Mail exchange, beginning with my challenge on an issue with certain foreclosed questions in today's ecumenical debate.
Subject: "not to be confused with the 3rd Council of Toledo, which first proclaimed Filioque"
http://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/p/filioque-far-older-than-iii-council-of.html
Welcome to cite source for 3rd Concil "first" proclaiming it. Or for making a reasoning about it. My source is a Spanish site (linked to on my page) about precisely the 1st Council of Toledo.
What little I have found, 3rd Council does not actively "add" Filioque, but recites the Creed with it, as being traditionally part of the Creed according to the Spanish tradition back then.
1st certainly and 3rd probably was approved by Rome. Thus it is not a "mere local council" but like those of Orange and that pf Frankfurt a "particular council approved by Rome". Both should be in the Denzinger.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wed, 27 Feb 2013
David MacDonald responded 08/03/13
Hi Hans-Georg
The following is a response from Mrak Bonocore, an expert on Catholic Orthodox issues, who wrote most of the articles about the Orthodox Church on the site
Well, what needs to be appreciated is that, in reciting the Constantinopolitan Creed (or A.D. 381) with the Filioque, Toledo was indeed adding the Filoque to this Creed, since the original Constantinopolitan Creed simply did not include the Filioque. Also, when we speak of Toledo as a "mere local council," it must be understood that ALL "mere local councils" always sent the rescripts of their decisions to Rome for blessing and final ratification, as a matter of common practice. This was the most ancient custom of the Church, even predating the first Council of Nicaea in 325 --that is, the invention of the "Ecumenical" Council, an imperial innovation (a creation of Constantine the Great). So, there never really was a "mere local council" of the Catholic Church. Yet, simply because Rome gave its blessing to the decisions of a local or regional council (which Rome always did, unless that local or regional council professed something erroneous or heretical), this did not mean that the decisions of a local or regional council were automatically binding on the rest of the Catholic Church, or approved for the entire Catholic Church. Rather, it merely meant that Rome recognized the decisions of the local or regional council to be good, fitting, and approved for the local or regional district in which the council was held. This is what happened viz. Rome's recognition of the council of Toledo. Rome merely recognized that the Filioque clause was approved and fitting for the Spanish Church, given that the Church in the Kingdom of Spain needed to affirm the Son's eternal participation in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, so as to refute the erroneous claims of the Spanish Arians, and thus facilitate the conversion of the Spanish Visigothic aristocracy to Catholic orthodoxy. ...which is the reason that the council of Toledo was held. However, even long after giving its blessing and approval to the council of Toledo, Rome itself continued to recite the Constantinopolitan Creed in its original form, without the Filioque, as did most other regions of the Western Church. It was only (several centuries later) when the Frankish emperors began to favor and implement the Filioque throughout their vast, Western European realm that Rome began to consider the inclusion of the Filioque in its own recitation of the Creed --something Rome hesitated to do, because it did not want to alienate the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, but be the source of unity for both Byzantine East and Frankish West. In fact, Rome initially gave its pledge to the Byzantines to maintain such a position. Yet, when Frankish-German imperial influence began to dominate central Italy and the Roman Papacy, Rome actually (though naturally and understandably) violated its pledge to the Byzantines, and this is why the Eastern Church became outraged (and alienated). In this, one must appreciate that, to the (theocratic) Byzantine Empire, the Creed was tantamount to a kind of national "pledge of allegiance"; and when Rome discarded the original form of the Creed for the form favored by the Frankish Empire (Byzantium's rival), it seemed like a "betrayal" to the theocratic Byzantines, and it became something that significantly weakened Rome's ability to fulfill its God-given ministry to unify East and West --that is, the entire, universal Church.
Mark Bonocore
Sorry, you are nearly still refusing Third Council of Toledo - held in Visigothic Spain - with FIRST Council held in Roman Empire.
At third, the Filioque clause was not added by any decision, it was recited with the Creed as already traditional.
At the first Council of Toledo, Filioque Clause was included in a particular rule of faith directed against the Priscillianists.
No clause of faith can be approved by Rome unless it is Orthodox. Filioque clause in the Regula Fidei adversus Omnes Haereses praecipue Priscillinistas was not binding as a needed addition for all the Church, but it cannot have been either:
- wrong or heretical;
- provoked by a particular heresy the Council opposed. Priscillianists were not Arians.
They may have been Modalists, i e saying Son and Holy Ghost are Energies / Virtutes of the Father rather than substantial eternal persons. They were not Arians.
And at Third Council of Toledo, (in Visigothic Spain, directed against Arians, where the Creed of Constantinople is directly concerned) the Filioque clause was not added by decision, but recited as already traditional.
Answer came 10/03/13:
Hi Hans-Georg
Here is Mark's response...
Well, I do not mean to simply reject Hans-Georg's Spanish source, but I have actually never heard of the first council of Toledo (c. A.D. 397-400) using the Filioque clause in its recitation of the Creed, and can find no evidence of this on my own. According to the ‘orthodox’ and accepted historical record, Filioque was not used in Spain until the third council of Toledo in 589. So, given this situation, I am forced to strongly suspect that Hans-Georg's Spanish source is incorrect, and possibly the result of an anachronistic gloss from some medieval (or modern) Spanish scribe –that is, someone including the Creed of 3rd Toledo in the records of 1st Toledo, and so giving the (false) impression that the Creed of 3rd Toledo was always the creedal formula for Spain. This is my immediate suspicion. However, if Hans-Georg can establish the reliability of his source, or show me any other historical source that recognizes Filioque being used among the Spanish that early in history, then I will happily accept his position as authentic. But, until that time, I have serious doubts; and for several reasons:
1) If the Filioque was added to the Constantinopolitan Creed in 397 (that is, only 16 years after this Creed was drafted by the Council of Constantinople I; and only 15 years after Constantinople I was formally ratified and approved by Pope St. Damasus, at his Roman synod of 382), then it would mean that a fully-formed and official Filioqueist theology developed in Spain (and in Spain exclusively!) in just over a decade. Now, this is not impossible (as I will touch on below), but the historical causes for such a development are very allusive.
2) Hans-Georg says that the first council of Toledo recited the Creed with the Filioque to counter the Priscillian heresy –the very reason why 1st Toledo (A.D. 397-400) was called: to refute and condemn Priscillianism. However, it remains to be seen how the Filioque clause would serve to refute Priscillianism, which was an anti-materialist and dualist error. If anything, Filioque’s double-procession of the Spirit would seem to implicitly support (or certainly play-into) the dualist doctrines of Priscillian, not refute them. So, I seriously fail to see how the historical context of 1st Toledo would lead the Spanish bishops to insert Filioque into the (then, very new) Constantinopolitan Creed.
3) According to accepted history, the earliest (possible) case of anyone attempting to modify the Constantinopolitan Creed with a Filioqueist clause takes place among the Nestorians at their council of Seleucia in A.D. 410 –exactly one decade after the conclusion of 1st Toledo. Now, on one hand, this demonstrates that such an early modification is possible. However, the Spanish Catholics who attended 1st Toledo clearly had no contact with the Nestorian church in the Persian Empire (literally on the other side of the known world), and so possessed no connection (whether historical, cultural, or theological) to the reasons why the Nestorians adopted a Filioqueist addition to the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. If the 4th Century Spanish did it, they had to have solid theological reasons of their own. So, the question is: What would those reasons be, given that the Filioque clause simply doesn’t help to refute Priscillianism –the focus of orthodox Spanish attention at this time.
4) Here, we would do well to appreciate why the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 (as originally written by the Byzantines) addressed the Spirit’s procession in the first place. The original form of this Creed, stating that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” (with no reference to the Son), was written to counter the claims of the Macedonian Arians, who asserted that the Spirit was a mere ‘creation of the Son.’ To refute this, the Council of Constantinople borrowed the apologetic of St. Basil the Great and his fellow Cappadocians, who simply referred their Macedonian opponents to John 15:26, where Christ speaks of “The Spirit of Truth Who proceeds from the Father.” This is the source and firm Scriptural basis for the original, Greek wording of the Creed. This is what the Byzantines at Constantinople I intended this part of their Creed to refer to. It was intended to be a direct refutation of the Macedonians error, which claimed that the Spirit does not originate with the Father. This was the mentality in 381; and most of the Latin-speakers in the West (and certainly in Rome) apparently understood this at the time. This is why Pope St. Damasus I (himself a Spaniard, don’t forget) ratified and approved of the Constantinopolitan Creed without any attempt to insert a Filioqueist addition. And so, this being the case, I find it really hard to imagine that the contemporary bishops in Spain would be so quick to add “and the Son” to the Creed’s statement about the Spirit’s procession. For, they too would still be on guard against the Macedonian error at this time. They too would be familiar (as were Pope St. Damasus and St. Ambrose) with the theology of St. Basil and his fellow Cappadocians. And they too would realize that the Creed’s original wording merely reflected the Scriptural statement of Christ in John 15:26. So, again, what would be the theological reason for Spanish bishops in 397-400 to formally alter the Constantinopolitan Creed? I simply don’t see it.
5) A further problem with Hans-Georg’s claim that the Filioque was formally adopted by the Spanish as early as 397-400 is the overall historical context in regard to Spain, and the Priscillian error in particular. For, that regional Church’s campaign against Priscillianism involved not only the dioceses of Spain, but also those of southern Gaul, especially Aquitaine. And, while Hans-Georg says that Filioque was first enshrined in the formal usage of the Spanish Church (against the Priscillians) at 1st Toledo in 397-400, there is certainly no record of it being used in Gaul at this time. Indeed, we know for a fact that the Gaul-based Frankish kingdom, centuries later, received the Filioque from the Spanish. Likewise, in Spain itself, we see a historical problem with Hans-Georg’s claim that the Spanish formally adopted the Filioque at 1st Toledo. For, what about 2nd Toledo in A.D. 527? Was the Creed at that council recited with the Filioque? It should have been, if Hans-Georg’s claim is correct. And, Toledo was not the only site of formally binding councils of the Spanish Church. On the contrary, the Spanish council that actually ended the Priscillian heresy was not 1st Toledo in 397-400, but the First Council of Braga in 561. And, at this council, there was clearly no recitation of the Creed with the Filioque. On the contrary, the canons of this council go out of their way to make certain that all of the Liturgical worship in Spain was in conformity with that of Rome and the rest of the Western Church! And, needless to say, Rome recited the Creed without the Filioque at this time. The same is true of the 2nd Council of Braga in 572. So, again, if Hans-Georg’s Spanish source is correct, then we have a historical progression that looks like this:
A.D. 397-400: First Toledo –the Creed is (supposedly) recited with the Filioque
A.D. 527: Second Toledo –no Filioque
A.D. 561: First Braga ---no Filioque
A.D. 572: Second Braga –no Filioque
A.D. 589: Third Toledo –the Creed is (definitely) recited with the Filioque.
So, unless he can establish that the Filioque was indeed used by all these Spanish councils (and no historian that I know of ever noticed or claims such a thing), the only way that Hans-Georg’s assertion can be true is if the use of the Filioque was somehow “suspended” in Spain between c. A.D. 400 and A..D 589. But, again, where is the evidence for such a thing? And, even if Filioque was used early on, but then set aside (something that is far from established at this point), the historical progression would still clearly demonstrate that the Filioque clause was not yet a formally binding part of Spanish tradition (at least not until 3rd Toledo in 589). In other words, even if we believe that 1st Toledo referenced Filioque, this council clearly did not make Filioque formally binding for Spain. If it did, then the Filioque could not be missing from these other Spanish councils prior to 589.
5) Connected to all this is the political / imperial dimension of the historical record. For, when the First Council of Toledo was held (between 397-400), the dynasty of emperor Theodosius the Great ruled both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. Now, Theodosius, don’t forget, was also a Catholic Spaniard –the leading general of the (equally Catholic) Western Emperor Gratian, whom Gratian made Augustus of the Eastern Empire when Gratian’s uncle Valens (an Arian) was killed fighting against the Visigoths. Once established in the East, the Spanish Catholic Theodosius set out to rid the Eastern Church (and especially the Eastern capital of Constantinople) of Arianism; and the result of this was the Council of Constantinople I, with its Creed –a Creed that speaks of the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone. So, simply put, the Constantinopolitan Creed was the Creed of Emperor Theodosius the Great. Now, this SAME Theodosius eventually became Emperor of the West as well, engaging in two civil wars against Western usurpers, the first to avenge the death of his patron Gratian, who was the leading political force (in both Gaul and Spain) against the Priscillian heretics. And, once emperor of both East and West, Theodosius installed his sons as co-emperors; and so, at the time of his death in 395, Theodosius’ son Honorius was the sovereign over the West Empire, which of course included Spain. Now, if Hans-Georg’s assertion is correct ---if the First Council of Toledo, held during the early part of Emperor Honorius’ reign, formally adapted the Constantinopolitan Creed to include the Filioque, then we must believe that the imperial court at Milan/Ravenna (as well as the Roman Papacy) endorsed this innovation. Yet, while the theology of Filioque would of course be approved by the Papacy, the idea that the province of Spain could formally adopt at Creed which was at variance with that of the rest of the Western Empire at the time, and that the house of Theodosius (the imperial court at Milan/Ravenna) would tolerate this perceived violation of the Theodosian legal code (which is what the Constantinopolitan Creed actually was, from the imperial Roman point of view) is impossible to believe. In other words, while Spain was actually part of the Western Roman Empire and under direct Roman rule (which it was in A.D. 400, but not in A.D. 589), it would simply not be possible for the Spanish provincials to unilaterally amend the Creed. The imperial house of Theodosius would not have tolerated it, both on legal grounds (because it would violate existing imperial law –the canons of Ecumenical Councils being part of imperial law) as well as on the grounds of “posterity” and “family pride.” After all, the Constantinopolitan Creed was Honorius’ father’s own “legislation.” His Spanish subjects would not be permitted to formally tamper with it. Yet, this imperial dimension of course did not apply by 589, when Spain was no longer under imperial rule, but subject to the Visigothic kings, and an independent state unto itself. In short, if the Spanish had formally (and unilaterally) adapted the Constantinopolitan Creed (a Creed that was essentially “authored” by the ruling imperial family), it would have created a huge political “stink.” But, we of course have no record of such a controversy. And this alone is very damning to Hans-Georg’s assertion.
6) And, lastly, while (as I discussed above) there is no clear historical or theological motivation for the Spanish to formally adapt the Creed or insert the Filioque at 1st Toledo in 397-400, there are very obvious historical and theological motives for them to do so at 3rd Toledo in 589, which signaled the mass conversion of their Visigothic aristocracy from Arianism to Catholicism. In the Spanish / Latin theological mentality, making it clear that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son reinforced the reality of the Son’s full Divinity; and so the Filioque was inserted to refute an erroneous preoccupation of Gothic Arianism, as opposed to Macedonian Arianism, which inspired the Creed’s original reference to the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone. In other words, these two “schools” of Arianism took very different approaches. The Macedonians believed in a “three-tiered” Trinity, in which the Father “created” the Son, and then the Son “created” the Spirit. But, the Goths didn’t see it this way. The Goth’s had no problem with the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (or, at the very least, the Spirit being some kind of “projection” of the Father’s full Divinity). They merely saw Christ as a kind of “lesser god” or “Germanic demi-god / hero” (e.g. a Christian version of “Thor”). So, in making it clear to the Goths that the Divine Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, the Son’s full Divinity was assured, and an obvious unity of the Trinity was established. So, in short, 3rd Toledo (called to refute and put an end to Gothic Arianism) had clear motives for establishing the Filioque, whereas 1st Toledo (called to refute Priscillianism) did not.
Now, with all this said, as I touched on above, it must be admitted that it is certainly not impossible that 1st Toledo recited the Creed with the Filioque. If the Nestorians could do it in 410, the Spanish Catholics could certainly do it in 397-400. But, if this happened (and the word “if” must still be maintained), we must conclude that it could not have been a formally binding issue. For, from A.D. 400 on, the Filioque does not appear as a standard part of the Creed in Spain, or anywhere else in the Western Church. Nor could it have become something that was formally binding while Spain was still under the direct, Roman rule of the house of Theodosius (which it was in A.D. 400). Rather, if 1st Toledo really did recite the Creed with the Filioque (and I still need to be convinced of this with more solid evidence), it would have been merely an informal “embellishment” –a theological “footnote” of sorts, not a formal adaptation. In this, it may have been related to the very linguistic basis for the Filioque controversy. For, the original Greek wording of the 381 Creed is drawn directly from the Scriptural expression in John 15:26, using the same Greek word as the Greek original of John 15:26 – “ekporeusis,” which specifically means to originate from a single principal of cause. Yet, when John 15:26 was first translated into Latin (even long before the days of St. Jerome’s Vulgate), this term (“ekporeusis”) was rendered as “procedit” –a Latin verb that does not carry the same, specific meaning as the Greek; and so does not imply procession from a single principal or cause. Likewise, when the Greek version of the Constantinopolitan Creed was translated into Latin, it too (quite naturally) replaced “ekporeusis” with “procedit,” thus creating a viable opportunity for the Filioque. For, if “procedit” does not imply the Father’s monarchy (His role as principal Source or Cause) in the progression of the Spirit (as it did to the Greeks), then a reference to the Son’s participation in the procession of the Spirit is certainly possible and natural. So, it is therefore quite possible that some Spanish bishop or scribe, when documenting the Creed at 1st Toledo in 397, simply added “and the Son” to the Creedal expression (especially because the theology of Filioque was already well established, and quite second-nature, among the Latin fathers). Yet, once again, this is a far cry from saying that 1st Toledo consciously mandated the inclusion of Filioque or put it forward as a formally binding addition to the Creed (whether merely in Spain, or elsewhere).
Pax semper
Mark Bonocore
To which I answered in two portions:
He is not forced to anything, and as for Creed [Nice Constantinople] recited at First Council of Toledo, I simply do not know it.
This is not the "pisteuo eis hena Theon" in Latin, this is the rule of faith against heresies, especially Priscillianism:
http://trentophilaret.blogspot.fr/p/filioque-far-older-than-iii-council-of.html
http://tiny.cc/m9vrtw
"According to the ‘orthodox’ and accepted historical record, Filioque was not used in Spain until the third council of Toledo in 589."
May be true for the Latin version of "pisteuo eis hena Theon", and as far as written records of the Creed are concerned. Obviously, the third council was NOT reciting the Creed with a "filioque" by pure hazard after everyone before them in Spain recited it without it, NOR was it deciding to add it, since no such decision is recorded from acts of third council of Toledo, ergo, it was already traditional with "filioque" at Third Council of Toledo.
BUT I did not state the first Council of Toledo recited the Creed with filioque. It recited a rule of faith with filioque. A rule of faith which was not the Creed of Nice and Constantinople. Your friend was simply being sloppy when he accused me of that to strawman me about not finding on his own etc. Here on my page I give Latin text with my own tentative translation:
http://trentophilaret.blogspot.fr/p/filioque-far-older-than-iii-council-of.html
http://tiny.cc/m9vrtw
BUT on same page I also link to the source, which he would have found if he had taken the trouble to read my page through (did you even transmit the link?). Here is what I link to:
http://www.filosofia.org/cod/c0397t01.htm
http://tiny.cc/mawrtw
Spanish and Latin parallel texts. He must scroll down to where the Latin has "Incipiunt regulae fidei catholicae contra omnes haereses et quam maxime contra Priscillianos, quam episcopi Terraconenses, Kartaginenses, Lusitani et Baetici fecerunt," - note the qualification that the rule of faith was not made by the fathers of Nice and Constantinople, by implication, since it was made by the fathers of the First Council of Toledo. If your friend reads neither Latin nor Spanish, I feel sorry for him, for in that case he should not be talking about any Councils of Toledo at all.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre / Paris X
St. Rosina, March 11th
Year of Our Lord MMXIII
"1) If the Filioque was added to the Constantinopolitan Creed in 397 (that is, only 16 years after this Creed was drafted by the Council of Constantinople I; and only 15 years after Constantinople I was formally ratified and approved by Pope St. Damasus, at his Roman synod of 382), then it would mean that a fully-formed and official Filioqueist theology developed in Spain (and in Spain exclusively!) in just over a decade. Now, this is not impossible (as I will touch on below), but the historical causes for such a development are very allusive."
That is assuming there was no filioque theology actually RECORDED before Toledo I. St Athanasius not only wrote ab utroque in the personal creed he submitted to the Pope on returning from exile in Trier (quicumque vult et c), but he also met in exile the Spanish Orthodox non-hero Hosius. Not only that but even between Trier and Spain there is "ab utroque procedens" in St Hilary of Poitiers, in Gaul. He died 368. A date easy enough to remember since 1600 years before my own birth. I e 32 years before the First Council of Toledo.
"2) Hans-Georg says that the first council of Toledo recited the Creed with the Filioque to counter the Priscillian heresy –the very reason why 1st Toledo (A.D. 397-400) was called: to refute and condemn Priscillianism. However, it remains to be seen how the Filioque clause would serve to refute Priscillianism, which was an anti-materialist and dualist error. If anything, Filioque’s double-procession of the Spirit would seem to implicitly support (or certainly play-into) the dualist doctrines of Priscillian, not refute them. So, I seriously fail to see how the historical context of 1st Toledo would lead the Spanish bishops to insert Filioque into the (then, very new) Constantinopolitan Creed."
Apart from his confusion involving erroneously the Creed of Constantinople and Nice into the Context of Toledo I, that is precisely my argument why "filioque" must not be thought of as overzealous protrection of one doctrine at issue, but as seen as already known and traditional doctrine.
If he deigns to read through the antipriscillianist rule of faith of Toledo I instead of confusing it with the "pisteuo eis hena Theon", he will find it condemns Priscillianism very thoroughly, and that "filioque" does not at all play into Priscillianism.
It is rather, if anything, the "nature-energies" distinction made by and revindicated by Orthodox which might be suspected to play into Priscillianism. The Priscillinists obviously made it, since they either said or were suspected of saying (see Pope Saint Leo's letter to Bishop St Turribius of Astorga/Asturica, condemning this) that Son and Spirit were equally "virtutes" i e in Greek "energies" of the Father. The Toletan Creed begins very clearly with saying "This one God and one Trinity is of divine substance." - In other words, it is not the Father alone who is of divine substance, while, as Priscillianists argued to their damnation the other persons are rather energies than substance.
"3) According to accepted history, the earliest (possible) case of anyone attempting to modify the Constantinopolitan Creed with a Filioqueist clause takes place among the Nestorians at their council of Seleucia in A.D. 410 –exactly one decade after the conclusion of 1st Toledo. Now, on one hand, this demonstrates that such an early modification is possible. However, the Spanish Catholics who attended 1st Toledo clearly had no contact with the Nestorian church in the Persian Empire (literally on the other side of the known world), and so possessed no connection (whether historical, cultural, or theological) to the reasons why the Nestorians adopted a Filioqueist addition to the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. If the 4th Century Spanish did it, they had to have solid theological reasons of their own. So, the question is: What would those reasons be, given that the Filioque clause simply doesn’t help to refute Priscillianism –the focus of orthodox Spanish attention at this time."
Interesting, since St Thomas Aquinas said that the denial of filioque was taken over from Nestorians. Can your friend document that Nestorians actually did accept rather than reject filioque in Seleucia?
Because, either way it proves extremely well that Nestorians knew "filioque", thus that it cannot have been a recent invention in Spain. If both Toledo in 400 and Seleucia in 410 knew filioque, it is the invention of neither, but rather a common heritage.
From 4
"... This is why Pope St. Damasus I (himself a Spaniard, don’t forget) ratified and approved of the Constantinopolitan Creed without any attempt to insert a Filioqueist addition. ..."
This presupposes we have access to the text Constantinople and Pope St Damasus ratified. As far as I know, the text is lacking from the remaining documents and our first Conciliar text for it is from Council of Chalcedon. As far as I know.
From 5
"For, that regional Church’s campaign against Priscillianism involved not only the dioceses of Spain, but also those of southern Gaul, especially Aquitaine. And, while Hans-Georg says that Filioque was first enshrined in the formal usage of the Spanish Church (against the Priscillians) at 1st Toledo in 397-400, there is certainly no record of it being used in Gaul at this time."
There is as said a record of St Hilary of Poitiers usuing the words "ab utroque procedens" to explain his theology. He died 368. And he is not Spain but Gaul. And even previous to the Priscillianists.
"Indeed, we know for a fact that the Gaul-based Frankish kingdom, centuries later, received the Filioque from the Spanish."
That may be true for its insertion into the Creed of Constantinople and Nice. But I do not find any convincing argument beyond taking the Greeks' word for it. It is clearly NOT at all true about the theology of double procession as such. That is a canular, not a fact.
"For, what about 2nd Toledo in A.D. 527? Was the Creed at that council recited with the Filioque? It should have been, if Hans-Georg’s claim is correct. And, Toledo was not the only site of formally binding councils of the Spanish Church. On the contrary, the Spanish council that actually ended the Priscillian heresy was not 1st Toledo in 397-400, but the First Council of Braga in 561. And, at this council, there was clearly no recitation of the Creed with the Filioque. On the contrary, the canons of this council go out of their way to make certain that all of the Liturgical worship in Spain was in conformity with that of Rome and the rest of the Western Church! And, needless to say, Rome recited the Creed without the Filioque at this time."
Thank you for the "needless to say". First of all, my claim is not that the Creed of Constantinople and Nice was recited with "filioque" at Toledo I, my claim is another Creed was drawn up by Toledo I and included the filioque, and Toledo III recited the Creed of Constantinople and Nice with filioque. I made no claim about the exact process between those points.
But second, saying one is liturgically in conformity with Rome does not preclude using a variant extending only to a few words of the liturgy.
Third, we know that at the time of Leo III the Creed was in Rome recited without the "filioque", we have no such indication for the period between Toledo I and Toledo III, neither as far as I know, nor as far as he has shown. The Greeks take it for granted. For the Greeks it is indeed "needless to say". So - what does that prove beyond a zealous defence on their part of "Mystagogé" by Photius?
"So, again, if Hans-Georg’s Spanish source is correct, then we have a historical progression that looks like this:
A.D. 397-400: First Toledo –the Creed is (supposedly) recited with the Filioque
A.D. 527: Second Toledo –no Filioque
A.D. 561: First Braga ---no Filioque
A.D. 572: Second Braga –no Filioque
A.D. 589: Third Toledo –the Creed is (definitely) recited with the Filioque."
He did neither read my page with English translation nor the page I linked to from it. What we do have is:
A.D. 397-400: First Toledo –the Creed of Toledo against Priscillianists is decided with the Filioque
A.D. 527: Second Toledo – please show what Creed, if any, was either drawn up or recited?
A.D. 561: First Braga – please show what Creed, if any, was either drawn up or recited?
A.D. 572: Second Braga – please show what Creed, if any, was either drawn up or recited?
A.D. 589: Third Toledo –the Creed is (definitely) recited with the Filioque.
If no creeds were drawn up on these councils (Toledo II, Braga I and II) and we have no text of the Creed of Nice and Constantinople, we must assume that the Creed against Priscillianism was not liturgically used but doctrinally binding on all of the Spanish Peninsula, unless any clause in it had specifically been revoked as erroneous or as condemning what should not have been condemned or as affirming what should not have been affirmed. To opine otherwise is simply to attribute severe collective amnesia to the Spanish Church.
If the Creed of Nice and Constantinople has been recited and written down as recited by these three councils, we would know whether they did or did not use it with the filioque clause. But even if it had been absent, it was not the only binding document on Spanish Orthodoxy, but the rule of faith from Toledo I remained binding as well. With the filioque.
"In other words, while Spain was actually part of the Western Roman Empire and under direct Roman rule (which it was in A.D. 400, but not in A.D. 589), it would simply not be possible for the Spanish provincials to unilaterally amend the Creed. The imperial house of Theodosius would not have tolerated it, both on legal grounds (because it would violate existing imperial law –the canons of Ecumenical Councils being part of imperial law) as well as on the grounds of “posterity” and “family pride.” After all, the Constantinopolitan Creed was Honorius’ father’s own “legislation.” His Spanish subjects would not be permitted to formally tamper with it. Yet, this imperial dimension of course did not apply by 589, when Spain was no longer under imperial rule, but subject to the Visigothic kings, and an independent state unto itself. In short, if the Spanish had formally (and unilaterally) adapted the Constantinopolitan Creed (a Creed that was essentially “authored” by the ruling imperial family), it would have created a huge political “stink.” But, we of course have no record of such a controversy."
I too base a lot on the fact that Spain was under direct Roman rule in 400.
I base thereon the establishing of the fact that Spain stated "filioque" under no duress or imposed amnesia from Visigoths, under no direct confrontation with persecuting Arians, and with full access of communication to other parts of the Empire.
But I did very much NOT write that Toledo I tampered with the Creed. I wrote that it set up a rule of faith against all heresies and foremost Priscillianism. A text which is not identical with the Creed of Nice and Constantinople. A text with some clear affinities to the - historically speaking earlier - Quicumque Vult. Look at this passage:
Patrem autem non esse ipsum Filium, sed habere Filium qui Pater non sit. Filium non esse Patrem sed Filium Dei de Patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Paraclitus sed a Patre Filioque procedens.
"And, lastly, while (as I discussed above) there is no clear historical or theological motivation for the Spanish to formally adapt the Creed or insert the Filioque at 1st Toledo in 397-400, there are very obvious historical and theological motives for them to do so at 3rd Toledo in 589, which signaled the mass conversion of their Visigothic aristocracy from Arianism to Catholicism. In the Spanish / Latin theological mentality, making it clear that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son reinforced the reality of the Son’s full Divinity; and so the Filioque was inserted to refute an erroneous preoccupation of Gothic Arianism, as opposed to Macedonian Arianism, which inspired the Creed’s original reference to the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone."
What topsy turvy tests he uses.
"Such a thing cannot have been said by such a one because he had no clear historical or theological motivation to say it" - excepting of course that he had in reality a very clear motive if he received it by tradition. If Toledo I received the Theology of Double Procession from Tradition, they had as clear a motive to include it in a statement of faith, even if otherwise not required by the controversy, as Sts Anselm and Thomas Aquinas had to defend it.
"This Arian can only be refuted if you add filioque, this other Arian can only be refuted if you do not add filioque" - Truth is always good and sufficient to refute any heresy.
And of course:
"the Creed’s original reference to the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone." - Except that placing "alone" in that context is very much also adding to the Creed. You find Orthodox Catecheses (probably from Photius' Mystagogé on) where the word "alone" is added [in explanations, though not in text of Creed itself], but it is certainly NOT there in the text from Constantinople.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
as in previous email
