Will the real St. Cyprian please stand up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnVIII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnVIII

Guest
In several letters that Saint Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen, Saint Cyprian called Pope Stephen the successor to St. Peter from whom all sacerdotal unity proceeded. But I really don’t think Saint Cyprian was telling Pope Stephen something that he didn’t already know. Rather, he was reiterating that fact to encourage the Pope not to act in such a way that the unity of the Church be destroyed! The issue was the baptism performed by heretics. Was this valid baptism or was it not? Saint Cyprian said absolutely not. Saint Cyprian said that to acknowledge the baptism by heretics is to say that their other churches that are true churches other than the Catholic Church; another way he put it was to say that there are other rocks other than the Rock of St. Peter. Saint Cyprian said that when Pope Stephen recognize the baptism performed by heretics he is no longer acting as the successor to St. Peter, as this causes disunity in the Church.

I think that there is no doubt that Saint Cyprian continued in this view, that was contrary to the view of Pope Stephen, all the way on to his death. Is it possible that Saint Cyprian was right, of course that would make Pope Stephen wrong! And yet if Saint Cyprian was not right, and he died in opposition to the Pope how then can he be a Saint?

The Orthodox Church acknowledges that the view of Saint Cyprian is correct. A Canon made by Saint Cyprian together with his Synod in Carthage that expresses Cyprian’s views was accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Likewise The Canons of the Holy Apostles that were edited by Pope St. Clement the First were accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. These Canons of the Holy Apostles have several canons about baptism that seem to agree completely with Saint Cyprian. How then is it possible that Saint Cyprian can not be right on this issue; and if he is not right how then can he be a Saint?
 
I would like to add the first Canon of St. Basil the Great; which explains the apparent contradiction between the baptism performed by heretics. I think a careful reading of this canon will show that even Saint Basil the great agreed with Saint Cyprian at least in principle.

Canon I

So far as concerns the question of the Cathari, though it had been said previously you did well to mention the subject, since it is necessary to follow the custom obtaining in each particular country because of their treating baptism differently. After having at that time threshed out the matter concerning these men, it seems to me that there is nothing further to say in regard to the Pepuzeni. According I was mazed to find that the matter had appealed to great Dionysius in spite of his being canonical. For the older authorities had judged that baptism acceptable which disregarded no point of the faith. Hence they have called some of them heresies, and others schisms, and others begin Parasynagogues (i.e. conventicles). Heresies is the same name applied to those who have broken entirely and have become alienated from the faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and redeemable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves. Parasynagogues is the name applied to gatherings held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops, and those held by uneducated laities. As, for instance, when one has been arraigned for misdemeanor held aloft from liturgy and refused to submit to the Canons, but laid claim to the presidency and liturgy for himself, and some other persons departed with him, leaving the catholic Church - that is a parasynagogue. Heresies, on the other hand, are such as those of the Manichees and Valentinians and Marcionists, and that of these Pepuzeni themselves; for the question is one involving a difference of faith in God itself. It therefore seems best to those dealt the subject in the beginning to rule that the attitude of heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church; as for those, on the other hand, who were in parasynagogues, if they have been improved by considerable repentance and are willing to return, they are to be emitted again into the Church, so that often even the easy part in orders with the insubordinates, provided that they manifest regret, may be admitted again to the same rank. As touching the Pepuzeni, therefore, it is obvious that they are heretics; for they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, having illicitly and impudently brazend Montanus and Priscilla with the appellation of the Paraclete (or Comforter). They deserve to be condemned, therefore, whether it be that they are want to deified themselves or others as human beings, or that they have roundly insulted the Holy Spirit by comparing It to human beings; according they have thus liable to everlasting condemnation, because the fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable (Matt. 12:31). …
 
… What reason, then, is therefore proving their baptism, which they are baptizing in (the name of) the Father, the Son, and Montanus and Priscilla? For persons have not been baptized to have been baptized in names that have not been handed down to by the traditional teaching; so that if this fact has escaped the notice of the great Dionysius, it is nevertheless incumbent upon us to guard against imitating the mistake. For the absurdity is self-evident and pernicious to all who have any share at all of ability to reason even in a small way. As for the Cathari, they too are to be classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities - those, I mean, who form the party of Cyprian and our own Firmilian - to classed them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who succeeded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Therefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church. In as much, however, as it seemed best to some of those in the regions of Asia, for the sake of extraordinary concession (or “economy”) to the many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted. As for the case of Encratites, however, it behooves us to look upon it as a crime, since though to make themselves unacceptable to the Church they have attempted to anticipate the situation by advocating a baptism of their own; hence they themselves have run counter to their own custom. I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as regards to them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of them appear to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition actually prevent men from being saved because of their being to indolent in regard to baptism. But if they keep our baptism, let this not deter us. For we are not obliged to return thanks to them, but to serve the Canons with exactitude. But let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed by the faithful, that is to say, and thus be admitted to the Mysteries. I am aware that we have admitted to the chief seat of bishops the brethren in the party of Zonius and Satorinus who used to belong to that class. So that we are no longer able to distinguish those who were attached to that order from the Church, as much as they say that as a result of the acceptance of the bishops we have ipso facto made it a canonical obligation to allow them communion.
 
Several things to point out from the letter:

St. Basil says schismatics are not to be regarded as being outside the Church; St. Cyprian classed heretics AND schismatics in the same group.

St. Basil agrees with traditional, orthodox Catholicism on the matter.

St. Basil informs us that not baptizing into the proper names of the Trinity is a condition for not accepting heretical baptism. Baptizing in the Names of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was the very condition given by Pope St. Stephen for accepting the baptism of the Novatians (or Cathari, as they are called in the fourth century by St. Basil and the Council of Nicea). Contrary to popular non-Catholic opinion, Pope St. Stephen did not accept heretical baptisms with no qualification.

St. Basil informs us that the baptism of the Novatians (Cathari) is to be accepted. Pope St. Stephen taught that the baptism of the Novatians is to be accepted. The First Ecumenical Council taught that the baptism of the Novatians is to be accepted. St. Cyril did not.

St. Basil informs us that the baptism of the Novatians (Cathari) is to be accepted and permitted to enter the Church only by chrismation. This is the practice of the Catholic Church - she accepts the Baptism of those who have baptized in the Names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (barring an egregious heresy concerning the Persons of the Trinity - which is why the Catholic Church does not accept Mormon baptism). This is also the practice of the OO. The EO, on the other hand, do not accept the baptism of Catholics, yet permit many Catholics to enter the the EOC only with chrismation.

Whose practice and belief is more in line with St. Basil’s?

I will have more to post after the Christmas season (if I remember).

Everyone, be warned that we are still under a ban to discuss a certain Saint’s qualifications for sainthood. So please do not respond to that portion of brother JohnVIII’s post regarding St, Cyprian until after the moratorium (see the stickie on the matter).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Everyone, be warned that we are still under a ban to discuss a certain Saint’s qualifications for sainthood. So please do not respond to that portion of brother JohnVIII’s post regarding St, Cyprian until after the moratorium (see the stickie on the matter).

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Opps! Sorry about that. I withdrawn my question with regard to St. Cyprian’s sainthood. :o
 
As the moratorium on discussion of Saints has expired, I would be interested to hear others’ views on brother JohnVIII’s question about why St. Cyprian is considered a Saint in the Catholic Church. Specifically, what proof is there that he died in Catholic communion?

My personal understanding is that at the time of the debate on the matter, the issue of rebaptism was not a DOCTRINAL issue, but rather a disciplinary one. Which accounts for the historic veneration of the Catholic Church of St. Cyprian, even though the Ecumenical Councils sided with Pope St. Stephen on the matter.

But what about NOW? Today, it seems we all recognize that the issue indeed has a great DOCTRINAL component and is not merely disciplinary.

Any other comments?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Specifically, what proof is there that he died in Catholic communion?
Click to expand...
:confused: Do you have proof otherwise? :confused:

He has been prayed to in the canon of the Mass with the Apostles and Martyrs for over a thousand years in the Latin Church. That doesn’t tell you something? :confused:

Yes, he was wrong once. That doesn’t separate him from the Church :rolleyes:
 
As far as the Sainthood question goes, there’s no evidence that he had a break with the Catholic Communion even though he taught erroneously in this issue (as Mardukm points out, the Church agreed with St. Stephen, not with St. Cyprian) and inadvertantly supported/sparked the Donatist heresy.

St. Cyprian, despite his issues with the Church (which at the time were disciplinary, not doctrinal per se), died a Martyr for the Faith under Valetian, and so is a Saint. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
 
My brothers in Christ.

I have no doubt of St. Cyprian’s status as a Saint in Catholicism. I am asking for the benefit of brother JohnVIII who has expressed incredulity that he is our Saint despite the fact that the early Church supported St. Stephen instead of St. Cyprian on the whole issue of rebaptism.

I think we have given sufficient answers. Perhaps he will chime it at some point and express any further opinions on the matter.

Blessings
 
As far as the Sainthood question goes, there’s no evidence that he had a break with the Catholic Communion even though he taught erroneously in this issue (as Mardukm points out, the Church agreed with St. Stephen, not with St. Cyprian) and inadvertantly supported/sparked the Donatist heresy.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. The Donatist schism centered on the Traditor Bishops who were forgiven and readmitted to their sees. The Donatists (who were led by a traditor in St. Cyprian’s lifetime) thought traditors should never be forgiven and readmitted to their sees, therefore the need for new Bishops and the schism ensued.

Traditors for those unfamiliar with the term were those that turned over the Scriptures or other Sacred objects to the Romans during the time of Persecution.

So St. Cyprian had no part whatsoever with sparking or inadvertently supporting that schism (or any other heresy.) 🙂
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I don’t think so. The Donatist schism centered on the Traditor Bishops who were forgiven and readmitted to their sees. The Donatists (who were led by a traditor in St. Cyprian’s lifetime) thought traditors should never be forgiven and readmitted to their sees, therefore the need for new Bishops and the schism ensued.

Traditors for those unfamiliar with the term were those that turned over the Scriptures or other Sacred objects to the Romans during the time of Persecution.

So St. Cyprian had no part whatsoever with sparking or inadvertently supporting that schism (or any other heresy.) 🙂
Click to expand...
The Donatist schism began after the death of St. Cyprian. Perhaps you are thinking of the Novatians?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I don’t think so. The Donatist schism centered on the Traditor Bishops who were forgiven and readmitted to their sees. The Donatists (who were led by a traditor in St. Cyprian’s lifetime) thought traditors should never be forgiven and readmitted to their sees, therefore the need for new Bishops and the schism ensued.

Traditors for those unfamiliar with the term were those that turned over the Scriptures or other Sacred objects to the Romans during the time of Persecution.

So St. Cyprian had no part whatsoever with sparking or inadvertently supporting that schism (or any other heresy.) 🙂
Click to expand...
The Donatists came after St. Cyprian. Donatus Magnus was judged for re-Baptizing clergy in the 4th century, over 50 years after the death of St. Cyprian. Even the Novatians (the “spiritual” predecessors of the Donatists) were contemporaries of St. Cyprian.

Peace and God bless!
 
mardukm said:
This is the practice of the Catholic Church - she accepts the Baptism of those who have baptized in the Names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (barring an egregious heresy concerning the Persons of the Trinity - which is why the Catholic Church does not accept Mormon baptism).
Click to expand...
But doesn’t the Catholic Church accept a baptism performed even by an atheist (usually in dire situations)?
 
Spirithound said:
But doesn’t the Catholic Church accept a baptism performed even by an atheist (usually in dire situations)?
Click to expand...
I just re-read your question and finally understood your point.:banghead:

Why would an athiest’s baptism be acceptable if a Mormon’s baptism is UNacceptable?
  1. If a Mormon in a dire situation were to do baptism on a person desiring to be Catholic as the Catholic Church intends, it would also be accepted.
  2. If that same Mormon peformed baptism as Mormonism intends, it would not be accepted.
Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I just re-read your question and finally understood your point.:banghead:

Why would an athiest’s baptism be acceptable if a Mormon’s baptism is UNacceptable?
  1. If a Mormon in a dire situation were to do baptism on a person desiring to be Catholic as the Catholic Church intends, it would also be accepted.
  2. If that same Mormon peformed baptism as Mormonism intends, it would not be accepted.
Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Mormons do not (normally) personify the Holy Spirit; even when they invoke the HS, they do not do so as a part of the Hypostatic union, but as a subject/servant of the Father. Likewise, the Son is not Part of God, but only Son of God, and a God.

Additionally, they don’t baptize until the age of reason (age 8), so the intent of the baptized matters… if they have been “properly” catechized, the baptism they seek is incongruous with proper trinitarian belief

Therefore, they are presumed to be incapable of valid baptism, because the baptized doesn’t believe, nor does the celebrant, in the Trinitarian God.

Also, they only require single immersion.

Lots of little defects that result in conditional baptism when they convert.
 
mardukm said:
As the moratorium on discussion of Saints has expired, I would be interested to hear others’ views on brother JohnVIII’s question about why St. Cyprian is considered a Saint in the Catholic Church. Specifically, what proof is there that he died in Catholic communion?

Any other comments?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Is being in Communion absolutely mandatory to be saint? St. Isaac the Syrian, for instance, was Assyrian Church of the East. So apparently that requirement gets waved if your famous and admired enough.
 
Addai said:
Is being in Communion absolutely mandatory to be saint? St. Isaac the Syrian, for instance, was Assyrian Church of the East. So apparently that requirement gets waved if your famous and admired enough.
Click to expand...
It does not seem so. I mean, it is a Catholic teaching that the declaration of sainthood is an exercise of infallibility, but it certainly does not apply to a declaration of who is condemned (See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4644941&postcount=37)). So just because the Catholic Church does NOT declare or HAS not declared someone is a saint is no reflection on whether that person is actually a saint or not. Does that make sense?

Regardless, part of it is Tradition. In the early Church, sainthood was determined by local cultus. Sometimes that cultus spread and, sometimes it remained local. When schisms occurred, the cultus was unaffected. But I don’t think the distribution of the cultus (i.e., whether they were famous enough) itself was sufficient to ensure its continuity and ubiquity, You hit the nail on the head - it was the element of admiration. It seems that the sheer holiness and orthodoxy of a saint in (at least) most respects, along with the strength (how widespread it was) of the cultus, were most decisive factors in determining the continuity and ubiquity of a certain cultus, and could transcend schisms. In retrospect, we could view this as a passive exercise of the Church’s infallibility in the declaration of saints.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Aramis said:
Mormons do not (normally) personify the Holy Spirit; even when they invoke the HS, they do not do so as a part of the Hypostatic union, but as a subject/servant of the Father. Likewise, the Son is not Part of God, but only Son of God, and a God.

Additionally, they don’t baptize until the age of reason (age 8), so the intent of the baptized matters… if they have been “properly” catechized, the baptism they seek is incongruous with proper trinitarian belief

Therefore, they are presumed to be incapable of valid baptism, because the baptized doesn’t believe, nor does the celebrant, in the Trinitarian God.

Also, they only require single immersion.

Lots of little defects that result in conditional baptism when they convert.
Click to expand...
Thank you, brother Aramis. Once again you come to my rescue.👍 I simply assumed brother AmbroseSJ already understood the Mormon conception behind baptism. Your explanation was great. I have always thought Mormonism is nothing more than a mishmash of ancient heresies. Nothing Christian about it. Aside from their heretical understanding of the Son and Holy Spirit, they also have a heretical view of the Father - they believe he had a beginning, and has a body.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top