For what it is worth... The (Anglican) Church of the Province of the West
Indies dropped the filioque some time ago.

+Peter

Lexorandi2@... wrote:
Hi list,

Well, I guess I should reveal my cards since I'm the one who dealt this hand.

As far as I'm concerned, forget the ecumenical issue of the Filioque with the

EOs.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that we will ever live long enough to see 
any significant developments between East and West.  Maybe we will, but we 
(the APA/REC) won't be major players.  Then again it might be nice to be 
ready if something does come about.

Nevertheless, looking at this purely from the perspective of the REC's 
Constitution and particularly its "Body of Doctrine", it's inconsistent to 
assert that the REC affirms the first four ecumenical councils without 
qualification, the next two as applications of the first four, and the last 
one with certain qualifications (which is what the "Historical Documents" 
section of our Constitution and Canons basically states), and then turn 
around and confess the Filioque without SOME statement to the effect that 
while we might acknowledge that such a doctrine is *implicit* in the Creed, 
it was never ecumenically received.  

In my estimation, the history of the Filioque doctrine in the West has indeed

often times verred off into the realm of heterodoxy.  While Augustine on a 
good day affirmed procession from the Father *principaliter*, and the Council

of Florence clarified the matter by upholding the Monarchy of the Father as 
the origin of the Trinity, other Western councils and some of the scholastics

actually clouded the issue by misunderstanding the phrase to teach a bona 
fide DOUBLE procession or origin of the Spirit, which on a very bad day is 
practically heresy, at least in its theological implications.

That being said, it would be irresponsible for us (i.e., REC/APA) at this 
point, not to mention probably dangerous, just to remove what we and our 
forefathers have confessed as Catholics for over a millennium (or 500 years 
since the Reformation anyway.)  That would be a precipitous move in my 
estimation, and in this I am in complete sympathy with those who might vote 
for "A" (see my earlier post).  So what can be done? 

Let me suggest a simple answer:  I think at the very least we must make clear

that the version of the Nicene Creed as received in the Common Prayer 
tradition (i.e., with Filioque) is a *liturgical* symbol which is only 
binding to our jurisdiction(s).  Along with that must come an acknowledgment,

even clearer, that the interpretation of our liturgical Creed is nonetheless 
subject to the ecumenical version of the Creed (AD 381) and the universal 
consensus in this matter (i.e., the councils that defined the Trinity, the 
fathers, and the more consistent and irenic voices on both sides of the 
East/Wide divide).  Whether this means placing a statement in our (REC or a 
future joint REC/APA) Constitution to that effect, or what, I don't know.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Dan+


--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to <faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>