Stephen’s view removed the chuch from the sacraments. It’s almost as he if believes that the sacraments are a kind of magic spell. Say the right words and use the right elements and the Holy Spirit will step outside the church and give grace in sacraments outside the body of Christ. His view seperates the sacraments from the church. Such an idea leads to the caricature of the sacraments as “hocus pocus”.
Interestingly enough it was the Anglicans that coined the phrase “hocus pocus” in mocking the elevation of the Host: hoc est corpus meum…this caricature is disgusting and mocking in my view so I’ll refrain from talking any more of it.
Like I said before, Cyprian’s view is correct but the trouble is in its application not its truth. You were an Anglican for a long time so you know very well that TEC and the AC has always regarded RCs, Orthodox, and protestants as in the catholic church. The lack of apostolic succession doesn’t disqualify a person from being a Christian. An example of groups outside the church would be muslims, JWs, and mormons.
**Ok, finally I got you to give me an example. And this is silly. Did anyone ever really think Muslims would be baptizing? I suppose somewhere in some weird corner of the planet there is a Muslim Mullah who baptizes in the name of the trinity? But seeing as how the Koran condemns and blasts the Trinity, I think it’s probably not a problem. So you’re basically saying, VARC, that Mormons and Muslims can’t baptize? I wish you had said that to begin with…I would’ve agreed with that!! **
Come on gurney, you haven’t been out of TEC that long. Who did you view as in the catholic church when you were a member of the diocese of San Joaquin? Certainly you never viewed TEC as the one true church?
** You know, VARC, I was very young when I joined the Anglican Church, about 19 I believe? or was it 18? Anyway, a teen still. I had no catechesis and weak theological background. I was a kid. My view of what the Church was, honestly, was pretty weak. That’s no cop-out, just the facts. I never viewed it as the ONE true church, that much is certain.**
This whole conversation about the vaildity of my personal opinion has been a distraction to to original point which was that Cyprian didn’t view the bishop of Rome as the infallible ruler of the Church as was asserted early. I’ll take your above comments as a concession to that point.
** I’m not trying to be contrary here, but honestly, VARC, the jury is out on that one. You make that claim very confidently but I must be honest. I think Cyprian was a very confusing man with his own agenda at times and in other situations was deeply in love with Mother Church and sincerely fought for what he saw as the truth. He makes many statements about the papacy that portray it as the supreme summit of authority on earth for the Church. He makes is clear that Rome has a primacy, a jurisdiction that is far-reaching and prestigious, the Chair of Peter, and he usually defers to the pope on matters. He also sent legates to try and broker a deal about re-baptism with Stephen while Stephen was engaged in the Novatian fiasco. Cyprian on one hand makes it sound like nothing can be done outside the wise charge of the papacy but when he doesn’t get his way, he goes rogue. Who was Cyprian? I don’t think we’ll ever know? Disagreement with him, in your opinion, indicates a complete refusal to grant the pope infallible jurisdiction. I’m not sure Cyprian drew the same conclusion. Stephen ordered that any bishop who rebaptized any Christian would be excommunicated. We have no records of Cyprian’s excommunication so it’s possible he complied or perhaps…? who knows? I would point out that St. Jerome tells us that African bishops rejected Cyprian’s views not long after and issued brand new decrees reflecting Stephen’s edicts. Also St. Augustine tells us that the Eastern bishops sided up with the pope and “they rescinded their judgment, by which they had decided that it was right to agree with Cyprian and that African council.” He goes on to say that they respected Stephen’s wishes. I think that speaks for itself. There is a mountain of evidence that Stephen was right, Cyprian was wrong. I’m sticking with Stephen, you stick with Cyprian. Episcopalians and other folks seeking to blow holes in the papacy love Cyprian because they perceive him as a rogue rebel to the papacy who proves it wasn’t infallible. Catholics claim that obviously Stephen was right and history as well as the east and west chose to follow Stephen’s lead. It wasn’t until the 1054 split and beyond that Orthodox used Cyprian as a rallying cause to show a guy who stood up to the pope. Standing up to the pope doesn’t prove anything to me. History taking Cyprian’s side would. As I’ve stated, your church and mine took the side of Stephen. You’re in a church that takes Stephen’s side. I think mine is the more consistent position. But we can agree to disagree. Cyprian once said: “With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source**” I can’t imagine how a bishop of his caliber could believe that sacerdotal unity has its source in the papacy and at the same time go against it?
It’s intersting that you mention Augustine to support papal claims. Like Cyprian, he too defiantly opposed Pope Zosimus over the pelagian controversy. From Augustine’s action, just like Cyprian’s, one cannot reasonably contend that he viewed the bishop of Rome as a person that he must yield in matters of faith and discipline.
