Search Results

Although a few important elements remain shrouded in mystery, the history of the filioque in the West is a relatively well documented phenomenon. Although there are a few scattered references to the relationship of Son and Spirit in the writings of the apologists, the story of filioque begins with Tertullian, as Latin theology began to link the understanding of God’s very nature (i.e., the theology) and the biblical revelation that the Holy Spirit is given to the Church by both the Father and the Son. Although the Latin fathers (e.g., Ambrose) increasingly used language that could be thought to support the filioque, it was Augustine of Hippo who first explicitly spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son, and who later became the patristic authority for the orthodoxy of the filioque. By the seventh century not only was the filioque part of the creed in many parts of the West, but also considered part of the apostolic faith.

This chapter considers a group of theologians who traveled widely and corresponded with each other. They developed a pneumatology which responded to certain anthropological concerns related to Pelagianism and certain Christological concerns related to Nestorianism. The Scythian monks exchanged letters with Fulgentius of Ruspe. This chapter argues that the Scythian monks are responsible for the Chapters of Saint Augustine, a document which was used at the Synod of Orange. Thus, this chapter closes the arguments made in the previous two chapters concerning the sources of the pneumatology used at Orange. It also shows a third set of Augustinian theologians. Fulgentius of Ruspe presents the fullest reception of St Augustine of all the theologians treated in this book. He understands Augustine’s response to multiple controversies and applies Augustine’s pneumatology to new controversies, including the Christological issues at play in 6th century Nestorianism.

This chapter reconsiders the relationship between the Vandal kings and the Nicene Church, which has often been seen as an obstacle to effective Vandal rule. The self-portrayal of Nicene bishops as martyrs suffering in an age of heretical persecution—and the self-portrayal of Hasding dynasts as pious defenders of true (Homoian) Christianity—seems to commit them to mutual antagonism. Yet both parties also had interests in compromises, which are revealed by recurrent interactions between bishops and the court at Carthage. Even as they decried heretical Vandal tyranny, Nicene bishops petitioned their rulers to improve their church’s lot, using obsequious courtly language and the appropriate bureaucratic channels to do so. Vandal kings sometimes granted these petitions; even when refused, the possibility of compromise was retained for as long as possible. The result was tacit or even explicit acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the other parties, whether as rulers or Christian authority figures.

This chapter sets the stakes for Vandal Africa’s ecclesiastical controversy. Taking its cue from the anxieties of contemporary Nicene bishops, it suggests that the Nicene and Homoian churches were not so dissimilar from one another, whether in size, personnel, language use, or ecclesiastical culture. It also presents the (surprisingly scanty) information on the careers of key Nicene clerics and argues that pseudepigraphic texts must be integrated into any analysis of this period, not least since the works of better-known figures were often transmitted under assumed names in the early Middle Ages.