The omission of the filioque clause in the draft text also spoke to the disproportionate number of Anglo-Catholic and philo-Orthodox bishops and organizations within the ACNA’s organizational structure.
Like the Episcopal Church, the ACNA’s appeared to be in thrall to enthusiasts. Special interest groups who are dedicated to a particular cause have often been able to press their agenda onto the wider church. Changing the Episcopal Church’s teaching on abortion, the Book of Common Prayer, women clergy and homosexuality was driven by dedicated special interest groups — not by mass appeal.
The filioque controversy has been discussed within Anglican circles for about 125 years. However interest in this topic had been a highest among Anglo-Catholics who had sought to justify a non-Roman type of Catholicism by an appeal to the Eastern church.
I note that both the long and short forms of the Eucharist omit the Epiclesis which has formed part of the Eucharistic tradition of American Anglicans from 1785. The concordat between the Scottish bishops and Bishop Seabury included the Epiclesis. The 1662 Prayer Book does not have it and the ACNA follows the 1662 tradition rather than the Scottish / American one. That is regrettable.
In the grand scheme of things this is neither surprising nor especially significant. Anglican deviations from Orthodoxy are innumerable, irrespective of the Filioque. But there has always been a certain clique within Orthodoxy that believes that at least some Anglicans really are only a bit removed from us and if we could just get them to make that all important symbolic change then we would be on the road to some sort of corporate reunion with a part of the Western Church. I have long suspected former Met. Jonah was among them.
In any event, this should put paid to these delusions, at least until the next Anglican splinter group pops up.
Or Orthodox one 🙂
TomRightmyer, the long form has this epiclesis: “And now, O merciful Father; in your great goodness, we ask you to bless and sanctify, with your Word and Holy Spirit, these gifts of bread and wine, that we, receiving them according to your Son our Savior Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.”
The short form has this: “So now, Father, we ask you to bless and sanctify, with your Word and Holy Spirit, these gifts of bread and wine that we may partake of his most blessed Body and Blood.”
In both cases, this comes right before the Words of Institution. I’m no liturgician, historical or otherwise, but the only other place I know of that order is in ’79 Canon C. That’s the only parallel I’d draw between the two rites. Can someone smarter on such things comment as to why things would be in this order? It doesn’t bother me, I’m just curious.
the Rev. Marcus Kaiser,
Holy Comforter, Sumter, SC
In the Eastern Orthodox liturgical tradition the Invocation of the Holy Spirit follows the Words of Institution. In the Roman rite and the 1662 – and US 1979 Eucharistic Prayer C from New Zealand following the order of the 1662 – it comes before the Words of Institution. The ACNA rite follows the 1662 rather than the American and Scottish / Nonjuror ritual tradition.
So is the epiclesis not there or is it in the wrong place? And does the order make any difference? It looks to me that the rite does include the epiclesis.
Br. Michael, I think it clearly is there. I wouldn’t say it’s in the “wrong place,” but just a different place than where most of us are accustomed (unless you use the Start Trek rite). After seeing the way some others reacted to it (h/t Fr. Michael Hub) it can be seen as strengthening the Epiclesis, which is kind of cool.
Tom, what are you considering an Epiclesis from the 1662? I thought that was rather the whole point of the discussion… that the 1662 doesn’t have one, thus separating us from our Scottish roots.
YBIC,
MAK+
So if the Epiclesis is there I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Br. Michael, I don’t think there is any fuss. It’s probably totally off of the original post, too. As for the original post, it is significant that the filioque is bracketed though included, I’m just not sure what to make of that. TomRightmyer had commented in #1 above that there was no Epiclesis. There is, but he likely missed it, as did I on first glance, because it’s in a place with which I’m unaccustomed. I have lots of other questions, mostly related to layout and why there’s no Elizabethan English option (perhaps for now?), but the Epiclesis bit represents no problem, just an interesting difference. We’re orthodox Anglicans, so we can make even radical agreement seem like fuss. It’s our special charism 🙂