Saint Cyprian and Pope Stephen

[MilesVitae]

How can Catholics defend the teaching on the papacy against the case of the conflict between Saint Cyprian and Pope Stephen over re-baptism of heretics? My knowledge of the conflict is not too very deep, but non-catholics would say this is an example of a Church father not recognizing the universal authority of the bishop of Rome, and doesn’t Firmilian (maybe Cyprian too?) object to Stephen making himself a “bishop of bishops”?

 

[Bookcat]

The question of those coming to the Church after having started in heresy was a difficult one in certain areas of the world. So there were various opinions on validity of the baptism and what to do practically. Not everything was worked out in the Church from the first days…many things came into clarity after controversy.

Augustine expressed his confidence that the martyrdom of Cyprian atoned for his excess.

And it is to be noted that Cyprian actually wrote profoundly of the authority of the successor of Peter…

""The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?" (Catholic Answers website)

 

[bmonk]

How can Catholics defend the teaching on the papacy against the case of the conflict between Saint Cyprian and Pope Stephen over re-baptism of heretics? My knowledge of the conflict is not too very deep, but non-catholics would say this is an example of a Church father not recognizing the universal authority of the bishop of Rome, and doesn’t Firmilian (maybe Cyprian too?) object to Stephen making himself a “bishop of bishops”?

That may be–but it is noteworthy that the church–and eventually most of the African Church as well–did accept Pope Stephen’s position.

Remember that being Catholic does not mean that you are immune from error. And Cyprian here, we believe, was in error, both in his stand for rebaptism, and in his objections to Stephen’s authority.

 

[DavidFilmer]

How can Catholics defend the teaching on the papacy against the case of the conflict between Saint Cyprian and Pope Stephen over re-baptism of heretics?

There was no such conflict after Pope Stephen declared that heretics validly baptized. St. Cyprian (who was sometimes called the “African Pope” due to his considerable influence) was a strong opponent of the idea of valid heretic Baptism - he would not even use the word “Baptism” in this context (he referred to those who were “made wet by heretics” - I think that’s funny).

However, following Pope Stephen’s declaration (which followed several years of intense dispute), there is no evidence that Cyprian continued his opposition (and St, Cyprian died soon afterward).

 

[Todd_Easton]

… and doesn’t Firmilian (maybe Cyprian too?) object to Stephen making himself a “bishop of bishops”?

I think you mean Tertullian, who used the phrase “bishop of bishops” in the first chapter of his treatise On Modesty, written about 210 A.D., during his semi-Montanist period.

 

[Mintaka]

Catholics believe that the Pope has the final word (under God), but nobody ever said that you can’t argue hard with the Pope beforehand.

St. Cyprian wrangled with the Pope. That doesn’t make him a schismatic or a heretic. It makes him an orthodox guy who wrangled with the Pope. There’s no evidence that he didn’t accept the Pope’s teaching in the end; just that he wrangled.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MilesVitae

How can Catholics defend the teaching on the papacy against the case of the conflict between Saint Cyprian and Pope Stephen over re-baptism of heretics? My knowledge of the conflict is not too very deep, but non-catholics would say this is an example of a Church father not recognizing the universal authority of the bishop of Rome,

This can seem complicated, as far as assessing the perspective of St. Cyprian. The practice of Rome was not to rebaptize certain heretics coming into the Catholic Church; on the other hand the practice of North African Churches was not consistent (i.e., some did, and some didn’t). A certain bishop from Numidia (a North African province) asked St. Cyprian’s advice on the fact that bishops in Mauretania (another North African province) did not rebaptize Novatians coming into the Catholic Church. St. Cyprian replied that Novatians need to be rebaptized, classing them with other well-known heresies such as the Montanists who were known to be rebaptized. Further, St. Cyprian assumed that the bishops were free to decide on the practice. The letter was circulated and reached Rome. Thereupon, Pope St. Stephen replied that it was not proper to rebaptize heretics who baptized according to the Faith given by Jesus Christ (i.e., “In Jesus’ name”) and used the correct formula (i.e., “in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”); Pope Stephen further threatened excommunication on those who did not adhere to the same standard. St. Cyprian replied that Pope St. Stephen was wrong.

Is it possible that the cause of the controversy was that St. Cyprian simply misinterpreted Pope St. Stephen’s response as an allowance for EVERY kind of baptism performed by heretics? Possible, but that was not the problem. While it can be reasonably argued that Pope St. Stephen’s position did not allow for EVERY heretical baptism to be accepted, it is clear that St. Cyprian’s own position was that EVERY baptism outside the Catholic Church (whether of schismatics or heretics, and regardless of what type of heresy) could not be accepted. In this, St. Cyprian was clearly wrong. It was also wrong for St. Cyprian to advise that the matter should be left up to each bishop in his diocese, for such a position would break the Eucharistic unity of the Churches (as proposed in a previous post, imagine a Christian being able to receive communion in one See, and then discovering that he cannot receive communion in another See because his baptism was rejected and not considered a Christian).

But what about the objection that the bishop of Rome is not a “bishop of bishops?”

and doesn’t Firmilian (maybe Cyprian too?) object to Stephen making himself a “bishop of bishops”?

Here, we need to break down the matter to two issues: (1) the cause of the objection, and (2) the meaning of the term “bishop of bishops.”

(1) Before the rebaptism controversy, St. Cyprian had specifically appealed to Pope St. Stephen to excommunicate a bishop in Gaul on a matter St. Cyprian perceived as a heresy (Novatianism). Obviously, St. Cyprian recognized the bishop of Rome’s prerogative to hand out a sentence of excommunication (for good reason) to other bishops. So was St. Cyprian simply being a hypocrite, or was there some other consideration involved? I personally don’t think St. Cyprian was a hypocrite. The answer could lie in the notion that the matter was not considered a doctrinal matter by St. Cyprian, but a discplinary one. On matters of discipline, unless there is a universally prescribed canon, bishops have the last say in their own particular Church. But there does not seem to have been a recognized universal canon on the issue at the time of the rebaptism controversy (certainly none to which any of the parties appealed).

So while St. Cyprian was objectively wrong, we need to cut him and those that sided with him some slack. And while Pope St. Stephen had the foresight to discern the universality of the matter, I think Catholics must concede that Pope St. Stephen’s threat of excommunication was very imprudent. The Pope should have discussed the matter with St. Cyprian and other bishops first, before sending out a general letter threatening excommunication. Absolutist Petrine advocates will see in this episode justification for their opinion that the Pope can act unilaterally. On the other hand, High Petrine advocates will see in this episode justification for the necessity of the Pope to act collegially in order to preserve the unity of the Church. The Pope must always act with the unity of the Church in mind, and he cannot do this if he acts merely unilaterally. The Absolutist Petrine view thinks that unity is established through uncompromising obedience to a single bishop; the High Petrine view understands that unity can only be established through the agreement of the orthodox bishops. Seriously…what is more likely to promote unity - lording it over others, or persuasion through dialogue?

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

(2) There is a palpable distinction between the concept of a “bishop of bishops” and a “head bishop.” A bishop in Catholic ecclesiology has the prerogative to act unilaterally for the good of his local Church, and all power in the diocese is delegated from him. A “bishop of bishops” thus implies that there is only one real bishop in the Church, and all other bishops don’t have any power except what that one bishop delegates to them. It is why Popes have consistently refused the title “universal bishop,” because such a title implies that the Church only has one real bishop. This is the fantastic error of the Absolutist Petrine view. (Today’s Absolutist Petrine advocates are wily: they will admit that bishops have real authority in and of themselves, but when pressed, they will claim the exact opposite - that the Pope has the authority to replace any single bishop in his diocese unilaterally on his mere discretion, and override any bishop in the daily affairs of his diocese, acting as if his brother bishop has no real authority; they will also claim that the Pope’s power is not unlimited, but when pressed, it turns out all they mean is that the Pope cannot violate divine law, but that in all else, he is an absolute monarch who can replace or override the authority of any single bishop in his local diocese on his mere discretion.)

So different from this exaggerated and erroneous conception of the papacy, a “head bishop” always works with his brother bishops, and does not lord it over them. He is the servant of the servants of God, instead of the absolute monarch over them. A head bishop operates under the prescription of the ancient Apostolic Canon, being conscious of the necessity and importance of his office for the Church as a whole, but at the same time conscious of the necessity and importance of the office of his brother bishops as well for the Church as a whole.

Whereas a “bishop of bishops” is as an absolute monarch whose supreme authority can be used according to his mere discretion, a “head bishop” is as a president whose supreme authority can only be used when it is actually needed by the Church. Sts. Stephen and Firmilian had justification in their complaint that Pope St. Stephen was acting like a “bishop of bishops” instead of a “head bishop.” Pope St. Stephen abused his personal authority by attempting to act unilaterally instead of collegially.

In short, a Low Petrine advocate will use this incident to claim the Pope has no real authority (neglecting the fact that the same St. Cyprian appealed to the Pope to excommunicate other bishops). An Absolutist Petrine advocate will use this incident to claim the Pope has absolute, unilateral authority to excommunicate (neglecting the fact that many otherwise orthodox bishops challenged such an action). A High Petrine advocate will see in this incident the necessity for the Pope to act as a “head bishop,” not as a “bishop of bishops”- striving for unity through agreement, not overlordship. The High Petrine view does not see the Pope as a micromanager with unilateral power, but as the court of final appeal, in the context of a divine constitution that keeps in mind and respects the authority of his brother bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would certainly defer to mardukm’s analysis. Also, here is another treatment on the subject from a debate I did a few years ago.

I would also like to address this quote by Cyprian because it is worth a deeper look regarding Papal authority:For no one [of us] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops]… (incidentally, the bracketed words apparently do not appear in the Greek translation by Zonaras)Reading this quote in context, the issue about which Cyprian was speaking was whether or not someone deemed a heretic could effect a valid baptism. At the time Pope Stephen, then bishop of Rome, stated that the Spirit will flow even through a heretic if the proper form of baptism is enacted. Thus, a person who was the object of such a baptism would be validly baptized in the eyes of the Church.

There was much debate on this issue as evidenced in such sources as the writings of Firmilian, who sided with Cyprian at the time. Firmilian wrote a scathing critique of Stephen. Firmilian granted that his opponents included Stephen and “those who agree with him.” (Firmilian, letter to Cyprian, 8, 256 AD)

Among those with Cyprian and Firmilian opposed to so-called heretical baptism, were a number of bishops in Africa. It was these bishops for whom Cyprian spoke in the local Synod when he stated: “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops…” More on this in a moment… (At the bottom of Simon’s link to the Synod at Carthage, we read 16th century historian Binius’ comment that “Bishop of bishops” was a term that was a “custom” at the time for the Roman bishop.)

continued…

 

[MarcoPolo]

continued…

Firmilian, in his letter siding with Cyprian against Stephen, wrote the following:But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the** foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock**, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination…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…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics…

• Firmilian claims that the power to forgive sins given to the apostles was passed on to their successors by ordination.
• Firmilian says “Peter alone” was the foundation of the one Church, coupled with binding and loosing authority.
• Firmilian does not disagree with the notion of Peter having left a “throne” filled by a successor.

Look beneath the issue of heretical baptism in Firmilian’s letter. What Firmilian is challenging is whether Stephen is validly filling the throne of Peter. His doubt is cast on Stephen personally because of “the greatness of his error.” Of course the valid successor of Peter could not teach error in issues of faith. He does not assert there is no throne nor that Peter’s special authority is not passed onto his successors. That there is a throne with Petrine authority passed through successors is a given in Firmilian’s discourse!

Getting back to Cyprians “no bishop of bishops” comment should be read in light of what I already quoted of Cyprian in my 3rd round: “the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne…” and that the “origin of unity” in the Church is rooted in Peter.

After the Council at Carthage, Cyprian wrote to Stephen specifically regarding the agreement of the African bishops on the invalidity of any baptism by a heretic. He said: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. (Cyprian, letter to Stephen, 3, 255 A.D.)
Ultimately, on this issue, the authority of Rome’s bishop won out. Just as the debate in Acts 15 over the necessity of circumcision ended with Peter’s voice, so too did the Church preserve the Tradition of Pope Stephen. The monk Jerome and Vincent of Lerins both recognized Cyprian’s subservient view to the See of Peter. (edit: 12/28/09–when I originally did this debate last year I had a link to Jerome and St. Vincent quotes that has since disappeared. I would guess the St. Vincent quote you have above would have been included there)

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: “But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?’ The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep.” (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)Thus we see more clearly when Cyprian spoke of unity through Peter, and sought “approval” from Stephen, and ended up submitting his own view to that of the Pope’s. Today, the Church recognizes him as a saint.

Subsequent Popes affirmed Stephen. And the Church to this day recognizes the validity of proper Trinitarian baptism, even if administered by someone outside the faith. (CCC#1256)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MarcoPolo,

Thank you for your post. I think you made a good case that St. Cyprian would have been willing to listen to the Pope – if only the Pope had approached the matter collegially, discussing the matter with his brother bishops first, I think the conflict would never have occurred.

Blessings,
Marduk