Follow
We continue this week with our series on the invisibly shepherded Church. Our focus has been to show that for the first three centuries of Christianity, the church was unaware of a strong central episcopate to which she was to look for unity of faith and practice. To the contrary, the early church marveled at the fact that the churches dispersed throughout the world were bound together in unity and faith without a strong central episcopate to govern them. We have been spending considerable time with Irenæus and Cyprian largely because of the weight of their historical testimony, but also because their historical testimony has been conscripted to serve the objectives of Roman Catholic apologists.
Last week we challenged the analysis of Roman Catholic apologist, Bryan Cross, in his belief that Cyprian saw in papal Rome “the ground of the unity of the Church,” and “a means by which to preserve her unity,” and an “objective way to determine where the Church is” (Cross, The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply To Brandon Addison). Cross drew his conclusion from a few surgically extracted comments from Cyprian, ignoring the broader context of Cyprian’s words. In reality, Cyprian believed that Rome herself could be infected with heresy, and that the Church’s unity was to be found in her apostolicity, even if it meant that the true Church had to separate from Rome to preserve it.
This week we want to look deeper into Cyprian’s view of Peter, Peter’s chair and the rock upon which Christ built His church (Matthew 16:18). What we find is that Bryan Cross has refused to allow Cyprian to speak for himself in his historical context, and has back-loaded 1700 years of papal primacy into the 3rd century writings of a man who had no idea such primacy existed, and would not have been in favor of it had it been prescribed. In fact, Cyprian insists plainly that Peter did not lay claim to primacy, but rather deferred to the correction of another apostle:
“For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 70, paragraph 3)
It should be noted that Cyprian said this in a letter to another bishop about the proceedings of a council in Carthage, which council had been called to correct the teachings of Stephen, Bishop of Rome. Clearly, Cyprian rejected the papal, Roman and Petrine primacy today practiced by Rome, and he certainly would reject Cross’s characterization of him.
What then did Cyprian mean when he spoke of Rome affirmatively and spoke of Rome as the chief church “in which priestly unity has its source”? What did he mean when he spoke of there being one chair with which we must be in unity, and that the Church was founded upon Peter, the Rock? Was he being duplicitous—speaking kindly when writing to Rome, but disparagingly when writing to others? Was Cyprian double-minded in his alleged “submission” to Rome? These questions are not difficult to answer. All that is required of Byran Cross is that he set aside his papal assumptions and check his Rome-colored glasses at the door of Cyprian’s library. In other words, what is required of the Roman Catholic apologist is to read Cyprian as Cyprian.
A largely comprehensive example of a failure to read Cyprian objectively can be illustrated with Bryan Cross’s citation of Epistle 54. Cross cites Cyprian as follows:
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance. (Epistle 54)” (Bryan Cross, The Chair of St. Peter)
In this epistle, Cyprian is complaining to Cornelius that heretics from Africa are traveling across the sea to Rome in order to lodge an appeal against the decision of a court of Cyprian’s jurisdiction—an appeal that Cyprian held to be unlawful.
Before diving in, we must invite the attention of our readers to the fact that Carthage was the offspring of the Roman church. Unlike the church in Smyrna (which was the offspring of John), or the church in Ephesus (which was the offspring of Paul), or the church in Gaul (which was the offspring of Smyrna), Carthage traced its apostolic roots not through Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus or Smyrna, but through the church in Rome—which of course was also an apostolic church. This is how the church in Carthage viewed the root structure of the church—not as a plurality of roots that emerged above ground as a Roman monolith, but as a plurality of roots that emerged above ground as a Catholic monolith, of which Rome was just one root among many. So wrote Tertullian, a not insignificant presbyter from Cyprian’s own home town. All the churches were apostolic, so long as they were individually derivative of a plurality of churches founded by the apostles:
“His disciples … next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one…” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 20).
Note well that “the one primitive church” from which all others spring is comprised of all “the churches” of the apostles. Every apostolic church “must necessarily revert to its original for its classification,” and just as Gaul reverted to Smyrna, and Smyrna reverted to John, and Rome reverted to Peter and Paul, Carthage reverted to Rome “for its classification.” This is the implication of what Tertullian of Carthage wrote later in the same treatise:
“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32)
Thus, like Tertullian in Carthage before him, Cyprian’s deference to Rome is particular to Carthage, since Carthage traced its apostolic lineage through her.
But there is also a geographic element to Cyprian’s reference to Peter’s Chair being in Rome. Tertullian had also noted that the chairs of the apostles, could still be found “pre-eminent in their places,” which is to say that they were geographically dispersed:
“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles (cathedræ Apostolorum) are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32)
If Carthage saw herself as a derivative of Rome, and understood that the cathedræ Apostolorum could still be found “in their places” throughout the world, Cyprian’s complaint that the heretics were appealing “to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source” takes on a much different meaning than Cross has assigned to it. To acknowledge that Carthage’s apostolicity could be traced through Rome where Peter’s cathedra is located, is not the same as saying that Cyprian believed in a strong central episcopate. Like the other early writers, an apostolic pedigree was the sine qua non of membership, and Carthage was all too happy to flash its membership card. But that is far from an affirmation of Roman primacy.
This is evidenced by the fact that in the same letter, Cyprian saw the appeal of the heretics to Rome to be judicially out of order. An appeal to Rome on a matter already decided by the African churches was invalid (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 21). Because of her apostolicity that derived from Rome, Carthage could stand on her own without needing Rome’s second opinion or approval. The judicial primacy of an African court was to be found in Africa, not in Rome.
Cross’s first error in reading Cyprian here is that he takes Carthage’s particular derivation from Rome in a general sense, as if it applied to all churches universally. But just as we saw that Irenæaus, when writing to his childhood friend from Smyrna, appealed to Polycarp who “received this one and sole truth from the apostles” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 4), and to the apostolicity of the church in Smyrna for the source of his ‘sacerdotal unity’ (Eusebius, Church History, Book V, chapter 24, paragraph 5), Cyprian here is appealing to Rome for the same purpose. That Cyprian is speaking to Rome from the position of a derivative church rather than a subordinate church is also evidenced by the actual content of the letter.
As we noted last week, it was in this same letter (Epistle 54) that Cyprian insisted that the bishop of Rome should “always read my letters to the very distinguished clergy who preside with you there, and to your very holy and large congregation, … that so, by the reading of this my letter” the error taking root in Rome “may be all purged out of the ears and of the hearts of the brethren” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 20). It was in this same epistle that Cyprian directed and warned that Rome “firmly decline” an appeal from heretics who had already been judged in his court in Africa (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 14). Clearly, Cyprian believed that the apostolicity which Carthage derived from Rome was so great that its bishop could instruct Rome from afar, protect Rome from heresy, and demand that Rome refuse to hear an appeal of a decision made in her courts. If Cyprian believed in papal primacy and Carthaginian subordination to it, then he should have insisted instead that Rome protect Carthage from error, and that the heretics appeal to Rome if they desired to overturn the judgment of a lower court. But that is not how Cyprian understood the derivation of the apostolicity of the Church at Carthage.
Cross’s second error here is his failure to recognize a very subtle nuance in Cyprian’s understanding of the chair of St. Peter. There was a geographic element to it, to be sure, for Cyprian saw the “chair of St. Peter” to be located in Rome, “the place of Peter” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51, paragraph 8) across the sea. But Cyprian also understood the chair of St. Peter to refer to the apostolic authority possessed by every bishop on earth. The apostolic element (as opposed to the geographic element) of Cyprian’s views on St. Peter’s Chair can be seen in two separate but simultaneous schisms that took place in Rome and in Carthage at the cessation of the recent persecution.
In Rome, Novatian had separated from the bishop and set up a competing bishopric. Cyprian treats of the Roman schism in Epistles 51, 72 and 75. In Carthage, Felicissimus, had separated from the bishop and set up a competing bishopric. Cyprian treats of the Carthaginian schism in Epistles 39 and 54. Cross relies heavily on Epistles 39, 51, 54, 72 and 75 because they all refer to the Chair of St. Peter and the Rock upon which Christ built His Church. Cross satisfied himself with the mere mention of the Chair of St. Peter, and moved on to the next citation without pausing to examine what Cyprian was actually saying.
The controversy in each city had to do with how the church should handle the large number of professing Christians who had stumbled in the recent persecutions. Some Christians had resisted unto death, but others—”the lapsed”—had found themselves unable to resist, and stumbled into sin by offering sacrifices to false gods. The lapsed now wanted to repent of their sin and to return to full communion with the church.
What was to be done with such a large group of repentant sinners throughout the empire? Was their repentance sincere? Should the church welcome them back without question? or should the church wait to see which of the lapsed were sincere in their repentance? This was no small issue and the bishops of the world gathered together to determine a proper course of action:
“But I put off deciding what was to be arranged about the case of the lapsed, so that when quiet and tranquillity should be granted, and the divine indulgence should allow the bishops to assemble into one place, then the advice gathered from the comparison of all opinions being communicated and weighed, we might determine what was necessary to be done.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51, paragraph 4)
Notably, the bishops did not look toward Rome for an answer, but “all the bishops appointed either in our province or beyond the sea” gathered together to weigh their opinions (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 39, paragraph 3). The assembled bishops decided upon a moderate course, and “we balanced the decision with wholesome moderation” lest the penalty be so harsh that the truly repentant were driven to despair, or so light that the unrepentant could “rashly rush to communion” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51, paragraph 6). From this decision arose the two related schisms. Novatian in Rome thought the decision too lax and would not receive the lapsed at all, and Felicissimus of Carthage thought the decision too severe, and received the lapsed unconditionally.
According to Cyprian, Novatian was “so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51, paragraph 22). But Felicissimus in Carthage erred in the opposite extreme, “promising to bring back and recall the lapsed into the Church” unconditionally (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 39, paragraph 5). Because Felicissimus “did not cease to communicate with the lapsed” he was now “interfer[ing] with their repentance” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 54, paragraph 13). Thus while Cornelius was suffering an attack upon his episcopate in Rome because Novatian thought the decision too light, Cyprian was suffering an attack upon his episcopate in Carthage because Felicissimus thought the decision too severe.
What Cross misses in his haste to find papal primacy is that Cyprian understood both schisms to be attacks on the respective episcopates, and therefore both schisms were attacks directly upon the Chair of St. Peter. Novation was attacking the Chair of St. Peter in Rome and Felicissimus was attacking the Chair of St. Peter in Carthage. Rather than finding papal primacy in Cyprian, we instead find the heart and soul of Cyprianic Theory, which is that the whole Church is a single episcopate, and (as we noted last week) each part may presume to be understood as the whole.
Cornelius had been duly elected bishop in Rome and “attained to the episcopate” and took “the place of Peter” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51, paragraph 8), occupying “the priestly chair” (paragraph 9). Novatian had instigated a “revolt against the Church” (paragraph 12), which was an attack upon St. Peter’s Chair.
Cyprian, too, had been duly elected bishop in Carthage, and therefore he, too, occupied a “priestly throne” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 72, paragraph 2), but because Felicissimus had retained “that ancient venom against my episcopate” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 39, paragraph 1), he was now exhorting the members of the flock “not to agree with their bishop … to the ruin of the lapsed” (paragraph 2). This was not merely an attack on Cyprian, the bishop, but upon the Chair of St. Peter itself:
“They [Felicissimus’ faction in Carthage] are now offering peace who have not peace themselves. They are promising to bring back and recall the lapsed into the Church, who themselves have departed from the Church. There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 39, paragraph 5).
We will remind the reader here that Cross cited this very passage in order to cause Cyprian to support a throne of St. Peter in Rome. But in the context of this particular epistle, Cyprian was writing to the clergy of Carthage, defending the throne of St. Peter in Carthage, the throne which was at that time occupied by Cyprian himself. It was he, not Cornelius, who was the bishop under attack there, and it was Felicissimus, not Novatian, who was doing the attacking.
Cyprian argued later in Epistle 72 that “the Lord gave that power to Peter, upon whom he built the Church,” and that Petrine authority resides in “they who are set over the Church” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 72, paragraph 7). This remarkable statement about the plurality of bishops who possess the Petrine prerogative comes into laser-like focus when we realize that Cyprian said it in an epistle that criticizes “pope” Stephen’s position on baptism! Cyprian’s position on St. Peter’s Chair was indeed nuanced, but it was not confused. St. Peter’s Chair, like all of the cathedræ Apostolorum “in their places,” had a geographic element to it, but there was an apostolic element to it that Rome herself could neither control nor overturn. And Cyprian believed that he possessed that apostolic element, just like very other bishop on earth.
We see the nuance of Cyprian’s Petrine theory when we understand that Carthage looked to Rome as a mother Church of sorts, as well as “the place of Peter,” but was also able to stand in judgment of Rome on the basis of the Petrine privilege Carthage enjoyed. Thus, when writing to Rome, Cyprian could refer to the Roman origin of the Petrine unity he shared with Cornelius, i.e., “to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 54, paragraph 14, to Cornelius). But Cyprian could also refer to the Petrine unity of the Church, making no mention of Rome at all, when writing to the Numidian bishops, i.e., “the Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 69, paragraph 3, To Januarius and Other Numidian Bishops). Cyprian might identify Rome as the source of Carthage’s “priestly unity,” but the “priestly unity” of the whole Church was not of necessity tied to Rome.
To illustrate the degree to which Cyprian’s ecclesiology assigned Petrine privilege to every bishop, we need only examine the case of two separate bishops, each of which had ruled in his own province contrary to how Cyprian would have ruled. In one case, a bishop had “closed the gate of repentance” against an adulterer—a sentence more harsh than Cyprian would have administered, and certainly more harsh than his co-bishops would have advised. But the decision stood because “every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51, paragraph 21).
In another case, bishop Therapius welcomed a sinner back too hastily, and “granted peace to him before he had fully repented.” For this, Cyprian and the other bishops felt that Therapius’ actions warranted a rebuke, but “we did not think that the peace once granted in any wise by a priest of God was to be taken away,” so the decision stood (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 58, paragraph 1).
In both cases, the decision of each bishop was left untouched, because Cyprian believed that “the keys” were possessed by “they who are set over the Church” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 72, paragraph 7). More importantly for our purposes, this is the power that Cyprian believed that he and Cornelius were exercising in their respective episcopates, and the collective error of Novatian and Felicissimus was to reject the Petrine authority of each. Each bishop held the keys, and each exercised that prerogative equally, collegially and fraternally.
Cross could have seen this if he had been willing, for Cyprian had said as much in Epistle 51 to “pope” Cornelius, which epistle Cross also cited in his article. Listen to Cyprian as he expounds upon the principle of a single episcopate, which all the bishops rule together, equally:
“[A]lthough there is one Church, divided by Christ throughout the whole world into many members, and also one episcopate diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops; … He then who neither maintains the unity of the Spirit nor the bond of peace, and separates himself from the band of the Church, and from the assembly of priests, can neither have the power nor the honour of a bishop, since he has refused to maintain either the unity or the peace of the episcopate.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51, paragraph 24)
This is Cyprian’s repeated claim, that “[t]he episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole” (Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church, paragraph 5). An attack against the episcopate in Carthage or against the episcopate in Rome was just as much an attack against the chair of St. Peter as it would have been if Cyprian and his co-bishops had overturned the judgments of the two bishops in our illustration above. The Church is a single episcopate, and each bishop duly elected occupies St. Peter’s Chair, collegially, fraternally and equally with the rest of them.
But there was one condition in which Cyprian believed that a co-bishop could legitimately interfere in the administration of another bishop’s jurisdiction. That one condition was if another bishop failed to adhere to apostolicity. Notably—most notably, lest we understate the obvious—Cyprian believed that the bishop of Rome could stumble, and had stumbled, at precisely that point. According to Cyprian, the bishop of Rome could separate himself from the Chair of St. Peter, even while that bishop protests “that he holds the succession from Peter” and “announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74, paragraph 17), “refus[ing] to recognise the unity which comes from God…” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, paragraph 4). The Church was one episcopate indeed, and by “one episcopate” Cyprian did not mean “Rome.”
Of this Cyprian testifies repeatedly. He understood that all the bishops together governed the Church and said as much when he wrote to “pope” Stephen. Faustinus, a bishop in Gaul had written to Cyprian about the spread of error there. Cyprian wrote to Stephen, informing him of Faustinus’ letter, and encouraging him to support the flock in Gaul, for we “hold the balance” together:
“it is our [Cyprian’s and Stephen’s] business to advise for and to aid in, since we who consider the divine clemency, and hold the balance in governing the Church, do thus exhibit the rebuke of vigour to sinners in such a way as that, nevertheless, we do not refuse the medicine of divine goodness and mercy in raising the lapsed and healing the wounded” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 66, paragraph 1)
Cyprian neither rebuked Faustinus for contacting him about the heresy, nor did he insist to Stephen that universal shepherding was the business of Rome alone. Rather, he insisted that “although we [Cyprian and Stephen] are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 66, paragraph 4). The beauty of the Church, Cyprian believed, was that the bishops were bound together in a link of unity such that if any one bishop should introduce error, the others could join together to correct him:
“[We are] joined together by the bond of mutual concord, and the link of unity; so that if any one of our college should try to originate heresy, and to lacerate and lay waste Christ’s flock, others may help, and as it were, as useful and merciful shepherds, gather together the Lord’s sheep into the flock.” Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 66, paragraph 3)
Cyprian would actually invoke this very principle against “pope” Stephen himself, prompting Firmilian of Cæsarea to respond in agreement with Cyprian, “But as far as [Stephen] is concerned, let us leave him” (Cyprian, Epistle 74, paragraph 26).
Cyprian expanded upon this concept in other epistles, stating in no uncertain terms that bishops rule the church, and the bishops are ruled, invisibly, by Christ, from heaven:
“[A] portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account of his doing to the Lord” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 54, paragraph 14)
“Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, … while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another. Wherefore, brother, if you consider God’s majesty who ordains priests, if you will for once have respect to Christ, who by His decree and word, and by His presence, both rules prelates themselves, and rules the Church by prelates;” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 68, paragraphs 8 & 9)
Thus, it is true that Cyprian rejoiced when Lucius, the bishop of Rome, returned from banishment, for the shepherd had returned “to feed his flock, and the pilot to manage the ship, and the ruler to govern the people” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 57, paragraph 1). Lucius’ province in Rome, after all, was his flock to feed, his ship to steer, his people to govern. But Cyprian also complained of the libelous statements of Fortunatus and Felicissimus against him, for through them “the adversary of Christ and the foe to His Church” were persecuting “the ruler of the Church” at a time “when the pilot is removed” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 54, paragraph 6). Cyprian was that pilot and that ruler. Each bishop was pilot and ruler and governor and shepherd of his own portion of the flock, and together they ruled the Church collegially—for Christ “both rules prelates themselves, and rules the Church by prelates.”
As for the bishop of Rome—sayeth Cyprian—he speaks for the little portion of the church to which he has been assigned. When Cornelius was in exile, Cyprian wrote to him to thank him for his testimony, for he had encouraged the saints by his witness, and by his testimony Cornelius had spoken not for “the whole Catholic Church” nor for “the whole Roman Catholic Church,” but for “the whole Roman Church.” Which is to say, Cornelius had represented his portion of the flock very well in his confession of faith:
“Among you the courage of the bishop going before has been publicly proved, and the unitedness of the brotherhood following has been shown. As with you there is one mind and one voice, the whole Roman Church has confessed.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 56, paragraph 1).
Thus did Cyprian see the bishop of Rome as just one bishop among many, a man assigned to his portion of the flock, whose duty it was to feed that portion, to steer that ship, to govern that people, and to rule that local body. And as we showed above, Cyprian believed that “if any one of our college [Stephen included] should try to originate heresy, and to lacerate and lay waste Christ’s flock, others may help.” And that is precisely how Cyprian responded to Stephen when he disagreed with him.
Writing to Pompey against what Cross would call a “papal encyclical” from Stephen, Cyprian insisted that it was Stephen who was now originating heresy and lacerating and laying waste Christ’s flock, and thus it was time for the rest of the college to step up. Stephen’s haughty, unskilled, contradictory and erroneous encyclical (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, paragraph 1), required the rest of the bishops to pull rank on him and invoke their own Petrine authority to put him in his place. We note that Cyprian invokes “Peter himself” in his explanation of why it was necessary to separate from the bishop of Rome (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, paragraph 11). That, of course, is not the picture Bryan Cross painted of Cyprian’s conviction that the bishop of Rome is the gift of Christ to His Church as “a means by which to preserve her unity” and an “objective way to determine where the Church is.” Cyprian certainly believed in Petrine unity, but by no means did it lead him to Petrine, Roman or Papal primacy. In fact he explicitly stated that Peter did not invoke primacy.
We will conclude this week’s installment by bringing Cyprian’s thoughts on the Rock of Matthew 18:16 to bear. Cyprian believed that church was built upon the rock of confessing bishops and all who stand fast in the faith:
“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; … [T]he Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. … the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 26, paragraph 1)
“Nevertheless, Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, speaking one for all, and answering with the voice of the Church, says, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God:’ [Matthew 15:13] signifying, doubtless, and showing that those who departed from Christ perished by their own fault, yet that the Church which believes on Christ, and holds that which it has once learned, never departs from Him at all, and that those are the Church who remain in the house of God” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 54, paragraph 7)
Because the rock was not the Roman bishop, but rather “the voice of the Church … which believes on Christ,” and the prerogatives of Peter’s chair resided in every bishop, Firmilian could affirm that he was in Petrine unity with Cyprian and “with all the bishops who are in Africa” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74, paragraphs 6 & 26) in the very same letter that he agrees with Cyprian that we must leave “pope” Stephen in order to preserve the Petrine unity of the Church!
In same letter that Cyprian claims that the rock is the voice of the confessing Church, he is shocked to find that “pope” Cornelius is not acting like one. Rather, Cornelius is portrayed as trembling in fear before the threats of the heretics when instead he should stand fast against them. Cyprian expresses his “considerable surprise”:
“But yet, when I read your other letter … I was considerably surprised at observing that you were in some degree disturbed by the threats and terrors of those who had come, when, according to what you wrote, they had attacked and threatened you with the greatest desperation, that if you would not receive the letters which they had brought, they would read them publicly, and would utter many base and disgraceful things, and such as were worthy of their mouth.” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 2)
There was an easy solution, of course, to Cornelius’ effeminate response to these threats. All Cornelius had to do was imitate Cyprian who stood fast against those heretics like a cliff, a barrier, a jetty, a wall, a breakwater, an immovable object, an object that resists crumbling, a firm surface upon which a structure is built, a … , a … , a … . Well, the word escapes us. Perhaps Cyprian can be of some help. What word can we use to describe the way Cyprian had acted against those heretics and that Cornelius, to Cyprian’s dismay, had not?
“There ought to abide with us, dearest brother, an immoveable strength of faith; and against all the irruptions and onsets of the waves that roar against us, a steady and unshaken courage should plant itself as with the fortitude and mass of a resisting rock. … But, dearest brother, ecclesiastical discipline is not on that account to be forsaken, nor priestly censure to be relaxed, because we are disturbed with reproaches or are shaken with terrors;” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraphs 2 & 3)
Rock. That’s the word we were looking for. Cornelius should have been a rock like Cyprian in the face of heresy, instead of trembling in fear at their threats. Here Cyprian presumes to counsel “pope” Cornelius to “man up” and face the threats to the church, just as Cyprian had done in his own province. The “camp of Christ,” dear Cornelius, “unconquered and firm with the Lord’s protection,” does not “yield to threats” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 17), but rather plants itself as a “mass of a resisting rock.” As we noted above, these are not the words of a man who believed in papal primacy or that he must rely on Rome for the protection of his own province in Carthage. Rather, he believed it was the duty of bishops, all bishops, to guard the portion of the flock to which each had been assigned. “[A]nd a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account to his doings to the Lord” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 14). No, Cyprian did not believe that he answered to Rome at all. Rome had her portion of the flock, and Carthage had hers. And they both answered to Christ, the Chief Shepherd of Church. In Rome Cyprian had found a weak episcopate that often required his help. He did not find, and was not looking for, a strong, chief central episcopate from which infallible decrees would emanate to protect the church from error.
We will continue, and conclude the series next week as we carry our analysis into the 4th century. Before we leave Cyprian we will add this caveat: We have expressed elsewhere that we believe that Cyprian was too hastily elevated to the position of bishop and metropolitan of Carthage, in violation of 1 Timothy 3:6. This violation is conceded by his biographer, who also notes that Cyprian “immediately received the presbyterate and the priesthood” after his conversion (Pontius the Deacon, The Life and Passion of St. Cyprian, Chapters 2 & 3). Therefore we do not offer Cyprian’s arguments to suggest that we agree with all of Cyprian’s thinking. We do not know, and cannot know, what Cyprian might have eventually affirmed or denied had he obeyed the apostolic mandate that a novice must not be made a bishop. But based on what we do know about what he did say, he not only was unaware of a monarchical bishopric in Rome, but he found the very notion flatly abhorrent and foreign to the church of Christ. Roman Catholics may think he was wrong, but they cannot deny that he actually despised the papal, Roman and Petrine primacy they have attempted to foist upon him retroactively. He believed that the church must be visibly apostolic under the guidance of an invisible Shepherd in heaven, to Whom each bishop must eventually give an account.
TIM–
You said; “It should be noted that Cyprian said this in a letter to another bishop about the proceedings of a council in Carthage, which council had been called to correct the teachings of Stephen, Bishop of Rome.”
I have read through Cyprian’s letters and I can’t find where the council in Carthage was called specifically to correct the teachings of Stephen the Bishop of Rome. Where is that quote? I must have missed it.
Bob,
You asked, “I have read through Cyprian’s letters and I can’t find where the council in Carthage was called specifically to correct the teachings of Stephen the Bishop of Rome. Where is that quote?”
To answer your question, Stephen I was bishop of Rome from 254 – 257 A.D.. The relevant epistles of Cyprian of Carthage regarding this council were written during Stephen’s tenure as bishop as follows:
Epistle 69, Cyprian To Januarius on Baptizing Heretics, 255 A.D.
Epistle 70, Cyprian To Quintus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 255 A.D
Epistle 71, Cyprian to Stephen, regarding the council in question
Epistle 72, Cyprian to Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 256 A.D.
Epistle 73, To Pompey, Against the Epistle of Stephen
Epistle 74, From Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, 256 A.D., Against the Epistle of Stephen
These were all written during the “pontificate” of “pope” Stephen.
In Epistle 69 (255 A.D.), paragraph 1, Cyprian writes to Januarius, explaining that his letter was received and read by the council in question:
Cyprian then says to Januarius that “you yourselves hold thereupon the truth and certainty of the Catholic rule, yet since you have thought that of our mutual love we ought to be consulted, we put forward our opinion, not as a new one, but we join with you in equal agreement, in an opinion long since decreed by our predecessors, and observed by us” (paragraph 1). Here Januarius has not argued for a different opinion—rather he holds the same opinion as Cyprian does, “not as a new one,” but “an opinion long since decreed by our predecessors.” What we take from this is that someone has imported to Januarius’ province in Numidia a contrary opinion, foreign to the ancient decrees, and Januarius is writing to Cyprian for support. In response, Cyprian corrects “they who assert that heretics can baptize” and says that they need to change their position to conform to that of Carthage, which as he says, is not a new opinion, but is rather the “truth and certainty of Catholic rule” (paragraph 2).
In Epistle 70 (255 A.D), Cyprian writes to Quintus of Mauritania, “to declare to you what I think concerning those who seem to have been baptized by heretics and schismatics,” a matter that Carthage had “lately determined in council” (paragraph 1). The occasion for the council as that “some of our colleagues” by “presumption … are led to think that they who have been dipped by heretics ought not to be baptized when they come to us” (paragraph 1). “Again,” Cyprian complains, “some of our colleagues would rather give honour to heretics than agree with us” (paragraph 1). What is more, Cyprian continues, “they say that in this matter they follow ancient custom” (paragraph 2). But it is not for us to “prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason” (paragraph 2). Why, Peter himself would never have stumbled into such arrogant assumption as to pull rank “so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come” (paragraph 3). What a great illustration Paul has provided, “furnishing thus an illustration to us both of concord and of patience, that we should not obstinately love our own opinions, but should rather adopt as our own those which at any time are usefully and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful” (paragraph 3).
In Epistle 72, Cyprian writes to Jubaianus, explaining that this matter has been “established this same matter once more by our judgment” (paragraph 1), and “very many bishops assembling together have decided this” (paragraph 3). Some, whose arguments can easily be overcome by reason, “oppose to us custom, as if custom were greater than truth,” which is obstinate and presumptuous, for “he who intelligently and knowingly perseveres in that course in which he had erred, sins without pardon for his ignorance … [and] resists with a certain presumption and obstinacy, when he is overcome by reason” (paragraph 13). Nor ought they to say, ” ‘We follow that which we have received from the apostles,’ when the apostles only delivered one Church” (paragraph 13), for some had cited the apostles in such a way that it “tended to favour heretics” (paragraph 14), but the brethren and colleagues ought not do that: “let not those who favour heretics put forward what Paul spoke concerning brethren” (paragraph 14). Therefore, “those who think that they must communicate with such as come to the Church without baptism” are in great error (paragraph 19). “We, as far as in us lies,” concludes Cyprian, by way of contrast, “do not contend on behalf of heretics with our colleagues and fellow bishops, with whom we maintain a divine concord and the peace of the Lord” (paragraph 26).
So let’s see: someone among “our colleagues,” is interfering in our provinces, contending on behalf of heretics, or maintaining the cause of heretics, and thinks we should communicate with heretics, and has sent emissaries to North Africa presumptuously asserting the prerogatives of “primacy,” obstinately loving his own opinion, and claiming to be exporting an ancient custom as if it was the truth handed down from the apostles, and is unwilling to submit to the wholesome, lawful, true and useful correction of his brethren.
Who could it be? No names are mentioned, but Cyprian has given us more than enough information to determine the source of the error.
After Stephen has replied formally to Epistle 71 by excommunicating the vast majority of the Church, Cyprian takes off the gloves and starts naming names in Epistle 73, “To Pompey, Against the Epistle of Stephen”:
Firmilian then follows suit, also naming names in his response to Cyprian:
The fact that Cyprian mentions no names prior to Stephen’s epistle of excommunication, does not prohibit us from identifying the source of the errant teachings. Once Stephen puts his opinions to ink and paper and formalizes it, Cyprian and Firmilian lay the axe to the root, name names, and apply to Stephen all the same criticisms that had been made against his teachings in 69 and 70.
When we read Epistle 71 in which Cyprian writes to Stephen and informs him of the decision of the council, presumes to instruct him from Scripture, and reminds Stephen that the nice people in Carthage would never presume to “impose a law” upon another man’s province, “since each prelate has in the administration of the Church the exercise of his will free” (paragraph 3), he is informing Stephen that now would be a good time to come around to the true opinion of the Catholic Church instead of maintaining the cause of heretics. In other words, “Knock if off, Stephen!” The epistle, written cordially to Stephen, but no less forceful for its cordiality, is to inform him of the truth and tell him to stop exporting his errors to the the churches of Africa’s northern coasts.
If Cyprian’s posture in Epistle 71 had been one of a subordinate seeking the approval of his superior, all Stephen had to do was write back and explain that Cyprian had misunderstood the teachings of the apostles, and we could all get back to the business of Roman Catholic unity. Instead, Stephen excommunicated all the African bishops. He had read epistles 69 and 70, which Cyprian had subjoined to 71, and Stephen knew very well what had been done in council—his teachings had been rejected, and he excommunicated them all.
In any case, you expressed an opinion earlier, stating that in Epistle 71, Cyprian was expressing the stubbornness of some of his own bishops:
But when Firmilian writes back (Epistle 74), he expresses dismay that Stephen excommuniated everyone in the east and now those in the south, but takes comfort that those in the east are in union “with all the bishops who are in Africa, and all the clergy, and all the brotherhood” and of one mind “and thinking the same thing” (paragraph 26). There was no faction in Africa. They were unified.
Epistle 71 wasn’t about correcting and restraining African bishops. It was about correcting and restraining a Roman one. So I stand by my statement, “It should be noted that Cyprian said this in a letter to another bishop about the proceedings of a council in Carthage, which council had been called to correct the teachings of Stephen, Bishop of Rome.”
Thanks,
Tim
Ok. I’ll submit to your analysis that Cyprian was aggravated at Stephen for not agreeing with him on the conclusions drawn by the local council. My feelings are that the council was not called by Cyprian and company specifically to rebut Stephen, rather the council was called to define against heresy, basically the Cyprianic Theory. Rome never did adopt it. Instead, it adopted the Augustinian Theory. So obviously, when Cyprian states that those in the east are in union “with all the bishops who are in Africa, and all the clergy, and all the brotherhood” and of one mind “and thinking the same thing” (paragraph 26) he wasn’t exactly accurate. There were those who did not agree with Cyprian. So the dispute of whose side of the debate was apostolic had not been determined by the church as a whole. And I might add that Augustine came from Hippo, Northern Africa.
BOB,
Nice to see you are still doings God’s work.
Thanks for stopping in, CK. Nice to hear from you.
Tim
CK–
It just irks me to read Tim’s stuff and not at least try to correct the error in his perspective. There’s absolutely no way that the Anti-Christ can praise God, offer Him thanks, and lead people to Christ, and not destroy himself in the process. As Jesus said, a house divided cannot stand.
CK–
I’ve been lurking over on CREEDCODECULT recently and reading responses. I think Debbie absolutely nails it. The Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, how can any of that come from Satan???
Bob,
Greetings. Glory to God in the Highest! Holy, holy, holy is He! Creator, Sustainer and Savior of the Universe! The only wise God, before whom every knee must bow!
Jim has said of me: “The man is either a lunatic or worse, satanic. Maybe both.”
Debbie has said of this site that she doesn’t like visiting it because the images appear to be demonic
Bob has said of me: “By your words, I believe you have blasphemed the Holy Ghost”
How is it possible that someone who is a satanic blasphemer of the Holy Spirit and demonic can utter the words, “Praise God, He saved me from my sins! By His stripes I am healed! Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God died on the Cross, for He is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the World!” By the standard you have used to exonerate Rome, should I not be exonerated as well? After all, how could any of these praises come from someone who is demonic, satanic and a blasphemer? By your standard, that should be impossible.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said; “By your standard, that should be impossible.”
Nope. By my standard that only makes one fallen. The anti-Christ is the epitome of anti-Christian behaviour,leading people away from Christ by exalting the ways of the world and fleshly desires (immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing). I just don’t see the pope or the Roman Catholic Church promoting that kind of behaviour.
You, Tim, may have blasphemed the Holy Spirit but that doesn’t make you the anti-Christ. You are just anti-Catholic. From a Catholic standpoint, you blaspheme the Eucharist which is dangerous to your soul. To that I would say you are ignorant of the Real Presence. If that is truly the case, then Jesus says from the Cross “Father, forgive him. For he knows not what he is doing.” If you do actually believe in the Real Presence and have taken communion with that in mind and yet now you persist in denying Jesus before men, then He will deny you before the Father and your apostasy will not be forgiven.
Jesus knows what is in your heart and what is just lip service. If you really know the truth, then you know what is in your heart, too. If you are 100% sure that Jesus’ Real Presence is not in the Eucharist, then go man go. If there is a shadow of a doubt, that maybe, just maybe, Jesus is really present, then it should give you pause. And rightly so.
That being said, do you believe more in the Cyprianic Theory or the Augustinian Theory?
Bob,
Another deflection from the Romanist playbook. By way of reminder, here is your comment to CK:
My response was that you, Jim, Debbie and others see me under the power of Satan, and Debbie can’t understand how the papacy could be of Satan if popes say such nice things about God. And so I asked, If that is so, how can someone under the power of Satan praise God?, which was the very thing you (and Debbie) thought was impossible. In response to me, you changed the focus as if I had said that being under the influence of Satan somehow makes me the anti-Christ:
But that is to answer a different question, isn’t it, Bob? But let’s return to the actual point, which was your observation that praises cannot come from Satan. How can someone under the influence of Satan praise God? You have assumed that if he who is of Satan cannot praise God, then he who claims to praise God cannot be from Satan—and the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei—are all ostensibly praises of God, and cannot point people toward Christ. Let’s test your standard:
“These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.” (Acts 16:17).
Is that statement from Satan or from God?
Quite possibly, and indeed this is what should give you pause, your filter needs to be tweaked because your filter would have concluded that the demoniac following Paul was a disciple of Christ. As you said, “The anti-Christ is the epitome of anti-Christian behaviour,leading people away from Christ…”. By your standard, the demoniac following Paul and telling people to listen to him was as far as possible from Antichrist. This is why you are fooled by Antichrist. Yes, your filter is very, very flawed.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You asked: Let’s test your standard:
“These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.” (Acts 16:17).
Is that statement from Satan or from God?
No, let’s test yours: 1Jo 4:2 ff By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
By this definition from St. John, do you have the spirit of antichrist?
TIM–
You said: “What Cross misses in his haste to find papal primacy is that Cyprian understood both schisms to be attacks on the respective episcopates, and therefore both schisms were attacks directly upon the Chair of St. Peter. Novation was attacking the Chair of St. Peter in Rome and Felicissimus was attacking the Chair of St. Peter in Carthage. Rather than finding papal primacy in Cyprian, we instead find the heart and soul of Cyprianic Theory, which is that the whole Church is a single episcopate, and (as we noted last week) each part may presume to be understood as the whole.”
If, as you say, that there was no papal primacy, why then did the heretics in Carthage appeal to Rome? Were they hoping that Rome would somehow override Cyprian? I don’t see the point if there was no papal primacy. And if there was no papal primacy, and the Chair of Peter was occupied by Cyprian in Carthage, why were the articles of the council of Carthage sent to Bishop Stephen for his approval?
Epistle 71: 3– “We have brought these things, dearest brother, to your knowledge, for the sake of our mutual honour and sincere affection; believing that, according to the truth of your religion and faith, those things which are no less religious than true will be approved by you.”
Now, I do understand The Cyprianic Theory vs. the Augustinan Theory is still debated between the East and the West. And in a way it is still causing schism. That is why one has to take that into account to understand the tone of Cyprian’s epistles toward Rome. What I am seeing in the actions of the people of the time, is that they suggest a hierarchy of some sort between Carthage and Rome, with Rome holding the primacy.
Indecently, in Epistle 51, Cyprian describes the “anachronism”
of the conclave of bishops electing the bishop of Rome:
“8. I come now, dearest brother, to the character of Cornelius our colleague, that with us you may more justly know Cornelius, not from the lies of malignants and detractors, but from the judgment of the Lord God, who made him a bishop, and from the testimony of his fellow bishops, the whole number of whom has agreed with an absolute unanimity throughout the whole world. For—a thing which with laudable announcement commends our dearest Cornelius to God and Christ, and to His Church, and also to all his fellow priests—he was not one who on a sudden attained to the episcopate; but, promoted through all the ecclesiastical offices, and having often deserved well of the Lord in divine administrations, he ascended by all the grades of religious service to the lofty summit of the Priesthood. Then, moreover, he did not either ask for the episcopate itself, nor did he wish it; nor, as others do when the swelling of their l arrogance and pride inflates them, did he seize upon it; but quiet otherwise, and meek and such as those are accustomed to be who are chosen of God to this office, having regard to the modesty of his virgin continency, and the humility of his inborn and guarded veneration, he did not, as some do, use force to be made a bishop, but he himself suffered compulsion, so as to be forced to receive the episcopal office. And he was made bishop by very many of our colleagues who were then present in the city of Rome, who sent to us letters concerning his ordination, honourable and laudatory, and remarkable for their testimony in announcement of him. Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church. Whoever he may be, although greatly boasting about himself, and claiming very much for himself, he is profane, he is an alien, he is without. And as after the first there cannot be a second, whosoever is made after one who ought to be alone, is not second to him, but is in fact none at all.”
Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy(“his fellow bishops, the whole number of whom has agreed with an absolute unanimity throughout the whole world”), by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men.
I think it bears a strong resemblance to the college of Cardinals. Anachronism? Hardly.
Bob, you asked,
If, as you say, there was papal primacy, why did the heretics in Rome appeal to Arles? Were they hoping that Arles would somehow override Rome? Yes, in fact, they were. How do you account for this if there was Roman primacy?
I don’t see the point in appealing to Arles if there was papal primacy.
Approval, in its most basic form, is agreement. Agree is exactly what Cyprian was hoping that Stephen would do with what Africa had decreed, and thus avoid a schism. What Cyprian did not do is ask Stephen to ratify what the council had decreed. For evidence of the difference between “approve” and “ratify” in Cyprian, see Epistle 69, paragraph 3, on the same topic:
God “ratifies” but we either agree with or disagree with what is true. Stephen was asked to agree with what was true, not ratify what Cyprian already believed to be true whether Stephen ratified it or not.
Just read Epistle 71 and you’ll see that Cyprian is not seeking Stephen’s ratification, but Stephen’s submission to what the council had decreed with authority. Cyprian wasn’t asking for Stephen’s opinion.
If Cyprian is truly asking Stephen to agree with what Africa had decided, and thus avoid a schism—and then when Stephen does not comply, and the bishops depart from Stephen—were those bishop really asking Stephen to bless their decision, or were they expecting him to submit to it? If it were the former, why the resulting schism? They should have simpy torn up their synodical letter and returned to the arms of Stephen. But they did not. Just read the whole paragraph, instead of the one sentence you quoted, and you’ll find that Cyprian was saying, “If you can’t bring yourself to agree with us, then at least keep your nonsense on your side of the sea, and leave us alone.”
That’s Cyprian’s submission to papal primacy, Bob? “Either agree with us or stay out of Africa”? No, I don’t believe it is. Cyprian was claiming that he was free to exercise his will, unconstrained by any overreaching, arrogant bishop to the north who had no business meddling in Cyprian’s province. He was certainly not asking Stephen please, please, please to ratify what we believe may be true, depending ultimately on whether you actually say it is.
Tim
Bob, to answer your question about the “college of Cardinals” who elected Cornelius, you cited Epistle 51:
This was a common practice, not unique to a Roman bishop.
Unless today’s “College of Cardinals” goes around from town to ordaining bishops in every city at ecumenical councils, then yes, I think your reading of Cyprian’s description of Cornelius’ ordination is anachronistic.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “This was a common practice, not unique to a Roman bishop.”
So it’s not really anachronistic. There were conclaves at that time to decide bishops, including the Bishop of Rome.
You also said, “Unless today’s “College of Cardinals” goes around from town to ordaining bishops in every city at ecumenical councils, then yes, I think your reading of Cyprian’s description of Cornelius’ ordination is anachronistic.”
So it’s anachronistic IF you are specific about the “College of Cardinals” in specific to the Bishop of Rome specifically. Ok , sure. I said the old conclave was “a lot like” what happens in Rome today–which it is–many bishops from around the church enter conclave to elect the Bishop of Rome. It is as old as the Church itself. It has just grown into an exclusively papal ceremony–specifically.
Anybody can split hairs, Tim.
Bob, actually you said you had discovered “the ancient papal conclave in Cyprian’s epistle.” What you discovered, rather, was a group of bishops electing a bishop in Rome, just like a group of bishops elected a bishop in Constantinople, and a group of bishops elected a bishop in Antioch, and in Jerusalem.
What you did not find was “the ancient papal conclave.”
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “What you did not find was “the ancient papal conclave.”
It was a simple comparison. I just made the comment “And to this day, the Roman See is made up of individuals from across the globe. Even the pope today is from South America of all places. The one before him was German, the one before him was from Poland. The college of Cardinals are worldwide. And they are the ones who choose the pope in the first place.”
It happened in Cyprian’s time as well as today. Yes. There is a difference from today’s papal conclave and the ancient conclave that elected Cornelius the Bishop of Rome. It is interesting to note that none of the modern protestant churches have bishops from all over the world come together in conclave to elect bishops to their different “sees”. After all, it was something the early church did so that they could all be “of one mind and one Seat of Peter”. Again, where is that visible apostlicity?
TIM–
You said: “If, as you say, there was papal primacy, why did the heretics in Rome appeal to Arles? Were they hoping that Arles would somehow override Rome? Yes, in fact, they were. How do you account for this if there was Roman primacy?”
And what was the outcome of that appeal, hmmmmmm? The Donatist heresy was condemned in agreement with the Lateran council in Rome. Their appeal was to no avail. In fact, it precipitated into Constantine calling the Council of Nicaea urging the Church to attain consensus through an assembly representing all of Christendom.
You also said: “Just read the whole paragraph, instead of the one sentence you quoted, and you’ll find that Cyprian was saying, “If you can’t bring yourself to agree with us, then at least keep your nonsense on your side of the sea, and leave us alone….That’s Cyprian’s submission to papal primacy, Bob? “Either agree with us or stay out of Africa”?
Is that what you got out of that? Really? Tim, you certainly have a different perspective.
“We have brought these things, dearest brother, to your knowledge, for the sake of our mutual honour and sincere affection; believing that, according to the truth of your religion and faith, those things which are no less religious than true will be approved by you. But we know that some will not lay aside what they have once imbibed, and do not easily change their purpose; but, keeping fast the bond of peace and concord among their colleagues, retain certain things peculiar to themselves, which have once been adopted among them. In which behalf we neither do violence to, nor impose a law upon, any one, since each prelate has in the administration of the Church the exercise of his will free, as he shall give an account of his conduct to the Lord.”
Cyprian is talking about the prelates in Carthage, not Rome. Cyprian expresses the stubbornness of some of his prelates and to keep the peace, he is not going to impose upon them, but rather let the Lord separate the tares from the wheat.
Interesting approach, Bob. It is typical for Rome’s apologists to set one standard for judgment, and then—when Rome’s arguments fall short of that standard—to change the standard. You have learned well from your trainers.
You may recall that I highlighted your use of this method only recently when you argued that Cyprian’s rejection of any papal prerogative, primacy or preeminence didn’t disprove papal primacy, because after all, Stephen was right. The argument starts with Rome’s evidence for universal recognition of the primacy of Rome, and then when that argument fails because the primacy of Rome was not recognized, Rome then shifts as if the only thing we had been talking about was whether Stephen was right. It goes like this, just so you can remember:
The implications of the data are simply discarded by Rome, and she shifts on her heels, answering a completely different question. If papal primacy is proved by the bishops who allegedly upheld it, then the avalanche of data that shows a veritable episcornopia of bishops rejecting papal primacy, to coin a term, must be considered. But Rome dismisses the data and changes the argument to whether Stephen’s analysis was correct. But that was not the question. The question was: Did Ante-Nicene bishops submit to Rome. The answer is: No, they did not.
Today, the music is the same, but you are now singing verse two of Rome’s tired old tune:
Again, the implications of the data are simply discarded by Rome, and she shifts on her heels, answering a completely different question. If papal primacy is proved by someone going over Cyprian’s head to Rome, then what is proved by someone going over Rome’s head to Arles? Oh, that’s easy! says Rome: Papal primacy! (As I said, you have been well trained.) Like the religion of global warmism, the hypothesis is presumed to be true, and all data is then rearranged to conform to the hypothesis. And early papal primacy is just that—a theory, and a theory quite easily debunked by something that is no friend of Rome: hard data.
A very interesting take on Cyprian’s epistle, by the way. You wrote, citing Cyprian,
Is he expressing the stubbornness of the men in Carthage? I think you may be missing a few data points. In his reply to Cyprian on the same topic, bishop Firmilian confirms that it was Rome, not Carthage, that was causing the problem, and it was Stephen, not Cyprian and his fellow bishops, who was disturbing the peace and unity of the Church by not recognizing the liberty of each province to develop its own practices and liturgy within the bounds of apostolicity:
Cyprian and all of Africa were willing to tolerate a diversity of opinions. Stephen was not. Cyprian had not been writing to Rome to acknowledge that the Africans were risking the peace of the church by imposing their will on others—rather it was Rome that was risking the peace by imposing its will on others, just as Victor had before in the matter of Easter. Victor had impetuously excommunicated the Asian bishops because they did not conform to Rome in what was a matter of provincial liberty, and the Asian bishops responded that he could take his encyclical and leave, it he wanted, but they would not submit to him. Now Stephen impetuously excommunicated the African bishops because, again, they did not conform to Rome in what was, in Cyprian’s view, a matter of provincial liberty. And again the African bishops responded that Stephen could take his encyclical and leave.
What can all this mean? How are we to understand the fact that Victor excommunicated the Asians and Stephen excommunicated the Africans, and they all responded with a collective shrug and a hearty “Get lost, pal!”
In Rome this can only mean one thing: Papal Primacy!
Sure it does.
Tim
TIM–
You said: “What can all this mean? How are we to understand the fact that Victor excommunicated the Asians and Stephen excommunicated the Africans, and they all responded with a collective shrug and a hearty “Get lost, pal!”
In Rome this can only mean one thing: Papal Primacy!”
Yeah, what is this papal power of excommunication anyway, right? If they didn’t like Stephen being in the Chair of Peter, why didn’t they just turn around and excommunicate him to let another take his office?
TIM–
You said: ” The question was: Did Ante-Nicene bishops submit to Rome. The answer is: No, they did not.”
Then why did the Post-Nicene bishops submit to Rome?
TIM–
You said: “Interesting approach, Bob. It is typical for Rome’s apologists to set one standard for judgment, and then—when Rome’s arguments fall short of that standard—to change the standard. You have learned well from your trainers.”
What trainers? I am doing this from common sense. I may not be trained, and by your standards I really show it sometimes, but I can see the elaborate web you weave. You say I see things through Roman glasses. That sword cuts both ways. You see things through anti-Catholic glasses.
I notice you haven’t responded to my discovery of the ancient papal conclave in Cyprian’s epistle–and that is way before “the rise of Roman Catholicism”. Nor have you explained why the Post-Nicene Fathers did not express outrage over this Satanic takeover of the Church of Rome. Did your so called “authentic and invisible shepherded Church” tuck tail and run for the hills? What happened to its visible apostolicity?
Bob,
You observed,
I have sufficiently showed that all the way through Constantinople (380 A.D.) the surrounding churches were restraining Rome, objecting to her, correcting and rebuking her, and at times were willing to separate from her in order to preserve the Petrine unity of the Church. As Firmilian amply demonstrated for us, they were willing to call “pope” Stephen a false Christ, false apostle and worker of deceit, and Constantinople called Rome out in her carnal ambitions, appealing to 1 Corinthians 3:3-4, to implore Rome to set aside her carnality: “For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”
As regards the “Satanic takeover of the Church of Rome,” that would not take place until it took place (of course), which was in the latter part of the 4th century, no earlier—although we know from Scripture that the mystery of iniquity was fast at work the whole time (2 Thessalonians 2:7). It did not happen immediately after Nicæa was adjourned, and therefore there was no immediate “post-Nicene” outrage of a Satanic takeover. But evidence for their objection to the mystery of iniquity is hardly lacking.
But the Satanic takeover did come. You seem to think that because the fragmented empire aligned itself with Rome, it proves that the Church of Christ itself had no objections to Rome. But that is to misunderstand Christ’s warning. He told us explicitly that “These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast… For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled” (Revelation 17:13-17).
Of course the fragmented empire decided to align with Rome. That’s what a general apostasy, a great “falling away,” is (2 Thessalonians 2:3). You can’t have a general apostasy and a great falling away without a general apostasy and a great falling away, although Rome always insists that it be so—if there is a great falling away, then the gates of hell have prevailed, and Christ’s promise is broken. By this erroneous thinking, Rome would presume to make Paul wrong about a general apostasy in order to make Christ right about the preservation of the church. But they are both right—Christ preserved his Church by providing a haven for her in the wilderness while the rest of the people stumbled into Rome’s apostasy. As is typical with Roman Catholic apologists, you have argued that everyone capitulated to Rome and submitted to her, and therefore she cannot be antichrist. Yet giving up and submitting to her is precisely what “God hath put in their hearts” to do. There were, as we have noted, objections, and Rome excommunicated those who objected. And the error to which they objected was the aggregation of new doctrines that had no basis in apostolic revelation—veneration of relics, perpetual virginity of Mary, etc…
The problem with your epistemology is that you have evaluated history and concluded that Roman Catholicism cannot be antichrist because she is the “true church,” and the True Church cannot be antichrist. If I am not convinced that she isn’t the antichrist, I am instructed to ask her and see what she says. She of course denies being the antichrist, and therefore I am to rest assured that she is not. But that is like going to Rome to ask if she is the 4th beast, or to Greece to ask if she is the 3rd, or to Alexander to ask him if he is the great horn, or to Medo-Persia to ask if she is the 2nd beast. Even Nebuchadnezzar did not know that he was the head of gold until it was revealed to him by Daniel. Thus, just as we cannot go to Nebuchadnezzar, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome to ask if they are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th empires, we cannot go to Roman Catholicism to ask if she is the 5th. We have to go to Scripture and inquire of God’s Word. And what He has revealed to us there is that from the midst of the fragments of the 4th empire would arise a great evil, and the rest of the fragments would agree with her “and give their kingdom unto the beast.” Thus, the thing you think exonerates Rome is actually the very thing that proves her identity.
Start with the assumption that Roman Catholicism is the true church, and you arrive, unsurprisingly, at the conclusion that she is the true church, with a visible shepherd—just ask her, and she’ll tell you so. But start with the assumption that God’s word is authoritative and self-attesting, and you arrive at the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is the great evil which would come upon the earth, at which time God’s Church, the Woman of Revelation 12, would flee to the wilderness and be preserved there by her invisible Shepherd. How do I know this? It is revealed to us in the Scriptures. Yet you ask,
You ask this as if the Woman fleeing to the wilderness “into her place” is evidence against the True Church, yet the very thing by which you think to accuse her is proof of her identity. Of course the Woman will fly to the wilderness to stay away from “the face of the serpent” (Revelation 12:14), for the Lord had prepared a place for her there. As you shall see when we come to the Vaudois, the greatest attestation of the visibility of her apostolicity will come from her own detractors. But that is for another day.
Quite telling, I think, that you defend Rome because everyone ended up submitting to her, yet you accuse the church because she fled to the wilderness—but all these things were according to God’s plan and foreordination, and His decrees are unchangeable and must surely come to pass. Daniel had predicted this very outcome, and John added details to Daniel’s vision.
Everyone would eventually cast their authority upon Antichrist and the remnant would fly to the wilderness—it could not have been otherwise. The flaw in your epistemology is that you have turned to History as your primary source of truth, and used it to judge the Scriptures. You should have used Scripture as your source of truth and used it to judge History. That error in your epistemology has led you to conclude the very opposite of what God has revealed to us.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “You ask this as if the Woman fleeing to the wilderness “into her place” is evidence against the True Church, yet the very thing by which you think to accuse her is proof of her identity. ”
Really? Do you think the woman of Rev 12 is the Church? How do you figure that?
Bob,
Yes, I do believe that the Woman of Revelation 12 is the Church. If you study Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37, the 12 heads of the 12 tribes of Israel are figured as stars—thus the 12 stars around her head. “She”, being the Israel of God, and the church of His people, brought forth the Messiah, and then He was “was caught up unto God, and to his throne” (Revelation 12:5). The dragon then turns his attention from the Man Child to the Woman and persecutes her and her seed (Revelation 12:13-17). The reason I believe she is the Church is that her seed “which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 12:17), which is how Jesus described His people:
I hope that helps.
Tim
Bob wrote:
“What trainers? I am doing this from common sense. I may not be trained, and by your standards I really show it sometimes, but I can see the elaborate web you weave. You say I see things through Roman glasses. That sword cuts both ways. You see things through anti-Catholic glasses.”
Bob, I think you should change your statement from “You see things through anti-Catholic glasses” to what is clearly demonstrated in today’s blog post as “You see things through historically accurate and biblically bases glasses”.
This is what separates your Roman Catholic trained glasses.
HUGE difference in presupposition…as I’ve really not seen any logic in any of your arguments yet and common sense is certainly something I would not attribute to your arguments.
Yeah, whatever, Walt. Nobody agrees with your Scotch arguments either. I notice the numbers of your church are dwindling quite a bit. Maybe it’s time for a Third Reformation.
Bob, fortunately your opinions are not, as usual, factual. Since about 1992 a small group of “reconstructionists” started to dig deep into the first and second reformation periods and uncover significant historical documents that were largely unpublished in Scotland, England and Switzerland. I personally in 1997-1998 flew to London spending many weekends sitting on the floor of antiquarian reading these old historical references because they were not published, and were too expensive to purchase. Until I learned how to use the inter-library loan system, they were largely unknown.
I was raised Roman Catholic and was brainwashed to believe that the reformation was among the most evil periods of Christian history. Protestants were anti-Catholic bigots and Roman Catholics were the true faithful people of God because they were connected directly to the Apostle Peter through an unbroken succession of Popes.
Unfortunately, after what the Roman Catholic church did to my mom I was no longer willing to accept “as gospel” everything that I was taught, and rather decided to research this period myself. Soon, after I started reading “both sides” of the history it became obvious to me rather rapidly that not only were the Protestants not bigots and haters of Catholics, but the Catholics were incredibly evil and involved in so much persecution, death and destruction of bible believing Protestants I was totally blown away.
Without these works being published starting in the 1990’s it was all a black hole, but now significant facts have surfaced and more continue to be published in original source documents almost daily about the period and so guys like you who are blinded by the billion plus Catholic numbers are growing less significant to many people who are studying the historical evidence.
Your good at badgering Tim here on this blog with your wikipedia and Roman Catholic dictionary references, but fortunately for us Tim just plays along with you and pounds out the evidence week after week. While he meticulously documents the primary sources in history, we get your Romish spin desperate to disprove every post he makes…not out of a love for the truth…but out of your passion to deal with a self addiction to sinfully debate and create as much controversy as possible….day after day…week after week.
Fortunately, it appeals to your Roman Catholic brethren who occasionally stop bye here to give you a thumbs up for continuing the spin machine for Rome, but those of us who enjoy to read both sides of the dialogue see how lacking your arguments are week after week.
Yes, you have one billion plus followers on your side, but as we have learned from the details outlined in Scripture, the majority has never been right in anything in the world of religion. Actually, to the contrary it has always been a small elect or chosen people who are the true faithful children of God and called out of the sinful, corrupt and evil nature of man. One day you might see it, but for now you are blinded in your sin and ignorance…and that is very sad indeed.