to resolve the seeming contradiction is to propose that Philip is praying words that match mainstream Christian theology as actually intended, while the others in the congregation intend to say what, as a matter of linguistics, Philip is actually saying.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But it (Creed minus the filioque) certainly does not represent the faith of the whole church. It's not even the faith of most of it.
I accept that. My use is to indicate that the Oecumenical Council represented a meeting of the Church of the whole inhabited earth.

I am not sure about 'Creed minus filioque' because it reads as if it was dropped. I think I would prefer to say 'Creed without the filioque inserted'. I think that is a better representation of the truth of its history.

I don't think the argument of numbers adds anything. I think a more interesting discussion may be in understanding if the Cappadocian Fathers did or did-not embrace a theology of double procession, however that may be a different discussion.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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.
Not exactly, and if you take another look at that post I think you'll find that I merely mused that it seemed peculiar to be doing something with the idea of being in step with the rest of Christianity (whether or not that is true of the stances taken by the majority of Christian churches) while, at the same time being unconcerned that he's the only one out of step in his own congregation. Doesn't that seem just a bit ironic?

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?
Evangelical Anglican. But, as always, I have to advise people that this is more of a continuous spectrum rather than several sharply defined and separate camps.

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.
That's probably correct to say, but the 1,2,3 "answer" you cited here was not a description of what I believe but what is the more-or-less official Anglican belief, and I think I recall that that was what you were inquiring into in that earlier thread.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
That's probably correct to say, but the 1,2,3 "answer" you cited here was not a description of what I believe but what is the more-or-less official Anglican belief, and I think I recall that that was what you were inquiring into in that earlier thread.
The 1,2,3 answer is, as you've just stated, a description of what you believe to be "probably correct".

Whether it is the "more or less official Anglican belief" is in fact quite up to debate.
First,
many Anglican scholars like Bicknell teach the real presence in bread and interpret the Articles to teach the real presence in the bread.
Secondly, numerous Anglican scholars and Anglican theological conferences define "real presence" to mean a real presence directly present at the Eucharistic meal itself, namely in the bread, and they use this term in contrast to the other major position(s) in Anglicanism - Receptionism / Virtualism.
Third, many Churches in the Anglican Communion like the Episcopal Church USA have not taken an open, official position that the Articles are definitive of Anglican belief. Additionally to be an Anglican, ie a member of an Anglican Church, does not mean one subscribes to the Articles, as the Section Rules for the Anglican section of this forum state.

Before asserting that 1,2,3 are the "more or less official Anglican belief", it looks like one should address these three facts above.
 
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
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.


Albion can answer further for himself if I am incorrect.

I believe that Albion has said (on many occasions) that Jesus is not physically present in the the bread. He has never said (to my recollection) that the presence of Jesus is not direct, real and objective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Albion
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

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Is your point that various Anglican churches and organizations differ? There is no Anglican pope or Magisterium after all.

Your presentation of "Real Presence" is incomplete. Many believe (some Anglicans, Presbyterians and others) that Jesus is really present in the bread, is directly present in the bread, and objectively present in the bread. However, he is not physically present in the bread. Spiritual presence and physical presence are simply not the same interpretation of our faith.

And before you ask, I believe that Jesus is truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I hope you don't mind my asking why aren't you a part of one of the Orthodox churches?
On a lighter note, perhaps I do not have enough adjectives to be Orthodox!

aren't you in effect affirming that you disagree with your own tradition on one of the central dogmatic questions of Christianity?
I think I have to ask if I see this as a central dogmatic question? Probably not really. I am aware that there have been Orthodox Theologians who embrace something of Augustine (even though he did his theology in latin which may be part of the problem).

There are I think 3 P's surrounding the Filioque Debate.

Procedure. And I think that may earlier post outlined what we know and can be reasonably sure of about the procedure by which the Filioque was inserted into the Nicene Creed. Please note that there is a speculative side discussion on this that I alluded to rather than embraced in terms of how the Church in Iberia seems to have lost version control of the Nicene Creed.

Procession.
The average person in the pew does not get this at all. They simply glaze over, breath God and have everything in the mystery box and leave it alone. That is OK. Salvation does not depend on a detailed and correct understanding of the Procession. My feeling is that one of the reasons why the Cappadocians, who at times seem to go down the path towards double procession, and then pull back, may have to do with one of the trending heresies of the time, the pneumatimachi, who argues that the Holy Spirit was a creation of the Son, and therefore not God, but a created being.

Primacy.
The issue of primacy is undoubtedly bound to the discussion of the Filioque, simply because it raises the matter of how decisions should be made in the Church. The argument of the Orthodox, and indeed of the Anglicans, is that we find our model for Primacy in Acts Chapter 15 in the account of the Council called to discuss the matter of circumcision in light of the concerts in Antioch. James clearly exercises Primacy at that stage, and it is clearly a Primacy of concord and resolve, and he is there as 'first among equals'.​

The issue with a theology of double procession may have to do with the exact nature of the theology of double procession you are suggesting. For me the witness if Scripture is such that I can not dismiss it. John 20:22.

For me, I think that the embrace of a theology of double procession taken too far leads to more complex problems. In a sense because the Church understands itself to be the Body of Christ, and I think in many rites we affirm that around the Greeting of Peace, it has the possibility of think that 'we own the Spirit', rather than 'the Spirit of the Most High has overshadowed us' and can lead to statements like 'there is no salvation outside the Church'. I understand it is well intentioned, however it seems to me it lacks grace and humility. The Spirit of the Most High rustled in the forests of New Guinea long before the name of Jesus was heard in that land, and in the silence of the deserts of Australia the Spirit Breathed life, colour and soul, because the love of God was here long before the white man, and sadly when they did arrive many failed to see it.

Both Augustine and Aquinas, qualified their discussion of the Spirit proceeding from the Son, with the understanding the the Spirit always processes from the Father.

One of the things I like about the epiclesis is that this sense of procession is very clear.

Laudate Dominum, Omnes, Gentes, Alleluia!
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Your presentation of "Real Presence" is incomplete. Many believe (some Anglicans, Presbyterians and others) that Jesus is really present in the bread, is directly present in the bread, and objectively present in the bread. However, he is not physically present in the bread. Spiritual presence and physical presence are simply not the same interpretation of our faith.

And before you ask, I believe that Jesus is truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity.

I don't know what you mean that my definition of Real Presence in bread is incomplete.
Catholics, Lutherans, and Eastern Orthodox agree that Jesus' body has a real, objective presence in the physical bread on earth.
Catholics teach physical Transubstantiation, Lutherans teach that Jesus has a real spiritual presence directly in the physical bread, and Orthodox theologians and church fathers match either the RC or Lutheran teaching on this issue.

In contrast, the Anglican Cranmer and Calvin denied that Christ's body was directly or really in the Eucharist bread itself.
Cranmer asserted in his Disputations that the only thing directly on the Eucharist table itself and swallowed was bread, while Calvin in his Institutes asserted that we must not "affix" the body of Christ to bread in any way.

So while the Lutheran Book of Concord teaches that Jesus' body is "in with and under the forms of bread and wine", the Presbyterians' Westminster Confession asserts in contrast:

V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ;[10] albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
The Presbyterians concluded that since only the faithful receive Christ, therefore the unworthy do not eat Christ's body. The Lutherans in contrast asserted that since Christ was objectively in the bread, that communicants actually swallowed Christ's body whether they were worthy or not.

This is why I asserted in my last post that a real presence in bread means: Jesus' body has a real, objective presence in the physical bread on earth.
Whether you accept that this presence in the physical bread is physical (as RCs) or spiritual (as Lutherans), you still are accepting a real presence in bread.
 
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
This is why I asserted in my last post that a real presence in bread means: Jesus' body has a real, objective presence in the physical bread on earth.
Whether you accept that this presence in the physical bread is physical (as RCs) or spiritual (as Lutherans), you still are accepting a real presence in bread.

Thank you for the clarification. I believe that most Anglicans believe in the Real Presence in the bread.

BTW, do you think that 21st Century Anglicanism is equivalent to the teachings of Cranmer?

In any case, I think that we are nitpicking if we reject Calvinists because their view of Real Presence is insufficient. Calvinism has other, more serious errors (double predestination stands out).

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."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
There is no Anglican pope or Magisterium after all.

Aside from a number of Parish Priests who play Pope, with none to answer to save God alone.

In wake of the news this week from Canada I suspect the Archbishop of Canterbury, as he reached for the headache pills again, wondered if there was not something attractive about magisterium.
 
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
The 1,2,3 answer is, as you've just stated, a description of what you believe to be "probably correct".
I'm sorry to have you take the approach of misquoting me so soon in the discussion. I wrote that it's "probably correct" to say that I'm in the camp of Cranmer and other Anglicans who are often termed "Evangelical Anglicans."

And now that I read more carefully what you wrote in your 1,2,3 points, I see that I initially read through them too quickly and they are not correct at all. They represent, I believe, what you want to think is the Anglican view.

Anglicanism accepts the Real Presence. That presence is in the elements. The nature of that presence is, however, a heavenly and spiritual one, not a carnal one. And this is supported by the Articles of Religion but NOT ONLY by the Articles.

This has all been explained before so I hope we can now return to the topic of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I mention Cranmer because he represents one wing of Anglicanism even today. Albion's views on the Eucharist are a reflection of this.
Stop debating against Anglicanism as a visitor to the Anglican forum.

Almost the whole of what you've ascertained here about Cranmer and myself is that, if we have to make imprecise generalizations about it, the two of us probably are what is commonly referred to as Evangelical Anglicans. That's about it.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Stop debating against Anglicanism as a visitor to the Anglican forum.
Albion, I am not debating against Anglicanism by asserting this for the following reasons:

First, I didn't assert here that you or Cranmer were wrong.

Second, according to Anglican scholars whom I have cited before, there are two common views on the Eucharist bread within Anglicanism - as Memorialism and Transubstantiation are usually ruled out: One is the view of Pusey and the Oxford movement and the other is the view of Cranmer and Evangelical Anglicans. How else would you describe the difference between these two camps on the question?

Third, for me to discuss these two views within Anglicanism in a scholarly way is not a debate against Anglicanism, and anyway the Eastern Orthodox position includes one of the two views and therefore is not against Anglicans' views per se.
Anglicans themselves have many discussions on this question.

Fourth, Anglicans and Old Catholics themselves have lots of debates on this question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
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
Fourth, Anglicans and Old Catholics themselves have lots of debates on this question.

I understand your position, but it is NOT consistent with CF rules regarding fellowship boards. On fellowship boards, those who attend those churches are free to debate. Visitors are free to ask questions.

Anglicans and Old Catholics are encouraged to explore and disagree.
 
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

Mockingbird0

Mimus polyglottos
Feb 28, 2012
287
65
Between Broken Bow and Black Mesa
✟16,869.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0