Schematics, Schismatics, and a most Glorious Revolution

– Archbishop Germanos, Metropolitan of Thyatira, (Progress Towards the Re-Union of the Orthodox and Anglican Churches) 

Did your jaw drop??

My jaw had to be surgically reattached after reading this last week.

This is from “Progress Towards the Re-Union of the Orthodox and Anglican Churches,” written by the Metropolitan of Thyatira in 1925. The correspondence between the two churches began in the 17th century and was formally ended in the early 18th century after no agreement could be made between the Orthodox Church and the Non-Jurors of England regarding unification. The talks were reopened a century and half later in the 19th century when “Gregory VI, Patriarch of Constantinople, on the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Archibald Campbell, […] ordered that all Anglicans who die in places where there do not exist Anglican cemeteries should be buried in the Orthodox cemeteries, and by Orthodox priests.” If you know anything about the Orthodox Church, this is insane—only Orthodox and catechumens are traditionally buried in Orthodox cemeteries. The relations were strengthened in the 20th century due to the Great War and the Anglican sympathies toward the war torn Eastern Church. The talks, of course, broke down but were ongoing at the time of the writing by the Metropolitan.

Returning to the 17th century, the Non-Jurors were a schismatic sect of the Church of England following the Glorious Revolution of 1688; an ecclesial condition of the office, the clergy of the Church of England were required to swear an oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch. James II was deposed and exiled as a result of the revolution which installed William III as King of England, Ireland, and Scotland with his wife, Queen Mary II. There are different reasons for this, but there was a small percentage of clergy who refused to swear an oath to James’ successors. These clergy members were thus labeled Non-Jurors.

This small movement did little to change the Church of England while also failing to establish its own independent Anglican communion separate from the monarchy.

A far more impactful product of this Non-Juror movement was the creation of the Scottish Episcopal Church, which split from the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland, refusing to acknowledge the monarchy, had reintroduced a diocesan episcopacy under, ironically, James VI in the early 17th century. The majority of bishops in the Church of Scotland were Non-Jurors, contrasting the small percentage of English clergy in the wake of the Glorious Revolution. Their higher numbers made them easier to be persecuted by the Church of Scotland which, without the bishops, formed a presbyterian polity, stepping away from the diocesan episcopacy and re-establishing its original Reformed, Calvinistic theology. 

The Non-Juring bishops tried to organize an episcopacy independent of the ruling monarchy, under the divine leadership of the exiled James II—which failed due to the growth of the congregations outside of the deposed royal authority and, consequently, restored a diocesan governance within Scotland, separate from the national church. This episcopate, the Scottish Episcopal Church, began using the Book of Common Prayer after the Revolution with minor changes and redactions, the church also made changes to the English liturgy of the Church of England with both the Liturgical changes and the Book of Common prayer officially being used by the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, founded in 1784 by the bishop Samuel Seabury who was refused ordination by the Church of England. 

The initial United States Anglican Church was almost driven into extinction due to the Revolutionary War and its support of the monarchy and the Anglicized language of the then used English Book of Common Prayer. So, the Non-Jurors of the Anglican Communion produced the Scottish Episcopal Church through which the Episcopal Church of North America was founded/preserved. 

I cannot think of a more American way for the Episcopal Church to get started in the New World. 

Now, let’s get to the jaw-dropping nature of this historical record. 

I was looking up the doctrine of Transubstantiation and found the Orthodox term Metousiosis (μετουσίωσις) which means a change in essence. The Orthodox Church does not ascribe any doctrine to this word, however it does use it to describe the change which occurs to the bread and wine offered during Liturgy. The word is not equivalent to the Latin transsubstantiatio. In fact, the word is used in the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 CE to denounce the doctrine of Transubstantiation and affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Synod was convened specifically on the grounds of a late Patriarch, Cyrus Lucaris, being accused of writing a confession that insisted Calvinism was the true faith of the Eastern Church.

I’m scandalized just thinking about it.

The Synod’s importance cannot be overstated as the Patriarchs officially rejected Protestant Reformers, refuted all eighteen points made by Cyrus maintaining the Eastern Church’s connection to Calvinism; the church affirmed the rejection of sola scriptura; the church affirmed faith and works, rejecting sola fide; they rejected the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional election, and they affirmed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone.

This Synod is a sublime example of the Orthodox confession and its place in history is monumental. The correspondence with the Non-Jurors revolved around the explicit denouncement of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

The Orthodox argue against the Catholic institution because of the Aristotelian theory behind the essence and accident of the bread and wine. The bread and wine accidents remain the same while the essence of their being changes to become the Body and Blood of Christ. The Orthodox tradition rejects this doctrine as do the Episcopal and Lutheran churches. The former has no strict doctrine regarding the Sacrament of Holy Communion except to say that it is one of the Mysteries of the Church. In Orthodox Liturgy there is an anaphora which is the Eucharistic prayer that includes the Epiclesis where the priest invokes the Holy Spirit to change the Gifts into the real Body and Blood. The Church goes further to say that the change of the Gifts into the Real Presence does not occur due to the words of the priest, or the traditions of men, but rather that the change is complete at the Epiclesis. 

To reiterate, there is not one single moment when the Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood. This is in direct opposition to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist where it is the priest’s recitation of the liturgy that the change occurs. The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was affirmed after the Great Schism, in 1215 CE, at the Fourth Council of Lateran. The adoption of Aristotelian metaphysics in Western Europe helped the Catholic Church explain transubstantiation using substance and accidents.

Understandably, the Protestant Reformation cited this adoption of Aristotelian theory as a reason to reject the doctrine of transubstantiation.

The significance of the Synod’s date must be appreciated due in fact that the Orthodox Church was battling the plague of Calvinism within its walls while taking the fight to the shores west of Rome. Calvinism rejects both transubstantiation and the Lutheran conception of the Eucharist which states that the bread and wine remain bread and wine while also being the Body and Blood of Christ. This is not consubstantiation, erroneously attributed to Lutheran theology, but is the doctrine of sacramental union. Calvinism, or Reformed Theology, teaches a pneumatic presence which means that the Body and Blood are spiritually, or symbolically, given to believers—not the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood. Therefore, the Orthodox Church was most adamant about getting the Church of England to come into agreement by both rejecting the Catholic transubstantiation and also not falling into the Reformed theology of Calvin and Zwingli, as followed by the Church of Scotland. 

This insistence by the Patriarchs was successful as indicated by Article XXVIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles of faith and practice defined by the Church of England, “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions” (Thirty-Nine Articles). Furthermore, the Anglican/ Episcopal Church traditions maintain the Real Presence of Christ without declaring the change occurs at any one moment. It is, in conjunction with Eastern thought, a Mystery, “And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith” (Thirty-Nine Articles). 

The beautiful mystery of the Eucharist has been written on ad nauseum with the last important point made by the Patriarchs that the Eucharist is a sacrifice with the offering of Christ Himself being made by Christ Himself; He is the high priest and victim. Thine of Thine own we offer to Thee, in all and for all: Christ is the sacrifice, the Eucharist is offered to the Trinity—Christ offered to God by Christ. The Eucharist, in Orthodoxy, is a propitiatory sacrifice in that it brings us closer to God. It is more than appeasing God and regaining His favor; the propitiatory act reconciles us with God and makes our inner character aligned with Him.

The Eucharist makes us like God.

And it is offered for all, both the living and the dead which is consistent with the Book of Common Prayer, Rite One: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the perfect offering for our sins, and not ours only, but for the sins of the whole world” (BCP 289).

A final comment on the Holy Eucharist as celebrated by the Episcopal Church, the epiclesis is found in both Rite One and Rite Two, “Lord, we pray that in your goodness and mercy your Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts, sanctifying them and showing them to be holy gifts for your holy people, the bread of life and the cup of salvation, the Body and Blood of your Son Jesus Christ” (BCP 326).

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer, used by the English and modified by the Scots, had an implicit epiclesis as found in the traditional Catholic Mass, with modern day American Episcopalians following the Eastern model where the epiclesis follows the remembrance of Jesus’ words and deeds.

I wonder where they got that from?

With the epiclesis in mind I’d like to point our attention to what shattered mine from the first paragraph, “they accepted the explanation given, that the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son does not mean that the Son is the active cause of the existence of the Holy Ghost, but is only of the sending forth of the Holy Ghost through the Son to the world.” 

This is a bishop in the Orthodox Church writing in the 1920’s about the explicit acceptance by the Patriarchs of the Church in the 17th century regarding the Filioque… 

How have we not all lost our minds? 

Do I need to bold this quote?

Hang on…

“they accepted the explanation given, that the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son does not mean that the Son is the active cause of the existence of the Holy Ghost, but is only of the sending forth of the Holy Ghost through the Son to the world.” 

This acceptance is provided by the Anglican’s explanation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son due to Scripture:

“‘But when the Comforter comes, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, HE will bear witness to me. And you will also be my witnesses, because you have been united with me from the very beginning […]

“’But now I go to HIM who sent me; and one of you asks, ‘Where are you going?’ Now that I have said these things to you, sorrow enters your hearts. But I tell you the truth: It is for your salvation and healing that I leave you. For if I did not go away, the Comforter, the giver of spirit-courage, would not come to you. When I now go away I will send HIM to you’” (John 15:26-27/John 16:5-7). 

The Advocate, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth; the Paraclete proceeds from the Father and the Son; the Son is not the cause behind the Holy Spirit’s existence, but He is active in sending the Spirit to the Apostles and the world. If He does not face His crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension the Spirit cannot be sent. And if we understand the Son as the ἐνέργεια (energia) of the essence of God, then it makes sense that the Spirit is the ἐντελέχεια (entelecheia) of God, whereby the energies of God’s essence is self-sustaining—The Holy Spirit is the continuous manifestation of God’s potentiality; the Paraclete is the perpetual fulfillment of God’s love. 

“‘If you truly love me, you will take my aims into your will. And I will pray the Father, and HE will send you another Comforter, the giver of spirit-courage, who will be with you for this whole earthly aeon, the Spirit of Truth. Not all people can receive HIM. They do not see HIM and do not recognize HIM. But you know HIM, for HE guides you as a higher being above you, and HE will enter your innermost heart […]

“’I have said this to you because I am still with you. The Comforter, the giver of spirit-courage, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, HE will teach you everything and awaken your memory of all that I said to you’” (John 14:15-17/John 14:25-26).

The actuality of the Holy Spirit exists due to the Son’s ascension, not due to the Son Himself, because He must send forth the Spirit. The Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son. The justification for the Filioque clause being that both the Father and the Son are active in the sending forth of the Spirit with the sole causation of Procession being from the Father. 

The Filioque clause is one of the primary reasons for the Great Schism of the Holy, Catholic Church—and remains so to this day. According to Vladimir Lossky, it is the reason the Church remains fractured. The Anglican/Episcopal Church is divided on this notion with the 1994 General Convention reaffirming its intention on removing the clause from the Book of Common Prayer, which has not been officially done, however the removal has been noted among contemporary Liturgical celebrations of the Eucharist. 

Notably, the Scottish Episcopal Church does not print the Filioque in its current liturgies. That being said, it is also worth mentioning that the Orthodox Church has never declared the Filioque Clause as specific heresy. 

The thing that strikes me about this writing by Archbishop Germanos is that this Filioque clause was the very reason I was interested in the “purer” theology of Orthodoxy; it was what drove me to swim the Bosporus.

Seriously, it is that important.

It has gone unspoken when I recite the Nicene Creed along with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, however recently I have begun appreciating that if this is the church I wish to commune with and have a future in then I must make the adjustment to commune with them. I’ve also begun appreciating through the study of church history that “purer” theology does not necessarily equal “right.” There are many different approaches to theology and plenty of room at the table; we must honor that because as Pope Benedict XVI said, there are as many ways to God as there are people. We run the risk of fracturing to think any different.

The Filioque was a big obstacle, and I have been looking for liturgical, theological, and Scriptural reasons to say the clause and here it is—accepted by the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church no less!