the insertion of the filioque into the nicene creed and a letter of isidore of sevil

7/21/2019 The Insertion of the Filioque Into the Nicene Creed and a Letter of Isidore of Sevil

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-insertion-of-the-filioque-into-the-nicene-creed-and-a-letter-of-isidore 1/27

Shawn C. Smith

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 22, Number 2, Summer

2014, pp. 261-286 (Article)

DOI: 10.1353/earl.2014.0026

For additional information about this article

Access provided by University of New Orleans (9 Jun 2015 20:41 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v022/22.2.smith.html





Journal of Early Christian Studies 22:2, 261–286 © 2014 Johns Hopkins University Press

I am very grateful to Dr. Robert Rea for proposing, to a class years ago, the inser-tion 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 Mess-ner, Ryan Hemmer, David Mosley, Brett Seybold, Rob Maupin, Claudia Muñoz, andAndrea Gentile for providing assistance with translation, and Dr. Paul Blowers andDr. Steven Cone for helpful suggestions on earlier drafts. Finally, I am appreciativeof the Lincoln Christian University library staff, especially Leslie Starasta, for acquir-ing resources that were not easily accessible and Julie Yarwood for acquiring someresources I could not access through typical means.

1. Vladimir Lossky, “The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Triadol-ogy,” Eastern Churches Quarterly 7 (1948): 31 says, “Whether we like it or not, thequestion of the procession of the Holy Spirit was the sole dogmatic ground of the sepa-ration of the Eastern and Western Churches.” This division continues despite the fact

that, in 1965, Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI withdrewthe anathemas made by those in 1054. Related to efforts to heal the schism, it is alsosignificant that Cardinal Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, quoted the Creed without thefilioque and recognized the Orthodox churches as “true particular Churches” (DominusIesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church [August

The Insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed and aLetter of Isidore of Seville

SHAWN C. SMITHThe common tradition says the filioque first appeared in the Nicene Creedat the Third Council of Toledo in 589. In contrast, the manuscript evidenceindicates it first appeared at the Eighth Council of Toledo in 653. The dateof the insertion can be narrowed further based on a letter of Isidore of Seville(d. 636). This letter (ep. 6) has been typically considered spurious, but theevidence supports its authenticity.

The filioque (“and from the Son”) is the principal theological issue thatdivides the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches,1 but it is morethan a theological disagreement. The phrase is inserted into the creedcommonly known as the Nicene Creed (more technically called the



262 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

6, 2000], accessed Jul. 25 2012 via http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations /cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html).

2. For more information about the Creed’s name, origin, and history see F. J.Badcock, The History of the Creeds, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan Co., 1938),187–221; Charles Augustus Briggs, The Fundamental Christian Faith: The Origin,History and Interpretation of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1913), 211–67; A. E. Burn, An Introduction to the Creeds and tothe Te Deum (London: Methuen & Co., 1899), 98–123; David Larrimore Holland,“Creeds of Nicea and Constantinople Reexamined,” CH 38 (1969): 248–61; Fenton John Anthony Hort, Two Dissertations (London and Cambridge, UK: Macmillan andCo., 1876); J. N. D. Kelly, “The Nicene Creed: A Turning Point,” Scottish Journalof Theology 36 (1983): 29–39; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York:Longmans, Green and Co., 1950), 296–367; and Cuthbert Hamilton Turner, TheHistory and the Use of Creeds and Anathemas in the Early Centuries of the Church (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1906), 41–61.

3. Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis Fidei advsersus hujus tem- poris Haereticos (Prague: Typis Wolffgangi Wickhart, 1722), 194. This is found inDe Christo, Lib. II, Caput XXII, 8. This work was originally published in Ingolstadfrom 1586–93. As argued in this paper, Bellarmine, says thefilioque was in the Creed

used at Toledo VIII. Adamo Zoernikav, Tractus Theologici Orthodoxi de Proces-sione Spiritus Sancti a Solo Patre, 2 vols. (Hartungius, 1774), 1:288–89 also citesBellarmine and notes the filioque missing from certain editions of acts of the counciland that Garsiae Louisa places “Desunt Exc.” (Desunt in excusis) in the margin ofthe text for the words “& Filio.” See Garsiae Louisa, Collectio Conciliorum His- paniae (Petrus Madrigal, 1593), 203. “La Questione Storica Nella Controversia del‘Filioque,’” Civiltà Cattolica 3 (1929): 498, 499, 499 n.2 blames Louisa for addingwords to the Creed at Toledo III for the first time, since Bellarmine does not associatethem with the council. He also notes that Louisa amazingly claims on page 237 theoriginal Creed contained the word(s). Macaire, Théologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe,5 vols. (Paris: Joel Cherbuliez, 1859), 1:314 concludes the insertion occurred in the

late eighth century, citing Bellarmine, Zoernicav, and Migne. J. P. Migne, TheologiaeCursus Completus, 28 vols. (Paris: J. P. Migne, 1963), 5:406 associates the filioque with Toledo VIII and not Toledo III. His work was originally published in 1841. Dio-nysius Petavius, Dogmata Theologica, 8 vols. (Paris: Ludovicum Vivès, 1865), 3:272.Petavius lived 1583–652.

Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed),2 a foundational creed for nearly allChristendom and an integral part of the celebration of the Holy Eucharistfor many. Therefore, this altering of the pronouncement of an ecumeni-cal council, the Council of Constantinople in 381, changed the worshipand life of the church.

The Nicene Creed, originally written in Greek, does not contain the dis-puted clause. With filioque added, the creed affirms that the Holy Spirit“proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Even though in the sixteenthcentury, Cardinal Bellarmine, and others in the sixteenth to mid-nineteenthcenturies, said that the filioque was not included in the Nicene Creed atthe Third Council of Toledo (589),3 it has been traditionally held since



SMITH / THE INSERTION OF THE FILIOQUE 263

4. ODCC (1997), s.v. “Filioque”; G. W. Bromiley, “Filioque,” Evangelical Dic-tionary of Theology, 415; J. F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early Historyof Christian Doctrine (1903; reprint, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1962), 215–16n.1; Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-mans, 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 NutcombeOxenham (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), 4:418; Roger E. Olson, The Story ofChristian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1999), 308; Henry Barclay Swete, On the History of the Doctrineof the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Char-lemagne (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: Étude orthodoxe sur le FILIOQUE (Athens: 1892; reprint,Lausanne: L’âge d’Homme, 1987), 20–22 is even aware of the work of Zoernikavand Bellarmine but still argues that the filioque was not a latter addition. See Jean- Joseph Gaume, Traité du Saint-Esprit (Paris: Gaume et Cie, 1890), 68, 70 for a moreunusual view that the filioque was added at a council in Toledo in 447. A. Palmieri,“Filioque,”Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique: Contenant l’exposé des Doctrines dela Théologie Catholique, leurs Preuves et leur Histoire, eds. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot,and E. Amman, 15 vols. (Paris: Librarie Letouzey et Ané, 1924), 5:2310–11 challengesthis view. In more recent times, Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occultand the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976),216–17 said the council was not even held.

5. A. E. Burn, “Some Spanish MSS of the Constantinopolitan Creed,” Journal ofTheological Studies 9 (1908): 301–3.

6. See Gerald Bray, “The Filioque Clause in History and Theology,” Tyndale Bul-

letin 34 (1983): 119; Charles Augustus Briggs, The Fundamental Christian Faith: TheOrigin, History and Interpretation of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds (New York:Charles Scribner’s 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 andCharlemagne: Is the Letter Another Forgery by Ademar of Chabannes?” RBen 102(1992): 75–134; Haddad, “The Stations of the Filioque,” 211; Richard Haugh,Pho-tius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy (Belmont, MA: NordlandPublishing Company, 1975), 160; R. G. Heath, “The Western Schism of the Franksand the ‘Filioque,’” JEH 23 (1972): 97–113; Frank G. Kennedy, “The Introductionof the Filioque into the Nicene Creed” (M.A. thesis, St. Bonaventure College, 1932),8–9; Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, “Christian Theology in the Patristic Period,” inHistory

of Christian Doctrine, ed. Hubert Cunliffe-Jones (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,1978), 120; Nick Needham, “The Filioque Clause: East or West?” Scottish Bulletinof Evangelical Theology 15 (1997): 150; Susan A. Rabe, “Ex Patre Filioque: Saint-Riquier in the Carolingian Age” (Ph.D. dissertation, Loyola University, 1958), 126–27;and José Vives, Tomás Marín Martínez, and Gonzalo Martínez Díez, eds., Concilios

then that the first evidence of the insertion in the Western creed is at thatcouncil.4 But critical evidence revealed by A. E. Burn in English in 1908questions this tradition.5 Since then many repeated the common tradition,because they were either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by the evidenceagainst it.6




Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos (Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cien-tíficas Instituto Enrique Flórez, 1963), 114. Although Kennedy does not cite Burn, heis familiar with the work of Palmieri, which cites Bellarmine. Even so, he concludesthe filioque was in the Creed at Toledo III.

7. See Coker Adams, Filioque: A Letter to Rev. F. E. Warren (Edinburgh or London:n.p., 1884); E. S. Ffoulkes, An Historical Account of the Addition of the Filioque tothe Creed (London: n.p., 1872); George Broadley Howard, The Schism Between theOriental and Western Churches, with Special References to the Addition of the Fil-ioque to the Creed (n.p., 1892); Thomas Richey, The Nicene Creed and the Filioque (New York: n.p., 1884); and Swete, On the History.

8. See Badcock, History of the Creeds, 215–18; Briggs, Fundamental ChristianFaith, 259–63; A. E. Burn, An Introduction to the Creeds and to the Te Deum (Lon-don: Methuen & Co., 1899), 114–19; and Cuthbert Hamilton Turner,The History ofthe Use of the Creeds and Anathemas in the Early Centuries of the Church (London:Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1906), 57–61.

9. See Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 358–67.10. See George C. Berthold “Cyril of Alexandria and the Filioque,” SP 19 (1989):

143–47; George C. Berthold, “Maximus the Confessor and the Filioque,” SP 18(1985): 113–17; Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 91–144; Callahan, “The Problem ofthe ‘Filioque,’” 75–134; Every, Misunderstandings Between East and West , 9–49;

Haddad, “The Stations of the Filioque,” 209–68; Haugh, Photius and the Carolin- gians; Heath, “The Western Schism,” 97–113; Daniel J. Nodes, “Dual Processions ofthe Holy Spirit: Development of a Theological Tradition,” Scottish Journal of Theol-ogy 52 (1999): 1–18; Dietrich Ritschl, “Historical Development and Implications ofthe Filioque Controversy,” in Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflectionson the Filioque Controversy, ed. Lukas Vischer (London: SPCK, 1981), 46–65; andA. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (New York:Oxford University Press, 2010).

11. See Hegumen Boniface, “The Filioque Question,”Diakonia 15 (1980): 74–81;Emmanuel Clapsis, “The Filioque Question,” Patristic and Byzantine Review 1(1982): 127–36; Mary A. Fatula, “A Problematic Western Formula,”One in Christ

17 (1981): 324–34; Paul Henry, “On Some Implications of the ‘Ex Patre FilioqueTanquam Ab Uno Principio,’” Eastern Churches Quarterly 7 (1948): 16–31; AlasdairI. C. Heron, “‘Who Proceeded From the Father and the Son’: The Problem of theFilioque,” Scottish Journal of Theology 24 (1971): 149–62; Lossky, “The Processionof the Holy Spirit, 31–53; Needham, “The Filioque Clause,” 142–62; Bernd Ober-

Scholarship in English shows limited attention to the issue. At the endof the nineteenth century, books were written specifically about the fil-ioque but not limited to the event in Spain.7 During this same period,and the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of books about themany creeds were published with small portions devoted to the filioque.8 In the middle of the twentieth century, J. N. D. Kelly included a sectiondevoted to the filioque.9 Since then, books and articles appeared devotedto a survey of the filioque or some aspect of it.10 More common is thedebate on theological validity of the doctrine usually within ecumenicaldiscussions.11 An unpublished master’s thesis was devoted to discovering




dorfer, “The Filioque Problem—History and Contemporary Relevance,” Scriptura 79(2002): 81–92; Vladimir Rodzianko, “The ‘Filioque’ Dispute and its Importance,”Eastern Churches Quarterly 10 (1953): 177–91; Vladimir Rodzianko, “‘Filioque’ inPatristic Thought,” SP 2 (1957): 295–308; and Serge S. Verkhovsky, “Procession ofthe Holy Spirit According to Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity,”St. Vladimir’s Semi-nary Quarterly 2 (1953): 12–26.

12. See John J. Ferrainolo, “Historical and Theological Background of the ThirdCouncil of Toledo (589)” (M.Div. thesis, St. Vladimir Orthodox Theological Semi-nary, 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 “fil-ioque” refers to the words added to the Nicene Creed. The expression of the sameconcept in other creeds or sources is designated as “double procession.”

when the insertion actually occurred, giving attention to how and why.12 But the author did not trace the development of the double processionand interacted with a limited number of sources. Another thesis focusedon the insertion but is a mere twenty-six pages.13

Therefore, a study of the insertion of the disputed clause is presentlynecessary. In 1948, Vladimir Lossky said, while allowing that the Tole-dan 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 dogmaticappreciation of these formulas might be made. Here the disinterested workof historical theology could be useful to the church.14

This article will demonstrate that the filioque clause was added to theNicene Creed in Spain between Toledo III (589) and Toledo VIII (653)and most likely sometime before Isidore of Seville’s death in 636. This willbe accomplished by, first, citing the evidence and analysis of scholars thatbelieve the filioque was not used in the Creed in 589, and, second, arguingfor the authenticity of Isidore’s ep. 6 to General Claudius.15

SCHOLARS WHO QUESTIONTHE INSERTION AT TOLEDO III

Over roughly the last hundred years, some scholars have questioned thefilioque inclusion in the Creed at Toledo III. In 1899, Burn began ques-tioning the reliability of the conciliar documents:

Two early editions of the Councils, however—Cologne (1530) and Paris(1535)—omit the words in the text of the creed quoted by the Council,




16. Burn provides no citation. He must be referring to Aguirre, Defensio Cathe-drae S. Petri contra declarationem Cleri Gallicani (Perez, 1683), liv. In another sourceAguirre notes in the margin “Al.” and then a version that lacks procedentum butcontains ex Patre et Filio. See Josepho de Aguirre, ed., Collectio Maxima ConciliorumHispaniae, Epistolarumque Decretalium Celebriorum (Ioachimum Ibarra, 1784), 764.

17. Burn, An Introduction to the Creeds, 115. See also Zoernikav, Tractus Theo-logici 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,” 498–99.22. “La Questione Storica Nella Controversia del ‘Filioque’ (I),” Civiltà Cattolica

1 (1930): 313–16.

and D’Aguirre16 admits that some MSS. do not contain them. In lightof subsequent history, it seems far less probable that they would beintentionally omitted by a copyist than they would be added. But we must

be content to leave the point doubtful until the evidence of the MSS. hasbeen collected and sifted. Even if the interpolation was not made at thattime, it must have been made very soon after, and that in good faith, indirect dependence on the Canon, which asserted the immemorial belief ofthe Western Church.17

In 1908, Burn more confidently asserted that the insertion was not inthe Creed after examining some manuscripts. He was still careful notto 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 gradualprocess at work by the copyists, influenced by the traditional belief in theProcession of the Spirit from the Son, perhaps also the very strong words ofthe 3rd Canon of the Council of Toledo, felt justified in adding them to thetext of the Creed as quoted at Toledo . . .19

In 1924, Palmieri, after surveying many authors, concluded that the fil-

ioque was probably not added in the fifth or sixth centuries, but when ithappened is unclear.20 He did not cite Burn’s work.A few years later an author writing in Civiltà Cattolica questioned the

filioque at Toledo III. In the first article in 1929, he noted the work of Bel-larmine and Louisa (who noted in the margin of his work the lack of thewords in the printed editions), and that the insertion was missing in the1530 and 1538 Cologne editions of councils.21 The next year he devel-oped the argument further and confirmed the filioque was in the Creedat Toledo VIII.22




23. J. A. Aldama, El Simbolo Toledano I (Rome: Pontificiae Universitatis Grego-rianae, 1934), 124 n.45.

24. F. J. Badcock, The History of the Creeds, 2nd ed. (New York: MacmillianCo., 1938), 216.

25. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 362. Ferrainolo, “Historical and Theological Back-ground,” 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 hadnot looked at Burn’s work and only relied on Kelly’s 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 in1937 and the second in 1939. He is aware of work of Aldama, Palmieri, Macaire,and Zoernikav. It is unusual that he did not mention thefilioque at Toledo VIII. Alsoduring the 1950s, it is interesting that Latourette says the addition of filioque to thecreed “seems to have been done first at Toledo in Spain in 589 or 653” (Kenneth ScottLatourette, A History of Christianity [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953], 303).

27. George Every, Misunderstandings Between East and West (Richmond, VA: JohnKnox 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 Ecu-menical Creed at the Council of Toledo was itself a later interpolation of the Acts ofthis Council, for all the historical influences which could have caused such an inter-polation were equally present before and during the time of the Council of Toledo.”

Aldama responded to the work in Civiltà Cattolica in 1934. He thoughtthat the filioque might have been missing but was not convinced becauseof the manuscripts examined. He argued that more reliable Spanish man-uscripts would have to be examined like the ones Burn examined, butBurn’s work is incomplete.23

In 1938, Badcock said, based on Burn’s work, “It would seem, however,that it [the Creed] did not contain the clause ‘and the Son,’ these wordsbeing a later insertion of some copyist influenced by the anathema of theCouncil.”24 And twelve years later, Kelly said, also citing Burn,

The matter still requires investigation, but the conclusion seems inescapablethat, as originally recited at the council of Toledo, the text of C [the Nicene

Creed] was the pure one without the filioque. Nevertheless it was inevitablethat, with the growing stress laid on the doctrine, the word should speedilycreep into the creed. Spanish MSS of the subsequent centuries give abundantillustrations of the process at work.25

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 Burn’s work. Every said thatBurn’s 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 stillthought the problem that Burn raised was interesting, especially after




28. Dossetti, Giuseppe Luigi, Il Simbolo di Nicea e di Constantinopoli (Roma:Herder, 1967), 176–78 n.2.

29. Knut Schäferdiek, Die Kirche in den Reichen der Westgoten und Suewen biszur Errichtung der westgotischen katholischen Staatskirche (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter& Co., 1967), 211–12 n.226.

30. José Orlandis ad Domingo Ramos-Lissón, Die Synoden auf der IberischenHalbinsel bis zum Einbruch des Islam (711) (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1981),109–11 n.54. They report a letter from P. Felix Rodriguez saying that the project isnot yet completed, and he would not draw any conclusion about the filioque until

the codices of Toledo III are examined.31. Orlandis and Ramos-Lissón, 205–6. They cite Schäferdiek and Vives, Martínez,and Díez, eds., Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, 267–68.

32. Bernd Oberdorfer, Filioque: Geschichte und Theologie eines ökumenischenProblems (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 135–36. Oberdorfer, “TheFilioque Problem,” 84 says, “We have no certain witnesses whether the NC has beenused then [the late sixth and seventh centuries] including the Filioque addition.” Innote 20 he writes, “The discussion is controversial. Jose Orlandis and DomingoRamos-Lisson . . . argue that at the 8th synod of Toledo (653) the NC was recitedincluding the Filioque. According to Reinhard Slenczka, however, the documents ofthe pre-Carolingian time provide no evidence that the NC has been used then in a fil-

ioquistic form.” See Reinhard Slenczka, “Das Ökumenische Konzil von Konstantinopelund seine ökumenische Geltung heute,” in Una Sancta; Zeitschrift für ökumenischeBegegnung 36 (1981), 198–209 (Oberdorfer cites pages 298–309, but the article islocated on pages 198–209). I am unable to locate where Slenczka makes this preciseclaim, but it could possibly be inferred from his work.

33. Siecienski, Filioque, 69. He also cites Orlandis and Ramos-Lisson.

examining codices of the Hispana in Rome. In the end, he came to thesame conclusion as Burn but said the final word on the issue would awaitstudy of some key manuscripts and a better translation of the Hispana.28 Schäferdiek concluded the word was most likely not in the Creed at 589,but was definitely used at Toledo VIII (653). He was familiar with Dosetti’swork and did some of his own examination of the manuscripts.29

In 1981, Orlandis and Ramos-Lissón recognized that Kelly, Dosetti, andSchäferdiek questioned the common tradition. They concluded the issuewould be finally settled when a critical edition of the Spanish Councils ispublished.30 They do maintain the filioque was used in 653.31

In the twenty-first century, Oberdorfer, citing Orlandis and Ramos-

Lissón, said the Creed probably lacked the filioque in 589, and was includedin 653, but he even expressed doubt concerning the latter date.32 Morerecently, Siecienski said referring to Toledo III,

Here we must assume that either the council was using an alreadyinterpolated creed . . . or that the acts of the council had themselves beenaltered and the et Filio added by the hands of a later editor. This latter(and more probable) theory was first advanced in 1908 by A. E. Burn, whopointed out that in many early copies of the councils acts the phrase waseither missing or obviously in another hand.33




34. Gonzalo Martínez Diez and Félix Rodriguez, eds., La Colección CanónicaHispana V: Concilios Segunda Parte, Monumenta Hispaniae Sacra, Serie Canónica 5(Madrid: Consejo Superior Investigaciones Científicas, 1992), 67, 386. For Toledo IIIthey note “Patre] et Filio add. ECpTZSRp.” For Toledo VIII they note “et Filio] Filio D’.”

35. Peter Gemeinhardt, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkircheim Frühmittelalter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 53–54.

36. Isidore of Seville, ep. 6.4 (trans. Gordon B. Ford, The Letters of St. Isidore ofSeville [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 acreed of such importance. Surely wording should be exact, but this is probably notan issue. The meaning is exactly the same, and the difference is only a matter ofstyle. It is easily conceivable that various Spanish churches “fixed” the Creed theirown way after Toledo III in response to the third anathema and the directive to usethe Creed in the mass.

As described in note 3, Siecienski is not correct about Burn being the firstto raise the problem, but he is the first in the twentieth and twenty-firstcenturies.

The work of all of these authors provides a strong foundation for con-cluding that the filioque was not in the Creed at Toledo III but was in theCreed at Toledo VIII, though the conclusion is not absolutely certain. Burnnoted his work was not complete and others have recognized the impor-tance of awaiting a critical edition of the councils. The critical edition wasfinally published in 1992. Authoritatively, Diez and Rodriguez leave thewords “et Filio” out of the Creed of Toledo III, and the words appear atToledo VIII.34 Gemeinhardt recognized their work in 2002.35

THE AUTHENTICITY OF ISIDORE OF SEVILLE’SLETTER TO GENERAL CLAUDIUS

If the filioque was undoubtedly included in the Nicene Creed in 653, is itpossible to locate a more precise date for its initial inclusion? Isidore ofSeville died in 636 placing any of his authentic letters before that date. Inep. 6, Isidore responds to General Claudius’s question about the Greeks

accusing the Latins of adding to the Creed. The letter says, “and so someof the Greeks boldly strive to reprehend the Romans because in the profes-sion of holy faith they sing with heart and mouth to God: ‘Who proceedsfrom the Father and the Son,’ although in the aforementioned councils itwas stated: ‘Who proceeds from the Father’ . . . .”36 Isidore continues inthe letter to defend the Latin version of the Creed. The critical phrase inthe Creed says, “ex Patre Filioque procedit.”37

If the letter is spurious, the date of insertion could not be narrowed.




38. Sister Patrick Jerome Mullins, “The Spiritual Life According to Saint Isidore ofSeville” (Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1940), 19.39. Also, Mullins does not mention that Joanne Mariana (Juan de Mariana), of the

seventeenth century, made no notes expressing doubts about the letter’s authenticity.He edited Lucae Tudensis’s (Luc de Tuy d. 1249) work, which quotes from the letter.See Lucae Tudensis, De altera vita fideique controversiis Adversus Albigensium errorslibri III , ed. Joanne Mariana (Ingolstad, 1612), 91. Arévalo draws attention to thispiece of evidence (PL 81:503).

40. A. E. Burn, The Athanasian Creed and Its Early Commentaries, Texts andStudies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature 4, ed. J. Armitage Robinson(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1896), lxxx translates G. Morin, “LesOrigines du Symbole Quicumque Dit ‘Symbole D’Athanase,’” Science Catholique V(1891): 675. Morin unfortunately does not discuss the issue beyond this statement.P. D. King, Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom, Cambridge Studies in Medi-eval Life and Thought, 3rd series, 5, ed. Walter Ullmann (Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1972), 123 n.3 disagrees with Paul Séjourné, Le Dernier Père deL’église, Saint Isidore de Séville: So Rôle dans L’Histoire du Droit Canonique (Paris:Gabriel Beauchesne, 1929), 94–95 regarding the authenticity ofep. 8. R. E. McNally,“Isidoriana,” Theological Studies 20 (1959): 436 and P. Angel Custodio Vega, “ElPrimado y La Iglesia Española en los Siete Primeros Siglos,” Ciudad de Dios 154(1942): 507 also consider ep. 8 authentic.

41. ODCC (1997), s.v. “Isidore, St. (c.560–636)” says, “Of the 14 letters attrib-uted to him, only those of Baulio are certainly genuine. Many other works ascribedto him are forgeries or of doubtful authenticity.” José A. de Aldama, “Indicacionessobre la cronología de las obras de S. Isidoro,” in Miscellanea Isidoriana: homenajea San Isidoro de Sevilla en el XIII centenario de su muerte, 636–4 de abril 1936(Roma: Universidad Gregoriana, 1936), 60 n.13 says the letter is apocryphal. Inthe main text he discusses the authenticity of a different letter. Eligius Dekkers andAemilus Gaar, eds., Clavis Patrum Latinorum: qua in Novum Corpus ChristianorumEdendum Optimas quasque Scriptorum Recensiones a Tertulliano ad Bedam, SacrisErudi 3 (Steenbrugis: in Abbatia sancti Petri, 1951), list the letter in a section entitled“Spvria.” M. C. Diaz y Diaz, Index Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi Hispanorum

(Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1959), 44 lists the letter ina section entitled “falso adscriptae in codd. Vel. edd.” Mullins, “Spiritual Life,” 19is at least cited which has a good review of the discussion. Ford, Letters, 7 cites theopinions of others but with no discussion of argumentation regarding authenticity.See also King, Law and Society, 123 n.3.

Mullins says the letter “is considered spurious by most authorities.”38 She isaware of Arévalo’s arguments for authenticity, and the work of Morin, butshe does not note that Morin argued for the letter’s authenticity.39 Morinsaid, “Oudin and other critics have questioned the authenticity of thesetwo documents [epp. 6 and 8], but with interested motives and without asingle reason which is in the least convincing.”40

Often the claims that the letter is spurious involve no argumentation,41 and, when arguments are provided, they are not convincing. In what fol-lows, general evidence supporting the letter’s authenticity will be provided,and arguments demonstrating the letter is spurious will be challenged.




42. Ana Maria Jorge, “Church and Culture in Lusitania in the V–VIII Centuries:A Late Roman Province at the Crossroads,” in The Visigoths: Studies in Culture andSociety, ed. Alberto Ferreiro (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 108–9 says, “the Greek communi-ties dedicated to international trade had been living in Lusitania since the beginningof the Christian era in cities like Mérida or Santarém and they formed an importantgroup ready to welcome and help their compatriots who arrived from the Orient. TheVitae Sanctorum Patrum Emeretensium include the biography of two Greek bishops,Paul and his nephew Fidelis, who succeeded him as bishop in the metropolitan See ofMérida in the sixth century. Paul arrived from the East thanks to the ease with whichit was possible to travel between the two sides of the Mediterranean, and practicedmedicine. He was later elected as bishop of the city. This event bears witness not onlyto his personal prestige but also the supremacy of the Greek colony and the cosmopoli-tan environment in Visigothic Mérida in which a Greek immigrant could be elevatedto the episcopal seat. Fidelis is another example of this: he arrived in Mérida, alongwith a group of Oriental merchants, and was nominated by his uncle Paul to takeover the episcopal tasks when he himself was too old to perform them. The literarynotices concerning the presence of Greek settlements in Mérida are confirmed by thearchaeological data: note that some Greek inscriptions of Greek families dated from

the sixth or seventh century have been preserved. The Greek inscriptions found inother regions of Lusitania indicate that during the period we are studying there prob-ably existed Oriental colonies in Mértola and Lisbon as well.”

43. Consider also that Byzantine Empire controlled a portion of Spain until 624.For more information about the relationship between Spain and Byzantium see RogerCollins, Early Medieval Spain: Unity and Diversity, 400–1000 (New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1983); Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium (Malden, MA: BlackwellPublishing, 2005), 137, 151; Yitzhak Hen,Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court andCulture in the Early Medieval West (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 124–52,other chapters in The Visigoths, J. N. Hillgarth, “Coins and Chronicles: Propaganda inSixth-Century Spain and the Byzantine Background,” inVisigothic Spain, Byzantium

and the Irish, ed. J. N. Hillgarth (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 483–508; J. N.Hillgarth, “Historiography in Visigothic Spain,” in Visigothic Spain, Byzantium, andthe Irish (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 261–311; E. A. Thompson,The Gothsin Spain (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969); and Joseph F. O’Callaghan,A History ofMedieval Spain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), 42–47, 77.

General Indications of Authenticity

Some aspects of the letter give an impression of authenticity irrespective of

the arguments of some scholars. First, it is very likely that Greeks wouldhave lived in close proximity to Claudius. He was dux of the provinceof Lusitania, and Greeks were residing in Lusitania, a fact supported byliterary and archaeological evidence.42 Therefore, it is very plausible thatClaudius would have heard some Greeks complain about the insertion.43

Second, Claudius was an important individual whom Isidore would haveengaged in epistolary correspondence. John of Biclaro said, “Claudius thecommander of Lusitania, was ordered by King Recarred to intercept it[the camp of the Franks] and hastened to the place . . . . For the General

Claudius, with scarcely three hundred men, is known to have put to flight




44. John of Biclaro, Chronicle 91 (trans. Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Conquerors andChroniclers of Early Medieval Spain [Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1990], 77).

45. Isidore of Seville, Goth. 54.

46. Gregory the Great, ep. 120. The NCPF does not clarify this is the same Claudius,but this is clarified by John R. C. Martyn, trans., The Letters of Gregory the Great,3 vols. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2004), 2:704 n.712.

47. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 7.3 and De ecclesiaticis officiis 1.24(23).48. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 8.5.67.49. Paul Séjourné, Dernier Père de L’eglise, 73–74 offers another objection to

authenticity. He compares a passage in the letter to ep. 4, which he considers spuri-ous but not because of the words that it uses in common to ep. 6. Mullins, “SpiritualLife,” 17–18 says ep. 4 is supported by ancient manuscripts, and, of the scholars shesurveys, Séjourné is the only one that considers it spurious.

50. PL 81:513.

51. Casimir Oudin, Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticus, 3 vols. (Lipsiae:Weidman, 1722; reprint, Farnborough, UK: Gregg International Publishers Limited,1970), 1:1592 raises another objection related to the letter’s use of “Prelati” whichhe associates with the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. Arévalo addresses the issue inrelation to Isidore’s works (PL 81:506).

almost 60,000 Franks and to have cut down the greater part of them withthe sword.”44 Isidore of Seville also refers to this story.45 Another indicationof Claudius’s importance is that Gregory the Great sent a letter to him.46

Third, there are some similarities between Isidore’s other works andep. 6. His defense of the double procession in the letter is consistent withhis teaching in Etymologies and De ecclesiasticis officiis.47 In both the let-ter and the Etymologies, he is careful to distinguish “proceeding” from“begetting.” And, although possibly coincidental, in both sources he citesDeuteronomy 6.4 in opposition to tritheism.48

Responses to Objections against the Letter’s Authenticity

Ep. 6 has been viewed with suspicion because of its reference to the Atha-nasian Creed and the filioque, inclusion in late manuscripts, and expres-sion of papal supremacy.49 When examined closely these issues do notdetract from the letter’s authenticity. Even though the letter’s authenticitystill remained doubtful for Arévalo,50 he saw no reason to reject the letterbased on Oudin’s concerns related to the filioque, papal supremacy, andthe Athanasian Creed.51 The following will respond to these objections,referring to Arévalo’s work as needed.

Reference to the Athanasian Creed In ep. 6 Isidore says, “Likewise, you took care to make known to me theobjection of some Greeks that in the synod of Nicea and Constantinopleit is said that it was prohibited under pain of anathema in the Apostles’




52. Isidore of Seville, ep. 6.4 (trans. Ford, 31, 33).53. Remy Ceillier, Histoire Généale Auteurs Sacrés et Ecclésiastiques, 23 vols. (Paris:

Louis Vivés, 1882), 11:722–23. Oudin,Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticus,1:1592–93 mentions that theep. 8 , which he rejects, references the Athanasian Creedlike ep. 6. See also Séjourné, Dernier Père de L’église, 94.

54. Hefele, History of the Councils, 4:417. Ferrainolo, “Historical and TheologicalBackground,” 79 says the wording is different from Toledo III and that the Athana-sian Creed may have not influenced the council, but Kelly and Burn feel justified inmentioning the similarities even though their wording does not express full assurance.

55. J. N. D. Kelly, The Athanasian Creed: The Paddock Lectures for 1962–63 (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 38. For a text and translation of the creed withthe corresponding verses to which Kelly refers, see 17–20.

56. Burn, An Introduction to the Creeds, 117. It is strange that Burn says the

phrase in the creed affirming the double procession is found in clause 24. In bothplaces the text is provided in his work, this phrase is listed as 22 (192, 196). Kelly,Early Christian Creeds, 19 lists this phrase as verse 23. Even so, the context demon-strates that Burn could not be referring to any other phrase than the one concerningthe Spirit’s procession.

Creed and in that of holy Athanasius to take away or add somethingconcerning the Catholic faith . . . .”52 Ceillier claims the letter is from theperiod of the dispute between the Greeks and Latins regarding the pro-cession of the Holy Spirit. He does not specifically say the reference tothe Athanasian Creed makes the letter spurious but does note the Greeksbelieved the creed was genuine and from Athanasius. He also mentions inhis assessment of a related letter from Isidore to Eugenius (ep. 8) that thecreed could have been known by that name in Isidore’s time, but not usu-ally by that name, and there is no evidence that it was widely accepted bythe Catholic Church till later.53 Therefore, two important questions mustto be answered: First, was the Athanasian Creed well known at this time

and by what name? Second, would the Greeks have referred to the creedin such a way, especially since the creed contains the double procession?Concerning the creed’s notoriety, it may have been influential in councils

as early as Toledo III. The Athanasian Creed (also known as the Quicunquevult ) was possibly used to compose King Reccared’s confession (containingthe double procession) and the third anathema which said, “If anyone doesnot believe that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,and is coeternal with and like unto the Father and the Son . . . .” 54 Kellynotes that “two passages from Reccared’s confession seem to betray theinfluence of vv. 5f. (with 21) and v. 3 of the Quicunque respectively . . . .”55 Burn says, “It is quite possible that the Council of 589 were influenced bythe teaching of the Quicunque vult , since the words of their 3rd Canonreflect reminiscence of clause 24.”56

Even if the creed did not influence Toledo III, it definitely influenced




57. Hefele, History of the Councils, 450 n.4.58. Kelly, Athanasian Creed , 38–39. See also G. D. W. Ommanney, A Critical Dis-

sertation on the Athanasian Creed: Its Original Language, Authorship, Titles, Recep-tion, and Use (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), 12–14. Burn,An Introduction to theCreeds, 153 notes that the confession relies on the Creed of Damasus.

59. Kelly, Athanasian Creed , 39.60. Kelly, Athanasian Creed , 40–41.

61. Burn, “Athanasian Creed,” lxxx. Arévalo also refers to Toledo IV in his dis-cussion of the authenticity of ep. 6 (PL 81:507).

62. Kelly, Athanasian Creed , 20.63. Kelly, Athanasian Creed , 41, 53–54. Arévalo also notes this synod (PL 81:507).64. Kelly, Athanasian Creed , 54.

Toledo IV (633), presided over by Isidore. Toledo IV’s confession includedthe phrase, “sed procedentem ex Patre et Filio profitemur.”57 The confessionwas composed in reliance on the Athanasian Creed, with more certaintythan the “distant echoes” of the creed found in the documents of ToledoIII and the Creed of Damasus.58 Kelly says, “There is every likelihoodthat Isidore himself drafted it, for at every point it bears the imprint of histhought and language,”59 and, “Clearly the Quicunque must have beenwell known, and its authority established beyond question, for Isidore tohave made such extensive use of it in the council’s profession of faith.”60 Burn says, “The evidence of the Canon of 633 is quite sufficient to sup-port the authenticity of these letters [epp. 6 and 8] so far as quotation of

the Quicunque is concerned.”61

Regarding the creed’s name, it is associated with Athanasius in the earlyeighth-century Leningrad codex C.62 Even more ancient, the canon of theSynod Autun (c. 670) uses the name of Athanasius and is the first recordedassociation of his name with the creed.63 Kelly even regards “it as a dis-tinct possibility (not to be more positive) that the Athanasian title is afterall original [to the time of Caesarius of Arles (502–42)].”64

Finally, it seems odd that the Greeks would refer to the AthanasianCreed to bolster their case against the alteration of the Nicene Creed. TheAthanasian Creed directly contradicts the theological point they make,since it contains the double procession. But, this is not an overwhelmingproblem. First, the story may not be reported precisely since Claudiusmay be reporting what he heard from others with Isidore then reportingwhat Claudius said. Second, as revealed in the quote above, the Greeksare not appealing to the Athanasian Creed on the basis of its theologybut rather to its anathema on those who alter the Catholic faith. Sincethe creed was so influential at the time in Spain, it would make sense for

the Greeks to appeal to it without necessarily believing the creed or itsname were authentic.




65. Séjourné, Dernier Père de L’église, 95. Isidore of Seville, ep. 6.4 (trans. Ford,33). Séjourné says that even those who uphold the authenticity of the letter thinkthis was interpolated.

66. McNally, “Isidoriana,” 439.67. Oudin, Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticus, 1:1592.68. Eucherius of Lyons, Instructiones ad Salonum 1 (PL 50:774).69. Swete, On the History, 154; Henry Barclay Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient

Church: A Study of Christian Teaching in the Age of the Fathers (London: Macmillanand Company, 1912; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966), 154.

70. Gennadius of Marseilles, De ecclesiasticus dogmatibus (PL 58:980).

71. Julianus Pomerius, De vita contemplativa 1.18 (PL 59:433).72. Avitus of Vienne, Fragmento libri de divinitate Spiritus Sancti (PL 59:385).73. Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks 1.74. Fulgentius of Ruspe, To Peter on the Faith (trans. FC 95:61–64, 93); Fulgen-

tius of Ruspe, Fulgentius to Ferrandus (trans. FC 95:538).

Reference to the Filioque

As described above, Ceillier associates the letter with the later dispute

over filioque. Séjourné says those who consider the letter authentic thinkit was interpolated, and others associate the letter with the later Caro-lingian dispute, particularly focusing on the letter’s testimony that “theHoly Roman Church approves and believes that the Holy Spirit proceedsfrom the Father and the Son.”65 McNally, citing Séjourné, associates theletter with the ninth century, noting “the clear tendentious teaching onthe Filioque clause in the Creed and on the primatial prerogatives of thepapacy” (latter issue addressed below).66 Oudin places the letter after thecontroversy over the filioque in the time of Photius.67

Despite these perspectives, it is unnecessary to associate the filioque debate in this letter with a later time, since all of the factors existed forsuch an exchange to occur. As already demonstrated, there were Greekcommunities in Lusitania and the filioque was in the Creed. It is conceiv-able that this exchange would receive little attention at the time and inhistory. It was only “some Greeks” and a duke in a province in Spain,not a major debate between the Carolingians and Byzantium. The smallskirmish was nothing compared to the later war.

Additionally, the belief that the doctrine of the double procession wasapproved by the Holy Roman Church was reasonable, since the doctrinewas pervasive in the West since Augustine. In Gaul, Eucherius of Lyons(d. 449),68 Faustus of Riez (d. 490–95),69 Gennadius of Marseilles (d.496),70 Julianus Pomerius (d. 498) (a priest of Arles), 71 Avitus of Vienne(d. 523),72 and Gregory of Tours (d. 594)73 supported the double proces-sion. In Africa, Fulgentius of Rupse (d. 533) did the same.74

Another important figure from Gaul, Caesarius of Arles (502–42), also




75. Mark Dorenkemper, The Trinitarian Doctrine and Sources of St. Caesarius

of Arles (Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 1953), 98 summarizes Caesarius’sperspective on the Spirit’s procession as, “An internal procession from the Father andthe Son, eternal and without order and degrees—such is the procession of the HolySpirit as St. Caesarius describes it.” Consider more details Dorenkemper gives aboutCaesarius’s teaching on the procession of the Spirit: how he thought procession wassomehow different from generation but did not know the difference between the two(97, 135), and how he did not see any correlation between the missions and proces-sions of the Persons (109).

76. Caesarius, Sermons (trans. FC 31 [1]:59).77. Caesarius, 27. “Morin here gives the Athanasian Creed in the form—‘homiletic,’

writes Morin, ‘and somewhat freer’” (66 [3]: 229).

78. Robert L. Wilken, “Introducing the Athanasian Creed,” Currents in Theologyand Mission 6 (1979): 5. See Caesarius Sermon 2 (trans. FC 31 [1]: 25–26).

79. Kelly, Athanasian Creed , 110.80. For more information about this role, its responsibilities, and the pallium see

William E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community inLate Antique Gaul (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 129–31.

taught the double procession.75 In “Sermon 10,” titled “The Beginning ofa Selection on the Catholic Faith,” he preached, “the Holy Spirit, in turn,proceeds from both.”76 In another sermon, titled “The Beginning of theCreed of St. Athanasius, Bishop,” the Third Person is described as “notmade or created or begotten, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.”77 This latter sermon attests to Caesarius’s use of the Athanasian Creed, buthis reverence for it is seen more by his desire for others to know this creed.

In the preface to a collection of sermons, Caesarius says, “Because it isnecessary . . . that all clergymen, and laymen too, should be familiar withthe Catholic (i.e., the Christian) faith, we have first of all written out inthis collection the Catholic faith itself as the holy fathers defined it, for we

ought both ourselves frequently to read it and instruct others in it.” Thenhe sets forth the full text of the Athanasian Creed so that the clergy shouldknow what to teach. His comments indicate that at his time this creed wasconsidered a concise summary of Christian doctrine and was to be studiedby the faithful.78

It is understandable that the creed with the double procession wouldbe accepted in Spain: In 512, “Pope Symmachus gave Caesarius of Arlesauthority to settle matters of faith in Spain as well as Gaul.”79 Caesariuswas given this authority by being made the papal vicar of Gaul and giventhe pallium.80

As Caesarius was the pope’s vicar in Gaul and in part of Spain, everybishop who went to Rome had to pass through Arles and obtain fromhim letters of recommendation. He adroitly took advantage of this toforce upon them one or more of his collections of homilies, demanding ofthem a promise to have them read in the church . . . . Thus it came about




81. Caesarius of Arles, Sermons (trans. FC 31 [1]: xxii). J. N. Hillgarth, “Popu-lar Religion in Visigothic Spain,” in Visigothic Spain: New Approaches, ed. Edward James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 24 says, “Many of the sermons prescribedto be read in Visigothic Spain are contained in the Homiliary of Toledo. Over half ofthe 118 items . . . were taken from Caesarius of Arles (48) or Augustine (13), withother Patristic sources, such as Maximus of Turin or Gregory the Great, drawn on tomuch a lesser extent.” Collins, Early Medieval Spain, 60–61 says, “The greatest debtowed in this direction was to the sermon collections of Caesarius of Arles (502–542)

one of which became the basis of the homiliary used by the Church of Toledo in theseventh 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) sup-

ported the double procession. See Agnellus Epistola ad Armenium de ratione fidei (PL 68:383–84).

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 notimpact 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 document’s authority is evident,

that collections transcribed through the labors of Caesarius spread almostimmediately into Gaul, Spain and other cisalpine countries. In SpanishTarragona they were put to good use as the so-called Homilies of Toledo,

which were read at Mass in the Visigothic liturgy.81

In Rome, the filioque may not have been added to the Nicene Creed untilmuch later, but the doctrine was expressed by Paschasius, a Roman dea-con (d. 512),82 Boethius (d. 584),83 and Cassidorus (d. 584).84 Examiningthe 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 fromboth.”85 Leo lists Priscillianist propositions and condemns them. Chadwick

says, “it is safe to conclude that either Leo’s letter or a list of propositionsclosely based upon it was circulated for formal signature.”86 Therefore,Leo’s epistle and the concept of the double procession would have beenread by a number of church leaders. Also, Leo’s letter likely exerted influ-ence on the Spanish Pastor’s Creed, which contains the filioque.87

This creed then influenced the councils of Braga I (561) and Toledo III.Presiding over the council of Braga I, Lucretius of Braga remindedthose present of Leo’s letter and read the document from Bishop Pastor,

recognized as having some authority.

88

Later Pastor’s Creed influenced




because the council thought from the interpolated address that the document (withits creed and eighteen anathemas) was composed at a council by the bishops of Tar-raconensis, Carthaginensis, Lusitania, and Baetica.

89. Arévalo noted the filioque’s presence at Toledo I and III (PL 81:503–4). Thecreed of Toledo I is not associated with that council and is really the Pastor’s Creed(Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila, 177, 214; Kelly, Athanasian Creed , 90). Toledo III didnot include the filioque in the Nicene Creed, but Arévalo’s reference to the council stillhas meaning since the filioque was in Recarred’s confession and the third anathema.Despite his proof of the filioque at the time, he does allow for the possibility that thefilioque 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 nodoubt as to his real opinion. In several places he distinctly asserts that the Holy Spiritproceeds both from the Father and the Son.” Dudden supports this claim by citingpassages from the Moralia (30.17, 2.92, and 1.30). Also consider Gregory’s perspective

in Dialogues (trans. FC 39:109): “Now certainly the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, is everproceeding from the Father and the Son.” Siecienski,The Filioque, 70–71 finally con-cludes that Gregory likely supported the popular doctrine but says interpreting Gregoryfrom his writings is difficult. He examines some of the same passages as Dudden.

92. Mullins, “Spiritual Life,” 57. Collins, Early Medieval Spain, 60 also recognizesthe influence of Gregory on the Spanish church through Leander: “This [the relation-ship of Gregory and Leander] meant that most of Gregory’s writings very quicklybecame available in the Visigothic kingdom and they came to exercise, with the soleexception of the thought of Augustine, the greatest single influence upon the learn-ing of the Spanish Church in the seventh century.” Like Mullins, Peter Meyvaert,“Uncovering a Lost Work of Gregory the Great: Fragments of the Early Commen-

tary on Job,” Traditio 50 (1995): 55–74 recognizes that Leander brought back theearlier Moralia to Spain, because Isidore used this edition to replace sections of thefinal 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).

Toledo III.89 Kelly says that the confession Reccared read to the councilrelies on Pastor’s Creed.90

Another pope, Gregory the Great, also wrote phrases in his Moralia that could be interpreted as supporting the double procession.91 WhenGregory was a Roman deacon, he stayed in Constantinople (579–86), busydelivering a series of lectures on Job. Later, Gregory edited this work intothe Moralia and dedicated it to Leander of Seville, Gregory’s companionin Constantinople. The “early redaction of the Moralia was carried backto Spain by Leander and became the earliest source of the extraordinaryreputation for learning and sanctity which Gregory enjoyed among theSpanish ecclesiastical writers of the seventh century.”92 After Gregory was

in Rome and Leander returned to Spain they still maintained their friend-ship through letters.93 Leander, Isidore’s brother, presided over Toledo III




94. Dudden, Gregory the Great , 1:408.95. Thomas L. Knoebel, trans., Isidore of Seville: De Ecclesiasticus Officiis (Mah-

wah, NJ: The Newman Press, 1989), 25.96. Charles Henry Beeson, Isidor-Studien, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Latei-

nischen 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 Séjourné, Dernier Père de L’église,166. McNally, “Isidoriana,” 439, says, “The problem of its authenticity has not yetbeen definitely solved.”

99. Mullins, 18–19; McNally, “Isidoriana,” 436; and Séjourné, Dernier Père deL’église, 71–81. Diaz y Diaz, Index Scriptorum Latinorum, 42 also lists it as authen-tic. McNally, “Isidoriana,” 439 n.439 explains that Séjourné’s “extreme position isnot generally accepted by scholars.”

100. In this section evidence from ep. 8 is excluded, since the letter’s authenticityhas 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 ques-tion of the equality of the apostles, Peter takes precedence over the others becausehe deserved to hear from the Lord: ‘You will be called Cephas; you are Peter’ (John1, 42) and other things; and he first received in the Church of Christ the honor ofthe priesthood not from any other but from the very Son of God and the Virgin. It

and likely wrote Reccard’s confession read at the council.94 It is not sur-prising that the Moralia has been identified as one of Isidore’s sources.95

Late ManuscriptsBeeson indicates that only Isidore’s letters to Braulio and Masona arefound in early manuscripts.96 This issue can be treated briefly as Mullinsalone cites this as evidence of ep. 6 generally being considered suspect.97 Also, the argument is logical in nature, not necessarily requiring furtherexamination of the manuscript evidence.

The later provenance in no way necessitates that ep. 6 and other let-ters are spurious. Some of Isidore’s letters found only in late manuscripts,

like ep. 6, may have more generally been considered spurious, but othershave been generally considered authentic. Mullins’s treatment of the lettersdemonstrates various scholars view ep. 1 (to Leudefredus) as genuine,98 and ep. 5 (to Helladius) is considered authentic by Mullins, McNally, andeven Séjourné, who radically considers all of the letters spurious exceptthis 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 aslong as I confess to show due obedience reverently, humbly, and devotedlyin everything to the Roman pontiff in particular, as vicar of God, before all




was said to him even after the resurrection of the Son of God by the same: ‘Feed mylambs’ (John 21, 15). Christ designated the prelates of the churches by the name oflambs. Although his dignity of power is transferred to all Catholic bishops, yet in aspecial way and with a singular privilege it remains forever higher to the bishop ofRome as the head than all the other members. Thurs whoever, separated from thehead, does not reverently exhibit the due obedience to him, renders himself subjectto the schism of the Acephali, in asmuch as the Holy Church approves and defendsthe following statement of Holy Athanasius concerning the belief in the Holy Trinity,as if it were an article of the Catholic faith” (ep. 8.2 [trans. Ford, 47]).

101. Isidore of Seville, ep. 6.2 (trans. Ford, 31).102. Oudin, Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticus, 1:1593.103. It is surprising that Séjourné doubts the authenticity of the letter on these

grounds. Much of his analysis reveals a high view of the papacy by Isidore and thoseat the time. At other times he cites evidence to the contrary. Besides the evidenceanalyzed in the body of this paper, he says the popes did not have much involvement

in the regular affairs of the Spanish church, and Rome did not play a big part fromthe standpoint of its judicial powers (Séjourné, Dernier Père de L’église, 91). On theother hand, he notes that Isidore recognized Rome as the apostolic see at Toledo IV,and he, Leander, and even the most suspicious of the Spanish church respect thelegislative authority of the church and see the pope’s authority equal to the councils(91–92). He tells of Isidore following the practice of his own church for the tonsurebut the apostolic see for fasting (92–93). E. Magnin, L’Église Wisigothique au VII e Siècle (Paris: Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1912), 13–14 only draws attention to the latter.

104. Isidore of Seville, De ecclesiasticis officiis 2.5.5–6 (trans. Knoebel, 72). Eventhough King accepts that Isidore recognized papal primacy he says that Isidore statesthe next to last sentence almost defensively (Law and Society, 123 n.3). Magnin,

L’Église Wisigothique au VII e Siècle, 12 also notes the contrast between the end andbeginning of the passage. This passage of Isidore is from Cyprian, On the Unity ofthe Church 4 (trans. ANF 5:422). Cyprian says, “If any one consider and examinethese things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easyproof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter saying,

other prelates of the Church.”101 As noted above, this perspective on thePope leads some to consider the letter spurious. Oudin doubts the letter onthese grounds.102 Séjourné doubts the letter’s authenticity because of thissame passage despite noting evidence that supports Isidore’s respect for thepapacy.103 He notes a passage in De ecclesiasticis officiis where Isidore says,

Thus far concerning the first priests of the Old Testament. In the NewTestament, however after Christ the order of the priesthood began withPeter. For to him the pontificate in the church of Christ was given first. [Hequotes Matt 16.18–19] He was therefore the first to receive the authorityof binding and loosing, and the first to bring people to faith by the powerof his preaching. And since the other apostles also became equal sharers

with Peter in honor and authority, they also preached the gospel, dispersedthroughout the whole world. Coming after them, there succeeded themthe bishops, who have been setup throughout the world in the seats of theapostles.104




[quotes Matt. 26:18–19]. And again to the same he says, after his resurrection, ‘Feed

my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equalpower, and says, [quotes John 20:21]; yet, that he might set forth unity, He arrangedby His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the restof the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnershipboth of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” The connectionis mentioned by Arévalo (PL 81:781–82 n.5); Séjourné, Dernier Père de L’église, 93;Vega, “Primado Romano,” 504; and Madoz, “El Primado in España en el Ciclo Isi-doriano,” Revista Española de teología 2 (1942): 240. Madoz also refers to a similarpassage in Isidore’s ep. 8.

105. Séjourné, Dernier Père de L’église, 93. See also Madoz, “Primado in España,”240.

106. Séjourné, 94.107. Séjourné, 93. See also Magnin, L’Église Wisigothique au VII e Siècle, 9–10.

Séjourné says Isidore only included Gregory’s response in the Hispana, because hisresponse was unfavorable and inclusion of anything besides papal letters and councilswould have tainted the collection. The letter from John to Leander is referred to byIsidore in De viris illustribus 39.2 (PL 83:1102). John only endorsed triune immersion.(Isidore is surely correct about the John Leander corresponded with, but his accuracyis questionable, since he says Gregory’s Liber Regulae Pastoralis was written to Johnof Constantinople [De viris illustribus 39.1 {PL 83:1101}]. It was probably writtento John of Ravenna. See Gregory the Great Pastoral Rule [trans. NPNF2 12.1; trans.

Henry Davis, St. Gregory the Great: Pastoral Care {Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1950},241 n.4]; Otto Bardenhewer, Patrology: The Lives and Works of the Fathers of theChurch, trans. Thomas J. Shahan [St. Louis: B. Herder, 1908], 652; and Dudden,Gregory the Great , 1:229 n.1.) In a later chapter about Leander he refers to the let-ter to Gregory (41.3 [PL 83:1104]). An English translation by Laurent Cases can befound at http://lolo-lateantiquity.blogspot.com/2009/05/life-of-st-leander-of-seville-by.html (accessed Jan. 25, 2014). Gregory’s response is in ep. 43 (trans. NPNF2 12:88):“But with respect to triune immersion in baptism, no truer answer can be given thanwhat you have yourself felt to be right; namely that, where there is one faith, a diver-sity of usage does no harm to holy Church. Now we, in immersing thrice, signify thesacraments of the three days’ sepulture; so that, when the infant is a third time lifted

out of the water, the resurrection after a space of three days may be expressed. Or,if any one should perhaps think that this is done out of veneration for the supremeTrinity, neither so is there any objection to immersing the person to be baptized inthe water once, since there being one substance of three subsistences, it cannot bein any way reprehensible to immerse the infant either thrice or once, seeing that by

He takes this to mean that Isidore “considère l’évêque de Rome commele plus autorisé représentant de l’épiscopat et de la tradition des Pères.”105

He even recognizes the use of a letter from Gregory the Great, thataddressed the issue of triune immersion, at Toledo IV as demonstrating,“L’enseignement du pape est, d’office, considéré comme la doctrine desPères.”106 On the other hand, Séjourné notes that Leander consulted both

John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, and Gregory regarding theissue.107 In response, this does not appear to be an overwhelming prob-lem. It seems possible that just as Leander knew Gregory from his time in




three immersions the Trinity of persons, and in one the singleness of the Divinitymay be denoted. But, inasmuch as up to this time it had been the custom of hereticsto immerse infants in baptism thrice, I am of opinion that this ought not be doneamong you; lest, while they number the immersions, they should divide the Divinity,and while they continue to do as they have been used to do, they should boast ofhaving bot the better of our custom.”

108. John was patriarch from 582–95. Leander was in Constantinople in 580 andthen again from 584 to 586 (Martin of Braga, Pachasius of Dumium, Leander ofSeville, trans. Claude W. Barlow, Iberian Fathers 1 [Washington, DC: Catholic Univer-sity of America Press, 1969], 177 and Saint Leander, Archbishop of Seville: A Bookon the Teaching of Nuns and a Homily in Praise of the Church , trans. and ed. JohnR. C. Martyn [Landham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009], 4).

109. Hefele, History of the Councils, 4:451: “As in Spain some in baptizing diponly once and others three times, and so with many doubts arise whether someonehas been validly baptized, we will receive instructions in regard to this difference

from the apostolic see, namely, from Pope Gregory of blessed memory. The latter,in his letter to Bishop Leander approves as well the single as the triple immersion;but he add: ‘If hitherto, in Spain only the heretics (Arians) have used a triple immer-sion, in order dum mersiones numerant, divinitatem dividant , the orthodox must nolonger employ triple immersion.’ Accordingly the Synod decrees the universal intro-duction of the single immersion as a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ,and of the unity of the Trinity.” Bernhard Schimmelpfennig,The Papacy (New York:Columbia University Press, 1992), 72–73 doubts that the two brothers from Sevillegranted overwhelming authority to the pope. He says, “Though both had becomegood friends with Gregory as apocrisiarii in Constantinople, they did not allow thepope to interfere in their work. They began the tradition, which lasted until the endof the empire, of holding imperial councils at the royal residence in Toledo underthe chairmanship of the primate of Toledo at which questions of faith, doctrine andorganization were declared binding for the whole realm.” And, “Instructions fromthe papacy were accepted by the Spanish only if they accorded with their own views.For example, at the fourth Toledo Council in 633, Isidore of Seville put through as acouncil resolution a letter from Gregory had sent to Isidore’s brother Leander regard-ing baptism.” This view seems overly pessimistic. In the end, Gregory was the one theSpanish church followed instead of the patriarch. Was the Spanish church just pick-ing their favorite view? This is difficult to determine. Leander’s letters are not extant.Gregory does appear to affirm the view Leander expressed in his letter, but it appears

Leander was just saying that a diversity of usages was acceptable, not, as Gregory sayslater, that single immersion had to be used due to the heretics (see note 107, above).110. Diez and Rodriguez, eds., Colección Canónica Hispana V , 205–6. Canon

XVII says, “Apocalipsin librum multorum conciliorum auctoritats et synodica sanc-torum praesulum Romanorum decreta Iohannis euangelistae esse praescribunt et interdiuinos libros recipiendum constituerunt. Et quia plurimi sunt qui eius auctoritatem

Constantinople, he could have known John as well, influencing his desireto write to him.108 In addition, Gregory’s call for single immersion wasdecreed at Toledo IV, demonstrating the authority of the papacy as evenSéjourné admitted, and the council recognized Rome as the “apostolicsee”109 and the authority of Rome regarding the acceptance and liturgicaluse of Revelation.110 Similarly, papal teaching and authority was recog-




non recipiunt atque in ecclesiam Dei praedicare contemnunt, si quis eum deincepsaut non receperit aut a pascha usque ad pentecostem missarum tempore in ecclesianon praedicauerit, excommunicationis sententiam habebit.” See Magnin, L’ÉgliseWisigothique au VII e Siècle, 14.

111. Diez and Rodriguez, eds., 109: “Maneant in suo uigore conciliorum omniumconstituta simul et synodicae sanctorum praesulum Romanorum epistolae.” See

Magnin, L’Église Wisigothique au VII e Siècle, 14.112. Louisa, Collectio Conciliorum Hispaniae, 295–96: “Illi tricenalis objectiosilentium ponit: hoc enim & secularium Principum edicat praecipiunt, & PraesulumRomanorum decreuit auctoritas.” Arévalo (PL 81:506) and Séjourné (Dernier Pèrede L’église, 93) note this canon.

113. Hefele, History of the Councils, 4:462. Magnin, L’Église Wisigothique au VII e Siècle, 9, 15 draws attention to this passage.

114. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 7.12.13–14 (trans. Stephen A. Barney et al.,The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006],171). Vega, “Primado Romano,” 503 uses this passage to clarify the meaning of“Pontificatus” in relation to a previously quoted passage in De ecclesiasticis officiis,and says, “Todo esto es San Pedro, cuyo pontificado ejerce sobre las Iglesia Cristo.A él le corresponde por derecho divino la potestad de ligar y desligar, de dar leyes yderogarlas, de imponer preceptos y aplicar penas a los trasgresores, de perdonar lospecados o retenerlos.” Madoz, “Primado in España,” 239 does not refer to this pas-sage but he does note the last sentence of the following: “Peter (Petrus) took his namefrom ‘rock’ ( petra), that is, from Christ, on whom the Church is founded. Now petrais not given its name from Petrus, but Petrus from petra, just as ‘Christ’ is so callednot from ‘Christian,’ but ‘Christian’ from ‘Christ.’ Therefore the Lord says (Matthew16:18), ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock ( petra) I will build my church,’ becausePeter had said (Matthew 16:16), ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Then

the Lord said to him, ‘Upon this rock’ which you have proclaimed ‘I will build mychurch,’ for (1 Corinthians 10:4) ‘the rock was Christ,’ on which foundation evenPeter himself was built. He was called Cephas because he was established as the head(caput ) of the apostles, for κεφαλή in Greek means ‘head,’ and Cephas is the Syrianname for Peter” (Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 7.9.2 [trans. Barney, 168]). Vegarefers to this passage as well (505–6).

nized at Toledo III,111 Seville II (619),112 and Toledo VI (638) (the latterusing the teaching of Pope Leo).113

There is some evidence that Séjourné does not mention. In the Etymolo- gies, Isidore says,

The ‘pontifex’ is the chief of priests, as if the word were ‘the way’ ofhis followers. And he is also named the ‘highest priest’ and the pontifexmaximus, for he creates priests and levites (i.e., deacons); he himselfdisposes all the ecclesiastical orders; he indicates what each one should do.Indeed, in former times pontifexes were also kings, for this was the customof our ancestors, that the king was himself a priest or pontifex—hence theRoman emperors were also pontifexes.114

It is plausible that this passage expresses a high view of the papacy. It issituated in a section about clerics were he discusses various offices, bishops




115. Magnin, L’Église Wisigothique au VII e Siècle, 7–8 and Charles H. Lynch,SaintBraulio, Bishop of Saragossa (631–651): His Life and Writings, Studies in MediaevalHistory, n.s., 2 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1938), 100say “pope” was not solely used of the Bishop of Rome at this time, but Lynch doessay that Braulio seems to use it that way even though that alone does not prove hisbelief in papal primacy.

116. Gregory the Great, ep. 61 (trans. NPNF2 13:16–17). According to n.6, theNPNF2 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 12:119–21).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 theexercise of Roman authority” (Law and Society, 123). He continues, “It has been notimplausibly suggested that by the end of the century schism was near” (123–24). He

also says, “Braulio stressed that God worked through the king as well as through thepope” (123 n.4). Pius Bonifacius Gams,Dies Kirchengeschichte von Spanien (Regens-burg: Georg Joseph Manz, 1864), 2.2:244 refers to the bitterness and irritability inthe letter. It seems plausible that the pope’s authority would be recognized even inthe midst of flared emotions. The letter was a response to the pope’s “criticism . . .about their failure to take make more repressive measures against the Jews” (Col-lins, Visigothic Spain 407–711, 165). Even Thompson, who says Braulio recognizesthe pope’s primacy, discusses aspects of the letter that show Braulio is defending theSpanish church. Lynch, Saint Braulio, 55–56 says, “It suffices here to say that the suc-cessor of Peter is accorded due respect and recognition . . . His [Honorius’s] zeal indischarging 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 asa matter of course. Nevertheless, the noticeable tone of aggrieved testiness in the Let-ter echoes a growing national pride of church and state in Spain.” He also surveysthe perspectives of various scholars on the issue of whether “Spain at this time wasattempting to set up a national Church independent of Rome” (145). He concludes

before the passage and priests and others after the passage. In his discus-sion of bishops he explains patriarchs (Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria),archbishops, metropolitans, and bishops.

There are also Spanish epistles from the period that use strong wordsfor the papacy, bolstering the authenticity of ep. 6. In Reccared’s letter toGregory 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 Carthagena’s letter to Gregory he used “most blessedlord pope,” “Thy holiness,” “your Blessedness, “most holy father,”“your crown,” and “most blessed father.”117 Finally, Braulio of Saragossa,Isidore’s friend and student, wrote to Pope Honorius “most reverend lord

and deserving of apostolic glory,” and “Prince of Rome.”118 Thompsonsays, “He fully recognizes the primacy of the bishop of Rome (Romanusprinceps).”119 Arévalo draws attention to Braulio’s words at the openingof the letter:120




this is not the case (146). Magnin, L’Église Wisigothique au VII e Siècle, 21 describesthe perspective of the Spanish church in this exchange with the pope: “Mais l’estimemême où les Pères de Tolède tiennent le siège de Rome les rend d’autant plus sen-sibles aux critiques d’Honorius.” J. Pérez de Urbel, “Braulio,” DHGE, 10:448 says,“Son accent est ferme, tout en étant respectueux. Ceux qui ont vu dans ce texte unindice de l’indépendance de l’Église wisigothique envers Rome, ne se sont pas arrêtésà le regarder de près.” For Madoz’s discussion of the letter see “Primado in España,”236–37, 244–47. Vega, “Primado Romano,” 521–23 says, “Después de leída aten-tamente esta Carta, célebre en los anales de la Iglesia Española, y que en la mismaRoma tuvo merecida resonancia, no se explica uno cómo se ha podido ver en ella unrasgo siquiera de independencia jerárquica y de protesta contra la autoridad supremade la Silla Apostólica. La respuesta del ilustre prelado cesaraugustano es espontánea,franca, sincera, sin eufemismos, quizá con algo de esa noble rudeza y energía propiadel carácter español, pero respetuosa y sumisa siempre a la autoridad del Papa, queni un momento, ni élni sus colegas en el episcopado, discuten y menos contradicen.Al contrario, en toda la Carta abundan las frases de reconocimiento hacia aquélla,tributándole los elogios más fervientes y los epítetos más excelsos,” and “Todas estasexpresiones nos revelan, no sólo un reconocimiento profundo y sincero de la supremaautoridad pontificia, sino una sumisión interior y exterior de la voluntad a la misma,

completa y sin restricciones. Ni una palabra de protesta contra su ingerencia en losasuntos de la Iglesia Española, ni una insinuación velada, ni una sospecha siquieracontra la legitimidad de su acción, siquiera ésta resulte dura, excesivamente intem-pestiva y, en principio, injusta contra ellos. Ni San Braulio ni el episcopado español,es cierto, se muestran en la Carta obsequiosos y deferentes, y menos cordiales y adu-ladores; pero sí respetuosos y atentos y con ánimo generoso y dispuesto a obedecerleal más leve mandato o insinuación.”

120. PL 81:507. Lynch, Saint Braulio, 101 also quotes some of this passage incontrast 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 prae-

sulum” 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 mostblessed Lord,’ ‘your eminent Apostleship,’ ‘your sanctimony,’ ‘most reverend of menand holiest of fathers,’ ‘the most excellent of Bishops,’ and ‘the head of our ministry.’”

You are performing extremely well and most suitable the duties of your seeas it was conferred upon you by God; with holy “care of all the churches,”resplendent in the shining flame and in the mirrors of your doctrine, you are

providing a worthy guardianship for the Church of Christ; with the swordof the divine word and the weapon of heavenly zeal, you are confoundingthose who deride the Lord’s tunic; after the fashion of Nehemias, with yourenergy and your watchfulness, you are cleansing the sacred House of God,our Mother, from wicked and accursed deserters.121

Lynch refers to such phrases as “most excellent and outstanding of bish-ops” as displaying the “respect and recognition” of the pope.122 He says,“Throughout the letter his primacy is stressed,”123 and, “This valuable




124. Lynch, 102 cites and translates Urbel, “Braulio,” 10:448. The whole sentencesays, “En même temps que cette liberté d’esprit nous trouvons dans ce documentfameux, clairement exprimé, avec autant de précision que de beauté d’image et d’idée,

le dogme du magistère infaillible du romain pontife.”125. Lynch, 100; Braulio of Saragossa, ep. 14 (trans. FC 63:38–40). Lynch con-

tinues, “This recognition in liturgical matters may have been limited on the part ofthe master, Isidore, but when Braulio wrote to Pope Honorius.” Lynch derives thisperspective on Isidore from Séjourné, Dernier Père de L’église, 92.

Letter does more than recognize the primacy of the pope; ‘it expressesclearly, with as much precision as there is beauty and image and idea, thedogma of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.’”124 Finally,regarding another epistle of Braulio, Lynch says, “The primacy of the popeis acknowledged unequivocally in Letter 14. Questioned by Fronimian onthe 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 fil-

ioque was not in the Nicene Creed at Toledo III (589), but first appearedat Toledo VIII (653). Although it cannot be maintained with absolutecertainty, there is good reason to believe ep. 6 from Isidore to Claudiusis authentic based on the evidence supporting its authenticity and theinadequacy of arguments against it. Therefore, the Creed was changedafter 589 and before 636 when Isidore died. Previously scholars believedthe insertion occurred in 589 or previous to the council. If some scholarsthought the filioque was not added by 589, it must have occurred between589 and 653. This paper corrects the common tradition and further nar-rows the possible date of this critical event because of an important pieceof evidence not provided by conciliar records.

Reasons for the change to the Creed are implicit in the previous sec-tions, but a fuller treatment of the historical and theological environmentwould require another work. Briefly stated, it seems logical that this eventwould occur with the pervasive Western belief in the double procession,influence of creeds that contained the double procession, and, finally, thethird Council of Toledo’s requirement to include the Creed in the mass

coupled with the anathema against those who did not believe the doubleprocession.

Shawn C. Smith is Registrar at Lincoln Christian University