Hi Pog 
–
Ok I know we’ve had some private correspondence about this – but I thought I’d restate the historical arguments to supplement Jason’s theological overview – which I completely agree with by the way.
The damnatory clauses in the Athanasian Creed are in fact curses against heretics who teach differently from what the Creed sates about the Trinity and the Incarnation – rather than affirmations of belief in eternal damnation as such – indeed the historical evidence suggest that the curses are directed at specific groups of heretics – Arians, Sabbellians, Nestorians and Eutychianists (funky name ‘Eutychianist’ eh?!!!). There are no curses against heretics in the apostle’s Creed, but there are curse against heretics in the long version of the Nicene Creed – which is later than the short version and so carries no authority. I know that Philip Schaff the Church historian saw the creeping of curses against heretics into doctrinal statements in the Early Church (as opposed to milder statements of threats of excommunication that could be lifted) as evidence of the decline of charity in the church – although Schaff the Calvinist universalist was also in favour of keeping the Athanasian creed for its doctrinal importance.
However, it is true that in the past when open discussion of universalism has reared its head in the C of E the Athanasian Creed has been used by traditionalists as a stick to beat hopeful and certain universalists – in the absence of Cramner’s 42nd article condemning the teaching of Universal Restoration that was never restored to the Prayer book under Elizabeth. And conservative evangelicals and conservative High Church Anglicans sometimes make the same noises today. However, although there are issues that may create schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion this is not going to be one of them I think – and I don’t think that you are being asked to assert your belief in eternal damnation in the affirmation you cite. You are being asked to affirm your belief in Trinitarian Christianity ‘the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit’…’ uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds’.
I think also you are being provided with genuine wriggle room here with the term ‘catholic creeds’ – as Jason suggests the Athanasian Creed is a historic and concise statement of Chalcedonian orthodoxy – with a few additions, one of which has proved divisive – but it is not a catholic creed of the universal Church. The Anglican Church is no enemy to scholarship and Anglican scholars know that the Athanasian Creed does not have the status of the two truly Catholic Creeds because –
This Creed was actually never originally called a creed and did not have Athanasius name appended to it.
It was originally written in Latin, while Athanasius composed in Greek.
Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.
It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils (so it is not truly a Catholic creed)
It addresses theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque).
It was most likely written in Sothern Gaul a hundred years after the death of Athanasius
And importantly it has been a source of contention and division in the Universal church. I have little understanding of why the filioque clause is so important as a distinction (this is the affirmation of double procession – that the spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). However i know that the Church in the east does not agree - for the majority of them the Spirit can only be said to proceed from the Father. Historically it seems that one of the reasons for grievance is that at the time of the great schism the Church of Rome tried to impose the filioque on the Eastern Christians using a creedal statement that lacked the authority of the ecumenical Councils and added damnation to anathema.
Oh I’ll grant you that the Church of England and the wider Anglican Church is one big fudge – it’s never crystal clear in its formularies; these are always there to ensure that people can stay together in difficult togetherness rather than split apart in the acrimony of doctrinal clarity. But then I think that unless universalists split apart from the universal Church and start their own denominations – which I would not advocate, because one schism leads to another and then to another – universalists have to live with begin part of historical Christianity – and the Anglican Church gives plenty of breathing room for universalists.
As well as the wriggle room provided by the ‘catholic’ in ‘catholic creed’ in the affirmation, I also note the particularly Anglican emphasis that the Church is called upon to proclaim the faith ‘afresh in each generation’ – while the faith does not change, its expression in each generation does as Christ the Logos lead us into fresh understanding. This is implicitly allowing you to take an historical view of the faith.
When the article of faith in the BOCP affirmed all three creeds as expressing the explicit teaching of holy write the ‘Johannine comma’ was still thought to be authentic. This is the interpolation into the first epistle of John that affirms that the Father, Son and Holy spirit are a unity of substance. During the sixteenth century scholars proved this ‘comma’ does not exist in any early Greek manuscripts of the NT and that it is actually an interpolation in to the text from an annotation in a Latin version – but the Articles of Faith in the BOCP know nothing of this. Trinitarian Christians today have to argue for their beliefs on different grounds – that the developed doctrine of the Trinity is implicit in the NT but is actually the work of the Early Church – developed over several centuries
Again, Anglican scholars have known since the late sixteenth century that the Creed is not by Athanasius and actually does not represent the views of the universal church of East and West – and the conclusive evidence for this came in the seventeenth century from the Dutch Scholar G.J. Voss who was later in minor orders in the C of E.
In the English Civil War – when the problems of religious tolerance and pluralism surfaced – leading Anglicans (Jeremy Taylor, Richard Chillingworth etc) have called for the damnatory clauses to be dropped because they stir up offences against charity and living in peace with fellow Christians with doctrinal difference to us. Even the Calvinist Richard Baxter suggested they should be removed. Indeed, it is remembered that the Athanasian Creed was used as the pretext to burn Anabaptists as blasphemers – for their supposed heretical view on Incarnation – even after the heresy laws had been repealed.
The Episcopalian Church dropped the Creed in 1801. The Episcopalian Church wasthe first independent province of the Anglican Communion, Before the War of Independence America was part of the Diocese of London!!! The jettisoning of the Athanasian Creed was part and parcel of a rejection of authoritarianism – which the English Bishops went along with because the conservatives in the Episcopal Church who wanted to keep it seemed like they might align themselves with the Anglican supporters of the Stuart dynasty that had been thrown out of England but still perhaps could cause big trouble.
And there have been various commissions in the C of E about dropping it, or at least dropping the damnatory clauses – in the 19th and 20th centuries. Conservatives’ in the church – both Evangelicals and High Churchmen - have blocked explicit reform. Indeed a coalition of these two wings of the Church used the damnatory clauses to bring a clergyman who had expressed cautious Universalist sympathies in print in ‘Essays and Reviews’ in 1861 to trial. He was convicted but his conviction was quashed by the Privy Council. The Athanasian Creed was also used against Colenso, the Anglican Bishop of Natal – who was tired for heresy for rejecting the doctrine of damnation but acquitted. I remember that at the time Punch magazine commented wryly that freeborn Englishmen wanted to defend their ancient right to be eternally damned.
So there is a big history concerning the Athanasian Creed and its place in the Anglican Church. I think the broad view today is that it does not have the authority of a Catholic Creed, it can be divisive in Ecumenical relations etc – so its status has been downgraded. Also its status as a persecution text is acknowledged by many too. And it is not for frequent use in the Church – because the average Christian will not understand it. However, it is an important historic document that affirms Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and should be respected as such with all the qualifications about its Catholic status and its historic uses borne in mind
All the best
Dick
. As you well know 
