The Filioque

[Albion]

The issue being debated has basically been settled, hasn't it? I mean, no one knows of an Anglican church which has switched officially from the filioque. Some few have allowed for a non-filioque option, but that's not the same thing.

 

[PaladinValer]

The issue being debated has basically been settled, hasn't it? I mean, no one knows of an Anglican church which has switched officially from the filioque. Some few have allowed for a non-filioque option, but that's not the same thing.

Trends do have meaning, however.

For there to be a shift in such a matter usually says something, particularly when it comes to such an absolutely fundamental aspect of the Christian religion.

 

[Albion]

Trends do have meaning, however.

Well, if so, this is one heck of a slow moving trend.

 

[PaladinValer]

Well, if so, this is one heck of a slow moving trend.

Slow? In just, lets say, 40 years, we have gone from non consideration to liturgies.

That's FAST.

 

[Albion]

Slow? In just, lets say, 40 years, we have gone from non consideration to liturgies.

That's FAST.

What you mean to say is that we've gone from little consideration to an option--not an official change of profession--that is offered in a only a very few churches.

That's SLOW. In fact, it's not even a trend.

 

[PaladinValer]

What you mean to say is that we've gone from little consideration to an option--not an official change of profession--that is offered in a only a very few churches.

That's SLOW. In fact, it's not even a trend.

Very few? Option in at least one whole province.

And in ~40 years after...how many HUNDREDS without any options?

The Ents would be horrified.

 

[ebia]

Very few? Option in at least one whole province.

And in ~40 years after...how many HUNDREDS without any options?

The trouble is it's not enough data to show anything very much with confidence. It could be the rapid start to a trend, or it could be a temporary local aboration, or something in between.

It's a change that's only likely to appeal in places that are conservative and liturgically oriented enough to care about the detail of creeds, progressive enough to be prepared to change their practice, and associate enough with the Eastern Orthodox tradition to want to adopt their practice. I'm not sure the latter is particularly common outside TEC.

 

[Albion]

Very few? Option in at least one whole province.

My point exactly. There are about 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion plus about 40 million Anglicans in churches which are independent of the Anglican Communion. You make the point that "one whole province" has the option--not a mandate, but just the option--of omitting the filioque. And that particular "one whole province" has about 1.5% of the world's Anglicans!

Could it be any more evident that "very few" is an accurate way of putting this, even if you might have omitted a couple of other Anglican provinces where it is currently an option? I don't think so. Most of us recognize 1-2% of anything as being a pretty small percentage!

 

[ContraMundum]

Trends do have meaning, however.

In orthodox theology, it is rare that they have lasting meaning.

For there to be a shift in such a matter usually says something, particularly when it comes to such an absolutely fundamental aspect of the Christian religion.

I don't think so- to me, it just looks more Anglicans seeking validation from other Christians. They know that they have blown all chances with reconciliation with Rome, so now they look to the East. This whole process of theology is based on appeasement, not a love for the truth. "Hey- we're nice guys too....we think that the filioque is uncanonical...so if we change, does that mean you will recognise our women priests and modernist ethics?"

Nah..bah, humbug.

 

[0-2Continuum]

In orthodox theology, it is rare that they have lasting meaning.



I don't think so- to me, it just looks more Anglicans seeking validation from other Christians. They know that they have blown all chances with reconciliation with Rome, so now they look to the East. This whole process of theology is based on appeasement, not a love for the truth. "Hey- we're nice guys too....we think that the filioque is uncanonical...so if we change, does that mean you will recognise our women priests and modernist ethics?"

Nah..bah, humbug.

An interesting point. One worth thinking about.

It may just be my experience, but a lot of Episcopalians in my circle have a growing fascination with Eastern Orthodoxy. They see something there that is intriguing and will adopt a notion, practice, belief from the East. That is fine by me, but there seems to be an unwillingness to engage with the whole depth that is the Eastern Orthodox tradition(s). Frankly, I hope that this fascination is a long-lasting engagement with a vibrant body of Christians and not a fad.

 

[Albion]

I don't think so- to me, it just looks more Anglicans seeking validation from other Christians. They know that they have blown all chances with reconciliation with Rome, so now they look to the East. This whole process of theology is based on appeasement, not a love for the truth. "Hey- we're nice guys too....we think that the filioque is uncanonical...so if we change, does that mean you will recognise our women priests and modernist ethics?"

Nah..bah, humbug.

I'd tend to agree. Somewhat. Anglicans have periodically flirted with Eastern Orthodoxy, but Orthodoxy has never taken much interest in Anglicanism, despite various clubs and associations that have been set up, from time to time, to talk about unity, etc. In the current circumstances, the liberal Anglican churches such as TEC are--as you said--seeking approval from some credible, traditionalist, other body of churches as a way of mending its own damaged reputation.

At the same time, TEC and the Anglican Communion still like to think of Anglicanism as that "bridge" church which will be the agent for the ultimate reunification of all Christians. They have had their oars in that water for some time (COCU, ELCA intercommunion, proposals offered the Methodists in the UK, Bonn agreement with the Old Caths, etc.).

 

[Timothy]

I'd tend to agree. Somewhat. Anglicans have periodically flirted with Eastern Orthodoxy, but Orthodoxy has never taken much interest in Anglicanism, despite various clubs and associations that have been set up, from time to time, to talk about unity, etc. In the current circumstances, the liberal Anglican churches such as TEC are--as you said--seeking approval from some credible, traditionalist, other body of churches as a way of mending its own damaged reputation.

Yes. The reason the diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf generally doesn't use the Filioque is due to the fact that it /is/ an Eastern Orthodox country, and we often have EO visitors.

 

[ContraMundum]

An interesting point. One worth thinking about.

It may just be my experience, but a lot of Episcopalians in my circle have a growing fascination with Eastern Orthodoxy. They see something there that is intriguing and will adopt a notion, practice, belief from the East. That is fine by me, but there seems to be an unwillingness to engage with the whole depth that is the Eastern Orthodox tradition(s). Frankly, I hope that this fascination is a long-lasting engagement with a vibrant body of Christians and not a fad.

I think the growing fascination with EO'y that one finds these days is based largely on spiritual poverty in their own communion. Anglicanism, when at its best, is rich with fabulous spirituality and tradition. When Anglicanism is stripped of these things, the people go elsewhere looking for food. Interestingly, as you note, there is an unwillingness to engage this in its whole depth, and I think that is because the EO have an outlook that is quite foreign in every sense of the word to Anglicans. Most find that after getting past the nice bits, the inner workings of those churches are not very nice places.

 

[A Rhys]

I tend to take what I understand to be the E. Orthodox perspective (which has already been elucidated): that the filioque was inappropriately added to the creed, due to the council of either Nicaea or Constantinople (I forget which) ruling that it may not be modified outside of an ecumenical council - but also that it is oft beneficial for laypersons to delve lightly, if at all, into the finer print of church rulings without the guidance of an expert.

 

[hollyanglo]

Good Point
Lyle

I also agree. I believe this is one of those issues where people need to agree to disagree. Please correct me if I am wrong. Even without the verse where Jesus says he will send the Holy Spirit, it makes sense for a non-theological person like me that the HS does proceed from the Father & the Son, taking into consideration the nature of the TRINITY.

Or is it supposed to say: "who proceeds from the FATHER through the SON"? All confusing to me........

 

[Albion]

I think the growing fascination with EO'y that one finds these days is based largely on spiritual poverty in their own communion. Anglicanism, when at its best, is rich with fabulous spirituality and tradition. When Anglicanism is stripped of these things, the people go elsewhere looking for food. Interestingly, as you note, there is an unwillingness to engage this in its whole depth, and I think that is because the EO have an outlook that is quite foreign in every sense of the word to Anglicans. Most find that after getting past the nice bits, the inner workings of those churches are not very nice places.

Hit the nail right on the head, Contra!

A Rhys: I tend to take what I understand to be the E. Orthodox perspective (which has already been elucidated): that the filioque was inappropriately added to the creed, due to the council of either Nicaea or Constantinople (I forget which) ruling that it may not be modified outside of an ecumenical council....

True, and that's the usual reason for opposing the filioque. But on the other hand, we as Anglicans are not in any way expected to affirm that everything decided in any of these councils is above be corrected. If it can be shown that Scripture's teaching is that the Holy Ghost is given by the action of the Father and Son together, then the filioque may be seen as a necessary modification.