OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 04:19:23 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Pope  (Read 10582 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #540 on: September 01, 2013, 10:56:12 AM »

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

St. Cyprian.

That's incorrect history lol

Most of the African churched accepted the decision of Pope Stephen that the heretics were validly bapstised and do not need a second baptism

it is noteworthy that the church--and eventually most of the African Church as well--did accept Pope Stephen's position. St. Cyprian (who was sometimes called the "African Pope" due to his considerable influence) was a strong opponent of the idea of valid heretic Baptism - he would not even use the word "Baptism" in this context (he referred to those who were "made wet by heretics.

St Cyprian lost

No. The baptism of heretics isn't valid. Pope Victor lost.

Pope Stephen you mean, and NO Stephen won. This is a historical fact that is indisputable. Historians both orthodox and catholic and even secular acknowledge this. Research for yourself
LOL. Physician, heal thyself.  The consensus and fact remains that Abp. St. Stephen backed down.
Your account of the dispute between Pope Stephen and St Cyprian is ahistorical.
LOL.  So is your sentence here: Bp. St. Stephen-and his successors for centuries-never had the title "pope."  At the time, the Church bestowed that title only on the Bishop of Alexandria.
What Pope Stephen taught was that with the right baptismal formula taught in the bible, their baptism was valid. Most of the church especially the African Church, after a few years of continued dispute, accepted Stephens teaching and there is no evidence of St Cyprian ever bringing up this issue again after the dispute.
Because Bp. Stephen and Rome shut up and backed down.
Its very easy to revise history to make peace with a wrong position Wink
you provide ample proof of that.

LOL. Go read a history book with unbiased authors Cheesy
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #541 on: September 01, 2013, 11:07:25 AM »

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

St. Cyprian.

That's incorrect history lol

Most of the African churched accepted the decision of Pope Stephen that the heretics were validly bapstised and do not need a second baptism

it is noteworthy that the church--and eventually most of the African Church as well--did accept Pope Stephen's position. St. Cyprian (who was sometimes called the "African Pope" due to his considerable influence) was a strong opponent of the idea of valid heretic Baptism - he would not even use the word "Baptism" in this context (he referred to those who were "made wet by heretics.

St Cyprian lost

No. The baptism of heretics isn't valid. Pope Victor lost.

Pope Stephen you mean, and NO Stephen won. This is a historical fact that is indisputable. Historians both orthodox and catholic and even secular acknowledge this. Research for yourself
LOL. Physician, heal thyself.  The consensus and fact remains that Abp. St. Stephen backed down.
Your account of the dispute between Pope Stephen and St Cyprian is ahistorical.
LOL.  So is your sentence here: Bp. St. Stephen-and his successors for centuries-never had the title "pope."  At the time, the Church bestowed that title only on the Bishop of Alexandria.
What Pope Stephen taught was that with the right baptismal formula taught in the bible, their baptism was valid. Most of the church especially the African Church, after a few years of continued dispute, accepted Stephens teaching and there is no evidence of St Cyprian ever bringing up this issue again after the dispute.
Because Bp. Stephen and Rome shut up and backed down.
Its very easy to revise history to make peace with a wrong position Wink
you provide ample proof of that.

LOL. Go read a history book with unbiased authors Cheesy

The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ;, by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church's true baptism.
-St Basil of Caesarea, Letter 188
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 11:08:30 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #542 on: September 01, 2013, 11:25:15 AM »

LOL how about the issue between St Cyprian and the Pope of the time? Who won out?

St. Cyprian.

That's incorrect history lol

Most of the African churched accepted the decision of Pope Stephen that the heretics were validly bapstised and do not need a second baptism

it is noteworthy that the church--and eventually most of the African Church as well--did accept Pope Stephen's position. St. Cyprian (who was sometimes called the "African Pope" due to his considerable influence) was a strong opponent of the idea of valid heretic Baptism - he would not even use the word "Baptism" in this context (he referred to those who were "made wet by heretics.

St Cyprian lost

No. The baptism of heretics isn't valid. Pope Victor lost.

Pope Stephen you mean, and NO Stephen won. This is a historical fact that is indisputable. Historians both orthodox and catholic and even secular acknowledge this. Research for yourself
LOL. Physician, heal thyself.  The consensus and fact remains that Abp. St. Stephen backed down.
Your account of the dispute between Pope Stephen and St Cyprian is ahistorical.
LOL.  So is your sentence here: Bp. St. Stephen-and his successors for centuries-never had the title "pope."  At the time, the Church bestowed that title only on the Bishop of Alexandria.
What Pope Stephen taught was that with the right baptismal formula taught in the bible, their baptism was valid. Most of the church especially the African Church, after a few years of continued dispute, accepted Stephens teaching and there is no evidence of St Cyprian ever bringing up this issue again after the dispute.
Because Bp. Stephen and Rome shut up and backed down.
Its very easy to revise history to make peace with a wrong position Wink
you provide ample proof of that.

LOL. Go read a history book with unbiased authors Cheesy

The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ;, by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church's true baptism.
-St Basil of Caesarea, Letter 188

Quote
The controversy concerning the rebaptization of heretics gave St. Stephen much more trouble. It was the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church, that baptism given in the evangelical words, that is, in the name of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, is valid, though it be conferred by a heretic. This was the practice even of the African Church till Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, in the close of the second century, changed it, fifty years before St. Cyprian, as St. Austin and Vincent of Lerins testify; and St. Cyprian himself only appeals to a council held by Agrippinus for the origin of his pretended tradition. 3 St. Cyprian, in three African councils, decreed, according to this principle, that baptism given by a heretic is always null and invalid; which decision he founds in this false principle, that no one can receive the Holy Ghost by the hands of one who does not himself possess him in his soul. Which false reasoning would equally prove that no one in mortal sin can validly administer any sacrament; but Christ is the principal, though invisible minister in the administration of the sacraments; and though both faith and the state of grace be required in him who confers any sacrament, not to incur the guilt of sacrilege; yet neither is required for the validity. St. Cyprian sums up all the arguments which he thought might serve his purpose in his letter to Jubaianus, written in 256. Many bishops of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Phrygia, having at their head Firmilian, the learned bishop of Cæsarea, and Helenus of Tarsus, fell in with the Africans, and maintained the same error. All the partisans of this practice falsely imagined it to be a point, not of faith, which is every where invariable, but of mere discipline, in which every church might be allowed to follow its own rule or law. 4 St. Cyprian and Firmilian carried on the dispute with too great warmth, the latter especially, who spoke of St. Stephen in an unbecoming manner. If such great and holy men could be betrayed into anger, and biassed by prepossession, how much ought we sinners to watch over our hearts against passion, and mistrust our own judgment! The respect which is due to their name and virtue obliges us to draw a veil over this fault, as St. Austin often puts us in mind, who, speaking of Firmilian, says: “I will not touch upon what he let fall in his anger against Stephen.” 5 The pope, who saw the danger which threatened the Church under the colour of zeal for its purity and unity, and an aversion from heresy, opposed himself as a rampart for the house of God, declaring that no innovation is to be allowed, but that the tradition of the Church, derived from the apostles, is to be inviolably maintained. He even threatened to cut off the patrons of the novelty from the communion of the Church. But St. Dionysius of Alexandria interceded by letters, and procured a respite, as Eusebius mentions. 6   3
  St. Stephen suffered himself patiently to be traduced as a favourer of heresy in approving heretical baptism, being insensible to all personal injuries, not doubting but those great men, who, by a mistaken zeal, were led astray, would, when the heat of disputing should have subsided, calmly open their eyes to the truth. Thus by his zeal he preserved the integrity of faith, and by his toleration and forbearance saved many souls from the danger of shipwreck. “Stephen,” says St. Austin, 7 “thought of excommunicating them; but being endued with the bowels of holy charity, he judged it better to abide in union. The peace of Christ overcame in their hearts.” 8 Of this contest, the judicious Vincent of Lerins 9 gives the following account: “When all cried out against the novelty, and the priests every where opposed it in proportion to every one’s zeal, then Pope Stephen, of blessed memory, bishop of the apostolic see, stood up, with his other colleagues against it, but he in a signal manner above the rest, thinking it fitting, I believe, that he should go beyond them as much by the ardour of his faith as he was raised above them by the authority of his see. In his letter to the church of Africa he thus decrees: ‘Let no innovation be introduced; but let that be observed which is handed down to us by tradition.’ The prudent and holy man understood that the rule of piety admits nothing new, but that all things are to be delivered down to our posterity with the same fidelity with which they were received; and that it is our duty to follow religion, and not make religion follow us; for the proper characteristic of a modest and sober Christian is, not to impose his own conceits upon posterity, but to make his own imaginations bend to the wisdom of those that went before him. What then was the issue of this grand affair, but that which is usual?—antiquity kept possession, and novelty was exploded.”
http://www.bartleby.com/210/8/021.html

Quote
the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.



Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas). It is true that the so-called Apostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi) speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred by heretics, but Döllinger says that these canons are comparatively recent, and De Marca points out that St. Cyprian would have appealed to them had they been in existence before the controversy. Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since
http://www.cantius.org/go/sacraments/baptism/rebaptism/
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,235


« Reply #543 on: September 01, 2013, 11:30:31 AM »

LOL. Go read a history book with unbiased authors Cheesy

Such a thing exists?  Wink
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #544 on: September 01, 2013, 11:49:04 AM »


The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ;, by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church's true baptism.
-St Basil of Caesarea, Letter 188

Quote
The controversy concerning the rebaptization of heretics gave St. Stephen much more trouble. It was the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church, that baptism given in the evangelical words, that is, in the name of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, is valid, though it be conferred by a heretic. This was the practice even of the African Church till Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, in the close of the second century, changed it, fifty years before St. Cyprian, as St. Austin and Vincent of Lerins testify; and St. Cyprian himself only appeals to a council held by Agrippinus for the origin of his pretended tradition. 3 St. Cyprian, in three African councils, decreed, according to this principle, that baptism given by a heretic is always null and invalid; which decision he founds in this false principle, that no one can receive the Holy Ghost by the hands of one who does not himself possess him in his soul. Which false reasoning would equally prove that no one in mortal sin can validly administer any sacrament; but Christ is the principal, though invisible minister in the administration of the sacraments; and though both faith and the state of grace be required in him who confers any sacrament, not to incur the guilt of sacrilege; yet neither is required for the validity. St. Cyprian sums up all the arguments which he thought might serve his purpose in his letter to Jubaianus, written in 256. Many bishops of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Phrygia, having at their head Firmilian, the learned bishop of Cæsarea, and Helenus of Tarsus, fell in with the Africans, and maintained the same error. All the partisans of this practice falsely imagined it to be a point, not of faith, which is every where invariable, but of mere discipline, in which every church might be allowed to follow its own rule or law. 4 St. Cyprian and Firmilian carried on the dispute with too great warmth, the latter especially, who spoke of St. Stephen in an unbecoming manner. If such great and holy men could be betrayed into anger, and biassed by prepossession, how much ought we sinners to watch over our hearts against passion, and mistrust our own judgment! The respect which is due to their name and virtue obliges us to draw a veil over this fault, as St. Austin often puts us in mind, who, speaking of Firmilian, says: “I will not touch upon what he let fall in his anger against Stephen.” 5 The pope, who saw the danger which threatened the Church under the colour of zeal for its purity and unity, and an aversion from heresy, opposed himself as a rampart for the house of God, declaring that no innovation is to be allowed, but that the tradition of the Church, derived from the apostles, is to be inviolably maintained. He even threatened to cut off the patrons of the novelty from the communion of the Church. But St. Dionysius of Alexandria interceded by letters, and procured a respite, as Eusebius mentions. 6   3
  St. Stephen suffered himself patiently to be traduced as a favourer of heresy in approving heretical baptism, being insensible to all personal injuries, not doubting but those great men, who, by a mistaken zeal, were led astray, would, when the heat of disputing should have subsided, calmly open their eyes to the truth. Thus by his zeal he preserved the integrity of faith, and by his toleration and forbearance saved many souls from the danger of shipwreck. “Stephen,” says St. Austin, 7 “thought of excommunicating them; but being endued with the bowels of holy charity, he judged it better to abide in union. The peace of Christ overcame in their hearts.” 8 Of this contest, the judicious Vincent of Lerins 9 gives the following account: “When all cried out against the novelty, and the priests every where opposed it in proportion to every one’s zeal, then Pope Stephen, of blessed memory, bishop of the apostolic see, stood up, with his other colleagues against it, but he in a signal manner above the rest, thinking it fitting, I believe, that he should go beyond them as much by the ardour of his faith as he was raised above them by the authority of his see. In his letter to the church of Africa he thus decrees: ‘Let no innovation be introduced; but let that be observed which is handed down to us by tradition.’ The prudent and holy man understood that the rule of piety admits nothing new, but that all things are to be delivered down to our posterity with the same fidelity with which they were received; and that it is our duty to follow religion, and not make religion follow us; for the proper characteristic of a modest and sober Christian is, not to impose his own conceits upon posterity, but to make his own imaginations bend to the wisdom of those that went before him. What then was the issue of this grand affair, but that which is usual?—antiquity kept possession, and novelty was exploded.”
http://www.bartleby.com/210/8/021.html

Quote
the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.



Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas). It is true that the so-called Apostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi) speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred by heretics, but Döllinger says that these canons are comparatively recent, and De Marca points out that St. Cyprian would have appealed to them had they been in existence before the controversy. Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since
http://www.cantius.org/go/sacraments/baptism/rebaptism/

For me, personally, St. Basil is a bigger authority than the Catholic Encyclopedia.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 11:49:27 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #545 on: September 01, 2013, 11:51:56 AM »


The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ;, by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church's true baptism.
-St Basil of Caesarea, Letter 188

Quote
The controversy concerning the rebaptization of heretics gave St. Stephen much more trouble. It was the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church, that baptism given in the evangelical words, that is, in the name of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, is valid, though it be conferred by a heretic. This was the practice even of the African Church till Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, in the close of the second century, changed it, fifty years before St. Cyprian, as St. Austin and Vincent of Lerins testify; and St. Cyprian himself only appeals to a council held by Agrippinus for the origin of his pretended tradition. 3 St. Cyprian, in three African councils, decreed, according to this principle, that baptism given by a heretic is always null and invalid; which decision he founds in this false principle, that no one can receive the Holy Ghost by the hands of one who does not himself possess him in his soul. Which false reasoning would equally prove that no one in mortal sin can validly administer any sacrament; but Christ is the principal, though invisible minister in the administration of the sacraments; and though both faith and the state of grace be required in him who confers any sacrament, not to incur the guilt of sacrilege; yet neither is required for the validity. St. Cyprian sums up all the arguments which he thought might serve his purpose in his letter to Jubaianus, written in 256. Many bishops of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Phrygia, having at their head Firmilian, the learned bishop of Cæsarea, and Helenus of Tarsus, fell in with the Africans, and maintained the same error. All the partisans of this practice falsely imagined it to be a point, not of faith, which is every where invariable, but of mere discipline, in which every church might be allowed to follow its own rule or law. 4 St. Cyprian and Firmilian carried on the dispute with too great warmth, the latter especially, who spoke of St. Stephen in an unbecoming manner. If such great and holy men could be betrayed into anger, and biassed by prepossession, how much ought we sinners to watch over our hearts against passion, and mistrust our own judgment! The respect which is due to their name and virtue obliges us to draw a veil over this fault, as St. Austin often puts us in mind, who, speaking of Firmilian, says: “I will not touch upon what he let fall in his anger against Stephen.” 5 The pope, who saw the danger which threatened the Church under the colour of zeal for its purity and unity, and an aversion from heresy, opposed himself as a rampart for the house of God, declaring that no innovation is to be allowed, but that the tradition of the Church, derived from the apostles, is to be inviolably maintained. He even threatened to cut off the patrons of the novelty from the communion of the Church. But St. Dionysius of Alexandria interceded by letters, and procured a respite, as Eusebius mentions. 6   3
  St. Stephen suffered himself patiently to be traduced as a favourer of heresy in approving heretical baptism, being insensible to all personal injuries, not doubting but those great men, who, by a mistaken zeal, were led astray, would, when the heat of disputing should have subsided, calmly open their eyes to the truth. Thus by his zeal he preserved the integrity of faith, and by his toleration and forbearance saved many souls from the danger of shipwreck. “Stephen,” says St. Austin, 7 “thought of excommunicating them; but being endued with the bowels of holy charity, he judged it better to abide in union. The peace of Christ overcame in their hearts.” 8 Of this contest, the judicious Vincent of Lerins 9 gives the following account: “When all cried out against the novelty, and the priests every where opposed it in proportion to every one’s zeal, then Pope Stephen, of blessed memory, bishop of the apostolic see, stood up, with his other colleagues against it, but he in a signal manner above the rest, thinking it fitting, I believe, that he should go beyond them as much by the ardour of his faith as he was raised above them by the authority of his see. In his letter to the church of Africa he thus decrees: ‘Let no innovation be introduced; but let that be observed which is handed down to us by tradition.’ The prudent and holy man understood that the rule of piety admits nothing new, but that all things are to be delivered down to our posterity with the same fidelity with which they were received; and that it is our duty to follow religion, and not make religion follow us; for the proper characteristic of a modest and sober Christian is, not to impose his own conceits upon posterity, but to make his own imaginations bend to the wisdom of those that went before him. What then was the issue of this grand affair, but that which is usual?—antiquity kept possession, and novelty was exploded.”
http://www.bartleby.com/210/8/021.html

Quote
the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.



Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas). It is true that the so-called Apostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi) speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred by heretics, but Döllinger says that these canons are comparatively recent, and De Marca points out that St. Cyprian would have appealed to them had they been in existence before the controversy. Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since
http://www.cantius.org/go/sacraments/baptism/rebaptism/

For me, personally, St. Basil is a bigger authority than the Catholic Encyclopedia.

What I showed you is a historical account of the events.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 11:52:30 AM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #546 on: September 01, 2013, 11:54:39 AM »

What you showed me is the Catholic Encyclopedia's version of history. What I showed you is what St. Basil thought about it.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #547 on: September 01, 2013, 11:58:58 AM »

What you showed me is the Catholic Encyclopedia's version of history. What I showed you is what St. Basil thought about it.

Catholic Encyclopedia? I didn't even touch that site.

Secondly my sources touch on Augustine, eusabius and others even Cyprian himself.
Thirdly what I showed you is the scholarly opinion held by moat today with the advantage of viewing things retrospectively with more accuracy. Coupled with sources from the time   
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #548 on: September 01, 2013, 12:08:41 PM »

What you showed me is the Catholic Encyclopedia's version of history. What I showed you is what St. Basil thought about it.

Catholic Encyclopedia? I didn't even touch that site.

Secondly my sources touch on Augustine, eusabius and others even Cyprian himself.
Thirdly what I showed you is the scholarly opinion held by moat today with the advantage of viewing things retrospectively with more accuracy. Coupled with sources from the time   

The Cantius websited copypasted the CE article. The other website was a digitalized version of a 19th-century Roman Catholic hagiography.

And I do object to the notion that modern-day scholars know more about the faith than the Church Fathers.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 12:11:45 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #549 on: September 01, 2013, 01:06:37 PM »

As a Coptic Orthodox Christian, I would be remiss if I did not comment upon the current discussion regarding the conflict between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen by reminding all that Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria intervened in the controversy by writing letters to Pope Stephen and his successor Pope Xystus. Hey, maybe Alexandria had universal jurisdiction! Cheesy

And of course as many jurisdictions do rebaptize heretics, it is a whitewash to claim that Pope Stephen's view won the day. Tell that to the priest that rebaptized me, in accordance with the decision of the Coptic synod regarding receiving Roman Catholics.
Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #550 on: September 01, 2013, 01:12:48 PM »

What you showed me is the Catholic Encyclopedia's version of history. What I showed you is what St. Basil thought about it.

Catholic Encyclopedia? I didn't even touch that site.

Secondly my sources touch on Augustine, eusabius and others even Cyprian himself.
Thirdly what I showed you is the scholarly opinion held by moat today with the advantage of viewing things retrospectively with more accuracy. Coupled with sources from the time    

The Cantius websited copypasted the CE article. The other website was a digitalized version of a 19th-century Roman Catholic hagiography.

And I do object to the notion that modern-day scholars know more about the faith than the Church Fathers.

Ok but the historical account is still valid. Research for yourself on the issue. St Cyprian lost and the ancient practice from the apostles, that Pope Stephen defended, won out.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 01:20:53 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #551 on: September 01, 2013, 01:46:07 PM »

Yes they rebuked Victor questioning his decision.  It cannot be said they questioned his authority however via his apostolic office.

Ah, the Jesuitry of the Vatican, where the rebuke of a presumed authority constitutes an affirmation of that authority-as long as the authority in question is the Vatican.

So I guess we have to acknowledge Satan's authority over Moses, as the Archangel Michael asked the Lord to rebuke him when he tried to assert it.
Christianity meanwhile goes on to produce its greatest saints and the Roman church still affirms one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism as long as its in a Trinitarian fashion and not heretical even if by only a single immersion or sprinkling....



Non sequitor much?   I really hope you're not comparing the Pope to Satan,  now I don't believe anyone's that awful... but it does remind me a lot of the Protestants accusing "Pope (insert name here)" for being the Anti-christ or the false prophet out of the Book of Revelation...    But that would be Anti-Catholicism too.. 
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #552 on: September 01, 2013, 01:47:45 PM »

What you showed me is the Catholic Encyclopedia's version of history. What I showed you is what St. Basil thought about it.

Catholic Encyclopedia? I didn't even touch that site.

Secondly my sources touch on Augustine, eusabius and others even Cyprian himself.
Thirdly what I showed you is the scholarly opinion held by moat today with the advantage of viewing things retrospectively with more accuracy. Coupled with sources from the time    

The Cantius websited copypasted the CE article. The other website was a digitalized version of a 19th-century Roman Catholic hagiography.

And I do object to the notion that modern-day scholars know more about the faith than the Church Fathers.

Ok but the historical account is still valid. Research for yourself on the issue. St Cyprian lost and the ancient practice from the apostles, that Pope Stephen defended, won out.
I have, and your conclusions are still invalid, no matter how many times you repeat them.

St. Cyprian won out. Rome shut up.

Bp. St. Stephen and his successors for centuries thereafter were never called "Pope": in his day it applied to the Archbishop of Alexandria.

St. Cyprian and St. Firmillian referred to "ancient practice from the Apostles."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #553 on: September 01, 2013, 01:50:31 PM »

As a Coptic Orthodox Christian, I would be remiss if I did not comment upon the current discussion regarding the conflict between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen by reminding all that Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria intervened in the controversy by writing letters to Pope Stephen and his successor Pope Xystus. Hey, maybe Alexandria had universal jurisdiction! Cheesy

And of course as many jurisdictions do rebaptize heretics, it is a whitewash to claim that Pope Stephen's view won the day. Tell that to the priest that rebaptized me, in accordance with the decision of the Coptic synod regarding receiving Roman Catholics.

I guess it all depends on how you define "heretic".   The Russian, and Serbian churches, and I think other Slavic Orthodox churches will re-baptize you if you came from another Christian background that wasn't Orthodox.    If heretic means including other Christians who don't believe the way (Insert Church here) believes..  then yes people do still rebaptize heretics.     

Although I think EO are received into communion only by a profession of faith into Oriental Orthodoxy.  Didn't realize Roman Catholics had to get re-baptized..
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #554 on: September 01, 2013, 02:11:46 PM »

Yes they rebuked Victor questioning his decision.  It cannot be said they questioned his authority however via his apostolic office.

Ah, the Jesuitry of the Vatican, where the rebuke of a presumed authority constitutes an affirmation of that authority-as long as the authority in question is the Vatican.

So I guess we have to acknowledge Satan's authority over Moses, as the Archangel Michael asked the Lord to rebuke him when he tried to assert it.
Christianity meanwhile goes on to produce its greatest saints and the Roman church still affirms one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism as long as its in a Trinitarian fashion and not heretical even if by only a single immersion or sprinkling....


Non sequitor much?
 
No, never.
I really hope you're not comparing the Pope to Satan,  now I don't believe anyone's that awful
The quote in the dome of the present St. Peter's stops its quote short:
Quote
Go behind Me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto Me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.
As Mark tells us (8:33), Christ rebuked St. Peter, but like his successor Bp. St. Victor, that was only to confirm his authority. Roll Eyes

Soooooooooooooooo I guess in Mk. 4:39, Christ recognized the authority of the wind.  St. Mark just got it wrong in 4:41.

and in Mark 1:25, Jesus recognized the demon's authority Shocked-if the Ultramontanists are correct in the rebuke of Bp. St. Victor. Roll Eyes
... but it does remind me a lot of the Protestants accusing "Pope (insert name here)" for being the Anti-christ or the false prophet out of the Book of Revelation...    But that would be Anti-Catholicism too.. 
Protestants are only the other side of the Vatican's coin.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #555 on: September 01, 2013, 02:14:25 PM »

What I showed you is an Ultramontanist revision of the historical account of the events.
fixed that for you.  Your welcome.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #556 on: September 01, 2013, 02:16:32 PM »

LOL. Go read a history book with unbiased authors Cheesy
I've read several.   I also read several biased by your errors.

Try copy and pasting from a source biased only by truth.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #557 on: September 01, 2013, 02:17:23 PM »

Ok but the historical account is still valid. Research for yourself on the issue. St Cyprian lost and the ancient practice from the apostles, that Pope Stephen defended, won out.

Read what Dzheremi wrote:

And of course as many jurisdictions do rebaptize heretics, it is a whitewash to claim that Pope Stephen's view won the day. Tell that to the priest that rebaptized me, in accordance with the decision of the Coptic synod regarding receiving Roman Catholics.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #558 on: September 01, 2013, 02:37:23 PM »

Yes they rebuked Victor questioning his decision.  It cannot be said they questioned his authority however via his apostolic office.

Ah, the Jesuitry of the Vatican, where the rebuke of a presumed authority constitutes an affirmation of that authority-as long as the authority in question is the Vatican.

So I guess we have to acknowledge Satan's authority over Moses, as the Archangel Michael asked the Lord to rebuke him when he tried to assert it.
Christianity meanwhile goes on to produce its greatest saints and the Roman church still affirms one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism as long as its in a Trinitarian fashion and not heretical even if by only a single immersion or sprinkling....


Non sequitor much?
 
No, never.
I really hope you're not comparing the Pope to Satan,  now I don't believe anyone's that awful
The quote in the dome of the present St. Peter's stops its quote short:
Quote
Go behind Me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto Me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.
As Mark tells us (8:33), Christ rebuked St. Peter, but like his successor Bp. St. Victor, that was only to confirm his authority. Roll Eyes

Soooooooooooooooo I guess in Mk. 4:39, Christ recognized the authority of the wind.  St. Mark just got it wrong in 4:41.

and in Mark 1:25, Jesus recognized the demon's authority Shocked-if the Ultramontanists are correct in the rebuke of Bp. St. Victor. Roll Eyes
... but it does remind me a lot of the Protestants accusing "Pope (insert name here)" for being the Anti-christ or the false prophet out of the Book of Revelation...    But that would be Anti-Catholicism too.. 
Protestants are only the other side of the Vatican's coin.

I'm really not sure I'm understanding you.  Are you trying to say the wind isn't allowed to blow, before Jesus rebuked it?  Isn't that why wind exists?   All things must follow their nature, including "unclean spirits" as to the rebuke you mentioned. 

But each of the contexts of those verses are also on a different level.   All of those rebukes come straight from God himself, the Logos Incarnate.    None of these things has anything to do with the office of a Bishop as Church leader, and the authority he is granted from the Apostle he succeeded.    But anything to keep the flames burning, right?   

The Lord said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan".   The full context of the quote is here: 
Quote
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

What is he saying?  Is he saying that a Bishop will never make mistakes?  Is he saying that Peter had no authority?  Sure Peter had authority, but it was the will of God that Christ must become the Suffering Servant, to die and to be resurrected.  Peter's own human nature and sympathy had won out in him, which merited a strong rebuke from the Lord. 

Yet here he wasn't acting as Bishop, or as Pope (as Victor was).   He was acting as a friend, as a brother who possibly wanted nothing more than to spend the rest of his days learning from his Master and having no harm come to him.    Yet the Gospel goes on to illustrate that God had other plans in mind...   

The arguments of Pope Stephen and Pope Victor came not from human needs in the context of Peter's rebuke.  All they desired was nothing more than Church unity,  they were truly concerned about the needs of the whole.. not just their own. 
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #559 on: September 01, 2013, 04:43:03 PM »

Ok but the historical account is still valid. Research for yourself on the issue. St Cyprian lost and the ancient practice from the apostles, that Pope Stephen defended, won out.

Read what Dzheremi wrote:

And of course as many jurisdictions do rebaptize heretics, it is a whitewash to claim that Pope Stephen's view won the day. Tell that to the priest that rebaptized me, in accordance with the decision of the Coptic synod regarding receiving Roman Catholics.

What he wrote affects nothing. There will always be those who do their own thing. What history shows is that majority of the church went with Pope Stephen, keeping the traditions of the apostles, rather than the new innovation that St Cyprian taught. Even most of the church of Africa and the church in general never practiced rebaptism.... Most.... Not all. Read the source again on why St Cyprian was rebuked for his view... A view he even admits was not the practice of the church up till then. Or do you want more sources that evidence this?

I really can't believe some here are disputing this . Its plain history that St Cyprian lost out...wow
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 04:48:36 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #560 on: September 01, 2013, 04:44:03 PM »

What I showed you is an Ultramontanist revision of the historical account of the events.
fixed that for you.  Your welcome.

I never gave thanks. What you did was made a truth a lie Roll Eyes
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #561 on: September 01, 2013, 04:54:59 PM »

Ok but the historical account is still valid. Research for yourself on the issue. St Cyprian lost and the ancient practice from the apostles, that Pope Stephen defended, won out.

Read what Dzheremi wrote:

And of course as many jurisdictions do rebaptize heretics, it is a whitewash to claim that Pope Stephen's view won the day. Tell that to the priest that rebaptized me, in accordance with the decision of the Coptic synod regarding receiving Roman Catholics.

What he wrote affects nothing. There will always be those who do their own thing. What history shows is that majority of the church went with Pope Stephen, keeping the traditions of the apostles, rather than the new innovation that St Cyprian taught. Even most of the church of Africa and the church in general never practiced rebaptism.... Most.... Not all. Read the source again on why St Cyprian was rebuked for his view... A view he even admits was not the practice of the church up till then. Or do you want more sources that evidence this?

I really can't believe some here are disputing this . Its plain history that St Cyprian lost out...wow

The Eastern and Oriental Churches side with St. Cyprian.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 05:04:23 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #562 on: September 01, 2013, 06:50:21 PM »

What he wrote affects nothing.

Oh, so I wasn't actually rebaptized? Hmmm. How odd. I could've sworn I was.  Roll Eyes

Quote
There will always be those who do their own thing.


You write as though they are a tiny minority, when in fact those who have "done their own thing" concerning this matter in not siding with Pope Stephen are every other apostolic Church.

Quote
What history shows is that majority of the church went with Pope Stephen, keeping the traditions of the apostles, rather than the new innovation that St Cyprian taught. Even most of the church of Africa and the church in general never practiced rebaptism.... Most.... Not all.


What on earth is canon VII of Constantinople (381) talking about, then, we it divides heretics into those who are received by charismation and those who are received by rebaptism? Because this was over 100 years after the death of Pope Stephen, and yet we read:

Quote
Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians...and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive...they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  But Eunomians...and Montanists...and Sabellians...all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen.  On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

It sure seems as though the Church was doing a lot of rebaptizing, even long after Pope Stephen supposedly definitively settled the matter. And the Orthodox Church still does so today, when necessary.

Quote
I really can't believe some here are disputing this . Its plain history that St Cyprian lost out...wow

He lost out with regard to Rome in particular maybe (thanks to Augustine's indelible mark theology, which was taken up by Rome and affirmed dogmatically at the Council of Trent), but Rome ≠ the whole Church, and the rest of us do not follow this idea (hence there is no such thing as episcopi vagantes in Orthodoxy, nor the concept of sacramental "validity" as something separate from the reception of the sacraments within the Church, etc).
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 06:51:04 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #563 on: September 01, 2013, 07:00:50 PM »

Ok but the historical account is still valid. Research for yourself on the issue. St Cyprian lost and the ancient practice from the apostles, that Pope Stephen defended, won out.

Read what Dzheremi wrote:

And of course as many jurisdictions do rebaptize heretics, it is a whitewash to claim that Pope Stephen's view won the day. Tell that to the priest that rebaptized me, in accordance with the decision of the Coptic synod regarding receiving Roman Catholics.

What he wrote affects nothing. There will always be those who do their own thing. What history shows is that majority of the church went with Pope Stephen, keeping the traditions of the apostles, rather than the new innovation that St Cyprian taught. Even most of the church of Africa and the church in general never practiced rebaptism.... Most.... Not all. Read the source again on why St Cyprian was rebuked for his view... A view he even admits was not the practice of the church up till then. Or do you want more sources that evidence this?

I really can't believe some here are disputing this . Its plain history that St Cyprian lost out...wow

The Eastern and Oriental Churches side with St. Cyprian.

Quote
Following the Decian persecution of 250–251, there was disagreement about how to treat those who had lapsed from the faith, and Stephen was urged by Faustinus, Bishop of Lyon, to take action against Marcian, Bishop of Arles, who denied penance and communion to the lapsed who repented, the position called Novatianism, after Novatian, later declared a heretic, who held for the strictest approach.

Stephen held that converts who had been baptized by splinter groups did not need re-baptism, while Cyprian and certain bishops of the Roman province of Africa held rebaptism necessary for admission to the Eucharist. Stephen's view eventually won broad acceptance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_I
 
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #564 on: September 01, 2013, 07:08:08 PM »

Haha. Why do you quote Wikipedia, placing in bold a sentence which is backed up with reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, when earlier in this very thread you claimed you don't touch it? (Reply #547)

Again..."wide acceptance" in the Latin view apparently means something different than it does to the rest of us. If only one particular church follows something, I wouldn't therefore claim that it has such wide acceptance. There are other churches outside of one's own, after all.


Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #565 on: September 01, 2013, 07:08:23 PM »

What he wrote affects nothing.

Oh, so I wasn't actually rebaptized? Hmmm. How odd. I could've sworn I was.  Roll Eyes

Quote
There will always be those who do their own thing.


You write as though they are a tiny minority, when in fact those who have "done their own thing" concerning this matter in not siding with Pope Stephen are every other apostolic Church.

Quote
What history shows is that majority of the church went with Pope Stephen, keeping the traditions of the apostles, rather than the new innovation that St Cyprian taught. Even most of the church of Africa and the church in general never practiced rebaptism.... Most.... Not all.


What on earth is canon VII of Constantinople (381) talking about, then, we it divides heretics into those who are received by charismation and those who are received by rebaptism? Because this was over 100 years after the death of Pope Stephen, and yet we read:

Quote
Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians...and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive...they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  But Eunomians...and Montanists...and Sabellians...all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen.  On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

It sure seems as though the Church was doing a lot of rebaptizing, even long after Pope Stephen supposedly definitively settled the matter. And the Orthodox Church still does so today, when necessary.

Quote
I really can't believe some here are disputing this . Its plain history that St Cyprian lost out...wow

He lost out with regard to Rome in particular maybe (thanks to Augustine's indelible mark theology, which was taken up by Rome and affirmed dogmatically at the Council of Trent), but Rome ≠ the whole Church, and the rest of us do not follow this idea (hence there is no such thing as episcopi vagantes in Orthodoxy, nor the concept of sacramental "validity" as something separate from the reception of the sacraments within the Church, etc).

You misunderstood what was meant by rebaptism in this whole issue.

Neither Stephen nor Cyprian were talking about Trinitarian heretics but Novatianist heretics. They were simply a schismatic group, but held to a more rigorist point of view. In terms of Trinitarian faith, they were completely orthodox.

The church still maintains today that you have to rebaptise Trinitarian Heterics like Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons, but not most other Non Catholics.

What the canons of the ecumenical councils and trullo show is that baptism is necessary for trinitarian heretics but for those who aren't of this category, there is no such need. This is why Cyprian was wrong and the canons prove this

Council of Trullo actually only decrees the re-baptizing of those who deny the Trinity. All other heretics merely are required to present a certificate and then receive the sacrament

Quote
Canon 95, Council of Trullo

Those who from the heretics come over to orthodoxy, and to the number of those who should be saved, we receive according to the following order and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, who call themselves Cathari, Aristeri, and Testareskaidecatitæ, or Tetraditæ, and Apollinarians, we receive on their presentation of certificates and on their anathematizing every heresy which does not hold as does the holy Apostolic Church of God: then first of all we anoint them with the holy chrism on their foreheads, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears; and as we seal them we say— The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

But concerning the Paulianists it has been determined by the Catholic Church that they shall by all means be rebaptized. The Eunomeans also, who baptize with one immersion; and the Montanists, who here are called Phrygians; and the Sabellians, who consider the Son to be the same as the Father, and are guilty in certain other grave matters, and all the other heresies— for there are many heretics here, especially those who come from the region of the Galatians— all of their number who are desirous of coming to the Orthodox faith, we receive as Gentiles. And on the first day we make them Christians, on the second Catechumens, then on the third day we exorcise them, at the same time also breathing thrice upon their faces and ears; and thus we initiate them, and we make them spend time in church and hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

And the Manichæans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: It's an old one!
Jurisdiction: Less old.
Posts: 562


Hae bae, did u mis mae?


« Reply #566 on: September 01, 2013, 07:10:39 PM »

It's only rebaptism if there was a baptism to begin with.

What constitutes a baptism?

It seems a little odd that those outside the church can baptize people into it.
Logged

When I die, I figure the worst I'll get is what I deserve. Any injustice on the part of God will certainly be because He is all too merciful.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #567 on: September 01, 2013, 07:11:42 PM »

Haha. Why do you quote Wikipedia, placing in bold a sentence which is backed up with reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, when earlier in this very thread you claimed you don't touch it? (Reply #547)


Because earlier, the sources I cited, I never thought they used it until I found out they did. Wikipedia is accounting what's true even if its from the catholic encyclopedia which is  reliable
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 07:14:27 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #568 on: September 01, 2013, 07:18:25 PM »

It's only rebaptism if there was a baptism to begin with.

What constitutes a baptism?

It seems a little odd that those outside the church can baptize people into it.

Trinitarian faith and valid baptismal formula is what constitutes a valid baptism. Even if one were a heretic but believed in the trinity and was baptized with correct formula, it is against the church practice to baptize such people again once they join the church.

Cyprian taught that they should be baptized. Pope Stephen taught contrary and his view won out as it was in keeping with the apostolic tradition
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #569 on: September 01, 2013, 07:37:26 PM »

You misunderstood what was meant by rebaptism in this whole issue.

I am  responding to your false claim that the majority of the Church did not practice rebaptism. Clearly it did, as outlined in the aforementioned 7th canon of the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Quote
Neither Stephen nor Cyprian were talking about Trinitarian heretics but Novatianist heretics. They were simply a schismatic group, but held to a more rigorist point of view. In terms of Trinitarian faith, they were completely orthodox.

Yes, I recognize that the controversy came to a head within the context of fighting Novatianism, but the rule regarding who to rebaptize and who not to rebaptize (again, with reference to the second ecumenical council) is much more broad than that, so...what's your point?

Quote
The church still maintains today that you have to rebaptise Trinitarian Heterics like Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons, but not most other Non Catholics.

Here you are referring to the decrees of your own particular church, I take it (since I guarantee you that the Orthodox Catholic Church rebaptizes more than just the two you've mentioned or their type, including those who you certainly would not recognize as "Trinitarian Heretics", like Roman Catholics). In that context, I find nothing objectionable here, beyond your routine confusion of your own church's particular practices with those of the Church as a whole. This is a real problem when it comes to discussing this issue with you, as you seem to not recognize relevant counterexamples to your sweeping and wrong assertions.

Quote
What the canons of the ecumenical councils and trullo show is that baptism is necessary for trinitarian heretics but for those who aren't of this category, there is no such need. This is why Cyprian was wrong and the canons prove this

Council of Trullo actually only decrees the re-baptizing of those who deny the Trinity. All other heretics merely are required to present a certificate and then receive the sacrament

I'm sorry, but I am confused: Did I bring up Trullo? Was Trullo discussed at some point in this thread? Forgive me; I have not read every post in the thread, but I don't understand what you're getting at by bringing this up. I didn't think the RCC recognized Trullo...has that changed recently?

And, by the way, just for your own edification, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), when writing against the Montanists (Haer. XLVIII. 1), recognizes them as being essentially Orthodox with regard to their belief in the Holy Trinity, so there is reason to believe that the dichotomy you have set up in claiming that I am misunderstanding the issue does not actually hold with regard to the canon that you yourself just posted in support of your view.
Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #570 on: September 01, 2013, 08:09:08 PM »

You misunderstood what was meant by rebaptism in this whole issue.


I am  responding to your false claim that the majority of the Church did not practice rebaptism. Clearly it did, as outlined in the aforementioned 7th canon of the Council of Constantinople in 381.

It didn't and the council shows that. You can't baptize somebody twice. If baptized by a Trinitarian heretic then there is no baptism to begin with. Hence "rebaptism" is not taking place but rather as the canon says, they get baptized ( as if for the first time)

Quote
Neither Stephen nor Cyprian were talking about Trinitarian heretics but Novatianist heretics. They were simply a schismatic group, but held to a more rigorist point of view. In terms of Trinitarian faith, they were completely orthodox.

, I recognize that the controversy came to a head within the context of fighting Novatianism, but the rule regarding who to rebaptize and who not to rebaptize (again, with reference to the second ecumenical council) is much more broad than that, so...what's your point?

To give context to how the term "rebaptize" is being used as you seem to misunderstand it.

Quote
The church still maintains today that you have to rebaptise Trinitarian Heterics like Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons, but not most other Non Catholics.

Here you are referring to the decrees of your own particular church, I take it (since I guarantee you that the Orthodox Catholic Church rebaptizes more than just the two you've mentioned or their type, including those who you certainly would not recognize as "Trinitarian Heretics", like Roman Catholics). In that context, I find nothing objectionable here, beyond your routine confusion of your own church's particular practices with those of the Church as a whole. This is a real problem when it comes to discussing this issue with you, as you seem to not recognize relevant counterexamples to your sweeping and wrong assertions.

Against church tradition and canons but hey, orthodox are always right even when they are wrong. Add to this that it is not universal practice in orthodoxy to baptize Catholics. Some do and some don't.

quote]I'm sorry, but I am confused: Did I bring up Trullo? Was Trullo discussed at some point in this thread? Forgive me; I have not read every post in the thread, but I don't understand what you're getting at by bringing this up. I didn't think the RCC recognized Trullo...has that changed recently?

No I'm bringing up Trullo because the orthodox accept it and it teaches Stephens View even then, not Cyprians. Further various fathers like Augustine taught against Cyprians position.

, by the way, just for your own edification, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), when writing against the Montanists (Haer. XLVIII. 1), recognizes them as being essentially Orthodox with regard to their belief in the Holy Trinity, so there is reason to believe that the dichotomy you have set up in claiming that I am misunderstanding the issue does not actually hold with regard to the canon that you yourself just posted in support of your view.

 he was fallible and mistaken man he was on this.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 08:24:15 PM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #571 on: September 01, 2013, 08:42:28 PM »

You misunderstood what was meant by rebaptism in this whole issue.


I am  responding to your false claim that the majority of the Church did not practice rebaptism. Clearly it did, as outlined in the aforementioned 7th canon of the Council of Constantinople in 381.

It didn't and the council shows that. You can't baptize somebody twice. If baptized by a Trinitarian heretic then there is no baptism to begin with. Hence "rebaptism" is not taking place but rather as the canon says, they get baptized ( as if for the first time)

But of course. This is how all churches and other bodies claiming to be churches (i.e., Mormons) understand their baptisms as transforming those who enter into communion with them. This is such an obvious point, I thought it not necessary to mention it. Obviously I consider only my baptism into the Coptic Orthodox Church to be an actual baptism, as only Orthodoxy is the faith of the Church. But I don't find things that anyone can claim with equal strength or reasoning to be very interesting to discuss, so again, I didn't think to approach it this way.

Quote
, I recognize that the controversy came to a head within the context of fighting Novatianism, but the rule regarding who to rebaptize and who not to rebaptize (again, with reference to the second ecumenical council) is much more broad than that, so...what's your point?

To give context to how the term "rebaptize" is being used as you seem to misunderstand it.[/quote]

So we're just going to ignore the Council of Constantinople, then, even though it is evidence of the Church commanding that (re)baptisms be performed on heretics, in direct contradiction to your stance that the majority of the Church never did such a thing? That's...odd.

Quote
Against church tradition and canons but hey, orthodox are always right even when they are wrong.


"Church tradition and canons", indeed (see above).

Quote
Add to this that it is not universal practice in orthodoxy to baptize Catholics. Some do and some don't.

And? Did I ever claim that it was? We do not pretend that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to these issues, and never have (see again the seventh canon of Constantinople). I fail to see how this makes any kind of point in favor of your stance at all.

Quote
No I'm bringing up Trullo because the orthodox accept it and it teaches Stephens View even then, not Cyprians. Further various fathers like Augustine taught against Cyprians position.

It just seemed a little unnecessary from where I'm sitting, as Trullo essentially reproduced the relevant canon of Constantinople, adding to it further "heretics" for whom some similar form of reception would be necessary to commune with the Byzantines. Meh.

Quote
, by the way, just for your own edification, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), when writing against the Montanists (Haer. XLVIII. 1), recognizes them as being essentially Orthodox with regard to their belief in the Holy Trinity, so there is reason to believe that the dichotomy you have set up in claiming that I am misunderstanding the issue does not actually hold with regard to the canon that you yourself just posted in support of your view.

 he was fallible and mistaken man he was on this.

And St. Augustine was not when he was teaching against St. Cyprian?
Logged

qawe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 146


« Reply #572 on: September 01, 2013, 09:13:26 PM »

What about this though?

Quote
In the earliest times there were two responses which were proposed in different places to respond to those who had gone into schism. In the region of Carthage, St Cyprian held the view that schismatics could not be considered to have any of the sacraments; while in Rome, Pope St Stephen held the view that such strictness was an innovation. The Coptic Orthodox Church has always adopted the view of Pope St Stephen with regard to those who support the Council of Chalcedon, among whom must be counted the Roman and Eastern Catholics.

Source: http://britishorthodox.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-Baptism-of-Catholics-Full-text-sent-to-Cairo.pdf
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #573 on: September 01, 2013, 09:43:41 PM »

What do you think about it, Qawe? For one, I would say that the idea that there are two ideas (opposites) is a simplification. Taking the view of heterodox sacraments that they are not completely null and void does not mean that the subject under consideration in this discussion, baptism, needs to be treated as Pope Stephen treated it, i.e., that those who come from outside of the faith as a result of some embraced heresy are somehow 'validly' (for lack of a better term) baptized. We clearly do not accept the sacraments of heretics as being efficacious, at least not as we understand Orthodox sacraments to be. Were this not the case, I imagine I would not have had to been rebaptized myself upon my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church from Roman Catholicism.

In fact, here is what my own bishop, HG Bishop Youssef of the Southern United States diocese, has to say regarding Chaldean Catholic baptisms (source):

Quote
The Chaldean Catholic Church is affiliated to the Roman Catholic Church accepting the dogmas of the Catholic faith and the Pope of Rome as the supreme head of the church. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not accept many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic such as the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, the purgatory, the supremacy of the Pope of Rome, etc. When one is baptized in a certain denomination he/she is baptized according to the faith of that particular Church, vowing to accept and embrace all her dogmas. Consequently, a person baptized in the Chaldean Catholic Church does not hold the same faith as one baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Therefore, his/her baptism is invalid in the Coptic Church.

Thus while others in this thread have tried to make distinctions between heretics in Trinitarian confession and other kinds of heretics, this seems like a much more stable way of putting it: They don't believe as we do, therefore we will baptize them in accordance with the new faith that they are embracing (Orthodoxy). This is much more in keeping with St. Cyprian than with Pope Stephen, but you will hopefully notice that it does not say anything regarding the status of sacraments administered outside the Church -- only the faith that informs the acceptance of those sacraments.

So I still do maintain that we follow St. Cyprian, but it is not as simple as to say that you're either completely with one or completely with the other. I don't know what it profits anyone to be anything but agnostic regarding heterodox sacraments. For the sake of those receiving them, I certainly hope that the Holy Spirit works in those communions too, but I am not going to jeopardize what I know to be true on account of my hoping the best for the not-yet-Orthodox. Smiley

Edit: It occurs to me that the statement you have linked is referring to Chalcedonians as a group. That is all fine and well at that level of analysis, but surely we recognize that there are many differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, even though they ostensibly share the same Christology. I mean, Eastern Orthodox are received by charismation only...
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 09:49:36 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #574 on: September 01, 2013, 09:59:33 PM »

I must be honest here about two things. 

First, if it were not for this and one other thread I would have never started research in the way I am now engaged.  Like I said, when you argue against something one should at least have a basic understanding of the thing you deny, which apparently some here do not.

Second, the more I research the more I am actually finding in favor of Rome.  As you can imagine, this is somewhat shocking and disturbing at the same time.  I'm really not sure how I should feel about this right now.  I don't want to make a rushed decision so I will keep researching, but like I said, the inadequate arguments here cause people to wonder and they either choose not to care or do research.  Keep this in mind.
So you are confusing yourself even further.  Good job!

Read Hefele BEFORE July 18, 1870
You're confusing.  You jump all over the place without ever completely explaining yourself and use sarcasm as if you think it helps in some way.  You present a deep seeded hatred for all things Roman Catholic and do a horrible job defending your views.  For instance, the above post, to which I was alluding in my above post.  You are doing more work for the Roman Catholic Church than you realize by displaying your vitriol against her.  I would advise you stop acting like a highschooler.  Then, perhaps, someone may actually be interested in what you have to say instead of skipping most or all of your posts.  But hey, it's up to you. 
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #575 on: September 01, 2013, 10:30:12 PM »

I'm not really up on my 19th century German Catholic theologians, but here is a little bit of what Wikipedia has to say about Hefele; I think it explains Isa's comment quite well:

Quote
Hefele's theological opinions inclined towards the more liberal school in the Roman Catholic Church, but he nevertheless received considerable signs of favour from its authorities, and was a member of the commission that made preparations for the Vatican Council of 1870. On the eve of that council he published at Naples his Causa Honorii Papae, which aimed at demonstrating the moral and historical impossibility of papal infallibility. About the same time he brought out a work in German on the same subject. He took rather a prominent part in the discussions at the council, associating himself with Félix Dupanloup and with Georges Darboy, archbishop of Paris, in his opposition to the doctrine of Infallibility, and supporting their arguments from his vast knowledge of ecclesiastical history. In the preliminary discussions he voted against the promulgation of the dogma. He was absent from the important sitting of June 18, 1870, and did not send in his submission to the decrees until 1871, when he explained in a pastoral letter that the dogma “referred only to doctrine given forth ex cathedra, and therein to the definitions proper only, but not to its proofs or explanations.”

In 1872 he took part in the congress summoned by the Ultramontanes at Fulda, and by his judicious use of minimizing tactics he kept his diocese free from any participation in the Old Catholic schism. The last four volumes of the second edition of his History of the Councils have been described as skillfully adapted to the new situation created by the Vatican decrees. During the later years of his life he undertook no further literary efforts on behalf of his church, but retired into comparative privacy.

(Read in context here)

« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 10:32:11 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,532



« Reply #576 on: September 01, 2013, 11:17:10 PM »

You misunderstood what was meant by rebaptism in this whole issue.


I am  responding to your false claim that the majority of the Church did not practice rebaptism. Clearly it did, as outlined in the aforementioned 7th canon of the Council of Constantinople in 381.

It didn't and the council shows that. You can't baptize somebody twice. If baptized by a Trinitarian heretic then there is no baptism to begin with. Hence "rebaptism" is not taking place but rather as the canon says, they get baptized ( as if for the first time)

Quote
Neither Stephen nor Cyprian were talking about Trinitarian heretics but Novatianist heretics. They were simply a schismatic group, but held to a more rigorist point of view. In terms of Trinitarian faith, they were completely orthodox.

, I recognize that the controversy came to a head within the context of fighting Novatianism, but the rule regarding who to rebaptize and who not to rebaptize (again, with reference to the second ecumenical council) is much more broad than that, so...what's your point?

To give context to how the term "rebaptize" is being used as you seem to misunderstand it.

Quote
The church still maintains today that you have to rebaptise Trinitarian Heterics like Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons, but not most other Non Catholics.

Here you are referring to the decrees of your own particular church, I take it (since I guarantee you that the Orthodox Catholic Church rebaptizes more than just the two you've mentioned or their type, including those who you certainly would not recognize as "Trinitarian Heretics", like Roman Catholics). In that context, I find nothing objectionable here, beyond your routine confusion of your own church's particular practices with those of the Church as a whole. This is a real problem when it comes to discussing this issue with you, as you seem to not recognize relevant counterexamples to your sweeping and wrong assertions.

Against church tradition and canons but hey, orthodox are always right even when they are wrong. Add to this that it is not universal practice in orthodoxy to baptize Catholics. Some do and some don't.

quote]I'm sorry, but I am confused: Did I bring up Trullo? Was Trullo discussed at some point in this thread? Forgive me; I have not read every post in the thread, but I don't understand what you're getting at by bringing this up. I didn't think the RCC recognized Trullo...has that changed recently?

No I'm bringing up Trullo because the orthodox accept it and it teaches Stephens View even then, not Cyprians. Further various fathers like Augustine taught against Cyprians position.

, by the way, just for your own edification, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), when writing against the Montanists (Haer. XLVIII. 1), recognizes them as being essentially Orthodox with regard to their belief in the Holy Trinity, so there is reason to believe that the dichotomy you have set up in claiming that I am misunderstanding the issue does not actually hold with regard to the canon that you yourself just posted in support of your view.

 he was fallible and mistaken man he was on this.

You are confused here, because the acceptance of heterodox sacraments is not indicative of their validity. The great teachers of the East (the Capppadocians, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.) taught that the sacraments of the heterodox are without the grace of the Holy Spirit, hence the heterodox are truly unbaptized, and there is no harm in baptizing those who have been baptized by the heterodox. This is the Orthodox understanding today as well. But if the form of the sacrament is correct, there exists the option to receive the heterodox by chrismation for the management of the majority, in which case the grace of chrismation perfects the graceless heterodox baptism.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #577 on: September 01, 2013, 11:59:18 PM »

So, I am confused here about a little something.  Why do we have members of churches in communion with Rome who deny Rome’s position for which they joined in the first place?
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #578 on: September 02, 2013, 12:10:17 AM »

So, I am confused here about a little something.  Why do we have members of churches in communion with Rome who deny Rome’s position for which they joined in the first place?

Yeah, don't worry about this question either.  I know how hard it is for people to explain anything. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #579 on: September 02, 2013, 12:18:41 AM »

It's only rebaptism if there was a baptism to begin with.

What constitutes a baptism?

It seems a little odd that those outside the church can baptize people into it.

Trinitarian faith and valid baptismal formula is what constitutes a valid baptism. Even if one were a heretic but believed in the trinity and was baptized with correct formula, it is against the church practice to baptize such people again once they join the church.

Cyprian taught that they should be baptized. Pope Stephen taught contrary and his view won out as it was in keeping with the apostolic tradition
It didn't even win out in his own jurisdicition.  St. Cyprian and North Africa kept rebaptizing.  After a millenium, the Vatican's Poles were rebaptizing the Orthodox.  I knew an Orthodox in the US that the Vatican's priest wanted to rebaptize  (in the 1940's: instead the husband to be was so outraged he became Orthodox instead).  Until at least recently, the Vatican still required the Coptic Orthodox to be rebaptized if they submitted to it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #580 on: September 02, 2013, 04:49:07 AM »

So, I am confused here about a little something.  Why do we have members of churches in communion with Rome who deny Rome’s position for which they joined in the first place?

Like who and what do they deny?  Smiley

NOTE TO EVERYBODY  : Kerdy must reply, nobody else
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #581 on: September 02, 2013, 08:05:43 AM »

So, I am confused here about a little something.  Why do we have members of churches in communion with Rome who deny Rome’s position for which they joined in the first place?

Like who and what do they deny?  Smiley

NOTE TO EVERYBODY  : Kerdy must reply, nobody else

Some eastern vaticanists who will deny the IC or Vatican 1 as dogmas, but will remain in communion with old Rome.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 08:06:02 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #582 on: September 02, 2013, 10:45:52 AM »

So, I am confused here about a little something.  Why do we have members of churches in communion with Rome who deny Rome’s position for which they joined in the first place?

Like who and what do they deny?  Smiley

NOTE TO EVERYBODY  : Kerdy must reply, nobody else

Some eastern vaticanists who will deny the IC or Vatican 1 as dogmas, but will remain in communion with old Rome.

True especially among the Melkits from what I've seen. Weird
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #583 on: September 02, 2013, 10:40:02 PM »

So, I am confused here about a little something.  Why do we have members of churches in communion with Rome who deny Rome’s position for which they joined in the first place?

Like who and what do they deny?  Smiley

NOTE TO EVERYBODY  : Kerdy must reply, nobody else

Setting the rules.?
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,724



« Reply #584 on: July 13, 2014, 02:47:06 PM »

Anybody familiar with Ludwig Von Pastor's works on the history of the Medieval Papacy?

I just stumbled across them, I am particularly intrigued at the Avignon Papacy, the Western Schism and their subsequent councils.
Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.242 seconds with 73 queries.