The Mozarabic "Et Filio"

[patrick457]

I’ve noticed that so many Catholic-Orthodox debates usually center on the Roman “Filioque”, but as far as I know, no one had ever given thought on the more explicit wording of the Creed in the Mozarabic Rite. Why is this?

(differences from the Roman in bold; et Filio in italics)

*Crédimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, factórem coeli et terrae, visibílium ómnium et invisibílium Conditórem.

Et in unum Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, Fílium Dei Unigénitum, et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula; Deum ex Deo, Lumen ex Lúmine. Deum verum ex Deo vero; natum non factum, Omoúsion Patri, hoc est, ejúsdem cum Patre substántiae; per quem ómnia facta sunt, quae in caelo, et quae in terra.

Qui propter nos hómines, et propter nostram salútem, descendit de caelis, et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Passus sub Póntio Piláto, sepúltus, tértia die resurréxit, ascéndit ad caelos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis.
Inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos, cujus regni non erit finis.

Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum vivificatórem, et ex Patre et Fílio procedéntem.
Cum Patre et Fílio adorándum et conglorificándum; qui locútus est per prophétas.

Et unam, sanctam, Cathólicam et Apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confitémur unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum.
Expectámus resurrectiónem mortuórum, et vitam ventúri saeculi.
Amen.*

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth, creator of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God; Light from Light; true God from true God; Born, not made, omousion to the Father; that is, of the same substance with the Father; through Him all things were made, which are in heaven and which are on earth.

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (et Filio),
Who with the Father and the Son is adored and conglorified; who spoke through the prophets.

And one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We confess one Baptism for the remission of sins.
We look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

 

[Madaglan]

Is this the Creed of the present Mozarabic Rite?
Is this the Creed found amongst the Mozarabic Catholics at the time the “filioque” was added to the Creed in Spain?

 

[Cluny]

How interesting!

Thank you for providing this text!

 

[Allyson]

Is this the Creed of the present Mozarabic Rite?
Is this the Creed found amongst the Mozarabic Catholics at the time the “filioque” was added to the Creed in Spain?

Yes, historical context is everything.

 

[Hesychios]

Can we presume this is the original wording inserted at Toledo 589AD in Spain?

If so, why was the wording changed when the term was adopted later in Gaul, and later still in Rome?

What would you say is the significance of the difference between these two forms of expression? Is one merely more grammatically correct, or is there a deeper significance?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Maybe my Latin is just subpar, but it was my understanding “que” and “et” mean the same thing

 

[Hesychios]

Maybe my Latin is just subpar, but it was my understanding “que” and “et” mean the same thing

I stopped studying Latin long ago, almost right after I began, so I am no good.

If you are correct, then this is a non-issue. We’ll see what others have to say.

 

[malphono]

JuanCarlos:

Maybe my Latin is just subpar, but it was my understanding “que” and “et” mean the same thing

I stopped studying Latin long ago, almost right after I began, so I am no good.

If you are correct, then this is a non-issue. We’ll see what others have to say.

This probably doesn’t help much, but my Latin isn’t all that great either. Still, my understanding has always been that “-que” and “et” were synonymous, which is really the same as what JuanCarlos said.

 

[Ghosty]

I’ll throw in my voice with the “they’re synonyms” crowd. I’ve always understood them to mean the same thing.

Peace and God bless!

 

[patrick457]

Yes, historical context is everything.

The Spanish were the first in the West to introduce the symbol of Nicea-Constantinople into the Mass, when the third Council of Toledo (589) ordered the recitation of the “Creed of Constantinople according to the use of the Eastern Churches” at a point in the Mass immediately preceding the Lord’s Prayer — i. e. at the fraction before the Communion — “in order that both the true faith may have witness clearly borne to it, and that the hearts of the people may be purified by faith before they approach to taste Christ’s Body and Blood.” In the East the custom already existed, and in 568 Justinus the Younger made it a law. From Spain the usage spread into Gaul; but Rome held out long, and only yielded in the eleventh century.

The text of the Creed in the rite seems to have been taken from the Twelfth Council of Toledo (681), with a few variants in wording (in bold):

Primo die sinodali exordio consedentibus episcopis atque senioribus palatii universis habita primo de sancta trinitate conlatio, non quae novello exactionis stilo definita patesceret, sed quae verbis simplicioribus sese prigris sensibus patefacta monstraret. Ubi praemissa semper lectio pręcederet, quod sequens expositio aperiret. Credentes pariter et docentes de eadem sanctae fidei puritate, quicquid evangelica et apostolica traditio sanxit, quicquid sancta sinodus Nicaena constituit quicquid Constantinopolitana patrum adgregata collectio promulgavit. Quicquid Defesini coetus definitio docuit. Sicut multorum aliorum catholicorum patrum documento expositum traditumquae nobis accepimus, sicut etiam in missarum sollemniis patulis confessionum vocibus exclamamus:

Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium conditorem.
Et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante omnia saecula.
Deum ex deo, lumen ex lumine, deum verum ex deo vero.
Natum non factum homousion patri, hoc est eiusdem cum patre substantiae. Per quem omnia facta sunt, quae in caelo et quae in terra.
Qui propter nos et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine.
Homo factus, passus sub Pontio Pilato et sepultus tertia die resurrexit.
Ascendit in caelos sedet ad dexteram patris, iterum venturus in gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis.
Credimus in spiritum sanctum dominum et vivificatorem ex patre et filio procedentem.
Cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum, qui locutus est per prophetas, unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam futuri saeculi Amen.​

As many of you may know, one of the origins of the Filioque in the West are found in the anti-Arian situation of seventh-century Spain: the clause was placed there to combat Arianism, which denied the Son’s divinity.

 

[patrick457]

I’ll throw in my voice with the “they’re synonyms” crowd. I’ve always understood them to mean the same thing.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, I’ll have to admit that too.

 

[patrick457]

Is this the Creed of the present Mozarabic Rite?

The Creed of the Mozarabic rite, both the pre- and post-revision forms.

Is this the Creed found amongst the Mozarabic Catholics at the time the “filioque” was added to the Creed in Spain?

The present text of the Creed is also rather similar to the one in the Third Council of Toledo (down to the homousion) with only minor variants:

Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium conditorem, et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante omnia saecula.
Deum ex deo, lumen ex lumine, deum verum, ex deo vero. Natum non factum homousion patri, hoc est eiusdem cum patre substantiae.
Per quem omnia facta sunt, quae in caelis et quae in terris sunt.
Qui propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine.
Homo factus, passus est sup Pontio Pilato, sepultus, tertia die resurrexit. Ascendit in caelos, sedet ad dexteram patris. Iterum venturus in gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos. Cuius regni, non erit finis, et spiritum sanctum dominum et vivificantem.
Ex patre procedentem, cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum. Qui locutus est per prophetas.
Unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam. Confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, vitam futuri saeculi. Amen.

 

[patrick457]

Come to think of it, “et Filio” is more the original wording than “Filioque” - which might be just a synonymous variant wording, I think? - as the third canon of the Third Synod of Toledo (from which some glean the origins of the controversial clause) uses “et Filio”:

Quicumque Spiritum Sanctum non credit aut non crediderit a Patre et Filio procedere, eumque non dixerit coaeternum esse Patri et Filio et coessentialem, anathema sit.

Whoever does not believe in the Holy Spirit or does not believe that He proceeds from the Father and the Son (a Patre et Filio procedere), and does not declare that He is coeternal and coessential with the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.

 

[Allyson]

Come to think of it, “et Filio” is more the original wording than “Filioque” - which might be just a synonymous variant wording, I think? - as the third canon of the Third Synod of Toledo (from which some glean the origins of the controversial clause) uses “et Filio”:

Quicumque Spiritum Sanctum non credit aut non crediderit a Patre et Filio procedere, eumque non dixerit coaeternum esse Patri et Filio et coessentialem, anathema sit.

Whoever does not believe in the Holy Spirit or does not believe that He proceeds from the Father and the Son (a Patre et Filio procedere), and does not declare that He is coeternal and coessential with the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.

Thank you for the info. This was a creed who’s history I am not so familiar with.

 

[marlo]

If this was the case, then the history of the filioque we have known is wrong, I read that it came from a historian, but i cant remember his name, I’ll try to research who he is.

also during the council of florence, the contention of the Latins was that the words were inserted by the Second council of Nicea! To this the Easterns answered most pertinently "Why did you not tell us this long ago?"

mb-soft.com/believe/txn/filioque.htm

1. That no pretence is made by the West that the words in dispute ever formed part of the creed as adopted at Constantinople is evidently proved by the patent fact that it is printed without those words in all our Concilias and in all our histories. It is true that at the Council of Florence it was asserted that the words were found in a copy of the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical which they had, but no stress was even at that eminently Western council laid upon the point, which even if it had been the case would have shewn nothing with regard to the true reading of the Creed as adopted by the Second Synod.

Thank you for the info. This was a creed who’s history I am not so familiar with.

 

[patrick457]

If this was the case, then the history of the filioque we have known is wrong, I read that it came from a historian, but i cant remember his name, I’ll try to research who he is.

also during the council of florence, the contention of the Latins was that the words were inserted by the Second council of Nicea! To this the Easterns answered most pertinently "Why did you not tell us this long ago?"

mb-soft.com/believe/txn/filioque.htm

The et Filio was actually mentioned in brief at that site:

There seems little doubt that the words were first inserted in Spain. As early as the year 400 it had been found necessary at a Council of Toledo to affirm the double procession against the Priscillianists, and in 589 by the authority of the Third Council of Toledo the newly converted Goths were required to sign the creed with the addition. From this time it became for Spain the accepted form, and was so recited at the Eighth Council of Toledo in 653, and again in 681 at the Twelfth Council of Toledo.

But this was at first only true of Spain, and at Rome nothing of the kind was known. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the Creed is found in its original form. The same is the case with the old Gallican Sacramentary of the viith or viiith century.

However, there can be no doubt that its introduction spread very rapidly through the West and that before long it was received practically everywhere except at Rome.

I’ve posted these before, but here they all are for comparison:

The Creed from the Third Council of Toledo

Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium conditorem, et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum ex deo, lumen ex lumine, deum verum, ex deo vero. Natum non factum homousion patri, hoc est eiusdem cum patre substantiae. Per quem omnia facta sunt, quae in caelis et quae in terris sunt. Qui propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine. Homo factus, passus est sup Pontio Pilato, sepultus, tertia die resurrexit. Ascendit in caelos, sedet ad dexteram patris. Iterum venturus in gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos. Cuius regni, non erit finis, et spiritum sanctum dominum et vivificantem. Ex patre procedentem, cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum. Qui locutus est per prophetas. Unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam. Confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, vitam futuri saeculi. Amen.

The Creed from the Eighth Council of Toledo

Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem cęli et terrę visibilium omnium et invisibilium conditorem. Et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante omnia secula, deum ex deo lumen ex lumine, deum verum, ex deo vero. Natum non factum, homousion patri, hoc est eiusdem cum patre substantiae, per ipsum omnia facta sunt quae in cęlo et quae in terra, qui propter nos et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto, et Maria virgine. Homo factus et passus sub Pontio Pilato ac sepultus et tertia die resurrexit. Ascendit in cęlos, sedet ad dexteram patris. Inde venturus in gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos cuius regni non erit finis. Credimus et in spiritum sanctum et vivificatorem ex patre et filio procedentem cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum, qui locutus est per prophetas et unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam. Confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam futuri sęculi. Amen.

The Creed from the Twelfth Council of Toledo

Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium conditorem. Et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum ex deo, lumen ex lumine, deum verum ex deo vero. Natum non factum homousion patri, hoc est eiusdem cum patre substantiae. Per quem omnia facta sunt, quae in caelo et quae in terra. Qui propter nos et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine. Homo factus, passus sub Pontio Pilato et sepultus tertia die resurrexit. Ascendit in caelos sedet ad dexteram patris, iterum venturus in gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Credimus in spiritum sanctum dominum et vivificatorem ex patre et filio procedentem. Cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum, qui locutus est per prophetas, unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam futuri saeculi Amen.​

 

[Hesychios]

The et Filio was actually mentioned in brief at that site:

But this was at first only true of Spain, and at Rome nothing of the kind was known. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the Creed is found in its original form. The same is the case with the old Gallican Sacramentary of the viith or viiith century.

In the modern western church, this would not have happened.

The See at Rome has far more authority in the Iberian and Gallic churches now than it did then.

 

[patrick457]

In the modern western church, this would not have happened.

The See at Rome has far more authority in the Iberian and Gallic churches now than it did then.

The geographic distance between the two locations may have something to do with it…this was the age before postal services and the internet, when travelling was more difficult and dangerous than now, after all.

 

[Hesychios]

The geographic distance between the two locations may have something to do with it…this was the age before postal services and the internet, when travelling was more difficult and dangerous than now, after all.

I don’t think so.

These were not isolated areas, there were good roads and bridges for hundreds of years with vigorous trade. The Gothic kingdom of Spain was notably prosperous with a burgeoning population. News of these affairs traveled around pretty easily, especially with the Mediterranean sea lanes wide open for fishing craft and merchant shipping. North Africa was still Catholic at the time, so there were many alternate paths for information and messages to take.

The fact is these local churches were calling Councils on their own and making decisions Rome disapproved of. They were not willing to reverse themselves on advice from Rome, which says a great deal about how the church functioned at the time.

One does not see local Councils like this anymore.

 

[marlo]

i believe the issue here was during these troubled times, the Pope’s who sat on Peter’s throne are corrupt. There was a very long line of unworthy Popes not even worthy of becoming priests, so the good latin orthodox bishops would implement their own council decisions they might have seen that they are more theologically qualified than the one who sat in Rome.

This is just an opinion.

I don’t think so.

These were not isolated areas, there were good roads and bridges for hundreds of years with vigorous trade. The Gothic kingdom of Spain was notably prosperous with a burgeoning population. News of these affairs traveled around pretty easily, especially with the Mediterranean sea lanes wide open for fishing craft and merchant shipping. North Africa was still Catholic at the time, so there were many alternate paths for information and messages to take.

The fact is these local churches were calling Councils on their own and making decisions Rome disapproved of. They were not willing to reverse themselves on advice from Rome, which says a great deal about how the church functioned at the time.

One does not see local Councils like this anymore.