The Confession of Cyril Lucaris

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, publishes this brief Confession for the benefit of those who inquire about the faith and the religion of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, in witness to God and to men and with a sincere conscience without any dissimulation.

We believe in one God, true, Almighty, and in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father before the world, consubstantial with the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father by the Son, having the same essence with the Father and the son. We call these three persons in one essence the Holy Trinity, ever to be blessed, glorified, and worshipped by every creature.

We believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other author but the Holy Spirit. This we ought undoubtedly to believe, for it is written. We have a more sure word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to light shining in a dark place. We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority.

We believe that the most merciful God has predestined His elect unto glory before the beginning of the world, without any respect of their works and that there was no other impulsive cause to this election, but only the good will and mercy of God. In like manner before the world was made, He rejected whom He would, of which act of reprobation, if you consider the absolute dealing of God, His will is the cause; but if you look upon the laws and principles of good order, which God’s providence is making use of in the government of the world, His justice is the cause, for God is merciful and just.

We believe that one God in Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible. Invisible things we call the angels, visible things we call the heavens and all things under them. And because the Creator is good by nature, He has created all things good, and He cannot do any evil; and if there is any evil, it proceeds either from the Devil or from man. For it ought to be a certain rule to us, that God is not the Author of evil, neither can sin by any just reason be imputed to Him.

We believe that all things are governed by God’s providence, which we ought rather to adore than to search into. Since it is beyond our capacity, neither can we truly understand the reason of it from the things themselves, in which matter we suppose it better to embrace silence in humility than to speak many things which do not edify.

We believe that the first man created by God fell in Paradise, because he neglected the commandment of God and yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. From thence sprung up original sin to his posterity, so that no man is born according to the flesh who does not bear this burden and feel the fruits of it in his life.

We believe that Jesus Christ our Lord emptied Himself, that is He assumed man’s nature into His own substance. That He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the ever virgin Mary, was born, suffered death, was buried, and risen in glory, that He might bring salvation and glory to all believers, Whom we look for to come to judge both quick and dead.

We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of His Father and there He makes intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawful high priest and mediator, and from there He cares for His people and governs His Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings.

We believe that without faith no man can be saved. And we call faith that which justifies in Christ Jesus, which the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ procured, the Gospel published, and without which no man can please God.

We believe that the Church, which is called catholic, contains all true believers in Christ, those who having departed their country are in heaven and those who live on earth are yet on the way. The Head of that Church (because a mortal man by no means can be) is Jesus Christ alone, and He holds the rudder of the government of the Church in His own hand. Because, however, there are on earth particular visible Churches, every one of them has one chief, who is not properly to be called [head] of that particular Church, but improperly, because he is the principal member of it.

We believe that the members of the Catholic Church are saints, chosen unto eternal life, from the number and fellowship of which hypocrites are excluded, though in particular visible churches tares may be found among the wheat.

We believe that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Spirit, for He is the true comforter, whom Christ sends from the Father to teach the truth and to expel darkness form the understanding of the faithful. For it is true and certain that the Church on earth may err, choosing falsehood instead of truth, from which error the light and doctrine of the Holy Spirit alone frees us, not of mortal man, although by mediation of the labors of the faithful ministers of the Church this may be done.

We believe that man is justified by faith and not by works. But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which, as if by hand, faith apprehends and applies unto us for our salvation. This we say without any prejudice to good works, for truth itself teaches us that works must not be neglected, that they are necessary means to testify to our faith and confirm our calling. But that works are sufficient for our salvation, that they can enable one to appear before the tribunal of Christ and that of their own merit they can confer salvation, human frailty witnesses to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the faithful.

We believe that free will is dead in the unregenerate, because they can do no good thing, and whatsoever they do is sin; but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and in deed works but not without the assistance of grace. In order, therefore, that man should be born again and do good, it is necessary that grace should go before; otherwise man is wounded having received as many wounds as that man received who going from Jerusalem down to Jericho fell into the hands of thieves, so that of himself he cannot do anything.

We believe that the Evangelical Sacraments in the Church are those that the Lord instituted in the Gospel, and they are two; these only have been delivered unto us and He who instituted them delivered unto us no more. Furthermore, we believe that they consist of the Word and the Element, that they are the seals of the promises of God, and they do confer grace. But that the Sacrament be entire and whole, it is requisite that an earthly substance and an external action concur with the use of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joined with a true faith, because the defect of faith prejudices the integrity of the Sacrament.

We believe that Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by the Lord, and unless a man has received it, he has no communion with Christ, from whose death, burial, and glorious resurrection the whole virtue and efficacy of Baptism proceeds; therefore, we are certain that to those who are baptized in the same form which our Lord commanded in the Gospel, both original and actual sins are pardoned, so that whosoever has been washed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are regenerate, cleansed, and justified. But concerning the repetition of it, we have no command to be rebaptized, therefore we must abstain from this indecent thing.

We believe that the other Sacrament which was ordained by the Lord is that which we call Eucharist. For in the night in which the Lord offered up Himself, He took bread and blessed it and He said to the Apostles, "Take ye, eat, this is my body," and when He had taken the cup, He gave thanks and said, "Drink all of this, this is my blood which was shed for many; this do in remembrance of me." And Paul adds, "For as often as ye shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death." This is the pure and lawful institution of this wonderful Sacrament, in the administration of which we profess the true and certain presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; that presence, however, which faith offers to us, not that which the devised doctrine of transubstantiation teaches. For we believe that the faithful eat the body of Christ in the Supper of the Lord, not by breaking it with the teeth of the body, but by perceiving it with the sense and feeling of the soul, since the body of Christ is not that which is visible in the Sacrament, but that which faith spiritually apprehends and offers to us; from whence it is true that, if we believe, we do eat and partake, if we do not believe, we are destitute of all the fruit of it. We believe, consequently, that to drink the cup in the Sacrament is to be partaker of the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as we affirmed of the body; for as the Author of it commanded concerning His body, so He did concerning His blood; which commandment ought neither to be disremembered nor maimed, according to the fancy of man’s arbitrament; yea rather the institution ought to be kept as it was delivered to us. When therefore we have been partakers of the body and blood of Christ worthily and have communicated entirely, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled, united to our Head of the same body, with certain hope to be co-heirs in the Kingdom to come.

We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness or in damnation, according as every one has done, for as soon as they move out of the body they pass either to Christ or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent; in this life there is a time of grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter; but they who die, being not justified, are appointed for everlasting punishment. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And, let this be the end.

This brief Confession of ours we conjecture will be a sign spoken against them who are pleased to slander and persecute us. But we trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and hope that He will not relinquish the cause of His faithful ones, nor let the rod of wickedness lie upon the lost of the righteous.

Dated in Constantinople in the month of March, 1629. Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople

And there is just as much viciousness going the other way from Catholics toward Protestants.

But is it a defensive response or do they instigate it? Pick a thread on the Religion Forum about Catholicism that has several hundred posts or more, read the first page of posts and it becomes very clear how and when the attacks started.

Why do you think that Catholics have been able to succeed in having regular caucus threads? Keep in mind that the ONLY WAY we can do this is to have these threads where opposing beliefs are not mentioned. Why is that so difficult for Protestants to do?

I just gave you a simple example. The rules here are not difficult to comply with. If you find them overwhelming, perhaps you should go elsewhere.

You wrote:

“The confession which this thread posted was pretty much consistent with the Westminster Confession which IS the “doctrine of Presbyterian (and most reformed)sects”.”

The caucus idea at the top of this thread was nonsensical to start with. And what was done was done in such a way that it allowed Catholics to post in the thread.

“Or maybe Protestants should just ask your permission before designating any topic a caucus.”

Or maybe Protestants should just follow the rules which are pretty simple. How about that?

“As I said, this thread was a very eye-opening experience and asnwered a lot of questions.”

I found it eye-opening too. The fact that someone would post something like this, “Roman Catholics please do not trash our thread. We’re trying to have a friendly dialogue here” was very telling. The thread was a bad idea from the beginning.

I'm really in two minds about 'Chapter 10.' It clearly is the reason for the loss of caucus Status.

My first impression is that it is not simply a statement of a positive. ("The Lord IHS Christ is, as Paul saith, the Head of the Body so that no other man should be called the head of the Church on earth." Something like that, and even the "so that" clause seems unnecessary, strictly speaking.) The almost repetitive nature of it suggests that it is in reaction to something -- and, IF that's right, the something would be those churches in communion with the See of Rome.

Are you thinking it is nothing more than a statement of general principle?

I don't think it's a no-brainer either way in any event.

Catholics don't have the right to allow or to forbid Caucus threads. This Catholic wouldn't want that right. But I'd like to be able to argue that this or that thread deserved or did not deserve the status.

The principle applied here was that a caucus thread cannot [explicitly] attack a group of Christians not included in the Caucus 'set'.

So the question to argue is "Whether Chapter 10 is an [explicit] attack on the [so-called] Catholic Church."

And a related question, or an approach to the discussion might be "Whether the "if the shoe fits, wear it" standard means something is an attack or not."

In things like the Creed or the Chalcedonian Definition, I do not recall (not that that's a reliable standard) any "And they that say X are to be held accursed," or "As the so-and-so do falsely boast." But of course such language appears in later Conciliar canons.

It would be interesting to analyze the 39 articles to see if they could qualify for Caucus status. N any event the burden placed, whether fairly or not, on at least some non-Catholic groups APPEARS to be that they may have to argue that some of their statements or confessional chapters or whatever are not intended as being 'against' those Churches in communion with the See of Rome.

Dear Religion Moderator,

I imagine a thread like this, a “Protestant/Orthodox caucus” thread could be used as much to discuss things that are different between the two groups as are in common.

In other words, as long as the discussion was kept to the particular beliefs of the two groups, it would be possible to discuss the differences that lie between them. The Orthodox, as an example, could provide their view of icons, and the Protestants thereby oppose those views with their own.

The Protestants could defend the solas, and the Orthodox could attack that defense.

But I guess my difficulty is, if the caucus label is going to be used to “screen out” certain folks, i.e., Catholics, then what happens if topics discussed include things believed by both Orthodox AND Catholics? After all, Catholics accept icons, and fully agree with Orthodox explication of the theology of icons.

To attack the theology of icons is to attack Catholic belief as well as Orthodox belief. How could a caucus thread that excluded Catholics be used to discuss the theology of icons in a negative way? Would not Catholics have a right to offer defense for this shared Orthodox/Catholic belief?

Thus, trying to restrict the caucus to topics of either only Protestant or Orthodox interest might yield a rather number of limited topics that one might discuss about Orthodoxy, and, ironically, perhaps all of those topics might be inappropriate for a caucus thread, in that those topics would almost certainly be points of contention between Orthodox and Catholics.

It seems to me that the only fit subject matter for such a caucus would be uniquely Protestant beliefs - the Protestant defense thereof and the Orthodox argument against them. And, of course, if the Protestants desired a caucus designation, their arguments on behalf of their uniquely Protestant beliefs would have to be presented in a way that didn't disparage those beliefs of the Orthodox held in common by Catholics, and also didn't disparage the beliefs of Catholics NOT held in common with the Orthodox.

Perhaps this particular caucus combination is a chimera.

sitetest

Well, I'm not going to play the "poor little put-upon Protestants" game, if that's what you're driving at, so I do not think there is anything "clear" about the decision. If you want to take on the RM, you go right ahead.

I will never forget a thread a few years ago where a horde of Protestants game in despite an uncontested Caucus designation and the thread was opened, a la Obama border policy, because of the invasion, rather than the topic of the thread. I withheld donations from FR for some months in response.

Here I think Chapter ten is controversial and a reasonable person could go either way, and as I said, when you made a wholesale condemnation of us, in ignorance that at least I and probably others had decided to stay away despite what seemed to be the invalidating potential of Chapter 10, you may have fired your cannon through your own hull -- below the waterline.

It’s clearly a matter of whose straw is being picked.

That’s ok. That was the point of the exercise.

This "caucus" is evidently no more than an underhanded device by one freeper to bait and taunt Catholics. It's a contemptible and childish tactic, one which would never be used by an honorable evangelist.

Quotes from by the originator of this now-defunct "caucus" thread:

Roman Catholics please do not trash our thread. We're trying to have a friendly dialogue here.
They just can’t help themselves. Please remove post.
Are you Eastern Orthodox. If not, why is it so hard to follow the rules?
My goodness! This thread is be overrun by Romanists. Can I get a witness?! Unfortunately some of your coreligionists are unable to control themselves and their only concern is disrupting things around here. You seem to be one of the few reasonable amongst your party so I have no problem with your posting on this thread.
Dear RM,
Like a horde of Turks bent on sacking Byzantine the Romanist have run roughshod over our caucus. We non-Romanists realize that Romanists believe they are above the rule of law. Here’s an opportunity for our Romanist FRiends to learn a true American value. Please delete posts: 2,14,15,17,20,25,26,28,29,31,32, and 33.
Thank you.
That’s funny, I always thought “crossing the Tiber” meant entering Romanism and thus Babylon, and the whore and all that.

I do not argue with people who ridicule rather than argue.

I think the old dictum about the 5th amendment's self-incrimination provision applies here: It is a shield, not a sword.

If a thread with a provocative OP is put up in order to prove a bias on the part of the RM, it is entirely legitimate to question the validity of its appeal for Caucus protection.

Like the cowards who launch artillery from behind a shield of women and children, those who seek to use the Caucus designation as cover for attacks on others ought not to be surprised nor consider themselves aggrieved when the designation is removed.

And as for complaining that it is straining at gnats when a wholesale attack is considered a .. wait for it .. wholesale attack, well some always complain when the rules are taken as rules.

Personally I don't think an adopted pose of injured innocence meets any of my needs, nor do I think the pose grants the poseur with any moral claim on me.

Dear wagglebee,

As I pointed out, a caucus doesn't necessarily have to focus on common agreement between two groups. It COULD focus on the differences between two groups.

After all, the points of agreement between Protestantism, generally speaking, and Orthodoxy amount to little more than a bit of shared Trinitarianism (even the Orthodox understanding of the papacy is far closer to the Catholic understanding than the general Protestant rejection of it). It'd be a short conversation. And the rationale for excluding other Trinitarians (e.g. - Catholics) would be little more than spite.

Thus, perhaps, a caucus thread could be established between Pentecostals who believe in UFOs and Pentecostals who don't. Or between Anglicans who accept the ordination of women and those who don't. Or between some Protestant group that generally believes that women should and can be ministers, and another Protestant group that doesn't.

And these two groups could have at it with each other, without interference from others.

I mean, heck, we Catholics don't believe that any Protestants have any sort of valid Holy Orders, so we should be indifferent to the question of whether women can be Protestant ministers. We don't have a dog in that fight.

Even with regard to the question of the Real Presence, since no Protestants whatsoever have the True Sacrament, as long as the caucus participants were careful not to directly disparage Catholicism, what would we care if the OPCers went after the Lutherans on the question?

The difficulty with a “Protestant/Orthodox (exclusive of Catholic) caucus” is that there is an identity between most of our theology and most of Orthodox theology. It isn't even that we agree with the Orthodox on most things, it's that we share nearly all the same theology. Both of our spiritual ancestors sat together at the Councils to affirm Christ's two natures, the Trinity, the Theotokos, the rejection of iconoclasm, etc.

It's not that there is an Orthodox theology of the two natures of Christ and a Catholic theology of them, and ours is like theirs. It's that there is a theology of the two natures of Christ of the Undivided Church, to which both Orthodox and Catholic are the legitimate heirs.

Thus, to attack the “Orthodox” teaching of this theology is to attack the Faith of the Undivided Church, in which the Catholic Church shares as well.

And to try to hold a caucus that would be meant to discuss differences between Protestants and Orthodox while excluding Catholics from the discussion would be a little difficult, since little of what the Orthodox believe is not what Catholics believe, too.

sitetest

I do not argue with people who ridicule rather than argue.

I wonder if they have actually used such tactics on Catholics in person? If so, I can only be thankful that the the success rate would have to be low to nil.

It is evident to me that fruitful dialogue was not the goal. Not at all.

Personally I don't think an adopted pose of injured innocence meets any of my needs, nor do I think the pose grants the poseur with any moral claim on me.

Amen, brother.

we Catholics don't believe that any Protestants have any sort of valid Holy Orders,

That's not quite true with regards to certain Anglicans (and possibly some Lutherans).

Thus, to attack the “Orthodox” teaching of this theology is to attack the Faith of the Undivided Church, in which the Catholic Church shares as well.

My suspicion is that there is an ongoing attempt to drive a wedge between the Catholics and Orthodox on FR.

The major disagreements between the Catholics and Orthodox are over papal primacy (the Orthodox do not reject the pope as a bishop and are typically willing to acknowledge him as "first among equals," but they reject primacy) and the Filoque (an issue that Protestants typically agree with Catholics on and non-theologians typically don't understand the significance of).

"So the question to argue is "Whether Chapter 10 is an [explicit] attack on the [so-called] Catholic Church."

Chapter 10 says nothing that Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession doesn't say. Clearly a doctrinal creed. I guess we can't have the Westminster Confession quoted on a Protestant caucus thread either. I've seen Catholic caucus threads which go on and on about the authority of tradition. This could just as easily be characterized as an attack on Protestants as chapter 10 in the creed originally posted on this thread is asserted to be. The hypocrisy and venom is breathtaking.

It is evident to me that fruitful dialogue was not the goal. Not at all.

Of course not, the premise of this was a confession of a Orthodox patriarch which was totally rejected by the Orthodox; however, NOTHING in the body of the thread acknowleded this fact (interestingly enough, if you click the link, this fact IS acknowledged by the source but this was excerpted WITHOUT ANY INDICATION).

This thread would be akin to posting a thread based on the writings of Nestorius and never acknowledging that the Catholic Church had rejected them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.