The idea of ​​apostolic succession in the letter of St. Firmilian of Caesarea to the Holy Martyr. Cyprian of Carthage

Abstract: The article is devoted to the analysis of the teachings of St. Firmilian of Caesarea on apostolic succession, formulated in his letter to the Holy Martyr. Cyprian of Carthage (256). The creation of this text was due to disagreements on the issue of the need to baptize heretics who converted to the Catholic faith. If St. Firmilian and Svmch. Cyprian considered heretical baptisms invalid, then the Roman Bishop Stephen, referring to local Roman tradition, supposedly dating back to the apostles, as well as to his authority as the successor of the apostle. Peter, insisted on a general rejection of the practice of re-baptism of heretics. As part of the dispute, questions were raised regarding the status of the ap. Peter as the basis of church unity, the successive transmission of the apostolic witness in local Churches and the hierarchy of authority between them, as well as the transmission of the power to forgive sins from the apostles to the bishops. As the author tried to show, St. Firmilian largely embraces the universalist ecclesiology of the svmch. Cyprian, nevertheless supplementing his argumentation with theses based on an earlier local-historical interpretation of the apostolic succession, characteristic of Egesippus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian. In particular, he contrasts the authority of the Church of Jerusalem with the Roman tradition and claims the apostolic origin of the customs of the Church of Caesarea. A prominent place in the letter of St. Firmilian is also interested in polemics against the Montanists. The special emphasis on the transfer of episcopal authority through ordination in the theology of St. Firmilian anticipates the formation in the East of a system of church provinces, within which control over episcopal appointments is concentrated in the hands of the metropolitan. Within the framework of such a system of church organization, apostolic succession begins to be seen not as something belonging to the local Church, but as a gift imparted to it from the outside by the episcopal college. The ecclesiological issues of disputes about the baptism of heretics seem relevant in light of the current crisis in the relationship between the Orthodox Local Churches. Abstract: This article analyzes St. Firmilian's of Caesarea doctrine of apostolic succession, formulated in his letter to Cyprian of Carthage (256). This text was written in connection with the disagreements as to the necessity for the baptism of heretics who converted to Catholic faith. St. Firmilian and St. Cyprian regarded heretical baptism as invalid, whereas the Roman bishop Stephen referred to the local Roman tradition, which seemingly went back to the apostles. He also referred to his own authority as apostle Peter’s successor and insisted on rejecting the practice of repeated baptism of heretics. In this controversy, questions were raised about the status of apostle Peter as the foundation for ecclesiastic unity, about the successive transmission of apostolic testimony in local churches and their hiararchy of authority, as well as about the transmission of the power to absolve of sins from the apostles to bishops. As the author of the article tries to show, St. Firmilian largely adopts the universalist ecclesiology of St. Cyprian, but at the same time complements his argumentation with reasons based on the earlier local and historical interpretation of the apostolic succession typical of Hegesippus, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, and Tertullian. In particular, St. Firmilian contrasts the Roman tradition with the authority of the Jerusalem Church and claims that the customs of the Church of Caesarea are of the apostolic origin. A prominent place in St. Firmilian’s epistle is occupied by a polemic against Montanists. Particular emphasis on the transfer of episcopal power through the ordination anticipates in the doctrine of St. Firmilian the formation of a system of ecclesiastical provinces in the East, within which the control over the episcopal ordinations is concentrated in the hands of the metropolitan. Within the framework of such a system of church organization, the apostolic succession begins to be viewed not as something belonging to the local Church, but as a gift given to it from the outside by bishops’ college. The ecclesiological problems of the controversy over the baptism of heretics seem topical in the light of the current crisis in relations between local Orthodox Churches. The doctrine of apostolic succession already in the first centuries of Christian history became an integral element of church identity. Having foundations in the New Testament 1 and parallels in the Jewish 2 and Hellenistic traditions 3, in the middle of the 2nd century. it becomes the subject of special reflection within the Catholic Church. The process of development of this concept goes in parallel with the polemics of church authors against Gnostic groups, as well as with the emergence of the phenomenon of mono-episcopalism in local church communities 4 . Between the middle of the 2nd and the middle of the 3rd century. Within the framework of the Catholic tradition, several concepts of apostolic succession are formed, the common feature of which is the doctrine of the indissoluble continuity and identity of the Catholic Church in its current state with the original community of Christ's disciples. At the same time, in determining the nature, mechanisms and carriers of continuity between early Christian authors of the 2nd–3rd centuries. There are certain differences: 1. The local-historical concept of apostolicity became most widespread in the ante-Nicene period. Within its framework, the doctrinal unity of the Church is determined by fidelity to the apostolic witness, which is preserved by local Churches and confessed according to them 5 . Moreover, Churches founded directly by the apostles have special authority and significance in inter-church communication. In its most developed form, the local historical interpretation of apostolicity is presented by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, which directly connects fidelity to Tradition with the historical succession of the episcopate (successiones episcoporum) 6. It is the bishop who, in his perception, is the main custodian of the common apostolic witness and its evangelist 7 . The succession of episcopate in local Churches is for St. Irenaeus was an important argument in his polemic against Gnostic heresies, the “traditions” of which do not go back to the apostles. If controversial issues arise, according to St. Irenaeus, it is necessary to resort to the authoritative testimony of the Churches having direct apostolic origin (in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt) 8 . As an obvious example of apostolic succession, St. Irenaeus cites the Roman Church, founded by app. Peter and Paul and strengthened in orthodoxy by communication with other Churches 9, as well as the Church of Ephesus. He also points to his personal line of succession in relation to the apostles through his teacher, Polycarp of Smyrna 10. It is obvious that the apostolic tradition, from the point of view of St. Irenaeus, inseparably unites the entire Church into a single whole (traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam) 11, however, this unity is realized on a very specific, historical level in the apostolic succession of bishops within individual local Churches that are in harmony with each other. A similar view is characteristic of Tertullian, who distinguishes among others the “apostolic Churches” (ecclesias apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis president). Moreover, he gives special authority, along with the Roman Church, to a number of other Churches (the communities of Corinth, Philip, Ephesus) 12. Agreement with the Apostolic Churches for Tertullian is the criterion of truth (constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, ueritati deputandam) 13. The apostolic succession of the Churches is connected with the succession of bishops (ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem). Thus, Tertullian indicates Polycarp of Smyrna as the successor of the ap. John, and Clement of Rome - the successor of the ap. Petra (sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Iohanne conlocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum est) 14. Of key importance for understanding the origins of the local historical model of apostolicity are also the testimonies of Eusebius of Caesarea about the activities of a Christian of Jewish origin 15 Egesippos, who in the middle of the 2nd century. undertook a journey from the East to Rome, communicating with various bishops along the way and collecting local traditions 16. Egesippus summarized this information in a work in five books, 17 which, unfortunately, is known to us only from quotes in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History.” Based on this evidence, we can conclude that Hegesippus’ interpretation of apostolicity was very close to Irineeva’s. He points to the fidelity of the bishops of individual communities (in particular, Corinth) to the apostolic witness and their agreement among themselves, which, apparently, is used by him as an argument in anti-heretical polemics. The succession of the episcopate is demonstrated, as in St. Irenaeus, with the help of episcopal lists. Probably, the Jerusalem Church occupied an important place in the work of Hegesippus, which is quite expected for a Christian from a Jewish environment 18 . Since the activity of Hegesippus preceded the activity of St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian, there is reason to assume that the local-historical model of apostolicity initially arose in the East and only then became widespread in the West. 2. The original treatment of apostolic succession is present in the works of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Just like St. Irenaeus, they consider the apostolic tradition as the basis of the doctrine of the Church, but they put forward charismatic teachers as the successors of the apostles, keeping their testimony and penetrating its deep meaning. Moreover, if for Clement the idea of historical succession of teachers is important, transmitting to their students the fullness of knowledge of the truth (unlike other believers) 19, then for Origen the historical vision of succession is replaced by a mystical one: the spiritual meaning of Scripture is intended to be found only by those Christians who have received the “gifts of the Spirit” (qui Spiritus dona excellentia mererentur) and especially the gift of speech, wisdom and reason (sermonis, sapientiae et scientiae gratiam per ipsum Spiritum sanctum percepissent) 20 . From this comes Origen's idea that before God the bishop in a community may not be the one who is considered a bishop by people. And it is precisely such a person, having received, like the apostles, Divine grace, who has the right to forgive the sins of others 21. Based on such premises, the conflict between Origen and the Alexandrian bishop Demetrius 22 is quite understandable. At the same time, Origen pointed out the importance of the agreement of the interpreters of tradition with their predecessors (nonnulli eorum diversa a prioribus sentiant) and, accordingly, with the apostolic tradition (ecclesiastica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita; illa sola credenda est veritas, quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica traditione discordat) 23 . Judging by the testimony of Eusebius, Origen also recognized the special antiquity of the Roman Church and, probably, the authority of its testimony 24. In general, the interpretations of apostolicity characteristic of Clement and Origen can be designated as charismatic-historical and charismatic-mystical, respectively. 3. Smch. Cyprian of Carthage, like St. Irenaeus, testifies to the Petrine origin of the Roman Church and attributes to it a special significance within the framework of church communion, 25 while simultaneously developing another – a universal-hierarchical interpretation of apostolicity. From his point of view, Peter is a symbol of the unity of the Church, and the See of Peter, being revealed in every episcopal throne, is the common basis of the unity of the episcopate and, therefore, the unity of the church 26. The unity of the Church is thus determined not by the historical succession of individual communities, but by the foundation of the entire episcopal college as a whole by Christ in Peter 27 . Of particular importance for microwaves. Cyprian also has the practice of holding regional councils, at which the bishops of a particular region formulate a common view on current church problems 28 . The principles of universal Roman primacy, the absolute independence of each local Church and each bishop 29 and regional conciliar activity are found in the ecclesiology of the Holy Martyr. Cyprian is in a complex tension with each other: the second and third principles make the first simply symbolic, which weakens the inherent supremacy. Cyprian has a universalist understanding of catholicity in the absence of church-wide conciliar activity in a given period, while the second and third can also enter into confrontation with each other if there is a division between the bishops of one region. All identified models of apostolicity were formulated in a complex polemical context: the local-historical and charismatic-historical models - in opposition to the Gnostics and supporters of other heresies, the charismatic-mystical - simultaneously within the framework of anti-heretical polemics, and, probably, in the context of the conflict between Origen and the Alexandrian Bishop Demetrius, the universal-hierarchical model - within the framework of the confrontation with the Holy Martyr. Cyprian with schismatics and a heated discussion with Pope Stephen about the need to baptize heretics who converted to the Catholic faith. St. Firmilian of Caesarea and the dispute over the baptism of heretics One of the most striking examples of polemical understanding of the idea of ​​apostolic succession, directly or indirectly taking into account and transforming in a unique way its variations indicated above, is the letter of the Bishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia Firmilian, one of the most prominent church figures of the mid-3rd century. As the successor of St. Alexander, who transferred to the See of Jerusalem 30, St. Firmilian played an active role in inter-church contacts of this period. He provided patronage to Origen (along with Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine), inviting him to visit Cappadocia and himself periodically visiting him for theological conversations in Palestine 31, fought together with Helen of Tarsus and Theoctistus of Caesarea against the spread of the Novatian schism in Antioch 32, at the very end of his life he opposed the Adoptian the heresies of the Antiochian bishop Paul of Samosata, visiting Antioch twice to admonish him (and, apparently, participating in councils directed against him). When, despite all his assurances that he had renounced heresy, Paul again demonstrated his adherence to Adoption and a council was again convened at Antioch to discuss his cause, St. Firmilian hastened to take part in it, but on the way he died in Tarsus (268(9)) 33 . Preserved to this day in the Latin version as part of the corpus of letters of the Svmch. Cyprian of Carthage's letter to St. Firmilian 34 was written in the second half of 256 35 in response to a visit to Cappadocia by the envoy of the Carthaginian bishop, Deacon Rogatian. The latter brought St. Firmilian received a message from the Carthaginian bishop (which has not reached us), probably adding to it a number of his messages to other persons 36. St. Firmilian himself testifies that he repeatedly read the texts sent to him, but due to Rogatsian’s desire to quickly leave Cappadocia, he was forced to write a response in a hurry 37. The reason for the exchange of messages between the bishops of Churches so distant from each other 38 was the actions of the Roman Bishop Stephen, who broke off communication both with a number of eastern bishops (Firmilian himself, Helen of Tarsus and with all the bishops of Cilicia, Cappadocia and Galatia 39), and with African bishops 40. Pope Stephen was prompted to such actions by the disagreement of the bishops of the designated regions with the Roman practice of accepting heretics into the fold of the Church not through baptism, but through the laying on of hands. Unfortunately, Pope Stephen's position can only be reconstructed on the basis of the testimony of his opponents, who may not have presented it completely and accurately 41 . In any case, it can be stated with certainty that it is St. Stephen raised the controversial issue of heretical baptism in direct connection with the problem of apostolic succession. Referring to what supposedly goes back to app. Peter and Paul tradition 42, preserved by the Roman Church, he argued that baptism performed in heretical communities should be recognized as valid, since it is performed in the name of the Most Holy Trinity 43. The source of sanctification in this case is Christ Himself, sending grace even to those who call on His name, while being outside the fence of the Church 44. At the same time, St. Stephen did not recognize other sacraments of heretics and argued that heretics could receive the grace of the Holy Spirit only in the Catholic Church through the laying on of hands 45 . Apparently, in his perception, the born (i.e. those who have received baptism) in communities separated from the Church (haeresis quidem parit et exponit) can be nurtured by the Catholic Church as their own children (quos non ipsa peperit pro suis nutrit) 46. If you believe St. Cyprian and Firmilian, St. Stephen put forward as an argument in favor of this position the fact that heretics accept other heretics into their communities without re-baptism, only through communion (non baptizent, sed communicent) 47 . This statement seems curious. The question arises, why should heretical practices have authority for the Catholic Church? But, apparently, this thesis is taken out of context - it is quite possible that St. Stephen pointed out to his opponents that by rebaptizing, they were becoming like the schismatic Novatians, which other heretical and schismatic groups did not do 48 . The surviving fragmentary evidence does not allow us to unambiguously answer the question of whether St. Stephen on the exclusive authority of the Roman see in the Church, or only expressed his conviction in the correctness and apostolic origin of Roman practice. Most likely, it was about the second 49. However, in his polemic against supporters of the practice of baptism of heretics, St. Stephen definitely referred to his succession to St. Peter, obviously attaching a very special significance to this fact (qui sic de episcopatus sui loco gloriatur et se successionem Petri tenere contendit; per successionem cathedram Petri habere se praedicat) 50. Considering his opponents as apostates from the apostolic tradition, Stephen considered it necessary to break off Eucharistic communion with them. And St. Cyprian, and St. Firmilian, who largely accepted the argument of the Carthaginian bishop, but tried to develop it (as he himself points out 51), were convinced that the sacraments can only be performed in the Catholic Church, therefore true baptism cannot exist among heretics and schismatics. Their baptism upon conversion to the true faith is not rebaptism, but a genuine and only baptism 52. Basing their argument on Holy Scripture 53, they at the same time could not completely ignore the idea put forward by Stephen of the authority of the local Roman church tradition, as going back to the apostles and preserved by the Roman bishops - the successors of the apostle. Petra. The Bishop of Caesarea was particularly indignant at Pope Stephen's readiness to break off Eucharistic communion with those who disagreed because of this discrepancy 54 . Moreover, if the microwave Cyprian tried, as far as can be judged from the texts that have survived to our time, to maintain some kind of diplomacy and strove to maintain communication with St. Stephen even without reaching full agreement 55, then St. Firmilian condemned the Roman bishop in very harsh terms, compared him with Judas 56 and pointed out that he “with discordant fury” rebelled “against the sacrament and bonds of the world” (contra sacramentum et vinculum pacis furore discordiae rebellare) 57 and “excommunicated himself alone from everyone” (solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti). A schismatic is precisely one who has retreated from communion in church unity (ille est vere schismaticus qui se a communione ecclesiasticae unitatis apostatam fecerit) 58 . At the same time, according to St. Firmilian, sayings of St. Stefan to the svmch. Cyprian were also very harsh. He allegedly called him “false Christ” (pseudochristum), “false apostle” (pseudoapostolum) and “deceitful worker” (dolosum operarium) 59 . Despite the simplicity of the microwave logic. Cyprian and St. Firmilian, their acrivial approach could not historically be consistently implemented in conditions when large groups of bishops first broke off communion due to some kind of doctrinal disagreement, and then restored communion without one of the parties recognizing that it had been outside the Church all this time. Actually, the dispute over the baptism of heretics itself was one of these conflicts, and the Church reveres all three of its main participants as saints, despite the fact that historically the moderate version of the approach of Pope Stephen still prevailed 60 . Having examined in a first approximation the historical situation within which the doctrine of the apostolic succession of St. is developing. Firmilian, let us now turn to a detailed consideration of its main aspects. At the same time, the main difficulty for us will be to separate the original ideas of St. Firmilian from the theses he accepted. Cyprian, despite the fact that the letter of the Bishop of Carthage to the Bishop of Caesarea has not survived, and to identify Cyprian theses in the text of Firmilian we will have to turn to other writings of the Carthaginian bishop. This gives the conclusions of this work a certain amount of hypotheticalness, however, in some places there is an “Asia Minor flavor” in the message of St. Firmilian is more than obvious. Unity of the Church based on Peter St. Firmilian begins his epistle with a confession of the doctrine of the Church as “the one spiritual house of God” (spiritalis domus Dei una est) 61 and the union of unity (unitatis vinculum), based on unity, peace and harmony (adunatio enim et pax et concordia) 62. This unity overcomes not only spatial and temporal distances, but even the boundaries between the human world and the angelic world 63 . This ideal picture of unity, peace and harmony in the Church only highlights the outrageous and destructive activities of Pope Stephen in the author’s perception, and also emphasizes the impassable line between the Church and the communities that have separated from it. The images that St. Firmilian uses to demonstrate the unity and uniqueness of the Church, he borrows from the Holy Martyr. Cyprian. The Church is the bride of Christ (sponsa Christi una est) 64. In the Old Testament it was prefigured by Noah's Ark, outside of which none of the people could be saved from the flood 65. In the New Testament, the foundation of the Church is St. Peter, originally alone (soli Petro Christus dixerit) received the promise from the Lord 66. The Bishop of Caesarea emphasizes that Stephen himself, while claiming succession from Peter, by his recognition of the validity of heretical baptism, subverts the meaning of St. Peter as the basis of the unity of the Church. He “introduces many other “stones” and builds new buildings of many Churches” (multas alias petras inducat et ecclesiarum multarum nova aedificia constituat) 67. According to St. Firmilian, if St. Stephen would have been consistent, he would have had to enter into complete unity with the heretics in prayer and sacraments (et orationes pariter cum eisdem misceat et altare ac sacrificium commune constituat) 68 . Thus, we can speak more or less definitely about the positive reception of St. Firmilian's universal-hierarchical interpretation of the image of the Ap. Peter as the general foundation of church unity, not reaching (as in the case of St. Cyprian) to directly denying the special significance of Petrine succession to the Roman Church. This step at the end of the 4th century, based on the indicated premises, would be taken by the Omian bishop Palladius of Ratiar 69. Catholic truth and local traditions Another “universalist” motif that St. Firmilian clearly borrows from the svmch. Cyprian, this is the opposition of Catholic truth and local traditions. This aspect of Cyprian's ecclesiology greatly distinguishes him from his predecessors, St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian. At the same time, St. Firmilian develops it not entirely consistently, supplementing it with arguments characteristic of a different, local-historical, model of apostolicity. Just like SVM. Cyprian 70, St. Firmilian considers the doctrine that the sacraments are performed only in the Catholic Church as an absolute church-wide truth, to which it is unreasonable to prefer some local traditions (quis tam vanus sit ut veritati consuetudinem praeferat), since even the Jews, who rejected the new way of truth after the coming of Christ, cannot be justified by mere references to the antiquity of their tradition (antiquissima consuetudo) 71. The apostolic origin of Roman practice and svmch. Cyprian, and St. Firmilian is definitely not recognized. According to them, the most serious heresies appeared only in the post-apostolic period, therefore the apostles could not speak out about the rules for admitting their adherents to the Church 72 . At the same time, the heretics of the apostolic age were resolutely condemned by the apostles 73 . This circumstance allows us to consider the custom to which St. refers. Stephen, only by “human tradition” (traditionem hanc humanam esse) 74. At the same time, there are direct indications in the apostolic texts on how heretics should be accepted into the bosom of the Church, svmch. Cyprian and St. Firmilian is not found. Apparently, it was the absence of obvious evidence from Scripture that prompted the primate of the Roman Church to appeal to some local customs. At the same time, in the perception of St. Firmilian, if St. Stephen and followed the local tradition, then, having broken off communication with other Churches, he acted contrary to his predecessors in the department, who kept peace with other Churches (rumpens adversus vos pacem, quam semper antecessores eius vobiscum amore et honore mutuo custodierunt) 75. It is noteworthy that if smch. Cyprian substantiates his idea of ​​church truth in the biblical 76 and conciliar 77 perspective, then St. Firmilian speaks of a happy coincidence in the case of the Asia Minor communities of truth and custom (ceterum nos veritati et consuetudinem iungimus et consuetudini Romanorum consuetudinem sed veritatis opponimus), which goes back to time immemorial (nec meminimus hoc apud nos aliquando coepisse) and is attributed to St. Firmilian to Christ Himself and the Apostles 78, but was recorded relatively recently at the Council of Iconium (30 3rd century) 79. Africans and St. Firmilian praises the abandonment of a false custom (obviously adopted from the Roman Church) for the sake of truth (errorem vos consuetudinis reliquisse) 80. Another line of criticism of St. Stephen at St. Firmilian fits entirely within the framework of the local-historical model of apostolicity: he argues that the Roman Church does not fully preserve the customs adopted from the apostles (non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita et frustra apostolorum auctoritatem praetendere), allowing discrepancies with other Churches in the date of celebration of Easter and in many liturgical practices 81 . This thesis prompts us to recall the Easter disputes of the end of the 2nd century, when the Roman Church was opposed to the Church of Asia. The leader of the Asian episcopate, Polycrates of Ephesus, pointed to the apostolic origin and authority of the local tradition of the Asian Churches. In his interpretation, two more motives are combined with the idea of ​​apostolic succession of the episcopate: a special reverence for the burial places of the apostles and other saints and his own blood relationship with previous bishops. Both, according to Polycrates, strengthen the authority of his testimony 82. Unlike the Asian Churches and the Roman Church, the Church of Caesarea Cappadocia, apparently, could not boast of apostolic origin 83, therefore St. Firmilian contrasts the practice of the Roman Church with the customs of the Church of Jerusalem (nec observari illic omnia aequaliter quae Hierosolymis observantur) 84, with which he, as we have seen, had close ties. Interestingly, the lack of continuity between the original Judeo-Christian community of Jerusalem and the community of pagan Christians that emerged after the destruction of the city does not bother him 85 . At the same time, St. Firmilian does not consider the diversity of local church customs as completely unacceptable and does not consider differences in such matters to be a serious reason for breaking communion 86 . St. Firmilian oscillates somewhat contradictorily between recognizing the practice of baptizing heretics who come to the Church as part of the general Church truth and as one of the local customs. If we recognize it as part one, then the reproach of St. It seems to Stephen that the break in Eucharistic communion is not entirely consistent. If we recognize it as part of the second, then the degree of polemic against the position of St. Stefan seems inconsistent with the very significance of the issue. Transfer of power to forgive sins from the apostles to the bishops If St. Pope Stephen, apparently, emphasized in his interpretation of the problem of the validity of heretical baptism on invoking the name of Christ or the entire Holy Trinity, indicating, obviously, that the performer of the sacrament is Christ Himself, then St. Firmilian emphasized the fundamental importance of the question through whom exactly the sacrament is performed 87. This question prompts St. Firmilian to the development of the most original aspect of his doctrine of apostolic succession. According to the bishop of Caesarea, Christ granted the power to forgive sins (potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum) to the apostles and the Churches they founded (apostolis data est et ecclesiis quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt), and in the Churches the power was transferred to the bishops, who received it from the apostles through the succession of consecration (et episcopis qui eis ordinatione vicaria successerunt) 88 . Persons who officiate outside the framework of the Church do not have the right to do so and are blasphemers 89 . Even a legally ordained bishop who has fallen away from church unity completely loses the grace of the priesthood, and the sacraments performed by him are recognized as invalid 90. The stated doctrine of the succession of episcopate power is put by St. Firmilian is in a special position in comparison with the above-mentioned interpretations of the idea of ​​the apostolicity of the Church. Unlike the microwave Cyprian, the bishop of Caesarea does not develop the idea of ​​the unity of the episcopal college, although it is present in him in its infancy 91. St. Firmilian in this case is not interested in the general foundations of the unity of the Church, but in specific rights, which are implemented in practice by specific ministers, although the reasoning of the Supreme Martyr. The bishop of Caesarea, as we have seen, willingly accepts Cyprian about a certain general church truth. Just like St. Irenaeus, St. Firmilian, in all likelihood, interprets episcopacy as ministry within the local Church, otherwise the reference to the founding of church communities by the apostles makes no sense in the context of his reasoning. At the same time, he shifts the emphasis in his interpretation of succession from the teaching function of the bishop as the guardian and evangelist of the apostolic tradition to the right commanded by Christ 92 to forgive sins 93 . However, like the true tradition of St. Irenea, St. has this right. Firmiliana is transmitted to the entirety of the local community and accumulates in the figure of the bishop: the Church, along with the apostles, act as the recipient of the gift of remission of sins received from Christ Himself. It is also important to note that this right, in contrast to the teaching authority of St. Irenaeus is equivalent in all Churches. The Apostolic Churches are not given a special status in this case, since through consecration all bishops are the successors of the apostles. Great attention to the issue of the right to forgive sins brings St. Firmilian with his friend Origen, but they differ radically in their conclusions. If Origen, as we have seen, was inclined to the idea of ​​the priesthood as a charismatic gift that God can bestow on a member of the community regardless of appointment, then St. Firmilian makes the latter the main mechanism of apostolic succession 94 . This interpretation separates St. Firmilian from Egesippos, St. Irenaeus and then from Eusebius of Caesarea, which track not the facts of the ordination of the primate of this or that Church by one or another bishop, but the successive change of heads of local Churches 95. St.'s position Firmiliana presupposes the de facto endowment of the local Church in the person of its primate with apostolic succession from the outside, through his ordination by other bishops 96. This practice contributed to the development of regional church hierarchy, since within a certain area the right to control the ordination of bishops passed by the beginning of the 4th century. (obviously, in order to avoid chaos) to the bishop of the main city - the metropolitan 97. Such relationships lead to the formation of a new regional-hierarchical model of apostolicity, which, unlike the previous ones, did not become the subject of ecclesiological theorization, but only canonical-legal regulation. A specific feature of this model is the idea of ​​the bishops of one region as a hierarchized community, which, by virtue of apostolic succession, has the right to ordain bishops to vacant sees and collegially solve problems of church life in their region. Apparently, St. Firmilian was prompted to develop the theme of succession through ordination by the spread of the heresy of Montanism in Asia Minor, which contrasted the ministry of bishops with the activities of charismatic prophets. St. Firmilian in his letter repeatedly returns from different angles to the topic of prophetic ministry, pointing to the abundance of prophets in the Catholic Church and emphasizing the complementarity of the revelations received 98. At the same time, he denies Montanus and Prisca the true worship of the Most Holy Trinity and asserts that they and other heretics lack power and grace (nihil habere potestatis aut gratiae possunt) 99 . As an example of heretical sacrilege, St. Firmilian cites the actions of a certain woman who claimed to have the prophetic gift, who baptized using the formula accepted in the Church, and even celebrated the Eucharist. St. Firmilian wonders whether St. would approve. Stefan, based on his logic, the baptisms performed by this woman, or rather by the demon acting through her 100? If we try to determine the nature of the doctrine of the apostolic succession of St. Firmilian, it can be argued that the meeting of the traditional local-historical (which, apparently, is adhered to by his opponent, St. Stephen) and the Cyprian universal-hierarchical interpretation of apostolicity leads in the theology of St. Firmilian to a still not entirely organic synthesis, from which a regional-hierarchical model of apostolic succession was born by the end of the century, canonically formalized (in its practical aspects) at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The change in paradigms was, apparently, due to two circumstances: 1. The relevance of the local historical model was determined by the preservation in the Churches of the living memory of the apostolic preaching. It is obvious that the historical memory of the apostles and their gospel became more and more abstract over time. The significance of the fact of the apostolic founding of a particular community could be questioned, since all communities and all bishops kept a universal apostolic tradition, the consensus in the interpretation of which in the 3rd century. at the regional level it was achieved through councils, and at the ecumenical level - mainly through the exchange of messages between bishops. It is this tendency that is visible in the reception of St. Firmilian of Cyprian’s opposition of general church truth and local custom. 2. The processes of the rise of new church centers and the formation of regional primacy went in parallel with the formation of the idea that the bearer of apostolic succession is not a separate local Church, but the entire episcopal college. With this interpretation, the bishops of Carthage and Caesarea could claim no less authority than the bishops of Rome and Ephesus. At the same time, apostolic succession becomes, first of all, an instrument for the hierarchization of relations at the regional level, and at the ecumenical level, the ability of primacy sees to mobilize large groups of bishops in their support, declaring their consolidated position through councils, acquires special significance. It seems that any reader familiar with the problems of the current crisis of inter-church communion, caused by the intervention of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople in the church situation in Ukraine and the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church to break eucharistic communion with it, will see many analogies in the historical situation considered in this article. As now, the focus is in the middle of the 3rd century. There were such issues as the hierarchy of authority between episcopal thrones, the status of schismatic communities, including the presence in them of a priesthood capable of performing the sacraments and transmitting apostolic succession, and grounds for breaking church communion. However, the conflict between St. Pope Stefan, on the one hand, and Svmch. Cyprian and St. Firmilian - on the other hand, is only one of the historical incidents associated with the discussion of these problems. The position of none of the warring parties has received full Church-wide recognition, and all participants in the dispute are revered by the Church as saints. This circumstance once again emphasizes that individual historical precedents and the opinions of some, albeit very authoritative, church authors cannot be considered in the modern theological context as an unconditional ecclesiological norm. Moreover, the very fact that the lack of consensus on these issues did not lead in the 3rd century. to a global church schism, gives hope that this may not happen now, which, of course, does not exclude the need to search for a general church consensus based on Tradition in its catholic completeness and taking into account the historical variability of forms of church organization. Afanasyev N., protopr. The Church Presiding in Love // ​​Afanasyev N., Protopres. Church of God in Christ: Collection of articles. M., 2015. pp. 542–600. Mattei P. African cathedrals in the era of St. Cyprian of Carthage // Council and conciliarity: To the centenary of the beginning of a new era. Proceedings of the international scientific conference November 13–16, 2017. M., 2018. pp. 7–27. Baumkamp E. Communication in der Kirche des 3. Jahrhunderts. Bischöfe und Gemeinden zwischen Konflikt und Konsens im Imperium Romanum. Tubingen, 2014. Carpin A. Battezzati nell'unica vera Chiesa? Cipriano di Cartagine e la controversia battesimale. Caspar E. Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft. Bd. I. Tübingen, 1930. Dunn G. D. Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church. Ehrhardt A. The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church. L., 1953. Emmenegger G. Zur Bedeutung Petri in der Kontroverse um die Ketzertaufe zwischen Cyprian von Karthago und Stephanus von Rom // Heiligkeit und Apostolizität der Kirche. Innsbruck, 2010, pp. 181–195. Girardi M. Scrittura e battesimo degli heretici nella lettera di Firmiliano a Cipriano // Vetera Christianorum. 1982. Vol. 19. P. 37–67. Hall S. G. Stephen I of Rome and the One Baptism // Studia Patristica. Vol. XVII. Pt. 2. Oxford, 1982, pp. 796–798. Métivier S. La Cappadoce (IVe–VIe siècle). Une histoire provinciale de l'Empire romain d'Orient. P., 2005. Molland E. Le développement de l’idée de succession apostolique // Molland E. Opuscula Patristica. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsø, 1970, pp. 181–206. Rankin D. Tertullian and the Church. Cambridge, 1995. Salaverri J. La sucesión apostólica en la Historia eclesiástica de Eusebio Cesariense // Gregorianum. 1933. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 219–247. Saumagne Ch. Saint Cyprien, évêque de Carthage, “Pape” d’Afrique (248–258). Contribution à l’étude des “persécutions” de Dèce et de Valérien. P., 1975. Sedley D. Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy // Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. New Series. 1977. No. 23 (203). P. 74–120. Simonetti M. Origene dalla Cappadocia ai Cappadoci // Origene e l’alessandrinismo cappadoce (III–IV secolo): Atti del V Convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su “Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina” (Bari, 20–22 settembre 2000) / M. Girardi, ed. Bari, 2002. P. 13–28. Trigg J. W. The Charismatic Intellectual: Origen’s Understanding of Religious Leadership // Church History. 1981. Vol. 50.No. 1. P. 5–19. Turner S. H. Apostolic Succession // Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry / H. B. Swete, ed. L., 1921. P. 93–214. Wojtowytsch M. Papsttum und Konzile von den Anfängen bis zu Leo (440–461). Stuttgart, 1981. Afanas’ev N., protopriest (2015) “Tserkov’, predsedatel’stvuiushchaia v Liubvi” [Church that Presides in Love], in: N Afanas’ev, protoprest, Tserkov’ Bozhiia vo Khriste: Sbornik statei [God’s Church in Christ. Collection of Articles]. Moscow, pp. 542–600 (in Russian). Baumkamp E. (2014) Kommunikation in der Kirche des 3. Jahrhunderts. Bischöfe und Gemein- den zwischen Konfiikt und Konsens im Imperium Romanum. Tubingen. Carpin A. (2007) Battezzati nell'unica vera Chiesa? Cipriano di Cartagine e la controversia battesi- male. Bologna. Caspar E. (1930) Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, Bd. I. Tübingen. Dunn G. 2007. Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church. Ehrhardt A. (1953) The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church. London. Emmenegger G. (2010) “Zur Bedeutung Petri in der Kontroverse um die Ketzertaufe zwischen Cyprian von Karthago und Stephanus von Rom”, in: Heiligkeit und Apostolizität der Kirche. Innsbruck. pp. 181–195. Girardi M. (1982) “Scrittura e battesimo degli heretici nella lettera di Firmiliano a Cipriano.” Vetera Christianorum, 19, pp. 37–67. Hall S. G. (1982) “Stephen I of Rome and the One Baptism.” Studia Patristica, XVII (2). Mattei P. (2018) “African sobory v epokhu sv. Kipriana Karfagenskogo” [African Councils in the Time of St. Cyprian]. In: Sobor i sobornost’: K stoletiiu nachala novoi epokhi. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii 13–16 noiabria 2017 [The Council and the Spirit of Unity: 100th Anniversary of the New Epoch. Proceedings of the International Conference, 13‒16 November 2017]. Moscow. pp. 7–27 (in Russian). Métivier S. (2005) La Cappadoce (IVe–VIe siècle). Une histoire provinciale de l'Empire romain d'Orient. Paris. Molland E. (1970) “Le développement de l'idée de succession apostolique”, in: E. Molland. Opuscula Patristica. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsø. pp. 181–206. Rankin D. (1995) Tertullian and the Church. Cambridge. Salaverri J. (1933) “La sucesión apostólica en la Historia eclesiástica de Eusebio Cesariense.” Gregorianum, 14 (2), pp. 219–247. Saumagne Ch. (1975) Saint Cyprien, évêque de Carthage, “Pape” d’Afrique (248–258). Contribution à l’étude des “persécutions” de Dèce et de Valérien. Paris. Sedley D. (1977) “Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. New Series, 23 (203), pp. 74–120. Simonetti M. (2002) “Origene dalla Cappadocia ai Cappadoci”, in: M. Girardi (ed.) Origene e l’alessandrinismo cappadoce (III-IV secolo): Atti del V Convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su “Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina” (Bari, 20‒22 settembre 2000). Bari. pp. 13–28. Trigg J. (1981) “The Charismatic Intellectual: Origen’s Understanding of Religious Leadership.” Church History, 50(1), pp. 5–19. Turner, S. (1921) “Apostolic Succession,” in: H. Swete (ed.) Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry. London, pp. 93–214. Wojtowytsch M. (1981) Papsttum und Konzile von den Anfängen bis zu Leo (440‒461). Stuttgart. The New Testament contains evidence, the synthesis of which leads to the formation of the doctrine of apostolic succession. First, this is the idea of ​​​​the fundamental importance of the apostles in the Church (Eph. 2:20); secondly, the call of Christ to spread the apostolic gospel throughout the world (Matt. 28:19–20; cf. 2 Tim. 2:2) and the teaching of the apostle. Paul (who, despite the fact that he was not a witness to the earthly life of Christ, called himself an apostle - Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:1) about the need for believers to keep the apostolic tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 2Tim.1:13; Gal.1:8); thirdly, the presence of a special pastoral charisma among the apostles (John 21:15–17 - we are talking about the Apostle Peter) and the right to “bind and loosen” (Matthew 16:19; 18:18; cf. John 20:22–23), and not only in a historical, but also in an eschatological perspective (Matthew 19:28). Apostles appoint successors to themselves through the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), but the apostolic status itself is unique and is not transmitted to subsequent clergy. We are talking about lists of Jewish high priests. On this see: Ehrhardt A. The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church. L., 1953. P. 158–159. On the concept of “succession” in the ancient philosophical context, see: Sedley D. Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy // Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. New Series. 1977. No. 23 (203). P. 75 About its appearance in the first half of the 2nd century. evidenced by the corpus of letters from the svmch. Ignatius of Antioch. This aspect is rightly drawn attention to by C. G. Turner: Turner S. H. Apostolic Succession // Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry / H. B. Swete, ed. L., 1921.P. 106 Irenaeus. Adversus haereses. III. 3. 2. St. Irenaeus, speaking about church succession, mentions the presbyters (traditionem, quae est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur - Ibid. III. 2. 2) and at the same time gives a list of the sole primates of the Roman Church, starting with Linus (Ibid. III. 3. 3). Wed. message of St. Irenaeus, which Eusebius quotes: ἐκκλησίας ἧς σὺ νῦν ἀφηγῇ (Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. V. 24. 14). Thus, despite the incomplete distinction between the terms “bishop” and “presbyter,” St. Irenaeus interprets the early structure of the Roman Church in the light of the monoepiscopal model. See also: Irenaeus. "Against heresies". IV. 26.2 The idea of bishops as successors of the apostles was already characteristic of St. Clement of Rome, although the mono-episcopal organization had not yet been established in his time (Clemens Romanus. Epistula I ad Corinthios. 42, 44). Irenaeus. Adversus haereses. III. 4.1. St. Irenaeus calls the Roman Church “the greatest, most ancient and known to everyone” and emphasizes the fact of its foundation by St. Peter and Paul (maximae et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae ecclesiae). Further, Bishop Lugduna points out: “It is necessary that every Church, due to its initial significance, should turn to this Church, i.e. believers everywhere, since in it the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by believers everywhere" (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses. III. 3. 2). Tertullianus. De praescriptione haereticorum. 36. Tertullian glorifies the special happiness of the Roman Church (ista quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt), due to the testimony in Rome of St. Peter, Paul and John, and also notes that it was from the Roman Church that the African Churches learned the true faith (unde nobis quoque auctoritas praesto est; quid docuerit: cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesseratis). Tertullianus. De praescriptione haereticorum. 21. On the authority of the apostolic Churches, see also: Tertullianus. Adversus Marcionem. I. 21, IV. 5. In general, about Tertullian’s teaching on the apostolicity of the Church, see: Rankin D. Tertullian and the Church. Cambridge, 1995, pp. 98–103. Tertullianus. De praescriptione haereticorum. 32. Compare: Tertullianus. Adversus Marcionem. IV. 5. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. IV. 22.8. Ibid. III. 32; IV. 22. 1–6. Clemens. Stromateis. I. 11–12. Origenes. De principiis. I. Prol. 3. Compare: Ibid. I. Prol. 8. On this, see: Trigg J. W. The Charismatic Intellectual: Origen’s Understanding of Religious Leadership // Church History. 1981. Vol. 50.No. 1. P. 14–16. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. VI. 8, 19. Origenes. De principiis. I. Prol. 2. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. VI. 14.10. Smch. Cyprian calls the Roman See the “primary Church” (ad ecclesiam principalem) and the “Cathedral of Peter” (ad Petri cathedram - obviously in a historical sense, while it is noteworthy that the Roman See is not considered as the Chair of Peter and Paul, since the Church can only have one primate at a time), testifies that the Romans have no access to wickedness (perfidia habere non possit accessum), and indicates that from Rome “the unity of the priesthood arose” (unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est) (Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 59.14). In Ep. 48. 3 The Roman Church is called the “first cause” and “root” of the Catholic Church (ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem). Addressing Pope Cornelius, Svm. Cyprian calls “his communion” “the unity of the Catholic Church” (communicationem tuam id est catholicae ecclesiae unitatem) (Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 48. 3). Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 43.5: “There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one pulpit, built on Peter according to the word of the Lord. It cannot be that another altar was erected or a new priesthood appeared besides one altar and one priesthood" (Deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata. Aliud altare constitui aut sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum altare et unum sacerdotium non potest). Compare: Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. IV. According to the microwave Cyprian, the connection between the bishop and the local Church is inseparable, and it is through communication with their bishop that membership in the Church is determined for believers (episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse – Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 66.8). Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 33.1; on the unity of the episcopal college, see also: “The bishopric is one, and each of the bishops participates integrally in it” (Episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur – Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. V). Compare: Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 66.8. See: Mattei P. African Councils in the Age of St. Cyprian of Carthage // Council and conciliarity: To the centenary of the beginning of a new era: Proceedings of the international scientific conference November 13–16, 2017. M., 2018. pp. 7–27. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 55.21; 72.3; 73.26; Sententiae episcoporum // CSEL.3.1. P. 436 Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. VI. 11. Ibid. VI. 27. On Firmilian’s relationship with Origen, see: Simonetti M. Origene dalla Cappadocia ai Cappadoci // Origene e l’alessandrinismo cappadoce (III–IV secolo): Atti del V Convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su “Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina” (Bari, 20–22 settembre 2000) / M. Girardi, ed. Bari, 2002. P. 15–16. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. VI. 45.3. Ibid. VII. 30. 3–5. About St. Firmilians as the primate of the Caesarea Church, see: Métivier S. La Cappadoce (IVe–VIe siècle). Une histoire provinciale de l'Empire romain d'Orient. P., 2005. P. 173–174. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae.75. See: Girardi M. Scrittura e battesimo degli eretici nella lettera di Firmiliano a Cipriano // Vetera Christianorum. 1982. Vol. 19. P. 39; Dunn G. D. Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church. Sydney, 2007, pp. 170–171; Emmenegger G. Zur Bedeutung Petri in der Kontroverse um die Ketzertaufe zwischen Cyprian von Karthago und Stephanus von Rom // Heiligkeit und Apostolizität der Kirche. Innsbruck, 2010. S. 194; Baumkamp E. Communication in der Kirche des 3. Jahrhunderts. Bischöfe und Gemeinden zwischen Konflikt und Konsens im Imperium Romanum. Tübingen, 2014. S. 303. Girardi. Op. cit. P. 62–64. There is a possibility that the collection also included acts of the Council of Carthage, held in September 256. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 1, 4–5, 13. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. VII. 5.4 Pope Stephen refused not only communication, but even hospitality to the African bishops sent to him. See: Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75.25. J. Dunn cautiously suggested that smch. Cyprian did not quite correctly understand the position of the Roman bishop. It is possible that he simply considered it impossible to baptize again members of the Catholic Church who had transferred to a community separated from it and then repented, and not persons baptized directly in heretical and schismatic communities (Dunn G. D. Op. cit. P. 160–164). If this was so, then there was essentially no discrepancy between African and Roman practices (see: Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 74. 12), however, it is difficult to believe that such a large-scale and heated discussion could unfold from scratch. Ibid. 75. 6. Eusebius also points to the antiquity of the practice of receiving heretics into the Church through the laying on of hands and without re-baptism: Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. VII. 2–3. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 9, 11. In Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 73. 16–18; 74.5; 75.18 also deals with the validity of baptism performed in the name of Christ. St. Stephen allegedly even recognized baptism in the name of Jesus Christ performed by the supporters of Marcion, Valentinus and Apelles (Ibid. 74.7), who obviously did not have the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Ibid. 74.5; 75. 8, 18. Wed. also: Ibid. 69. 10. This interpretation, based on the interpretation of Stephen’s position in the texts of Cyprian and Firmilian, is questioned by J. Dunn (Dunn. Op. cit. P. 163–164, 172), pointing out that the fragment from Stephen’s letter quoted by Cyprian refers to the laying on of hands in connection with repentance (manus illis inponatur in paenitentiam - Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 74. 1). However, repentance and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit are not mutually exclusive, and the laying on of hands could have a double meaning, or rather, repentance could be interpreted as a condition for receiving gifts. Compare: Ibid. 73. 2. According to S. Hall, the practice to which Pope Stephen referred was due to the existence in Rome of various Christian groups, not all of which were subordinate to the Catholic bishop, but were in close cooperation with each other. Moreover, first of all, it was about attracting the Marcionites to the Catholic Church. The Novatians took a tough position, introducing the practice of rebaptism, which caused condemnation from St. Stephen (see: Hall S. G. Stephen I of Rome and the One Baptism // Studia Patristica. Vol. XVII. Pt. 2. Oxford, 1982. P. 796–798). See: Dunn. Op. cit. P. 164. Protopr. N. Afanasyev even suggests that it was the Holy Martyr who tried to establish some kind of general church norm. Cyprian: “Cyprian’s extraordinary persistence rather shows that it was he, and not Stephen, who wanted to set a definite direction for the entire church with the help of councils.” The author further points out that Stephen adopted the language of Cyprian, namely his teaching about the Roman See as the See of Peter and the primacy of the Church. However, in the mouth of Stephen, Cyprian found his own ideas unacceptable. At the same time, O. Nikolai Afanasyev admits that “in the minds of Stephen there could easily have been a slide towards an understanding of the priority of the Roman Church in the sense of the primacy of power.” However, according to the researcher, if Stefan “wanted to become a real pope,” which seems unlikely, then this was “only an isolated case without immediate consequences” (Afanasyev N., Protopres. The Church Presiding in Love // ​​Afanasyev N., Protopres. The Church of God in Christ: collection of articles. M., 2015. pp. 595–596). However, it should be noted that this judgment about. N. Afanasyev is due in large part to his general rejection of the universal ecclesiology of Cyprian of Carthage. About the influence of microwaves. Cyprian on St. Pope Stephen, see also: Caspar E. Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft. Bd. I. Tübingen, 1930. P. 82. Ch. Soman’s hypothesis that Stephen’s actions were directly related to the desire of the Roman authorities to integrate disparate Christian groups into a single community and give it an organized structure led by the Roman bishop seems absolutely fantastic (Saumagne Ch. Saint Cyprien, évêque de Carthage, “Pape” d’Afrique (248–258). Contribution à l’étude des “persécutions” de Dèce et de Valérien P., 1975. P. 117–128). Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 17. Ibid. 69.2, 8; 70; 71.1; 72.1; 73. 1–2, 7, 13; 74.2; 75. 6, 14. On the Biblical Argumentation of St. Cyprian and Firmilian, see: Girardi. Op. cit . Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 6, 25. Ibid. 75. 2. Compare: Sententiae episcoporum // CSEL. 3. 1. P. 455. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75.25. See rule 9(8) of the Arelat Council of 314 and rule 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council. It is interesting that St. Basil retained the practice of rebaptizing the Novatians, indicating their lack of legitimate hierarchical succession. At the same time, he was tolerant of the practice of accepting them without baptism and indicated that heretics, not schismatics, should be rebaptized, which indicates his commitment to a more flexible approach compared to St. Cyprian and Firmilian, to whom he at the same time refers (Rules 1 and 47 of St. Basil the Great). Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75.1. Ibid. 75. 14. Compare: Ibid. 69.2; 74.4, 6–7, 9; Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. VI. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 15. Compare: Ibid. 69.2; 74.11; Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. VI. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 16. Cp.: Ibid. 70.3; 71.3; 73.7, 11; Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. IV. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 17. It is noteworthy that Origen denied the unique significance of Peter as the founder of the Church. From his point of view, any believer can become like Peter in his true confession and imitation of Christ (Origenes. Commentarium in Evangelium Matthaei. 12. 10–11). Dissertatio Maximini contra Ambrosium. 123. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 73.13; 74.3, 9. Ibid. 71.2; 74.2–3; 75. 5. Comp.: Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. III. 32. 7–8; IV. 22. 4–6. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 6. Cf.: Ibid. 73.15; 74.2. According to the teachings of the svmch. Cyprian, when a dispute arises, one must turn to “the Lord’s principle and to the gospel and apostolic tradition” (ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem revertamur – Ibid. 74. 10; cp.: Ibid. 73. 15). Ibid. 71. 1, 4; 72.1; 73. 1, 3. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75.19. Ibid. 75. 6. The opinion of A. Karpin seems paradoxical that Firmilian nevertheless recognized the Roman primacy and the special powers of the Roman bishop throughout the Ecumenical Church (see: Carpin A. Battezzati nell’unica vera Chiesa? Cipriano di Cartagine e la controversia battesimale. Bologna, 2007. P. 136–137). Rather, we should agree with M. Voitovich, according to whom St. Firmilian does not single out the Bishop of Rome from among other primates of the Churches (see: Wojtowytsch M. Papsttum und Konzile von den Anfängen bis zu Leo (440–461). Stuttgart, 1981. S. 49–50). Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. V. 24. 2–7. At the same time, Christianity penetrated into Cappadocia already in the apostolic period (1 Pet. 1:1). Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75.6. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. IV. 5–6. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75.9. Ibid. 75. 16. Wed. at the microwave Cyprian: ad omnes praepositos qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt (Ibid. 66.4). The idea of ​​bishops as vicars of the apostles is in formal contradiction with the doctrine of them as apostolic successors, since it is one thing to be someone’s full successor, and another to be only a plenipotentiary representative. However, the Christian understanding of death assumes that deceased apostles and bishops retain their status as heads of church communities and can mysteriously participate in their lives. In such a situation, the living primate of the community can indeed be considered both as a vicar and as a successor to his predecessors. It is no coincidence that in a letter to St. Stefanu smch. Cyprian calls him both vicar and successor of the martyred popes Cornelius and Lucius (vicarius et successor eorum - Ibid. 68.5). As C. G. Turner notes, Firmilian speaks of the episcopal rank, and not of individual bishops as successors of the apostles (qui apostolis successimus - Ibid. 75. 16). This approach brings him closer to the microwave. Cyprian. At the same time, attention to the topic of the apostolic founding of local Churches, as the researcher rightly points out, allows us to include St. Firmilian in a tradition dating back to St. Irenaeus (see: Turner. Op. cit. P. 131). Matthew 16:19; 18:18. John 20:23. It is interesting that for Tertullian, any believer can receive the keys to heaven, left to Peter and the entire Church, if he follows his confession (Tertullianus. Scorpiace. 10), but he considers the right to bind and decide to be Peter’s personal prerogative and denies its transfer to the episcopate. The Church of the Spirit can forgive sins, but not the Church in the sense of the episcopal college (et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum – Tertullianus. De pudicitia. 21). Compare: Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 69. 3–5. See the programmatic statement of Eusebius at the beginning of his Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. I. 1. 1), as well as subsequent numerous references to the succession of bishops in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. In general, on the topic of apostolic succession in Eusebius, see: Salaverri J. La sucesión apostólica en la Historia eclesiástica de Eusebio Cesariense // Gregorianum. 1933. Vol. 14. No. 2.P. 219–247. The emphasis on the succession of bishops within the local Church, of course, does not mean that the practice of appointing bishops by other bishops was not accepted by Eusebius. In this regard, E. Molland’s assertion that the idea of ​​succession of episcopal consecrations is an innovation of the Tractarians and has no basis in the patristic heritage seems unjustified (see: Molland E. Le développement de l’idée de succession apostolique // Molland E. Opuscula Patristica. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsø, 1970. P. 201). Canons 4 and 6 of the Council of Nicaea 325 Cyprianus Carthaginiensis. Epistulae. 75. 4. From the idea of ​​the complementarity of prophecies comes the idea of ​​the need for the clergy to discuss and resolve emerging issues at annual general meetings (seniores et praepositi in unum conveniamus; communi consilio).