|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dropping Filioque Clause at JW's Enthronement
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Some people may have noticed how, during Bishop Justin Welby's enthronement, the Filioque Clause was dropped from the Nicene Creed. It could be that they always do this, as the ceremony for enthronement as AB of C predates the Great Schism by about 500 years - Does anyone know if this is the case?
Otherwise, I would have thought it would muddy the waters of ecumenism between the Anglicans and the RCs, although it might be more pleasing for the Orthodox.
Thoughts?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
Well, I was there and am afraid to say I went into autopilot during the creed so accidentally said 'And the son'! I was very embarrassed. And my friend reckoned it was audible on the telly but I think (hope) he imagined that...
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Is there no Filioque in all parishes or just on this one occasion? Is it a sign by the Archbishop that he personally thinks it shouldn't be there or if not, what?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
It was dropped by Robert Runcie at his enthronement. Rather as it was said, the archbishop remained silent. I believe on the programme it was in brackets.
This was out of respect to the Orthodox present, as he had been president of the Fellowship of SS Alban and Sergius.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
This blog sums it up pretty well. It's not a new thing for Anglicans to drop the Filioque.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Wikipedia suggests the 'past three' archbishops have omitted the filioque at the enthronement, supposedly out of respect for the Orthodox. From the date of the citation given, I think that means Runcie, Carey and Williams.
I'm not convinced it is respectful unless the archbishops genuinely don't believe it. ISTM to be saying 'we think this issue is so unimportant that we don't care whether we say it or not.' However I'm not Orthodox so I may be taking vicarious offence ...
[ 03. April 2013, 08:59: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think making the filioque optional is an insult to Anglicans and Orthodox alike. To make it optional means we don't think it's important, but the fact that it has been the cause of so much division means that it is, at least to some people.
The CofE needs to do what it likes least: some hard-headed theology. We either believe the filioque or we don't; it's either in or it's out.
(Not that I think it'll make much difference between Anglicans and Orthodox: full reunion is impossible because (a) we ordain women and (b) they haven't forgiven the West for the Fourth Crusade yet. I'm sure there are also (c), (d), (e) ... (j17) ... (m21.2a) ...)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm probably odd, but I tend to keep shtum when 'and the Son' is said during the Creed and I had a Baptist friend who used to do the same.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Quite right, Adeodatus. A futile and patronising gesture which ultimately satisfies no-one. Let's be honest with each other and not try to paper over the cracks.
[ 03. April 2013, 09:08: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I doubt if the Orthodox would be offended either way, but it seems a bit disrespectful to Anglicanism's own traditions. People are bound to ask, "what exactly DO they believe?"
I can imagine this sort of thing generates much confusion both within and without the Anglican Communion.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
To be frank, Mark, I doubt many English Anglicans could give you an account of why the filioque might or might not be included, or how it makes a difference to the doctrine of the Trinity, or why they should care. I think they should be able to do so, and I think we should care. But we're not going to see mass gatherings, placards, and burning effigies on this issue any time soon.
(And, of course, if we got rid of it we'd have to rewrite all the hymn doxologies - "Teach us to know the Father, Son / And thee of both to be but One"? Oops!)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm buggered if I've ever seen the significance of it. I daresay it has some, must have in 1054, but I really can't get excited about it either way.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think the filioque clause being optional makes perfect sense - Anglicanism holds the ancient creeds and the first four ecumenical councils to be authoritative. It's perfectly acceptable for people to believe more than those creeds and councils state. For the official position to be "we're not sure but we respect that people sincerely hold a number of views" is quintessentially Anglican. That's broadly the position on Eucharistic theology, after all.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the filioque clause being optional makes perfect sense - Anglicanism holds the ancient creeds and the first four ecumenical councils to be authoritative. It's perfectly acceptable for people to believe more than those creeds and councils state. For the official position to be "we're not sure but we respect that people sincerely hold a number of views" is quintessentially Anglican. That's broadly the position on Eucharistic theology, after all.
Thanks Arethosemyfeet - that actually makes sense of it (from an Anglican perspective at least.)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The CofE needs to do what it likes least: some hard-headed theology. We either believe the filioque or we don't; it's either in or it's out.
But this isn't the Anglican way, and I must say I like that. Personally I have no idea what to think about the filioque and I think that people who take strong views one way or the other either a) over-value their own ability to discern or b) belong to a tradition with a strong lead on the matter.
Since we don't have b) in the CofE, why should we feel we need to pretend a)? What is wrong with admitting that we don't really know?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The CofE needs to do what it likes least: some hard-headed theology. We either believe the filioque or we don't; it's either in or it's out.
But this isn't the Anglican way, and I must say I like that. Personally I have no idea what to think about the filioque and I think that people who take strong views one way or the other either a) over-value their own ability to discern or b) belong to a tradition with a strong lead on the matter.
Since we don't have b) in the CofE, why should we feel we need to pretend a)? What is wrong with admitting that we don't really know?
So why have a creed at all? Or at least, if the filioque is up for grabs, what else might be?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I have very mixed feelings about it. As far as I know it was essentially introduced to combat a heresy. Is there a case to made that because that heresy is no longer around that it can be dropped?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
I appreciate where Adeodatus and others are coming from, but would regard the filioque as important but not essential. It's an important part of Anglican/Catholic heritage, but not essential to the faith.
I think it important (very important) that I am a member of the church, a follower of Christ or however one wishes to express it - and a part of the western, catholic tradition of that church. But it's also important to respect the views of the (Roman) Catholic and Orthodox Churches, so I wouldn't take communion in their churches. That which is important is trumped by that which is more important.
The situation in question is slightly different in that it took place in an Anglican church and service, but the principle that the important matter of the filioque should be dropped for the (more) important sake of concern for the guests present seems entirely reasonable and right.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm buggered if I've ever seen the significance of it. I daresay it has some, must have in 1054, but I really can't get excited about it either way.
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit and the Logos / Christ are two different Persons, but the same God? If so, then you already believe in the filioque, whether you realise that or not. The same can be said about the Orthodox.
Now, I consider the filioque to be a complete non-issue. It could be re-written so that the Orthodox have no chance of refusing it ("from the Father and through the Son") because then all the witness of the Fathers would be assured, without destroying the necessary truth that Latin theology has identified. This could be done in some joint ceremony, healing the justified complaint that the change was unilateral (that was not formally wrong by Latin standards, but certainly not "nice" or "wise"). But then some other rallying point would have to be found that would be trumped up with a vengeance until it maintains disunity apart from all reason...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
...The situation in question is slightly different in that it took place in an Anglican church and service, but the principle that the important matter of the filioque should be dropped for the (more) important sake of concern for the guests present seems entirely reasonable and right.
I am still of the opinion that it is more important to state what the Anglican Church believes, than to worry about who might be offended. But then, as we have said, that is quintessentially Anglican.
What does this look like?
Filioque Clause in Nicene Creed:
Roman Catholics - included
Eastern Orthodox - excluded
Anglicans - we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Oh God, I knew this OP would be a veil for something else.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit and the Logos / Christ are two different Persons, but the same God? If so, then you already believe in the filioque, whether you realise that or not. The same can be said about the Orthodox.
Now, I consider the filioque to be a complete non-issue. It could be re-written so that the Orthodox have no chance of refusing it ("from the Father and through the Son") because then all the witness of the Fathers would be assured, without destroying the necessary truth that Latin theology has identified. This could be done in some joint ceremony, healing the justified complaint that the change was unilateral (that was not formally wrong by Latin standards, but certainly not "nice" or "wise")...
OK - fine by me, so what's to stop the Anglican Church from taking the initiative and permanently changing their version of the Nicene Creed accordingly?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people
I don't think most people have claimed it's unimportant, only uncertain. There is a difference between not knowing and not caring. Given that we don't know it seems reasonable not to insist we do when by not insisting we can avoid poking our fellow Christians in the eye when we've invited them to share in our celebration. Some poking in the eye is inevitable, but it should be minimised where possible.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So why have a creed at all? Or at least, if the filioque is up for grabs, what else might be?
I don't think that being agnostic regarding the filioque is a slippery slope towards questioning the divinity of Christ. And even if it is, the logical extension of your reasoning is that we ought to express absolute certainty about any issue in order to take a clear position, demonstrate it matters, and avoid falling into unbelief.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think most people have claimed it's unimportant, only uncertain.
A nicely put distinction between not knowing and not caring.
It seems to me that being worried about offending people isn't a non-Christian attribute.
quote:
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What does this look like?
Filioque Clause in Nicene Creed:
Roman Catholics - included
Eastern Orthodox - excluded
Anglicans - we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people.
Hmm, that's not very fair to Anglicans! ![[Cool]](cool.gif) Even liberal ones. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This 'charismatic Anglican' agrees with IngoB on this matter:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit and the Logos / Christ are two different Persons, but the same God? If so, then you already believe in the filioque, whether you realise that or not. The same can be said about the Orthodox.
Now, I consider the filioque to be a complete non-issue. It could be re-written so that the Orthodox have no chance of refusing it ("from the Father and through the Son") because then all the witness of the Fathers would be assured, without destroying the necessary truth that Latin theology has identified. This could be done in some joint ceremony, healing the justified complaint that the change was unilateral (that was not formally wrong by Latin standards, but certainly not "nice" or "wise").
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - fine by me, so what's to stop the Anglican Church from taking the initiative and permanently changing their version of the Nicene Creed accordingly?
Nothing, of course. In fact, if they officially adopted a "compromise version" that has a real potential to bridge the EO/RCC rift, then conceivably they would have a chance to shape global Church history - rather than being a lengthy English footnote to it. But I'm not holding my breath.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Wouldn't that just be another unilateral change to the Creed?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I am under the impression that what was said at the enthronement was an English translation of the actual Nicene text, and not the version of the creed from Common Worship minus "and the Son". If that is the case, it is difficult for anyone really to disapprove of it.
As for the filioque clause itself, history seems to reveal clearly that it was added gradually over time in western Europe, but without the authority of any Council. In that, it is hard to disagree with the Orthodox.
As to whether the presence or absence of "and the Son" is better pneumatology, I have neither the knowledge or wisdom to say. If it is possible to say, or if indeed the Florentine compromise is better pneumatology than either, then there is a case for insisting on one rather than the other. I do not think Christendom has got anywhere near that point.
As for the argument that the CofE is obliged to stick to the filioque to express its self-identification with the western catholic tradition, that is a poor reason for doing anything. After all, we've not been in communion with its patriarch since the C16. The Reformation means that we are entitled, and probably obliged, to question the western catholic tradition, and if we think it's misguided, not follow it just because it's there. If we were to conclude that the Orthodox, the Lutherans, or whoever, are nearer to the truth or do something better, then we should follow them.
So I agree with Arethosemyfeet.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
Anglicans - we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people
What is wrong with "trying not to offend people" concerning doubtful, controversial and disputed matters?
I would have thought that willingness to compromise in doubtful matters is a sign of maturity and strength. After all, doesn't the Bible encourage this kind of compromise?
1 Corinthians, chapter 8 lays down the principle of being sensitive to the conscience of other Christians - "Beware lest somehow this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to those who are weak."
Now I am aware that this could be interpreted as rather patronising, because of the implication that "we are being sensitive to you, because we think you are weak and bound up with unnecessary scruples", but I tend to see this as a general principle of conduct, whereby we don't unnecessarily provoke other Christians through trying to "prove our point" on matters which are rather doubtful and arcane.
Of course, we should make a stand on fundamental matters of the faith, and if you see the inclusion or omission of the filioque clause as a fundamental doctrine of Christian faith, then "I am all ears". Fire away...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
As it stands right now, everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, if I'm not mistaken. The filioque was originally added to the Creed in Spain to fight Arianism, i.e., by making it clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are on the same level, not to subordinate the Spirit to the other two. The argument has always been less over the theological content and more over the Western Church's right to unilaterally change the text. But it's actually the translation (in Latin and in other languages) of the text that has been changed, not the original; the Roman Catholic Church, when quoting the original Greek text, does not necessarily insert the filioque clause (see e.g., the second paragraph here).
So to me, there's no "hard theological thinking" for Anglicans to do here. We believe the same thing on the matter that the Church has always believed, although it has been expressed in different and easily-misunderstood ways.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...Nothing, of course. In fact, if they officially adopted a "compromise version" that has a real potential to bridge the EO/RCC rift, then conceivably they would have a chance to shape global Church history - rather than being a lengthy English footnote to it. But I'm not holding my breath.
Perhaps someone should suggest it to Justin Welby - I'm sure somewhere on the C of E website there must be a forum for suggestions to the AB of C.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But then some other rallying point would have to be found that would be trumped up with a vengeance until it maintains disunity apart from all reason...
I don't think the schism was caused by the filioque mainly. That was only ever a symptom of the larger problem. The Eastern churches believed supreme authority within Christianity was the joint decisions of the ecumenical councils, while Rome believed that supreme authority rested with them alone in the throne of St Peter. The situation with the filioque only highlighted this fundamental schism - in that it was added unilaterally by the Pope, which was considered legitimate by the Latins, while such unilateral dictat was anathema to the East.
From the Schism onwards the two halves tried to get together to discuss how to compromise on the filioque, but these councils were doomed to failure since the filioque was just a symptom of the authority issue. By rejecting the filioque the eastern church rejected the authority of the Pope, which was a heretical idea for the Latins. By changing the creed Rome was rejecting the authority of the ecumenical councils, which was anethama to the East. The two sides never really addressed this fundamental schism.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I don't think the schism was caused by the filioque mainly. That was only ever a symptom of the larger problem. The Eastern churches believed supreme authority within Christianity was the joint decisions of the ecumenical councils, while Rome believed that supreme authority rested with them alone in the throne of St Peter. The situation with the filioque only highlighted this fundamental schism - in that it was added unilaterally by the Pope, which was considered legitimate by the Latins, while such unilateral dictat was anathema to the East.
From the Schism onwards the two halves tried to get together to discuss how to compromise on the filioque, but these councils were doomed to failure since the filioque was just a symptom of the authority issue. By rejecting the filioque the eastern church rejected the authority of the Pope, which was a heretical idea for the Latins. By changing the creed Rome was rejecting the authority of the ecumenical councils, which was anethama to the East. The two sides never really addressed this fundamental schism.
I don't think it's that different to what is going on today between the RC + Orthodox versus Protestantism/Liberalism. All the dead-horse issues (which we won't go into here) are really only symptoms of a much bigger problem which boils down to... Authority.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I kinda think the debate around the filioque clause ought to revolve around whether or not it is true, not whether it hurts the feelings of the Orthodox.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
All the dead-horse issues (which we won't go into here) are really only symptoms of a much bigger problem which boils down to... Authority.
That's an interesting parallel. For me it doesn't quite work, because although in a sense the dead horses do boil down to authority (if x tells me to think y and I believe he/she/it has authority then I think y) on the other hand there are real practical issues concerning whether people a unfairly discriminated against and whether certain practices are sinful or not. I would not be itching to align myself with one authority or another were it not for this practical issues.
That seems to me different from a situation where two authorities have a fundamental disagreement about authority a priori and fall out over an issue which both would probably agree was arguable but was a convenient proxy for their disagreement regarding authority to settle on.
[ 03. April 2013, 13:25: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I kinda think the debate around the filioque clause ought to revolve around whether or not it is true, not whether it hurts the feelings of the Orthodox.
But if that revolving around concludes that we don't really know if it's true or not, is it not reasonable to start considering the feelings of our Orthodox bothers and sisters?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I kinda think the debate around the filioque clause ought to revolve around whether or not it is true, not whether it hurts the feelings of the Orthodox.
Okay then, it's a damn heresy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
... By rejecting the filioque the eastern church rejected the authority of the Pope, which was a heretical idea for the Latins. ...
But that is not a heretical idea for the CofE.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I kinda think the debate around the filioque clause ought to revolve around whether or not it is true, not whether it hurts the feelings of the Orthodox.
But if that revolving around concludes that we don't really know if it's true or not, is it not reasonable to start considering the feelings of our Orthodox bothers and sisters?
That's a big if, but if that is case the primary concern ought to be the unity of Anglicanism.
I appreciate the sentiment behind ecumenical gestures to the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, but these gestures tend to never be returned. I further point out that both groups are very close to each other in the other "flash point" issues, but when the Protestants aren't around they can hardly stand the sight of each other either. We aren't going to win them over by coopting ourselves. We will only find unity by obeying the will of Christ as we see it. If we ever achieve unity, anyway.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
...on the other hand there are real practical issues concerning whether people are unfairly discriminated against and whether certain practices are sinful or not. I would not be itching to align myself with one authority or another were it not for this practical issues...
These practical issues are a concern for both sides of the divide - it isn't a case that Protestants/Liberals care about people, while Catholics don't care about people (although having said that, I won't be at all surprised if some people on here do think just that) - it is just we have different ways of working these things out - do we fear God, or do we think human wisdom is better?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
It's not altogether clear to me what the purpose of this thread is. Is there a concern to discuss the filioque clause, and try to establish whether it ought to be included in or omitted from the Nicene Creed? Or does it concern attitudes within the leadership of the Anglican Church? Or perhaps the concern is ecumenism, and how Justin Welby's enthronement service could aid or hinder this cause?
Are we supposed to talk theology here or church politics?
There seems to be a veiled criticism of the Anglican Church, but I can't quite see what the complaint is.
Perhaps Mark would like to clarify his reasons for starting this thread?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I believe that the 1968 Lambeth conference indicated that, given the informal nature of the introduction of the filioque, it is droppable. I'm in a rush to go to my physiotherapist as they've called me with a cancellation, otherwise I would chapter and verse it for you.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
@EtymologicalEvangelical - I tried to make the point clear in the OP. Since the Anglican Church is an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore uses all three of its creeds, why, during the enthronement of the new AB of C, did they use the non-RC version of the Nicene Creed?
There is no "veiled" criticism - I had genuine questions about why the Church of England seemed to go against its own beliefs in the interests of ecumenism.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
@EtymologicalEvangelical - I tried to make the point clear in the OP. Since the Anglican Church is an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore uses all three of its creeds, why, during the enthronement of the new AB of C, did they use the non-RC version of the Nicene Creed?
There is no "veiled" criticism - I had genuine questions about why the Church of England seemed to go against its own beliefs in the interests of ecumenism.
Well, your comment in the first paragraph contradicts your assumption in the second. If the Anglican Church omitted the clause "in the interests of ecumenism", then it follows that they do not regard fellowship with the RCC as much of a priority!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, your comment in the first paragraph contradicts your assumption in the second. If the Anglican Church omitted the clause "in the interests of ecumenism", then it follows that they do not regard fellowship with the RCC as much of a priority!
No, I don't think so, because other posters have suggested it was in the interests of ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
No, I don't think so, because other posters have suggested it was in the interests of ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.
So the Anglican Church practises selective and self-destructive ecumenism, by alienating one section of the Church in order to win favour with another?
That doesn't really fit with this comment you made upthread:
quote:
Anglicans - we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people
Presumably the Anglican Church concentrates on trying to offend the RCC?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So the Anglican Church practises selective and self-destructive ecumenism, by alienating one section of the Church in order to win favour with another?
< snip >
Presumably the Anglican Church concentrates on trying to offend the RCC?
I don't know EtymologicalEvangelical, I can only guess at what's going on - you're Anglican, so you tell me - that's what this thread is supposed to be all about.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I appreciate the sentiment behind ecumenical gestures to the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, but these gestures tend to never be returned.
In which case we stand to gain even more blessings by practicing Christian charity towards them.
But don't get me wrong, I don't think that a little gesture like this is about to usher in church unity, for me it is simply a question of manners and avoiding offense in an issue that I think we ought to feel flexible about. There are other issues where I might feel it more valuable to take a stand. Clip-clopping ones, mostly.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
