Augustinian vs. Cyprianic ecclesiology

[Trebor135]

The official Catholic view of ecclesiology is Augustinian: i.e., clergy can receive ordination and conduct sacraments despite being in schism.

By contrast, the general Orthodox view of ecclesiology is Cyprianic: i.e., clergy cannot receive ordination and conduct sacraments by being in schism.

Which perspective is more faithful to the doctrine and practice of the Early Church?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The official Catholic view of ecclesiology is Augustinian: i.e., clergy can receive ordination and conduct sacraments despite being in schism.

By contrast, the general Orthodox view of ecclesiology is Cyprianic: i.e., clergy cannot receive ordination and conduct sacraments by being in schism.

Which perspective is more faithful to the doctrine and practice of the Early Church?

Well, on one hand, Cyprian’s view was endorsed by several important and early figures, like St. Basil of Caesarea and Firmilian of Caesarea, as being consistent with the tradition they received. And St. Basil’s own endorsement of Firmilian’s view on baptism (which is related to the ‘Cyprianic’ view of ecclesiology) in his epistle 188 was approved at Trullo as being canonical. It is certainly hard simply to dismiss Cyprian’s ecclesiology, although I often see that being done. On the other hand, I am not familiar with how much witness there is to first millennium bishops believing that Augustinian ecclesiology is apostolic in origin. Perhaps someone else could shine light on that.

 

[Trebor135]

Well, on one hand, Cyprian’s view was endorsed by several important and early figures, like St. Basil of Caesarea and Firmilian of Caesarea, as being consistent with the tradition they received.

Interesting.

I’ve seen Catholic apologists argue that Pope St. Stephen was ultimately vindicated against St. Cyprian in their dispute over the rebaptism of heretics, though.

And St. Basil’s own endorsement of Firmilian’s view on baptism (which is related to the ‘Cyprianic’ view of ecclesiology) in his epistle 188 was approved at Trullo as being canonical.

Isn’t Trullo considered by both East and West to be an extention of the Sixth Ecumenical Council? How can the Catholic Church then still hold to Augustinian ecclesiology?

It is certainly hard simply to dismiss Cyprian’s ecclesiology,

Indeed.

although I often see that being done.

By whom?

On the other hand, I am not familiar with how much witness there is to first millennium bishops believing that Augustinian ecclesiology is apostolic in origin.

If St. Basil, Firmilian, et al regarded Cyprianic ecclesiology as the apostolic Tradition, that would seem dubious.

Perhaps someone else could shine light on that.

I hope so too.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’ve seen Catholic apologists argue that Pope St. Stephen was ultimately vindicated against St. Cyprian in their dispute over the rebaptism of heretics, though.

Right, which is why I find Basil’s epistle 188 and its acceptance by the council of Trullo to be interesting in light of that claim. Read what Basil has to say about Firmilian and Cyprian, for example in that epistle:The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ;, by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church’s true baptism.Far from having any knowledge that St. Stephen of Rome was vindicated against Cyprian and Firmilian, Basil calls them the ancient authorities. I suppose one could accuse Basil of being biased in favor of Firmilian, since Firmilian was one of his predecessors who sat in the see of Caesarea, but that accusation couldn’t hold true for the many bishops assembled at Trullo.

Isn’t Trullo considered by both East and West to be an extention of the Sixth Ecumenical Council? How can the Catholic Church then still hold to Augustinian ecclesiology?

If I am not mistaken, the Council of Trullo was never well-received in the West. I suppose one could say that there were an awkward three or four centuries before the schism when the East considered the canons of Trullo to have binding authority while the West did not. That also might explain why the West holds to an Augustinian understanding of baptism (that true baptism exists outside of the Church, so long as the form is valid), while the East does not.

By whom?

The apologists you mention, who make the claim that St. Stephen’s view on rebaptism was vindicated, without taking into account the constant affirmations of Cyprian’s view on rebaptism which were made in the East.

I hope so too.

Yes, I am rather interested to learn from some knowledgeable poster how the West’s ecclesiology developed.

 

[smad0142]

Too bad there is no way to tag people, like on Facebook. There are several very intelligent Eastern Catholics on here whose opinions I would love to hear.

 

[smad0142]

And for what it is worth here is a random blog post on the matter that may be helpful

laudochristum.blogspot.com/2009/01/cyprianic-vs-augustinian.html

 

[marlo]

The Cyprianic ecclesiology does not always happen in the Orthodox world, such the case of **Saint Nectarios of Aegina, **who was removed from his Bishopric position and became a layman, he ordained two deaconess as a layman, in the Orthodox ecclesiology this would have been an invalid ordination. Long after he was dead, his ecclesiastical order was restored. The Orthodox leaders were wrong. it seems that the apostolic succession did not go away as swiftly as his dismissal, yet it remained in him as the Orthodox Church was wrong in judgement. In essence it became the Augustinian Ecclesiology

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Cyprianic ecclesiology does not always happen in the Orthodox world, such the case of **Saint Nectarios of Aegina, **who was removed from his Bishopric position and became a layman, he ordained two deaconess as a layman, in the Orthodox ecclesiology this would have been an invalid ordination. Long after he was dead, his ecclesiastical order was restored. The Orthodox leaders were wrong. it seems that the apostolic succession did not go away as swiftly as his dismissal, yet it remained in him as the Orthodox Church was wrong in judgement. In essence it became the Augustinian Ecclesiology

That is not really correct, because of the unjust nature of his removal from his episcopal office. In a very loose way, his case would resemble the Meletian schism, although he did not contest his removal from office, probably due to his humility. Just because Eastern ecclesiology takes the harsh view that those in schism lose all grace, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a certain economy after a schism is resolved, typically upon the death of all rival claimants to be the bishop of a particular see, as we can see first hand with the case of the Meletian schism where we do not claim that one lineage or another was without grace.

 

[marlo]

Exactly my point, the Orthodox position of claiming that the lineage does not have grace will never be justifiable because the people who declare it might be in error, this is the weakness of the Cyprianic ecclesiology, Even though that the Orthodox church has stripped a person of its ecclesiastical duty but the Holy Spirit acts within that person through his ordination of Apostolic succession then this person still has a valid bishopric hence it became the Augustinian ecclesiology.

That is not really correct, because of the unjust nature of his removal from his episcopal office. In a very loose way, his case would resemble the Meletian schism, although he did not contest his removal from office, probably due to his humility. Just because Eastern ecclesiology takes the harsh view that those in schism lose all grace, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a certain economy after a schism is resolved, typically upon the death of all rival claimants to be the bishop of a particular see, as we can see first hand with the case of the Meletian schism where we do not claim that one lineage or another was without grace.

 

[Dollinger]

Exactly my point, the Orthodox position of claiming that the lineage does not have grace will never be justifiable because the people who declare it might be in error, this is the weakness of the Cyprianic ecclesiology, Even though that the Orthodox church has stripped a person of its ecclesiastical duty but the Holy Spirit acts within that person through his ordination of Apostolic succession then this person still has a valid bishopric hence it became the Augustinian ecclesiology.

No, you take the exception for the rule.

If I am not mistaken, the Council of Trullo was never well-received in the West. I suppose one could say that there were an awkward three or four centuries before the schism when the East considered the canons of Trullo to have binding authority while the West did not. That also might explain why the West holds to an Augustinian understanding of baptism (that true baptism exists outside of the Church, so long as the form is valid), while the East does not.

Yes, but that’s a major western contradiction:

NPNF2, Vol 15, p357, contains the following quotes from Hefele (A Roman Catholic scholar):

“Nearly a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly recognized all of the Trullan decrees in his letter to Terasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod: “All the Holy Six Synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a lamb being pointed to by the precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.” Here the reference is unmistakably to the Trullan canon LXXXII.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Exactly my point, the Orthodox position of claiming that the lineage does not have grace will never be justifiable because the people who declare it might be in error, this is the weakness of the Cyprianic ecclesiology, Even though that the Orthodox church has stripped a person of its ecclesiastical duty but the Holy Spirit acts within that person through his ordination of Apostolic succession then this person still has a valid bishopric hence it became the Augustinian ecclesiology.

No, like I said, there is an economy after a schism is healed. If a person, however, leaves the fold completely and begins to cause schisms in many sees, as Novatian did, then we admit that his lineage is without grace. This is why it was common practice to receive Novatianists into communion through baptism. There is a difference in say the Photian and Meletian schisms (also the case of Nectarios) and the schism of Novatianists or of the Pneumatomachoi. In the former cases, these were local events which were eventually resolved. In the latter cases, these events affected a great many sees, never being healed on account of heresy or of obstinance.

One could be equally critical of Augustinian ecclesiology, which leads to an unsafe indifferentism or leads to the unsafe assumption that a bishop does in fact have grace, when her may not have grace at all.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

The official Catholic view of ecclesiology is Augustinian: i.e., clergy can receive ordination and conduct sacraments despite being in schism.

By contrast, the general Orthodox view of ecclesiology is Cyprianic: i.e., clergy cannot receive ordination and conduct sacraments by being in schism.

Which perspective is more faithful to the doctrine and practice of the Early Church?

I believe the terms “Augustinian ecclesiology” and “Cyprianic ecclesiology” are simply polemic catchphrases. The fact is, Catholic ecclesiology is not what the polemicists think it is, and I (personally) don’t think “Cyprianic ecclesiology” can be used to generalize Orthodox ecclesiology.

Polemicists think that “Augustinian ecclesiology” means that anyone who has valid apostolic succession will always have valid apostolic succession. That is not true. It is not simply the form and essence of a Sacrament per se which determines validity for a group, but also the doctrines that such groups hold. Correct teaching in basic Trinitarian doctrines and moral teachings are a must for apostolic succession to be valid. In this sense, Catholic ecclesiology is also “Cyprianic.”

Polemicists think that “Cyprianic ecclesiology” means that those in schism NEVER have valid Sacraments. But AFAIK, this is not what the EO hold (much less, the OO). For example, the relatively recent reunion of ROCOR and the ROC revealed that though both groups were in formal schism, neither thought the other lost the Grace of the Sacraments. Though there are those who probably explain it away by saying oikonomia was applied to accept the Sacraments of the other group, most EO with whom I’ve spoken have not expressed that view regarding the reunion. In this sense, Orthodox ecclesiology is also “Augustinian.”

I would appreciate Cavaradossi’s (name removed by moderator)ut on my previous paragraph.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[twf]

Dear brother Trebor,

I believe the terms “Augustinian ecclesiology” and “Cyprianic ecclesiology” are simply polemic catchphrases. The fact is, Catholic ecclesiology is not what the polemicists think it is, and I (personally) don’t think “Cyprianic ecclesiology” can be used to generalize Orthodox ecclesiology.

Polemicists think that “Augustinian ecclesiology” means that anyone who has valid apostolic succession will always have valid apostolic succession. That is not true. It is not simply the form and essence of a Sacrament per se which determines validity for a group, but also the doctrines that such groups hold. Correct teaching in basic Trinitarian doctrines and moral teachings are a must for apostolic succession to be valid. In this sense, Catholic ecclesiology is also “Cyprianic.”

Polemicists think that “Cyprianic ecclesiology” means that those in schism NEVER have valid Sacraments. But AFAIK, this is not what the EO hold (much less, the OO). For example, the relatively recent reunion of ROCOR and the ROC revealed that though both groups were in formal schism, neither thought the other lost the Grace of the Sacraments. Though there are those who probably explain it away by saying oikonomia was applied to accept the Sacraments of the other group, most EO with whom I’ve spoken have not expressed that view regarding the reunion. In this sense, Orthodox ecclesiology is also “Augustinian.”

I would appreciate Cavaradossi’s (name removed by moderator)ut on my previous paragraph.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well said brother. There is a reason why the Catholic Church denies that the Anglicans have apostolic succession… yes there has been a continuity from the time of the Reformation down to the present day in terms of the physical laying on of hands…but the Church has determined that early Anglican Reform theology invalidated and destroyed their succession and apostolic authority.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

Well said brother. There is a reason why the Catholic Church denies that the Anglicans have apostolic succession… yes there has been a continuity from the time of the Reformation down to the present day in terms of the physical laying on of hands…but the Church has determined that early Anglican Reform theology invalidated and destroyed their succession and apostolic authority.

Not just the Anglicans, but also most of the “Old Catholics.” The Catholic Church denies the validity of all “Old Catholics” with the singular exception of the PNCC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Trebor135]

Not just the Anglicans, but also most of the “Old Catholics.” The Catholic Church denies the validity of all “Old Catholics” with the singular exception of the PNCC.

What doctrinal differences are held to cause a group unattached to the Catholic Church to lose apostolic succession? How have most Old Catholics sabotaged themselves in this manner?

 

[twf]

Dear brother Tyler,

Not just the Anglicans, but also most of the “Old Catholics.” The Catholic Church denies the validity of all “Old Catholics” with the singular exception of the PNCC.

Blessings,
Marduk

On the other hand, I’ve heard it argued that the Lutheran Church of Sweden may have retained apostolic succession (alone among the “Protestant churches”)… but I don’t think there’s even been a definitive ruling from the Church on this matter. Regardless, as they now ordain women (to the best of my knowledge), any valid succession that they may have had will soon be “contaminated”.

 

[marlo]

This exactly the weakness of the Cyprianic ecclesiology, look at the schism between the Church of Constantinople and Church of Moscow, there was a schism, or by the Russian Church abroad and the Church of Mosow. By cyprianic ecclesiology, one will not have not grace, but it does not hold true, because the apostolic succession is still valid between the two churches. This is the Augustinian ecclesiology it is based on Apostolic succession and the teaching is based on the received faith of the Apostles.

The so called “economy” after schism is just an “excuse” of the Eastern Orthodox to give explanation on how the validity of the sacraments came back, after the healing.

Let us make it clear, the grace disappear when the separated party changes the primary doctrines including the intent, form and material received from the apostolic churches, that is why there will never be an “economy” for the non Trinitarian protestant and with the Anglican churches who changed the understanding of the priesthood even if they returned to the original form but the intent is different.

By EO reasoning, if by tomorrow the Catholic Church (which does not have grace by EO definition) suddenly throws out its identity and began adapting the EO faith, then by this so called “economy” all Catholics from 1054 to 2012 is saved only by economy and throws out the true meaning of the sacraments, which includes the physical communion and participation of sacraments.

In reality the Augustinian ecclesiology show the complete salvation and true importance of the Church as Christ body, rather than the economy excuse of the Eastern Orthodox.

No, like I said, there is an economy after a schism is healed. If a person, however, leaves the fold completely and begins to cause schisms in many sees, as Novatian did, then we admit that his lineage is without grace. This is why it was common practice to receive Novatianists into communion through baptism. There is a difference in say the Photian and Meletian schisms (also the case of Nectarios) and the schism of Novatianists or of the Pneumatomachoi. In the former cases, these were local events which were eventually resolved. In the latter cases, these events affected a great many sees, never being healed on account of heresy or of obstinance.

One could be equally critical of Augustinian ecclesiology, which leads to an unsafe indifferentism or leads to the unsafe assumption that a bishop does in fact have grace, when her may not have grace at all.

 

[Dollinger]

By EO reasoning, **if by tomorrow the Catholic Church (which does not have grace by EO definition) suddenly throws out its identity and began adapting the EO faith, then by this so called “economy” all Catholics from 1054 to 2012 is saved only by economy **and throws out the true meaning of the sacraments, which includes the physical communion and participation of sacraments.

No, theyu won’t be saved, even thru economy. And you are cut off from the whole orthodox catholic church, not in a mediate separation with only one patriarchate.

 

[Trebor135]

No, theyu won’t be saved, even thru economy. And you are cut off from the whole orthodox catholic church, not in a mediate separation with only one patriarchate.

I hope you’re contributing as much as you can to support Orthodox missionary work in Latin America, the Philippines, and other predominantly Catholic areas. If they’re no better off than idolatrous pagans, over a billion people that bear the name of Christian are in serious trouble…

 

[Dollinger]

I hope you’re contributing as much as you can to support Orthodox missionary work in Latin America, the Philippines, and other predominantly Catholic areas. If they’re no better off than idolatrous pagans, over a billion people that bear the name of Christian are in serious trouble…

What’s your point?

Thomas Aquinas: “There is a select few who are saved.” (Summa Theologica 1, 23, 7)