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).
2 comments:
The episode between Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephen I often comes up in discussions of papal supremacy and infallibility. The argument against these doctrines typically revolves around Cyprian’s resistance to Stephen's decision regarding the validity of baptism administered by heretics. The dispute between Cyprian and Pope Stephen took place in the mid-3rd century, a period when many theological doctrines were still being refined. During this time, the Church had not yet fully articulated the precise understanding of papal primacy or infallibility as we understand them today. The First Vatican Council, which defined papal infallibility in 1870, was a culmination of centuries of theological reflection and practice, not a reflection of the fully developed understanding of Church authority in the early Church.
Cyprian’s disagreement with Stephen should be understood in this context. Cyprian, like many bishops of his time, held to a strong sense of local episcopal autonomy. The idea that the bishop of Rome held universal jurisdiction was still in a developmental phase, and this is why we see Cyprian and other bishops asserting their own authority on matters like the rebaptism of heretics. Cyprian’s theology emphasized the collegiality of bishops and the unity of the Church, yet he did not deny the special place of the Roman see altogether. In fact, Cyprian refers to Rome as the "chair of Peter" in his writings (e.g., Epistle 59), indicating some recognition of its unique status, even if he did not fully embrace the Roman bishop’s authority as it would later be understood.
The doctrine of papal infallibility was not explicitly claimed in the early Church in the way it was defined at Vatican I. What existed was a growing recognition that the Church of Rome held a primacy of honor, and in some cases, a decisive voice in matters of faith. Pope Stephen’s actions in the baptism controversy can be seen as an early assertion of Roman authority, but they were not yet grounded in the developed theology of papal infallibility.
While Stephen’s decision was rejected by Cyprian and some other African bishops, it is important to note that Stephen did not articulate his stance using the language of infallibility or even universal jurisdiction in the fully developed sense. Instead, the conflict reflects a clash of ecclesiological views that were still being worked out in the third century. The subsequent history of the Church demonstrates that while local disputes occurred, the Roman see continued to be recognized as a significant center of authority, gradually leading to the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility.
Cyprian’s opposition to Pope Stephen has been overstated by some critics of papal supremacy. While Cyprian disagreed with Stephen, he did not deny Rome’s importance outright. His actions were motivated by his pastoral concerns for the African Church and his conviction that rebaptism was necessary to maintain the integrity of the faith. This theological dispute, however, did not amount to a wholesale rejection of Rome’s leadership. Cyprian did not argue against the Roman bishop’s unique role; rather, he took issue with a specific decision that he believed threatened the purity of the sacraments.
It is also important to note that Cyprian was not alone in his resistance to Stephen, and the disagreement reflected broader regional differences in theology and practice. The North African Church, for example, had distinct traditions and emphases that sometimes clashed with Roman customs. Yet, despite these disputes, the idea of the Roman Church as holding a special place among the Christian communities was not entirely dismissed, and over time, it became more solidified in the collective understanding of the Church’s structure.
The role of the papacy evolved gradually over the centuries. In Cyprian’s time, the full extent of papal primacy and infallibility was not yet a clearly defined doctrine. Instead, it developed through the experiences of councils, theological controversies, and the need for a final arbiter in disputes concerning faith and morals. By the time of the First Vatican Council, the doctrine of papal infallibility had become a necessary conclusion, drawn from the Church’s lived experience of the pope’s unique role in safeguarding orthodoxy.
Critics like G.C. Coulton and F.N. Oxenham often emphasize the gaps or tensions in early Church history as evidence that papal claims were innovations. However, this overlooks the organic development of doctrine in the life of the Church. The fact that Cyprian resisted Stephen’s decision does not negate the eventual recognition of papal authority; rather, it highlights the dynamic process by which the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, arrived at a more profound understanding of its structures of authority.
Cyprian’s disagreement with Pope Stephen illustrates the complexities of early Church governance but does not invalidate the eventual doctrinal developments regarding papal infallibility and primacy. The early Church did not operate with the fully developed theological constructs that later councils would clarify, but it did recognize Rome’s unique authority, even if it was expressed differently at the time. The dispute between Cyprian and Stephen should be seen as part of the larger unfolding of Church doctrine rather than as a definitive rejection of papal authority.
Post a Comment