For those who attend our theology on tap meetings, Three Priests Walk in a Bar, you might recall that we originally created a special Facebook group so conversations could continue. Our producer and facilitator, Nick2, similarly invited folks to “pick apart” our gatherings conversation at a later date. Here’s a few items I shared after listening to the recent podcast of the live event held on “Can Christians Worship Together,” Episode 3.
Our producer and facilitator, Nick2, will likely address this later in a future podcast, but the word filioque is pronounced in classical Latin as “FIL-ee-oak” while ecclesiastical Latin is “FIL-ee-OH-kway.” (There was some discussion over this during the podcast.) What is Ecclesiastical Latin? It is Latin developed in Medieval times, particularly in the West according to some, that was a simpler form and reflects the Vulgate’s use of Latin. I confess that I don’t remember exactly how my seminary instructors said the word. They likely used the Ecclesiastical Latin, but the filioque isn’t a huge issue for modern Lutherans if not most modern Christians in general (day to day anyway). Also, Lutherans aren’t usually big “liturgical nerds” as many Episcopalians on social media self-identify, and if it weren’t for Fr. Adam, who is Orthodox, I don’t know if this specific theological split between East and West would even have come up explicitly again in my life after seminary.
Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (“and the son” is “filioque” in Latin) is considered one of the major causes of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches. Unfortunately, it remains a lasting, important theological issue in certain contexts. Fr. Adam, again an Orthodox priest, still argues, “FIL-ee-NO-way.” Fr. Nik, an Episcopal priest, argues primarily that it is “FIL-ee-OK.” As an ordained minister in the ELCA, I have options. In the Nicene Creed, the West added the “filioque” phrase unilaterally during the Middle Ages. The ELCA and Lutheran World Federation has agreed to recognize the unilateral nature of the addition and allows for it to be removed for ecumenical purposes. More about that later, but here is partly how we got to that decision:
In a half-joking way, I stated the Lutherans could do pretty much anything in worship as long as it isn’t explicitly prohibited in scripture. Yes, the Lutherans have rubrics (“a direction in a liturgical book as to how a church service should be conducted”), but we take them seriously, not rigidly. In general, good Anglicans I know would be horrified at changing any of the words of the Book of Common Prayer which guides and informs their worship. It can happen with prior approval of a bishop in extraordinary circumstances, but not often. They are in a way centered around and unified by the Book of Common Prayer as it reflects scripture. (Although Fr. Nik has joked scripture stole things from the Book of Common Prayer.) The majority of Orthodox and Roman Catholics I have known would be more than horrified to have words changed in the liturgy unless (at least in the West) there is explicit options offered. I know of a Roman Catholic priest disciplined for changing a small phrase in the communion prayers. Lutherans are a people with theological, formal confessions called the Book of Concord (meaning unity). Thus, scripture and theology (why we do things) tend to have more import than liturgical rigidity (the way we do things).
With the Reformation, Lutherans, Reformed and others were reconsidering worship in light of scripture. On the Reformed and “Radical” (Anabaptists and others) side of the house, there were arguments over what instruments to use. Some wanted only those mentioned in scripture. Others only wanted psalms as prayer during worship because they are in the Bible. Stained glass, icons, crosses and crucifixes were often condemned. Lutherans took a different track. Although valuing the liturgy, again we are not rigid about it. For pastoral concerns and other reasons, the pastor may choose changes beyond the approved options in the rubrics. We can adjust further if deemed necessary or helpful.
As I said previously, this is not to be done willy-nilly. We are accountable to our bishops, council and congregation, guided by scripture and liturgical catholic (universal) traditions. So if for good reason and complementary to if not grounded in scripture, we can introduce a wide variety of music, dance, art and icons, as well as alternative liturgical practices and rituals at the congregational level without approval from any “higher-ups” in our polity. We can wear or not wear certain traditional vestments and religious items. In some Lutheran communities, the pastor does not wear a collar for example. European Lutherans tend to be more like Roman Catholics, while American Lutherans tend to be lower church. In Europe, Lutherans can call our worship the mass (understanding that we don’t get extra credit for heaven nor is is a sacrifice) while Americans tend to call it “worship” or a “service” not wanting (historically) to sound too Papist and likely conforming to their low-church Protestant neighbors.
Thus, we do allow for variations in practice based on context and some times (to be honest) preference – which of course, can prove dicey. Pastors and worship committees can err. Still, I say all this because it reflects an agreement that we have with the Orthodox regarding the filioque.
In short, ELCA Lutheran are allowed to omit the filioque for ecumenical purposes. Episcopalians may as well if the context requires it, but they need approval of the bishop. I imagine many if not most Episcopal priests, including Fr. Nik, would hesitate to omit it as long as the Orthodox and Anglican Communion and/or Episcopal Church are not in full communion. Currently, I do not know of any other such accommodation in other denominations. (If you know of any, please let me know in the comments or contact me directly.) Here’s a link to the ELCA document which does a much better job than me in explaining the discussions and end result in detail:
Not wanting to copy Fr. Nik’s practice of being “real quick” before entering a nine-minute soliloquy, I will end briefly this way: I believe we are one Church even amidst our divisions and differences whether we like it or not. Our shared baptismal identity assures me of this. I trust in the end of time, God will make us fully one. In the meantime, we should strive to live in unity as much as possible. (I’m sorry, Fr. Adam, if this makes you shudder.)
2pennyblog 
Huh, I didn’t know there was a difference between regular Latin and Ecclesial Latin. Learn something new every day!
For my part, I omit the Filioque when I recite the Nicene Creed, but I don’t ask or require anyone else to do so. It’s a personal piety thing.
I was not aware of it until this discussion came up in our theology on tap event. As for omitting the filoque, I think it perhaps should be a matter of personal piety when one considers how it was unilaterally inserted. Indeed, one might argue that it could be a meaningful and appropriate reform. Still, the addition did not come out of a vacuum. There was discussion and prayer that went into it before the insertion. That said, I think the ELCA and LWF are on the right track. We shouldn’t let it become a stumbling block. Thanks for reading and replying to my blog. If you care to, find our theology on tap event and podcast on Apple Podcast, Spotify and others. It isn’t perfect (time and format often limit our responses to one another), but I think it is unique having an Episcopal, Orthodox and Lutheran (ELCA) dialogue. I know ecumenism is important to you from your blog, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what we might do to improve the event and podcast if anything. Peace+