Dear Faulkner [original name changed],
I asked a question about Cyprian and Stephen that you either never answered or took a great amount of time to answer. So I submit my query again and I also refer you to the work Papal Infallibility (London: Faith Press, 1932) written by G.C. Coulton. In particular, see pages 14ff. Coulton provides evidence from the primary documents (Cyprian's Epistles) that neither Cyprian nor the majority of the African bishops in Carthage during his time knew anything about the Pope having universal ecclesiatical jurisdiction and furthermore these men also took issue with Pope Stephen's infallible "decision" concerning baptism.
I know that we're not yet finished with our protracted debate about the Bible canon, etc. But I have a burning question that just couldn't wait.
Recently I have been reading about the history of the Latin church under bishop Cyprian. I'm sure you're well aware of his struggle with bishop Stephen, and his disagreement with this overseer. I wonder, how do you feel about this episode? Why did Cyprian not feel a need to submit to the [supposed] pontiff of Rome, if all the "venerable fathers" have believed in papal supremacy throughout the ages of the EKKLHSIA?
In his book The Validity of Papal Claims, F.N. Oxenham explains the dispute on pp. 77-80. His remarks are worthy of note here:
"Stephen is said to have been the first Pope who claimed privileges of rule distinctly as successor of St. Peter, and therefore the reception which his claim met with is an important piece of evidence, more especially as the person chiefly concerned in rejecting that claim was so great a man as Cyprian of Carthage. Stephen did not indeed to assert the fully developed papal claims as they are asserted now; he was not, apparently, aware that he was 'infallible,' but he made an effort towards being supreme" (Oxenham 77-78).
No comments:
Post a Comment