Heck, I’m nervous about how the Trinity might be referred to in a new BCP. I left one church because they kept using the “creator, redeemer, sanctifier” replacement for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That would bother me far more than the filioque clause to be honest ... (shock, horror ... Hyperdox beware!)
Being flippant for a moment, @ChastMastr, the Orthodox would argue that given the filioque was a unilateral and relatively late addition then there'd be no harm in either the RCs or Anglicans withdrawing it.
I do recognise, of course, that things aren't that clear cut.
As a more general point, yes, I'm with you on the undesirability of some liturgical changes and innovations. That said, some parts of my own Tradition could certainly do with overhauling their liturgical practice and adopting more up-to-date language than koine Greek or Church-Slavonic might help in some quarters.
Heck, I’m nervous about how the Trinity might be referred to in a new BCP. I left one church because they kept using the “creator, redeemer, sanctifier” replacement for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Re: “ I'd point out that there are some fairly nasty truths in this world - it's hard to see in what way knowing them is "better" than not knowing them. And the "value of truth" depends on what you do with it.”
I think that knowing nasty truths can help with fighting the nasty things in this world. That doesn’t mean we should all try to seek out the nastiest stuff and just dwell on it or something. But knowing that a terrible empire wants to go and conquer something might help you with getting people together to try to stop it. Knowing about a terrible disease means that people can try to find a cure. And so on.
...
As for the value of truth, while it can be misused (though I generally think it’s misused by leaving out corresponding other, relevant truths, or mixing a little truth with a lie to make the lie stronger), I’d say that it has value just by virtue of being true in the first place.
Regarding knowing truths being "better" than not knowing, what about truths about things we're unable to prevent, like the impact of a large asteroid? Or how painful and protracted our deaths will be?
And what about the truth about what people are thinking? Or what they really think of us?
This continues to suggest to me that the value of truth is not absolute - it depends on a number of factors, including who you are.
Does anyone who believes that truth matters really approach it like that, though? As I said above, “That doesn’t mean we should all try to seek out the nastiest stuff and just dwell on it or something.”
I don't know - how do you approach it? What criteria do you use for assessing whether or not you seek out or dwell upon particular truths?
In the (plausible) case of truth about the day on which a large asteroid impacts earth, some people would want to know, some people would not. Which group of people are better off?
Meanwhile, I wonder how many Anglicans (at least) think the filioque clause is more important than the issue of reconciliation. As noted earlier, there are a number of Anglican Churches that have now removed it. In other sees, Pope Francis omitted it on his pastoral visit to Greece in 2021.
NB Resolution 35 of the 1978 Lambeth Conference requested that
all member Churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation with other Churches of the Western tradition.
I suspect the vast majority of Anglicans would prefer reconciliation to retaining the filioque clause. Sadly, if the clause were dropped tomorrow there'd still be all sorts of other barriers people would barricade themselves behind.
The Orthodox hierarchy and the monks on Mount Athos would point to something else.
I don't know - how do you approach it? What criteria do you use for assessing whether or not you seek out or dwell upon particular truths?
In the (plausible) case of truth about the day on which a large asteroid impacts earth, some people would want to know, some people would not. Which group of people are better off?
Meanwhile, I wonder how many Anglicans (at least) think the filioque clause is more important than the issue of reconciliation. As noted earlier, there are a number of Anglican Churches that have now removed it. In other sees, Pope Francis omitted it on his pastoral visit to Greece in 2021.
NB Resolution 35 of the 1978 Lambeth Conference requested that
all member Churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation with other Churches of the Western tradition.
Heck, I’m nervous about how the Trinity might be referred to in a new BCP. I left one church because they kept using the “creator, redeemer, sanctifier” replacement for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That definitely seems modalist.
I would say it presents a risk—a not-insignificant risk, I’d also say—of modalism, rather than being inherently modalist.
I am used to hearing it as “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” (rather than “Sanctifier”). The (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed affirms belief in “in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” To be sure, the Creed also affirms that “through [Jesus Christ] all things were made.” But I think an argument can be made that the Creed treats “maker” or “creator” as a title or designation of the Father. Similarly, think arguments can be made that the “redeemer” and “sustainer” reflect the Creed’s affirmation that Jesus Christ came “for us and for our salvation” and that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord, the Giver of Life.”
To be clear, I’m not really a fan of “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer/Sanctifier,” because I think they can be misunderstood and slip into modalism if care isn’t taken. I understand why some like and use them, and I’m confident that, at least for such people I personally know, no modalism is intended or understood. But there is risk there.
I think that if one is trying to balance masculine language of the traditional formula, there are other, better ways to do it that are consistent with Scripture and that don’t carry the same risk of modalism. Admittedly, though, they may carry other risks; I tend to think all attempts to name the Trinity, including the traditional “Father, Son, Holy Spirit,” have limitations and present challenges that require thoughtfulness.
And just to be clear, I think the traditional “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” is non-negotiable in certain contexts—baptismal and baptismal-related contexts being the primary example. That said, I don’t think it’s necessarily heretical to compliment the traditional formula with other, carefully chosen metaphorical language that invites people into the mystery of the Trinity.
And "Parent, Child, and Spirit" sounds artificial. I would definitely argue that both pater and fils are creators. Maybe spiritus also; I believe there are scriptures supporting that.
I don't know - how do you approach it? What criteria do you use for assessing whether or not you seek out or dwell upon particular truths?
How I do and how I should are two different things. I struggle with doomscrolling. But metaphysical/spiritual/religious truths are not like that.
In the (plausible) case of truth about the day on which a large asteroid impacts earth, some people would want to know, some people would not. Which group of people are better off?
One could argue that it would give people a chance to prepare themselves spiritually. But one could also argue that we're each in this situation (impending death) every day, from heart attacks to car accidents, etc. Which people are better off might depend on the people.
I don't see ecclesiastical reconciliation as the necessary thing that some do. People believe different things. Different churches have different notions of the sacraments and holy orders. I feel like there's pressure to force different groups to fuse in ways that are not helpful.
Heck, I’m nervous about how the Trinity might be referred to in a new BCP. I left one church because they kept using the “creator, redeemer, sanctifier” replacement for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That definitely seems modalist.
I would say it presents a risk—a not-insignificant risk, I’d also say—of modalism, rather than being inherently modalist.
I am used to hearing it as “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” (rather than “Sanctifier”). The (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed affirms belief in “in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” To be sure, the Creed also affirms that “through [Jesus Christ] all things were made.” But I think an argument can be made that the Creed treats “maker” or “creator” as a title or designation of the Father. Similarly, think arguments can be made that the “redeemer” and “sustainer” reflect the Creed’s affirmation that Jesus Christ came “for us and for our salvation” and that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord, the Giver of Life.”
To be clear, I’m not really a fan of “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer/Sanctifier,” because I think they can be misunderstood and slip into modalism if care isn’t taken. I understand why some like and use them, and I’m confident that, at least for such people I personally know, no modalism is intended or understood. But there is risk there.
I think that if one is trying to balance masculine language of the traditional formula, there are other, better ways to do it that are consistent with Scripture and that don’t carry the same risk of modalism. Admittedly, though, they may carry other risks; I tend to think all attempts to name the Trinity, including the traditional “Father, Son, Holy Spirit,” have limitations and present challenges that require thoughtfulness.
And just to be clear, I think the traditional “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” is non-negotiable in certain contexts—baptismal and baptismal-related contexts being the primary example. That said, I don’t think it’s necessarily heretical to compliment the traditional formula with other, carefully chosen metaphorical language that invites people into the mystery of the Trinity.
I will say that one thing I don't need as a parishioner is to suddenly be thrown something I'm expected to say that I'm not sure I agree with doctrinally. It takes me out of the service, out of prayer, and throws me into "oh dear, is this heretical? Why did they do this? Can I actually say this? Arrgh!!" territory. Like I said, I've left a church over this.
I genuinely consider the liturgical attempts to get away from the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit" to be very, very unhelpful. I know there are people who struggle with the masculinity of "Father" and "Son," and I am sorry for them, but these are the words we have been given, according to our traditional theology as I understand it, by Jesus, God Himself Incarnate.
I will say that one thing I don't need as a parishioner is to suddenly be thrown something I'm expected to say that I'm not sure I agree with doctrinally. It takes me out of the service, out of prayer, and throws me into "oh dear, is this heretical? Why did they do this? Can I actually say this? Arrgh!!" territory. Like I said, I've left a church over this.
I genuinely consider the liturgical attempts to get away from the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit" to be very, very unhelpful. I know there are people who struggle with the masculinity of "Father" and "Son," and I am sorry for them, but these are the words we have been given, according to our traditional theology as I understand it, by Jesus, God Himself Incarnate.
And "Parent, Child, and Spirit" sounds artificial.
I agree.
I would definitely argue that both pater and fils are creators.
Maybe spiritus also; I believe there are scriptures supporting that.
Again, I agree. There certainly are passages that say that, or that fils and spiritus participated in creation. But yet, the Creed identifies pater as “maker/creator.” That’s why I think “risks modalism” is a better descriptor than “is modalism.”
. . . but these are the words we have been given, according to our traditional theology as I understand it, by Jesus, God Himself Incarnate.
And that is why I said that formula is, I think, non-negotiable in certain contexts. But non-negotiable in certain contexts is not the same as exclusive in all contexts. We’ve also, for example, been given “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit.” So there’s a different trinitarian formula that's firmly part of the tradition. We’ve been given “Word” as identifying the second person of the Trinity, so that’s another part of the tradition.
I totally get the aversion. But I also get the impetus to explore other language Scripture uses to describe who God is.
And "Parent, Child, and Spirit" sounds artificial. I would definitely argue that both pater and fils are creators. Maybe spiritus also; I believe there are scriptures supporting that.
The most usual referencec is Psalm 32(33) verse 6: "The heavens were established by the Word of the Lord, and all their powers by the breath of his mouth" (noting that in Hebrew and in Greek the same word is used for "breath", "wind", and "spirit" - so here "breath" = "Spirit")
The (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed affirms belief in “in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
In the Greek text neither "Father" nor "Almighty" has a definite article, so here they should be seen as descriptors rather than titles (which the definite articles tend to imply).
The (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed affirms belief in “in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
In the Greek text neither "Father" nor "Almighty" has a definite article, so here they should be seen as descriptors rather than titles (which the definite articles tend to imply).
Thanks for that. I’m definitely not a Greek student.
Do you think it’s problematic that most English translations have the definite article for both “Father” and “Almighty”?
The (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed affirms belief in “in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
In the Greek text neither "Father" nor "Almighty" has a definite article, so here they should be seen as descriptors rather than titles (which the definite articles tend to imply).
Are you certain of that interpretation of the missing articles? Because I've got a fair amount of Greek, but I know that the way Greek uses articles is not the same as the way English does, and I hesitate to make this sort of pronouncement. Though you may have much more Greek study than I.
And "Parent, Child, and Spirit" sounds artificial.
I agree.
I would definitely argue that both pater and fils are creators.
Maybe spiritus also; I believe there are scriptures supporting that.
Again, I agree. There certainly are passages that say that, or that fils and spiritus participated in creation. But yet, the Creed identifies pater as “maker/creator.” That’s why I think “risks modalism” is a better descriptor than “is modalism.”
. . . but these are the words we have been given, according to our traditional theology as I understand it, by Jesus, God Himself Incarnate.
And that is why I said that formula is, I think, non-negotiable in certain contexts. But non-negotiable in certain contexts is not the same as exclusive in all contexts. We’ve also, for example, been given “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit.” So there’s a different trinitarian formula that's firmly part of the tradition. We’ve been given “Word” as identifying the second person of the Trinity, so that’s another part of the tradition.
I totally get the aversion. But I also get the impetus to explore other language Scripture uses to describe who God is.
Oh, if Scripture uses it, that is a different matter, absolutely.
The (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed affirms belief in “in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
In the Greek text neither "Father" nor "Almighty" has a definite article, so here they should be seen as descriptors rather than titles (which the definite articles tend to imply).
Are you certain of that interpretation of the missing articles? Because I've got a fair amount of Greek, but I know that the way Greek uses articles is not the same as the way English does, and I hesitate to make this sort of pronouncement. Though you may have much more Greek study than I.
Greek uses definite articles where English would not. It is the absence of an article here that is significant, taking this line from a discussion we had in our church after Sunday morning service a few months ago with a visiting Regius Professor in a Faculty of Divinity in a unversity north of the border. His knowledge of Greek is far greater than mine.
The (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed affirms belief in “in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
In the Greek text neither "Father" nor "Almighty" has a definite article, so here they should be seen as descriptors rather than titles (which the definite articles tend to imply).
Unfortunately "father" is not an adjective in English. No ending I can think of (ish, oid, ly, y, ??) communicates what I think you are implying.
When you say "'father' is not an adjective", you are on thin ice. Many nouns in English can be used as adjectives. We have terms such as "father figure".
I’m not sure you can do that in Greek. They have all these endings, see…
Yeah, but nouns and adjectives use the same endings so it's at least possible as far as inflection is concerned. Whether Greek did do that is a different question.
In the Latin text of the Creed there is,as is customary in Latin, no definite article.
Credo in UNUM Deum, unum being there to remind us that God is ONE
Patrem omnipotentem , with Patrem as a noun in the accusative case and omnipotentem
serving as an adjective with the case endings here happening to
be the same -em
Factorem caeli et terrae , ' Factor' in the accusative case and the other two nouns in the
genitive case
Visibilium omnium et invisibilium -- genitive case plural of all these words.
I think what people are concerned about is the baptismal formula, mainly--"I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The concern here is because we really do (most of us) believe something supernatural occurs at baptism, though we differ on the details depending on whether we're credobaptists or paedobaptists. But there are quite a few divine promises connected to baptism, and the concern is that if you get far enough away from the form we were told to follow, at what point does it cease to be a baptism in God's eyes? Because at that point, you can't count on the promises.
So generally speaking, even though God is merciful and has a helluva lot less hangups than human beings do, we (Christians in general) tend to stick to the instructions given (both for baptism and for the Lord's supper) as closely as we can--because we want the comfort of the promises. That's why I won't baptize with a banana milkshake, or celebrate communion with Doritos. God might choose to honor that and give all his gifts--but he might not, too. And who needs that concern at 3 a.m. some sleepless night?
Does something essential not happen when someone uses a term other than "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?"
My concentration during the service, certainly, when I’m suddenly wrestling with whether or not I can assent to, or speak aloud, the prayer/invocation in question.
I don't see ecclesiastical reconciliation as the necessary thing that some do. People believe different things. Different churches have different notions of the sacraments and holy orders. I feel like there's pressure to force different groups to fuse in ways that are not helpful.
I guess you mean not helpful for the people attending. I've always understood ecclesiastical reconciliation in the context of christian unity, and the extent to which this does (or doesn't) demonstrate God's love to the world.
I think what people are concerned about is the baptismal formula, mainly--"I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The concern here is because we really do (most of us) believe something supernatural occurs at baptism, though we differ on the details depending on whether we're credobaptists or paedobaptists. But there are quite a few divine promises connected to baptism, and the concern is that if you get far enough away from the form we were told to follow, at what point does it cease to be a baptism in God's eyes? Because at that point, you can't count on the promises.
So generally speaking, even though God is merciful and has a helluva lot less hangups than human beings do, we (Christians in general) tend to stick to the instructions given (both for baptism and for the Lord's supper) as closely as we can--because we want the comfort of the promises. That's why I won't baptize with a banana milkshake, or celebrate communion with Doritos. God might choose to honor that and give all his gifts--but he might not, too. And who needs that concern at 3 a.m. some sleepless night?
Better not to mess around.
Do Christians in general think that God is really that legalistic?
When you say "'father' is not an adjective", you are on thin ice. Many nouns in English can be used as adjectives. We have terms such as "father figure".
True. Father is not one of them. What one doesn't want to do with one's communications, generally (and the liturgy is a form of communication) is say things your listeners won't understand. Unless you're writing postmodern poetry and then all bets are off.
Do Christians in general think that God is really that legalistic?
Well, I would certainly be a bit upset if a minister chose to baptise with a banana milkshake if water were available. I don't think it's to do with God being legalistic, I think as @Lamb Chopped says it's to do with the reassurance we receive from things happening "in due order".
Do Christians in general think that God is really that legalistic?
Well, I would certainly be a bit upset if a minister chose to baptise with a banana milkshake if water were available. I don't think it's to do with God being legalistic, I think as @Lamb Chopped says it's to do with the reassurance we receive from things happening "in due order".
But if that's reassuring it's because we think God is legalistic and it won't work if not done quite right, isn't it?
The much more worrying thing to me about this is that people who insist, for reasons of their own foibles, on using an incorrect baptismal formula are working from an assumption that, 'I know better than God.'
It also strikes me as wrong that anybody in ministry should feel that they are entitled to follow their own particular preferences and that this entitlement (dolled out perhaps as being faithful to their inner truth) prevails over the spiritual health or even possible eternal status of the candidate. Those who are receiving a ministers ministrations are at his or her mercy as to what they get.
For this reason I rather tend to hope that God is more merciful to the victims than to the minister who thinks he or she 'knows better than God'.
The much more worrying thing to me about this is that people who insist, for reasons of their own foibles, on using an incorrect baptismal formula are working from an assumption that, 'I know better than God.'
It also strikes me as wrong that anybody in ministry should feel that they are entitled to follow their own particular preferences and that this entitlement (dolled out perhaps as being faithful to their inner truth) prevails over the spiritual health or even possible eternal status of the candidate. Those who are receiving a ministers ministrations are at his or her mercy as to what they get.
For this reason I rather tend to hope that God is more merciful to the victims than to the minister who thinks he or she 'knows better than God'.
I cannot believe in a God whose attitude is such that anyone's spiritual health or eternal destiny depends on surface ephemera like these.
Do Christians in general think that God is really that legalistic?
Well, I would certainly be a bit upset if a minister chose to baptise with a banana milkshake if water were available. I don't think it's to do with God being legalistic, I think as @Lamb Chopped says it's to do with the reassurance we receive from things happening "in due order".
But if that's reassuring it's because we think God is legalistic and it won't work if not done quite right, isn't it?
No, I don't think so. I think it's more like how children like a bedtime story to be done "properly" and if that doesn't happen they won't be as happy. Someone might say: "don't be silly, it doesn't matter" and from a certain perspective that might be true, but actually some of the happiness and security comes from the ritual.
A significant number of people suffer from OCD, including me. Why is it a bad thing if we refrain from freaking them out by taking liberties with our instructions?
A significant number of people suffer from OCD, including me. Why is it a bad thing if we refrain from freaking them out by taking liberties with our instructions?
Well, if it reinforces the idea that God casts people into Hell over getting surface forms wrong - that seems harmful too to me.
Used to be that one needed to sacrifice an animal to be right with God. Then Jesus came -- no more bloody, burning altars. Then one had to be Jewish to receive the kingdom (Jesus himself said as much -- "I'm here for the Jews, not the Gentiles.)*. But that didn't last much beyond the Resurrection -- guess what? Gentiles welcome. But then there was a kerfuffle about circumcision. Good news, though -- turns out one need not be ritually trimmed after all! Humans may feel that specifics of these things matter, even cosmically, but that's not God's track record. Could you use Vaseline as an Oil of Chrism if hearts were right? Bet you could.
Quite. I don't propose one should muck about with stuff for the sake of it; it's the idea that the spells won't work without the right somatic, material or verbal components that bothers me.
Look, nobody is saying GOD says to worry about these details. We are saying that WE, as ordinary fragile and fallible humans, worry about these details, and that simple kindness to the rest of humanity should prevent people from playing games with the instructions we were given.
Look, nobody is saying GOD says to worry about these details. We are saying that WE, as ordinary fragile and fallible humans, worry about these details, and that simple kindness to the rest of humanity should prevent people from playing games with the instructions we were given.
@Enoch implied that God might care about the details - otherwise what's all the business about spiritual health or eternal destiny about?
I don't see ecclesiastical reconciliation as the necessary thing that some do. People believe different things. Different churches have different notions of the sacraments and holy orders. I feel like there's pressure to force different groups to fuse in ways that are not helpful.
I guess you mean not helpful for the people attending. I've always understood ecclesiastical reconciliation in the context of christian unity, and the extent to which this does (or doesn't) demonstrate God's love to the world.
I think what people are concerned about is the baptismal formula, mainly--"I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The concern here is because we really do (most of us) believe something supernatural occurs at baptism, though we differ on the details depending on whether we're credobaptists or paedobaptists. But there are quite a few divine promises connected to baptism, and the concern is that if you get far enough away from the form we were told to follow, at what point does it cease to be a baptism in God's eyes? Because at that point, you can't count on the promises.
So generally speaking, even though God is merciful and has a helluva lot less hangups than human beings do, we (Christians in general) tend to stick to the instructions given (both for baptism and for the Lord's supper) as closely as we can--because we want the comfort of the promises. That's why I won't baptize with a banana milkshake, or celebrate communion with Doritos. God might choose to honor that and give all his gifts--but he might not, too. And who needs that concern at 3 a.m. some sleepless night?
Better not to mess around.
Do Christians in general think that God is really that legalistic?
Some do, I’m sure. Others, I’m sure don’t.
In my denomination, it has little to do with God being that legalistic. Rather, it’s about baptism being the way one is received into the church, about “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” being the formula used by the Church catholic and about baptisms being recognized as valid throughout the Church catholic.
Look. All I can do is point you to my own experience and let you take potshots at it, if you want.
I am saying that, if someone were to baptize me with a "creative" set of words--"maker, sustainer, and lifegiver" or some such--then the chances are very high that, when I discover that's not actually the words we were given to use, that I'm going to have a very bad night. Because God may not sweat the small stuff, but I do. And from many years' of pastoral experience, I can tell you that there are a lot of people just like me who would have the same un-nerved reaction. And telling them that they are wrong to have this reaction isn't going to stop it--it'll just make them feel even worse because now they are apparently harming others by "reinforc[ing] the idea that God casts people into Hell over getting surface forms wrong."
Why demand that the Christian church must act from a position of utmost strength and confidence at all times? Is there no room for those of us who have midnight fears, or who were brought up by perfectionists and can't shake harm done to us as children?
Pastoral concerns are valid. In some cases, they're almost everything. And we have to take people as we find them, not as we think they ought to be.
As I said earlier - I don't propose one should muck about with stuff for the sake of it; it's the idea that the spells won't work without the right somatic, material or verbal components that bothers me. I think we should be reassuring people, because it's not just about if someone goes a bit left field; it's about the image of God we're carrying around in our heads.
My reaction is against @Enoch's suggestion that God might indeed get all arsey and smitey if we get these ephemera wrong.
Comments
Being flippant for a moment, @ChastMastr, the Orthodox would argue that given the filioque was a unilateral and relatively late addition then there'd be no harm in either the RCs or Anglicans withdrawing it.
I do recognise, of course, that things aren't that clear cut.
As a more general point, yes, I'm with you on the undesirability of some liturgical changes and innovations. That said, some parts of my own Tradition could certainly do with overhauling their liturgical practice and adopting more up-to-date language than koine Greek or Church-Slavonic might help in some quarters.
That definitely seems modalist.
(From Lutheran Satire on YouTube, some of which I like, some of which I don’t…)
And what about the truth about what people are thinking? Or what they really think of us?
This continues to suggest to me that the value of truth is not absolute - it depends on a number of factors, including who you are.
In the (plausible) case of truth about the day on which a large asteroid impacts earth, some people would want to know, some people would not. Which group of people are better off?
Meanwhile, I wonder how many Anglicans (at least) think the filioque clause is more important than the issue of reconciliation. As noted earlier, there are a number of Anglican Churches that have now removed it. In other sees, Pope Francis omitted it on his pastoral visit to Greece in 2021.
NB Resolution 35 of the 1978 Lambeth Conference requested that
The Orthodox hierarchy and the monks on Mount Athos would point to something else.
That was a follow up to the 1976 Moscow Agreed Statement from the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions. See https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103815/the_moscow_statement.pdf for the full text,
'You agreed what?!'
I am used to hearing it as “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” (rather than “Sanctifier”). The (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed affirms belief in “in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” To be sure, the Creed also affirms that “through [Jesus Christ] all things were made.” But I think an argument can be made that the Creed treats “maker” or “creator” as a title or designation of the Father. Similarly, think arguments can be made that the “redeemer” and “sustainer” reflect the Creed’s affirmation that Jesus Christ came “for us and for our salvation” and that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord, the Giver of Life.”
To be clear, I’m not really a fan of “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer/Sanctifier,” because I think they can be misunderstood and slip into modalism if care isn’t taken. I understand why some like and use them, and I’m confident that, at least for such people I personally know, no modalism is intended or understood. But there is risk there.
I think that if one is trying to balance masculine language of the traditional formula, there are other, better ways to do it that are consistent with Scripture and that don’t carry the same risk of modalism. Admittedly, though, they may carry other risks; I tend to think all attempts to name the Trinity, including the traditional “Father, Son, Holy Spirit,” have limitations and present challenges that require thoughtfulness.
And just to be clear, I think the traditional “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” is non-negotiable in certain contexts—baptismal and baptismal-related contexts being the primary example. That said, I don’t think it’s necessarily heretical to compliment the traditional formula with other, carefully chosen metaphorical language that invites people into the mystery of the Trinity.
How I do and how I should are two different things. I struggle with doomscrolling. But metaphysical/spiritual/religious truths are not like that.
One could argue that it would give people a chance to prepare themselves spiritually. But one could also argue that we're each in this situation (impending death) every day, from heart attacks to car accidents, etc. Which people are better off might depend on the people.
I don't see ecclesiastical reconciliation as the necessary thing that some do. People believe different things. Different churches have different notions of the sacraments and holy orders. I feel like there's pressure to force different groups to fuse in ways that are not helpful.
I will say that one thing I don't need as a parishioner is to suddenly be thrown something I'm expected to say that I'm not sure I agree with doctrinally. It takes me out of the service, out of prayer, and throws me into "oh dear, is this heretical? Why did they do this? Can I actually say this? Arrgh!!" territory. Like I said, I've left a church over this.
I genuinely consider the liturgical attempts to get away from the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit" to be very, very unhelpful. I know there are people who struggle with the masculinity of "Father" and "Son," and I am sorry for them, but these are the words we have been given, according to our traditional theology as I understand it, by Jesus, God Himself Incarnate.
Again, I agree. There certainly are passages that say that, or that fils and spiritus participated in creation. But yet, the Creed identifies pater as “maker/creator.” That’s why I think “risks modalism” is a better descriptor than “is modalism.”
And that is why I said that formula is, I think, non-negotiable in certain contexts. But non-negotiable in certain contexts is not the same as exclusive in all contexts. We’ve also, for example, been given “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit.” So there’s a different trinitarian formula that's firmly part of the tradition. We’ve been given “Word” as identifying the second person of the Trinity, so that’s another part of the tradition.
I totally get the aversion. But I also get the impetus to explore other language Scripture uses to describe who God is.
The most usual referencec is Psalm 32(33) verse 6: "The heavens were established by the Word of the Lord, and all their powers by the breath of his mouth" (noting that in Hebrew and in Greek the same word is used for "breath", "wind", and "spirit" - so here "breath" = "Spirit")
In the Greek text neither "Father" nor "Almighty" has a definite article, so here they should be seen as descriptors rather than titles (which the definite articles tend to imply).
Do you think it’s problematic that most English translations have the definite article for both “Father” and “Almighty”?
Are you certain of that interpretation of the missing articles? Because I've got a fair amount of Greek, but I know that the way Greek uses articles is not the same as the way English does, and I hesitate to make this sort of pronouncement. Though you may have much more Greek study than I.
Oh, if Scripture uses it, that is a different matter, absolutely.
Greek uses definite articles where English would not. It is the absence of an article here that is significant, taking this line from a discussion we had in our church after Sunday morning service a few months ago with a visiting Regius Professor in a Faculty of Divinity in a unversity north of the border. His knowledge of Greek is far greater than mine.
Unfortunately "father" is not an adjective in English. No ending I can think of (ish, oid, ly, y, ??) communicates what I think you are implying.
Yeah, but nouns and adjectives use the same endings so it's at least possible as far as inflection is concerned. Whether Greek did do that is a different question.
Credo in UNUM Deum, unum being there to remind us that God is ONE
Patrem omnipotentem , with Patrem as a noun in the accusative case and omnipotentem
serving as an adjective with the case endings here happening to
be the same -em
Factorem caeli et terrae , ' Factor' in the accusative case and the other two nouns in the
genitive case
Visibilium omnium et invisibilium -- genitive case plural of all these words.
So generally speaking, even though God is merciful and has a helluva lot less hangups than human beings do, we (Christians in general) tend to stick to the instructions given (both for baptism and for the Lord's supper) as closely as we can--because we want the comfort of the promises. That's why I won't baptize with a banana milkshake, or celebrate communion with Doritos. God might choose to honor that and give all his gifts--but he might not, too. And who needs that concern at 3 a.m. some sleepless night?
Better not to mess around.
This Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) has the text of the Creed. Scroll down to "Greek litrgical text".
My concentration during the service, certainly, when I’m suddenly wrestling with whether or not I can assent to, or speak aloud, the prayer/invocation in question.
Do Christians in general think that God is really that legalistic?
True. Father is not one of them. What one doesn't want to do with one's communications, generally (and the liturgy is a form of communication) is say things your listeners won't understand. Unless you're writing postmodern poetry and then all bets are off.
Well, I would certainly be a bit upset if a minister chose to baptise with a banana milkshake if water were available. I don't think it's to do with God being legalistic, I think as @Lamb Chopped says it's to do with the reassurance we receive from things happening "in due order".
But if that's reassuring it's because we think God is legalistic and it won't work if not done quite right, isn't it?
It also strikes me as wrong that anybody in ministry should feel that they are entitled to follow their own particular preferences and that this entitlement (dolled out perhaps as being faithful to their inner truth) prevails over the spiritual health or even possible eternal status of the candidate. Those who are receiving a ministers ministrations are at his or her mercy as to what they get.
For this reason I rather tend to hope that God is more merciful to the victims than to the minister who thinks he or she 'knows better than God'.
I cannot believe in a God whose attitude is such that anyone's spiritual health or eternal destiny depends on surface ephemera like these.
I just don't get it.
No, I don't think so. I think it's more like how children like a bedtime story to be done "properly" and if that doesn't happen they won't be as happy. Someone might say: "don't be silly, it doesn't matter" and from a certain perspective that might be true, but actually some of the happiness and security comes from the ritual.
Well, if it reinforces the idea that God casts people into Hell over getting surface forms wrong - that seems harmful too to me.
*paraphrase
Look, nobody is saying GOD says to worry about these details. We are saying that WE, as ordinary fragile and fallible humans, worry about these details, and that simple kindness to the rest of humanity should prevent people from playing games with the instructions we were given.
@Enoch implied that God might care about the details - otherwise what's all the business about spiritual health or eternal destiny about?
In my denomination, it has little to do with God being that legalistic. Rather, it’s about baptism being the way one is received into the church, about “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” being the formula used by the Church catholic and about baptisms being recognized as valid throughout the Church catholic.
I am saying that, if someone were to baptize me with a "creative" set of words--"maker, sustainer, and lifegiver" or some such--then the chances are very high that, when I discover that's not actually the words we were given to use, that I'm going to have a very bad night. Because God may not sweat the small stuff, but I do. And from many years' of pastoral experience, I can tell you that there are a lot of people just like me who would have the same un-nerved reaction. And telling them that they are wrong to have this reaction isn't going to stop it--it'll just make them feel even worse because now they are apparently harming others by "reinforc[ing] the idea that God casts people into Hell over getting surface forms wrong."
Why demand that the Christian church must act from a position of utmost strength and confidence at all times? Is there no room for those of us who have midnight fears, or who were brought up by perfectionists and can't shake harm done to us as children?
Pastoral concerns are valid. In some cases, they're almost everything. And we have to take people as we find them, not as we think they ought to be.
My reaction is against @Enoch's suggestion that God might indeed get all arsey and smitey if we get these ephemera wrong.