Officials of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), which launched a year ago as an alternative to the Episcopal Church, are reporting significant progress in their efforts to share Eucharist with other churches and to do evangelism alongside messianic Jews.
In a report delivered at the ACNA’s annual meeting in Amesbury, Mass., on June 9, ecumenism task force chairman Ray Sutton listed a series of recent milestones that show how the ACNA is forging connections outside mainline Protestantism.
Dialogues with the Orthodox Church in America have reportedly knocked down one of the centuries-old barriers that have kept Anglican and Orthodox Christians from sharing Eucharist. The big concession: when sharing Eucharist, the ACNA would confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not add the phrase and the Son, as Western Christians traditionally do in a formulation called the Filioque.
What’s more, the Lutheran Church”“Missouri Synod has lined up four meetings with ACNA representatives at seminaries later this year as the two denominations explore potential for Eucharistic sharing. The ACNA is also inviting 17 messianic Jewish groups to a September summit to explore “how we can do ministry together,” Sutton said.
[i]Dialogues with the Orthodox Church in America have reportedly knocked down one of the centuries-old barriers that have kept Anglican and Orthodox Christians from sharing Eucharist. The big concession: when sharing Eucharist, the ACNA would confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not add the phrase and the Son, as Western Christians traditionally do in a formulation called the Filioque.[/i]
Does that mean that ACNA accepts the East’s position on the Filioque? If so, why not simply eliminate it? If not, is it really in the spirit of catholic ecumenism simply to suspend usage in shared communion? And what are the implications for dialogue with Rome?
Also, the article mentions refugee ELCA congregations coming under the ACNA’s wing. Are we to assume that this is simply to be a relationship like that with AMIA or something more?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I would have to concur. If this article is indeed true, by what authority can ACNA simply drop the Filioque without deep theological study as to the implications? Is it really a simple matter of saying it whenever we are in an Anglican Eucharist, and omit it when we are at Divine Liturgy?
[b][i]1. Jeremy Bonner[/i][/b],
You asked [blockquote]…what are the implications for dialogue with Rome?[/blockquote] As a newly received Catholic, my surmise would be that the Catholic Church would frown upon dropping the [i]Filioque[/i]. The Catholic Church has been quite insistent on the theology of the [i]Filioque[/i] in all of its ecumenical encounters with the Orthodox—hence, I don’t see why they would change their position for the sake of ACNA. Particularly with the Anglican Ordinariates freely available to departing Anglican parishes via [i]Anglicanorum cÅ“tibus[/i]. After all, the latter already include the [i]Filioque[/i] in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, so dropping it would likely be seen as moving away from an already agreed and shared Catholic theology on the relationship among the persons of the Trinity.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Keith,
Thanks. You confirm what I was rather assuming.
Only a year old and already plotting shared communion with the Orthodox and the LCMS and shared ministry with messianic Jews?
Personally, I’d be more in favor of consolidating positions and spelling out clearly positions before linking up with such diverse groups as the Lutherans and the Orthodox.
“Only a year old and already plotting shared communion with the Orthodox and the LCMS and shared ministry with messianic Jews?”
Plotting? Plotting?!
Thank God for those dirty Orthodox and those proselytistic messianic Jews. Whatever clique you join, make sure I’m never admitted.
I suppose one could read the paragraph above as:
“when sharing eucharist with the orthodox” we will not say the offending words….
But that doesn’t make much sense in the present context. I mean, when did the Orthodox agree to “share the eucharist” with us?
And even if it is limited to that particular future/potential context…on what basis do we simply, in the matter of a week, throw out a doctrine held by the western church for 1200 years.
Just because?
I hope and pray that this is not just a sop to appease the Orthodox…an attempt to simply “get along” at the expense of doctrine. That would be quite disturbing.
Keith,
Rome asserts that the Filioque is theologically correct.
The Orthodox mostly now say that if properly understood it is not heretical. (A lot of them also say that the way the west has understood it much of the time is heretical and some of them can derive every evil in the Western world from the filioque! But this was definitely theologizing after the fact. )
The issue was always whether Rome had the authority to insert the phrase into the creed without a new ecumenical council.
I would say that Rome would now say, very quietly if possible, that yes they do have that authority, and, much louder, that they apologize for exercising that power in such an arbitrary and bullying way about such an essential matter as the Nicene Creed.
The Pope doesn’t say the filioque if he is celebrating the eucharist with Eastern rite hierarchs. The Eastern Catholic churches were quietly told to drop it about ten years ago. My church pasted strips of paper over it in their liturgy books. And the Pope omits it in rare joint prayers with the Orthodox.
If the ACNA is just saying that if they hold joint prayers with the Orthodox they won’t say it, I don’t think that’s a problem. They don’t seem to have done any kind of theological work which would enable them actually to reject the filioque as a doctrine, and if they are accepting some other body of theological work to do so, they haven’t said so.
If they think they are ever going to commune with the Orthodox without being Orthodox,period, they are deluding themselves.
i was a delegate at the Council. It was presented that we have agreed to not use the filioque in joint services (which I understand to be during meetings of the ecumenical dialogue going on between the Orthodox and us). It was also stated that further consideration and consultation in the House of Bishops and with the bishops of the Global South would be considering the implications of this.
Ron Baird+
I do believe even John Paul II participated in a prayer service in Rome with a visiting Ecumenical Patriarch and used the “original text” of the Nicene Creed. But does anyone really think that the occasional dropping of the filioque just for fellowship’s sake is really all it will take for ACNA to be accepted into Communion with the Orthodox? There’s a whole lot else that separates East and West and ACNA will have to explain its Reformation formulas and women clergy to the various jurisdictions. I wouldn’t start packing vestments for Constantinople or Moscow anytime soon.
True, and why would we want to be “accepted” by the Orthodox in any case. Their deficient understanding of the Fall and soteriological confusion is quite enough to remain friendly but distant cousins. Metropolitan Jonah’s characterization of Calvinism as heresy at last year’s synod was rotten icing on an already nasty tasting cake
I’m not sure any of this is about full communion, but rather about ecumenical recognition as a path to legitimacy. Just as newly independent nations seek international recognition before they can join the UN, ACNA is seeking ecumenical ties in order to strengthen their hand with Rowan and over and against TEC (which is steadily losing legitimacy in the eyes of Rome and the Orthodox). Having communion with the Antiochians and the LCMS may just be like having the Postal Service recognize you as Santa Claus. Of course, the emphasis is on “may”.
From “The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984 (Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue)”
“45 From the theological point of view the Orthodox stated that the doctrine of the [i] Filioque [/i] is unacceptable, although as expressed by Augustine, it is capable of an Orthodox interpretation. According to the Orthodox understanding the Son cannot be considered a cause of co-cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit. In spite of this we find in certain Fathers, for example St Maximus the Confessor (7th cent.), as explained by Anastasius the Librarian (9th cent.), the opinion that the [i] Filioque, [/i] as used in early Latin theology, can be understood in an Orthodox way. According to this interpretation a distinction should be made between two senses of procession, one by which the Father causes the existence of the Spirit (ekporeusis [my transliteration]) and the other by which the Spirit shines forth from the Father [i] and [/i] the Son (ekphansis [ditto]). This second sense of procession must be clearly differentiated from the later Western use of the [i] Filioque [/i] which observed no such distinction but rather confused ’cause of existence’ with ‘communication of essence’ (ekporeusis) with (ekphansis). Some Orthodox theologians, while affirming that the doctrine of the [i] Filioque [/i] is unacceptable for the Orthodox Church, at the same time, having in mind the position of Professor Bolotov (1854-1900) and his followers, regard the [i] Filioque [/i] as a ‘theologoumenon’ in the West” (pp. 26-27).
The entire document (I just learned after typing all of this!) is available HERE . Appendix 1 “The Moscow Agreed Statement 1976” gives the background to the discussion. I highly recommend “Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984” to anyone who sees the richness of interaction with this body.
I am encouraged by the ecumenical possibilities between North American Anglicans and the Orthodox and that it matters enough to the leadership of the ACNA to pursue it. As a point of interest, The Orthodox Study Bible (published by Thomas Nelson, Inc.) contains an article, “How to Read the Bible” by Bishop Kallistos Ware, which is based on the Moscow Agreed Statement. In it, he writes that at the conference, “between the Orthodox and the Anglicans, the true attitude towards Scripture was expressed in different but equally valid terms” (p. 1757). I have found this material teachable and preachable. We are blessed to be able to continue this dialogue.
William Shontz
[url=http://theleca.org ]The Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]
Lambeth 1978 (resolution 35) recommends that all the provinces of the communion consider eliminating the filioque from future liturgical texts and Lambeth 1988 (resolution 6) renews the recommendation.
Considering and studying the underlying theology and history of this dispute with a view to bringing the liturgies of the second and third largest divisions of Christianity into greater agreement is nothing like an innovation by the ACNA. I do not recall the recent council did anything more than call for proper study and consultation with the gafcon churches and ecumenical partners. By what authority would anyone who wishes to be thought Anglican not study this issue with a view towards aligning liturgy (and not necessarily theology) would be the more appropriate question, in light of the Lambeth resolutions and wider ecumenical dialogue on this issue. The question of Rome is important but cannot be the final arbitrator of the issue. If Rome must always be right why would anyone be Anglican?
There are two questions that have to be considered when addressing the Orthodox–the theological and the historical.
The Orthodox do disagree with the West about the filioque, but, perhaps of more importance is their objection to the manner in which it was introduced into the Creed. The West introduced the filioque into an ecumenically agreed Creed (approved at an ecumenical council) without consultation with the universal church, and without approval by an ecumenical council. The East rightly find this troubling, and view it as symptomatic of the centralization of Western church authority that also characterizes papal centrality. It is a violation of charity.
Theologically, I believe that the filioque is correct. However, I do not believe that the Orthodox understanding is heretical. Nor am I pursuaded that there are theologically demanding reasons why affirming or denying it should be a church dividing issue. Also, as an Anglican, I am committed to Article VI of the 39 Articles about the sufficiency of Scripture and what “is not to be required of any man.” It would take some convincing to show that the filioque is either taught plainly in Scripture or “may be proved thereby.”
If the Orthodox are only asking that the filioque be dropped in ecumenical settings in which Orthodox are involved, this is also a major concession, and really just good manners on the part of the non-Orthodox.
Many thanks to William Schontz, Richard Menees, and William Witt for steering this discussion of the [i]filioque[/i] and its status in Anglican liturgies and theology toward the direction in which it should head.
One further note of the history that stands behind the Dublin Agreed Statement (a statement that should be on the shelf or in the computer files of anyone with more than a passing interest in Anglican theology): in the 17th century attempts at [i]rapprochement[/i] between the Church of England and the Orthodox Churches (particularly the Greeks – and it’s a story full of Jesuit intrigues and the “what ifs” of history), the Anglicans agreed with their Greek interlocuters that the [i]filioque[/i] could rightly be understood as “from the Father, [i]through[/i] the Son”. As to the unilateral introduction of a meaning-laden phrase into the Ecumenical Creed, the Greeks maintained the unanimous Orthodox position of its illegitimacy, though.
As to the theology of the [i]filioque[/i], I believe that the understanding should rightly be “through the Son” (and that, in the interest of keeping the Ecumenical Creed ecumenical, we should omit the phrase entirely). The danger inherent in the Western understanding of the Holy Trinity, a danger heightened by the [i]filioque[/i], is that the [i]fons[/i] of the life of the Trinity is understood to be a sort of undifferentiated Godhead in which the three Persons equally share. (Hence a Western tendency toward Sabellianism.) The original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and – I think – the wording, “through the Son”, preserves rightly the truth that God the Father is the [i]fons[/i] of the life of the Holy Trinity, a life which the Father eternally, freely and equally shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Of course, one could respond, hence the Eastern tendency toward subordinationism.)
For a fascinating take on this whole matter, I commend Thomas Smail’s essay “The Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity”, in [i]Nicene Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism[/i], edited by our friend Chris Seitz.
I would also point out the Anglican attempt almost a century ago to address this issue liturgically, particularly in the Litany. Traditionally, the third invocation during the opening reads: “O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son: have mercy upon us (etc.)…”
The American 1928 revision changed this to “O God the Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of the faithful….” (which not only avoids the Filioque but makes it parallel with “O God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth”/O God the Son, Redeemer of the world”).
The Canadian Book has the same revision in their 1962 edition (I don’t have access to their 1918 text).
Interestingly, the Scottish revision of 1929 reads: “O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father through the Son….”
This, of course, came about in the days when relations between Anglicans and Orthodox were at their peak. There are some great articles [url=http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/index.html]HERE[/url].
Just last October, at Nashotah House, there was an Anglican-Orthodox ecumenical conference, with speakers including Archbishop Duncan and Metropolitan Jonah. You can download the podcasts from Ancient Faith Radio–they’re worth the listen: [url=http://ancientfaith.com/specials/in_the_footsteps_of_tikhon_and_grafton]In The Footsteps of Tikhon and Grafton[/url] .
And my own two cents: it was Jesus who said “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, [i] who proceeds from the Father, [/i] he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26, ESV). I am content with that.
William Shontz
[url=http://theleca.org]The Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]
Todd, (#16) are you saying that Christians can only legimitately believe in an essential Trinity and not in an economic Trinity?
I think Meister Eckhart would disagree.
Terry Tee, I understand your point, but the economic Trinity and the essential/ontological Trinity must be understood to be one and the same. The danger of economic understandings of the Trinity uncoupled from ontology is collapse into some form of modalism.
Can’t say that I much consider Meister Eckhart a theological authority.
[blockquote]The danger inherent in the Western understanding of the Holy Trinity, a danger heightened by the filioque, is that the fons of the life of the Trinity is understood to be a sort of undifferentiated Godhead in which the three Persons equally share.[/blockquote]
This is a classic Western danger, but it is not related to the filioque, and is found in neither of its two most prominent advocates, Augustine or Thomas Aquinas.
For both Augustine and Thomas, the Father alone is the unoriginate Source of Deity. The Father begets, the Son is begotten, the Father and the Son together spirate; the Spirit is spirated.
The Father alone is origin (fons). The Son is both originated (receives his Deity from the Father) and originator (with the Father brings forth the Spirit). The Spirit is originated, and does not originate (receives his Deity from the Father and Son).
The filioque does not mean that any of the Divine persons originates from a prior divine essence. Rather, the divine essence simply is the three persons in their substantial relations.
Ontologically, the filioque is necessary to differentiate the Son from the Spirit. Since the only distinction between the persons is in origins of relation, if the Spirit and the Son both originate from the Father, and yet there is no distinct way to differentiate the way the Spirit originates from the way that the Son originates, then there is no way to distinguish between Son and Spirit.
I think that the filioque is a true description of the Divine Being. At the same time, I think the East correct in their objections to the unecumenical way in which the West added the filioque to the Creed.
As a latecomer to this thread, I’m happy to see that there are many fine posts here. I particularly welcome the pragmatic contributions of Ron Baird+’s (#9) who was there in Amesbury, and the rather cheeky but realistic #12 by Alta Californian.
On the theological side, I’d add that the first major Father to take up and explain the double procession of the Holy Spirit was Hilary of Poitiers (around 300-368), recognized by Rome as a Doctor of the universal Church. Significantly, Hilary, like Irenaeus before him, was raised and educated in the East, but ministered mostly in the West/Gaul. He is thus a bridge figure, who predates the sad alienation of the eastern and western branches of Christendom.
But I’m puzzled that no one has picked up on Jeremy Bonner’s very apt question (back in #1) about how ELCA congregations might join the ACNA. Personally, I’d be delighted to see 100-150 former ELCA churches affiliate with ACNA. But I suspect Dr. Bonner’s right that they’re more likely to desire Ministry Partner status than full membership. But I’m intrigued that the number is so high, as the breakup of the ELCA is still in its very early stages.
But I find this TLC report puzzling in that the author suggests that the LC-MS might be open to full eucharistic sharing with the ACNA. I find that almost as unbelievable as the OCA doing the same. The Missouri Synod has practiced closed communion for a very long time. I see no sign that they’re wanting to change that policy. But I’m all for developing closer, more cordial relationships with our conservative Lutheran brothers and sisters.
David Handy+