Did St. Cyprian of Carthage revolution in the teaching of the Church?

See also: Saint Cyprian of Carthage and the unity of the Universal Church N.M. Zernov On the pages of the Parisian magazine “The Way” I have repeatedly read about the supposed harmfulness of the “Byzantine period” in the life of the Church. Then the staff of this magazine in their books began to criticize the teaching of the Holy Fathers, even such as Athanasius the Great and Cyril of Alexandria (Archarchs Bulgakov and Kartashev). And now the criticism of Parisian theologians, apparently, began to delve even deeper into antiquity, and, having recently received a doctorate from Oxford, N. Zernov published an analysis of the teachings of St. Cyprian in an article entitled “St. Cyprian of Carthage and the unity of the Universal Church.” Contrasting the pre-Cyprian era with the post-Cyprian era, he accuses the teaching of the Holy Father of errors, which, according to him, had the most harmful consequences for the future life of the Universal Church and, in particular, led to the death of the Church of Carthage. N. Zernov’s article is so characteristic of a person spiritually nurtured by the interconfessional West, it is full of such gross errors, unacceptable for an Orthodox doctor of theology, even if he received his degree at a non-Orthodox university, but also graduated from the Orthodox theological faculty, that it is worth examining. The author begins with the statement that the newest desire for unity, manifested in disparate modern confessions, “poses before the Orthodox consciousness the most important task of accurately defining both the essence of the unity of the Universal Church and its visible boundaries.” Orthodoxy, according to him, has the richest material for this, but does not have a systematized “conciliar consciousness of the Church. The writings of the Holy Fathers and the canons of the Councils represent various attempts to find an answer to the question of the unity of the Church. They are often not only not coordinated, but sometimes even contradict each other.” Orthodoxy, as a result of this, “does not have ready answers to a number of requests of our time and does not resolve those new perplexities and problems that characterize the relations of the Churches in the 20th century.” Next, the author begins to present and criticize the teaching of St. Cyprian about the Church. But before moving on to this criticism, we will say a few words about the above provisions. Unfortunately, the author does not indicate what exactly are the new problems and perplexities that characterize the relationship of the Churches in the 20th century. It seems, however, that here we must keep in mind that the denominations that once fell away from Roman Catholicism now declare their friendship and respect for the Orthodox Church. Instead of argument and denunciation, kind greetings are heard from both sides and signs of sometimes truly very touching attention appear. This is the only difference between the present century and the centuries of the Ecumenical Councils, when non-Orthodox faiths usually fought fiercely with the Eastern Church and when, in relation to confessions alien to the Church, only the language of reproof and exhortation was used to reunite with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Contrary to the rather bold statement of N. Zernov, it is impossible to find in the works of the Holy Fathers and in St. canons of contradictions in the doctrine of the unity of the Church. From the most ancient times, starting with the words of the Apostle that “there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. IV, 5), Orthodox Christians have confessed that there is only one true Church, to which the promise was given that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Mt. XVI, 18). And it seems that no matter how much N. Zernov tries, he is neither in the works of the Holy Fathers, nor in the St. the canons will not find a contradiction to this idea. Prescribing for different cases three rites of union, sometimes through baptism, sometimes through renunciation of heresy and anointing, sometimes simply through repentance, St. The canons and all the Holy Fathers consistently always pursue the idea that only the Orthodox Church unites with Christ and saves, and all other confessions are deprived of the blessed and saving Sacraments. Therefore, those who join the Orthodox Church are called by the canons “those who are saved from among the heretics” (II Om. 7, Trul. 95). The different practices in their reunification with the Church, thus, do not in any way change the eternal teaching of the Orthodox Church, that she alone is true, salvific and is “the dove (Song of Songs, II, 10) and the only mother of Christians and in which all the eternal and life-giving Sacraments are saved savingly received, and those who are in heresy are subjected to great condemnation and execution” (Carthage. 68) 1 This teaching is especially clearly expressed in 46 Ave. of the Holy Apostles: “We command that a bishop or presbyter who has received baptism or the sacrifice of heretics be deposed. There is some agreement between Christ and Belial. Or what is the part of the faithful with the infidel.” In the Book of the Helms, in the “correct answers of Timothy, His Holiness Archbishop of Alexandria,” we find an authoritative explanation that acceptance into communion without baptism is neither a contradiction to this teaching, nor the recognition by the Church of the grace of baptism, and therefore other heretical sacred rites, but only a special procedure applied, as an exception, to join the Church of Christ of those people whom the prospect of repeating the rite of baptism over them could alienate Orthodoxy. To the question: “Why are heretics who turn to the Catholic Church unbaptized,” St. Timothy gives the answer: “Even if this were so, a person would not quickly convert from heresy, being ashamed of baptism, both by laying on the hand of the priest and prayer, the message is that the Holy Spirit is coming, as the Acts of the Saints testify to the Apostle” (The Helmsman, ch. 60) 2 . One must think that Timothy of Alexandria, who took an active part in the Second Ecumenical Council, is quite authoritative in explaining the principle that formed the basis of the 7th rule of the said Council. It should be noted that St. Cyprian, a defender of uncompromising practice in relation to reuniting heretics, from a dogmatic point of view, allowed the possibility of uniting them with the Church without rebaptism: “But, someone will say, he wrote, what will happen to those who, having previously turned from heresy to the Church, were accepted into the Church without baptism? The Lord, in His mercy, is able to grant them forgiveness, and those who, having been accepted into the Church, have fallen asleep in the Church, will not deprive them of the gifts of His Church” (letter to Yubayan. Creative edition. Kyiv. D. Ak. 1891, vol. I, p. 347). However, St. Cyprian recognized that it was impossible to introduce such leniency, dogmatically permissible, into practice as a norm, because this would weaken faith in the Church as the only guardian of grace, for heretics “will have no reason to turn to us when, having had baptism, they think that they have everything else. On the contrary, when they learn that outside the Church there is no baptism and that remission of sins cannot be given, then they will come to us more willingly and hastily and humbly ask for the benefits and gifts of the Mother Church, knowing that they are completely unable to achieve the true promise of divine grace if they do not first turn to the truth of the Church” (ibid., p. 348). The unity of the Church is equally confessed. The Apostles, Holy Councils and Holy Fathers both before and after St. Cyprian and, in essence, only with a biased thought can one say that in their teaching about him some kind of contradiction can be found. It is a pity that N. Zernov left this assertion without evidence. However, to prove this would be an attempt on his part with inappropriate means. But having made sure that only one of the associations claiming to be called the Church is really the Church, we must resolve the question of where is it? And now N. Zernov claims that St. Cyprian made a “revolution in the field of teaching about the unity of the Church.” What is this revolution? Not in the assertion, he writes, that only members of the Church can receive the saving Gifts of the Holy Spirit - the author admits that “such thoughts were widespread among Christians of that era” (we will say that this has always been the belief of the entire Church) - but “the new element was his attempt to accurately determine the visible boundaries of the One True Church. He taught that the earthly Church completely coincides with the universal brotherhood of those Christian communities that profess the true faith, keep the moral precepts of the New Testament and observe communication with each other... But since the concept of true faith and high morality cannot be fully verified by human reason, and St. Cyprian was looking for just a generally understandable objective criterion of the true Church, then he added a third, decisive for him, sign to the previous two, namely, the presence in the Church of a special institution of episcopate, established by Jesus Christ Himself and receiving from Him the task of protecting the unity of the Church... Submission to one’s legitimate shepherd became that objective guarantee of being in communion with the Holy Spirit, which the pre-Cyprian Church could not offer to its members.” N. Zernov calls this teaching “a grandiose reform in the life of the Church.” But is this true? Is this a reform or an exposition by St. Cyprian of the original teaching of the Church? Let us turn to the times of the Apostles. Simple common sense would not tell us that if we were looking for the true Church among different communities and confessions, we would find out which of them is in unity with the Holy Apostles, chosen and taught by the Savior Himself; those Apostles to whom our Lord Jesus Christ said: “He who listens to you listens to Me” (Luke X, 16). And with their death, naturally, the same criterion for finding the true Church is to recognize unity with their legitimate successors. This was the case in the ancient Church even before St. Cyprian. St. Irenaeus of Lyons referred to the succession of the episcopate from the Apostles as one of the signs of the true Church. He wrote: “We can list the bishops installed by the Apostles in the Churches, and their successors before us, who taught nothing and did not know what these heretics are raving about” (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter III, 1). Elsewhere, St. Irenaeus directly sets out the teaching, which N. Zernov declares to be an innovation of St. Cyprian: “So, where the gifts of the Lord are, there we must learn the truth from those who have ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles” (ibid., IV, ch. 26, 5). And Tertullian, while still Orthodox, writes about heretics: “Let them announce a series of their bishops, which would continue with such succession that the first of the bishops would have as his culprit and predecessor one of the Apostles or the Apostolic men who had been dealing with the Apostles for a long time. For the Apostolic Churches keep their lists exactly this way: Smyrna, for example, represents Polycarp, ordained by John, Rome - Clement, ordained by Peter; Likewise, other Churches indicate those men whom, as elevated to the episcopate by the Apostles themselves, they had from the branch of the apostolic seed” (De prescrírt. haeret. § 32). We advise N. Zernov to read the even earlier works of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, who especially clearly called for complete obedience to the bishops, saying in his letter to the Smyrnans that “where there is a bishop, there must be a people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there will be the Catholic Church” (Chapter VIII) 3. Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 42 and 44) ​​and many others pointed to the hierarchy as the primary guardian of truth and therefore as one of the criteria for determining where the true Church is. other Holy Fathers. And this criterion finally received the most authoritative consecration from the Ecumenical Council, when, among other properties or signs of the true Church, it was confessed that it is Apostolic 4 Another mistake of N. Zernov is that he attributes to St. Cyprian a teaching that is alien to him. St. Cyprian never taught that unity with the episcopate is the only and exhaustive criterion for determining membership in the Church. He, of course, knew well that bishops sometimes deviate from the truth. But he meant the norm. Nothing on earth can be absolute. Likewise, the norm that in order to be united with the Church one must be in unity with the bishop is inapplicable when the bishop himself fell into heresy and separated from the Church. But even such a falling away is an abnormal phenomenon. The norm is also revealed by St. Cyprian when he writes about the unity of the entire episcopate. In this case, he means what should be, what the hierarchy should strive for. To think that he wanted to testify to a fact here is very naive. N. Zernov writes a lot about the teaching of St. Cyprian regarding the Ap. Peter as the "founder of the Universal Church." Isn’t it too strong a word – founder of the Church? I did not find such a teaching in St. Cyprian, but only the teaching about the Apostle Peter as the beginning of the hierarchy. The founder of the Church, according to the teachings of the Saint, is our Lord Jesus Christ 5. But it seems to me that N. Zernov attaches too much importance to this particular in the teaching of St. Cyprian. If from the statement of Saint Cyprian that the power to knit and decide was given to Ap. Peter, earlier than others, realized that he and his successors in the department had some kind of advantage, then this would be very significant and important. And as it really is, one can discern in the Holy Father’s reasoning only a desire to find another indication of the harmonious unity of the Church and another incentive for maintaining unity between bishops. “Of course,” he writes, the other Apostles were the same as Peter—they had equal dignity and power with him; but at the beginning one is indicated to designate the one Church” (On the unit of the Church. Tv., p. 179). This idea of ​​Peter as the Apostle, from whom the Lord laid the foundation of the hierarchy, may have alone been some innovation in the teaching of St. Cyprian, but an innovation that had such a private, small significance that it was not worth dwelling on it for long. After all, the doctrine of episcopacy, as a criterion of the True Church, does not come from it, but from the fact that the hierarchy was founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, that bishops are the gracious successors of the power of the Apostles, to whom the Lord entrusted to shepherd the flock faithful to Him on earth. And in what order the Apostles were called to this is not so important in this case. Summing up his criticism of the teaching of St. Cyprian about the Church as Apostolic, and about unity with the legal hierarchy as the main sign of belonging to the Church, N. Zernov writes: “The Gospel also teaches that the true boundaries of the Church and its nature will be revealed only at the end of human history. This mystery of the Church eludes the attention of St. Cyprian, and we can now assume that his main mistake lies precisely in the precise and clear definition of its limits... he mistakenly defines its visible boundaries along the canonical-disciplinary line.” This is not true from beginning to end. Of course, it is difficult to refute such a blind reference to the Gospel. One can only guess that the author has in mind the story of the Last Judgment. But there is no talk about opening the boundaries of the Church; its theanthropic nature, as far as is accessible to human perception, has already been revealed, at least in the Epistle to the Ephesians... As for the boundaries, the Church always, both before and after St. Cyprian, knew who belonged to it and who did not. She always confessed that those who are with her in unity of faith, prayers and sacraments belong to her, and that outside of her are: pagans, heretics, schismatics and, excommunicated from the Church, grave sinners. Almost every ordinary priest knows who he can admit to the Holy Chalice and who he cannot, therefore, he also knows the boundaries of the Church. The desire to erase, if not all, then at least part of these boundaries, to spread the purely Protestant idea that the Orthodox Church is not the only true and grace-filled Church, but one of many such Churches (although it may be the most right), that even without being in communion with the Orthodox Church, one can still belong to the Mystical Body of Christ, forces N. Zernov to make a pathetic attempt to criticize the teaching of St. Cyprian, the greatest and most ardent champion of the Orthodox faith in the unity and uniqueness of the Church. He has such a negative attitude towards St. Cyprian that he even attributes the death of the Carthaginian Church to the application in its life of the teachings of the Holy Father about the unity of the Church. Meanwhile, the services of the Carthaginian Church to Orthodoxy are enormous. At her Councils, she made a rich contribution to the denunciation of the Donatists (408 and 411) and Pelagianism (412, 416 and 418). In it, more strictly than anywhere else, the rule about annual episcopal councils was observed, and the definitions developed at fourteen of these councils, in their dogmatic depth and wisdom, serve as perhaps the best decoration of the Book of Rules. And in the life of the Universal Church, Carthage occupied the most honorable place until its conquest and complete destruction by the barbarians. Even after the first yoke of the Vandals, which lasted almost a hundred years (from 439 to 533), the Carthaginian Church was still so impressive that in 535 its bishop received the title of patriarch and was compared in position to that of Rome and Constantinople. But in the 7th century. a new invasion of the Moorish hordes of Abdulmelek turned Carthage into a heap of ruins. Christianity, however, existed under this yoke until the 11th century. So, it was not the assimilation of the teachings of St. Cyprian, but purely external reasons that led to the destruction of the Carthaginian Church. There is no need to slander the Holy Father of the Church. What N. Zernov would like from his Orthodox contemporaries, i.e., a rejection of the teachings of St. Cyprian and a return to the supposedly pre-Cyprian system, which he, however, does not clearly characterize in his article full of omissions, is simply a desire to remove any obstacle to the path of interconfessionalism. But not only St. Cyprian stands on this path, but all the Holy Fathers, Ecumenical Councils and Holy Scripture. To agree with N. Zernov, we must renounce the confession of the Orthodox Church as One and Apostolic, we must cross out these words from our Creed.