sign in sign up
<<
Home , Gewargis III, Sacrament, Thurible

A response to Jeffrey Hensley, “A Modest Defense of the ” 27 February 2016 (Episcopal) Georgetown Washington, DC Fr. Ronald Conner Memorial Paul Crego

I am honored to be a part of this memorial evening for Fr. Ronald

Parks Conner, late in Washington, DC; may his memory be eternal!

Sharing a mentor in Boston, the Rev. Dr. Horace T. Allen Jr. of the Boston

University School of Theology, I had met Fr. Conner before I arrived in

Washington. Over the years, I had the privilege of serving at with Fr.

Conner at St. James’ Parish on Capitol Hill and later at the Church of St.

Stephen and the Incarnation. We fell into easy conversation in the , often on topics of the Orthodox Church that we had both studied in some detail. We were both Anglo-Catholics not afraid to wield a , even at a . And, there was the Eve Mass at St. Stephen’s when Fr. Conner was presiding and I thurifying: the time came to charge the thurible at the , and after passing him the boat I struggled to open the thurible – the hot resin had sealed it shut. As I struggled Fr.

Conner, in a stagge whisper, exclaimed: “Protestant!”

I have been asked this evening to give my response to Jeffrey

Hensley’s paper: “A Modest Defense of the Filioque.” My response is

1 divided into three basic sections: 1. East is East and West is West?; 2.

Authority -- with attention also to modern ecumenical matters; and 3.

Theology – what does it matter anyway whether the filioque comes or goes?

East is East and West is West?

The first issue I would like to take up, in reaction to the “Modest

Defense,” would be a more detailed looked at the “Eastern Church.” I want to do some parsing, if I may, of the concept of Eastern and Western

Churches; and in this context, which churches in the “East” say “and from the Son” and which do not. While certainly there is a relative East and a relative West that, at one time existed among the churches, this ecclesiastical metageography, if you will, has very much been overcome by the migration of churches of all sorts to all of the cardinal points on the compass and quite many of the points in between. “East” and “West” in many ways have become value judgments. Perhaps we can move to a historical understanding of the universal Church that, while often enough defined in some cases by national and regional identities, is not made up of churches, or church families that are defined by points on the compass.

Those churches traditionally called “Eastern” come in essentially four different communions (and I will not be dealing in this paper with the

2 dizzying array of schismatic churches that claim their pseudo-apostolicity from this or that church in the “East.”)1 We think first of the “Orthodox” or what is often called “Eastern Orthodox” – that is, those local churches

(including and national churches) that are in with the of Constantinople. They have received the authority of seven ecumenical councils. This group is sometimes referred to as the Byzantine family of churches. These churches uniformly have no filioque in their standard versions of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan .

The second group of “Eastern Churches” consists of those that have received the first three ecumenical councils, Nicea (325), Constantinople I

(380/1), and Ephesus (431), but not Chalcedon (451) or any subsequent council. They are sometimes called Oriental Orthodox Churches2 or, if one insists on misusing an epithet from the fifth century, Monophysites. These churches now prefer the description “Miaphysite.” This group includes the

Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian

Orthodox Church, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. These churches are not in communion with those Orthodox Churches that are in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They are of at least two opinions on the of the : the Armenian Church, in its version of the

1 Cf. Peter F. Anson’s at Large for a detailed study of small communities claiming this or that apostolicity and . (Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 2006). 2 Is “Oriental” here more east than east, a different type of east, or a signal of the “more exotic?”

3 , has no mention of the Holy Spirit processing from either the

Father or the Son.3 The Coptic Church, on the other hand, professes belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.4

A third and much smaller group, now one small church, descends from the Syriac-speaking Christian community of the Persian Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. This so-called “” once spread over a missionary field that stretched from Eastern Anatolia to Beijing in

East Asia and the Indian subcontinent in South Asia. Lazy nineteenth century orientalists referred to this body as the “Nestorian Church.” There are remnants of this community, now known as the Assyrian Church of the

East, in what used to be and Syria – its Patriarch-Catholicos Mar

Gewargis III, enthroned in September 2015, resides in as did his predecessor Mar Dinkha IV. In the Nicene Creed of this church the Holy

Spirit processes from the Father, but not the Son.5

The fourth group are called “Eastern Churches.” These churches, all of which have counterparts among the first three groups, are

3 Divine of the Armenian Church. (New York: Diocese of the Armenian Church of America, 1982) 12a-13a (English). An immensely detailed treatment of creedal statements for the Armenian Church may be found in: Gabriele Winkler, Über die Entwicklungsgeschichte des armenischen Symbolums. (Roma: Pontificio istituto orientale, 2000). 4 The Coptic Liturgy – The Holy Kholagy. (Oxford Publishing House, 2007) 50-51. 5 Nestorian is an insult hurled at one party of combatants in the Christological controversies of the fifth century. They were accused of so separating their understanding of the union of human and divine in the person of Christ that the unity was destroyed. They also were reluctant to use “” as a title for the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nestorius, one time and subsequently deposed Patriarch of Constantinople himself seems to have used Christotokos for St. Mary.

4 in communion with the of Rome and the Roman .

Although they retain many of the customs and much of the of the churches out of which they were “born,” they, as Rome, recite the filioque in their .6

Second: the issue of authority. I bring authority up to expand upon

Jeff’s coverage of some of the Anglican views on the filioque issue, such as the Lambeth Conferences, the installation for the Archbishops of

Canterbury, and the almost, but not quite, elimination of the filioque from the 1979 Book of Common .

The Nicene Creed that we Episcopalians recite during the Eucharistic liturgy and some feast days, save for those liturgies, especially including the Sacrament of , when the Apostles’ Creed is appropriate, is a compilation of the first two ecumenical councils: of Nicea in 325 and I

Constantinople in 380/1. It was ratified as a statement of faith by the

Council of Chalcedon in 451, in addition to what we know as the “The

Definition of the Union of the Divine and Human Natures in the Person of

Christ.”7 As a part of the Eucharistic liturgy it was introduced by who had not received as authoritative the ,

6 For an accessible treatment of these four groups and their individual churches, see: Ronald Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches : A Brief Survey. 7th edition. (Roma, Italy: Edizioni “Orientalia Christiana”, 2008). 7 This may be found in the 1979 : 864; with other “Historical Documents” in type face smaller than the rest of the prayer book.

5 recognized by the majority of Christians as the Fourth .

Their motive was to show that they adhered to the of the earlier, that is, the fourth century, and the creed of the first two councils.8

There is some evidence that it was introduced in the latter part of the fifth century, but more firm evidence exists for an early sixth century introduction. Not to be outflanked on the issue of Nicene Orthodoxy, the pro-Chalcedonian party in the sixth century came to include the Nicene-

Constantinopolitan Creed as a part of the Eucharistic liturgy.9

The Latin liturgy, which is an intermediary for our Anglican customs, picked up the “Nicene Creed” as normative within the liturgy as a result of being party to these first four ecumenical councils and developing their liturgy in parallel with Constantinopolitan and Jerusalem norms.10 Rome was one of the five patriarchates as defined first by the Council of

Chalcedon and played an especially large role in the Council of Chalcedon by means of the Tome of St. Leo that became the basis for the aforementioned “Definition” of that council.

Before getting to the “birth” of the filioque in the church of the Latin liturgy centered in Rome, it would be appropriate here to ask: What does

8 This is on the assertion by some that Chalcedon had produced an innovative product that was not in line with the received faith and that older pronouncements were on principle more Orthodox. 9 Robert F. Taft, S.J., A History of the Liturgy of St. , volume II: The Great . 2nd edition. (Roma: Pontificium institutum studiorum orientalium, 1978) 398-405. 10 By this time liturgies were sung in Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, and Geʽez, in addition to Greek.

6 the Episcopal Church, or, for that matter, the Anglican Churches, in general, have to do with the ecumenical councils? Is there anything in our canons to say that they and their creedal statements are authoritative? Is the authority by virtue of the Nicene Creed having been included in the

Eucharistic liturgy in The Book of Common Prayer?

The “creeds” are mentioned four times in The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church: First: in Title I, 16, Section I, the “Catholic

Creeds” are mentioned as an essential part of the belief system of any congregation wishing to affiliate itself with the Episcopal Church; presumably these mean the

Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds. Second: In Title III, Canon 3, Section 3.c.2 a prospective ordinand to is required to hold “the Church’s teaching as set forth in the Creeds …” Again the assumption would be the Apostles’ and

Nicene Creeds. Third: A similar requirement for candidates who have been ordained in other denominations in the “historical succession,” even if the churches are not in communion with the Episcopal Church. 4. In Title IV, Canon 2, in this part of the Canons that concerns accountability and discipline of , the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed are explicitly noted as part of the doctrine necessary for clergy. The filioque as a matter of belief or controversy is not mentioned, nor is any text offered for the creeds.11 One say that the variety of wording here is

7 curious.

As to the authority of the ecumenical councils, they are only by inference given authority in the Canons by the presence of doctrinal standards that include the Nicene Creed. In “An Outline of the Faith commonly called the ” in the Book of Common Prayer, the Nicene Creed is referred to as “the creed of the universal Church and is used at the .” This statement appears innocent not only of the centuries-old controversy over the filioque, but of the fact that other

Christian Churches have wording of this Creed that is significantly different from what we use. The “Catechism” does not mention the councils in the section on the creeds, or anywhere else. It should also be noted that for the Episcopal Church the

Nicene Creed has not always been normative in the Eucharistic liturgy. In the 1892

Book of Common Prayer, for example, it was limited to the observance of five major feasts.12

The overriding principle when one asks about the councils is found in the sixth of the Articles of Religion, “On the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for

Salvation:”

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to

11 Presumably the texts in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer would be normative, but there are numerous translations, some with ecumenical warrant that are available now. 12 Marion J. Hatchett, Commentary on the American Prayer Book. (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995) 306-307. The five feasts: “Christmas-Day, -Day, Ascension-Day, Whitsunday, and Pentecost

8 salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and , of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

The twenty-first, omitted in the American prayer books until added in the

“Historical Documents” of the 1979 version, speaks directly to the issue of councils:

"General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."

This, along with the schismatic disarray of Christian communities, effectively rules out “general” or “ecumenical” councils from ever occurring again, especially with the notion that the “will of Princes” must proceed them. The “will of the Princes,” indeed, was a criterion of the seven councils received by the Orthodox Church. The

Emperors were always mistaken in their assumption that an imperially-back ruling of gathered bishops could effect a unity that the church on its own could not.

So, even as Jeff as pointed out, though we have Lambeth Conferences and even the General Convention of the Episcopal Church that advised the restoration of the original creed, none of these bodies have the impact of an ecumenical

9 council. It remains to be seen whether the will even of the General Convention on the filioque issue can be embodied in the next Book of Common Prayer.

Third: Theology: we might ask the question what does it matter anyway whether the filioque comes or goes? Jeff has given us a very good summary of the history of the filioque and I will just touch on a couple of matters for emphasis.

Jaroslav Pelikan – may his memory be eternal – wrote in his The

Melody of Theology the following:13

If there is a special circle of the inferno described by Dante reserved for historians of theology, the principal homework assigned to that subdivision of Hell for at the first several aeons of may well be a thorough study of all the treaties … devoted to the inquiry: Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father only, as Eastern contends, or from both the Father and the Son as the teaches?

Of course, one might then have asked Professor Pelikan

whether such historians of theology would not think that with such a

glorious assignment they had died and gone straight to !

The filioque as a matter of discussion, if not yet permanent

interpolation into the Creed, begins as early as the sixth century when

it appears in the so-called , the Quicunque Vult

13 Quoted in: A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) [v].

10 [Whosoever will … ]. It is decidedly not a creed from Athanasios of fourth century Alexandria, but rather a later western invention.

Despite the lateness of this creed and its disagreement on procession from the Creed endorsed by Chalcedon, the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son has some basis in the perceived need of the Church both to maintain the fullness of the divinity of the Second

Son of the , especially as over against the Arians who were often politically ascendant in parts of Europe. By having the Holy

Spirit process from the Son, the Divinity of the Son is spoken of in the same way as that of the Father. That the Spirit proceeds from both is said to uphold the Divinity of the Spirit – how else could a “person” be if derived, eternally, in this way, from the Divine Father and the Divine

Son. I will recommend a book for those who wish to examine the history of this doctrinal question in much of its excruciating detail: The

Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, by A. Edward Siecienski, an Orthodox scholar.

Siecienski spends a great deal of time on Maximus the

Confessor, in the seventh century, who suffered for maintaining

Orthodoxy in the face of the Monothelete heresy promoted by the emperors in Constantinople [having his tongue cut partly out for his

11 opposition to their heresies]. Maximus attempted to bridge the gap by talking about the filioque issue in a way that especially would help to bridge the gap between Latin-speaking West and Greek-speaking

East. A key passage that speaks to our issue from Maximus:14

For the Holy Spirit, just as he belongs to the nature of according to his essence so he also belongs to the nature of the Son according to his essence, since he proceeds inexpressibly from the Father through his begotten Son.

There are two key words here: “through” and “inexpressibly.”

First, to admit the inexpressibility of speaking about internal divine processes is to assume a necessarily humble position. Second, prepositions are always important and here the “through” replaces the

“from” of the filioque. This gives us the possibility of the Son participating in the procession without being its origin – an attempt to describe a way of talking of procession that might appeal to both sides.

Part of the discussion through the centuries, and almost always accompanied by long lists of biblical quotations and citations from the writings of the early writers of the Church, involved how the Spirit related to the Father and the Son and whether “through the Son” as

14 Siecienski, 77.

12 often enough said in Greek might be of some equivalence to the idea that the Spirit was “from” the Son. At the same time the Greek East especially wanted to preserve the monarchy of the Father; that is to say that the Father is the only source within the Divine essence.

Many Greeks insisted that saying that the Spirit also processed “from” the Son was to make the Son a second “principle,” that is arxe, or a second cause, that is aitia. For them, this was not merely a misunderstanding of terminology, but rather the sort of heresy that would call down and provoke .

It has been noted that many of the sources from the Greek authors cited by Latin authors in this debate are from works spuriously attested to these writers! Jeff has otherwise covered the of the issue quite well and to add anything at this point would be superfluous to our task this evening.

I will at this closing moment say that I have been an ardent anti- filioquist for some time, relying more on the authority of the councils than generally given warrant by the Episcopal Church and the

Anglican family of churches. I do like the “solution” offered by

Maximus that would give an explanation that gives the Son his

13 participation in that procession with making an addition to the Nicene-

Constantinopolitan Creed necessary.

14