Not really. Thankfully that particular controversy has largely stayed on the periphery of Anglicanism where it belongs. In the Episcopal Church we still recite it. I think in the 2019 ACNA Prayer Book it's allowed (but not required) to be omitted. I would assume it is still recited in most CoE parishes, but I don't know that for a fact regarding non-1662 use parishes.
Not that I am aware of. The 2019 BCP used by the ACNA churches has the filioque in parentheses to show that it is optional. No one has to say it if they don't want to. (For that matter, no one is standing by with a cudgel to beat anyone who isn't reciting the Creed itself... ...so I guess there's considerable latitude in the ACNA worship services.)
I think we should just totally drop it from the said creed in the service because it is not part of the actual creed that was adopted at an Ecumenical Council. This is not an issue I am going to go to the mat over though
I find it extraordinary that especially among those who most loudly proclaim the detestable enormities of Rome are some of the loudest proponents of the Latin insertion to the Creed of the Councils!?
I’m fine with omitting it. I also don’t think it expresses anything inaccurate. In any case it won’t make a bit of difference to the Orthodox either way.
Like who, for instance? I assume you are thinking of some specific individuals? I personally can't think of anyone that fits the description, but I assume you know some folks like that. The filioque is inconsequential to me. I could take it or leave it.
A good many GAFCON-type people I have encountered in Australia were certainly who I had in mind. The suggestion of omitting the filioque sends them into turmoil. I am aware of it because I choose not to say the filioque, even when it is printed in the liturgy as it normally is in these parts, so I just take a breath and pick up again. That probably means that it is not inconsequential to me, and I generally think it is not inconsequential to Eastern Christians. Indeed telling Eastern Christians it is inconsequential is fairly insensitive given the role it had to play in the Great Schism. One must ask, if as you suggest it is inconsequential, why is it still being said? Identified as a major cause of disunion, and given that we know that Jesus prayed for our unity (John 17), it would seem clear that we should at least consider dropping it. We uphold the Councils and fiddle with the Creed of the Councils makes no sense to me.
Yeah I doubt that they care. I don't think it expresses anything wrong either. It is not a hill for me to die on
"...why is it still being said?" Inertia and old habit, I'd guess. It may be a "major cause of disunion" between eastern and western (traditionally speaking) churches, but since the Anglican church is a "western" church it does what most western churches do: say the filioque. If it were a major cause of disunity among western churches, I'd imagine there would be more impetus to get out of the rut and make a change. I doubt the Orthodox would be any more in union with the western churches if we did away with the filioque anyway; too much time has passed and they are in their own rut! Ever see two wheel ruts on a wagon trail? They never meet. At least they keep alongside each other, though.
FWIW, I’m not convinced the Creed of Constantinople ever existed in the West without the addition, prior to the Schism. The origin of the Creed itself is obscure. It doesn’t appear historically until 451 at Chalcedon, and the filioque isn’t the only difference between the Greek and Latin version. Why the Antiochenes specifically among the Easterners opposed the idea of a procession from the Son (cf. Theodoret’s reply to Cyril’s 9th Anathema) is also obscure, for at that time the idea had nothing to do with the Creed.
If God's Word (scripture) is inerrant then how far can Christianity evolve? If it it denies the inerrant Word then it is no longer Christianity.
If we deem not inerrant, are we not taking ourselves out of Faith? I am not on here to argue, quote scripture or make any proclamations, other than I am a Sinner and I ask God to forgive me my sins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque The short answer is here, the long answer should be held in a separate thread. It would utterly derail this thread, as I understand it it was not under discussion at Gafcon 4
To be clear, inerrancy as evangelicals define it is neither mentioned nor required by the Creeds or the Anglican Formularies. The Scriptures were assumed by the Fathers (who wrote the Creeds) to be mysterious, full of hidden layers of meaning, and the truth of those meanings for them went beyond the literal sense. This applied especially to books like the Psalms, where the literal sense was at times perceived to be fundamentally antithetical to Christian teaching. The plain sense was in no way to be identified with the ‘true’ meaning of the text in such cases. Hence the common recourse to allegorical interpretation one typically finds in patristic writings, including in polemical works published in the heat of controversy. Any Anglican who consistently practices the Daily Office is compelled to grapple with this problem.
Psalm 37 Do not fret because of the wicked; do not be envious of wrongdoers, for they will soon fade like the grass, and wither like the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so you will live in the land, and enjoy security. Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him, and he will act. He will make your vindication shine like the light, and the justice of your cause like the noonday. Be still before the LORD, and wait patiently for him; do not fret over those who prosper in their way, over those who carry out evil devices. Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath. Do not fret—it leads only to evil. For the wicked shall be cut off, but those who wait for the LORD shall inherit the land. Yet a little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look diligently for their place, they will not be there. But the meek shall inherit the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity. The wicked plot against the righteous, and gnash their teeth at them; but the LORD laughs at the wicked, for he sees that their day is coming. The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy, to kill those who walk uprightly; their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. Better is a little that the righteous person has than the abundance of many wicked. For the arms of the wicked shall be broken, but the LORD upholds the righteous. The LORD knows the days of the blameless, and their heritage will abide forever; they are not put to shame in evil times, in the days of famine they have abundance. But the wicked perish, and the enemies of the LORD are like the glory of the pastures; they vanish—like smoke they vanish away. The wicked borrow, and do not pay back, but the righteous are generous and keep giving; for those blessed by the LORD shall inherit the land, but those cursed by him shall be cut off. Our steps are made firm by the LORD, when he delights in our way; though we stumble, we shall not fall headlong, for the LORD holds us by the hand. I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are ever giving liberally and lending, and their children become a blessing. Depart from evil, and do good; so you shall abide forever. For the LORD loves justice; he will not forsake his faithful ones. The righteous shall be kept safe forever, but the children of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and live in it forever. The mouths of the righteous utter wisdom, and their tongues speak justice. The law of their God is in their hearts; their steps do not slip. The wicked watch for the righteous, and seek to kill them. The LORD will not abandon them to their power, or let them be condemned when they are brought to trial. Wait for the LORD, and keep to his way, and he will exalt you to inherit the land; you will look on the destruction of the wicked. I have seen the wicked oppressing, and towering like a cedar of Lebanon. Again I passed by, and they were no more; though I sought them, they could not be found. Mark the blameless, and behold the upright, for there is posterity for the peaceable. But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed; the posterity of the wicked shall be cut off. The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD; he is their refuge in the time of trouble. The LORD helps them and rescues them; he rescues them from the wicked, and saves them, because they take refuge in him. This Psalm is 'God Breathed', 'inspired', but when taken literally, (which method of interpretation is the standard practice of those who claim Biblical 'inerrancy'), it forces the thoughtful, prayerful, honest and intelligent reader to some alternative and quite wrong conclusions. (1) Verses 1-11 would be a very poor replacement for the words on Christ's lips at the end of his earthly life - "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". The words of Psalm 37, in terms quite literally of any believer's life here on earth, are nothing more than mere wishful thinking. In order for them to be considered in any way 'INERRANT' they must be considered in the light of the vindication of the resurrection, and the NEXT life, not simply as a stated truth concerning the reward due to all those, in this life, who faithfully serve God and keep his laws unfailingly. Christ's reward, in this life, having faithfully, served God, and righteously kept ALL God's commandments, was to be cruelly destroyed by his enemies by being betrayed, falsely accused, illegally tried, brutally beaten and nailed to a piece of wood, naked, to die, in disgrace. (2) Verse 11. "But the meek shall inherit the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity." If this verse is indeed 'INERRANT' in it's plain and literal statement of 'truth', then the person who made THIS statement might question Biblical inerrantist's fundamental interpretation of it's 'inerrant' meaning, in the actual experience of Christ on earth. Incidentally, we his servants, can expect nothing different in our own experience as believers in the love of God, in this world. A fundamentalist interpretation of Psalm 37 is nothing but the wishful thinking and erronious logic dished up for us by the charlatans of the false 'Prosperity Gospel'. .
You continue to interpret Article VI of the 39 Articles in a way that no Anglican prior to the modern age would interpret it. It is your view of the Bible, not ours, that is the aberrant one. Well, first, the Fathers did not write Scripture; they wrote commentaries upon it, and were often wrong. Never read the Church Fathers in the same way you read scripture. Patristic writing contains much that is wise and illuminating, but also much that is confused and often completely wrong. Further, your idea that inerrancy is a modern doctrine and would have been alien to the Fathers is completely wrong. Consider Athanasius in De Synodis: Or Augustine of Hippo in various correspondence: From Augustine again in a letter to Jerome: Or Irenaeus in Against Heresies: Or Justin Martyr in the First Apology: