The Mozarabic "Et Filio"

[patrick457]

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.

Hmm, interesting.

The councils of Toledo may have played a very prominent role in the Visigothic church and state: councils were forbidden before Recared I’s conversion. Thereafter, the king summoned councils usually summoned the councils to treat of spiritual and temporal matters of national interest, and together with his magnates subscribed to the decrees, giving them the force of civil law. Although they considered such secular business as the regulation of royal elections, the councils always remained ecclesiastical assemblies and never became a national legislature or a civil tribunal. The weakness of the monarchy enabled the church, through the councils of Toledo, to exercise a profound moral influence over the state and its representatives.

This close relationship between the church and state suggests that the Visigothic church may have paid little heed to the See of Rome. However, cordial relations with Rome are attested by the friendhsip between St. Leander of Seville and Pope St. Gregory the Great, and by Recared’s announcement of his conversion to Gregory (who did not know of it until told so by Leander), whom he addressed as “a most reverend man, who is more powerful than the other bishops” (Gregory’s reply here). Also, actions by Rome, while few, are not unattested, as exemplarized by two Spanish bishops unjustly deposed, Janarius of Malaga and Stephanus, who both appealed to Rome against sentences of deposition and exile imposed on them by a council, which they claim was improperly conducted. In response, Gregory sent the defensor John to Spain in August of 603, armed with a battery of documents in defense of the two. The outcome of the case remains unknown.

Even so, there are two events in the seventh century which may give testimony to the self-sufficient and self-contained character of the church in Spain. When Pope Honorius I criticized the Spanish bishops with negligence in the performance of their pastoral duties and being unnecessarily lenient towards Jewish converts who had lapsed, the Sixth Council of Toledo (638) instructed St. Braulio of Zaragoza (d. 650) to write an answer. This he did in very direct language, assuring the Pope that he need not be distressed about the efforts of the bishops in this matter.

Some years later, Pope Leo II asked Spanish prelates to express their adherence to the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), which condemned Monothelism - and Pope Honorius’ slackness in detecting error. His successor, Benedict II, also wrote to Spain to hurry the bishops along in sending in their adhesion to the Council. Ervig then held a council at Toledo in November 684 to discuss the matter. The council condemned the Monothelite heresy, and St. Julian of Toledo drew up a profession of faith which he sent to the Pope. Benedict, though pleased, was not quite satisfied with some of the expressions used in this profession and sent it back with a request for some changes in terminology. The Fifteenth Council of Toledo (688), perhaps prompted by the feeling that their orthodoxy has been unjustly questioned, then defended themselves on blunt and almost-bordering-on-disrespectful language.

 

[patrick457]

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.

Not really. If you’ll check on the popes who reigned at the time when the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo was still standing (mid-6th century-711), you can see that a good number of them were saints, or at least were decent enough people (if you’ll believe the history books). Though there were admittedly more weak-willed ones, such as Pope Honorius I.

 

[marlo]

These were the times that the “et filio” or filioque has not been added to the creed.
after which, when the unworthy Popes reign and the filioque word was found from the Latin copy of 7th ecumenical council it was justifiable to use the modified creed in to the Roman Liturgy.

Not really. If you’ll check on the popes who reigned at the time when the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo was still standing (mid-6th century-711), you can see that a good number of them were saints, or at least were decent enough people (if you’ll believe the history books). Though there were admittedly more weak-willed ones, such as Pope Honorius I.

 

[patrick457]

These were the times that the “et filio” or filioque has not been added to the creed.
after which, when the unworthy Popes reign and the filioque word was found from the Latin copy of 7th ecumenical council it was justifiable to use the modified creed in to the Roman Liturgy.

I’m very sorry if I don’t follow you. Can you please elaborate?

 

[Ghosty]

It should also be noted that Rome WAS using the filioque during this time period, just not as an addition to the Nicene Creed. We know this because St. Maximos the Confessor defended the Roman use of the filioque during this time period. So it’s not true to say that Councils were going against Rome at this period of history.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Leandro]

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.

Today I made my registration in this Forum, after having read all the answers about this topic. As a matter of fact, I came to here after some research about the encyclical of pope Pius X - Pascendi Dominici Gregis. I was trying to know where this ‘Filioque clause’ problem had begun. Finally, and confirming what Patrick quoted and I re-quoted above, please, follow this link filosofia.org/cod/c0397t01.htm, and you will get the acts of the First Council of Toledo (397-400), convoked to fight against Priscillianism. There, we can read this sentence: “Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Paraclitus sed a Patre Filioque procedens.”
This “proceeding from the Father and the Son” was confirmed in the III Council of Toledo (on its third Canon, despite it is not in the Creed text) and in the VIII and XII Councils of Toledo, these last with the Filioque clause inserted in the Creed text.

I hope I brought some help to this topic.
​

​