An excerpt from “Moscow and Crete: Post-Patristic
Ecclesiological Identity,” by Fr. Jiří Ján, published in Orthodox Tradition,
Vol. XXXVIII (2021), No. 3, pp. 19-36.
The ancient Church was acquainted
with two ways of approaching the issue of the boundaries of the Church with
regard to the place of heretical and schismatic communities that had “broken
off” from Her, that is, how the nature of heresy and of schism are ecclesiologically
defined. The first way was worked out by Saint Cyprian of Carthage in the third
century and the second way was worked out by Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
a century later. Despite the fact that these two ecclesiological views were developed
in the same spiritual climate of the Church of North Africa, they are
nevertheless contradictory and are to be found precisely at the root of the
subsequent divergence that developed between the Eastern Orthodox Church and
the Roman Catholic and Protestant West with regard to the doctrine of the
Church.
a. The
Ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of Carthage
In the middle of the third
century, there emerged in the West the well-known dispute between Saint Stephen
I of Rome († 257) and Saint Cyprian of Carthage. The essence of the contention
between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Carthage centered on the question
of the validity of the baptism of heretics and schismatics. The Church was
called to decide whether those who had been baptized in heresy or schism would
need to be Baptized upon entering the Church. The Church of North Africa
received them through the Mystery of Holy Baptism, whereas the Church of Rome
received them solely through the Mystery of Holy Chrismation. The dispute
escalated when Saint Stephen demanded that the Roman practice be implemented in
all of the Local Orthodox Churches.
In an epistle to Bishop Jubaianus
of Mauretania (fl. 3rd cent.), Saint Cyprian stresses that the issue was
by no means a novel one, since the problem had already “been examined of old
with all exactitude and diligence by those who came before us.” [35] In
particular, Saint Cyprian refers to the Holy Synod of Carthage (220), which
ruled on the invalidity of the baptism of heretics and schismatics. Thus, the
Orthodox Christians of North Africa were not introducing innovations, as they
were so accused, but were simply adhering to “the steadfastness [of the Canons]
of the Catholic Church,” [36] in accordance with which “[n]o one can be
Baptized outside the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which is one, and is found
in the Catholic Church alone.” [37]
Nevertheless, as a genuine Father
and first Teacher of the Orthodox Church in the West, Saint Cyprian does not
confine himself only to referring to Tradition, and Synodal Tradition at that;
rather, inspired by God, he transfers the dispute from a pastoral and practical
level to a theological level. Precisely herein lies the greatest and most
essential contribution of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, who, as a possessor of the
primacy of truth and of the charism of theology, offers to the Body of the
Church, at a critical historical juncture, a complete theological elucidation
and clarification of a pastoral practice that, in the conscience of the Church,
constituted part of ecclesiastical tradition. In order to resolve the pastoral
question of the validity of the baptism of heretics and schismatics, Saint
Cyprian deemed it absolutely necessary to treat this question as a matter of
ecclesiology. [38] In other words, whoever maintains that Bishop Novatian
of Rome (ca. 200–ca. 258), a schismatic Hierarch, is able “to
Baptize and to sanctify” [39] must first demonstrate that Novatian “is in the
Church.” [40] In this way, Saint Cyprian transfers the center of the
point of contention from the level of an ecclesiastical custom to the
level of an ecclesiological issue of the boundaries and unity of the
Church.
The fundamental concern of the
theological thinking of Saint Cyprian is indisputably “the Mystery of Unity,”
[41] which exists on multiple levels. The foundation and source of this
multilevel unity is the unity of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. [42]
This unity “comes from above; it is from Heaven, from the Father,” [43] and
becomes the wellspring and cause of other levels of unity: the unity of the
Church, the unity of the Hierarchical office, the unity among the Faithful, and
also—and this is very important for the matter at hand—the unity of the
Mysteries. [44] Beginning with the multilateral Mystery of Unity, Saint
Cyprian formulates a clear theological principle, which, as an expression of
the self-consciousness of the Church, is at the basis of the solution to the
question of the validity of the baptism of heretics and schismatics: “[B]aptism
and the Church cannot in any way be separated and detached from one another.”
[45] In order to highlight the unbreakable bond between the Church and Baptism,
Saint Cyprian speaks of “true and ecclesiastical Baptism” [46] and of
“ecclesiastical Grace.” [47] According to Saint Cyprian, it is indisputably
only within the realm of the Church that a person can “be born of water and of
the Spirit” [48] and become a son of God by Grace: “He cannot have God as his
Father, who does not have the Church as his mother.” [49]
Preservation and confession of
this multilateral Mystery of Unity in its entirety is a precondition for
life and salvation: “He who does not preserve this unity does not
preserve the law of God, does not preserve the Faith of the Father and
the Son, does not preserve life and salvation.” [50] Saint Cyprian
explains that this is due to the character of the unity of the Church,
which, proceeding as it does from the Triune Unity, cannot be ruptured.
The only thing that can possibly happen is for one part to be severed
from the unity, an event which inevitably entails “loss of life and the
essence of salvation” [51] for the part that has been cut off. [52]
***
Saint Cyprian of Carthage, in
accordance with the tradition that Saint Irenæus of Lyons (ca. 125–202)
brought from Asia Minor and placed at the foundation of Western theology,
understood salvation first and foremost as victory over death and the
acquisition of immortality and incorruptibility.53 On the day of Pentecost, the
Church received from Christ, in the Holy Spirit, the fullness of His victorious
strength. [54] Only the Church has the power to render man immortal, since only
She has access to the “wellspring and stream of living water.” [55] It is
precisely within this context that one must understand the statement of Saint
Cyprian that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” [56] This unity of the
Church, which we would call “organic” in nature, simultaneously determines the
boundaries of the Church. According to Saint Cyprian, the Church unequivocally
has boundaries and is surrounded by “walls,” [57] and only “within these walls”
[58] does there exist “the Grace of salvific Baptism.” [59] And since the
Church is One and has Her boundaries, it is not possible to exist
simultaneously inside of Her and outside of Her. [60] Saint Cyprian likens
the Church to an “[e]nclosed garden and a sealed fountain,” [61] a phrase he
borrows from Holy Scripture, [62] and one of the responsibilities of the
Hierarchs is to preserve and to protect “the boundaries of the living fountains”
[63] of the Church by means of knowledge of the Mystery of Unity.
Ecclesiastical Tradition, as
Saint Cyprian received and experienced it, comprises, inter alia, the following
Rule of Faith: “It has been handed down to us that there is one God, one
Christ, one hope, one faith, one Church, and one Baptism[...]. [64] Whoever
departs from this unity will of necessity find himself among the heretics.”
[65] Whosoever separates himself from the unity of the Church, be he a heretic
or a schismatic, passes over into a realm that Saint Cyprian calls in his
epistles “extra ecclesiam.” [66] The basic characteristic of this realm
is that it lies under the dominion of death: “It is manifest that all those who
are not inside the Church of Christ are counted among the dead, and that it is
not possible for one who is not himself alive to give life to others[...].”
[67] Citing the “authority of the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition,” [68]
Saint Cyprian asserts, in the Holy Spirit, that outside of the Church there is
no access “to ecclesiastical and salvific Grace.” [69]
Saint Hilarion of Vereya
(1886–1929) superbly summarizes the teaching of Saint Cyprian of Carthage
regarding the nature of the realm extra Ecclesiam:
The Church is
like an oasis of Grace surrounded by a completely barren desert. Outside the
Church, we are without Grace, without the Holy Spirit, and this applies equally
to idolaters, heretics, and schismatics. All are equally bereft of Grace, since
they are outside the Church, and we should Baptize all of them alike, if they
wish to enter the Church. [70]
This is precisely the theological
basis on which is founded the well-known Canon of the Holy Synod of Carthage,
under the Presidency of Saint Cyprian, in 256: “[D]ecreeing this now, which we
have always maintained strongly and surely, that no one can be Baptized outside
the Catholic Church, there being but one Baptism, which exists in the Catholic
Church alone.” [71]
b. The
OEcumenical Validity and Authority of the Ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of
Carthage
Before we present the
ecclesiology of Saint Augustine of Hippo during the Donatist controversy, we
deem it expedient to refer, if only briefly, to the interpretations that
periodically appear in theological research, which raise doubts, without
substantive documentation, and maintain that the teaching of Saint Cyprian of
Carthage regarding the Church supposedly does not express, define, and reveal
the self-consciousness of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or at
least that his ecclesiology has putatively been superseded.
This perception of the restricted
validity of the Canon of the Holy Synod of Carthage, which supposedly expressed
only the local tradition of North Africa, is based, inter alia, on an arbitrary
interpretation of a commentary by the Holy Fathers on the Second Canon of the
Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod, which ascribes universal validity to the
decision of the Holy Synod of Carthage under the Presidency of Saint Cyprian.
But we set our
seal likewise upon all the other sacred Canons[...] and, moreover, the Canon
promulgated by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr,
and by the Synod under him, which held sway only in the country of the
aforesaid Prelates, according to the custom handed down to them[...]. [72]
As a case in point, Metropolitan
Paulos (Menebisoglou) of Sweden and All Scandinavia, in his treatise on the
Canons of the Orthodox Church, takes as his starting point an elucidation of
the word “only,” [73] so as to proceed to an unsubstantiated and completely
subjective assessment, according to which the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod
did “not accept that Canon as a Canon for the entire Church, but rather as a
Canon of the Church of Africa.” [74] Likewise, Bishop Kyrillos (Katerelos) of
Krene, a contemporary exponent of baptismal theology among the Orthodox
Ecumenists and a university professor, is of the opinion that the views of
Saint Cyprian possessed only “local validity” [75] and “were not adopted by the
Church.” [76]
***
It is noteworthy that Saint
Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1749–1809), as a genuine Patristic interpreter of the
Divine and Sacred Canons, does not encounter any difficulty in interpreting
this Synodal commentary: the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod “ratified [...the
Canon of the Holy Synod of Carthage], and from being merely a Canon of a local
and partial Synod, it has now become a Canon of an OEcumenical Synod.” [77] As
for the commentary whereby the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod “reserved the
present Canon apart,” [78] Saint Nikodemos maintains that the Synod “did this
by way of oeconomy and condescension, and not according to exactitude.” [79]
However, continues Saint Nikodemos, “the Sixth OEcumenical Synod, in its Second
Canon, ratified it[...]. Once it ratified it, it confirmed it still further and
did not abrogate it.” [80]
The thinking of the Holy Fathers
of the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod is perfectly clear and leaves no room
for doubt. By the decision to invest the Canon of the Holy Synod of Carthage
with universal validity, it is manifestly affirmed that the Holy Fathers
accepted the ecclesiological teaching of Saint Cyprian of Carthage as an
expression of the self-consciousness and experience of the entire Church.
Through the explanatory word “only,” [81] the Holy Fathers validate the
subsequent decision of the Church to use oeconomy with regard to those who are
in schism or heresy, so that they may be accepted, when the Church deems it so
necessary, without the Mystery of Holy Baptism.
***
Historical and theological
research proves conclusively that the fundamental ecclesiological principles of
Saint Cyprian of Carthage constitute an integral part of the Rule of Faith (regula
fidei) of the Catholic Orthodox Church, and not only that of the Local
Orthodox Church of North Africa. Metropolitan Iōannēs (Zēzioulas) of Pergamon,
in his well-known historical study of the ecclesiology of the first three
centuries, clearly shows that “[a] basic presupposition of Cyprian’s position
is the coincidence between the canonical boundaries of the Church and
her essential boundaries,” [82] which also expressed the Faith and
Tradition of all of the Local Orthodox Churches of the third century. A careful
examination of the history of the Church cannot but confirm this view.
Saint Firmilian of Casarea (ca.
200–ca. 269), expressing the Apostolic Tradition of his Local
Orthodox Church, was in complete agreement with Saint Cyprian of Carthage,
since, in contradistinction to Saint Stephen I of Rome, he unconditionally
adopted the conclusions of the Holy Synod of Carthage, for they were
formulated, as he writes, “in accordance with the canon of truth and the wisdom
of Christ.” [83] In his epistle to Saint Cyprian, Saint Firmilian emphasizes
that this view of Baptism is that “which was handed down from the beginning by
Christ and the Apostles” [84] to the Churches of Asia Minor. He adds that this
tradition was confirmed by the Holy Synod of Iconium (ca. 230–235),
which was convened owing to the doubt in certain minds regarding the validity
of the baptism of the Montanists. The decision of this Local Synod is crystal
clear: “[E]very baptism is altogether to be rejected which is performed outside
of the Church.” [85] Basing himself on these ecclesiological principles in
relation to those of Latin North African theology, Saint Firmilian affirms that
heretics, being cut off from the Church, are deprived of “power and
Grace,” [86] that is, alienated from “spiritual and deifying sanctity.”
[87] Hence, being separated from the Church, they are not able to “enact
anything holy or spiritual.” [88]
One century later, his successor
in the See of the Church of Casarea, Saint Basil the Great (ca. 329–379),
in his First Canon, bases himself entirely on the Rule of Faith that existed in
the Church from the outset regarding the validity of baptisms outside of the
Church. Referring to Saints Cyprian and Firmilian, Saint Basil elaborates on
the reason why heretics and schismatics cannot Baptize:
The beginning of
the separation came about through schism, and those who apostatized from the
Church no longer had on them the Grace of the Holy Spirit. For the impartation
thereof ceased with the rupture of the continuity[...]. In breaking away, they
became laymen, and thus they had no authority either to Baptize or to Ordain,
since they no longer had the power to confer on others the Grace of the Holy
Spirit from which they themselves had fallen. [89]
As regards the Church of
Alexandria, the same understanding of the invalidity of the rites of heretics
is attested to by Saint Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–ca. 215),
by Saint Dionysios of Alexandria (ca. 190–264), and by Saint Athanasios
the Great (296–373). According to Saint Hippolytos of Rome (ca. 170–ca.
236), the same practice was also observed in Rome under Saint Kallistos I
of Rome († 222).90 Likewise, this order also held sway during the third century
in Syria, as attested to by the Forty-Sixth, Forty-Seventh, Forty-Eighth,
Fiftieth, and Sixty-Eighth Apostolic Canons. The Forty-Sixth Apostolic Canon,
in fact, advocates the deposition of those who have accepted the baptism or the
eucharistic sacrifice of heretics, and the Forty-Seventh Apostolic Canon
prescribes the deposition of those who refuse to Baptize heretics.
This unshakable historical and
canonical evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Rule of Faith
regarding the invalidity of extra-ecclesiastical rites constituted an integral
part of the Apostolic Tradition of the Local Orthodox Churches duringthe third
century. The Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod, with its decision to ratify the
Canon of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, the Apostolic Canons, and the Canons of
Saint Basil the Great, bestowed oecumenical validity on this regula fidei,
which thenceforth has constituted an organic part of the criterion of
Orthodoxy.
***
Apart from the foregoing views,
which completely substantiate the canonical authority of the ecclesiology of
Saint Cyprian of Carthage, it would be useful to expound a bit further on this
thorny issue. Another interpretation, which one frequently encounters among
proponents of the ecclesiocidal baptismal theology, attempts to convince
us that, beginning in the fourth century, the Church abandoned the
ecclesiological teaching of Saint Cyprian. Thus, the Seventh Canon of the
Second Holy OEcumenical Synod and the Ninety-Fifth Canon of the Quinisext Holy
OEcumenical Synod established three ways of receiving those joining themselves
to Orthodoxy. This pastoral practice, according to the arbitrary, erroneous,
and utterly anti-Patristic interpretation of the Orthodox Ecumenists,
supposedly indicates that the Church, convening an OEcumenical Synod, decided
to accept the existence of Baptism outside of Her canonical boundaries.
Archbishop Hierōnymos i of Athens
and All Greece (1905–1988), a prominent professor of canon law, however, in his
extensive treatise on ecclesiastical oeconomy, completely accepts the
“oecumenical validity of the First Canon of the Synod convened in Carthage
under Saint Cyprian,” [91] and is entirely categorical on this matter. The
question of the validity of extra-ecclesiastical rites must be approached from
two different perspectives, namely, the validity of the rites of heretics who
return to Orthodoxy is one thing, and the validity of the rites of those who
remain in heresy—that is, the intrinsic validity of the rites of
heretics—is another. [92] The conclusion of his historical, canonical, and
dogmatic study is absolutely clear:
There is no
Sacred Canon, no canonical prescription—nor can the age-old history of the
Church offer even one example—according to which mysteries celebrated by the
heterodox were officially recognized by Her as valid in and of themselves[...].
[93]
The potential acceptance of the
validity of extra-ecclesiastical rites inevitably leads, in his opinion, to the
“overturning of a dogma most fundamental for the Church.” [94]
Another prominent professor of
dogmatic theology, Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Kōnstantinidēs) of Ephesus
(1921–2006), arrives at a similar conclusion, whereby he also accepts the
universal validity of the Canon of Saint Cyprian of Carthage [95] and precludes
the possibility of interpreting the act of receiving heretics into the
Church by oeconomy, without the Mystery of Holy Baptism, as a rejection of the
ecclesiological teaching of Saint Cyprian; that is, he rejects the recognition
of Mysteries outside of the Orthodox Church.
The Mysteries
are the expression, the proclamation, and participation in the being of the
Church […]. Such being the case, anything acting as a “mystery” outside of the
aforementioned “ecclesiastical” boundaries is not a Mystery and is not
recognized as a true and salvific Mystery […]. This means that, according to
exactitude, the only true and valid Mysteries are those of the Orthodox Church,
which is identical to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church […]. [96]
c. The
Ecclesiology of Saint Augustine of Hippo
As we mentioned earlier, the
second ecclesiological approach to the nature of heresy and schism was
elaborated by Saint Augustine of Hippo in the context of his dispute with the
Donatists. His ecclesiological thinking, developed about the year 400 in his
work Seven Books on Baptism Against the Donatists (De Baptismo
contra Donatistas libri septem) literally constitutes a rupture, not
only with the Eastern theology of the Holy Synods and the Holy Fathers, but
also with pre-Augustinian Western theology. In order to understand the
ecclesiological thinking of Saint Augustine, it is of vital importance to take
into consideration that Saint Augustine did not possess adequate historical
knowledge of the development of the significant ecclesiastical crisis regarding
the validity of the baptism of heretics.
During the first two centuries of
Christianity, the term “heretic” referred primarily to Gnostics, whose teaching
was so different from that of the Church that there was no doubt that they were
not Christians and that they had to be received by the Church like the pagans,
that is, by the Mystery of Holy Baptism. Circumstances changed, however, at the
end of the third century with the emergence of the heresy of Montanism, which
did not differ from the Church with regard to dogma. The Church was thus faced
with a serious practical and pastoral problem: How would She receive those
who had been baptized in Montanism and subsequently asked to be joined
to the Church? The resolution of this problem was bound up with the first
historical Synods, one of which was convened in Carthage under Bishop
Agrippinos of Carthage (fl. 3rd cent.) in 220 and the other two in Asia
Minor, the Synod of Iconium and the Synod of Synnada, held between 230 and 235.
These three Synods decided in concord that those joining the Church from
Montanism must be received by Baptism. Later, under the Presidency of Saint
Cyprian, three more Synods took place in Carthage (in the autumn of 255, in the
spring of 256, and in September 256), which confirmed the invalidity of the
baptism of heretics and schismatics.
A serious ecclesiastical crisis
was provoked by Saint Stephen I when he ascended the Throne of Rome in 254. It
should be noted that the dispute did not arise because Saint Stephen, following
local custom, received heretics and schismatics into the Church only by means
of the Mystery of Holy Chrismation, but because he demanded the implementation
of the local Roman practice in the Local Orthodox Churches of Africa and of
Asia Minor, which were not in the least inclined to submit to such
anti-ecclesiastical and autocratic demands. The response of Saint Stephen was
to disavow them. Essentially, only his Martyric death in 257 saved him from
reaping the bitter fruits of his arrogant behavior and of being himself cut off
from the Church. In a letter to Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Saint Firmilian of
Cæsarea writes that the Pope of Rome, by this action of his, “makes himself an
apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity.” [97]
***
It has been established that
Saint Augustine’s treatment of this issue was based on an interpretation of
Church history that was aberrant in many ways. He mistakenly believed that the
Apostolic Tradition kept by the Universal Church prescribed that
heretics and schismatics should not be Baptized and that the first to “corrupt”
[98] this Apostolic Tradition was Bishop Agrippinos, at the Holy Synod of
Carthage in 220. According to Saint Augustine, when the question arose again
some thirty years later as to whether “remission of sins and man’s spiritual
regeneration” [99] could take place among heretics, Saint Cyprian, together
with “some few” [100] likewise misguided Hierarchs—it should be noted
that thirty-one Hierarchs took part in the First Synod of Carthage in 255,
seventy-one Hierarchs in the Second Synod of Carthage in 256, and eighty-seven
Hierarchs in the Third Synod of Carthage in 256—since they did not understand
how to defend the ecclesiastical custom of not re=Baptizing heretics, followed
Bishop Agrippinos and “devised something new.” [101]
The great esteem in which he held
the person of Saint Cyprian notwithstanding, Saint Augustine was firmly
convinced that the latter was mistaken in this matter. In his opinion, Saint
Cyprian had “imperfect insight into the hidden mystery of the Sacrament.” [102]
This “imperfect insight” [103] led him, “contrary to the rule of truth,” [104]
to compel heretics and schismatics to be Baptized anew. A careful study of
Saint Augustine’s treatise De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem
leaves no room for doubt: it is not only a confutation of
Donatism, but simultaneously a detailed rebuttal of the ecclesiology of
Saint Cyprian of Carthage.
The first and fundamental
principle set forth by Saint Augustine in his rebuttal of the Donatists
essentially presupposes the complete disapprobation of the long-held and
Synodally-sanctioned ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian. Whereas Saint
Cyprian bases himself on the indivisible ontological unity between Church and
Baptism, Saint Augustine cuts Baptism off from the Church, so as to link
it directly with Christ as its primary minister. In this way, the ground was
laid for a different understanding of the Church, according to which Baptism
is accepted as existing “outside the communion of the Church.” [105]
The second principle of
the ecclesiological thinking of Saint Augustine, likewise revolutionary, lies
in the distinction he ventures to make between “the Mystery of Baptism” [106]
and Grace itself, which he also defines as being salvation, [107] “the
remission of sins,” [108] or the gift of the Holy Spirit. [109] In other words,
it is one thing to have Baptism and another thing to have avail of it: [110] in
heresy and schism, Baptism certainly exists, but without fruit, to no avail,
and instead of salvation, it works to condemnation; [111] only by union with
the Church is it possible for baptism received outside of the Church to bear
fruit, that is, to become “for the remission of sins and sanctification of
life.” [112]
As we can see, Saint Augustine of
Hippo innovates radically, introducing a hitherto unknown distinction between
the validity of Baptism and the efficacy of Baptism. Moreover,
when he attempts to explain how it is possible for Baptism to be valid, but at
the same time to be of no avail, he resorts to rather peculiar reasoning:
“[A]t the moment of the celebration of the Mystery, the sins of the one being
Baptized are indeed remitted, yet afterward, they return immediately to him as
a consequence of his adherence to heresy[...].” [113] According to Saint
Augustine, the primary deficiency in the ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian lies
precisely in his failure to ascertain and elaborate on this basic
distinction. Hence, Saint Cyprian was supposedly not in a position to
understand that it is possible for Baptism to exist outside of the
Church, in heresy and schism. [114]
***
In order, however, to complete
our exposition of the ecclesiology of Saint Augustine of Hippo, with regard to
its principles, we must relate the following very interesting points. As we
have said, in his work De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem, Saint
Augustine simultaneously rejected both the Donatists and Saint Cyprian of
Carthage. The Donatists maintained that a Baptism is invalid if the Priest who
performed it had committed a mortal sin; Saint Cyprian taught that Baptism is
invalid only if the Priest is cut off from the Church. To these positions of
the Donatists and of Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustine responded that the
validity of Baptism does not depend on either the holiness of the Priest
or on his unity with the Church; thus a Baptism can be lawfully
accomplished just as much by “unrighteous and impious persons” [115] and a
murderer as by a “heretic or schismatic.” [116]
Thus, Saint Augustine placed
dogma and morality on the same level (a move with significant consequences
for Western Christianity); that is, he equated, with regard to their
relationship to the Church, heretics and Her sinful members. Among those
who have the Holy Mysteries, but without Divine Grace and to no
avail, are included not only heretics and schismatics, but also all of
the members of the Church who live contrary to the commandments of Christ.
[117] In this way, Saint Augustine arrived at the complete relativization of
the boundaries of the Church, as we see from the following statement
of his: “For in that unspeakable foreknowledge of God, many who seem to
be without are in reality within, and many who seem to be within yet
really are without.” [118] Whether someone is inside or outside of the
Church thus depends on the condition of his heart. [119]
***
This ecclesiology, expressed in
such a novel way, clearly constituted a great rupture with the
theological thinking both of the Latin Fathers and of the Greek Fathers of the
Church, and indisputably forms part of the basis of today’s Ecumenical
Movement. Tragically for the further development of Western Christianity,
subsequent generations of Latin theologians did not heed the exhortation that
Saint Augustine of Hippo addressed to the readers of his works: “Hold fast
whatever truth you have been able to grasp, and attribute it to the Catholic
Church. Reject what is false and pardon me who am but a man.” [120]
Thus, instead of being assessed
in accordance with the words of Saint Vincent of Lérins († ca. 450),
“what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all,” [121] the theology of
Saint Augustine was established, especially by Scholasticism, as virtually the
sole source and criterion for the formulation and development of Western
theology. Later, in the Middle Ages, Western theology, following in the
footsteps of Saint Augustine, departed yet further from the consensus Patrum.
At the Council of Trent (1546–1563), Papism fell to the extreme point of anathematizing
the pre-Augustinian ecclesiology expressed by Saint Cyprian of Carthage and
other venerable Fathers, and sanctioned by Local Synods and the Quinisext Holy
OEcumenical Synod:
If anyone says
that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church
does, is not true baptism: let him be anathema. [122]
NOTES
35. Epistola lxxiii.1 (Sacrorum conciliorum nova et
amplissima collectio, Vol. 1, col. 969A).
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid. “Nemo possit baptizari extra ecclesiæ
catholicæ baptismum qui unus est, et in sola catholica ecclesia reperitur.”
38. V. Epistola lxix.5 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1142A). “[N]on habitans[...] in Ecclesia Dei, in qua non nisi
concordes atque unanimes habitant[...].”
39. Epistola lxix.3 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1140B).
40. Ibid.
41. Epistola lxxiii.10 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1116B). “[S]acramentum unitatis.”
42. V. Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ vi (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. iv, col. 504A).
43. Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ vii (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. iv, col. 505A). “[S]uperiore parte venientem, id est de
coelo et a Patre.”
44. V. Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ v (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. iv, cols. 501AB–502AB).
45. Epistola lxxiii.25 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1126B). “[C]um separari a se et dividi omnino non possint baptisma
et Ecclesia.”
46. Epistola lxxiii.9 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1115A). “[L]egitimum et ecclesiasticum Baptismum.”
47. Epistola lxxiii.15 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1119A). “[G]ratiam ecclesiasticam.”
48. St. John 3:5.
49. Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ vi (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. iv, col. 503A). “Habere jam non potest Deum patrem, qui Ecclesiam non
habet matrem.”
50. Ibid. (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iv, col.
504A). “Hanc unitatem qui non tenet, Dei legem non tenet, non tenet Patris
et Filii fidem, vitam non tenet et salutem.”
51. Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ xxiii (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. iv, col. 517BC).
52. V. ibid. “Deus unus est, et Christus unus, et
una Ecclesia ejus, et fides una, et plebs una in solidam corporis unitatem
concordiæ glutino copulata. Scindi unitas non potest, nec corpus unum discidio
compaginis separari, divulsis laceratione visceribus, in frustra discerpi.
Quidquid a matrice discesserit, seorsum vivere et spirare non poterit,
substantiam salutis amittit.”
53. V. Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ ii (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. iv, col. 496A).
54. V. Epistola lxxiii.11 (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. iii, col. 1116B). “Hæc est una quæ tenet et possidet omnem sponsi sui
et domini potestatem.”
55. Ibid. “[F]ons et fluvius aquæ vitalis.”
56. Epistola lxxiii.21 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1123B). “[S]alus extra Ecclesiam non est.”
57. Epistola lxxiii.10 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1116A).
58. Ibid. “[I]ntra muros.”
59. Ibid. “Baptismi gratiam salutaris.”
60. V. Epistola lxix.3 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1140B). “[U]na est, quæ una et intus esse et foris non potest.”
61. Epistola lxxiv.11 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1136A). “Hortus conclusus[...] fons signatus.”
62. V. Song of Songs 4:12 (lxx).
63. Epistola lxxiii.11 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1116B). “[T]erminos vitalium fontium.”
64. V. Ephesians 4:4–6.
65. Epistola lxxiv.11 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1136A). “Traditum est enim nobis quod sit unus Deus, et Christus
unus, et una spes, et fides una, et una Ecclesia, et baptisma unum[...]qua
Unitate quisquis discesserit, cum hæreticis necesse est inveniatur[...].”
66. Epistola lxxiii.2 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1111A).
67. Epistola lxxi.1 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1105A). “Manifestum est autem eos qui non sunt in Ecclesia
Christi, inter mortuos computari, nec posse ab eo vivificari alterum qui ipse
non vivat[...].”
68. Epistola lxxiii.15 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1119A). “[A]d evangelicam auctoritatem atque ad apostolicam
traditionem.”
69. Ibid. “[A]d gratiam ecclesiasticam et
salutarem.”
70. Hieromarytr Hilarion (Troitsky), Творенія, Vol. 1:
Очеркі із історіі догмата о церкві (Moscow, Russia: Izdanie Sretenskogo
Monastirya, 2004), p. 304.
71. Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, ed. G.
Ralles and M. Potles, Vol. Three (Athens, Greece: Ek tēs Typographias G.
Chartophylakos, 1853), p. 3.
72. Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, ed. G.
Ralles and M. Potles, Vol. Two (Athens, Greece: Ek tēs Typographias G.
Chartophylakos, 1852), p. 309.
73. Ibid.
74. Metropolitan Paulos Menebisoglou, Ἱστορικὴ εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς
τοὺς Kανόνας τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας (Stockholm, Sweden: 1990), p. 625.
75. Kyrillos of Abydos, “Eμπιστεύομαι την Eκκλησία” ⟨www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/8579-abudou-kurillos-empi-steuomai-tin-ekklisia⟩.
76. Ibid. For a well-documented refutation of this
view, see Protopresbyter Anastasios K. Nkotsopoulos, “Ὁ οἰκουμενικοῦ κύρους
Kανόνας τοῦ Ἁγίου Kυπριανοῦ καὶ τὰ ἀνύπαρκτα γιὰ τὴν Ὀρθοδοξία ἐκκλησιολογικὰ
διλήμματα (ἀποκλειστικὴ ἢ περιεκτικὴ ἐκκλησιολογία;)· Σκέψεις μὲ ἀφορμὴ κείμενο
τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου ἐπισκόπου Ἀϐύδου κ. Kυρίλλου” ⟨www.imoph.org/pdfs/2016/07/22/20160722aKanonasAgKyprianou.pdf⟩.
77. Πηδάλιον τῆς Nοητῆς Nηὸς τῆς Mιᾶς Ἁγίας Kαθολικῆς καὶ Ἀποστολικῆς
τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησίας, Ἤτοι Ἅπαντες οἱ Ἱεροὶ καὶ Θεῖοι Kανόνες, ed. and
ann. Hieromonk Agapios and Monk Nikodemos (Athens, Greece: Ekdoseis Bas.
Regopoulou, 1982), p. 52, n.
78. Ibid., p. 370.
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid.
81. Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, Vol. Two, p.
309.
82. JOHN D. ZIZIOULAS, METROPOLITAN OF PERGAMON, Eucharist,
Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and The Bishop
During the First Three Centuries, trans. Elizabeth Theokritoff (Brookline,
MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 148.
83. Epistola lxxv.3 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1156B).“[S]ecundum regulam veritatis et sapientiam Christi.”
84. Epistola lxxv.19 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1170B).“[A]b initio[...] quod a Christo et ab Apostolis traditum
est.”
85. Ibid. (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col.
1170C). “[R]epudiandum esse omne omnino Baptisma quod sit extra Ecclesiam
constitutum.”
86. Epistola lxxv.7 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1161A).“[P]otestas et gratia.”
87. Ibid. “[S]piritali et deifica sanctitate.”
88. Ibid. “[N]ec quicquam sancte nec spiritaliter
gerere.”
89. Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, ed. G.
Ralles and M. Potles, Vol. Four (Athens, Greece: Ek tēs Typographias G.
Chartophylakos, 1854), pp. 90–91.
90. V. V. V. Bolotov, Лекціі פо історіі древней
церкві, ed. A. Brilliantov, Vol. II: Історія церкві въ פеріодъ до
Константіна В., (Saint Petersburg, Russia: Tipografіya M. Merkusheva,
1910), p. 384.
91.ARCHIM. HIERŌNYMOS I. KOTSŌNĒS, Προϐλήματα τῆς ≪ἐκκλησιαστικῆς οἰκονομίας≫ (Athens, Greece: Ekdoseis “Hē Damaskos,” 1957), p. 200.
92. V. ibid., pp. 184–185. The familiar distinction
between “returning” and “remaining” heretics and schismatics is made here. In
both cases, however, we have nonexistent and invalid Mysteries. In the case of
those “returning,” however, the form of the Mystery is not repeated if it has
been preserved in the heresy or schism, and this, to be sure, by oeconomy. In
this case, the Church gives the empty form essence and content.
93. Ibid., p. 200.
94. Ibid., p. 186.
95. V. METROPOLITAN CHRYSOSTOMOS KŌNSTANTINIDĒS, Ἡ ἀναγνώριση
τῶν μυστηρίων τῶν ἑτεροδόξων στὶς διαχρονικὲς σχέσεις Ὀρθοδοξίας καὶ
Pωμαιο-καθολικισμοῦ (Katerine, Greece: Ekdoseis “Epektasē,” 1995), p. 95.
96. Ibid., pp. 94, 96.
97. Epistola lxxv.24 (Patrologia Latina, Vol.
iii, col. 1174A).“[S]e a communion ecclesiasticæ unitatis apostatam fecerit.”
98. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.7.xii
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, cols. 133–134).
99. Ibid. (Patrologia Latina, Vol. xliii, col.
134). “[R]emissione peccatorum et de spirituali hominis regeneratione.”
100. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.7.xii
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 134). “[N]onnullorum.”
101. Ibid. (Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col.
134). “[A]liquid novum moliri.”
102. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem i.18.xxviii
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 125). “Minus ergo ille
penetravit, ut cerneret secretum abditum sacramenti.”
103. Ibid.
104. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.1.ii
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 127). “[C]ontra regulam
veritatis.”
105. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.7.xi
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 133). “[E]xtra communionem
Ecclesiæ.”
106. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem vii.19.xxxvii
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 232). “Baptismus sacramentum.”
107. V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iv.14.xxi
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 167).
108, De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem vii.19.xxxvii
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII col. 232). “[A]bolitio peccatorum.”
109. V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iv.14.xxi
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 167).
110. V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iv.17.xxiv
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 270).
111. V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem v.8.ix
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 181).
112. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.7.xi
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 133). “[A]d remissionem
peccatorum, ad sanctificationem vitæ.”
113. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem i.12.xix
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 119). “[P]er sanctam vim tanti
sacramenti dimissa quidem illi esse peccata in ipso temporis puncto, sed
per fictionem ejus rediisse continuo[...].”
114. V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem vi.1.i
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII col. 197).
115 De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iii.10.xiii
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 144). “[O]mnes iniqui et impii.”
116. Ibid. “[H]æreticorum et schismaticorum.”
117. V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iv.3.iv
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 155). “[C]ontra Christum vivunt.”
118. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem v.27.xxxviii
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 196). “Namque in illa ineffabili
præscientia Dei, multi qui foris videntur, intus sunt; et multi, qui intus
videntur, foris sunt.”
119. V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem v.28.xxxix
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 197).
120. De vera Religione x.20 (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. XXXIV, col. 131). “Quæ vera esse perspexeris, tene, et Ecclesiæ
catholicæ tribue; quæ falsa, respue, et mihi qui homo sum ignosce.”
121. Commonitorium Primum ii (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. l, col. 640).“[Q]uod ubique, semper, ab omnibus creditum est.”
122. Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum
de rebus fidei et morum, ed. Heinrich Denzinger (Freiburg im Breisgau,
Germany: Verlag Herder GmbH, 2009), p. 629.
