"Filioque" in the Canterbury Professions?

 In 2020 (or 2019?) I received my used copy of Dr. Michael Richter's "Canterbury Professions," published by the Canterbury and York Society.  I believe the work was originally published in 1978. 

So, what exactly is this book?  It is a printed text edition of various Pre- and Post-Schism Professions of Faith that Bishops in England made on the occasions of their Consecrations.  That is, these were formulas that a Bishop-Elect would proffer to the Metropolitan (in this case, the Archbishop of Canterbury) before Consecration to the Episcopate. 

For our purposes, we are mainly concerning with the first section, specifically the 31 Professions, since they are during the Pre-Conquest period.  However, as Dr. Richter notes in the introduction, there is a problem here, that is not so strongly felt in other Anglo-Saxon liturgical and other material.  The problem is that we must rely upon mid-12th century scribe; you see, these Professions are extent only in a work made in the mid-12th century, which work copies earlier Anglo-Saxon texts.  Although large numbers of manuscripts survived, many were destroyed, especially in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, such as the large amount of documents destroyed in the Canterbury Library fire in 1067. 

Dr. Richter admits that this poses a problem with establishing authenticity.  In order to do this we would have to find another source from the purported period to compare texts with; at least one of the Professions is repeated nearly word for word in the late 9th and early 10th century Ratoldus Sacramentary.  However, there is nothing controversial and extraordinary in that text.  However, two Professions do draw mine attention. 

    Of the 30 Anglo-Saxon Episcopal Professions, two of them contain reference to the Procession of the Holy Ghost as either 'a Patre et Filio' or 'ex Patre et Filio'.  The rest simply assert Faith in the Trinity in more general terms, or do not cover this issue.  This immediately raises suspicions in my mind that hte 12th century copies may have had interpolation in this area; we have certainly seen this tendency before, i.e., to try to 'clean up' earlier material if it does not conform to later controveries, etc.

    However, seeing that much ado about nothing has been made about the supposedly 'extreme Filioquist' position of the Anglo-Saxon Church by some quarter [!], it would seem this is an area to be addressed: 

1.     The Professions are not the original manuscripts, but copies made by scribes, who would indeed have reasons to either insert such terminology, or, perhaps, simply copy the old manuscripts which themselves had interlinear interpolations, and thus obscuring the true textual history; 
2.      Simple assertion of 'ex Patre et Filio' or 'a Patre et Filio' procedentem must be examined in the context of the intent and understanding of the author; simply state, such text d not prove much nor they necessary vindicate the much later developed dogmatized Papist heresy, anymore than finding references in some early Fathers to 'mixture' or 'combination' of natures in Christ can be used to justify Eutychianism; terminology can always be vague, unhelpful, and obscure in some cases prior to it sharpening during a controversy.  This is not, of course, an exoneration of an interpolation in the Symbol of Faith, or vindication of Double-Processionist Hypostatic Subsistent Originationism.  St. Maximus' Letter to Marinus more than clears that up. 
3.     These expressions occur in only two texts copied in the mid 12th century; certainly not an abundance;

The argument will always be in favour of NOT using an interpolated Symbol of Faith, as well as affirming the Father as the Sole Eternal Source for the Persons of the Son and the Holy Ghost, because this is the consistent and universal position of earliest times.