Anglican Studies

Discussion in 'Faith, Devotion & Formation' started by Barnaby, May 10, 2023.

  1. Barnaby

    Barnaby Member

    Posts:
    38
    Likes Received:
    35
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi all,

    I've discovered the above podcast here which seems to be a series of classes by Michael McKinnon, outlining the fundamentals of Anglicanism. As someone who is interested in becoming Anglican, I am really glad to have found it. I don't know if this is a podcast anyone else might enjoy. I'm only at the beginning but looking forward to completing the series.
     
  2. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Thanks for sharing this. I can't wait to give it a listen.
     
  3. Clayton

    Clayton Active Member

    Posts:
    178
    Likes Received:
    108
    Country:
    United States
    This is very helpful for me, and I really love this guy’s jokes, most of which are awful and land like a brick!

    thanks for pointing this one out!
     
  4. Barnaby

    Barnaby Member

    Posts:
    38
    Likes Received:
    35
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Christian
    It's been really good for me to hear this but the humour is, well ....... :hmm::D
     
  5. Fr. Brench

    Fr. Brench Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    242
    Likes Received:
    351
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Fr. McKinnon is a solid priest; he and I were neighbors for several years and he helped my church out a few times when I was a deacon. Glad to see his teaching still making a difference!
     
    Barnaby, bwallac2335 and Clayton like this.
  6. Barnaby

    Barnaby Member

    Posts:
    38
    Likes Received:
    35
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Christian
    I've learned a huge amount from his series
     
    Clayton likes this.
  7. Clayton

    Clayton Active Member

    Posts:
    178
    Likes Received:
    108
    Country:
    United States
    I’ve listened to all of it now, and it has been a great help for me in understanding his view of Anglicanism. It does leave some questions for me in my discernment, though. For instance:

    1. Fr McKinnon presents a very high church Anglo-Catholicism, but to what degree does he present Anglicanism as a whole? He frequently jests about low-churchmen, but are they not also “Anglican”? If so, can one really argue, as he does, that Anglicanism is Western Orthodoxy?

    2. Fr McKinnon’s presentation of his disagreement with Rome is for myself very compelling. While he may happen to agree with the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption, he cannot accept it as a dogma, because it was not a dogma of the universal, undivided Church. I find that compelling, also with regards to the Immaculate Conception and papal authority. But is a disagreement over whether a teaching ought be regarded as a pious beloved vs a dogma really sufficient to break with one’s bishop, to whom one should dutifully submit? Maybe so. Convince me it is.

    3. The Filioque is an oddball. From what I recall, it is not universally said in all churches in communion with Rome. When said in Greek, or in the vernacular in a sui juris Eastern Catholic Church, the Filioque is omitted. So, is this to say that the Nicene Creed was really “changed?” Yes and No. I find that confusing and I confess I don’t know what to make of it.
     
  8. Clayton

    Clayton Active Member

    Posts:
    178
    Likes Received:
    108
    Country:
    United States
    On a similar note, I was curious about what McKinnon says about why transubstantiation cannot be a correct explanation of the mystery of Holy Eucharist. He says that it is a sort of Monophysitism. If I understand him right, the thinking is this; that Christianity is incarnational, that God works through creation and not in opposition to it. Therefore, if bread and wine “go to naught”, then God isn’t working through creation, he is working in opposition to creation by destroying the creatures rather than operating through them.

    Is that correct, or did I mangle it?
     
    Fr. Brench likes this.
  9. Fr. Brench

    Fr. Brench Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    242
    Likes Received:
    351
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    That is a fine (if somewhat more complicated) expansion upon what our Articles of Religion say about transubstantiation - that it overthrows the nature of a Sacrament.

    Yes, Fr. McKinnon is definitely an Anglo-Catholic, very interested and invested in the patristics. But, as you also pointed out, he is the kind who is solidly Anglican, knowing exactly why he is not Roman and in no danger of swimming the Tiber. Poking fun at the "other party" is simply one of the joys of being Anglican, I'm afraid, but I think the fact that he is (now) under a very Calvinist-leaning bishop speaks volumes to respect the high & low parties can have for one another when our formularies are respected and held in common.
     
    Br. Thomas likes this.
  10. ByOldEyes

    ByOldEyes Member

    Posts:
    49
    Likes Received:
    26
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    It's not the easiest reading but read Pusey on the history of the filioque. Scroll and find "On the Clause 'And the Son,' In Regard to the Eastern Church and the Bonn Conference" at this link http://anglicanhistory.org/pusey/

    An interesting point— additions were made to the Nicene Creed not only by the West, but also by the East. For example, Constantinople I was a solely Eastern council, and expanded the Creed of Nicea to the form used today in the Eastern Church. Constantinople I was not received in the West until 70 years later, which means the East expanded the Creed at its own discretion. This is no different than the West expanding the Creed to defeat a certain form of Arianism, as was done in Spain. "Adding" to the Creed was done by both East and West to address their regional affairs.

    Moreover, Pusey makes a very strong historical argument that the later East parted with their own fathers in rejecting the filioque, and that it was integral to the early East's Trinitarianism, as taught by Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers.
     
  11. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The letter is hard to read, mainly because it is full of long sentences and longer paragraphs, such was the habit of the age in which it was written.

    I think this misrepresents the case. In 390 Ambrose of Milan wrote to the commending the Apostles Creed. Ambrose himself was happy with the Nicene Creed, however, Milan was a largely Arian community, and Ambrose worked hard to maintain its unity. I think the notion that Constantinople was an Eastern Council is a little misleading.

    The suggestion that the Filioque was an expansion by the West to defeat a certain form of Arianism in Spain is also misleading. The Heresy in Spain in the late 8th Century was Spanish Adoptionism, which essentially amounted to an overemphasis on Paul's kenotic theory (he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant ...). In 794 Charlemagne convened the Synod of Frankfurt, to formally include the Filioque to combat Spanish Adoptionism. The Pope refused. In 796 with Paulinus Patriarch of Aquileia the Synod of Friuli included the Filioque into the Rite of Aquileia and moved the Nicene Creed to the earlier position (after the Gospel/homily). The reason why Charlemagne was so keen on the filioque may in part be political, as he saw himself at odds with the Byzantines as had his Father Pepin the Short.

    The Cappadocian Fathers are the brains behind the Creed of Constantinople, and the Council was led by Gregory of Nazianzus who was one of the Cappadoicain Fathers. When you read Basil on the Holy Spirit you can see where he approaches such a view, however never gets there, and always turns back. The most likely reason for this is that one of the matters they were addressing was the Pneumatamachi who argued that the Holy Spirit was a creation of the Son and creature, not creator. That is part of why the section of pneumatology in the Creed of the Council was expanded to underscore the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. This is also I believe why the Creed of the Council, and the Cappacians do not embrace the filioque.
     
  12. Barnaby

    Barnaby Member

    Posts:
    38
    Likes Received:
    35
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, this series has meant a huge amount to me and I'm enormously grateful for it. It was largely as a result of what I heard on Fr Mackinnon's podcast lectures, that I decided to join the Anglican tradition and am due to have a conditional Baptism on Sunday. I don't want to open a debate about this but it is conditional as I'm doubtful of the authority of my previous Baptism as it was not considered a big deal other than as a witness so I feel better if it is done thoroughly as a full sacrament, and the Priest agreed to do this.

    Anyway, I'm pretty desperate to join the Church fully and participate in the Eucharist as a fun member of the family of God.
     
    Clayton likes this.
  13. ByOldEyes

    ByOldEyes Member

    Posts:
    49
    Likes Received:
    26
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    It took place in Constantinople, and there was very little, if any, significant representation of the western church at the council. Almost all of its approximately 150 bishops governed in the eastern church. It was later accepted ecumenically via Chalcedon in 451 AD, arguably the "greatest" of the councils, where over 500 bishops attended, including representatives of Rome. Consequently, I'm not sure exactly why it is misleading to regard Constantinople I, by itself, as an eastern council.

    The historical event I was referring to was the Council of Toledo in 589 AD. I didn't mean to make it sound as though the entire West creedally adopted the filioque to battle Arianism. That would, indeed, be misleading. Arianism was the occasion, however, for the 6th century Spanish church anathematizing those who deny the Spirit's double procession, as well as a strong motivation for their liturgical use of the latin creed. If I'm not mistaken, it was the Arian visigoths who were the primary antagonists in view. Surely, in the centuries after this, the filioque became used as a weapon by many, including popes and kings, to harass the East, but this was not the context of its beginnings in the western church.

    All this to say... including my comments above about Constantinople I... a lot of hay gets made out of the filioque being an "addition" or "change," but it is good to distinguish between an addition of words, and an addition of substance. Whether the filioque changes the substance of the creed should, IMHO, be the primary question we consider.
     
  14. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Yet the third canon of the Council reads: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

    The Council of Aquileia also took place in 381 and addressed Arianism, with one of the prime actors being Ambrose of Milan who was a Nicene Christian (as opposed to Arian). This was a western council.

    Rome sent delegates to the Council of Ephesus 431, which largely addressed Nestorainism which was in the main an Eastern issue. The council of Ephesus proclaim anathemas on those who sought to add to or take from the words of the Nicene Creed. Given that the Nestorian Creed was based on the Constantinopolitan Creed, these anathemas, which were affirmed by Chalcedon and other councils.

    It, in my view, is less than honest to suggest that the 1st Council of Constantinople was not generally accepted.

    I am glad you raised the matter of the Third Council of Toledo, which was a truly important Council in the Iberian Church. Visigothic Spain had been a stronghold of Arian Christianity.

    Reccared the First was the younger son of King Leovigild, a Visigothic king whose Capital was in Toledo (perhaps 60-70 km ssw of Madrid), fairly much in the middle of what we today call Spain. Leovigild was an Arian, as were most of the Visigoths and Franks at the time. His elder son, older brother to Reccared, Hermenegild married a Catholic (Nicene), Ingunthis daughter of a Frankish King, and with the help of Leander, Bishop of Seville, Hermenegild converted to the Catholic Faith. His Father pressured him to return the Arianism, and Hermenegild refused and led an uprising, which was defeated, Leander was banished, Hermenegild was imprisoned in Toledo, and when he refused to take communion from an Arian Bishop his Father, the King, ordered him to be beheaded (13th April 586 AD). Leovigild died of ‘natural causes’ shortly after (21 April 586 AD).

    Shortly after this Leander the exiled Bishop of Seville returned and sought out the new King, Reccared. In January 587 Reccared, with the help of Leander the Bishop and Bada Reccared’s Catholic Wife, renounced Arianism and embraced chalcedonian christology and the Catholic Faith. There followed some instability as Arianism was the dominant influence in the Visigothic kingdom, and in this setting, Reccared ordered the Council, the third in Toledo which assembled in early May 589 in Toledo.​

    The record of the council is available online thanks to the Benedictines, however, the site does not employ HTTPS, so some will not want to visit it. The text is an OCR scan of the Vatican record, so ultimately it is Latin with lots of errors.

    There are a number of things to note, however:
    • The anathemas of Ephesus are upheld
    • The Council of Constantinople (381) is upheld
    • In part the Council affirms a theology of double procession
    • The Nicene Creed is spelled out as the Creed of the Council without the Filioque
    • The Nicene Creed is spelled out as part of Reccared's Confession, again without the Filioque
    • The Council asked that the Nicene Creed be recited on Sundays and Holy Days.
    Given the purpose of the Council was for Reccared and with him much of Iberia to renounce the Arian position and embrace the Catholic Faith. This in terms of the Iberian Peninsula is part of the start of it becoming and Catholic Powerhouse. It would make no sense to accept the faith and change the Creed, for whatever purpose. Leander (The Bishop of Toledo) was a follower of Augustine, and as such strongly held a view of double procession, and like Augustine embraced the Creed without the Filioque.

    What we do know is that successive Popes rejected the Filioque, until Benedict in 1014. The Filioque was probably not widely used in England before 1066 and the ensuing deposition of the English Bishops, the impression for the English Liturgy and the imposition of the Gregorian Rite.

    Both Gafcon and the Anglican Communion receive the 1st Council of Constantinople as the 2nd Œcumenical Council.

    I would love to recommend Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, by Photius, which is a position held by many in the East. Clearly, he sees that the addition of the Filioque diminishes the understanding of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and attacks the Monarchical Integrity of the Father. In terms of theological writing, it may seem a little polemical, however, I have attached a copy as it may be of interest to you and others.

    I do find it interesting that you are prepared to downplay the significance of the 1st Council of Constantinople and uphold the teaching of Benedict and those who followed after him. I suspect that Benedict did think it mattered, and the Creed hadn't been part of the Roman Liturgy for some time at that stage, yet there was no doubt those who followed Benedict understood that it was a change and saw it as a badge of Papal Authority over the Councils as Supreme Ruler of the Church, a claim never accepted in the East.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. ByOldEyes

    ByOldEyes Member

    Posts:
    49
    Likes Received:
    26
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I think a lot has been read into what I've said. I'm not downplaying Constantinople I's significance, or for that matter, its authority and ecumenical status. Constantinople I is undoubtedly ecumenical and fully binding on the entire church. I haven't stated otherwise. What I did state was the fact that the council was not an ecumenical council when it took place, a fact which I did not expect to be controversial. A council can become ecumenical, even if it was not ecumenical when it took place. To acknowledge this doesn't downplay anything.

    I think it would be helpful for the clarity of this conversation if I attempt again to reiterate that the sole reason I highlighted Constantinople I's initially local and Eastern orientation is that it is sometimes argued the form of the creed is unalterable without the force of an ecumenical council. What I was saying is that this argument doesn't take into account that neither was Constantinople I, as it took place, an ecumenical council, yet the bishops who attended saw fit to act in a local capacity and produce a creed which expanded that of Nicea I. As such, all I'm really saying is that it is special pleading to suppose that those bishops were right to act without the force of an ecumenical council, whereas the 6th century bishops in Spain were not.

    Of course, there are other arguments made by opponents of the Filioque, both historical and theological, many of which are a good deal stronger than the one I decided to engage on this thread. On that note, I'll mention too that I've said nothing about Benedict VIII, or for that matter, anything subsequent to the 7th century. My comments were focused on a particular argument that I think fails for the reasons I gave. My intent was not to provide a defense of 11th century Roman politics.

    I don't want to hijack OP's thread. I also don't want to get in trouble for offtopic commenting. I'd be interested in a separate thread to discuss the Filioque more generally, as well as the polemicism that Photios supplied for the medieval East, and whether or not the early Greek fathers embraced the doctrine, or would have, with Photios and the later East, regarded it to confound that which distinguishes the persons of the Trinity.
     
  16. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Councils we receive have endorsed one Creed, and that is largely what we accept as the Nicene Creed, save that it was without the Filioque.

    Firstly, the third Council of Toledo was a relatively local council, and no Bishop present held the status of the Patriarchal Bishops who were present at Constantinople 1. Secondly, I have argued and provided a link to the proceedings of that Council, which as it happens affirmed the Creed of Constantinople 1 and the anathemas of Ephesus, and find fact sought to advance the Creed of the Council, not to change it.

    I think it is a mistake to confuse the Filioque and a doctrine of double procession, which takes various forms, and some of those forms would be most likely acceptable in the East, whilst the Filioque has (with one notable lapse) been consistently opposed.

    I would be happy to discuss the Filioque in a separate thread. I also have no desire to hijack this thread.
     
  17. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I've never seen anyone here "get in trouble for offtopic commenting." But either of you is free to start a new thread; it's quite easy to do so.
     
  18. ByOldEyes

    ByOldEyes Member

    Posts:
    49
    Likes Received:
    26
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Sounds good, I might start one up this weekend or in the next few days to engage the discussion further. It is a complex topic. I guess it wouldn't have been a problem if we kept it here, but I'm a noob to the forum, and thought I may have been making an etiquette mistake. Maybe just overthinking, on my part.
     
    Botolph likes this.