Early Papal Authority question

[James_The_1st]

I came across this website, and it is confusing to say the least. What does one make of this article? Basically, it says Catholicism is wrong in the way it uses St. Cyprian and that he actually did not believe the Bishop of Rome had primacy over the other Bishops. The strange thing about the article is that he has online citations for everything the quote that supports his argument.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Don’t worry about fake christian sites like this. You can tell when they also bash protestant apologetics that they are either a non denominational group or the individual(s) who started the page feel they are able to interpret Scriptures and history and that “they” know the Truth of Christ (usually they seem to know it exclusively lol). Know this. 100% of our Catholic faith is perfectly supported by Sacred Scriptures and proven by historical accounts. Not only do we have the word of God telling us we are right and that we have the fullness of the Truth. We also have history supporting this claim (and the claim of hundreds who were with Christ and thousands since who have experienced miracles through their faith and the power and graces that Christ dispenses through Mary and the Saints). Anything can look damning when taken out of its proper context. Our Church has the proper context of Scriptures. We compiled the Canon after all. By God’s Holy Will “we” created the Bible. And as for the Saints writings don’t pay them much weight. I am not learned in the particular writings at hand but I would safely met some if not many others on this site are and they will be able to easily refute what was said and clarify that aspect of the sites claims. Trust in Christ to always be with His Church. Trust in the Church to always preach the Truth of Christ. One can not contradict the other. We are safe in our Church because she is the bride of Christ God Bless

 

[Sirach2]

It looks to me like more mumbo-jumbo hypotheses by Protestants to deny Catholic Papal succession. Obvously, no Catholic wrote this skewed article. I don’t understand your concern in posting this, unless you somewhat agree with their belief system? A few excerpts on St. Cyprian can be found here.

The unity with which St. Cyprian deals is not so much the unity of the whole Church, the necessity of which he rather postulates, as the unity to be kept in each diocese by union with the bishop; the unity of the whole Church is maintained by the close union of the bishops who are “glued to one another”, hence whosoever is not with his bishop is cut off from the Unity of the Church and cannot be united to Christ; the type of the bishop is St. Peter, the first bishop.

Protestant controversialists have attributed to St. Cyprian the absurd argument that Christ said to Peter what He really meant for all, in order to give a type or picture of unity.

What St. Cyprian really says is simply this, that Christ, using the metaphor of an edifice, founds His Church on a single foundation which shall manifest and ensure its unity. And as Peter is the foundation, binding the whole Church together, so in each diocese is the bishop. With this one argument Cyprian claims to cut at the root of all heresies and schisms. It has been a mistake to find any reference to Rome in this passage.

Cyprian wrote to Cornelius explaining his prudent conduct. He added a letter to the confessors who were the main support of the antipope; leaving it to Cornelius whether it should be delivered or not. He sent also copies of his two treatises, “De Unitate” and “De Lapsis.” (this had been composed by him immediately after the other), and he wishes the confessors to read these in order that they may understand what a fearful thing is schism.

These alternative versions are given one after the other in the chief family of manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one which has been printed in many editions, **and has played a large part in controversy with Protestants. **It is of course spurious in this conflated form.

The “one chair” is always in Cyprian the episcopal chair, and Cyprian has been careful to emphasize this point, and to add a reference to the other great Petrine text, the Charge in John 21.

We learn that Cyprian fought against the antipope, Novatian, and his schismatic supporters.

“The saint’s remonstrance had its effect, and the confessors rallied to Cornelius.”

 

[Ignatius]

I came across this website, and it is confusing to say the least. What does one make of this article? Basically, it says Catholicism is wrong in the way it uses St. Cyprian and that he actually did not believe the Bishop of Rome had primacy over the other Bishops. The strange thing about the article is that he has online citations for everything the quote that supports his argument.

And yet, even with selective quoting, he still misinterprets it to support his erroneous preconceived notions. This novel interpretation is the invention of Protestantism and was not seen in the first 1600 years since Christ walked the Earth in the Flesh.

 

[James_The_1st]

It looks to me like more mumbo-jumbo hypotheses by Protestants to deny Catholic Papal succession. Obvously, no Catholic wrote this skewed article. I don’t understand your concern in posting this, unless you somewhat agree with their belief system? A few excerpts on St. Cyprian can be found here.

We learn that Cyprian fought against the antipope, Novatian, and his schismatic supporters.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the answer. A Protestant friend pointed this site out to me, and I didn’t have a good answer for him, hence my confusion.

I need to study this area of history more.

 

[ahs]

…Know this. ** 100% of our Catholic faith is perfectly supported by Sacred Scriptures** and proven by historical accounts…

I don’t mean to pick, but this may be important to point out in case you begin debating with serious anti-Catholics who might take advantage of a statement like this. It’s more accurate to say that NONE of our Catholic Faith contradicts Scripture, and 100% of our Faith is either supported by Scripture or preserved in the Sacred Tradition, the Deposit of Faith, handed down by Christ to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to successors through Apostolic Succession. But it must be recognized that not 100% of our Faith is necessarily supported by Scriptures, per se. For example, the Holy Trinity, or Mary’s Assumption and Perpetual Virginity. These are implicit in Scripture, and these Doctrines do not at all conflict with Scripture, but they aren’t necessarily supported by Scripture, per se.

 

[fames]

St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy

 

[Todd_Easton]

As I understand things, St. Cyprian wrote two versions of his treatise on The Unity of the Catholic Church. In one version of his treatise, which Catholic apologists like to cite in favor of the papacy, he stresses the primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops of the Catholic Church and the necessity of remaining in communion with him. In the other version, which non-Catholic apologists like to cite who oppose the papacy, St. Cyprian stresses the relative equality of all the bishops, which means he stresses his own equality with the bishop of Rome. It seems likely to me that the first version of his treatise in favor of the primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops of the Catholic Church represents the correct view and that St. Cyprian conveniently adopted the opinion expressed in the second version of his treatise of his own equality with the bishop of Rome only after he found his own opinion in favor of re-baptizing heretic converts opposed by the bishop of Rome. It seems unlikely to me, given that St. Cyprian ended his life at odds with the bishop of Rome over the issue of re-baptizing heretic converts, that his opinion evolved in the other direction, from favoring the equality of all bishops to favoring the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

 

[Cyrillic]

I have extensively read the works of St. Cyprian and the author of the article makes some (read: a lot of) valid points. This doesn’t make his protestantism right, though. For anyone wanting to know the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian I recommend ‘On the Unity of the Church’, one of his short tracts.

 

[vivseekingtruth]

I study the case about Mary’s perpetual virginity issue from both sides (proponents and opponents). After carefully examine their arguments, I’ve come to conclusion that while Scripture doesn’t clearly opposing Mary’s perpetual virginity doctrine, it certainly doesn’t state otherwise.

So far what I can see from their arguments (both sides) that this doctrine is not grounded on Scriptural basis.

But one thing puzzle me… why Luther (whom postulated “sola scriptura”) also support this doctrine?

Can you show me solid evidence from Scripture, other than these (common from proponent apologetics)…

1. Luke 1:34 (because in Luke 1:27, Mary is already engaged with Joseph, it’s impossible for her to take vow of lifelong virginity)
2. Visit to temple when Jesus 12 years old (yes, no hint of other children, But it’s not solid evidence that there is certainly no other children. It’s logical fallacy in the same way as saying ‘firstborn’ mean there is certainly other children after the first one)
3. John 19:27 (long explanation, but sufficient to say that this is not asking John to take care of Mary in term of ‘sheltering’)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cyrillic,

I have extensively read the works of St. Cyprian and the author of the article makes some (read: a lot of) valid points. This doesn’t make his protestantism right, though. For anyone wanting to know the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian I recommend ‘On the Unity of the Church’, one of his short tracts.

Actually, he didn’t have any valid points. Here are his points with responses:

(1) “Cyprian did believe that Jesus gave “keys” to Peter, and he did believe Peter passed those keys on … to the Church.”
Actually, the quote from St. Cyprian indicates simply that the Lord gave the keys to St. Peter alone because “commencement [of the unity] proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one.” If Christ gave the keys to one Apostle so as to be a sign of the unity of one Church, why would St. Peter then hand it on to many? The author’s opinion overthrows the very purpose for which our Lord gave the keys to ONE person.

(2) “Honesty demands that if a Roman Catholic apologist is going to quote St. Cyprian as supporting the idea of a papacy, then he should mention that Cyprian called a council of 87 bishops that unanimously declared—after specifically disagreeing with the bishop of Rome—that no bishop has authority over another bishop.”

Let’s analyze the quote from the Carthaginian Council, which will reveal that this passage cannot be used against the Catholic position. I’ve highlighted the pertinent portions, from my own experience as a critic of the CC when I was not yet Catholic:
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”
(a) bishop of bishops
The Catholic Church would agree that there is no “bishop of bishops,” This is a descriptive that Popes of Rome have always denied. There cannot be a bishop of bishops. Why? Because according to Catholic doctrine all bishops are equal in the power of orders, the highest power of the Church.

(b) by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience
This is in reference to the Pope’s rather domineering response to St. Cyprian’s conciliar decree on the rebaptism of heretics. On the one hand, It should be noted that St. Cyprian’s criticism is not directed towards St. Stephen’s attempt to compel him to the necessity of obedience, but rather towards the tyrannical manner by which St. Stephen did it. A head bishop can indeed compel a bishop in his jurisdiction to the necessity of obedience if the suffragan bishop is found to be doing something against divine or ecclesiastical law. This is clearly the case because St. Cyprian himself appealed to the very same Pope St. Stephen to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain. On the other hand, Catholics would (or should) agree with St. Cyprian’s criticism that the Pope was acting tyrannically. The Pope was trying to “lord it over others,” instead of acting as a “servant of servants.” Pope St. Stephen did not have to threaten excommunication or hurl ad hominems at St. Cyprian. For that matter, neither should St. Cyprian have responded in kind. It should be noted that Pope St. Sixtus II, successor of Pope St. Stephen, let the matter slide and communicated with St. Cyprian.

(c) every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another."
This has to be taken in context. First of all, it is in fact the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church that every bishop has authority and power in and of themselves. So non-Catholic polemicists cannot use this statement from St. Cyprian to disparage Catholicism. Secondly, St. Cyprian thought that the rebaptism issue was a matter of mere discpline, left up to the judgment of each bishop. On a matter of doctrine, however, a matter of universal bearing, St. Cyprian wrote of Rome “these are the Romans whose faith was praised by St. Paul, to whom unfaith could have no access.” On this basis, St. Cyprian appealed to Pope St. Stephen to discpline bishops in Gaul and Spain. So this statement by St. Cyprian cannot be taken as a general rule, but only in non-doctrinal matters.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

(3) “Thus, Cornelius did have a succession from Peter. But does this imply that Cornelius was a pope,”
Of course it does. Cornelius was the bishop of Rome, the head bishop of the Church, a position inherited from St. Peter according to the principle of Apostolic Succession. Even St. Firmilian admitted as much when he wrote, “And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority.” St. Firmilian did not object to St. Stephen’s claims due to succession from Peter, but objected rather that Stephen was not exercising his high position correctly (by introducing “other rocks” and “new buildings”). Read the passage carefully, and try to detect what is the “folly” to which St. Firmilian refers.

(4) “possessing alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”
If this author is going to try to refute Catholic doctrine, then at least he should represent it correctly. Catholic doctrine does not claim that the Pope alone possesses the keys, but that the keys were given by Christ to St. Peter alone and passed it on to his successors in the bishops of Rome. St. Peter SHARED the keys with the Apostles, just as every one of his successors in Rome SHARE the keys with his brother bishops and all others to whom they have delegated it. But in accordance with the principle given by St. Cyprian of the oneness that Christ’s giving of the keys to St. Peter alone signifies, then we understand that it is from St. Peter’s successor alone that the keys flow to the rest of the Church.

(5) …and having authority over all other bishops?"
Again, let’s take this in its proper context. Does St. Cyprian believe that a bishop cannot have authority over another bishop? Of course not. Why? Because St. Cyprian himself was a head bishop! St. Cyprian fully understood that some bishops have authority over other bishops for the good order of the Church. Of course, this authority is never to be used to lord it over others, but to be used in the service of the Church. St. Cyprian himself appealed to Pope St. Stephen to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain. If the author’s statement really reflected St. Cyprian’s view, why woud St. Cyprian ever do that? Obviously, this statement from the author is simply devoid of any understanding of the Church’s ecclesiology and ecclesiastical history and cannot be taken seriously.

If failed to address any arguments from the author that you feel are “valid” points, please let me know?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Sirach2]

Marduk:

If failed to address any arguments from the author that you feel are “valid” points, please let me know?

You failed to list the source of your exegesis so that it can be read in context. There are a lot of speculative and erroneous opinions out in cyberworld that are eager to paint St. Cyprian in a very false light, most likely to support their own protestant position.

St. Cyprian’s words of censure in his tract on Unity are some of the strongest I have read.

Chapter 10
Through the Apostle the Holy Spirit forewarns and says: ‘For there must be fractions so that those who are approved among you may be made manifest.’ Thus the faithful are approved; thus the perfidious are disclosed; thus also before the day of judgment, already here too the souls of the just and the unjust are divided and the chaff is separated from the wheat.

From these are those who of their own accord set themselves over daring strangers without divine appointment, who establish themselves as prelates without any law of ordination, who assume the name of bishop for themselves, although no one gives them the episcopacy;

whom the Holy Spirit in the psalms designates as sitting in the chair of pestilence, the plague and disease of the faith, deceiving with a serpent’s tongue and masters in corrupting truth, vomiting lethal poisons from their pestilential tongues, whose speech creeps about like cancer, whose discussions inject a deadly virus within the breast and heart of everyone.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Sirach2,

I’m not sure of the relevance of this context, because it does not refer to the papacy, but to the general episcopacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

You failed to list the source of your exegesis so that it can be read in context. There are a lot of speculative and erroneous opinions out in cyberworld that are eager to paint St. Cyprian in a very false light, most likely to support their own protestant position.

St. Cyprian’s words of censure in his tract on Unity are some of the strongest I have read.

Chapter 10
Through the Apostle the Holy Spirit forewarns and says: ‘For there must be fractions so that those who are approved among you may be made manifest.’ Thus the faithful are approved; thus the perfidious are disclosed; thus also before the day of judgment, already here too the souls of the just and the unjust are divided and the chaff is separated from the wheat.

From these are those who of their own accord set themselves over daring strangers without divine appointment, who establish themselves as prelates without any law of ordination, who assume the name of bishop for themselves, although no one gives them the episcopacy;

whom the Holy Spirit in the psalms designates as sitting in the chair of pestilence, the plague and disease of the faith, deceiving with a serpent’s tongue and masters in corrupting truth, vomiting lethal poisons from their pestilential tongues, whose speech creeps about like cancer, whose discussions inject a deadly virus within the breast and heart of everyone.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Even if there some grants given to the points made concerning St. Cyprian, the positive speculation on what would St. Cyprian be today if he was alive? Would he break off from the Catholic Church? Would he start his own? Would he join on begun by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, a baptist preacher? I would say at the worst, he would be orthodox.

That being said. I’ve been recommended by some Catholic apologists the book entitled “The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy” by J. Michael Miller C.S.B (has nihil obstat & imprimatur) and some things are stated which I believe require some consideration and finally some analysis.

Miller states* "Whereas an earlier generation of apologists for papal primacy often tried to show that the papacy could be recognized as a distinct ecclesial ministry from the end of the first century, Catholic theologians no longer push so hard to prove this point. They are now more at home with the idea that the **papacy evolved gradually *from its New Testament foundation in Peter’s ministry."
(Page 354)

And

"As history unfolded, the Church formulated with increasing clarity the ministerial structure which Christ had provided for her. At the outset,* it is possible that the Roman bishops had little idea about what was entailed in succeeding to the see where Peter preached and shed his blood.** Similarly, other churches only gradually came to recognize the full import of this office. A lack of an explicit Petrine consciousness does not mean, however, that the Church invented the papacy. On the contrary, Christ provided for, or ‘instituted’, the universal primacy of Peter and his successors. Under the providential guidance of the Holy Spirit, the community discerned ever more profoundly the implications of this ministry. They expressed that realization in concrete structures responding to the ‘signs of the time’". *

In fact, Miller sees a definite distinction between the original role given to Peter by Christ and the responsibilities taken up by the modern day Papacy. The papacy is an outgrowth of what was originally given to Peter. Such things as infallibility were not really known in the first early church. The idea that one singular bishop would shepherd the universal church was not known. But the Church developed the miniature version of Peter’s life and expanded to be applied across the world of churches.

This fact is a bit concerning, because it makes one wonder whether the dogmas of infallibility are valid, given that there is no explicit teaching the the new testament or in the most early fathers.

 

[R_C]

This fact is a bit concerning, because it makes one wonder whether the dogmas of infallibility are valid, given that there is no explicit teaching the the new testament or in the most early fathers.

The Deposit of Faith includes more than the Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the Church Fathers. The sacred tradition grows like a seed on fertile soil.

A concise teaching on this matter can be found here (part of the Catechism).

Perhaps this and this will provide some further guidance.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks a ton for those links.

Do you think you could elaborate a bit on just what the boundaries are of the Church with respect to what doctrine it teaches ? I know the papacy is more of a governing concern than making up a new doctrine. The papacy is there to preserve and shepherd the Church with the original apostolic deposit. Do I have it?

 

[R_C]

I know the papacy is more of a governing concern than making up a new doctrine. The papacy is there to preserve and shepherd the Church with the original apostolic deposit. Do I have it?

I do like the way you express it - the point of the papacy is indeed to shepherd the Church.

However, the role of the bishops and of their leader, the pope, as shepherds of the Church, carries some particular mandates and some particular authority in order to accomplish this.

For instance, the Church exercises her authority to teach when it discerns that something is a divinely revealed truth, or when it discerns that something regarding faith and morals, though not formally revealed, is still definitely proposed as necessary in order to faithfully keep and better understand the deposit of faith.

The pope and the bishops in communion with him do not just make up new doctrines Everything - and I mean it - that the Magisterium teaches is literally built on the rock. Sometimes we just need to dig deep enough in order to fully realize this.

 

[mardukm]

Even if there some grants given to the points made concerning St. Cyprian, the positive speculation on what would St. Cyprian be today if he was alive? Would he break off from the Catholic Church? Would he start his own? Would he join on begun by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, a baptist preacher? I would say at the worst, he would be orthodox.

It should be pointed out that two Ecumenical Councils sided with Pope St. Stephen on the issue of rebaptism of heretics. So the question is, do you think St. Cyprian would submit himself to an Ecumenical Council or be in schism? I think he would submit himself to the Ecumenical Council and remain in Catholic unity.

In fact, Miller sees a definite distinction between the original role given to Peter by Christ and the responsibilities taken up by the modern day Papacy. The papacy is an outgrowth of what was originally given to Peter.

That’s a possible interpretation. But we have two things to consider here: (1) infallibility; (2) primacy. On the matter of infallibility, I can see a genuine growth of understanding - though it’s not much of a growth, IMO. I think Christ’s unique prayer for St. Peter in Luke pretty much sums up the objectivity of the dogma (unless one does not believe in the efficacy of Christ’s own prayer and the principle of Apostolic Succession). On the matter of primacy, another possible interpretation of Miller’s statement is that he is merely referring to the growth of canonical prerogatives.

The idea that one singular bishop would shepherd the universal church was not known. But the Church developed the miniature version of Peter’s life and expanded to be applied across the world of churches.

To be perfectly clear, it is not the Catholic teaching that “one singular bishop would shepherd the universal Church.” This notion comes from the opinion of some that there can ever be a time when all the bishops, and even the whole Church, can fall into heresy except the Pope. This is an aberration of the true Catholic teaching, which is that ALL the Apostles were shepherds and that, by virtue of Apostolic Succession, ALL bishops co-rule the Church with the Pope. In fact, one of the documents of Vatican 1 (prepared, but not voted on since the Council was prematurely prorogated due to the war in Europe) explicitly affirmed: '[T]here is a two-fold power in the Church, one called the power of orders and the other called the power of jurisdiction…The subjects of this [latter] power are the pastors and teachers appointed by Christ…with all authority, they rule the Church of God…" This teaching on co-rulership was confirmed at Vatican 2, which completed a lot of what was unfinished at V1 due to its premature prorogation.

Such things as infallibility were not really known in the first early church…This fact is a bit concerning, because it makes one wonder whether the dogmas of infallibility are valid, given that there is no explicit teaching the the new testament or in the most early fathers.

As stated, I can see that development of doctrine may have occurred in this instance. Should it be a wonder that it may not have been explicit? It should be noted that lack of explicitness does not mean it was absent. It’s a matter of interpreting the evidence. The question is, do we evidence that strongly implies “papal infallibility?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Thanks a ton for those links.

Do you think you could elaborate a bit on just what the boundaries are of the Church with respect to what doctrine it teaches ? I know the papacy is more of a governing concern than making up a new doctrine. The papacy is there to preserve and shepherd the Church with the original apostolic deposit. Do I have it?

Yes. That is explicitly stated in Pastor Aeternus:
“The Holy spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His reveleation, but rather that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explina the revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles.”

Blessings,
Marduk