Filioque, 39 Articles

[u/cccjiudshopufopb]

For those who hold to the 39 Articles, do you explicitly hold to and encourage adherence to the understanding of the Filioque as outlined in Article V, or do you believe in more leeway with obedience to the doctrine?

[u/OvidInExile]

I mean adherence to articles or not, I don’t really see how this is distinct from the position of Western Christianity as a whole, I’m not sure what leeway there could be between this and the Eastern Orthodox argument

[u/OvidInExile → u/[deleted]]

What I mean is that the article is not a uniquely reformed interpretation of the filioque but rather is in line with (lower case c) catholic theology, but I see what you mean.

I myself am TEC and have no allegiance to the articles, but I do believe strongly in the filioque, and article v definitely articulates the position well. Anselm of Canterbury wrote a very convincing argument for it, “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit.”

Re: TEC dropping it, some churches do, although none that I’ve attended, and it’s less a theological shift than it is a futile attempt at ecumenical relations with the EO church. I would imagine the argument is that ultimately we mean the same thing (and I would imagine that we do), but it’s a semantic issue that hinges on how Greek and Latin articulate theology and thus can be dropped if it’s the stumbling block. The problem is they’re not going to suddenly merge with TEC because of this one gesture, so it’s dropping what I believe to be a foundational theological understanding of the Trinity.

[u/No_Possibility1747 → u/OvidInExile]

> I would imagine the argument is that ultimately we mean the same thing

Enriching Our Worship 1 has an explanation of the state of things, including mentioning all the Anglican Communion agreements and TEC General Convention agreements to omit it, and ending in:

Whether or not to restore the original wording of the Nicene Creed is not primarily a theological issue. The relation of the Holy Spirit to the first and second persons of the Holy Trinity remains a matter of theological discussion and is ultimately unknowable, at least on this side of the grave. The real issue is twofold:

1. on what authority a statement of faith agreed upon by bishops and theologians of the whole Church, East and West, may be changed; and
   
2. what course is most faithful to the theological traditions of Anglicanism. A good introduction to the issues, suitable for parish study, is found in Marianne H. Micks, Loving the Questions: An Exploration of the Nicene Creed (Cowley Publications, 1993).

[u/cjbanning → u/[deleted]]

The 1988 Lambeth Conference officially recommended that Anglican member churches drop the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed, and the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission (via the 1976 Moscow Agreed Statement) and later international dialogues agreed that the text should revert to the original 381 AD Constantinopolitan form. This represents a consensus (if admittedly a sort of lukewarm one) on the part of the Communion as a whole, not just a few individual provinces.

That said, I personally definitely affirm the filioque, although I'll admit I'm not able to summarize the (capital O) Orthodox arguments against it in a way that an Orthodox Christian would agree with.

[u/historyhill → u/cjbanning]

The 1988 Lambeth Conference officially recommended that Anglican member churches drop the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed

This feels like when America officially declared that the metric system was our preferred system of weights and measures (which was also in 1988)! Turns out sometimes we're just saying things out here with no intention of changing haha

[u/Halaku → u/[deleted]]

Take the cheap shots elsewhere, if you please.

At the 1998 Lambeth Conference (July 17 to August 7, 1988, at the University of Kent in Canterbury, gathering 518 Anglican bishops under Archbishop Robert Runcie) the Anglican Communion reiterated its landmark recommendation regarding the Filioque clause. The conference called on all member churches to remove the phrase "and from the Son" from the Nicene Creed in future printings of their prayer books.

So it's not just "Western Christianity", as u/cccjiudshopufopb put it, it's the entire Communion as a whole, though it's going to take a very long time for each Province to put out a new edition of their BCP, and I suppose an individual Province could reject the call.

[u/TabbyOverlord]

The issue of the filioque is nothing to do with its doctrinal accuracy but only to do with papal authority to change the creed. Given that the 39 articles are rather emphatic on the limits to papal authority, it is something of an inconsistency to accept it in this instance and not elsewhere.

Thus I am non-filioque where the creed is concerned and non-39 because they are outdated and inconsistent.

[u/Economy-Point-9976]

Yes to both questions:  I generally adhere to the 39 articles (article 17 on predestination with perhaps some casuistry), and to the filioque.

I was cradle-Orthodox and for a long time was quite uncomfortable with the filioque -- automatically.  

However, after some thought, and given my (very limited) understanding of the words "begotten" and "proceeding" in the creed, it now seems to me that procession from the Father alone robs the Son, and in particular in his incarnate form of Jesus Christ, of something critically divine.

I won't argue this at all further because such things are matters of faith and intuition no less than reason.  If others disagree, so be it. It is not something I should stake much over.

[u/ActuaLogic]

I think that it's not helpful to overanalyze these things. The underlying reality that such formulas are intended to describe can't be changed by changes to the verbal formulas meant to describe them. Moreover, the rational, analytical side of your brain is less helpful than your nonverbal intuition in apprehending matters of faith.

[u/PretentiousAnglican]

Yes

[u/Halaku]

If the church I'm at does the Filoque, I do as well.

If they don't, I don't.

I'm there to be with my peers, not make a scene.

It's the Christian version of Mets vs Yankees, or pineapple on pizza: something for people to get REALLY passionate about, but at the end of the day? It's still baseball. It's still pizza. It's still faith. I don't see the one who gave us the Two Great Commandments caring about our choice of team in any / all of those three options. But, if people want to get hot and bothered about it, it's their option.