Dean Carlos Raines
If we begin with the question forming the title of this
article, I suspect the response from most Clergy and nearly all Lay people
would say, “What??” When told what the
filioque is, they most likely would then respond, “Who cares?? What's wrong with you??”
The so-called filioque is simply a Latin combination word
that translates into English as “and the Son” and is found at the end of the
line in the Nicene-constantinopolitan creed that runs as follows: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and
giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
It's a simple and very familiar phrase; many of us have said
it literally hundreds of times and are familiar with it. Why change it? The simplest answer is that anything that is wrong should be
changed and at the earliest possible date! So why are those three words such an offense that they
should be eliminated from the next Prayer Book?
First of all, they are NOT part of the
Nicene-constantinopolitan creed, as shocking as that might seem. Anyone can look it up; you will not find the
words of the filioque there. What you
will find are the following words derived from the concluding text from the
Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus: A.D.
431) that gave final ratification of the Nicene Creed:
CANON VII
WHEN these things had been read, the holy
Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or
to compose a different (<greek>eteran</greek>) Faith as a rival to
that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in
Nicaea. But those who shall dare to
compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to
turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from
Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or
clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if
they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
In other words, the Nicene Creed was formally closed and any
addition or subtraction would amount to a “different” Faith and result in a
formal Anathema from the Fathers. So how did the filioque get into the creed?
Briefly, it was added in the late Sixth century in Spain as
a result of a conflict with Arian Christians who conquered and settled there as
barbaric tribes holding to that faith.
Orthodox Nicene believers found that adding the words “and the Son” to
the creedal faith helped them to propagandize against the Arians with a simple
definition that helped the orthodox dispel their beliefs from the popular
mind. This “circular theory” of the
Trinity was developed from Augustine (though he never taught it as such) and
the double procession was part of that theory (The Father loves the Son who
Loves the Father and that Love is so Divine that it is actually a Person who is
the Holy Spirit.) This usage, thought to
be Augustinian, began to spread across the Western Church. As late as A.D. 800 we have a letter written
to the Pope in Rome and asking permission to sing the filioque while singing
the Creed in the church of the court of
Charlemagne. The Pope's answer:
it is not done in the Roman mass, so, permission denied. However, within the next century it was added
to the Roman mass with no council's authority.
This, of course, did not escape the notice of the Eastern Church (still
a unified part of the undivided One, Holy and Catholic Church at that
time!). The East strenuously objected,
pointing out that no church could unilaterally change the Creed of an
Ecumenical Council without at least the authority of a new Ecumenical Council
(the last one had been in the 8th Century; the 7th Ecumenical council). Now here is what should deeply concern
Anglicans about the filioque: the Western
Roman Church defended its right to change the creed because they claimed the
Pope had the authority to do so...a claim that was an utter novelty. This insistence was one of the main causes of
the Great Schism in A.D. 1054 and is a major block in the road to unity to this
very day. The filioque itself is an
historical monument erected to the doctrine of Papal universal authority.
A couple of things might be noted here that give some nuance to
this debate. First, the East has always
been open to discussing the filioque with the possibility of accepting it if it
is done so in a truly ecumenical council and a definition given that is true to
the theology of the original Nicene faith.
The problem is that whenever discussion has been made as to the calling
of such a council (including the sad attempts at the Council of Florence in
1438), the Roman church has insisted that only the Pope can call such a council
(accepted in the East) and only the Pope can ratify the canons of the council
(strenuously opposed by the East for obvious reasons...). Second, the East has been walking in a kind
of admission of brokenness since the Great Schism, never naming any of their
councils “Ecumenical” if the Bishops of the West can not be in attendance. So they claim only 7 Ecumenical Councils;
every council since then has been synodical.
Yet the Western Roman Church has continued happily along, writing off
the Eastern Church and calling all councils composed solely of Roman Bishops
“Ecumenical Councils.” Which of these
parties are closer to the spirit of Anglicanism?
So here is the deep and fundamental question; Why would
Anglicans want an addition to the ancient and Ecumenical Nicene Creed based
solely on the claimed authority of the Pope to override an Ecumenical Council? Why would we be on that side of the
argument? We may culturally be closer to
the Pope and the Roman Church, but this ecclesiastical debate forces us to the
Eastern side of the argument precisely because we too thoroughly reject the
monarchical basis of the Roman claims.
Anglicans have from the beginning utterly rejected papal claims at
infallibility and of ultimate authority even over Ecumenical Councils.
In the late 1970's there was an Anglican-Orthodox dialogue
that produced a remarkable document listing the impressive areas of agreement
between our churches. Partly as a result
of that there were official pronouncements concerning the filioque that have,
unfortunately, been lost in the more urgent concerns caused by the churches
(such as the Church of Canada and the American Episcopal Church) that have
recently and severely torn the net of fellowship withing the greater
communion. Nevertheless, it would be
good for us to review what has already been done officially by Anglicans
concerning the filioque.
After the Orthodox-Anglican
dialogues of the Mid-Seventies of the last century, two Lambeth Conferences
concluded and published decrees that Anglican Churches rewriting prayer books
should exclude the filioque. In 1978 the Anglican Communion's
Lambeth Conference requested "that all member Churches of the Anglican. In 1978 Communion should consider omitting the filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that
the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican
Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to
their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary
consultation with other Churches of the Western tradition." In 1988 the conference
"ask(ed) that further thought be given to the filioque clause, recognizing
it to be a major point of disagreement (with the Orthodox) ... recommending to
the provinces of the Anglican Communion that in future liturgical revisions the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the filioque clause." These things are good to be
reminded of because as recently as the report on current ACNA-Orthodox dialogue
given at the Provincial Council meeting at Ridgecrest, North Carolina in June
of 2012, it was recommended to the bishops that the filioque be removed from
the new ACNA Prayer Book. An objection
was made that this would, once again, look like an American church was
unilaterally forcing upon the Anglican Communion a liturgical revision. The Archbishop concurred and the discussion
basically ended without further comment or action (though perhaps and hopefully
committee work continues on this very important question!). However, the point needs to be made that not
one but two Lambeth Conferences have urged the removal of the filioque
from new Prayer Book liturgies! That
being the case, and seeing, for example, that the Global South keeps calling
the churches in the north to obey Lambeth '98's call to recognize
homosexual behavior as sinful, how can the ACNA possibly be found to be rebellious or presumptive or disruptive by
choosing to obey the call of two Lambeth Conferences to make this
change?
It seems to me that the time is right to do what should have
been done 500 years ago. In this issue
we need to stand with our brothers and sisters in the East and stand in our
truest tradition to honor the Scriptures as faithfully exegeted by the first
four Ecumenical Councils with respect to the procession of the Holy Spirit and
return our Nicene Creed to that originally penned by the Fathers and given
their blessing. In the same way, in some
small way, we add to the call for our Roman brothers and sisters to seek with
us to undo the horrific and first and worst tear in the fabric of our universal
communion (the 1054 Great Schism) by admitting the Orthodox rightful objections
to what was then a novelty and now has become a scandal and a block to the
healing of Christ's body.
