31 Cyprian of Carthage

8/14/2019 31 Cyprian of Carthage

1/15


2/15

The Holy Hieromartyr Cyprian of Carthage

DismissalHymnoftheSaint.PlagaloftheFourthTone

UIDE ofOrthodoxy, teacher of piety and holiness, luminary ofCarthage,Godinspired adornment of confessors,OwiseCyprian,by thy teachings

thouhastenlightenedall,OharpoftheSpirit.IntercedewithChristGodthatoursoulsbesaved.

G

KontakionoftheSaint.FirstTone

Thesoldiersstandingguard

Ehonourthee,OCyprian,asatrueshepherdwhowiththysacredwordsanddivinelywisedoctrineshast shownus theboundrystonesmarking

out the oneChurch ofChrist. Even unto death thou didstbearwitnesswithcourage;wherefore,weextoltheeasahierarchandMartyr.Entreatthatweallbe

saved.

W

Text:TheGreatHorologion1997TheHolyTransfigurationMonasteryBrookline,Massachusetts02445IconcourtesyTheHolyTransfigurationMonasteryBrookline,Massachusetts02445

THE END OF THE MENOLOGION

The Holy Orthodox ChurchIs the sole Ark of Salvation.

2


3/15


3

None may say they could not find herFatherMichaelAzkoul

An extract from:

OnceDeliveredtotheSaintsAnOrthodoxApologyfortheNewMillenniumByFatherMichaelAzkoulCopyright2000SaintNectariosPress

ChapterSevenEpilogue:OrthodoxyandtheSpiritofEcumenismpp.270276.

Georges Florovsky (1893-1979)

The question recurs, aswhen itwas first asked:how is it possible for theOrthodoxparticipants in theWCC,consciousof theirChurchas theone,holy,catholic and apostolicChurch, tohave surrendered thisdivinehonour?Whendid theecclesiologyof theOberlinStatementbecomeobsolete?1Whendid thecanonsbecometoiletpaper,asoneGreekhierarchsoeloquentlyputit.Whatcausedthesebishops,priestsandtheologianstocomegraduallytothepositionthattheOrthodoxChurchcouldnotbeidentifiedastheUnaSancta?Weretheypersuadedbyargument?Wehaveheardnone.Whatcompelledthemtoembraceanewreligiousconsciousness?

A There is a clue in the career of FrGeorges Florovsky, the symbol ofhisgeneration,ofanOrthodoxyconsciousofitselfasthetrueChurchbutunabletoendure the embarrass de richesses.Here is a troubledOrthodoxy, doggedby apredatoryWestanddemeanedbyarepressiveEast,an institutionwhichinthe

nineteenthcenturyseemstohavelosthernerve,sothatinthetwentiethcenturysheisreadytocedeherpatrimony.Florovskywastheembodimentofthecrisis,struggling to remain faithful to the patristic heritage of Orthodoxy whileenamouredofoccidentalways.Hiswritings,profoundastheysometimeswere,showedadesperateefforttoreaffirmthefaithoftheFatherswhilewelcomingheretics as separatedbrethren and their religious and intellectual values assavingTruth.

A studentofFlorovskysatPrinceton,HisGrace,BishopChrysostomosofEtna (Cal.),offers someuseful insight intohismentors thought.Florovsky,he

1TheOrthodoxdelegationtotheNorthAmericanFaithandOrderStudyConferenceinOberlin,Ohio(1957)declaredwithconvictionthattheunityweseekisagivenunitywhichhasneverbeenlost,andasadivinegiftandanessentialmarkofChristianexistencecouldnothavebeenlost.ThisunityintheChurchofChristisforusaunityofthehistoricalChurch,inthefullnessoffaith, in the fullness of continuous sacramental life. For us, this unity is embodied in theOrthodoxChurch...[whichunity]hasneverbeenbrokenorlost,soastobenowaproblemofsearchanddiscovery.p.268.


4/15


4

asserts, was above all, a scholar, a profession which seemed to dwarf hispriesthood. Calling for patristic revival, he, nevertheless, described thetheologyof theFathersasincomplete.Unwaveringinhisdedication to theimmutabletruthsoftheChurch,FrGeorgesadvocatedaChristianFaithwhichdoes not compel a man to draw on the Fathers as a source of action. HisOrthodoxy,theBishopconcludes,wascerebral...sterileandacademic.2

B BishopChrysostompassesoverFlorovskysecumenismwithlittlecomment,save thathemarveledathis loyalty to thePatriarchofConstantinople,whowas zealous in his devotion to the movement. Ecumenism had gripped thePatriarchatewellbefore Fr.Georges entered itsjurisdiction, subsequent tohismigrationtoParis in1926(ordainedtothepriesthood in1932)wherehejoinedthe faculty of St. Sergius Theological Institute, a pesthole of theologicalliberalism. At the same time, he accepted the patronage and authority of

ArchbishopEulogi

(Georgievsky),

ahierarch

of

the

Russian

Orthodox

Church

Outside of Russia (Sremski Karlovci, Yugoslavia),3 whose president wasMetropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), formerly of Kiev. In 1931, Eulogi andmuchof theOrthodoxemigrationincluding the Institutebolted theRussianSynod, inorder toavoid its censure and theexcommunicationof theMoscowPatriarchate, putting themselves uncanonically under the omophor ofPatriarchPhotiosIIIofConstantinople.

ThereasonfortheArchbishopsaction,asidefromthefacultysunrestrainedecumenical activities,was the controversy over the heterodox theological andphilosophicalopinionsofseveralprofessorsatStSergius.Ofparticularoffensewas the sophiological heresy of the Institutes Dean, Fr Sergius Bulgakov.Althoughdisapprovingofhisdoctrine,Florovskywouldnotcondemnhimout

2 A Tragedy ofOrthodox Theology, The Orthodox Word XVI, 5 (1980), 237242. For amoresympatheticviewofFrFlorovsky,seeA.Blaine,ASketchoftheLifeofGeorgesFlorovsky,inGeorgesFlorovsky:RussianIntellectualandOrthodoxChurchman.Ed.byA.Blaine.Crestwood(NY),1993,13217.Onecanhardlymiss thewordingof thebooks title.ThatFrGeorgeswas firstamanofhighintellectuality(Blainesexpression)ispreciselytheimpressionheleftonmeduring

mystudent

days

at

Holy

Cross

Greek

Orthodox

Seminary

(1954

1956).

Perhaps,

he

had

the

same

feelingabouthimself,whichmayexplainwhy,whenhecelebratedtheLiturgyandpreached,heseemedalmostshy,perhapsuncomfortable.

3TheKarlovciSynodwasestablishedbyPatriarchTikhon.AllbishopsoftheRussiandiasporaoriginallybelongedtoit,bothinEuropeandtheAmericas(consultM.DHerbigny&A.Deubner,vquesRussesEnExil:DouzeansDpreuves[19181930],inOrientaliaChristianaXXI,67[1931]).


5/15


5

ofrespectforthecharismaandthepersonalityofhisreveredfriend.4AleadingmemberofagroupofRussianintellectuals,theselfstyledNeoChristianswhodemanded the right to create new doctrine for the Church, Fr. Sergiusmodernized through the prism of German Idealism, 5 arguing for theintroduction of Vladimir Solovievs pantheistic metaphysicsparticularly, theGnosticideaofSophiaintotheChristianFaith.Sophia,hesaid,istheOusiaorEssenceofGod,thefeminineelementintheDeity.Bymeansofher(quaPlatosIdeas), God created the world, and with her collaboration Christ saved it.6BulgakovwasjustlyaccusedofinjectingafourthPersonintotheTrinity.

OnaccountofhisremonstrancestotheDeanandhiscolleagues,Florovskywasparticularlyunpopularwiththem.ThemajorityoftheInstitutesfacultywasrevising the major themes of Orthodoxy while Florovsky was promoting areturn to the Fathers. Hebelieved that a patristic revivala neopatristicsynthethiswasnecessaryforthereaffirmationoftheOrthodoxTraditionifthe

world were tobehold the true face of the Church. Thus, when his Ways ofRussianTheologyappearedin1937withitsinsistencethatthefailuresofRussianTheology(andphilosophy)werepreciselytheirdeviationfrom thespiritoftheFathers,theInstitutefacultyconspiredtoshieldthestudentsfromhisinfluence.7

4G.H.WilliamsGeorgesVasilievichFlorovsky:HisAmericanCareer (19481965).TheGreekOrthodoxTheologicalReviewXI,1 (1965),29.Bulgakovwasnevertheless formallycondemned(7/20 Sept. 1935)by Metropolitan Sergius, Acting Patriarch of Moscow, andby the KarlovciSynodunderMetropolitanAnthonyKhrapovitsky.

5 Ibid., 28. Florovsky saw in Bulgakovs philosophical theology the cryptopantheism whichreduced the individual toacellwithin thecosmicbody,andwhichdeprivedhimof freedom.Bulgakov described his philosophy as panentheism (everything in God), not pantheism(everythingisGod).Asophistryatbest,sincehesaidmorethanoncethatGodwouldnotexistiftheuniversedidnotexist,andviceversa(e.g.,TheUnfadingLight.Moscow,1917,pp.102103[inRussian]). Thus, in order to counteract such thinking, writes Professor Williams, Florovskystressedindividualpersonality(harkingbacktothephilosophyoffreedomandthepersonalismof Charles Renouvier [18151903]); and he rejected theological abstractions [found also inBulgakov]inwhathealwaysdisparagedasthetheosophicaloranthropologicalalgebraofsuchsystematic theology,both Roman Catholic and Protestant (The Neopatristic Synthethis of

GeorgesFlorovsky,

in

George

Florovsky:

Russian...),

292.

6SeeBulgakovsTheWisdomofGod:ABriefSummaryofSophiology.Trans.byP.Thompson,C.F.Clarke&Xenia Braikevitch.With a prefaceby F.Gavin. London, 1937; alsoW.F.Crum, TheDoctrineofSophiaaccordingtoSergiusN.Bulgakov.Cambridge(Mass.),1965.

7NicholasBerdiaev,editorofTheWay(Put),flayedFrGeorgesinalongandscurrilousreviewofhisbook,accusinghimofarrogance,ofplaying theavengingangel,ofdammingall thosewhodisagreedwithhim.Berdiaevandhis friendswereaware thatWaysofRussianTheologywasan


6/15


6

Had Berdiaev et alii not been selfdefensive, they might have askedFlorovsky some pertinent questions. What is a neopatristic synthesis? Hisreplymighthavebeen that thegreatwisdomofpatristic literatureprimarilyfrom the fourth to the eighth centuries shouldbe updated. A return to theFathers does not require slavish imitation of their teachings,but rather theadvocacyoftheirspirit.Butwhatistheirspirit?Adaptingthosegreatthemesofpatristicthoughttomoderntheologicalproblems,Florovskycouldhavesaid.Suchaprogramwould,ofcourse, involve the introductionof foreignelementsintoOrthodoxTheology.

Florovskysneosynthesisgavehim theopportunity tovalidatehisownextraOrthodox philosophical and theological resources. Yet he could notlegitimatelyarguethathisincorporationofAugustine(whomherankedamongthem),Soloviev,orCharlesRenouvier, and theMarburgNeoKantians (whichexercisedsomuch influenceonFlorovskysconceptionofknowledge,creation,

time,freedom,andeschatology)intoOrthodoxTheologywascomparabletothehellenism of the Fathers They saw Greek philosophy and the religion ofJudaism ashistorical preparation for theGospel.Modernphilosophy isnot.Florovskysbroodof thinkershadno such credentials, andwerenot so easilyadaptabletothepurposesofOrthodoxyaswerePlatoandAristotle.Inaddition,the spirit of his theological and historical writings is evidence that theFlorovsky synthesis fell far short of the patristic achievements. He had littletroubleincriticizingtheFathers,aswehaveseeninhistreatmentofStVincentofLerins.8

In

any

case,

it

was

a

useful

perspective

which

he

took

to

the

First

Congress

ofOrthodoxTheologiansinAthens(29Nov6Dec,1936).Inhis initialpapertotheCongress,WestlicheEinfluesse inderRussichenTheologie,he traced theinfluence of both Roman Catholic and Protestant influence on OrthodoxTheology(pseudomorphosis);andinhissecondpaper,PatristicsandModernTheology (ProcsVerbaux dupremier Congress de thologie Orthodoxe [29 Nov6Dec, 1936].Ed.byH.Alivizatos.Athens, 1939, 282242), FlorovskymadehisfamousdeclarationconcerningChristianHellenismasastandingcategoryofOrthodoxTheology.Theproposalsofthispaperseemedtocallformuchmorethan secularWestern thoughtashandmaiden toChristianity.Hisbooksand

articlesontheFatherspaidconsiderabledeferencetomodernpatristicresearch,heterodoxandsecular.

implicit reproachof theirspeculations. (See the translationof theEnglishedition,volume five,TheCollectedWorksofGeorgesFlorovsky.Belmont[Mass.],1979,xixv).

8 Cf.OnceDeliveredtotheSaints,pp.26,30ff.;216.


7/15


8/15


8

ChristiantoanyreligiousbodywhichconfessedChristasLord;and,forthatreason,HisEminencewaswillingtopublicallyacknowledgethattheSacramentsofRomanCatholicsandProtestantswerenotwithout some real charismaticsignificance,despitetheseparationofthesebodiesfromtheOrthodoxChurch.

D ProfessorWilliams11highlightsthewordscharismaticandcanonicalinaliterary tribute toFlorovsky,wordswhichhadbecome inFlorovskys theologynearlytechnicaltermsfordesignatingthestillundeterminedboundarybetweentheempirical(historical)andtrueChurch.Inotherterms,FrGeorgesconceivedthe Church visibly as canonical and invisibly as charismatic. He neverclarifiedforhisreadersthenatureoftheirrelationship,that is,theChurchasahistoricalinstitutionandtheChurchasalivingorganism,theChurchinheaven,theChurchonearth.Forhimitwasanapirori truththattheChurchcannotbedivided,butheanguishedoverthechallengeofdisunity.Heformallyrejected

suchfacile

notions

as

the

Anglican

branch

theory.

Orthodoxy

is

the

true

Church, Florovsky confessed, but, like Philaret, he would not unchurchanyone.

Florovskysecumenicalstatementsmanifestnorepugnanceforheresy.Forhim itseemed tohavenospecific target,at least,not in themodernworld.Hemade no public declaration that heresy, hateful to God, was the promise ofdamnation (Gal. 1:8). We may credit him with repeating the words ofKhomiakov, heresy has no place among us;but he invariably avoided theconclusionthatthefalsedoctrineespousedbyotherChristiansexcludesthemfromtheCatholicChurch.Hiswritingsdonotshowthathecametogripswiththis truth everywhere taughtby the holy Fathers. His experience and logicinsisted that the faith of theOrientals,Protestantism andRomanCatholicism,mustnotbediscounted.Hismindtookrefugeinhistoricalanalysisandanalogy.

E There are two ecclesiological statements which exhibit this torturedcontradiction. I have no confessional loyalty, he said; my loyaltybelongssolelytotheUnaSancta...Therefore,forme,ChristianreunionisjustauniversalconversiontoOrthodoxy....12Anothertimehewrote,Alllocalchurchesindeedhavetheirparticularcontributions.ThecontributionoftheEasternChurchis

unique.

The

witness

of

the

Eastern

Church

is

precisely

a

witness

to

the

background of ecumenicalChristianity,because she standsnot somuch for a

11 G.H.WilliamsGeorgesVasilievichFlorovsky:HisAmericanCareer(19481965).TheGreekOrthodoxTheologicalReviewXI,1(1965),29.

12 ConfessionalLoyaltyintheEcumenicalMovement,TheologyTodayVII,1(1950),6879.


9/15


9

localtraditionofherown,butthecommonheritageoftheChurchuniversal.Hervoice is not merely a voice of the Christian East, but a voice of Christianantiquity.13

TheambiguityoftheseremarksdisplaysFlorovskysunwillingnesstoaffirmthat,onaccountofherpuredoctrine,theOrthodoxChurchispreciselytheonlyChurch.Intimidatedbyhisownscholarlyobjectivity,herefusedtodefinetheborders of the charismatic Church as the borders of the canonicalChurch.14 His error was, of course, to approach ecclesiology from these twocategories, rather than taking the patristic or Christological position whichcombined them. It would then havebeen evident to him that the ChristianRevelationrequires thebordersof theChurch tobepalpable. InsteadhechosetheflawedAugustinian(nestorian)ecclesiology.Inotherwords,asthere isoneChrist, there is oneChurch; and ifChristsDivinity andhumanity areunitedwithout confusion or separation, so likewise are the visible and invisible

dimensions of His Body, the Church, that is to say, as the Divinity and thehumanity are one, so likewise the invisible or charismatic and visible orcanonicaldimensionsoftheChurch.Theoneisperfectlycoterminouswiththeother.

It follows that the bordersof theChurchestablishedby theLordmustbeidentifiablebyeveryonewhoencountersher,as thebordersofChrist.Nonemay say that they could not find her.15 Again, if, as Florovsky insisted, the

13 TheEasternOrthodoxChurchandtheEcumenicalMovement,TheologyTodayVII,1(1950),

6569.

14 Thewordcanonicalherehasajuridicalring.AlthoughtheCanonsoftheChurchtaketheformofRomanLaws,theyhaveadifferentpurpose.Thus,wheneverthecanonsareinvokedtodefinethevisiblebordersoftheChurchandtheworld,theimplicitpurposeistodrawasharplinebetween the Church and the world. Furthermore, Canons, as we saidbefore, manifestChristiandoctrine;but also they exist toprotect theOrthodox from infectionby anhereticalspiritaswellasfromindifferencetotheFaith(BishopJohnofSmolensk).Thereiseveryreasontobe alarmed over the selective use of some of themby the hierarchy of socalled worldOrthodoxy(i.e.,ecumenists)andevensomeOldCalendarbishops.

15

Father

Michael

Azkoul,

the

author

of

Once

Delivered

to

the

Saints,

introduces

his

work

as

a

signagainsttheselfdeceptionofthesocalledecumenicalOrthodoxwho,whileprotestingtheirfidelitytoherApostolicTradition,nonethelessseektoconformtheChurchofGodtothisworld.Such people remain within an organization whose ultimate aim is to incorporate RomanCatholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. and Orthodoxy herself into auniversal religion, contrary to theChristianRevelationwhich has established theOne,Holy,CatholicandApostolicChurchforthesalvationofthehumanrace.

FatherMichaelcontinues,NodoubtthisapologyforhistoricOrthodoxywillclashwiththespiritoftheage.Herclaimtoexclusivityandinfallibilitywillnecessarilycarrytheperceptionof


10/15


10

Churchisindivisible;andif,accordingtotheOberlinStatement,theunityoftheChurch has notbeenbroken or, what is the same thing, that the OrthodoxChurch is the Body of Christ and the problem of unity is resolvedby theuniversalconversiontoOrthodoxy,then,sheisnottheEasternChurch,buttheChurch,theonlyChurchofthelivingGod.ButFlorovskyrefused,ashesaid,tounchurch anyone; he need not have troubled himself. In truth, Orientals,Latins and Protestants cannot be unchurched, because they were neverchurched.TheyhavenoSacraments,nopriesthood,nosavingGrace.ForthesebelongtotheChurchalone,thecauseandexpressionofherunity,testimonytotheindwellingoftheHolySpirit.WhereheresyisGodwillnotabide,forHeistheGodofTruth,notofconfusion.

Itisimpossible,therefore,thathereticsshareinherGrace,lestwebelievethattheyarepartoftheChurch,andtheChurchiswithheresy;orthattheGraceoftheSpiritoperatesoutsidetheChurch,andtheSpiritactsagainstHimself.Such

apologetics are not tobe found in theworks ofGeorges Florovsky. I am notpersuadedthathekneworcouldhaveappreciatedthem.Hedidnothesitatetocaution me in our correspondence about taking too seriously the patristicdenunciationsagainstheresy.There issome irony inhisrefusaltorecognize inhimself pseudomorphic judgments on the Fathers and the Church whichveneratesthem.

TheFaceofourChristbyaSerbianhand

theological arrogance for a world whose call for diversity and inclusiveness allows noabsolutes(seep.2).


11/15


SaintPhilaretMetropolitanofNewYork,theNewConfessorWhomtheHolyChurchCelebratesOctober28.

THEANATHEMAAGAINSTTHEHERESYOFECUMENISMANDITSADHERENTS

TothosewhoattacktheChurchofChristbyteachingthatChristsChurchisdividedintosocalledbrancheswhichdifferindoctrineandwayoflife,orthattheChurch does not exist visibly,butwillbe formed in the futurewhen all

branchesor sectsordenominations,andeven religionswillbeunited intoonebody;andwhodonotdistinguishbetweenthepriesthoodandmysteriesoftheChurchfromthoseofheretics,butsaythatthebaptismandeucharistofhereticsis effectual for salvation; therefore, to thosewho knowinglyhave communionwith those aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defendtheir new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext ofbrotherly love or thesupposedunificationofseparatedChristians,

ANATHEMAInalettertoFatherAnthonyGavalasofAstoria,NewYork,HisEminence,

MetropolitanPhilaret,personallyexplainedthesignificanceofthiscontemporarypatristicstatement:

14/27October,1983DearFatherAnthony:IpraythattheblessingsofourSaviorbewithyouandyourParish.

11


12/15


Pleasebe informed that theBishopscouncilduring itsmeeting lastAugustunanimously adopted the following resolution concerning the panheresy ofEcumenism, which in a word encompasses all forms of modernism andinnovation:

(ThenfollowsthetextoftheAnathemaabove,afterwhichthelettercontinues)ThetextofthisAnathemaistobeattachedtotheSynodiconoftheSundayof

Orthodoxy,tobereadwiththerestofthetextoftheSynodicon.Pleaseextendmyprayerfulgreetingstoyourfamilyandthemembersofyour

Parish.WithmuchloveinourLord,

MetropolitanPhilaretPresidentoftheSynod

IconofSaintPhilaretMadayStudiosClevelandOhio441330315a.maday@worldnet.att.net

12
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


13/15


The Seventieth Epistle of Saint Cyprian of CarthageEpistle LXX A.D. 255Cyprian, Liberalis, Caldonius, etc. to their brethren Januarius,Greeting.

WHENweweretogetherincouncil,dearestbrethren,wereadtheletterwhichyouaddressedtousrespectingthosewhoarethoughttobebaptizedbyhereticsandschismatics,whether,whentheycometotheonetrueCatholicChurch,theyoughttobebaptized. Wherein,althoughyeyourselvesalsoholdtheCatholicruleinitstruthandfixedness,yetsince,outofyourmutualaffection,yehavethoughtgoodtoconsultus,wedelivernotoursentenceasthoughnewbut,byakindredharmony,weunitewithyouinthatlongsincesettledbyourpredecessors,andobservedbyus;thinking,namely,andholding

for

certain,

that

no

one

can

be

baptized

outside

the

Church,

in

that

there

is

one

BaptismappointedintheholyChurch,asitiswritten,theLordhimselfspeaking,TheyhaveforsakenmetheFountainoflivingwater,andhewedthemoutbrokencisternsthatcanholdnowater(Jer.2:13LXX).Again,holyScriptureadmonishesus,andsays,Keeptheefromthestrangewater,anddrinknotfromafountainofstrangewater(cf.Proverbs5:1518LXX).

Thewaterthenmustfirstbecleansedandsanctifiedbythepriest,thatitmaybeable,byBaptismtherein,towashawaythesinsofthebaptized,fortheLordsaysbytheprophetEzekiel,ThenwillIsprinklecleanwateruponyou,andyeshallbepurgedfromallyouruncleannesses,andfromallyouridols,andI

willcleanseyou.AndIwillgiveyouanewheart,andwillputanewspiritinyou(Jezekiel36:25LXX).Buthowcanhecleanseandsanctifythewater,whoishimselfunclean,andwithwhomtheSpiritisnot?WhereastheLordsaysinNumbers,Andwhatsoevertheuncleanmanshalltouchshallbeunclean(Num.19:22LXX).Orhowcanhethatbaptisethgiveremissionofsinstoanother,whocannotfreehimselffromhisownsins,outsideoftheChurch?

Moreover,theveryinterrogatorywhichisputinBaptism,isawitnessofthetruth.Forwhenwesay,Dostthoubelieveineternallife,andremissionofsinsthroughtheholyChurch?wemeanthat,remissionofsinsisnotgiven,

exceptin

the

Church;

but

that,

with

heretics,

where

the

Church

is

not,

sins

cannot

beremitted.They,therefore,whoclaimthathereticscanbaptize,letthemeitherchangetheinterrogatoryormaintainthetruth;unlessindeedtheyascribeaChurchalsotothosewhocontendtheyhaveaBaptism.

Anointedalsomustheofnecessitybe,whoisbaptized,thathavingreceivedthechrismthatis,unction,hemaybetheanointedofGod,andhavewithinhimthegraceofChrist.Moreover,itistheEucharistthroughwhichthe

13


14/15


baptizedareanointed,theoilsanctifiedonthealtar.Buthecannotsanctifythecreatureofoil,whohasneitheraltarnorChurch.Whenceneithercanthespiritualunctionbewithheretics,sinceitisacknowledgedthattheoilcannotbesanctifiednortheEucharistbecelebratedamongthem.Butweoughttoknowandrememberthatitiswritten,Asfortheoilofthesinner,letitnotanointmyheadPs.140:6LXX;whichtheHolySpiritforewarnedinthePsalms,lestany,quittingthetrack,andwanderingoutofthepathoftruth,beanointedbyhereticsandadversariesofChrist.Moreover,whenbaptized,whatkindofprayercanaprofanepriestandasinneroffer?inthatitiswritten,Godhearethnotasinner,butifanymanbeaworshipperofGod,anddoethHiswill,himHeheareth(cf.John9:31).

Butwhocangivewhathimselfhathnot?orhowcanheperformspiritualacts,whohathhimselflosttheHolySpirit?Whereforeheistobebaptizedandreceived,whocomesuninitiatedtotheChurch,thatwithinhemaybehallowed

throughtheholy;foritiswritten,Beyeholy,forIamholy,saiththeLord(cf.Lev.11:44LXX).Sothathewhohasbeenseducedwitherrorandwashedoutside[theChurch(ed.)]should,inthetrueBaptismoftheChurch,putoffthisverythingalso;thathe,amancomingtoGod,whileseekingapriest,fell,throughthedeceitoferror,upononeprofane.Buttoacknowledgeanycasewheretheyhavebeenbaptizedistoapprovethebaptismofhereticsandschismatics.

Forneithercanpartofwhattheydobevoidandpartavail.Ifhecouldbaptize,hecouldalsogivetheHolySpirit.ButifhecannotgivetheHolySpiritbecause,beingsetoutside[ed.],heisnotwiththeHolySpirit,neithercanhe

baptize

any

that

cometh:

for

that

there

is

both

one

Baptism,

and

one

Holy

Spirit,

andoneChurch,foundedbyChristtheLorduponPeter,throughanoriginalandprincipleofunity;soitresults,thatsinceallamongthemisvoidandfalse,nothingthattheyhavedoneoughttobeapprovedbyus.

ForwhatcanberatifiedandconfirmedbyGod,whichtheydowhomtheLordcallshisenemiesandadversaries,propoundinginHisGospel,HethatisnotwithMeisagainstMe;andhethatgatherethnotwithMescattereth(Lk.11:23).AndtheblessedApostleJohnalso,keepingthecommandmentsandpreceptsoftheLordhaswritteninhisEpistle,YehaveheardthattheAntichristshallcome;evennowtherearemanyAntichrists,wherebyweknowthatitisthe

lasttime.Theywentoutfromus,butwerenotofus;foriftheyhadbeenofus,theywouldnodoubthavecontinuedwithus(cf.IJn.2:18,19).Whencewe,too,oughttoinferandconsider,whethertheywhoaretheadversariesoftheLord,andarecalledAntichrists,cangivethegraceofChrist.

WhereforewewhoarewiththeLord,andwhoholdtheunityoftheLord,andaccordingtothisvouchsafementadministerHispriesthoodintheChurch,oughttorepudiateandrejectandaccountasprofane,whateverHisadversaries

14


15/15


15

andAntichristsdo;andtothosewho,comingfromerrorandwickedness,acknowledgethetruefaithoftheoneChurch,weshouldimparttherealityofunityandfaithbyallthesacraments[i.e.mysteries(ed.)]ofdivinegrace.Webidyou,dearestbrethren,everheartilyfarewell.

NPNF Vol. 10 The Seven Ecumenical Councilspp. 518, 519.

ThehistoricalrecordshowsthatthisistheCanonofSt.Cyprian,whichwasissuedbyaSynodof31BishopsunderSt.CyprianinCarthagein255.UndertheHolyFathersoftheQuinisextCouncil,A.D.692initsSecondCanon,St.CypriansSeventiethEpistlereceivedthesanctionofEcumenicalAuthority.16

St.Cyprian,commemoratedonAugust31,wasvigorouslysupportedbySaintFirmilianBishopofCaesareainCappadocia,whoiscommemoratedonOctober28.

ThisistheearliestwrittenreportofadecisionofaSynodofBishopsintheChurch.

Further,forthestudentoftheholyFathers,itisevidentthatOurFatherAmongtheSaintsPhilaretMetropolitanofNewYork,theNewConfessor,intheSynodsAnathemaAgainstEcumenism14/27October,1983,basedthewordingofthisAnathema,inlargepart,upontheSeventiethEpistleofSaintCyprianofCarthage.

AndtoourGodbeglory.

16 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/trullo.html

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aeons-ro
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

31 Cyprian of Carthage

Documents