jump to navigation

ACNA keeps the filioque clause: Anglican Ink, October 17, 2013 October 17, 2013

Posted by geoconger in Anglican Church of North America, Anglican Ink.
Tags: ,
trackback

The decision to keep the filioque clause in “Texts for Common Prayer” represents a victory of common sense over special interests writes George Conger and is a mark of the political and theological maturity of the Anglican Church of North America.

On 18 October 2013 the ACNA released its long awaited Eucharistic liturgies. The document entitled “Texts for Common Prayer” retained the language of the double procession of the Spirit, the filioque, but permitted its omission when reciting the creed.

A draft text released in June had called for the omission of the “and the son” or filioque clause following the statement: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.”

Read it all at Anglican Ink.

Comments

1. Rev. Dr. Terrence P. McGillicuddy - October 17, 2013

The Original Creed was written without the filioque. It took the gathering of an Ecumenical Council to codify the original Creed. The filioque was added in the West without the represenation of the whole Christian body. This is one primary reason the Eastern Orthodox Church never accepted it. To this extent, I believe the Liturgical Committee’s decision to keep to include it has been too hasty to say the least and I would like to understand the theological process and thought in how they could possibly come to this decision.

2. tupton2012 - October 17, 2013

Betray Jonah, and betray the Universal Church? This is an awful sign for the maturity of ACNA.

No one has the unilateral right to change the Nicene – Constantinople Creed. Even if Filioque is provable from Scripture. Sets us way back. For shame.

3. Rev. Dr. Terrence P. McGillicuddy - October 18, 2013

I agree with the above post. The filioque is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit’s procession in terms of the Father!!!

Secondly, the filioque distorts Orthodox triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth.

Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit’s procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.

The consequence of adopting a Filioquist theology is significant since it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church! Thus, with his role being subordinated we pastorally and liturgically undermine the power and important of the holy spirit.

Finally, Congar’s quote “The ACNA’s decision to keep the filioque represents a victory of common sense” is so lacking of theological and Christian historical sophistication. I pray that the committee will reconsider this position, consult with Eastern Orthodox scholars who can enlighten the committee about this mistake while setting a new precedence in the spirit of Cramner to return to a reformed theology that is more Orthodox versus Roman/Papal.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: