Talk:Third Council of Toledo

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bad history

References 1 and 2 conflict with Denzinger et al, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, DS 86, which show Dionysius Exiguus having the filioque in the creed prior to his death in 544 AD. This precedes this council and should be corrected.

Biased overtone

Sentences such as those below are not neutral and have not been written in an encyclopedic style. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...who by the fault of others had been led into heresy, he had brought back. These noble nations he dedicated to God by the hands of the bishops, whom he called on to complete the work. "

Argiovitus

According to, Barbarian Bishops and the Churches "in Barbaricis Gentibus" During Late Antiquity, Ralph W. Mathisen, Speculum, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 664-697, Argiovitus renounced Arianism. I will be removing the sentence stating he was removed. --Vrok (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Barrington (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)==Filioque Clause== In the section headed canons it says "the 2nd directed the recitation of the creed of Constantinople at Holy Communion, with the addition of the Filioque clause: Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and Son") which was never accepted in the Christian East and led to drawn-out controversy;"[reply]

I am suggesting that this may not be correct. Philip Barrington (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC) pThe record of the council provided in the article is here. Synodus Toletana tertia, minutes from the Collectio Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis (Vat. lat. 1341) ^[1][reply]

The latin reads

II.

Pro reverentia sanctissimę fidei, et propter corroborandas hominum invalidas mentes consulto piissimi et gloriosissimi Recaredi regis constituit synodus, ut per omnes ecclesias Spaniae et Galliae vel Gallitiae secundum formam orientalium ecclesiarum, concilii Constantinopolitani, hoc est centum quinquaginta episcoporum symbolum fidei recitetur. Et priusquam dominica dicatur oratio, voce clara populo predicetur. Quo et fides vera manifesta sit et testimonium habeat et ad Christi corpus et sanguinem pręlibandum pectora populorum fide purificata accedant.

and the dirty google translation reads

2.

For out of respect of the Most Holy of the faith, after consulting the most pious and the most glorious, and for the sake of strengthening the Recaredo the king of men, he set the minds of the council is invalid, so that through all the churches of Gaul, Spain, and in Gallicia or according to the form of the Eastern Churches, the council of Constantinople, that is, one hundred and fifty bishops, the symbol of faith is to be recited. And before the Lord's prayer must be said, the voice of the people will clearly be predicated. Which were also the testimony of the true faith, is manifest and the hearts of the people are for it, and to the faith of the body of Christ, and, purified from the blood of prelibanda approach.

In addition the the Creed of the Holy Fathers is published within the record, without the filioque.

It is clear that the theology of double procession was discussed and quite probably upheld by the council, however on the evidence presented it is difficult to assert the the filioque was introduced to the Nicene Creed of Constantinople here.

Given that a major part of the council was Reccared accepting the the Catholic Faith, the the anathemas of Ephesus are clearly stated as well, it seems most improbable that this would be the council were the Filioque was inserted into the Nicene Creed.

Philip Barrington (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

Pseudo-Isidorian forgery

This article references two sources, one of which is a latin codex retelling the events. On the parent page http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/index.htm it is clearly told (in German) that this reports are known to be a forgery by so-called Pseudo-Isidor since 1895. If the second source relies on that codex too, the article should be "Not much is knows, maybe it didn't happen at all, belongs to legendary part of catholic church". Or at least a reference that everything in this article is based on a lie, but that's okay because Jesus ;) Amen fratres --178.12.116.78 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

[1]