1039 Freising Pontifical and the Filioque

 In the 1039 Pontifical of Freising, from Germany, in the section for Baptism, which follows the Old Roman Ordo of apportioning out the Catechumenate, especially in the last week of Lent, we have noticeable items like the tradition [giving] of the Our Father and Symbol. 

https://usuarium.elte.hu/book/838/view

In the section for the giving of the Symbol of Faith [i.e. the Credo in Unum Deum], it gives, like in the Gelasian Sacramentary, the Symbol to be recited in Greek and Latin.  

In the Symbol in Greek (transliterated into Latin letters), we have chant notation above the words; the text is given absent the infamous "Filioque" addition.

However, only a page or two later, when the Symbol is recited in Latin, the notorious addition of "Filioque" is lamentably found in the Latin text.

This, as we have noted in previous posts, is different than in the Pontifical of Poitiers, which gives the Greek and Latin text of the Symbol absent the "Filioque", as well as in the 1025 Subiaco Missal, which similarly gives the Greek and Latin text of the Symbol unaltered as well. 

I speculate that that a certain high degree of importance was attached to the Greek text of the Symbol in Latin books, as you will often find chant notation attached to the Greek Symbol over against the Latin in the Catechumenate; this gives a certain degree of added solemnity, and, even in the 11th century as the "Filioque" addition found its place more and more in different books in the Latin West, more often than not the Greek text was always preserved in Latin books free from corruption. 

Hamilton 552, 11th Century Latin Psalter with Uninterpolated Latin Credo

 Uninterpolated Credo in 11^th Century Latin liturgical book from Germany (though, this Psalter may have a connection with Durham, England?):

https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkansicht?PPN=PPN736607951&PHYSID=PHYS_0399&DMDID=DMDLOG_0006

MS Hamilton 552:

http://musmed.eu/source/8815

is an 11^th Century Medieval Psalter Book, with additional Divine Office prayers, etc. It contains, at the end of the Psalter, like other Medieval Psalters, various Canticles, as well as versions of the Credo; often one only sees the Apostles’ Creed. In this particular Latin Psalter from 11^th Century Germany, on page 339, however, there is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (Symbol), in an unadulterated form, in Latin (but with transliterated Greek interlinear).

 Thus it reads in the section concerning the Holy Ghost:

[Latin]

“Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et Vivificantem, Qui ex Patre Procedit, Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, Qui locutus est per Prophetas.”

[And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Lifegiver, Who from the Father Proceedeth, Who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified, Who spake through the Prophets.]

At the very least, historiography will have to admit that there were several places and traditions in the West even in the 11^th century that resisted any interpolation.

10th Century Pontifical of Poitiers and Filioque Interpolation in Interlinear Latin

 This is the 10^th century Pontifical of Poitiers. In the section for Making of a Catechumen, at the giving of the Creed, we have the Creed written in Greek in Latin letters, and then, an interlinear Latin translation.

In the transliterated Greek it just reads (on fol. 55v) as:

“Ke is to Penuma to Agion to Kyrrion ke Zoopion to ek tu Patros ek Porreugomenon.”

[“And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-Giver, from the Father Proceeding.”]

In the Latin interlinear text, however, we notice something curious. In the original Latin text it just reads as:

“Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et Vivificantem, ex Patre Procedens.”

[“And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-Giver, from the Father Proceeding.”]

However, you notice that a later hand, with darker ink, has tampered with the text, so that we have the following emendation:

“Qui” added to before “ex” and “Filioque” added immediate after “Patre” and the original “procedens” has been erased, and the form “procedit” put in its place.

The Gelasian form of the Latin Symbol generally read simply as “ex Patre Procedens” or sometimes "Procedentem".

Nevertheless, the Pontifical was made in the 10^th Century in Poitiers, for the Bishop of that City, and the original 10^th Century text simply had the Credo in Greek (with the interlinear gloss having a faithful translation, absent a much later interpolation).

HOWEVER, if we go only to the page after the Greek Credo is completed (56v), things get even better. There, the Credo is to be recited formally in Latin (while the interlinear text in Latin was not a formal recitation), with the formal Latin Symbol / Credo in the relevant section saying:

“Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et Vivifcatorem, ex Patre Procedentem.”

“And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, from the Father Proceeding.”]

No interpolation was attempted. So, what happened? Well, whoever took the book, and much later interpolated the interlinear Latin, apparently didn’t do a very thorough job; he simply added the forbidden “Filioque” only to the interlinear, and left the formal Latin a page later uncorrupted!

When was the interlinear text corrupted? My guess is in the 11^th Century when other cataclysmic changes happened.

Greek and Latin Credo in 10th Century Cod. Sang. 318 and the Filioque

 Cod. Sang. 318 is a 10^th Century Cantatorium / Gradual from St. Gallen Monastery in Switzerland. In the section that gives the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith in Greek and Latin, see page 21:

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0381/21/0/

In Latin it simply reads as:

“Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et Vivificantem, Qui ex Patre Procedit.”

[“And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who from the Father Proceedeth.”]

In the transliterated Greek it reads much the same, except, I believe, a later hand has added “ke Yio” (and the Son) so that it follows “ek tu Patros.”

That is, in a slightly less darker ink, a little off to the side a later hand interpolate the manuscript, so, instead of reading originally as “Ke is to Penumato Agion to Kyrrion ke Zoopion ton ek tu Patros ek poreugomenon,” after “ton ek tu Patro” the phrase “ke Yio” is added.”

But, yet the later hand forgot to interpolate the Latin Symbol, instead leaving it uncorrupted as “Qui ex Patre Procedit.”

Often, when later redactors go over books, it is not too difficult to tell when they start adding things; something seems strangely out of place, a phrase off to the side that is evident, a lighter or even different color ink, etc.

Yet, this is an important testimony that the Latin variant of the Credo that reads “Qui ex Patre Procedit” instead of “Ex Patre Procedentem” did exist without a Filioque interpolation.

11th Century Subiaco Missal with Uninterpolated Credo

 Yet another example of an uncorrupted book from the 11th century.

For reference purposes:

Here is BAV, Vat. Lat. 04770, or the Subiaco Missal (yes, that Subiaco, famed after St. Benedict's Monastery founded there), of about 1025.
https://usuarium.elte.hu/book/1584/view

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.4770

If we turn to the section that has the Making of a Catechumen service, part of Baptism, specifically on pages 97v and r we find the Credo recited first in Greek (in transliterated Latin letters), and then in Latin.

The transliterated Greek contains the Credo with simply "from the Father Proceeding".

If you look on the next page, for the formally recited Latin text, it reads:
"Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et Vivificantem, ex Patre Procedentem, Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur."
["And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-Giver, from the Father Proceeding, Who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified."]

This is another example of an uninterpolated Credal text in the Latin West prior to the Great Schism. Subiaco was an important monastery centre, since it was where St. Benedict founded his first monastery.

Greek Credo in 11th Century Pontifical of Emperor Henry III

There is an 11th Century Pontifical that is connected with the Emperor Henry III; it seems to have probably been made for the Archbishop of Salzburg.  It is of the Romano-German type; and derives from a the same stream as the mid-11th century Winchester Pontifical that was copied from a Continental type.  

Like that Pontifical, it gives the Credo in Greek and then in Latin, in the section that contains the giving of the Catechumenate with the various Expositions; also like the Winchester Pontifical, the Greek Credo has musical notation, while the Latin has no musical notation; also, curiously, the chanted Greek Credo has no Filioque interpolation in its text, while the Latin Credo has the lamentable Filioque addition in its text.  

The Greek text is transliterated into Latin letters, and the section regarding the Holy Ghost reads as follows:

"Ke is to Pneumato Agion to Kirion ke ho opion to ek thu Patros ek porreugemenon to sin Patri ke Io sin proskinumenon ke sin doxa ho menon to lalisan diaton Prophiton."

[And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-Giver, from the Father Proceeding, with the Father and the Son worshipped and glorified, Who spake through the Prophets.]

It can be found on page 102r of the manuscript. 

Of course, like many transliterated Latin text of the Greek Credo from the Medieval period, the pronunciation is often different than how one would pronounce the Greek today, and such; but, one can see this same issue in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary with its transliteration of the Greek Credo in Latin; the dropping and adding of certain consonants, etc, in places we wouldn't expect.  

Nevertheless, there still was a lively consciousness, I would argue, that even where the Latin interpolated Credo was beginning to be used, that the Greek Credo must be preserved unaltered.  Perhaps because there was some realization that peace must be maintained with the Eastern Church, as well as a conservative adherence to tradition, even while deviant innovation was creeping into the Latin Credo text.   But, one sees this preservation of the Greek Credo [and even un-interpolated Latin Credo] still in place in the 11th century (such as the Mainz text).  

 

"Filioque" in the Canterbury Professions?

 In 2020 (or 2019?) I received my used copy of Dr. Michael Richter's "Canterbury Professions," published by the Canterbury and York Society.  I believe the work was originally published in 1978. 

So, what exactly is this book?  It is a printed text edition of various Pre- and Post-Schism Professions of Faith that Bishops in England made on the occasions of their Consecrations.  That is, these were formulas that a Bishop-Elect would proffer to the Metropolitan (in this case, the Archbishop of Canterbury) before Consecration to the Episcopate. 

For our purposes, we are mainly concerning with the first section, specifically the 31 Professions, since they are during the Pre-Conquest period.  However, as Dr. Richter notes in the introduction, there is a problem here, that is not so strongly felt in other Anglo-Saxon liturgical and other material.  The problem is that we must rely upon mid-12th century scribe; you see, these Professions are extent only in a work made in the mid-12th century, which work copies earlier Anglo-Saxon texts.  Although large numbers of manuscripts survived, many were destroyed, especially in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, such as the large amount of documents destroyed in the Canterbury Library fire in 1067. 

Dr. Richter admits that this poses a problem with establishing authenticity.  In order to do this we would have to find another source from the purported period to compare texts with; at least one of the Professions is repeated nearly word for word in the late 9th and early 10th century Ratoldus Sacramentary.  However, there is nothing controversial and extraordinary in that text.  However, two Professions do draw mine attention. 

    Of the 30 Anglo-Saxon Episcopal Professions, two of them contain reference to the Procession of the Holy Ghost as either 'a Patre et Filio' or 'ex Patre et Filio'.  The rest simply assert Faith in the Trinity in more general terms, or do not cover this issue.  This immediately raises suspicions in my mind that hte 12th century copies may have had interpolation in this area; we have certainly seen this tendency before, i.e., to try to 'clean up' earlier material if it does not conform to later controveries, etc.

    However, seeing that much ado about nothing has been made about the supposedly 'extreme Filioquist' position of the Anglo-Saxon Church by some quarter [!], it would seem this is an area to be addressed: 

1.     The Professions are not the original manuscripts, but copies made by scribes, who would indeed have reasons to either insert such terminology, or, perhaps, simply copy the old manuscripts which themselves had interlinear interpolations, and thus obscuring the true textual history; 
2.      Simple assertion of 'ex Patre et Filio' or 'a Patre et Filio' procedentem must be examined in the context of the intent and understanding of the author; simply state, such text d not prove much nor they necessary vindicate the much later developed dogmatized Papist heresy, anymore than finding references in some early Fathers to 'mixture' or 'combination' of natures in Christ can be used to justify Eutychianism; terminology can always be vague, unhelpful, and obscure in some cases prior to it sharpening during a controversy.  This is not, of course, an exoneration of an interpolation in the Symbol of Faith, or vindication of Double-Processionist Hypostatic Subsistent Originationism.  St. Maximus' Letter to Marinus more than clears that up. 
3.     These expressions occur in only two texts copied in the mid 12th century; certainly not an abundance;

The argument will always be in favour of NOT using an interpolated Symbol of Faith, as well as affirming the Father as the Sole Eternal Source for the Persons of the Son and the Holy Ghost, because this is the consistent and universal position of earliest times.