Filoque

Discussion in 'Liturgy, and Book of Common Prayer' started by Lowly Layman, Mar 15, 2013.

  1. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    So...It was brought up in another thread. What is your feeling of the filioque clause? Is it essential? The Apostles creed used to allow for the removal of "descended into hell". Should the filioque betreated the same way?

    My thought is that it is a barrier to church unity between the east and west, which of course is the exact opposite of the creed is supposed to do. Plus, because it was inserted unilaterally outside of the boundaries of the ecumenical councils, it cannot be said to be a catholic statement and hasn't undergone the rigor as the rest of the creed has. Further, I think it can muck up the traditional positional and functional understanding of the Trinity. The father is the source, the Word and Spirit proceed. While it may be fair to say that the Spirit proceeds with the Son or through the Son, it is seems imprecise to say the Spirit proceeds from the Son, JMO.
     
    Toma likes this.
  2. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    It is an absorbing subject, though the theological subtlety is distasteful to me. This kind of debate lends itself to putting the Lord God Almighty under a microscope and attempting to dissect Him. My thoughts are two-fold:

    1. As to the clause itself: the Spirit is called "The Spirit of Jesus":

    Act 16:6 They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them; and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.

    Also, the Lord Jesus Himself says "I and the Father are one". All things that are the Father's are the Son's. It is very beautiful, if we don't place the theological battlefield goggles on. Various Fathers, including Hilary, Ambrose, and Gregory Thaumaturgus said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father & the Son. Ironically one of my least favourite sites provides good sources, here. I find all this very convincing, regardless of the decision of a church-wide Synod - we wouldn't have free Anglicanism independent of Rome if we relied on Ecumenical Councils to make big decisions, after all.

    As to the disunity engendered by the use of the clause: so what? Even if we throw out Filioque, the Orthodox still re-ordain every Anglican clergyman who converts to their religion. They deny our Articles, theology, and practices. Simply confessing that the Spirit is not intimately attached to the Son (against Scripture) is not going to endear them to us.
     
  3. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    On the Apostles Creed claim I provide the direction of the 1928 BCP's instruction:
     
  4. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Great insights Consular. Here is my interpretation of the "The Spirit of Jesus". I think it is a reference to the unity of the persons of the Triune God. As you point out, Jesus said that "I and the Father are one" which shows the unity of the two. But I doubt anyone would claim that the statement means that the Father proceeds from the Son. As to your point of Hilary, Ambrose, and others make this claim, to me, is an argument against the use of the filioque clause rather than for it. These guys were well respected and well-known to the fathers at the councils. If their arguments were not persuasive to them, why should we accept them?
     
    Toma likes this.
  5. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Another point, if the Anglican church holds the 4 councils as binding, and only those ( Highchurchmen's position notwithstanding), then shouldn't the perfect symbol for that be using a Creed that is true to those councils, without the acretions of regional beliefs.
     
  6. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Augustinian idea (I think?) is "The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, and their mutual love is the Spirit". That had a very profound impact on me in this subject. :)

    As to the canonical validity of adding Filioque: remember that there were two Creeds by the time of Ephesus 431: Nicaea 325 & Constantinople 381. The one we're familiar with is Constantinople, but the one insisted upon by Ephesus 431 is Nicaea 325, which is shorter. If we're only to accept the Nicaea 325 Creed, as Ephesus 431 demands, then we are being inconsistent in even talking about Filioque, since everything after "Et in Spiritum Sanctum." was added after 325.

    That is certainly one point in favour of the argument. After all, to say "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" does not necessarily exclude the Son. ;)
     
  7. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
  8. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I agree. I don't necessarily have anything against the statement as it is written. Saying the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" may not necessarily mean He proceeds from the Father and from the Son independently but rather from the unity of the Godhead, which is something I can support. As catholic Christians, I think it is incumbent upon us to stick with the formula outlined by Andrewes. To me, the filioque clause is a slavish relic heldover from our subjugation to the Papacy. By removing it, we more closely align ourselves with another third of the three streams. But at the same time, this does not mean we have to, as a church, give up the article of faith, just the obstacle it poses with the greater catholic world. Do we want to be faithful to just the western church or the catholic-orthox church? My vote is for the latter.
     
  9. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The problem with Papacy-relations is that "Filioque" has become associated with Papacy to the Orthodox; sans-Filioque has become associated with Eastern Schism to the Papists. Let us indeed try to find the Catholic consent, and not to please ourselves or any denomination.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  10. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Again, that is why I would ask us to look at the constitution of the church during the gold-standard era of the first 500 years. The filioque was not an essential article of faith during that time...thus it should not be so in Anglicanism now, if we use Andrewes' boundaries of faith. Perhaps that is why Lambeth urged churches to consider its removal.
     
  11. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Aww, who wants those old Papists anyway. Always spoiling everybody's fun. ;)
     
    Toma likes this.