www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Emperor Constantine on the Papacy

Dear brother Todd,

Could you provide a link or direct quote of St. Cyprian for this statement? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

I do not need to make an argument, because St. Cyprian made one more than 1700 years ago, for he spoke of the "cathedram Petri" without restricting it to the see of Rome, as Fr. Maurice Bevenot (S.J.) explained in the notes to his translation of St. Cyprian's treatise entitled, "The Unity of the Catholic Church." Here is what he said about St. Cyprian's use of the phrase chair of Peter:

As St. Cyprian himself said, "The authority of the bishops forms a unity, of which each holds his part in its totality. And the Church forms a unity, however far she spreads and multiplies by the progeny of her fecundity; just as the sun's rays are many, yet the light is one, and a tree's branches are many, yet the strength deriving from its sturdy root is one. So too, though many streams flow from a single spring, though its multiplicity seems scattered abroad by the copiousness of its welling waters, yet their oneness abides by reason of their starting point." [ACW, volume 25, pages 47-48]

Thus, each bishop possesses the fullness of Episcopal orders, just as the persons of the Trinity possess simultaneously the whole Godhead; and in this multiplicity in unity, and unity in multiplicity, no bishop is over any other bishop, but all are sacramentally equal.

Dear brother Militantsparrow,

Despite appearances on other issues, brother Stuart and I generally agree on the state of the Church before the marriage of Church and State in the fourth century.

I would just like to add brother Stuart's intelligent assessment that before the notion of jurisdiction came about, Rome's universal solicitude was realized through auctoritas. And there are many examples of this universal solicitude before the fourth century - e.g., the disciplinary epistle of Pope St. Clement to the Church in Corinth; the fact that the Church in Rome often helped many Churches financially; the fact that St. Polycarp travelled all the way from Asia to Rome to discuss the matter of Easter with Pope St. Anicetus; the fact that Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria accepted correction from Pope St. Dionysius of Rome on a matter of doctrine; etc. In fact, the first truly universal act in the early Church was not the First Ecumenical Council. The first truly universal act was the discussion of the Easter issue during the time of Pope St. Victor. Pope St. Victor had sent out an encyclical letter to all the Churches of the world instructing them to hold local Synods on the matter of the date of Easter. And the local Synods sent legates back to Rome to report the results of their Synods. I think brother Stuart would agree that this was not a matter of potestas, but a matter of auctoritas. The Church of Rome and her bishop did possess great universal authority based on the respect and honor. But the Bishop of Rome was (and is) not above correction, as the later events surrounding the Easter controversy evince.

The difference between the universal authority of Rome then, and the universal authority of Rome now is the amount of centralization that has occurred over the centuries. There are many in the Latin Church who believe that the bishop of Rome is the be all and end all of every form of authority in the Church. Eastern and Oriental Catholics (as well as many Latin Catholics) don't accept such an Absolutist Petrine view, but believe collegiality is both the standard of early Church, as well as the real teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now, there are those who think that the Catholic Church must deny the teachings of the Vatican Councils on the papacy in order to realize a truly patristic ideal. To do this, they sometimes end up distorting the teaching of the Vatican Councils to defend their position. Granted - it seems they are justified because there are many Latins who distort the taeching of the Vatican Councils to support an exaggerated Absolutist Petrine view of the papacy (as you well know since you follow the debates I have with the Absolutist Petrine advocates at CAF). On the other hand, there are those believe the teachings of the Vatican Councils are fully patristic, and that the problem is that they have simply not been fully realized in the Catholic Church yet. I can't speak for Eastern clergy, but I have heard that their usual complaint is that the Decrees of Vatican 2 have not yet been fully implemented with respect to the rights of the non-Latin Churches. So many Easterns do believe that the groudwork for reform already exist in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

In his Epistle 54 to Pope St. Cornelius regarding the heretics, he wrote:
"[the heretics] still dare to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith as praised in the preaching of the Apostles, to whom faithlessness could have no access."

Note his explicit admission that the Church in Rome had a faith - according to Scripture - to whom "faithlessness could have no access." Infallibility admitted by St. Cyprian!

It's unfortunate that he did not remain faithful to his own preaching, and opposed the Bishop of Rome on the matter of the Baptism of the Novatians. But I'm sure he was in heaven blushing as he witnessed an Ecumenical Council affirm the orthodoxy of Pope St. Stephen's position in opposition to his own - the Second Ecumenical Council accepted the validity of the Baptism of the Novatians.

It seems to me the assumption of imperial authority, ambitions and temporal concerns has and does plague the church; whether that's Constantine's fault or not I don't know. I certainly see it in Rome, Moscow and Constantinople.

Sure, it is something I brought up in a post some time ago. Here is that post which includes bibliographical information pertinent to the discussion:

It is important that we not interpret St. Cyprian in an anachronistic fashion by reading Vatican I back into his treatise; after all, it is now know that he revised his book on the Church in order to specifically avoid the idea that the bishop of Rome had a unique succession from St. Peter.

Sorry but that is not an affirmation of infallibility. You certainly do like anachronistic readings of ancient texts.

Besides, it is foolish to try and defend the idea that the bishop of Rome has never erred, when it is an historical fact that several popes have been heretics. Even Pope Adrian VI admitted that to be the case.

I see nothing unfortunate about St. Cyprian's revising his opinion on the issue of authority within the Church, when it is clear that he was simply maintaining the tradition of his Church against the encroachment upon its theological independence by Pope Stephen. St. Cyprian held that Pope Stephen was in error on the issue of heretical baptism, and this altered his views about the importance of Rome in defending orthodoxy. I think St. Cyprian was right in revising his book on the unity of the Church, and the revised text is theologically the better for it.

By the way, the Ecumenical Councils did not give a blanket definition on the validity or invalidity of heretical baptism; instead, the matter was always left for bishops to decide on a case by case basis as a matter of economy - as even a cursory reading of the Pedalion reveals.

Just trying to keep things historically honest.

P.S. - I should point out that Fr. Maurice Bevenot, the translator of St. Cyprian's treatise on The Unity of the Catholic Church, holds that St. Cyprian was not really altering his position in the revised text; instead, he was simply making it more explicit that he was not restricting the petrine ministry or the Cathedram Petri to the bishop of Rome.

As stated, his interperations do not interest me. I am interested in direct quotes from St. Cyprian.

Which allows you to cherry pick the ones that support your position. That's not an objective approach.

If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need of a lengthy discussion and arguments. Proof for faith is easy in a brief statement of the truth.

The Lord speaks to Peter:

‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.’ (Matthew 16:18,19)

Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: ‘As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained,’ (John 20:21-23) yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one.

Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.

This one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Canticle of Canticles designates in the person of the Lord and says: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen one of her that bore her.’ (Canticles 6:8)

Does he who does not hold this unity think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against the Church and resists her think that he is in the Church, when too the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this same thing and sets forth the sacrament of unity saying: ‘One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God’? (Cf. Eph: 4:4-6)

The direct evidence is in the quotation of Cyprian. However, as there are several different variants of On the Unity of the Church, one must, unless one happens to be a patristic scholar or paleographer, defer to the experts in those fields to decide upon the provenance of the different variants and which one should have priority.

You want to be able to pick the version that supports your interpretation, not the one that scholars agree is representative of Cyprian's thought.

I might add that I found these comments by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck [books.google.com] regarding St. Cyprian's words helpful, reading from pages 81-84 of his book His Broken Body.