Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
D/HWWHURI,VLGRUHRI6HYLOOH
Shawn C. Smith
The filioque (and from the Son) is the principal theological issue that
divides the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches,1 but it is more
than a theological disagreement. The phrase is inserted into the creed
commonly known as the Nicene Creed (more technically called the
I am very grateful to Dr. Robert Rea for proposing, to a class years ago, the insertion of the filioque as a research topic and supervising the thesis that provided the
initial foundation for this work. I am thankful to Dr. John Castelein, Dr. Brian Messner, Ryan Hemmer, David Mosley, Brett Seybold, Rob Maupin, Claudia Muoz, and
Andrea Gentile for providing assistance with translation, and Dr. Paul Blowers and
Dr. Steven Cone for helpful suggestions on earlier drafts. Finally, I am appreciative
of the Lincoln Christian University library staff, especially Leslie Starasta, for acquiring resources that were not easily accessible and Julie Yarwood for acquiring some
resources I could not access through typical means.
1. Vladimir Lossky, The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Triadology, Eastern Churches Quarterly 7 (1948): 31 says, Whether we like it or not, the
question of the procession of the Holy Spirit was the sole dogmatic ground of the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. This division continues despite the fact
that, in 1965, Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople and Pope PaulVI withdrew
the anathemas made by those in 1054. Related to efforts to heal the schism, it is also
significant that Cardinal Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, quoted the Creed without the
filioque and recognized the Orthodox churches as true particular Churches (Dominus
Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church [August
Journal of Early Christian Studies 22:2, 261286 2014 Johns Hopkins University Press
then that the first evidence of the insertion in the Western creed is at that
council.4 But critical evidence revealed by A. E. Burn in English in 1908
questions this tradition.5 Since then many repeated the common tradition,
because they were either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by the evidence
against it.6
4. ODCC (1997), s.v. Filioque; G. W. Bromiley, Filioque, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 415; J. F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History
of Christian Doctrine (1903; reprint, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1962), 21516
n.1; Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 63; Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, 7 vols., trans. Neil Buchanan
(New York: Dover Publications, 1961), 4:133; Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of
the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents, trans. Henry Nutcombe
Oxenham (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), 4:418; Roger E. Olson, The Story of
Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1999), 308; Henry Barclay Swete, On the History of the Doctrine
of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Charlemagne (Cambridge, UK: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1876), 169; and Timothy Ware,
The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), 50. Cyriaque Lampryllos,
La Mystification Fatale: tude orthodoxe sur le FILIOQUE (Athens: 1892; reprint,
Lausanne: Lge dHomme, 1987), 2022 is even aware of the work of Zoernikav
and Bellarmine but still argues that the filioque was not a latter addition. See JeanJoseph Gaume, Trait du Saint-Esprit (Paris: Gaume et Cie, 1890), 68, 70 for a more
unusual view that the filioque was added at a council in Toledo in 447. A. Palmieri,
Filioque, Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique: Contenant lexpose des Doctrines de
la Theologie Catholique, leurs Preuves et leur Histoire, eds. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot,
and E. Amman, 15 vols. (Paris: Librarie Letouzey et An, 1924), 5:231011 challenges
this view. In more recent times, Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult
and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976),
21617 said the council was not even held.
5. A. E. Burn, Some Spanish MSS of the Constantinopolitan Creed, Journal of
Theological Studies 9 (1908): 3013.
6. See Gerald Bray, The Filioque Clause in History and Theology, Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983): 119; Charles Augustus Briggs, The Fundamental Christian Faith: The
Origin, History and Interpretation of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds (New York:
Charles Scribners Sons, 1913), 259; Daniel Callahan, The Problem of the Filioque
and the Letter from the Pilgrim Monks of the Mount of Olives to Pope Leo III and
Charlemagne: Is the Letter Another Forgery by Ademar of Chabannes? RBen 102
(1992): 75134; Haddad, The Stations of the Filioque, 211; Richard Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy (Belmont, MA: Nordland
Publishing Company, 1975), 160; R. G. Heath, The Western Schism of the Franks
and the Filioque, JEH 23 (1972): 97113; Frank G. Kennedy, The Introduction
of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed (M.A. thesis, St. Bonaventure College, 1932),
89; Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, Christian Theology in the Patristic Period, in History
of Christian Doctrine, ed. Hubert Cunliffe-Jones (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1978), 120; Nick Needham, The Filioque Clause: East or West? Scottish Bulletin
of Evangelical Theology 15 (1997): 150; Susan A. Rabe, Ex Patre Filioque: SaintRiquier in the Carolingian Age (Ph.D. dissertation, Loyola University, 1958), 12627;
and Jos Vives, Toms Marn Martnez, and Gonzalo Martnez Dez, eds., Concilios
when the insertion actually occurred, giving attention to how and why.12
But the author did not trace the development of the double procession
and interacted with a limited number of sources. Another thesis focused
on the insertion but is a mere twenty-six pages.13
Therefore, a study of the insertion of the disputed clause is presently
necessary. In 1948, Vladimir Lossky said, while allowing that the Toledan introduced filioque could be interpreted acceptably for the Orthodox:
A study of the Filioquism of the Spanish Councils of the fifth, sixth,
and seventh centuries would be of capital importance, that a dogmatic
appreciation of these formulas might be made. Here the disinterested work
of historical theology could be useful to the church.14
This article will demonstrate that the filioque clause was added to the
Nicene Creed in Spain between Toledo III (589) and Toledo VIII (653)
and most likely sometime before Isidore of Sevilles death in 636. This will
be accomplished by, first, citing the evidence and analysis of scholars that
believe the filioque was not used in the Creed in 589, and, second, arguing
for the authenticity of Isidores ep. 6 to General Claudius.15
Scholars WHO Question
the Insertion at Toledo III
Over roughly the last hundred years, some scholars have questioned the
filioque inclusion in the Creed at Toledo III. In 1899, Burn began questioning the reliability of the conciliar documents:
Two early editions of the Councils, howeverCologne (1530) and Paris
(1535)omit the words in the text of the creed quoted by the Council,
dorfer, The Filioque ProblemHistory and Contemporary Relevance, Scriptura 79
(2002): 8192; Vladimir Rodzianko, The Filioque Dispute and its Importance,
Eastern Churches Quarterly 10 (1953): 17791; Vladimir Rodzianko, Filioque in
Patristic Thought, SP 2 (1957): 295308; and Serge S. Verkhovsky, Procession of
the Holy Spirit According to Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity, St. Vladimirs Seminary Quarterly 2 (1953): 1226.
12. See John J. Ferrainolo, Historical and Theological Background of the Third
Council of Toledo (589) (M.Div. thesis, St. Vladimir Orthodox Theological Seminary, May 1983).
13. Kennedy, Introduction of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed.
14. Lossky, Procession of the Holy Spirit, 33.
15. From this point in the article, Creed refers to the Nicene Creed alone and
creed for other creeds when lacking their proper name (e.g., Athanasian) and filioque refers to the words added to the Nicene Creed. The expression of the same
concept in other creeds or sources is designated as double procession.
In 1908, Burn more confidently asserted that the insertion was not in
the Creed after examining some manuscripts. He was still careful not
to overstate the evidence; he called his research a beginning and said,
My time in the Spanish libraries last April was limited.18 Nevertheless,
he concluded,
Very little doubt is left in my mind that these MSS shew us the gradual
process at work by the copyists, influenced by the traditional belief in the
Procession of the Spirit from the Son, perhaps also the very strong words of
the 3rd Canon of the Council of Toledo, felt justified in adding them to the
text of the Creed as quoted at Toledo . . .19
In 1924, Palmieri, after surveying many authors, concluded that the filioque was probably not added in the fifth or sixth centuries, but when it
happened is unclear.20 He did not cite Burns work.
A few years later an author writing in Civilt Cattolica questioned the
filioque at Toledo III. In the first article in 1929, he noted the work of Bellarmine and Louisa (who noted in the margin of his work the lack of the
words in the printed editions), and that the insertion was missing in the
1530 and 1538 Cologne editions of councils.21 The next year he developed the argument further and confirmed the filioque was in the Creed
at Toledo VIII.22
16. Burn provides no citation. He must be referring to Aguirre, Defensio Cathedrae S. Petri contra declarationem Cleri Gallicani (Perez, 1683), liv. In another source
Aguirre notes in the margin Al. and then a version that lacks procedentum but
contains ex Patre et Filio. See Josepho de Aguirre, ed., Collectio Maxima Conciliorum
Hispaniae, Epistolarumque Decretalium Celebriorum (Ioachimum Ibarra, 1784), 764.
17. Burn, An Introduction to the Creeds, 115. See also Zoernikav, Tractus Theologici Orthodoxi, 289.
18. Burn, Some Spanish MSS, 302.
19. Burn, Some Spanish MSS, 303.
20. Palmieri, Filioque, 2312. In this article he surveys the work of Bellarmine,
Macaire, Zoernikav, and others.
21. La Questione Storica, 49899.
22. La Questione Storica Nella Controversia del Filioque (I), Civilt Cattolica
1 (1930): 31316.
At the same time, Gordillo said the filioque was first used at Braga VI
(675), not inserted at Toledo III but later in the seventh century.26
In the 1960s some scholars recognized Burns work. Every said that
Burns work makes the date of the insertion questionable.27 Dosetti thought
Burn made a mistake in his research that Kelly did not notice, but he still
thought the problem that Burn raised was interesting, especially after
23. J. A. Aldama, El Simbolo Toledano I (Rome: Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1934), 124 n.45.
24. F. J. Badcock, The History of the Creeds, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillian
Co., 1938), 216.
25. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 362. Ferrainolo, Historical and Theological Background, 92, says Burns work is unsubstantiated even though he does not believe,
for other reasons, the filioque was in the creed in 589. It seems that Ferrainolo had
not looked at Burns work and only relied on Kellys reporting and interpretation of it.
26. Mauricius Gordillo, Compendium Theologiae Orientalis, 3rd ed. (Rome: Pont.
Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1950), 134. The first edition was published in
1937 and the second in 1939. He is aware of work of Aldama, Palmieri, Macaire,
and Zoernikav. It is unusual that he did not mention the filioque at Toledo VIII. Also
during the 1950s, it is interesting that Latourette says the addition of filioque to the
creed seems to have been done first at Toledo in Spain in 589 or 653 (Kenneth Scott
Latourette, A History of Christianity [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953], 303).
27. George Every, Misunderstandings Between East and West (Richmond, VA: John
Knox Press, 1966), 43. In contrast, Haugh, Photius, and the Carolingians, 160, not
challenging any specific scholar but acquainted with the works of Kelly and Every,
said, There is no reason to assume that the existence of the Filioque in the Ecumenical Creed at the Council of Toledo was itself a later interpolation of the Acts of
this Council, for all the historical influences which could have caused such an interpolation were equally present before and during the time of the Council of Toledo.
As described in note 3, Siecienski is not correct about Burn being the first
to raise the problem, but he is the first in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries.
The work of all of these authors provides a strong foundation for concluding that the filioque was not in the Creed at Toledo III but was in the
Creed at Toledo VIII, though the conclusion is not absolutely certain. Burn
noted his work was not complete and others have recognized the importance of awaiting a critical edition of the councils. The critical edition was
finally published in 1992. Authoritatively, Diez and Rodriguez leave the
words et Filio out of the Creed of Toledo III, and the words appear at
Toledo VIII.34 Gemeinhardt recognized their work in 2002.35
The Authenticity of Isidore of Sevilles
Letter to General Claudius
If the filioque was undoubtedly included in the Nicene Creed in 653, is it
possible to locate a more precise date for its initial inclusion? Isidore of
Seville died in 636 placing any of his authentic letters before that date. In
ep. 6, Isidore responds to General Claudiuss question about the Greeks
accusing the Latins of adding to the Creed. The letter says, and so some
of the Greeks boldly strive to reprehend the Romans because in the profession of holy faith they sing with heart and mouth to God: Who proceeds
from the Father and the Son, although in the aforementioned councils it
was stated: Who proceeds from the Father . . . .36 Isidore continues in
the letter to defend the Latin version of the Creed. The critical phrase in
the Creed says, ex Patre Filioque procedit.37
If the letter is spurious, the date of insertion could not be narrowed.
34. Gonzalo Martnez Diez and Flix Rodriguez, eds., La Coleccin Cannica
Hispana V: Concilios Segunda Parte, Monumenta Hispaniae Sacra, Serie Cannica 5
(Madrid: Consejo Superior Investigaciones Cientficas, 1992), 67, 386. For ToledoIII
they note Patre] et Filio add. ECpTZSRp. For Toledo VIII they note et Filio] Filio D.
35. Peter Gemeinhardt, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche
im Frhmittelalter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 5354.
36. Isidore of Seville, ep. 6.4 (trans. Gordon B. Ford, The Letters of St. Isidore of
Seville [Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1970], 33).
37. Isidore of Seville, ep. 6.4. It seems odd that Filioque is used in the Creed
according to this letter and et Filio is used in the councils, especially since this is a
creed of such importance. Surely wording should be exact, but this is probably not
an issue. The meaning is exactly the same, and the difference is only a matter of
style. It is easily conceivable that various Spanish churches fixed the Creed their
own way after Toledo III in response to the third anathema and the directive to use
the Creed in the mass.
almost 60,000 Franks and to have cut down the greater part of them with
the sword.44 Isidore of Seville also refers to this story.45 Another indication
of Claudiuss importance is that Gregory the Great sent a letter to him.46
Third, there are some similarities between Isidores other works and
ep. 6. His defense of the double procession in the letter is consistent with
his teaching in Etymologies and De ecclesiasticis officiis.47 In both the letter and the Etymologies, he is careful to distinguish proceeding from
begetting. And, although possibly coincidental, in both sources he cites
Deuteronomy 6.4 in opposition to tritheism.48
In Rome, the filioque may not have been added to the Nicene Creed until
much later, but the doctrine was expressed by Paschasius, a Roman deacon (d. 512),82 Boethius (d. 584),83 and Cassidorus (d. 584).84 Examining
the popes, Leo the Great responded to a letter from Turibius of Asturica
(Astorgia) (which included a list of propositions against Priscillianism)
in a letter dated July 21, 447 and said the Holy Spirit proceeded from
both.85 Leo lists Priscillianist propositions and condemns them. Chadwick
says, it is safe to conclude that either Leos letter or a list of propositions
closely based upon it was circulated for formal signature.86 Therefore,
Leos epistle and the concept of the double procession would have been
read by a number of church leaders. Also, Leos letter likely exerted influence on the Spanish Pastors Creed, which contains the filioque.87
This creed then influenced the councils of Braga I (561) and ToledoIII.
Presiding over the council of Braga I, Lucretius of Braga reminded
those present of Leos letter and read the document from Bishop Pastor,
recognized as having some authority.88 Later Pastors Creed influenced
81. Caesarius of Arles, Sermons (trans. FC 31 [1]: xxii). J. N. Hillgarth, Popular Religion in Visigothic Spain, in Visigothic Spain: New Approaches, ed. Edward
James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 24 says, Many of the sermons prescribed
to be read in Visigothic Spain are contained in the Homiliary of Toledo. Over half of
the 118 items . . . were taken from Caesarius of Arles (48) or Augustine (13), with
other Patristic sources, such as Maximus of Turin or Gregory the Great, drawn on to
much a lesser extent. Collins, Early Medieval Spain, 6061 says, The greatest debt
owed in this direction was to the sermon collections of Caesarius of Arles (502542)
one of which became the basis of the homiliary used by the Church of Toledo in the
seventh century.
82. Paschasius De Spiritu Sancto 1.12 (PL 62:23). In Swete, On the History, 158
he says ex utroque procedit are the words used and he cites this section of the PL,
but the passage actually says, ex utroque progreditur. Whichever words he used,
he translates them as proceeds in The Holy Spirit, 347.
83. Boethius, De Trinitate 5 (PL 64:1254).
84. Cassiodorus, In psalt. praef. (PL 70:23). In Ravenna, Agnellus (d. 569) supported the double procession. See Agnellus Epistola ad Armenium de ratione fidei
(PL 68:38384).
85. Leo the Great, ep. 15.2 (trans. NPNF2 12:21). Siecienski, The Filioque, 64 says,
there remains doubts about the authenticity of the letter itself. But this would not
impact the argument made here if it was believed to be authentic at the time.
86. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila, 217.
87. Chadwick, 177, 218; Kelly, Athanasian Creed, 90.
88. The latter document, recognized as having some authority and containing the
double procession, was read to the council. The documents authority is evident,
ToledoIII.89 Kelly says that the confession Reccared read to the council
relies on Pastors Creed.90
Another pope, Gregory the Great, also wrote phrases in his Moralia
that could be interpreted as supporting the double procession.91 When
Gregory was a Roman deacon, he stayed in Constantinople (57986), busy
delivering a series of lectures on Job. Later, Gregory edited this work into
the Moralia and dedicated it to Leander of Seville, Gregorys companion
in Constantinople. The early redaction of the Moralia was carried back
to Spain by Leander and became the earliest source of the extraordinary
reputation for learning and sanctity which Gregory enjoyed among the
Spanish ecclesiastical writers of the seventh century.92 After Gregory was
in Rome and Leander returned to Spain they still maintained their friendship through letters.93 Leander, Isidores brother, presided over ToledoIII
because the council thought from the interpolated address that the document (with
its creed and eighteen anathemas) was composed at a council by the bishops of Tarraconensis, Carthaginensis, Lusitania, and Baetica.
89. Arvalo noted the filioques presence at Toledo I and III (PL 81:5034). The
creed of Toledo I is not associated with that council and is really the Pastors Creed
(Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila, 177, 214; Kelly, Athanasian Creed, 90). Toledo III did
not include the filioque in the Nicene Creed, but Arvalos reference to the council still
has meaning since the filioque was in Recarreds confession and the third anathema.
Despite his proof of the filioque at the time, he does allow for the possibility that the
filioque reference in ep. 6 is a later interpolation (506).
90. Kelly, Athanasian Creed, 38.
91. Frederick H. Dudden, Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought,
2 vols. (New York: Russell & Russell, 1967), 2:349 says, Gregory leaves us in no
doubt as to his real opinion. In several places he distinctly asserts that the Holy Spirit
proceeds both from the Father and the Son. Dudden supports this claim by citing
passages from the Moralia (30.17, 2.92, and 1.30). Also consider Gregorys perspective
in Dialogues (trans. FC 39:109): Now certainly the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, is ever
proceeding from the Father and the Son. Siecienski, The Filioque, 7071 finally concludes that Gregory likely supported the popular doctrine but says interpreting Gregory
from his writings is difficult. He examines some of the same passages as Dudden.
92. Mullins, Spiritual Life, 57. Collins, Early Medieval Spain, 60 also recognizes
the influence of Gregory on the Spanish church through Leander: This [the relationship of Gregory and Leander] meant that most of Gregorys writings very quickly
became available in the Visigothic kingdom and they came to exercise, with the sole
exception of the thought of Augustine, the greatest single influence upon the learning of the Spanish Church in the seventh century. Like Mullins, Peter Meyvaert,
Uncovering a Lost Work of Gregory the Great: Fragments of the Early Commentary on Job, Traditio 50 (1995): 5574 recognizes that Leander brought back the
earlier Moralia to Spain, because Isidore used this edition to replace sections of the
final version that were never sent to Leander.
93. For correspondence see ep. 43 and ep. 49 (trans. NPNF2 12) and ep. 121
(trans. NPNF2 13).
and likely wrote Reccards confession read at the council.94 It is not surprising that the Moralia has been identified as one of Isidores sources.95
Late Manuscripts
Beeson indicates that only Isidores letters to Braulio and Masona are
found in early manuscripts.96 This issue can be treated briefly as Mullins
alone cites this as evidence of ep. 6 generally being considered suspect.97
Also, the argument is logical in nature, not necessarily requiring further
examination of the manuscript evidence.
The later provenance in no way necessitates that ep. 6 and other letters are spurious. Some of Isidores letters found only in late manuscripts,
like ep. 6, may have more generally been considered spurious, but others
have been generally considered authentic. Mullinss treatment of the letters
demonstrates various scholars view ep. 1 (to Leudefredus) as genuine,98
and ep. 5 (to Helladius) is considered authentic by Mullins, McNally, and
even Sjourn, who radically considers all of the letters spurious except
this one and those to Braulio.99
Papal Supremacy100
Ep. 6 says, Thus I know that I am at the head of the Church of Christ as
long as I confess to show due obedience reverently, humbly, and devotedly
in everything to the Roman pontiff in particular, as vicar of God, before all
94. Dudden, Gregory the Great, 1:408.
95. Thomas L. Knoebel, trans., Isidore of Seville: De Ecclesiasticus Officiis (Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 1989), 25.
96. Charles Henry Beeson, Isidor-Studien, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Lateinischen Philologiedes Mittelalters 4 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1913), 60.
97. Mullins, Spiritual Life, 5 n.26.
98. Mullins, 17. For opposing views see Eligius Dekkers and Aemilus Gaar, eds.,
Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 3:211; Diaz y Diaz, Index Scriptorum Latinorum, 44;
Ford, The Letters of St. Isidore of Seville, 7; and Sjourn, Dernier Pre de Lglise,
166. McNally, Isidoriana, 439, says, The problem of its authenticity has not yet
been definitely solved.
99. Mullins, 1819; McNally, Isidoriana, 436; and Sjourn, Dernier Pre de
Lglise, 7181. Diaz y Diaz, Index Scriptorum Latinorum, 42 also lists it as authentic. McNally, Isidoriana, 439 n.439 explains that Sjourns extreme position is
not generally accepted by scholars.
100. In this section evidence from ep. 8 is excluded, since the letters authenticity
has been debated, but there is good reason to consider it. (See note 40, above, for
authors that regard the letter as genuine). Isidore says, But concerning the question of the equality of the apostles, Peter takes precedence over the others because
he deserved to hear from the Lord: You will be called Cephas; you are Peter (John
1, 42) and other things; and he first received in the Church of Christ the honor of
the priesthood not from any other but from the very Son of God and the Virgin. It
nized at Toledo III,111 Seville II (619),112 and Toledo VI (638) (the latter
using the teaching of Pope Leo).113
There is some evidence that Sjourn does not mention. In the Etymologies, Isidore says,
The pontifex is the chief of priests, as if the word were the way of
his followers. And he is also named the highest priest and the pontifex
maximus, for he creates priests and levites (i.e., deacons); he himself
disposes all the ecclesiastical orders; he indicates what each one should do.
Indeed, in former times pontifexes were also kings, for this was the custom
of our ancestors, that the king was himself a priest or pontifexhence the
Roman emperors were also pontifexes.114
before the passage and priests and others after the passage. In his discussion of bishops he explains patriarchs (Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria),
archbishops, metropolitans, and bishops.
There are also Spanish epistles from the period that use strong words
for the papacy, bolstering the authenticity of ep. 6. In Reccareds letter to
Gregory the Great, he used phrases holy lord and most blessed pope,115
thee who art powerful above all other bishops, and thy Holiness.116
In Licinianus of Carthagenas letter to Gregory he used most blessed
lord pope, Thy holiness, your Blessedness, most holy father,
your crown, and most blessed father.117 Finally, Braulio of Saragossa,
Isidores friend and student, wrote to Pope Honorius most reverend lord
and deserving of apostolic glory, and Prince of Rome.118 Thompson
says, He fully recognizes the primacy of the bishop of Rome (Romanus
princeps).119 Arvalo draws attention to Braulios words at the opening
of the letter:120
115. Magnin, Lglise Wisigothique au VIIe Sicle, 78 and Charles H. Lynch, Saint
Braulio, Bishop of Saragossa (631651): His Life and Writings, Studies in Mediaeval
History, n.s., 2 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1938), 100
say pope was not solely used of the Bishop of Rome at this time, but Lynch does
say that Braulio seems to use it that way even though that alone does not prove his
belief in papal primacy.
116. Gregory the Great, ep. 61 (trans. NPNF2 13:1617). According to n.6, the
NPNF2 says, the genuineness of this letter is considered doubtful, but Martyn,
trans., The Letters of Gregory the Great, 2:698 makes no mention of any doubts.
117. Gregory the Great, ep. 54 (trans. NPNF2 12:11921).
118. Braulio of Saragossa, ep. 21 (trans. FC 63:51, 54).
119. Thompson, Goths in Spain, 185. Despite this King says this letter and another
from Julian of Toledo to Benedict II have a tone prickly independence, resentful of the
exercise of Roman authority (Law and Society, 123). He continues, It has been not
implausibly suggested that by the end of the century schism was near (12324). He
also says, Braulio stressed that God worked through the king as well as through the
pope (123 n.4). Pius Bonifacius Gams, Dies Kirchengeschichte von Spanien (Regensburg: Georg Joseph Manz, 1864), 2.2:244 refers to the bitterness and irritability in
the letter. It seems plausible that the popes authority would be recognized even in
the midst of flared emotions. The letter was a response to the popes criticism ...
about their failure to take make more repressive measures against the Jews (Collins, Visigothic Spain 407711, 165). Even Thompson, who says Braulio recognizes
the popes primacy, discusses aspects of the letter that show Braulio is defending the
Spanish church. Lynch, Saint Braulio, 5556 says, It suffices here to say that the successor of Peter is accorded due respect and recognition . . . His [Honoriuss] zeal in
discharging his duty of watching over all the churches, and keeping them from schism
and heresy, is lauded, and his right to demand an accounting in Spain is accepted as
a matter of course. Nevertheless, the noticeable tone of aggrieved testiness in the Letter echoes a growing national pride of church and state in Spain. He also surveys
the perspectives of various scholars on the issue of whether Spain at this time was
attempting to set up a national Church independent of Rome (145). He concludes
Lynch refers to such phrases as most excellent and outstanding of bishops as displaying the respect and recognition of the pope.122 He says,
Throughout the letter his primacy is stressed,123 and, This valuable
this is not the case (146). Magnin, Lglise Wisigothique au VIIe Sicle, 21 describes
the perspective of the Spanish church in this exchange with the pope: Mais lestime
mme o les Pres de Tolde tiennent le sige de Rome les rend dautant plus sensibles aux critiques dHonorius. J. Prez de Urbel, Braulio, DHGE, 10:448 says,
Son accent est ferme, tout en tant respectueux. Ceux qui ont vu dans ce texte un
indice de lindpendance de lglise wisigothique envers Rome, ne se sont pas arrts
le regarder de prs. For Madozs discussion of the letter see Primado in Espaa,
23637, 24447. Vega, Primado Romano, 52123 says, Despus de leda atentamente esta Carta, clebre en los anales de la Iglesia Espaola, y que en la misma
Roma tuvo merecida resonancia, no se explica uno cmo se ha podido ver en ella un
rasgo siquiera de independencia jerrquica y de protesta contra la autoridad suprema
de la Silla Apostlica. La respuesta del ilustre prelado cesaraugustano es espontnea,
franca, sincera, sin eufemismos, quiz con algo de esa noble rudeza y energa propia
del carcter espaol, pero respetuosa y sumisa siempre a la autoridad del Papa, que
ni un momento, ni lni sus colegas en el episcopado, discuten y menos contradicen.
Al contrario, en toda la Carta abundan las frases de reconocimiento hacia aqulla,
tributndole los elogios ms fervientes y los eptetos ms excelsos, and Todas estas
expresiones nos revelan, no slo un reconocimiento profundo y sincero de la suprema
autoridad pontificia, sino una sumisin interior y exterior de la voluntad a la misma,
completa y sin restricciones. Ni una palabra de protesta contra su ingerencia en los
asuntos de la Iglesia Espaola, ni una insinuacin velada, ni una sospecha siquiera
contra la legitimidad de su accin, siquiera sta resulte dura, excesivamente intempestiva y, en principio, injusta contra ellos. Ni San Braulio ni el episcopado espaol,
es cierto, se muestran en la Carta obsequiosos y deferentes, y menos cordiales y aduladores; pero s respetuosos y atentos y con nimo generoso y dispuesto a obedecerle
al ms leve mandato o insinuacin.
120. PL 81:507. Lynch, Saint Braulio, 101 also quotes some of this passage in
contrast to the fact Honorius was later condemned.
121. Braulio of Saragossa, ep. 21 (trans. FC 63:51).
122. Braulio, 56. Lynch, Saint Braulio, 55. Lynch also notes praestantissme praesulum and Apostolatus vestry apex (italics by Lynch).
123. Lynch, Saint Braulio, 100 continues with other titles than mentioned above:
New titles are brought to the fore. He is the most eminent of Prelates and most
blessed Lord, your eminent Apostleship, your sanctimony, most reverend of men
and holiest of fathers, the most excellent of Bishops, and the head of our ministry.
etter does more than recognize the primacy of the pope; it expresses
L
clearly, with as much precision as there is beauty and image and idea, the
dogma of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.124 Finally,
regarding another epistle of Braulio, Lynch says, The primacy of the pope
is acknowledged unequivocally in Letter 14. Questioned by Fronimian on
the liturgical office of Good Friday, he describes the customs in Saragossa,
Seville, Toledo, Gerona, and, as if it were the final authority, Rome.125
Conclusion
The study of the manuscript evidence clearly demonstrates that the filioque was not in the Nicene Creed at Toledo III (589), but first appeared
at Toledo VIII (653). Although it cannot be maintained with absolute
certainty, there is good reason to believe ep. 6 from Isidore to Claudius
is authentic based on the evidence supporting its authenticity and the
inadequacy of arguments against it. Therefore, the Creed was changed
after 589 and before 636 when Isidore died. Previously scholars believed
the insertion occurred in 589 or previous to the council. If some scholars
thought the filioque was not added by 589, it must have occurred between
589 and 653. This paper corrects the common tradition and further narrows the possible date of this critical event because of an important piece
of evidence not provided by conciliar records.
Reasons for the change to the Creed are implicit in the previous sections, but a fuller treatment of the historical and theological environment
would require another work. Briefly stated, it seems logical that this event
would occur with the pervasive Western belief in the double procession,
influence of creeds that contained the double procession, and, finally, the
third Council of Toledos requirement to include the Creed in the mass
coupled with the anathema against those who did not believe the double
procession.
Shawn C. Smith is Registrar at Lincoln Christian University
124. Lynch, 102 cites and translates Urbel, Braulio, 10:448. The whole sentence
says, En mme temps que cette libert desprit nous trouvons dans ce document
fameux, clairement exprim, avec autant de prcision que de beaut dimage et dide,
le dogme du magistre infaillible du romain pontife.
125. Lynch, 100; Braulio of Saragossa, ep. 14 (trans. FC 63:3840). Lynch continues, This recognition in liturgical matters may have been limited on the part of
the master, Isidore, but when Braulio wrote to Pope Honorius. Lynch derives this
perspective on Isidore from Sjourn, Dernier Pre de Lglise, 92.