О Соборе, состоявшемся в Карфагене при сщмч. Киприане 36

In Carhidon, otherwise Carthage, under St. sschmch. Cyprians held three Local [37] councils on the issue of rebaptism. The first - in 255 A.D., in the fourth year of the reign of Valerian and Gallienus [38]. It was determined that no one can be baptized outside the Church, since there is only one baptism - the baptism of the Catholic Church, and therefore heretics, when they come to the Catholic Church, must be rebaptized. Those who first received baptism according to the rules from the Orthodox, and then became heretics, when returning to Orthodoxy, should not be received through baptism, as Novatus said, but only through prayer and the laying on of hands, as is clear from the letter to Quintus, i.e., the 71st letter of Cyprian (for this see also I Om. 8). The Second Council took place in 258 or, according to Milias, in 256 (see 1st volume of the Synodikon), it was attended by 71 bishops from Numidia and other places in Africa. St. Cyprian gathered them so that they would approve and approve with greater authority the definition of rebaptism set forth at the previous Council. And they determined, firstly, that all those who, while remaining in the Church (i.e., being clergy), leave the faith should, upon their return, be received only as laymen; and, secondly, that the baptism of heretics is completely invalid, so that when they are converted and baptized according to Orthodox teaching, they are not considered to have received a second baptism, but are considered to have been baptized for the first time, since they have not had true baptism at all. In the same year, at St. Cyprian in Carthage also held the third Council, which was attended by 84 bishops. This Council sent to Bishop Jovian and his bishops the present conciliar canonical letter, in other words, this rule, since, as Zonara says (and the letter itself reports), this bishop asked the divine Cyprian whether it was appropriate to baptize the schismatic Novatians when they came to the Catholic Church. But, according to the most learned Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 55). this rule was stated because the aforementioned second Council sent a message to Pope Stephen, which reported the Council’s determinations on rebaptism. And Stephen, having convened a Council in Rome, declared this message to be invalid and determined not to baptize for the second time heretics who baptize in the same way as the Church baptizes 39 (as Cyprian writes in a letter to the African bishop Pompey of Sabrata). Therefore, for the final approval of rebaptism, which was established conciliarly once or twice, and for the rejection of the definitions made by Stephen of St. Cyprian convened this third Council, which laid down the present rule. Note that since this Council took place before all the Ecumenical and Local Councils, it was appropriate to place it before the Ecumenical Councils. But since the Local Council has less dignity than the Ecumenical Councils, they were placed first, and it after them (see about these Councils: Dositheus. Twelve Books. P. 53, 975; Synodicon. T. 1. P. 98). The same thing happened with other Local Councils that preceded the Ecumenical Councils: for the sake of the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, Local Councils were established after them. St. Cyprian, who convened this Council, suffered a martyr's death under the emperor Decius. In praise of him, the wondrous word that was sung in honor of his holiness by the theological lips of Gregory 40 is enough. Rule of the Holy Local Council, held for the third time in Carthage under the sschmch. Cyprians with interpretation While in the general meeting, beloved brethren, we read the letters you sent about those supposedly baptized by heretics or schismatics and coming to the Catholic Church, which is one and in which we receive baptism and are reborn. With regard to such, we are convinced that by doing this you yourself are maintaining the stronghold of the Catholic Church. But since you are in communication with us and want to ask about this for the sake of common love, we are not expressing a new and not now established opinion, but we are communicating and transmitting to you an opinion that has been tested since ancient times with all the care and diligence of our predecessors and observed by us, we remain with you in communion and unity and now prescribe (χειροτονοῦντες) [41] that the very thing that we always observe strictly and unshakably: no one can be baptized outside the Catholic Church, since there is only one baptism, and it is in one Catholic Church. For it is written: The Fountain of living waters has forsaken Me, and dug for himself fragile cisterns that cannot contain water (Jer. 2:13). And further, prophesying, the Holy Scripture says: Keep away from strange water and do not drink from strange springs (Proverbs 9:8). So, it is necessary that the water must first be purified and sanctified by the priest, so that in baptism it can wash away the sins of the person being baptized. And through the prophet. In Ezekiel, the Lord says: And I will sprinkle clean water on you... and I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you (Ezek.36:25-26). How can someone who is unclean and does not have the Holy Spirit purify and sanctify water, while the Lord says in the book of Numbers: Everything that an unclean person touches will be unclean (Numbers 19:22)? How can one, at baptism, give remission of sins to another who, outside the Church [ 42 ], could not put aside his own sins? And even the very question asked during baptism testifies to the truth. For we, when we say to the subject: “Do you believe that you will receive eternal life and remission of sins?”, we affirm nothing more than that this can be given in the Catholic Church, but among heretics, who do not have a Church, it is impossible to receive remission of sins. And therefore the defenders of heretics are obliged either to change this questioning, or to defend the truth, unless they attribute some kind of Church to the heretics. In addition, it is necessary that the baptized be anointed, so that, having received the anointing, he becomes a partaker of Christ 43 . But a heretic who has neither an altar nor a church cannot consecrate the oil. Heretics cannot have anointing at all. For it is absolutely obvious to us: it is in no way possible that their oil was consecrated for thanksgiving [44]. We should not remain ignorant, but we must know what is written: Let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head (Ps. 140:5), - this was pointed out in ancient times by the Holy Spirit in the Psalms, so that no one, having lost the trace (ἐξιχνιασθείς) [ 45 ] and having strayed from the straight path, would be anointed by heretics, hostile To Christ. And how can a blasphemer and a sinner pray for a baptized person, not a priest? After all, Scripture says: God does not listen to sinners; but whoever honors God and does His will listens to him (John 9:31). Through the Holy Church we think of remission of sins [46]. Who can give what he does not have himself? Or how can one do anything spiritual who has rejected the Holy Spirit? Therefore, he who comes to the Church must be renewed in order to become inwardly sanctified through the holy sacraments. After all, it is written: Be holy, as I am holy, says the Lord (see Lev.11:44; 19:2; 20:7). Therefore, let the one who was led astray by deception, in true and Church baptism, be put off this very thing [47] - every person who went to God and looked for a priest, but, finding himself in error, ended up with a blasphemer. To show leniency towards those who are baptized by heretics is to acknowledge the baptism of heretics [48]. After all, it cannot have power in part. If someone was able to baptize, then he had the power to give the Holy Spirit. And if he could not give, because he does not have the Holy Spirit, because he is outside the Church, then he cannot baptize the one who comes. For there is one baptism, and one Holy Spirit, and the Church, founded on unity by Christ our Lord (as Apostle Peter said from the very beginning), one. Therefore, everything done by heretics is worthless as false and empty. God cannot be pleased or pleased with anything done by those whom the Lord calls enemies and adversaries in the Gospel: He who is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters (Matthew 12:30). And the blessed ap. John, keeping the commandments of the Lord 49, in his Epistle, first of all, wrote: You have heard that the Antichrist will come, and now many antichrists have appeared, then we know from this that the last time. They went out from us, but they were not ours (1 John 2:18–19). Therefore, we must know and understand that the enemies of the Lord, even called antichrists, cannot be pleasing to the Lord. Therefore, we - those who abide with the Lord and maintain unity with Him, who, for the sake of His dignity, are endowed (χορηγούμενοι) [ 50 ] with everything necessary in order to perform sacred service to Him in the Church - must reject, deny, reject away and consider wickedness everything that those who oppose Him, that is, enemies and Antichrists. And to those who from error and deceit come to knowledge (ἐπὶ γνώσει) [ 51 ] of the true faith of the Church, we must fully teach the sacrament of Divine power, unity, faith and truth. (Apost. 46, 47, 68; II Ev. 7; VI Ev. 95) With the help of many arguments, this rule shows that the baptism of heretics and schismatics is unacceptable and they must be baptized if they convert to the right faith of the Catholic Church. Firstly, there is one baptism and it is in one Catholic Church, but heretics and schismatics, being outside it, therefore do not have this one baptism. Secondly, the water of baptism must first be purified and sanctified by the prayers of the priest and the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, and then it purifies and sanctifies the one who is baptized in it. However, heretics and schismatics are not priests, but, of course, blasphemers, not pure, but unclean and unholy, as not having the Holy Spirit; therefore, they do not have baptism. Thirdly, through baptism, performed in the Catholic Church, remission of sins is granted. And through baptism, performed among heretics and schismatics outside the Catholic Church, how can remission of sins be given? Fourthly, the baptized person after baptism must be anointed with myrrh, prepared from oil [52] and other aromas, sanctified by the influx of the Holy Spirit. How can a heretic who does not have the Holy Spirit, for he was separated from Him because of heresy and schism, sanctify such ointment? Fifthly, the priest must pray to God for the salvation of the baptized, and the heretic and schismatic, who, as we said, is a blasphemer and a sinner (not so much because of his deeds, but because of heresy and schism - the greatest sins of all), how can he be heard by God when Scripture says: God does not listen to sinners 53? Sixthly, it is impossible to become pleasing to God through the baptism of heretics and schismatics, because they are enemies and opponents of God and because the Apostle John calls them Antichrists. So, on the basis of all these and other arguments, the present canon, applying the acrivia, affirms that all heretics and schismatics should be baptized, and adds that the opinion that one should not accept heretical and schismatic baptism is not a new opinion of the fathers of this Council, but an ancient one, tested with much zeal and care by their predecessors [ 54 ] (who go back almost to the very successors of the apostles) and in everything agrees with Apostle 46, 47 and 68. Not only do all the Fathers of the Council in this canon jointly reject the baptism of heretics and schismatics, but individually each of the eighty-four Fathers of the Council rejects it with one separate argument, in other words, there are eighty-four arguments. Therefore, the Second Ecumenical Council, in its 7th canon, partially preserved this rule (if it did not extend it to everyone, it did so out of oikonomia and leniency, and not out of acrivia, as we said in the note to Apostle 46). The VI Ecumenical Council also confirmed the present rule in its 2nd rule (although it says that this rule extended only to certain parts of Africa, but having once approved it, it strengthened it rather than abolished it). Basil the Great also accepts it in his 1st canon (see also the note to the mentioned canon of Apostle 46). Addition 55: The Ecumenical Councils adopted and approved the definitions of private Councils and especially the rules of Basil the Great, which we saw in the VI Ecumenical. 2. Consequently, they accepted and approved everything that the Local Councils and Basil the Great had previously decreed, and thus the true and inevitable conclusion follows that all heretics should be baptized without hesitation. And oikonomia, which some fathers used in relation to time, cannot be considered either a law or an example. After all, if you conduct a good study, it turns out that these heretics, accepted according to oikonomia by the Second Ecumenical Council, were mostly baptized by priests who then fell into heresy, which is why such oikonomia was applied. However, the truth of Divine Scripture and right reason show that all heretics should be unconditionally baptized. See note in this edition. translators: vol. 1, p. 271. Note that the same four features by which Ecumenical Councils differ from Local Councils, and Local Councils, for their part, differ from Ecumenical Councils (see about this in Note 1 to the Preface of the First Ecumenical Council). A local council differs from the so-called local council in that a local council, according to Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 1015), is one that is established by a bishop, or metropolitan, or patriarch with only his clergy, without bishops; and the Local Council is the one at which the metropolitan or patriarch gathers together with his metropolitans or bishops, in simpler terms - when the bishops of one or two metropolitan regions gather to consider emerging church affairs and issues. Those Councils of Bishops are also called local, which are held annually, according to the rules, in each metropolitan region, since bishops gather at them, according to the Apostle. 37 and other rules consistent with it. The reasons why this Council took place are as follows. Rebaptism in Africa began primarily due to the teaching of the Carthaginian bishop Agrippinus or, as others say, Tertullian (which is clear from the words that the divine Cyprian writes in this canonical conciliar letter to Jovian: “We do not present a new and recently established opinion, but one that has been tested for a long time with all the care of our previous fathers”). But here's another reason. In those days, Novatus also appeared, who was a presbyter in Rome, but became a schismatic because he began to teach that the repentance of those who, during persecution, sacrificed to idols and then turned to repentance, was not accepted unless they were baptized anew. Because of this false teaching of his, he separated from the Catholic Church, and with him many others. Thus, doubt arose regarding them, or more precisely, regarding those receiving baptism from them: should they have been baptized when they subsequently turned to the Catholic Church? Therefore, some bishops turned to the divine Cyprian in search of a solution to their perplexity. So, having gathered, this Council determined what we said above (see: Dositheus. Twelve Books. P. 53). Pay attention to the fact that not only in Africa, but also in Asia there was a custom to rebaptize those who were baptized by heretics. Therefore, the same Stephen wrote to the bishops of Asia asking them to refuse rebaptism. But the Asians not only did not listen to the pope, but also convened a council in Iconium in 258. The exarch of the Council was the Bishop of Caesarea, St. Firmilian; Fathers from Cappadocia, Lycia, Galatia and other regions came to the Council. The fathers determined that no heretical ritual should be recognized: baptism, ordination, and any other sacrament among heretics are impossible and do not deserve mention (Dositheus. Twelve Books, p. 55). Also note that the divine Dionysius of Alexandria, a contemporary of St. Cyprian, agreed with Cyprian's opinion that it is necessary to rebaptize heretics - this is mentioned by Jerome in the list of church writers. See also the preface to the rules of Dionysius. Greg. Nazianz. From. 24 // PG 35, 1169D-1193B. That is, we choose (ψηφίζοντες), we determine (διοριζόμενοι). Perhaps, “since he is outside the Church.” “For consumption” is more correct than “for thanksgiving.” Perhaps, “being sifted” (σινιασθείς). By necessity, “served” should be understood. In other words, there is an ellipse here. What is meant is the following: so that the one who is led into error would reject this very thing, that is, error, in true and church Baptism. In other sources - “and schismatics.” The present rule calls the holy ointment oil after the substance that makes up the majority of it. There should always be more oil than other incense that is taken for its preparation. Pay attention to the fact that it is the present rule that first teaches the anointing of those receiving baptism with chrism, and not Laodice. 48, as some have argued, because this rule is much older than Laodice. 48. However, truth judges right: that rule speaks only of one anointing, but in the present rule, sealing with the world is mentioned, among other things. Namely, from the time of Agrippinus, Bishop of Carthage, as we said in the preface to this Council. For information about this addition, see this edition: vol. 2, p. 358 (footnote).