contracerycii02 .pdf
File information
Original filename: contracerycii02.pdf
Title: BELIEF THAT ONE IS MADE “WORTHY†BY THEIR OWN WORKS RATHER THAN THE MYSTERIES IS PELAGIANISM
Author: Stavros
This PDF 1.4 document has been generated by Acrobat PDFMaker 8.1 for Word / Acrobat Distiller 8.1.0 (Windows), and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 23/09/2014 at 09:21, from IP address 46.176.x.x.
The current document download page has been viewed 964 times.
File size: 224 KB (8 pages).
Privacy: public file
Share on social networks
Link to this file download page
Document preview
BELIEF THAT ONE IS MADE “WORTHY” BY THEIR OWN
WORKS RATHER THAN THE MYSTERIES IS PELAGIANISM
Pelagius (c. 354‐420) was a heretic from Britain, who believed that it
was possible for man to be worthy or even perfect by way of his free will,
without the necessity of grace. In most cases, Pelagius reverted from this strict
form and did not profess it. For this reason, many of the councils called to
condemn the false teaching, only condemn the heresy of Pelagianism, but do
not condemn Pelagius himself. But various councils actually do condemn
Pelagius along with Pelagianism. Various Protestants have tried to disparage
the Orthodox Faith by calling its beliefs Pelagian or Semipelagian. But the
Orthodox Faith is neither the one, nor the other, but is entirely free from
Pelagianism. The Orthodox Faith is also free from the opposite extreme,
namely, Manicheanism, which believes that the world is inherently evil from
its very creation. The Orthodox Faith is the Royal Path. It neither falls to the
right nor to the left, but remains on the straight path, that is, “the Way.” The
Orthodox Faith does indeed believe that good works are essential, but these
are for the purpose of gaining God’s mercy. By no means can mankind grant
himself “worthiness” and “perfection” by way of his own works. It is only
through God’s uncreated grace, light, powers and energies, that mankind can
truly be granted worthiness and perfection in Christ.
The most commonly‐available source of God’s grace within the Church
is through the Holy Mysteries, particularly the Mysteries of Baptism, Chrism,
Absolution and Communion, which are necessary for salvation. Baptism can
only be received once, for it is a reconciliation of the fallen man to the Risen
Man, where one no longer shares in the nakedness of Adam but becomes
clothed with Christ. Chrism can be repeated whenever an Orthodox Christian
lapses into schism or heresy and is being reconciled to the Church. Absolution
can also serve as a method of reconciliation from the sin of heresy or schism
as well as from any personal sin that an Orthodox Christian may commit, and
in receiving the prayer of pardon one is reconciled to the Church. For as long
as an Orthodox Christian sins, he must receive this Mystery repeatedly in
order to prepare himself for the next Mystery. Communion is reconciliation to
the Immaculate Body and Precious Blood of Christ, allowing one to live in
Christ. This is the ultimate Mystery, and must be received frequently for one
to experience a life in Christ. For Orthodox Christianity is not a philosophy or
a way of thought, nor is it merely a moral code, but it is the Life of Christ in
man, and the way one can truly live in Christ is through Holy Communion.
Pelagianism in the strictest form is the belief that mankind can achieve
“worthiness” and “perfection” by way of his own free will, without the need
of God’s grace or the Mysteries to be the source of that worthiness and
perfection. Rather than viewing good works as a method of achieving God’s
mercy, they view the good works as a method of achieving self‐worth and
self‐perfection. The most common understanding of Pelagianism refers to the
supposed “worthiness” of man by way of having a good will or good works
prior to receiving the Mystery of Baptism. But the form of Pelagianism into
which Bp. Kirykos falls in his first letter to Fr. Pedro, is in regards to the
supposed “worthiness” of Christians purely by their own work of fasting.
Thus, in his first letter to Fr. Pedro, Bp. Kirykos does not mention the Mystery
of Confession (or Absolution) anywhere in the text as a means of receiving
worthiness, but attaches the worthiness entirely to the fasting alone. Again,
nowhere in the letter does he mention the Holy Communion itself as a source
of perfection, but rather entertains the notion that mankind is capable of
achieving such perfection prior to even receiving communion. This is the only
way one can interpret his letter, especially his totally unhistorical statement
regarding the early Christians, in which he claims: “They fasted in the fine and
broader sense, that is, they were worthy to commune.”
St. Aurelius Augustinus, otherwise known as St. Augustine of Hippo
(+28 August, 430), writes: “It is not by their works, but by grace, that the doers
of the law are justified… Now [the Apostle Paul] could not mean to contradict himself
in saying, ‘The doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13),’ as if their
justification came through their works, and not through grace; since he declares that a
man is justified freely by His grace without the works of the law (Romans 3:24,28)
intending by the term ‘freely’ nothing else than that works do not precede
justification. For in another passage he expressly says, ‘If by grace, then is it no
more of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6).’ But the statement
that ‘the doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13)’ must be so understood, as
that we may know that they are not otherwise doers of the law, unless they be
justified, so that justification does not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law,
but justification precedes them as doers of the law. For what else does the phrase
‘being justified’ signify than being made righteous,—by Him, of course, who justifies
the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one instead? For if we were to express a
certain fact by saying, ‘The men will be liberated,’ the phrase would of course be
understood as asserting that the liberation would accrue to those who were men
already; but if we were to say, The men will be created, we should certainly not be
understood as asserting that the creation would happen to those who were already in
existence, but that they became men by the creation itself. If in like manner it were
said, The doers of the law shall be honoured, we should only interpret the statement
correctly if we supposed that the honour was to accrue to those who were already
doers of the law: but when the allegation is, ‘The doers of the law shall be justified,’
what else does it mean than that the just shall be justified? for of course the doers of
the law are just persons. And thus it amounts to the same thing as if it were said,
The doers of the law shall be created,—not those who were so already, but that they
may become such; in order that the Jews who were hearers of the law might hereby
understand that they wanted the grace of the Justifier, in order to be able to become its
doers also. Or else the term ‘They shall be justified’ is used in the sense of, They shall
be deemed, or reckoned as just, as it is predicated of a certain man in the Gospel, ‘But
he, willing to justify himself (Luke 10:29),’—meaning that he wished to be
thought and accounted just. In like manner, we attach one meaning to the
statement, ‘God sanctifies His saints,’ and another to the words, ‘Sanctified be Thy
name (Matthew 6:9);’ for in the former case we suppose the words to mean that He
makes those to be saints who were not saints before, and in the latter, that the
prayer would have that which is always holy in itself be also regarded as holy by
men,—in a word, be feared with a hallowed awe.” (Augustine of Hippo,
Antipelagian Writings, Chapter 45)
Thus the doers of the law are justified by God’s grace and not by their
own good works. The purpose of their own good works is to obtain the mercy
of God, but it is God’s grace through the Holy Mysteries that bestows the
worthiness and perfection upon mankind. Blessed Augustine does not only
speak of this in regards to the Mystery of Baptism, but applies it also to the
Mystery of Communion. Thus he writes of both Mysteries as follows:
“Now [the Pelagians] take alarm from the statement of the Lord, when He
says, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3);’
because in His own explanation of the passage He affirms, ‘Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).’ And so
they try to ascribe to unbaptized infants, by the merit of their innocence, the gift of
salvation and eternal life, but at the same time, owing to their being unbaptized, to
exclude them from the kingdom of heaven. But how novel and astonishing is such
an assumption, as if there could possibly be salvation and eternal life
without heirship with Christ, without the kingdom of heaven! Of course they
have their refuge, whither to escape and hide themselves, because the Lord does not
say, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot have life, but—‘he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ If indeed He had said the other, there could
have risen not a moment’s doubt. Well, then, let us remove the doubt; let us now
listen to the Lord, and not to men’s notions and conjectures; let us, I say, hear what
the Lord says—not indeed concerning the sacrament of the laver, but concerning the
sacrament of His own holy table, to which none but a baptized person has a right
to approach: ‘Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall have no life
in you (John 6:53).’ What do we want more? What answer to this can be adduced,
unless it be by that obstinacy which ever resists the constancy of manifest truth?” (op.
cit., Chapter 26)
Blessed Augustine continues on the same subject of how the early
Orthodox Christians of Carthage perceived the Mysteries of Baptism and
Communion: “The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the
sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than ‘salvation,’ and the
sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than ‘life.’ Whence, however, was
this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which
the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism
and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to
the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture
testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their
opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: ‘He
saved us by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5)?’ or from Peter’s statement: ‘The
like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (1 Peter 3:21)?’ And what
else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ‘life,’ than that
which is written: ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven (John
6:51);’ and ‘The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world
(John 6:51);’ and ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His
blood, ye shall have no life in you (John 6:53)?’ If, therefore, as so many and such
divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by
any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise
these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man
from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments
can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin,—respecting which guilty nature it
is written, that “no one is clean, not even if his life be only that of a day (Job
14:4).’ Whence also that exclamation of the Psalmist: ‘Behold, I was conceived in
iniquity; and in sins did my mother bear me (Psalm 50:5)! This is either said in
the person of our common humanity, or if of himself only David speaks, it does not
imply that he was born of fornication, but in lawful wedlock. We therefore ought not
to doubt that even for infants yet to be baptized was that precious blood shed, which
previous to its actual effusion was so given, and applied in the sacrament, that it was
said, ‘This is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins
(Matthew 26:28).’ Now they who will not allow that they are under sin, deny that
there is any liberation. For what is there that men are liberated from, if they are held
to be bound by no bondage of sin? (op. cit., Chapter 34)
Now, what of Bp. Kirykos’ opinion that early Christians “fasted in the
fine and broader sense, that is, they were worthy to commune?” Is this because
they were saints? Were all of the early Christians who were frequent
communicants ascetics who fasted “in the finer and broader sense” and were
actual saints? Even if so, does the Orthodox Church consider the saints
“worthy” by their act of fasting, or is their act of fasting only a plea for God’s
mercy, while God’s grace is what delivers the worthiness? According to Bp.
Kirykos, the early Christians, whether they were saints or not, “fasted in the
fine and broader sense, that is, they were worthy to commune.” But is this a
teaching of Orthodoxy or rather of Pelagianism? Is this what the saints
believed of themselves, that they were “worthy?” And if they didn’t believe
they were worthy, was that just out of humility, or did they truly consider
themselves unworthy? Blessed Augustine of Hippo, one of the champions of
his time against the heresy of Pelagianism, writes:
“In that, indeed, in the praise of the saints, they will not drive us with the zeal
of that publican (Luke 18:10‐14) to hunger and thirst after righteousness, but with
the vanity of the Pharisees, as it were, to overflow with sufficiency and fulness; what
does it profit them that—in opposition to the Manicheans, who do away with
baptism—they say ‘that men are perfectly renewed by baptism,’ and apply the
apostle’s testimony for this,—‘who testifies that, by the washing of water, the Church
is made holy and spotless from the Gentiles (Ephesians 5:26),’—when, with a proud
and perverse meaning, they put forth their arguments in opposition to the prayers of
the Church itself. For they say this in order that the Church may be believed after holy
baptism—in which is accomplished the forgiveness of all sins—to have no further sin;
when, in opposition to them, from the rising of the sun even to its setting, in all
its members it cries to God, ‘Forgive us our debts (Matthew 6:12).’ But if they
are interrogated regarding themselves in this matter, they find not what to answer.
For if they should say that they have no sin, John answers them, that ‘they deceive
themselves, and the truth is not in them (1 John 1:8).’ But if they confess their
sins, since they wish themselves to be members of Christ’s body, how will that body,
that is, the Church, be even in this time perfectly, as they think, without spot or
wrinkle, if its members without falsehood confess themselves to have sins? Wherefore
in baptism all sins are forgiven, and, by that very washing of water in the word, the
Church is set forth in Christ without spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:27); and unless it
were baptized, it would fruitlessly say, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ until it be brought to
glory, when there is in it absolutely no spot or wrinkle.” (op. cit., Chapter 17).
Again, in his chapter called ‘The Opinion of the Saints Themselves
About Themselves,’ Blessed Augustine writes: “It is to be confessed that ‘the
Holy Spirit, even in the old times,’ not only ‘aided good dispositions,’ which even they
allow, but that it even made them good, which they will not have. ‘That all, also, of the
prophets and apostles or saints, both evangelical and ancient, to whom God gives His
witness, were righteous, not in comparison with the wicked, but by the rule of virtue,’
is not doubtful. And this is opposed to the Manicheans, who blaspheme the patriarchs
and prophets; but what is opposed to the Pelagians is, that all of these, when
interrogated concerning themselves while they lived in the body, with one most
accordant voice would answer, ‘If we should say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8).’ ‘But in the future time,’ it is
not to be denied ‘that there will be a reward as well of good works as of evil, and that
no one will be commanded to do the commandments there which here he has
contemned,’ but that a sufficiency of perfect righteousness where sin cannot be, a
righteousness which is here hungered and thirsted after by the saints, is here hoped for
in precept, is there received as a reward, on the entreaty of alms and prayers; so that
what here may have been wanting in fulfilment of the commandments may become
unpunished for the forgiveness of sin (1 John 3:17).” (op. cit., Chapter 18).
The heresy of Pelagianism was also condemned by a Council of
Carthage called on 1 May, 418, by the command of Pope St. Zosimus of Rome
(+26 December, 418), and attended by about 200 bishops from Africa and
Spain. Anathemas were hurled against the several different points that
Pelagianism contained that erred from the True Faith. But the anathema that
is most applicable in the case of Bp. Kirykos is the fifth canon, which reads: “If
any man says that the grace of justification was given us in order that we might the
more easily fulfil that which we are bound to do by the power of free will, so that we
could, even without grace, only not so easily, fulfil the Divine commands, let him be
anathema.” Thus the Orthodox Church anathematizes those who believe one
can be “worthy to commune” by means of his own free will and actions,
rather than by the grace of God working within us.
Another anathema that is applicable is the sixth canon, which reads: “If
any man understands the words of the Apostle: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,’ to mean that we must acknowledge
ourselves to be sinners only out of humility, not because we are really such, let
him be anathema.” Thus it is heretical for one to believe that the early
Christians were “worthy to commune” as a product of their own “fasting in
the finer and broader sense,” or their own perfection, rather than believing
that they were all sinners who by the grace of God as given to them through
the Holy Mysteries, became perfected in Christ. This is confirmed further in
the seventh canon: “If any man says that the saints pronounce the words of the
Lord’s Prayer, ‘forgive us our trespasses,’ not for themselves, because for them
this petition is unnecessary, but for others, and that therefore it is, ‘forgive us,’
not ‘me,’ let him be anathema.” More so is it confirmed in the eighth canon: “If
any man says that the saints only pronounce these words, ‘forgive us our
trespasses,’ out of humility, not in their literal meaning, let him be anathema.”
Thus it is clear that not only all the early Christians, but even the saints
were sinners, and that it was not their supposed perfection or even their
“fasting in the finer and broader sense” that made them “worthy to
commune,” as Bp. Kirykos would have it, but rather God’s mercy due to their
good works, and God’s grace as acting from the beginning, but as being more
powerfully provided to them by their participation in the Holy Mysteries, and
especially the repeated Mysteries of Confession (i.e., Absolution) and
Communion (i.e., the Eucharist), which gave them “Life.”
Another Council that condemned the heresy of Pelagianism was the
Council of Orange, which took place on 3 July, 529, under the presidency of
St. Caesarius of Chalon (+27 August, 524), Metropolitan of Arles and
attended by fourteen bishops. The third canon of this council reads: “If anyone
says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but
that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet
Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, ʺI have been found by those who did
not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for meʺ (Romans 10:20,
quoting Isaiah 65:1), let him be anathema.” Thus, neither does human prayer
confer the grace of God but only the mercy of God, nor does human fasting
confer the grace of God but only the mercy of God, how much less do these
human works confer “worthiness” of communion? In truth, no one is worthy
of communion, not even the saints, for all have sinned, and they themselves
regarded themselves as unworthy, and not as an act of humility, but in truth
they considered themselves unworthy. For whatever made them worthy was
not their own acts of prayer or fasting, but rather these works only sought for
God’s mercy, so that by grace he could guide them to fulfill these works and
grant them his grace through the Holy Mysteries.
The fourth canon of the same council reads: “If anyone maintains that
God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will
to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy
Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, ʺThe will is
prepared by the Lordʺ (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, ʺFor
God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasureʺ (Phil. 2:13), let
him be anathema.” The sixth canon reads: “If anyone says that God has mercy upon
us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch,
study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or
the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance
of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a
gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle
who says, ʺWhat have you that you did not receive?ʺ (1 Cor. 4:7), and, ʺBut by the
grace of God I am what I amʺ (1 Cor. 15:10), let him be anathema.” Without a
doubt, fasting is also a work that is undertaken by the grace of God working
within man. For without God’s grace no one can fast from food and passions.
Now, let no one think that this attempt to point out the heresy of
Pelagianism within the teachings of Bp. Kirykos is somehow a product of
Augustinian strict predestination. The Council of Orange actually did not
approve Blessed Augustine’s view of strict predestination. But his teaching
was simply used to dissipate the dangerous heresy of Pelagianism, which is
actually the very origin of a great heresy of our days known as Humanism. In
order to prove that it was not only Blessed Augustine that condemns this
notion held by Bp. Kirykos, the opinions of other Holy Fathers are provided
in the following chapter. Of particular interest is the first quote which is from
St. John Cassian (+29 February, 435), who is classified by some scholars as
holding views that were somewhat opposed to those of St. Aurelius
Augustine, although the two Holy Fathers greatly admired one another. Some
scholars view the positions of Blessed Cassian to be “Semipelagian.” Others
embrace this supposed “Semipelagianism” as the Orthodox approach, and
use it to condemn the views of Blessed Augustine. But this dispute is
irrelevant in this case, for Blessed Cassian writes that even the ascetic saints of
the desert considered themselves unworthy not out of humility but in truth.
St. John Cassian (+29 February, 435) writes: “When the holy men feel that
they are oppressed by the weight of earthly thoughts and fall away from their loftiness
of mind, and that they are led away against their will or rather without knowing it,
into the law of sin and death, and (to pass over other matters) are kept back by those
actions which I described above, which are good and right though earthly, from the
vision of God; they have something to groan over constantly to the Lord; they have
something for which indeed to humble themselves, and in their contrition to
profess themselves not in words only but in heart, sinners; and for this, while
they continually ask of the Lordʹs grace pardon for everything that day by day they
commit when overcome by the weakness of the flesh, they should shed without ceasing
true tears of penitence; as they see that being involved even to the very end of their life
in the very same troubles, with continual sorrow for which they are tried, they cannot
even offer their prayers without harassing thoughts. So then as they know by
experience that through the hindrance of the burden of the flesh they cannot by
human strength reach the desired end, nor be united according to their heartʹs
desire with that chief and highest good, but that they are led away from the vision of it
captive to worldly things, they betake themselves to the grace of God, ‘Who
justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5),’ and cry out with the Apostle: ‘O wretched
man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Thanks be to
God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 7:24‐25).’ For they feel that they cannot
perform the good that they would, but are ever falling into the evil which they would
not, and which they hate, i.e., wandering thoughts and care for carnal things.” (St.
John Cassian, Conference 23, Chapter 10).
From the above, is it not clear that it is blasphemous for one to ever
think of themselves as “worthy” of Holy Communion by means of his own
works? Is it not equally blasphemous to believe that early Christians could
commune frequently because they supposedly “fasted in the finer and broader
sense, that is, they were worthy to commune?” Is this notion held by Bp. Kirykos,
and his ensuing practice in regards to forbidding laymen to commune, not
both a theoretical and practical manifestation of the heresy of Pelagianism?
Link to this page
Permanent link
Use the permanent link to the download page to share your document on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or directly with a contact by e-Mail, Messenger, Whatsapp, Line..
Short link
Use the short link to share your document on Twitter or by text message (SMS)
HTML Code
Copy the following HTML code to share your document on a Website or Blog