The Insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed and a Letter of Isidore of Seville

The Insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed

and a Letter of Isidore of Seville

Shawn S. Smith

Lincoln Christian University

The common tradition says the Filioque first appeared in the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. In contrast, the manuscript evidence indicates it first appeared at the Eighth Council of Toledo in 653. The date of the insertion can be narrowed further based on a letter of Isidore of Seville (d. 636). This letter (epistle 6) has been typically considered spurious, but the evidence supports its authenticity.

The filioque (“and from the Son”) is the principal theological issue that divides the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches,¹ but it is more than a theological disagreement. The phrase is inserted into the creed commonly known as the Nicene Creed (more technically called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed),² a foundational creed for nearly all Christendom and an integral part of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist for many. Therefore, this altering of the pronouncement of an ecumenical council, the Council of Constantinople in 381, changed the worship and life of the church.

The Nicene Creed, originally written in Greek, does not contain the disputed clause. With filioque added, the creed affirms that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Even though in the sixteenth century, Cardinal Bellarmine, and others in the sixteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries, said that thefilioque was not included in the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589),³ it has been traditionally held since then that the first evidence of the insertion in the Western creed is at that council.⁴ But critical evidence revealed by A. E. Burn in English in 1908 questions this tradition.⁵ Since then many repeated the common tradition, because they were either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by the evidence against it.⁶

Scholarship in English shows limited attention to the issue. At the end of the nineteenth century, books were written specifically about the filioque 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 the many creeds were published with small portions devoted to the filioque.⁸ In the middle of the twentieth century, J. N. D. Kelly included a section devoted to the filioque.⁹ Since then, books and articles appeared devoted to a survey of the filioque or some aspect of it.¹⁰ More common is the debate on theological validity of the doctrine usually within ecumenical discussions.¹¹ An unpublished master’s thesis was devoted to discovering when the insertion actually occurred, giving attention to how and why.¹² But the author did not trace the development of the double procession and interacted with a limited number of sources. Another thesis focused on the insertion but is a mere twenty-six pages.¹³

Therefore, a study of the insertion of the disputed clause is presently necessary. In 1948, Vladimir Lossky said, while allowing that the Toledan introduced filioque could be interpreted acceptably for the Orthodox:

A study of the Filioquism of the Spanish Councils of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries would be of capital importance, that a dogmatic appreciation of these formulas might be made. Here the disinterested work of historical theology could be useful to the church.¹⁴

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

Scholars who question the insertion at Toledo III

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

Two early editions of the Councils, however—Cologne (1530) and Paris (1535)—omit the words in the text of the creed quoted by the Council, and D’Aguirre¹⁶ admits that some MSS. do not contain them. In light of subsequent history, it seems far less probable that they would be intentionally 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. has been collected and sifted. Even if the interpolation was not made at that time, it must have been made very soon after, and that in good faith, in direct dependence on the Canon, which asserted the immemorial belief of the Western Church.¹⁷

In 1908, Burn more confidently asserted that the insertion was not in the Creed after examining some manuscripts. He was still careful not to overstate the evidence; he called his research “a beginning” and said, “My time in the Spanish libraries last April was limited.”¹⁸ Nevertheless, he concluded,

Very little doubt is left in my mind that these MSS shew us the gradual process at work by the copyists, influenced by the traditional belief in the Procession of the Spirit from the Son, perhaps also the very strong words of the 3rd Canon of the Council of Toledo, felt justified in adding them to the text of the Creed as quoted at Toledo . . .¹⁹

In 1924, Palmieri, after surveying many authors, concluded that the filioque was probably not added in the fifth or sixth centuries, but when it happened is unclear.²⁰ He did not cite 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 Bellarmine and Louisa (who noted in the margin of his work the lack of the words in the printed editions), and that the insertion was missing in the 1530 and 1538 Cologne editions of councils.²¹ The next year he developed the argument further and confirmed the filioque was in the Creed at Toledo VIII.²²

Aldama responded to the work in Civiltà Cattolica in 1934. He thought that the filioque might have been missing but was not convinced because of the manuscripts examined. He argued that more reliable Spanish manuscripts would have to be examined like the ones Burn examined, but Burn’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 words being a later insertion of some copyist influenced by the anathema of the Council.”²⁴ And twelve years later, Kelly said, also citing Burn,

The matter still requires investigation, but the conclusion seems inescapable that, 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 inevitable that, with the growing stress laid on the doctrine, the word should speedily creep into the creed. Spanish MSS of the subsequent centuries give abundant illustrations 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 that Burn’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 still thought the problem that Burn raised was interesting, especially after examining codices of the Hispanain Rome. In the end, he came to the same conclusion as Burn but said the final word on the issue would await study 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’s work and did some of his own examination of the manuscripts.²⁹

In 1981, Orlandis and Ramos-Lissón recognized that Kelly, Dosetti, and Schäferdiek questioned the common tradition. They concluded the issue would be finally settled when a critical edition of the Spanish Councils is published.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 included in 653, but he even expressed doubt concerning the latter date.³² More recently, Siecienski said referring to Toledo III,

Here we must assume that either the council was using an already interpolated creed . . . or that the acts of the council had themselves been altered 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, who pointed out that in many early copies of the councils acts the phrase was either missing or obviously in another hand.³³

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

The work of all of these authors provides a strong foundation for concluding that the filioque was not in the Creed at Toledo III but was in the Creed at Toledo VIII, though the conclusion is not absolutely certain. Burn noted his work was not complete and others have recognized the importance of awaiting a critical edition of the councils. The critical edition was finally published in 1992. Authoritatively, Diez and Rodriguez leave the words “et Filio” out of the Creed of Toledo III, and the words appear at Toledo VIII.³⁴ Gemeinhardt recognized their work in 2002.³⁵

The Authenticity of Isidore of Seville’s Letter to General Claudius

If the filioque was undoubtedly included in the Nicene Creed in 653, is it possible to locate a more precise date for its initial inclusion? Isidore of Seville died in 636 placing any of his authentic letters before that date. In epistle 6, Isidore responds to General Claudius’s question about the Greeks accusing the Latins of adding to the Creed. The letter says, “and so some of the Greeks boldly strive to reprehend the Romans because in the profession of holy faith they sing with heart and mouth to God: ‘Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,’ although in the aforementioned councils it was stated: ‘Who proceeds from the Father’ . . . .”³⁶ Isidore continues in the letter to defend the Latin version of the Creed. The critical phrase in the Creed says, “ex Patre Filioque procedit.”³⁷

If the letter is spurious, the date of insertion could not be narrowed. Mullins says the letter “is considered spurious by most authorities.”³⁸ She is aware of Arévalo’s arguments for authenticity, and the work of Morin, but she does not note that Morin argued for the letter’s authenticity.³⁹ Morin said, “Oudin and other critics have questioned the authenticity of these two documents [Epistles 6 and 8], but with interested motives and without a single 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 follows, general evidence supporting the letter’s authenticity will be provided, and arguments demonstrating the letter is spurious will be challenged.

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 would have lived in close proximity to Claudius. He was dux of the province of Lusitania, and Greeks were residing in Lusitania, a fact supported by literary and archaeological evidence.⁴² Therefore, it is very plausible that Claudius would have heard some Greeks complain about the insertion.⁴³

Second, Claudius was an important individual whom Isidore would have engaged in epistolary correspondence. John of Biclaro said, “Claudius the commander 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 almost 60,000 Franks and to have cut down the greater part of them with the sword.”⁴⁴ Isidore of Seville also refers to this story.⁴⁵ Another indication of Claudius’s importance is that Gregory the Great sent a letter to him.⁴⁶

Third, there are some similarities between Isidore’s other works and Epistle  6. His defense of the double procession in the letter is consistent with his teaching in Etymologies and De ecclesiasticis officiis.⁴⁷ In both the letter and the Etymologies, he is careful to distinguish “proceeding” from “begetting.” And, although possibly coincidental, in both sources he cites Deuteronomy 6:4 in opposition to tritheism.⁴⁸

Responses to Objections against the Letter’s Authenticity

Epistle 6 has been viewed with suspicion because of its reference to the Athanasian Creed and the filioque, inclusion in late manuscripts, and expression of papal supremacy.⁴⁹ When examined closely these issues do not detract from the letter’s authenticity. Even though the letter’s authenticity still remained doubtful for Arévalo,⁵⁰ he saw no reason to reject the letter based on Oudin’s concerns related to the filioque, papal supremacy, and the Athanasian Creed.⁵¹ The following will respond to these objections, referring to Arévalo’s work as needed.

Reference to the Athanasian Creed

In epistle 6 Isidore says, “Likewise, you took care to make known to me the objection of some Greeks that in the synod of Nicaea and Constantinople it is said that it was prohibited under pain of anathema in the Apostles’ Creed and in that of holy Athanasius to take away or add something concerning the Catholic faith . . . .”⁵² Ceillier claims the letter is from the period of the dispute between the Greeks and Latins regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. He does not specifically say the reference to the Athanasian Creed makes the letter spurious but does note the Greeks believed the creed was genuine and from Athanasius. He also mentions in his assessment of a related letter from Isidore to Eugenius (epistle 8) that the creed could have been known by that name in Isidore’s time, but not usually by that name, and there is no evidence that it was widely accepted by the Catholic Church till later.⁵³ Therefore, two important questions must to be answered: First, was the Athanasian Creed well known at this time and by what name? Second, would the Greeks have referred to the creed in 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 Quicunque vult) was possibly used to compose King Reccared’s confession (containing the double procession) and the third anathema which said, “If anyone does not 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 Kelly notes that “two passages from Reccared’s confession seem to betray the influence 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 by the teaching of the Quicunque vult, since the words of their 3rd Canon reflect reminiscence of clause 24.”⁵⁶

Even if the creed did not influence Toledo III, it definitely influenced Toledo IV (633), presided over by Isidore. Toledo IV’s confession included the phrase, “sed procedentem ex Patreet Filio profitemur.”⁵⁷ The confession was composed in reliance on the Athanasian Creed, with more certainty than the “distant echoes” of the creed found in the documents of Toledo III and the Creed of Damasus.⁵⁸ Kelly says, “There is every likelihood that Isidore himself drafted it, for at every point it bears the imprint of his thought and language,”⁵⁹ and, “Clearly the Quicunque must have been well known, and its authority established beyond question, for Isidore to have 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 support the authenticity of these letters [Epistles 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 early eighth-century Leningrad codex C.⁶² Even more ancient, the canon of the Synod Autun (c. 670) uses the name of Athanasius and is the first recorded association of his name with the creed.⁶³ Kelly even regards “it as a distinct possibility (not to be more positive) that the Athanasian title is after all original [to the time of Caesarius of Arles (502–42)].”⁶⁴

Finally, it seems odd that the Greeks would refer to the Athanasian Creed to bolster their case against the alteration of the Nicene Creed. The Athanasian Creed directly contradicts the theological point they make, since it contains the double procession. But, this is not an overwhelming problem. First, the story may not be reported precisely since Claudius may be reporting what he heard from others with Isidore then reporting what Claudius said. Second, as revealed in the quote above, the Greeks are not appealing to the Athanasian Creed on the basis of its theology but rather to its anathema on those who alter the Catholic faith. Since the 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 its name were authentic.

Reference to the Filioque

As described above, Ceillier associates the letter with the later dispute over the filioque. Séjourné says those who consider the letter authentic think it was interpolated, and others associate the letter with the later Carolingian dispute, particularly focusing on the letter’s testimony that “the Holy Roman Church approves and believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”⁶⁵ McNally, citing Séjourné, associates the letter with the ninth century, noting “the clear tendentious teaching on the Filioque clause in the Creed and on the primatial prerogatives of the papacy” (latter issue addressed below).⁶⁶ Oudin places the letter after the controversy 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 for such an exchange to occur. As already demonstrated, there were Greek communities in Lusitania and the filioque was in the Creed. It is conceivable that this exchange would receive little attention at the time and in history. It was only “some Greeks” and a duke in a province in Spain, not a major debate between the Carolingians and Byzantium. The small skirmish was nothing compared to the later war.

Additionally, the belief that the doctrine of the double procession was approved by the Holy Roman Church was reasonable, since the doctrine was 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),⁷⁰Julianus Pomerius (d. 498) (a priest of Arles),⁷¹ Avitus of Vienne (d. 523),⁷²  and Gregory of Tours (d. 594)⁷³ supported the double procession. In Africa, Fulgentius of Rupse (d. 533) did the same.⁷⁴

Another important figure from Gaul, Caesarius of Arles (502–42), also taught the double procession.⁷⁵ In “Sermon 10,” titled “The Beginning of a Selection on the Catholic Faith,” he preached, “the Holy Spirit, in turn, proceeds from both.”⁷⁶  In another sermon, titled “The Beginning of the Creed of St. Athanasius, Bishop,” the Third Person is described as “not made 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, but his 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 is necessary . . .  that all clergymen, and laymen too, should be familiar with the Catholic (i.e., the Christian) faith, we have first of all written out in this 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.” Then he sets forth the full text of the Athanasian Creed so that the clergy should know what to teach. His comments indicate that at his time this creed was considered a concise summary of Christian doctrine and was to be studied by the faithful.⁷⁸

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

As Caesarius was the pope’s vicar in Gaul and in part of Spain, every bishop who went to Rome had to pass through Arles and obtain from him letters of recommendation. He adroitly took advantage of this to force upon them one or more of his collections of homilies, demanding of them a promise to have them read in the church . . . . Thus it came about that collections transcribed through the labors of Caesarius spread almost immediately into Gaul, Spain and other cisalpine countries. In Spanish Tarragona 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 until much later, but the doctrine was expressed by Paschasius, a Roman deacon (d. 512),⁸²  Boethius (d. 584),⁸³  and Cassidorus (d. 584).⁸⁴  Examining the popes, Leo the Great responded to a letter from Turibius of Asturica (Astorgia) (which included a list of propositions against Priscillianism) in a letter dated July 21, 447 and said the Holy Spirit “proceeded from both.”⁸⁵ Leo lists Priscillianist propositions and condemns them. Chadwick says, “it is safe to conclude that either Leo’s letter or a list of propositions closely based upon it was circulated for formal signature.”⁸⁶ Therefore, Leo’s epistle and the concept of the double procession would have been read by a number of church leaders. Also, Leo’s letter likely exerted influence 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 reminded those present of Leo’s letter and read the document from Bishop Pastor, recognized as having some authority.⁸⁸ Later Pastor’s Creed influenced Toledo III.⁸⁹ Kelly says that the confession Reccared read to the council relies 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 When Gregory was a Roman deacon, he stayed in Constantinople (579–86), busy delivering a series of lectures on Job. Later, Gregory edited this work into the Moralia and dedicated it to Leander of Seville, Gregory’s companion in Constantinople. The “early redaction of the Moralia was carried back to Spain by Leander and became the earliest source of the extraordinary reputation for learning and sanctity which Gregory enjoyed among the Spanish ecclesiastical writers of the seventh century.”⁹² After Gregory was in Rome and Leander returned to Spain they still maintained their friendship through letters.⁹³ Leander, Isidore’s brother, presided over Toledo III and likely wrote Reccard’s confession read at the council.⁹⁴ It is not surprising that the Moralia has been identified as one of Isidore’s sources.⁹⁵

Late Manuscripts

Beeson indicates that only Isidore’s letters to Braulio and Masona are found in early manuscripts.⁹⁶ This issue can be treated briefly as Mullins alone cites this as evidence of Epistle 6 generally being considered suspect.⁹⁷ Also, the argument is logical in nature, not necessarily requiring further examination of the manuscript evidence.

The later provenance in no way necessitates that Epistle 6 and other letters are spurious. Some of Isidore’s letters found only in late manuscripts, like Epistle 6, may have more generally been considered spurious, but others have been generally considered authentic. Mullins’s treatment of the letters demonstrates various scholars view Epistle 1 (to Leudefredus) as genuine,⁹⁸ and Epistle 5 (to Helladius) is considered authentic by Mullins, McNally, and even Séjourné, who radically considers all of the letters spurious except this one and those to Braulio.⁹⁹

Papal Supremacy¹⁰⁰

Epistle 6 says, “Thus I know that I am at the head of the Church of Christ as long as I confess to show due obedience reverently, humbly, and devotedly in everything to the Roman pontiff in particular, as vicar of God, before all other prelates of the Church.”¹⁰¹ As noted above, this perspective on the Pope leads some to consider the letter spurious. Oudin doubts the letter on these grounds.¹⁰² Séjourné doubts the letter’s authenticity because of this same passage despite noting evidence that supports Isidore’s respect for the papacy.¹⁰³ He notes a passage in De ecclesiasticis officiis where Isidore says,

Thus far concerning the first priests of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, however after Christ the order of the priesthood began with Peter. For to him the pontificate in the church of Christ was given first. [He quotes Matt 16.18–19] He was therefore the first to receive the authority of binding and loosing, and the first to bring people to faith by the power of his preaching. And since the other apostles also became equal sharers with Peter in honor and authority, they also preached the gospel, dispersed throughout the whole world. Coming after them, there succeeded them the bishops, who have been setup throughout the world in the seats of the apostles.¹⁰⁴

He takes this to mean that Isidore “considère l’évêque de Rome comme le 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, that addressed the issue of triune immersion, at Toledo IV as demonstrating, “L’enseignement du pape est, d’office, considéré comme la doctrine des Pères.”¹⁰⁶ On the other hand, Séjourné notes that Leander consulted both John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, and Gregory regarding the issue.¹⁰⁷ In response, this does not appear to be an overwhelming problem. It seems possible that just as Leander knew Gregory from his time in Constantinople, he could have known John as well, influencing his desire to write to him.¹⁰⁸ In addition, Gregory’s call for single immersion was decreed at Toledo IV, demonstrating the authority of the papacy as even Séjourné admitted, and the council recognized Rome as the “apostolic see”¹⁰⁹ and the authority of Rome regarding the acceptance and liturgical use of Revelation.¹¹⁰ Similarly, papal teaching and authority was recognized at Toledo III,¹¹¹ Seville II (619),¹¹² and Toledo VI (638) (the latter using the teaching of Pope Leo).¹¹³

There is some evidence that Séjourné does not mention. In the Etymologies, Isidore says,

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

It is plausible that this passage expresses a high view of the papacy. It is situated in a section about clerics were he discusses various offices, bishops before the passage and priests and others after the passage. In his discussion of bishops he explains patriarchs (Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria), archbishops, metropolitans, and bishops.

There are also Spanish epistles from the period that use strong words for the papacy, bolstering the authenticity of Epistle 6. In Reccared’s letter to Gregory the Great, he used phrases “holy lord and most blessed pope,”¹¹⁵ “thee who art powerful above all other bishops,” and “thy Holiness.”¹¹⁶ In Licinianus of Carthagena’s letter to Gregory he used “most blessed lord pope,” “Thy holiness,” “your Blessedness, “most holy father,” “your crown,” and “most blessed father.”¹¹⁷ Finally, Braulio of Saragossa, Isidore’s friend and student, wrote to Pope Honorius “most reverend lord and deserving of apostolic glory,” and “Prince of Rome.”¹¹⁸ Thompson says, “He fully recognizes the primacy of the bishop of Rome (Romanus princeps).”¹¹⁹ Arévalo draws attention to Braulio’s words at the opening of the letter:¹²⁰

You are performing extremely well and most suitable the duties of your see as 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 sword of the divine word and the weapon of heavenly zeal, you are confounding those who deride the Lord’s tunic; after the fashion of Nehemias, with your energy 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 bishops” as displaying the “respect and recognition” of the pope.¹²²  He says, “Throughout the letter his primacy is stressed,”¹²³ and, “This valuable Letter does more than recognize the primacy of the pope; ‘it expresses clearly, with as much precision as there is beauty and image and idea, the dogma of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.’”¹²⁴ Finally, regarding another epistle of Braulio, Lynch says, “The primacy of the pope is acknowledged unequivocally in Letter 14. Questioned by Fronimian on the liturgical office of Good Friday, he describes the customs in Saragossa, Seville, Toledo, Gerona, and, as if it were the final authority, Rome.”¹²⁵

CONCLUSION

The study of the manuscript evidence clearly demonstrates that the filioque was not in the Nicene Creed at Toledo III (589), but first appeared at Toledo VIII (653). Although it cannot be maintained with absolute certainty, there is good reason to believe Epistle 6 from Isidore to Claudius is authentic based on the evidence supporting its authenticity and the inadequacy of arguments against it. Therefore, the Creed was changed after 589 and before 636 when Isidore died. Previously scholars believed the insertion occurred in 589 or previous to the council. If some scholars thought the filioque was not added by 589, it must have occurred between 589 and 653. This paper corrects the common tradition and further narrows the possible date of this critical event because of an important piece of evidence not provided by conciliar records.

 Reasons for the change to the Creed are implicit in the previous sections, but a fuller treatment of the historical and theological environment would require another work. Briefly stated, it seems logical that this event would occur with the pervasive Western belief in the double procession, influence of creeds that contained the double procession, and, finally, the third Council of Toledo’s requirement to include the Creed in the mass coupled with the anathema against those who did not believe the double procession.

1.      Vladimir Lossky, “The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Triadol-ogy,”Eastern Churches Quarterly7 (1948): 31 says, “Whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit was the sole dogmatic ground of the 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 withdrew the anathemas made by those in 1054. Related to efforts to heal the schism, it is also significant that Cardinal Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, quoted the Creed without thefilioqueand recognized the Orthodox churches as “true particular Churches” (Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church[August 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: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 211–67; A. E. Burn,An Introduction to the Creeds and to the Te Deum(London: Methuen & Co., 1899), 98–123; David Larrimore Holland, “Creeds of Nicea and Constantinople Reexamined,”CH38 (1969): 248–61; Fenton  John Anthony Hort,Two Dissertations(London and Cambridge, UK: Macmillan and Co., 1876); J. N. D. Kelly, “The Nicene Creed: A Turning Point,”Scottish Journal of Theology36 (1983): 29–39; J. N. D. Kelly,Early Christian Creeds(New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1950), 296–367; and Cuthbert Hamilton Turner,The History 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 Ingol stad from 1586–93. As argued in this paper, Bellarmine, says thefilioquewas 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 cites Bellarmine and notes thefilioque missing from certain editions of acts of the council and that Garsiae Louisa places “Desunt Exc.” (Desunt in excusis)in the margin of the text for the words “& Filio.” See Garsiae Louisa,Collectio Conciliorum His- paniae(Petrus Madrigal, 1593), 203. “La Questione Storica Nella Controversia del ‘Filioque,’”Civiltà Cattolica3 (1929): 498, 499, 499 n.2 blames Louisa for adding words to the Creed at Toledo III for the first time, since Bellarmine does not associate them with the council. He also notes that Louisa amazingly claims on page 237 the original 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,Theologiae Cursus Completus, 28 vols. (Paris: J. P. Migne, 1963), 5:406 associates thefilioquewith 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.

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 History of Christian Doctrine(1903; reprint, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1962), 215–16 n.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 Nutcombe Oxenham (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), 4:418; Roger E. Olson,The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 308; Henry Barclay Swete,On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the Death of 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 Zoernikav and Bellarmine but still argues that thefilioquewas not a latter addition. See Jean- Joseph Gaume,Traité du Saint-Esprit(Paris: Gaume et Cie, 1890), 68, 70for a more unusual view that thefilioquewas added at a council in Toledo in 447. A. Palmieri, “Filioque,”Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique: Contenant l’exposé des Doctrines de la 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 challenges this view. In more recent times, Henry Chadwick,Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 216–17 said the council was not even held.

5.      A. E. Burn, “Some Spanish MSS of the Constantinopolitan Creed,”Journal of Theological Studies9 (1908): 301–3.

6.      See Gerald Bray, “The Filioque Clause in History and Theology,”Tyndale Bul-letin34 (1983): 119; Charles Augustus Briggs,The Fundamental Christian Faith: The Origin, 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 and Charlemagne: Is the Letter Another Forgery by Ademar of Chabannes?”RBen102 (1992): 75–134; Haddad, “The Stations of the Filioque,” 211; Richard Haugh,Pho-tius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy(Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975), 160; R. G. Heath, “The Western Schism of the Franks and the ‘Filioque,’”JEH23 (1972): 97–113; Frank G. Kennedy, “The Introduction of 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, “TheFilioqueClause: East or West?”Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology15 (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 Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos(Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cien-tíficas Instituto Enrique Flórez, 1963), 114. Although Kennedy does not cite Burn, he is familiar with the work of Palmieri, which cites Bellarmine. Even so, he concludes thefilioquewas 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 to the Creed(London: n.p., 1872); George Broadley Howard,The Schism Between the Oriental 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 Christian Faith, 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 of the 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 theFilioque,”SP19 (1989): 143–47; George C. Berthold, “Maximus the Confessor and theFilioque,”SP18 (1985): 113–17; Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 91–144; Callahan, “The Problem of the ‘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 of the Holy Spirit: Development of a Theological Tradition,”Scottish Journal of Theol-ogy52 (1999): 1–18; Dietrich Ritschl, “Historical Development and Implications of the Filioque Controversy,” inSpirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy, ed. Lukas Vischer (London: SPCK, 1981), 46–65; and A. Edward Siecienski,The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy(New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

11.  See Hegumen Boniface, “The Filioque Question,”Diakonia15 (1980): 74–81; Emmanuel Clapsis, “The Filioque Question,”Patristic and Byzantine Review1 (1982): 127–36; Mary A. Fatula, “A Problematic Western Formula,”One in Christ17 (1981): 324–34; Paul Henry, “On Some Implications of the ‘Ex Patre Filioque Tanquam Ab Uno Principio,’”Eastern Churches Quarterly7 (1948): 16–31; Alasdair I. C. Heron, “‘Who Proceeded From the Father and the Son’: The Problem of the Filioque,”Scottish Journal of Theology24 (1971): 149–62; Lossky, “The Procession of the Holy Spirit, 31–53; Needham, “TheFilioqueClause,” 142–62; Bernd Ober- dorfer, “TheFilioqueProblem—History and Contemporary Relevance,”Scriptura79 (2002): 81–92; Vladimir Rodzianko, “The ‘Filioque’ Dispute and its Importance,”Eastern Churches Quarterly10 (1953): 177–91; Vladimir Rodzianko, “‘Filioque’ in Patristic Thought,”SP2 (1957): 295–308; and Serge S. Verkhovsky, “Procession of the Holy Spirit According to Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity,”St. Vladimir’s Semi-nary Quarterly2 (1953): 12–26.

12.  See John J. Ferrainolo, “Historical and Theological Background of the Third Council 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 same concept in other creeds or sources is designated as “double procession.”

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 source Aguirre notes in the margin “Al.” and then a version that lacksprocedentumbut containsex Patre et Filio. See Josepho de Aguirre, ed.,Collectio Maxima Conciliorum Hispaniae, Epistolarumque Decretalium Celebriorum(Ioachimum Ibarra, 1784), 764.

17.  Burn,An Introduction to the Creeds, 115. See also Zoernikav,Tractus 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 Cattolica1 (1930): 313–16.

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: Macmillian Co., 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, thefilioquewas in the creed in 589. It seems that Ferrainolo had not 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 in 1937 and the second in 1939. He is aware of work of Aldama, Palmieri, Macaire, and Zoernikav. It is unusual that he did not mention thefilioqueat Toledo VIII. Also during the 1950s, it is interesting that Latourette says the addition offilioqueto the creed “seems to have been done first at Toledo in Spain in 589 or 653” (Kenneth Scott Latourette,A History of Christianity[New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953], 303).

27.  George Every,Misunderstandings Between East and West(Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1966), 43. In contrast, Haugh,Photius, and the Carolingians, 160, not challenging any specific scholar but acquainted with the works of Kelly and Every, said, “There is no reason to assume that the existence of theFilioquein the Ecu-menical Creed at the Council of Toledo was itself a later interpolation of the Acts of this Council, for all the historical influences which could have caused such an inter-polation were equally present before and during the time of the Council of Toledo.”

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 bis zur 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 Iberischen Halbinsel 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 is not yet completed, and he would not draw any conclusion about thefilioqueuntil 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 ökumenischen Problems(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 135–36. Oberdorfer, “TheFilioqueProblem,” 84 says, “We have no certain witnesses whether the NC has been used then [the late sixth and seventh centuries] including theFilioqueaddition.” In note 20 he writes, “The discussion is controversial. Jose Orlandis and Domingo Ramos-Lisson . . . argue that at the 8th synod of Toledo (653) the NC was recited including the Filioque. According to Reinhard Slenczka, however, the documents of the 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 Konstantinopel und seine ökumenische Geltung heute,” inUna Sancta; Zeitschrift für ökumenische Begegnung36 (1981), 198–209 (Oberdorfer cites pages 298–309, but the article is located on pages 198–209). I am unable to locate where Slenczka makes this precise claim, but it could possibly be inferred from his work.

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

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

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

36.  Isidore of Seville,Epistle 6.4 (trans. Gordon B. Ford,The Letters of St. Isidore of Seville[Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1970], 33).

37.  Isidore of Seville,Epistle 6.4. It seems odd that “Filioque” is used in the Creed according to this letter andet Filiois used in the councils, especially since this is a creed of such importance. Surely wording should be exact, but this is probably not an issue. The meaning is exactly the same, and the difference is only a matter of style. It is easily conceivable that various Spanish churches “fixed” the Creed their own way after Toledo III in response to the third anathema and the directive to use the Creed in the mass.

38.  Sister Patrick Jerome Mullins, “The Spiritual Life According to Saint Isidore of Seville” (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 errors libri III, ed. Joanne Mariana (Ingolstad, 1612), 91. Arévalo draws attention to this piece of evidence (PL 81:503).

40.  A. E. Burn,The Athanasian Creed and Its Early Commentaries, Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature 4, ed. J. Armitage Robinson (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1896), lxxx translates G. Morin, “Les Origines du SymboleQuicumqueDit ‘Symbole D’Athanase,’”Science CatholiqueV (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: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 123 n.3 disagrees with Paul Séjourné,Le Dernier Père de L’église, Saint Isidore de Séville: So Rôle dans L’Histoire du Droit Canonique(Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1929), 94–95 regarding the authenticity ofEpistle 8. R. E. McNally, “Isidoriana,”Theological Studies 20 (1959): 436 and P. Angel Custodio Vega, “El Primado y La Iglesia Española en los Siete Primeros Siglos,”Ciudad de Dios154 (1942): 507 also considerEpistle 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 ascribed to him are forgeries or of doubtful authenticity.” José A. de Aldama, “Indicaciones sobre la cronología de las obras de S. Isidoro,” inMiscellanea Isidoriana: homenaje a 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. In the main text he discusses the authenticity of a different letter. Eligius Dekkers and Aemilus Gaar, eds.,Clavis Patrum Latinorum: qua in Novum Corpus Christianorum Edendum Optimas quasque Scriptorum Recensiones a Tertulliano ad Bedam, Sacris Erudi 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 in a section entitled “falso adscriptae in codd. Vel. edd.” Mullins, “Spiritual Life,” 19 is at least cited which has a good review of the discussion. Ford,Letters, 7 cites the opinions of others but with no discussion of argumentation regarding authenticity. See also King,Law and Society, 123 n.3.

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 and Society, ed. Alberto Ferreiro (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 108–9 says, “the Greek communi-ties dedicated to international trade had been living in Lusitania since the beginning of the Christian era in cities like Mérida or Santarém and they formed an important group ready to welcome and help their compatriots who arrived from the Orient. The Vitae Sanctorum Patrum Emeretensium include the biography of two Greek bishops, Paul and his nephew Fidelis, who succeeded him as bishop in the metropolitan See of Mérida in the sixth century. Paul arrived from the East thanks to the ease with which it was possible to travel between the two sides of the Mediterranean, and practiced medicine. He was later elected as bishop of the city. This event bears witness not only to 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 elevated to the episcopal seat. Fidelis is another example of this: he arrived in Mérida, along with a group of Oriental merchants, and was nominated by his uncle Paul to take over the episcopal tasks when he himself was too old to perform them. The literary notices concerning the presence of Greek settlements in Mérida are confirmed by the archaeological data: note that some Greek inscriptions of Greek families dated from the sixth or seventh century have been preserved. The Greek inscriptions found in other 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 Roger Collins,Early Medieval Spain: Unity and Diversity, 400–1000(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983); Timothy E. Gregory,A History of Byzantium(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 137, 151; Yitzhak Hen,Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court and Culture in the Early Medieval West(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 124–52, other chapters in The Visigoths, J. N. Hillgarth, “Coins and Chronicles: Propaganda in Sixth-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,” inVisigothic Spain, Byzantium, and the Irish(London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 261–311; E. A. Thompson,The Goths in Spain(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969); and Joseph F. O’Callaghan,A History of Medieval Spain(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), 42–47, 77.

44.  John of Biclaro,Chronicle91 (trans. Kenneth Baxter Wolf,Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain[Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1990], 77).

45.  Isidore of Seville,Goth.54.

46.  Gregory the Great,Epistle 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,Etymologies7.3 andDe ecclesiaticis officiis1.24(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 toEpistle 4, which he considers spuri-ous but not because of the words that it uses in common to Epistle 6. Mullins, “Spiritual Life,” 17–18 says Epistle 4 is supported by ancient manuscripts, and, of the scholars she surveys, 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” which he associates with the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. Arévalo addresses the issue in relation to Isidore’s works (PL 81:506).

52.  Isidore of Seville,Epistle 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 the Epistle 8,which he rejects, references the Athanasian Creed like Epistle 6. See also Séjourné,Dernier Père de L’église, 94.

54.  Hefele,History of the Councils, 4:417. Ferrainolo, “Historical and Theological Background,” 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 in mentioning 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 with the 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 both places 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 concerning the Spirit’s procession.

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 the Creeds, 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 ofEpistle 6 (PL 81:507).

62.  Kelly,Athanasian Creed, 20.

63.  Kelly,Athanasian Creed, 41, 53–54. Arévalo also notes this synod (PL81:507).

64.  Kelly,Athanasian Creed, 54.

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

66.  McNally, “Isidoriana,” 439.

67.  Oudin,Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticus, 1:1592.

68.  Eucherius of Lyons,Instructiones ad Salonum1 (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: Macmillan and Company, 1912; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966), 154.

70.  Gennadius of Marseilles,De ecclesiasticus dogmatibus(PL58:980).

71.  Julianus Pomerius,De vita contemplativa1.18 (PL 59:433).

72.  Avitus of Vienne,Fragmento libri de divinitate Spiritus Sancti(PL 59:385).

73.  Gregory of Tours,The History of the Franks1.

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).

75.  Mark Dorenkemper, The Trinitarian Doctrine and Sources of St. Caesarius of Arles(Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, 1953), 98 summarizes Caesarius’s perspective on the Spirit’s procession as, “An internal procession from the Father and the Son, eternal and without order and degrees—such is the procession of the Holy Spirit as St. Caesarius describes it.” Consider more details Dorenkemper gives about Caesarius’s teaching on the procession of the Spirit: how he thought procession was somehow 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 Theology and Mission6 (1979): 5. See CaesariusSermon 2(trans. FC31 [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 in Late Antique Gaul(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 129–31.

81.  Caesarius of Arles,Sermons(trans. FC 31 [1]: xxii). J. N. Hillgarth, “Popu-lar Religion in Visigothic Spain,” inVisigothic Spain: New Approaches, ed. Edward  James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 24 says, “Many of the sermons prescribed to be read in Visigothic Spain are contained in the Homiliary of Toledo. Over half of the 118 items . . . were taken from Caesarius of Arles (48) or Augustine (13), with other Patristic sources, such as Maximus of Turin or Gregory the Great, drawn on to much a lesser extent.” Collins,Early Medieval Spain, 60–61 says, “The greatest debt owed 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 the seventh century.”

82.  PaschasiusDe Spiritu Sancto1.12 (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” inThe Holy Spirit,347.

83.  Boethius,De Trinitate5 (PL 64:1254).

84.  Cassiodorus,In psalt. praef.(PL70:23). In Ravenna, Agnellus (d. 569) sup-ported the double procession. See AgnellusEpistola ad Armenium de ratione fidei(PL 68:383–84).

85.  Leo the Great, Epistle 15.2 (trans. NPNF212:21). Siecienski,The Filioque, 64 says, “there remains doubts about the authenticity of the letter itself.” But this would not impact the argument made here if it was believed to be authentic at the time.

86.  Chadwick,Priscillian of Avila, 217.

87.  Chadwick, 177, 218; Kelly,Athanasian Creed, 90.

88.  The latter document, recognized as having some authority and containing the double procession, was read to the council. The document’s authority is evident, because the council thought from the interpolated address that the document (with its creed and eighteen anathemas) was composed at a council by the bishops of Tar-raconensis, Carthaginensis, Lusitania, and Baetica.

89.  Arévalo noted thefilioque’s presence at Toledo I and III (PL 81:503–4). The creed 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 did not include thefilioquein the Nicene Creed, but Arévalo’s reference to the council still has meaning since thefilioquewas in Recarred’s confession and the third anathema. Despite his proof of thefilioqueat the time, he does allow for the possibility that the filioque reference in Epistle 6 is a later interpolation (506).

90.  Kelly,Athanasian Creed, 38.

91.  Frederick H. Dudden,Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought, 2 vols. (New York: Russell & Russell, 1967), 2:349 says, “Gregory leaves us in no doubt as to his real opinion. In several places he distinctly asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son.” Dudden supports this claim by citing passages from theMoralia(30.17, 2.92, and 1.30). Also consider Gregory’s perspective inDialogues(trans. FC39:109): “Now certainly the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, is ever proceeding from the Father and the Son.” Siecienski,The Filioque, 70–71 finally concludes that Gregory likely supported the popular doctrine but says interpreting Gregory from his writings is difficult. He examines some of the same passages as Dudden.

92.  Mullins, “Spiritual Life,” 57. Collins,Early Medieval Spain, 60 also recognizes the influence of Gregory on the Spanish church through Leander: “This [the relation-ship of Gregory and Leander] meant that most of Gregory’s writings very quickly became available in the Visigothic kingdom and they came to exercise, with the sole exception of the thought of Augustine, the greatest single influence upon the 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,”Traditio50 (1995): 55–74 recognizes that Leander brought back the earlierMoraliato Spain, because Isidore used this edition to replace sections of the final version that were never sent to Leander.

93.  For correspondence see Epistle 43 andEpistle 49 (trans. NPNF212)andEpistle 121 (trans. NPNF213).

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 yet been definitely solved.”

99.  Mullins, 18–19; McNally, “Isidoriana,” 436; and Séjourné,Dernier Père de L’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 is not generally accepted by scholars.”

100.                      In this section evidence fromEpistle 8 is excluded, since the letter’s authenticity has been debated, but there is good reason to consider it. (See note 40, above, for authors that regard the letter as genuine). Isidore says, “But concerning the ques-tion of the equality of the apostles, Peter takes precedence over the others because he deserved to hear from the Lord: ‘You will be called Cephas; you are Peter’ (John 1, 42) and other things; and he first received in the Church of Christ the honor of the priesthood not from any other but from the very Son of God and the Virgin. It was said to him even after the resurrection of the Son of God by the same: ‘Feed my lambs’ (John 21, 15). Christ designated the prelates of the churches by the name of lambs. Although his dignity of power is transferred to all Catholic bishops, yet in a special way and with a singular privilege it remains forever higher to the bishop of Rome as the head than all the other members. Thurs whoever, separated from the head, does not reverently exhibit the due obedience to him, renders himself subject to the schism of the Acephali, in asmuch as the Holy Church approves and defends the following statement of Holy Athanasius concerning the belief in the Holy Trinity, as if it were an article of the Catholic faith” (Epistle 8.2 [trans. Ford, 47]).

101.                      Isidore of Seville,Epistle 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 those at the time. At other times he cites evidence to the contrary. Besides the evidence analyzed 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 from the standpoint of its judicial powers (Séjourné,Dernier Père de L’église, 91). On the other 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 the legislative 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 tonsure but the apostolic see for fasting (92–93). E. Magnin,L’Église Wisigothique au VIIeSiècle(Paris: Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1912), 13–14 only draws attention to the latter.

104.                      Isidore of Seville,De ecclesiasticis officiis2.5.5–6 (trans. Knoebel, 72). Even though King accepts that Isidore recognized papal primacy he says that Isidore states the next to last sentence almost defensively (Law and Society, 123 n.3). Magnin,L’Église Wisigothique au VIIeSiècle,12 also notes the contrast between the end and beginning of the passage. This passage of Isidore is from Cyprian,On the Unity of the Church4 (trans. ANF 5:422). Cyprian says, “If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter saying, [quotes Matt. 26:18–19]. And again to the same he says, after his resurrection, ‘Feed my sheEpistle ’ And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, [quotes John 20:21]; yet, that he might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” The connection is 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 teología2 (1942): 240. Madoz also refers to a similar passage in Isidore’sEpistle  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 VIIeSiècle, 9–10. Séjourné says Isidore only included Gregory’s response in theHispana,because his response was unfavorable and inclusion of anything besides papal letters and councils would have tainted the collection. The letter from John to Leander is referred to by Isidore inDe viris illustribus39.2 (PL 83:1102). John only endorsed triune immersion. (Isidore is surely correct about the John Leander corresponded with, but his accuracy is questionable, since he says Gregory’sLiber Regulae Pastoraliswas written to John of Constantinople [De viris illustribus39.1 {PL 83:1101}]. It was probably written to John of Ravenna. See Gregory the GreatPastoral Rule[trans. NPNF212.1; 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 the Church,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 be found at http://lolo-lateantiquity.blogspot.com/2009/05/life-of-st-leander-of-seville-by .html (accessed Jan. 25, 2014). Gregory’s response is inEpistle 43 (trans. NPNF212:88): “But with respect to triune immersion in baptism, no truer answer can be given than what 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 the sacraments 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 supreme Trinity, neither so is there any objection to immersing the person to be baptized in the water once, since there being one substance of three subsistences, it cannot be in any way reprehensible to immerse the infant either thrice or once, seeing that by three immersions the Trinity of persons, and in one the singleness of the Divinity may be denoted. But, inasmuch as up to this time it had been the custom of heretics to immerse infants in baptism thrice, I am of opinion that this ought not be done among 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 of having bot the better of our custom.”

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

109.                      Hefele,History of the Councils, 4:451: “As in Spain some in baptizing dip only once and others three times, and so with many doubts arise whether someone has 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 orderdum mersiones numerant, divinitatem dividant,the orthodox must no longer 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 Seville granted overwhelming authority to the pope. He says, “Though both had become good friends with Gregory as apocrisiarii in Constantinople, they did not allow the pope to interfere in their work. They began the tradition, which lasted until the end of the empire, of holding imperial councils at the royal residence in Toledo under the chairmanship of the primate of Toledo at which questions of faith, doctrine and organization were declared binding for the whole realm.” And, “Instructions from the 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 a council 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 the Spanish 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 says later, 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 inter diuinos libros recipiendum constituerunt. Et quia plurimi sunt qui eius auctoritatem non recipiunt atque in ecclesiam Dei praedicare contemnunt, si quis eum deinceps aut non receperit aut a pascha usque ad pentecostem missarum tempore in ecclesia non praedicauerit, excommunicationis sententiam habebit.” See Magnin,L’Église Wisigothique au VIIeSiècle, 14.

111.                      Diez and Rodriguez, eds., 109: “Maneant in suo uigore conciliorum omnium constituta simul et synodicae sanctorum praesulum Romanorum epistolae.” See Magnin,L’Église Wisigothique au VIIeSiècle, 14.

112.                      Louisa,Collectio Conciliorum Hispaniae, 295–96: “Illi tricenalis objectio silentium ponit: hoc enim & secularium Principum edicat praecipiunt, & Praesulum Romanorum decreuit auctoritas.” Arévalo (PL 81:506) and Séjourné (Dernier Père de L’église, 93) note this canon.

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

114.                      Isidore of Seville,Etymologies7.12.13–14 (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 inDe 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 y derogarlas, de imponer preceptos y aplicar penas a los trasgresores, de perdonar los pecados 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 name from ‘rock’ (petra), that is, from Christ, on whom the Church is founded. Nowpetrais not given its name fromPetrus, butPetrusfrompetra, just as ‘Christ’ is so called not from ‘Christian,’but ‘Christian’ from ‘Christ.’ Therefore the Lord says (Matthew 16:18), ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church,’ because Peter 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 my church,’ for (1 Corinthians 10:4) ‘the rock was Christ,’ on which foundation even Peter himself was built. He was called Cephas because he was established as the head (caput) of the apostles, forκεφαλήin Greek means ‘head,’ and Cephas is the Syrian name for Peter” (Isidore of Seville,Etymologies7.9.2 [trans. Barney, 168]). Vega refers to this passage as well (505–6).

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

116.                      Gregory the Great,Epistle 61 (trans. NPNF213:16–17). According to n.6, the NPNF2says, “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,Epistle 54 (trans. NPNF212:119–21).

118.                      Braulio of Saragossa,Epistle 21 (trans. FC63:51, 54).

119.                      Thompson,Goths in Spain, 185. Despite this King says this letter and another from Julian of Toledo to Benedict II have “a tone prickly independence, resentful of the exercise of Roman authority” (Law and Society,123). He continues, “It has been not implausibly suggested that by the end of the century schism was near” (123–24). He also says, “Braulio stressed that God worked through the king as well as through the pope” (123 n.4). Pius Bonifacius Gams,Dies Kirchengeschichte von Spanien(Regens-burg: Georg Joseph Manz, 1864), 2.2:244refers to the bitterness and irritability in the letter. It seems plausible that the pope’s authority would be recognized even in the 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 recognizes the pope’s primacy, discusses aspects of the letter that show Braulio is defending the Spanish 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 in discharging his duty of watching over all the churches, and keeping them from schism and heresy, is lauded, and his right to demand an accounting in Spain is accepted as a matter of course. Nevertheless, the noticeable tone of aggrieved testiness in the Let-ter echoes a growing national pride of church and state in Spain.” He also surveys the perspectives of various scholars on the issue of whether “Spain at this time was attempting to set up a national Church independent of Rome” (145). He concludes this is not the case (146). Magnin,L’Église Wisigothique au VIIeSiècle, 21 describes the perspective of the Spanish church in this exchange with the pope: “Mais l’estime même 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 un indice de l’indépendance de l’Église wisigothique envers Rome, ne se sont pas arrêtés à 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 misma Roma tuvo merecida resonancia, no se explica uno cómo se ha podido ver en ella un rasgo siquiera de independencia jerárquica y de protesta contra la autoridad suprema de la Silla Apostólica. La respuesta del ilustre prelado cesaraugustano es espontánea, franca, sincera, sin eufemismos, quizá con algo de esa noble rudeza y energía propia del carácter español, pero respetuosa y sumisa siempre a la autoridad del Papa, que ni 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 estas expresiones nos revelan, no sólo un reconocimiento profundo y sincero de la suprema autoridad 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 los asuntos de la Iglesia Española, ni una insinuación velada, ni una sospecha siquiera contra 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 obedecerle al más leve mandato o insinuación.”

120.                      PL 81:507. Lynch,Saint Braulio, 101 also quotes some of this passage in contrast to the fact Honorius was later condemned.

121.                      Braulio of Saragossa,Epistle  21 (trans. FC63:51).

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

124.                      Lynch, 102 cites and translates Urbel, “Braulio,” 10:448. The whole sentence says, “En même temps que cette liberté d’esprit nous trouvons dans ce document fameux, 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,Epistle 14 (trans. FC63:38–40). Lynch con-tinues, “This recognition in liturgical matters may have been limited on the part of the master, Isidore, but when Braulio wrote to Pope Honorius.” Lynch derives this perspective on Isidore from Séjourné,Dernier Père de L’église, 92.

Bibliography:

(Smith, Shawn, “Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 22, Number 2, Summer 2014, pp. 261-286,” Published by the John Hopkins University Press)