"True" Orthodox Hieromonk claims filioque was later added to the Council of Toledo
For those of you who don't know, "True" Orthodox and Old Calendarists are (from what I've seen) like the Orthodox equivalent of Sedevacantists. Even if the filioque was added to the manuscripts, how does this either prove or disprove whether the filioque is true or not? I have no doubt there are tons of manuscripts that have had later additions made to them but that doesn't necessarily prove or disprove any doctrine.


Quote:Was the Filioque Clause a Later Addition to the Authentic Acts of the 589 Toledan Synod?
A. Edward Siecienski in his book, "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy", on pg. 68, has the following:

"For centuries the Council of Toledo has been used to date the first use of the filioque in the Western version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. It was at Toledo, under the Presidency of Archbishop [St.] Leander (the older brother of [St.] Isidore of Seville), that King Recarrd and the Visigoths accepted the Catholic [i.e., Orthodox] faith and renounced Arianism and Priscilianism, pledging their acceptance of the ancient councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Since the acts of these councils were read out, those assembled at Toledo were very much aware of the prohibition of Ephesus regarding "producing, editing, or composing another faith other than that set out by the Holy Fathers gathered at Nicea with the Holy Spirit." In order to maintain continuity with the faith of these councils, King Reccard mandated that the symbol of faith of the Council of Constantionple (i.e., "of the 150 bishops") should be recited at the celebration of every Eucharist in all the churches of Spain and Gallacia "according to the form of the Eastern Church." It is thus clear that the Council of Toledo had no intention of adding anything to the creed, or no-consiousness that they were introducing something nove.
"Yet in his opening speech at the council, King Recarrd professed his belief that "in equal degree must the Holy Spirit be confessed by us and we must preach that he proceeds from the Father and the Son" (a Patre et a Filio procedere). In its third anathma, the council condemned "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 denies that he is coeternal and coequal with the Father and the Son." Even the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, as it was allegedly recited at Toledo, taught that the "Holy Spirit, Lord and Give of Lord, Proceeds from the Father and the Son [ex Patre et Filio Procedentem]." In the mind of Reccard and those assembled at Toledo, this was the Creed "in its Eastern form," demonstrating against a lack of awareness that any alteration or addition was being made in the faith of the Universal Church.
"Here we must assume that either th council was usaing an already interpolated creed, one that "had made its way from Church to Church...and established so firm a footing that no suspicion of its genuineness was entertained," or that the acts of the council themselves been altered and the et Filio added by the hand of a later editor. This later (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. However, regardless of its exact origin, it is clear that within a few short years of the council the interpolated creed was firmly established in both the liturgy and theology of the Spanish Church."

Turning to A.E. Burn's book "The Nicene Creed", on pg. 40, we find the following concerning the 589 Toledan Synod:

"One of the leading theologians at the Council, John of Biclaro, Bishop of Gerona, had recently returned from Constantinople, where he had resided for some years. It was no doubt due to his influence that the liturgical use of the Creed was introduced, according to the custom at Constantinople. Moreover the text of the Creed itself in the Acts of the Council follows closely the form quoted at the second Session of the Council of Chalcedon, which we found reason to regard as the form currently used in the Church of Constantinople.
"These considerations render it in the highest degree improbably that the Council could have accepted the interpolation of the words 'And the Son' in Art. 9 without protest from a prelate who was qualified to speak with authority on the text used by the Eastern Church, the example of which they all evidently wished to copy.
"In my Introduction to the Creeds I quoted the fact that two early editions of the Council--Cologen (1530) and Paris (1535)--omit the words in the text of the Creed as quoted at Toledo. Indeed Cardinal a'Aguirre admits that some MSS. do not contain them. I am now able to produce evidence, from some of the most important MSS. of the Spanish Councils at the Escurial and at Madrid, which confirms my conviction that the Council never added the words at all. Some MSS. omit them altogether, an omission which would not be made intentionally after controversy had arisen with the Eastern Church in the ninth century. Some MSS. put them into the margin or between the lines. When the Creed occurs twice, first under the heading of Constantinople, and then under the heading of Toledo, it is always under the heading Toledo that the words creep in, before they are added in the other text-form. The reason is not far to seek. The copyist has read in one of the anathemas of this Council of Toledo: 'Whoever does not believe or has not believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and has not said that He is coeternal and coessential with the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.' With that fate hanging over his head what was a poor copyist to do? Without larger knowledge he could not imagine that the Creed had not contained the words 'and the Son' from the beginning. We cannot blame him. When the words once crept into the Toledan text it was natural that they should spread into the form quoted as from the Council of Constantinople. The Creed thus interpolated spread."

Burn then alludes to the 447 Toledan Synod as approving the addition of the "And the Son", but, this is not so. In the editions contained on the site run by the Papists themselves, this is said to be that of 447. In bracket, or in parentheses, the filioque is only contained. Not in the text original. Am I mistaken? Was Neale, who is quoted at the source on this, merely quoted an interpolated text himself?

Burn wrote a short entry about the MSS. of the Creed of early the Spanish Church. It can be found in the 1908 Journal of Theological Studies, beginning on pg. 301. It is a very short entry, but, it confirms what he has stated above. (Burn touches briefly on the subject here as well in another Journal issue.)

IN Christ,

Fr. Enoch
The idea is that Jesus is God, con-substantial with the Father. The Church Fathers were touchy on anything that would diminish that.
(08-15-2018, 08:22 PM)greatdame Wrote: The idea is that Jesus is God, con-substantial with the Father.  The Church Fathers were touchy on anything that would diminish that.

If I recall correctly, the Eastern view holds that the filioque leads to Semi-Sabellianism or Modalism. Basically, the East is saying the filioque leads to saying that the Father and Son are essentially the same person, and that person switches to different modes (father and son). As a result, the filioque leads to ditheism. Dave Armstrong quotes an Orthodox Metropolitan concerning this matter in one of his books (https://books.google.com/books?id=DBVLCA...sm&f=false).

Some also hold to the position that the filioque "subordinates" the spirit to the son, which I suppose destroys the equality of the three persons within the Trinity. I could be wrong on that.
Filioque makes sense to me. I know I’m no theologian so it could very well be that my ignorance is oversimplifying the topic, but God the Father begot God the Son. They are the same substance. They are both God, but different persons. Through their love for each other, God the Holy Spirit proceeds from both of them. They are all the same substance. They are all God, but different persons.

Doesn’t seem at all scandalous to me. And makes more since than God the Holy Spirit being a 2nd begotten son of God the Father who wasn’t “begotten” but “proceeded.”

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)