Augustinian vs. Cyprianic ecclesiology

[Credo_ergo_sum]

What’s your point?

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

One could argue that those select few have humility…

 

[Dollinger]

One could argue that those select few have humility…

I don’t pretend to be part of those select few.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I don’t pretend to be part of those select few.

Then try to be one of the select few. It can’t hurt.

 

[Dollinger]

Then try to be one of the select few. It can’t hurt.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Thanks for the advice.

No problem

 

[Trebor135]

What’s your point?

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

I like to see those put their money where their mouth is who appear to make sweeping statements like (roughly), “All Latin Catholics after the Great Schism are already in hell or on the way there.” If that isn’t what you meant, please clarify.

“Will the Heterodox be Saved?” and “Patristic Consensus on Salvation for Heterodox” are links of interest on the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church in Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

That is simply begging the question. You state that both sides of a schism retain apostolic succession, therefore Augustinian ecclesiology is true. Of course, the proposition that both sides of a schism retain apostolic succession is a consequence of Augustinian ecclesiology. You cannot use a logical consequent of Augustinian ecclesiology to prove Augustinian ecclesiology, as such an argument is highly circular.

Now your two real life examples do not bear out so well. When we look at schismatic groups for which Cyprian, Firmilian and Basil were recommending rebaptism like the Cathari (by which they meant the Novatianists), they were not only guilty of schism, but of complete apostasy, because they fashioned themselves to be the true church and refused communion with anybody but themselves. With Constantinople and Moscow in the 90s, this never happened. They went into an administrative schism. With ROCOR, they were in error for leaving communion, but their culpability was questionable because of several factors, and so it seemed good to the Russians that they should be received back into communion on amicable terms through extreme economy.

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.

That is untrue. St. Basil in epistle 188 points out that while the Cathari were once judged to be in need of rebaptism by the ‘ancient authorities’ (Cyprian and Firmilian), the Asian bishops, ‘for the sake of management of the majority’, decided to accept their baptisms and receive them only by the laying on of hands. This is an excellent example of economy in receiving into the Church. He also discusses that the decision on how to receive the Encratites should be made with several factors in mind (yet another incidence of economy in receiving people into the Church). Economy is simply a liberal reading of the canons for pastoral reasons.

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.

This statement just displays how much you do not understand economy. A bishop could in theory even exercise economy in the acceptance of ordained Anglicans into the Church, accepting them by vesting. No bishop, so far, I think, would be comfortable doing such a thing. Now suppose one hundred episcopal churches in a canonical Orthodox diocese wished to become Orthodox, parishioners and all (this would be thousands of people, most likely). In this case, the bishop (likely with the approval of his brother bishops), might elect to receive them through extreme economy rather than receiving them all in the strict canonical fashion. The idea is that whatever grace was lacking at their baptism by water will be made present if they should enter the church, whether they are received by baptism, chrismation alone or even a statement of faith alone.

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.

Actually no, we wouldn’t know that. For the sake of union, we would likely refuse to speculate, and allow the Catholics who wish to believe in such a thing to continue believing in it. It is worth pointing out that your favored Augustinian ecclesiology does not present a solution to this conundrum either. Assuming that Rome was the true Church, all those who died outside of her (that would be our saints) died in a state of schism (a grave and mortal sin), and are likely destined for hell, despite possessing valid sacraments, because they in fact ate and drank condemnation upon themselves. Even from strict Augustinian ecclesiology, it seems that Rome is willing to exercise economy, so I see no difference here, other than the artificial one you are trying to make.

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.

Sounds like a whole lot of fluff. Augustinian ecclesiology is not branch theory. If what you wish to say is that salvation is accessible outside of Christ’s body (which it sounds like you are), I must first say that that completely contradicts the Augustinian ecclesiology taught by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. If you wish to say that salvation is not accessible outside of the body of Christ, then I do not see what your disagreement is with Cyprianic ecclesiology, unless you do in fact hold to the branch theory, in which case I must say that your ideas are foreign to the faith of nearly 2000 years of Christendom.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

When you write abusive remarks like this, you do a great disservice to Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[LionHeart777]

I just wanted to chime in with the “Catholic Encyclopedia’s” vindication on the view of Pope St. Stephen via snippets:

From the article on Baptism under the subheading “Rebaptism”:

In Africa and Asia Minor the custom had been introduced in the early part of the third century of rebaptizing all converts from heresy. As far as can be now ascertained, the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235…

…The pope [St. Stephen], however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.

Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas).

Source: Fanning, William. “Baptism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 25 Jun. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm.

And from the article on St. Cyprian:

…in the West to rebaptize was regarded as heretical, and Africa came into line soon after St. Cyprian. St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Vincent of Lérins are full of praise for the firmness of Stephen as befitting his place.

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Cyprian of Carthage.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 25 Jun. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm.

I hope not to offend with that last snippet there, I apologize if I do.

 

[Trebor135]

When you write abusive remarks like this, you do a great disservice to Holy Orthodoxy.

Those of us who have begun to ponder joining the Bosphorus swim team are not aided in our discernment by an attitude of triumphalism.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Dollinger,

No, theyu won’t be saved, even thru economy. This is simply a slander.

Off topic, but I couldn’t help noticing your nick …

By any chance did you select your handle in honor of the German Roman Catholic theologian and bishop Johann Döllinger ?

Thanks

 

[sasg]

This was a very interesting discussion, thank you all for the responses. Does anybody have any good references for books on ecclesiology, both from Catholic and Orthodox perspectives?

 

[marlo]

Thank you and and with your line of reasoning, your point exactly shows the weakness of the Cyprianic ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox church, if this is the case, then all bishops, priest, deacon, and all members of the catholic church should be Ordained (bishop and priest), and baptized, there will be a worldwide baptismal of over a billion members and a million of priest and a thousand of bishops, even the Pope will be baptized and re-ordained, and the salvation of the previous members will all be trashed out.

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]

Thank you and and with your line of reasoning, your point exactly shows the weakness of the Cyprianic ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox church, if this is the case, then all bishops, priest, deacon, and all members of the catholic church should be Ordained (bishop and priest), and baptized, there will be a worldwide baptismal of over a billion members and a million of priest and a thousand of bishops, even the Pope will be baptized and re-ordained, and the salvation of the previous members will all be trashed out.

Truly frightening for me it is, to ponder that Cyprianic ecclesiology might be correct.

Those in my family and social circle include Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, and irreligious. By contrast, I know only a few Eastern Orthodox. I suppose that, if I join their Church, I really should get to know them very well. That way, I’ll have perhaps one or two others from my time on earth who I can worship God with in the heavenly liturgy (assuming I myself make it there).

 

[marlo]

Exactly my point, if both churches preserved its ancient faith, rubrics, it retains its apostolic succession therefore is a true church. The point is the Eastern Orthodox is only familiar with the byzantine rite and such deviation from it is such not Orthodoxy such the case of the Western Orthodox, at least that what i get from many.

That is simply begging the question. You state that both sides of a schism retain apostolic succession, therefore Augustinian ecclesiology is true. Of course, the proposition that both sides of a schism retain apostolic succession is a consequence of Augustinian ecclesiology. You cannot use a logical consequent of Augustinian ecclesiology to prove Augustinian ecclesiology, as such an argument is highly circular.

Whether your history is true or not and even though, A Church is not in communion with another church or its isolated, as long as it retain its apostolic teaching, it will have grace, that is the point of the church, that is the point of universality “where the bishop is there is the catholic church”, as long as the Bishop, teaching and conferring of sacraments is based on the ancient faith that that church is truly a Church of Christ, another situation, even if the bishop is a heretic and application of sacraments was not in contrast according to the accepted faith and procedure of the church, then the sacrament is still valid.

Now your two real life examples do not bear out so well. When we look at schismatic groups for which Cyprian, Firmilian and Basil were recommending rebaptism like the Cathari (by which they meant the Novatianists), they were not only guilty of schism, but of complete apostasy, because they fashioned themselves to be the true church and refused communion with anybody but themselves. With Constantinople and Moscow in the 90s, this never happened. They went into an administrative schism. With ROCOR, they were in error for leaving communion, but their culpability was questionable because of several factors, and so it seemed good to the Russians that they should be received back into communion on amicable terms through extreme economy.

Well it is because their view of Apostolic succession is based on what the Catholic’s believed and is teaching now, this situation will not happen in the eastern orthodox world today. There will be an outrage.

That is untrue. St. Basil in epistle 188 points out that while the Cathari were once judged to be in need of rebaptism by the ‘ancient authorities’ (Cyprian and Firmilian), the Asian bishops, ‘for the sake of management of the majority’, decided to accept their baptisms and receive them only by the laying on of hands. This is an excellent example of economy in receiving into the Church. He also discusses that the decision on how to receive the Encratites should be made with several factors in mind (yet another incidence of economy in receiving people into the Church). Economy is simply a liberal reading of the canons for pastoral reasons.

Orthodox will accept Anglican’s today by economy? please sir, be realistic, it has been proven today that the Anglican’s understanding of priesthood is not the ancient understanding of Catholic priesthood because “They ordained women in the priesthood and even ordained women as Bishops” by the simple justification of women’s role in the first century. Do not use the Anglicans as this is hurting your case.

This statement just displays how much you do not understand economy. A bishop could in theory even exercise economy in the acceptance of ordained Anglicans into the Church, accepting them by vesting. No bishop, so far, I think, would be comfortable doing such a thing. Now suppose one hundred episcopal churches in a canonical Orthodox diocese wished to become Orthodox, parishioners and all (this would be thousands of people, most likely). In this case, the bishop (likely with the approval of his brother bishops), might elect to receive them through extreme economy rather than receiving them all in the strict canonical fashion. The idea is that whatever grace was lacking at their baptism by water will be made present if they should enter the church, whether they are received by baptism, chrismation alone or even a statement of faith alone.

Of course the Eastern Orthodox wouldn’t know, but in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox already has valid apostolic succession and therefore has grace, so by union, there is no economy thing.

Actually no, we wouldn’t know that. For the sake of union, we would likely refuse to speculate, and allow the Catholics who wish to believe in such a thing to continue believing in it. It is worth pointing out that your favored Augustinian ecclesiology does not present a solution to this conundrum either. Assuming that Rome was the true Church, all those who died outside of her (that would be our saints) died in a state of schism (a grave and mortal sin), and are likely destined for hell, despite possessing valid sacraments, because they in fact ate and drank condemnation upon themselves. Even from strict Augustinian ecclesiology, it seems that Rome is willing to exercise economy, so I see no difference here, other than the artificial one you are trying to make.

Have you ever heard of the the story in Rome of the baby boy that was baptized by a catholic servant (not priest) in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as the servant thought that baby was dying and was accepted as a valid baptism and even the Pope was involved. Can you say that this is salvation outside of the church because the servant do not have authority to confer baptism? then you do not know the Augustinian ecclessiology.

Sounds like a whole lot of fluff. Augustinian ecclesiology is not branch theory. If what you wish to say is that salvation is accessible outside of Christ’s body (which it sounds like you are), I must first say that that completely contradicts the Augustinian ecclesiology taught by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. If you wish to say that salvation is not accessible outside of the body of Christ, then I do not see what your disagreement is with Cyprianic ecclesiology, unless you do in fact hold to the branch theory, in which case I must say that your ideas are foreign to the faith of nearly 2000 years of Christendom.

 

[marlo]

This is exactly the summation of the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the cyprianic ecclesiology, although most would prefer not to tell it because its rude, but i heard this quite a lot.

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.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Exactly my point, if both churches preserved its ancient faith, rubrics, it retains its apostolic succession therefore is a true church. The point is the Eastern Orthodox is only familiar with the byzantine rite and such deviation from it is such not Orthodoxy such the case of the Western Orthodox, at least that what i get from many.

I don’t understand what your point is or even what you’re trying to say here.

Whether your history is true or not and even though, A Church is not in communion with another church or its isolated, as long as it retain its apostolic teaching, it will have grace, that is the point of the church, that is the point of universality “where the bishop is there is the catholic church”, as long as the Bishop, teaching and conferring of sacraments is based on the ancient faith that that church is truly a Church of Christ, another situation, even if the bishop is a heretic and application of sacraments was not in contrast according to the accepted faith and procedure of the church, then the sacrament is still valid.

Yes, that is your Church’s understanding of things. I gave my Church’s understanding of the events that allows for genuine reconciliation without admitting that sacraments can exist outside of the Church. What is your point?

Well it is because their view of Apostolic succession is based on what the Catholic’s believed and is teaching now, this situation will not happen in the eastern orthodox world today. There will be an outrage.

No, it isn’t. The Asian bishops received the Katharoi through laying on of hands not because they believed their baptisms to be valid but simply for the ‘management of the majority’, as St. Basil put it. As for the modern Orthodox, you are gravely misinformed. Such exercises of oikonomia are still quite common. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, for example, will receive Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and several others through ‘extreme oikonomia’, foregoing rebaptism and instead only chrismating converts, but this in no way implies that any sacraments performed by those groups are with grace, as this is done out of economy.

Orthodox will accept Anglican’s today by economy? please sir, be realistic, it has been proven today that the Anglican’s understanding of priesthood is not the ancient understanding of Catholic priesthood because “They ordained women in the priesthood and even ordained women as Bishops” by the simple justification of women’s role in the first century. Do not use the Anglicans as this is hurting your case.

Where did I say that? I said it would be possible, but that no bishop would feel comfortable doing such a thing. Obviously it would be impossible to receive a female Anglican priest through vesting as she cannot be a priest, but for a male, it would be possible but absolutely in no way desirable nor would doing such a thing be a sign that Anglican ordinations are understood to have grace. A reception by oikonomia is done for pastoral reasons and does not signify that sacraments performed outside of the one sheepfold of Christ have grace.

Of course the Eastern Orthodox wouldn’t know, but in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox already has valid apostolic succession and therefore has grace, so by union, there is no economy thing.

No, it seems that you are misinformed about Augustinian ecclesiology. While traditional Augustinian ecclesiology admits that sacraments outside of the church have grace, those who perform and partake of them are in a state of sin, and so they partake of the sacraments to their condemnation, not to their salvation. This is how Pope Eugene IV could, without contradicting Augustinian ecclesiology, write in his bull Cantate Domino, promulgated at Florence, that:The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.This is in fact the historic faith of your Church, that while those in schism retain valid sacraments, they are in fact hellbound unless they convert to Catholicism before death, and it is completely consistent with Augustinian ecclesiology.

Have you ever heard of the the story in Rome of the baby boy that was baptized by a catholic servant (not priest) in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as the servant thought that baby was dying and was accepted as a valid baptism and even the Pope was involved. Can you say that this is salvation outside of the church because the servant do not have authority to confer baptism? then you do not know the Augustinian ecclessiology.

Let me make that question simpler. All I want to know is if you believe that there is salvation outside of the Church (judging by your response, I take that to be a no), and whether the Church is made up only of those in union with the Roman Pontiff, or if all who have valid sacraments are in the Church (which is a form of branch theory).

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is exactly the summation of the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the cyprianic ecclesiology, although most would prefer not to tell it because its rude, but i heard this quite a lot.

That is also the summation of Augustinian ecclesiology, as understood by Pope Eugene IV and Pope Boniface VIII. See my quotation above from Cantate Domino or read Boniface’s bull Unam Sanctam, where he states in no unclear terms:Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[marlo]

God told Abraham that his children will be more than the stars in the heaven and sands on the shore, in Revelations, the great multitude of God’s servant that no one can count came from different races, languages , countries. I do not see that being fulfilled if we used the Cyprianic ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox, nor any protestant claim that they are the true church. Only the Catholic church obviously can fulfill this prophecy.

Truly frightening for me it is, to ponder that Cyprianic ecclesiology might be correct.

Those in my family and social circle include Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, and irreligious. By contrast, I know only a few Eastern Orthodox. I suppose that, if I join their Church, I really should get to know them very well. That way, I’ll have perhaps one or two others from my time on earth who I can worship God with in the heavenly liturgy (assuming I myself make it there).

 

[Cavaradossi]

God told Abraham that his children will be more than the stars in the heaven and sands on the shore, in Revelations, the great multitude of God’s servant that no one can count came from different races, languages , countries. I do not see that being fulfilled if we used the Cyprianic ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox.

Now you are just engaging in dishonest polemics. Your teach still teaches Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. You can even find it in the CCC, although it is not interpreted there as it has been interpreted throughout history. You are heading into dangerous territory, where you are almost denying a de fide teaching of your Church.