- Status
D
Deconi
Guest
Distortive!
The point is, WHY seek GUIDANCE or QUALIFICATION from Clement, at all? Just because they were a Roman colony, does it then follow that the Bishop of Rome has automatic authority OVER their own bishop(s)??
The answer is simpler. It is because, as Paul taught them and all the ‘churches’ he founded, when and if dissension rears it’s ugliness, The Church is the bulwark of truth. Not examine Scriptures; yourselves or ask an available Apostle nearby!
R
rinnie
Guest
But here is a very very important thing. They are both right in many many things. The most important is they believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And they have the Sacraments. We all have a great Love for our Lord Jesus Christ and try to be like him as often as we can.
We believe in the teachings of the Apostles and believe in the teachings of the Church.
We both acknowledge the Sacraments and do our best to follow the ten Commandments. Now thats what is right!
We believe in the teachings of the Apostles and believe in the teachings of the Church.
We both acknowledge the Sacraments and do our best to follow the ten Commandments. Now thats what is right!
M
Mickey
Guest
J
John_Larocque
Guest
It’s interesting though. I was scanning some materials over the weekend, kind of related to the African controversy. One of them is St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who in the era of Constantine and the Council of Nicea, spoke of the rebaptism of heretics. So it looks like the Roman practice never extended as far as Jerusalem (let alone Cyprian’s Africa). To use Cyril’s language: “there is One Lord and One Baptism: none but heretics are rebaptized, since their baptism was not baptism.” And “[Simon Magus] once came to the Laver of Baptism, he was baptized but not enlightened. His body he dipped in water, but admitted not the spirit.to illuminate his heart.”
Chrismation was normally admitted after Baptism in Jerusalem. Also Cyril’s catechesis is one of the earliest examples of the Eastern Church teaching that the transformation of bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ takes place with the calling down of the Holy Spirit. Cyril’s document is one of the favourite proof-texts of Communion in the Hand “reformers” but they were focusing on the mode of reception, and not the others affirming the what Latin Theology calls the Real Presence.
Anyway, in practice, it appears the Church in Africa behaved as if it is independent. In the time of Augustine, when another Pope cited another disputed article from Nicea for his authority to interfere in African affairs, Augustine wrote to Constantinople and confirmed that it was not. (It was taken from the Council of Sardica, not recognized in the East)
And later on in the Three Chapters controversy, the first “Byzantine pope” Viglius - who was installed by Byzantium after Justinian had the previous pope deposed - was actually excommunicated by an African synod. Their reasoning - their view that the condemnation of the Three Chapters (a policy promoted by Emperor Justininian) represented a repudiation of the Council of Chalcedon. In affirming an ecumenical council of the Chuch, they excommunicated the Bishop of Rome.
Are these the actions of a church which viewed itself as a subordinate to Rome?
M
mardukm
Guest
Thank you, brother Mickey. Indeed, as our Lord himself exhorted, unity itself is an absolutely necessary witness to the central Gospel message - that Christ was indeed sent by the Father.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
Blessings to you mardukm.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother John,
Thank you for the response.
So whatever you think is proven by St. Cyril’s rejection of heretical baptism should be mitigated by the Catholic understanding (affirmed by the Ecum Council), unless you want to insist that St. Cyril opposed the Council of Nicea.
In any case, Synodal decisions of North Africa on matters of doctrine were normatively submitted to Rome for confirmation, as the African Code of 419 A.D. plainly affirmed. For example, their canon of Scripture was sent to the Roman See specifically to obatin its confirmation on the matter.
BTW, I don’t know where you got the idea that the East rejected the Council of Sardica, unless you mean the Arian heretics who rejected it.
But why would you even paint the relationship of other Churches to Rome as one of subordination? Is that the way it was in the first millenium? Is that the way it is now? Granted, the Catholic Church had to grow out of its mentality instilled during the high Middle Ages that the Latin Church was the ONLY valid Church in existence. I believe it has progressed quite well in the past century and a half.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for the response.
I don’t know what you mean by “the Roman practice.” The “Roman practice” became the universal standard after the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. In that Council, Pope St. Stephen was vindicated. The Baptism of the very group that St. Cyprian stated was invalid (the Novatians - the group that sparked the whole controversy between him and the Pope), the First Ecum Council explicitly accepted. I don’t know what you think “the Roman practice” is, but it did not accept the baptism of all heretics. Pope St. Stephen specifically enjoined the condition that the Baptism must invoke the proper names of the Trinity. And St. Cyril of Jerusalem makes note of this essential condition also in his writings. So the Church accepted Trinitarian Baptisms, which is why even the Baptism of Arians, though heretics, was specifically received. Of course, there were indeed certain heretics who did not baptize in the Three Names. Another condition seems to have been that the baptism of pneumatological heretics (i.e., Montanists et al), even though they baptized in the Three Names, was also rejected, perhaps because the HS is the effective power in Baptism, and the Lord warned that sin against the HS will not be forgiven. Also, schismatic baptism was permitted, though St. Cyprian did not - a further vindication of Pope St. Stephen.
So whatever you think is proven by St. Cyril’s rejection of heretical baptism should be mitigated by the Catholic understanding (affirmed by the Ecum Council), unless you want to insist that St. Cyril opposed the Council of Nicea.
It has always been in the power of the Church to regulate the administration of the Sacraments. Differences arose as time progressed, but what relevance is that? The early Church enjoined reception of the Eucharist much more frequently than the Eastern Churches currently does. In this, the Latin Church has retained the ancient practice. So who’s better? Answer: one group is not better than the other, because the Church has always had the authority ot regulate the administration of the Sacraments. So we should respect the developments in practice in each Church, if they were insituted by the proper authorities (i.e., the bishops).
Can you please explain the relevance of this? I thought this was settled almost 600 years ago at the Council of Florence. The belief of most, both Catholics and Orthodox, today is that the words of institution and the epiclesis are BOTH EQUALLY NECESSARY, representing one organic whole.
I don’t know if you’ve ever read St. Augustine’s account, or just read biased intepretations of the event. I don’t what these biased interpretations have told you about how “the Church of Africa behaved,” but their actions were filled with deep respect for the bishop of Rome. They didn’t complain that Rome was interfering. Instead, they were complaining that priests on their side were not heeding the decisions of their Synods and going to Rome to overturn their decisions. They were complaining against the actions and attitudes of the heretics, not against the actions and attitude of Rome. The only “complaint” they had as far as Rome was concerned was that Rome was not getting the complete information to make a proper judgment against these heretics. If you read the accounts of St. Augustine, you will discover that the North African Church wanted to put a stop to these rebellious actions. So they initiated a very respectful corresondence with Rome on the matter, and it was decided, based on the Canons of Sardica, that it was only bishops that had a right of appeal to Rome, not priests.
In any case, Synodal decisions of North Africa on matters of doctrine were normatively submitted to Rome for confirmation, as the African Code of 419 A.D. plainly affirmed. For example, their canon of Scripture was sent to the Roman See specifically to obatin its confirmation on the matter.
BTW, I don’t know where you got the idea that the East rejected the Council of Sardica, unless you mean the Arian heretics who rejected it.
So who was objectively wrong in the long run? That rationale is just about as valid as claiming that the Arians were correct for rejecting the Council of Sardica, or that St. Cyprian was correct for rejecting the baptism of all heretics and schismatics - which is not valid at all.
No. But you’re asking the wrong guy.
But why would you even paint the relationship of other Churches to Rome as one of subordination? Is that the way it was in the first millenium? Is that the way it is now? Granted, the Catholic Church had to grow out of its mentality instilled during the high Middle Ages that the Latin Church was the ONLY valid Church in existence. I believe it has progressed quite well in the past century and a half.Blessings,
Marduk
H
Harpazo
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
I quite agree. Attitudes like that are a great impediment and disservice to the work of our hierarchs to foster understanding and unity.Why don’t you use your bullying tactics somewhere else, okay?
Blessings
J
John_Larocque
Guest
I will try and explain why Cyril of Alexander’s lectures both interesting and significant.
Regarding the rebaptism controversy, there are two aspects. The date for the lectures is estimated to be about AD325, approximately 75 years after Rome instructed the Church of Africa to stop the practice of rebaptizing heretics. So either Jerusalem was never told to stop the practice, or they resisted attempts by other bishops (such as the bishop of Rome) to stop the practice. In any case, long after Cypian v. Stephen, it was still going on.
The other aspect of this that intrigued me was theological. Cyril was stating that it was possible to resist the Holy Spirit at Baptism. And that if the Holy Spirit is resisted, the baptism becomes null and void. What are the conditions under which the spirit can be resisted? Cyril doesn’t say. But the adherence of the convert to heretical notions (one would imagine, both before and after baptism) and ideas is one of them.
We already know that there are conditions under which certain sacraments in the Catholic Church can be made null and void - all one needs to do is look up the theology of marriage annulments to understand there are conditions under which the Church says that the marriage never took place.
In any case, I’m trying to look at this beyond the prism of the Novatian and the Donatist controversies and dwell on Cyril’s thinking on this.
As for the early evidence for chrismation after baptism, and the epiklesis, all that proves is that the practice or theology goes as far back as Cyril. It doesn’t mean anything more than that.
Regarding the rebaptism controversy, there are two aspects. The date for the lectures is estimated to be about AD325, approximately 75 years after Rome instructed the Church of Africa to stop the practice of rebaptizing heretics. So either Jerusalem was never told to stop the practice, or they resisted attempts by other bishops (such as the bishop of Rome) to stop the practice. In any case, long after Cypian v. Stephen, it was still going on.
The other aspect of this that intrigued me was theological. Cyril was stating that it was possible to resist the Holy Spirit at Baptism. And that if the Holy Spirit is resisted, the baptism becomes null and void. What are the conditions under which the spirit can be resisted? Cyril doesn’t say. But the adherence of the convert to heretical notions (one would imagine, both before and after baptism) and ideas is one of them.
We already know that there are conditions under which certain sacraments in the Catholic Church can be made null and void - all one needs to do is look up the theology of marriage annulments to understand there are conditions under which the Church says that the marriage never took place.
In any case, I’m trying to look at this beyond the prism of the Novatian and the Donatist controversies and dwell on Cyril’s thinking on this.
As for the early evidence for chrismation after baptism, and the epiklesis, all that proves is that the practice or theology goes as far back as Cyril. It doesn’t mean anything more than that.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
This is a debate forum.Why don’t you use your bullying tactics somewhere else, okay?
In Christ,
Andrew
Look at the topic. I think his post was a fair challenge.
Why not respond rather than whine?
H
Harpazo
Guest
I was not aware this was a debate forum. I thought it was for discussion, not bullying, but I digress.
You’ll hear no whining from me. Should you accuse me of that, you’ll have to accuse Mardukm as well. 
If you knew the background of this thread, and read other posts by Eucharisted when he interacted with Orthodox posters, you would know that he responds (like many are wont to do around these parts) by copy/pasting or linking to articles from CA. There is really no such thing as debate around here and I thought you of all people understood that.
Not really much of a debate is it when no one listens and just incessantly copy/pastes.
I would check back if I were you (as I said earlier) as to what many people (Catholic and Orthodox) discussed about the early Church. Hesychios made a rather eloquent post in respect to us having a common origin and that the “who’s first?” argument is rubbish.
In Christ,
Andrew
J
josie_L
Guest
Hi Andrew, do you take issue with copy and paste/links to articles from CA because of their content or because you don’t like copy and paste quotes/links? God bless.I was not aware this was a debate forum. I thought it was for discussion, not bullying, but I digress.
If you knew the background of this thread, and read other posts by Eucharisted when he interacted with Orthodox posters, you would know that he responds (like many are wont to do around these parts) by copy/pasting or linking to articles from CA. There is really no such thing as debate around here and I thought you of all people understood that.
Not really much of a debate is it when no one listens and just incessantly copy/pastes.
I would check back if I were you (as I said earlier) as to what many people (Catholic and Orthodox) discussed about the early Church. Hesychios made a rather eloquent post in respect to us having a common origin and that the “who’s first?” argument is rubbish.
In Christ,
Andrew
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
I like to debate, but I don’t take personally.I was not aware this was a debate forum. I thought it was for discussion, not bullying, but I digress.
If you knew the background of this thread, and read other posts by Eucharisted when he interacted with Orthodox posters, you would know that he responds (like many are wont to do around these parts) by copy/pasting or linking to articles from CA. There is really no such thing as debate around here and I thought you of all people understood that.
Not really much of a debate is it when no one listens and just incessantly copy/pastes.
I would check back if I were you (as I said earlier) as to what many people (Catholic and Orthodox) discussed about the early Church. Hesychios made a rather eloquent post in respect to us having a common origin and that the “who’s first?” argument is rubbish.
In Christ,
Andrew
However, I think the “who’s first” argument is a good argument to have if we truly seek Christian unity.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Hello Josie
I have no qualms with the copy/paste of links from CA in and of itself. But the fact that people will just post them to justify their argument without an argument or cherrypick quotes from the Fathers (I hate it when Orthodox do it, too!). I find it to be rather demeaning to the person who is the recipient of such “tactics” (if you want to call them that) because it shows they cannot take the courtesy to research and discuss, but seemingly cower behind links on the internet.
In Christ,
Andrew
J
josie_L
Guest
But it’s not for you (or anyone else) to question the reasons or motives of someone using a link (even if it is all the time) but rather deal with the content of that link and from there, discuss (I assume the link posted has some connection to the debate at hand). Have a good and blessed night, Andrew.Hello Josie
I have no qualms with the copy/paste of links from CA in and of itself. But the fact that people will just post them to justify their argument without an argument or cherrypick quotes from the Fathers (I hate it when Orthodox do it, too!). I find it to be rather demeaning to the person who is the recipient of such “tactics” (if you want to call them that) because it shows they cannot take the courtesy to research and discuss, but seemingly cower behind links on the internet.
In Christ,
Andrew
A
Arandur
Guest
I think Cyril’s idea that the Spirit can be resisted, as you put it (if that is what he was really saying; I haven’t had the time to research it for myself), is fatally flawed.
If you admit that improper disposition can negate baptism, you call ALL baptisms into question. Did he have the proper spirit for it? Did he know enough? Was there any trace of heretical thought in him at the time? What about the priest performing it? What about infants and children? It invites all sorts of controversy, such as the Donatist controversy about the validity of Sacraments administered by certain priests.
The key difference between baptism and the other Sacraments is the invocation of the Trinity, calling upon the very name of God. It is an irrevocable oath and condition. If a man swears to truth by God, even if he intends to lie, he has invoked God’s name and condemns himself if we breaks the oath. But the oath still holds. (In interesting support for this, see Hahn’s treatment of oaths and “to seven one’s self”)
So baptism irrevocably commits someone to God. We can and do violate the conditions of our baptism all the time, as we are sinners. These call for judgment of our violation of the oath, but we are still under the oath–and under the blessing and grace of it.
Consider how it works amidst the other Sacraments, as well:
Eucharist–By invoking Jesus’s own words in persona Christi, the bread and wine are transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood irrevocably. It does not depend on the righteousness of the priest, so long as the priest is properly ordained and not excommunicated. When we receive the Body and Blood, our own disposition matters–but only to judgment against us. If we receive not in the state of grace, we do not nullify the Sacrament; we commit sacrilege and invite judgment for that upon ourselves.
Reconciliation–Again by acting in persona Christi, it is by the power of Christ that we are absolved of our sins and washed clean. The defects of the priest matter not, so long as they are in proper communion and exercise of their office. Our own reception of this grace does depend on the sincerity of our own repentance, but this does not indicate that the Sacrament did not take place, only that we sin anew when we have not a contrite heart.
Confirmation–The laying on of hands imparts the gifts of the Spirit. We only reject these if we excommunicate ourselves, and even then the Sacrament is not invalidated. The grace of it is diminished or withheld until we right ourselves with the Lord, but we do not re-Confirm after readmittance of a penitent excommunicant. IIRC, the Orthodox excommunicate more routinely than those in the Latin Rite, and surely they do not re-Confirm.
Marriage–This Sacrament relies on a vow from two persons to each other in the sight of God. It is only invalid and not present if one or both of the vows were insincere. No test of knowledge of each other is required (as would seem to be a test for a heretic at Cyril’s baptism). And still, this is not an invocation directly of God upon one as baptism is. It creates a bond that CAN be broken–upon death. Whereas baptism regenerates a new life into eternity that cannot be conquered by death, only by the choice of the individual to refuse life (rejecting God).
Holy Orders–Again, a Sacrament that is not conditional upon the perfectness of the priest. It is effective but can be betrayed and become latent in grace (and provoke God’s greater judgment) if the ordained excommunicates himself, but we do not re-Ordain when that breach is healed.
Anointing of the Sick–A healing called upon from God regardless of the condition of the recipient. Typically includes Eucharist and Reconciliation.
Considering all this, I do not think it is possible to support re-baptism of heretics without tearing down ALL the Sacraments.
J
John_Larocque
Guest
Moving on from Cyril, and doing a bit of digging, it appears that the Eastern Church adopts a middle view between Firmillian/Cyprian, and that of Pope Stephen. Clarifying the waters somewhat is the view of St. Basil the Great, which is that of rebaptizing heretics but acknowledges that some have accepted schismatic baptism. By “puritans” Basil is referring to Novatians. The document is apparently circa 400AD. This tends to narrow down some of the criteria of what is, and what is, not a condition of rebaptism.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xi.html
Anyway, here is article #47 of St. Basil’s canons:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xi.html
… Unction or Chrismation is still the practice today. There doesn’t appear to be a concrete policy across Orthodox communions which baptisms are schismatic and which ones are heretical when people move over into their communion. Because of the alterations to the Nicean creed, some have placed Catholic baptisms under the category of “heretical”.
Anyway, here is article #47 of St. Basil’s canons:
Here’s essentially saying, with these groups who have a defective understanding of God, it means they require rebaptism. He also recognizes the ban in Rome against the procedure with respect to the Novatians.
M
mardukm
Guest
According to Schaff’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, internal evidence in the Lectures indicates that the Lectures were delivered about 348 A.D., which is 23 years after the Nicene Council (what is your source for the year 325?) So I have to ask again, do you suppose that when St. Cyril stated the baptism of heretics is invalid, he was deliberately opposing the Nicene Council, or do you suppose he was making his statement according to the understanding of the Nicene Council (which was the same as Rome’s)? And I must repeat that Rome did not claim that ALL heretical baptisms were valid.
Can you give a direct quote? IIRC, he doesn’t exactly say that the Holy Spirit can be resisted in baptism, but rather that if one does not come to baptism worthily, the Holy Spirit will reject you. I believe it was in the Procatechesis, and he says it in relation to the catechumen who does not worthily prepare for the reception of baptism. I don’t think it was in relation to heretical baptism.
If you can give a quote of what you’re talking about, I’ll take the time to find a quote for what I’m talking about.
Blessings
- Status