Jul 27, 2021

Does Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians Prove Papal Authority?

 


One of the earliest examples in church history appealed to by Roman Catholic apologists is when Clement (bishop of Rome at the time) wrote a letter to the Corinthians settling a disruption which had taken place there. Basically what had happened was that the congregation was deposing some of their presbyters. Clement (though his name is not in the letter, virtually everyone today accepts him to be its author) wrote to the church in Corinth to settle the controversies. 


Roman Catholic apologists claim that this letter has the tone of a superior speaking to an inferior, and that this thus proves the idea of papal authority over other churches.  


There have been many responses from Reformed folks concerning this argument in the past (especially during the 19th century around Vatican I when you have tons of books from both sides on the historical facts surrounding the papacy). One popular argument against Rome in this situation is to say that Clement was writing not on behalf of himself solely, but on behalf of the church of Rome. While this argument may be true, I take a slightly different approach to answering the Roman Catholic argument. 


Take notice of the following language from Clement:


"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience." (Chapter 5 in Epistle to the Corinthians)


Clement speaks of Peter and Paul here on the same level, language which would seem to be inconsistent with the RC view of Peter's authority and position. This part of the letter would seem to be a proper place for Clement to at least say something of Peter's authority as the bishop of Rome. But he does not, for the simple reason that he knew of no such thing.


Peter and Paul are both referred to as "spiritual heroes", "the good Apostles", "the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church", and "noble examples". Clement does not seem to view Peter as being "above" Paul in the sense that Roman Catholicism would (i.e. as the Vicar of Christ on earth who possesses universal jurisdiction over the entire church). 


More than that, the idea of a monarchial episcopate does not seem to present in Clement's letter. Notice this portion from chapter 44:


"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour." (Chapter 44) 


This seems to put presbyters and bishops on  the same level.


"While Clement's position as a leading presbyter and spokesman of the Christian community at Rome is assured, his letter suggests that the monarchial episcopate had not yet emerged there, and it is therefore impossible to form any precise conception of his constitutional role." (J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes [Oxford University Press 2005], pg. 8)


"The unity of style suggests that the letter is the work of a single author. While the letter, which was sent οη behalf of the whole church (see the subscription), does not name its writer, well-attested ancient tradition and most manuscripts identify it as the work of Clement whose precise identity, however, is not clear. Tradition identifιes him as the third bishop of Rome after Peter, but this is unlikely because the offιce of monarchical bishop, in the sense intended by this later tradition, does not appear to have existed in Rome at this time. Leadership seems to have been entrusted to a group of presbyters or bishops (the two appear to be synonymous in 1 Clement; see 44.1-6), among whom Clement almost certainly was a (if not the) leading fιgure." (Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, pg. 35)








Jul 26, 2021

The תיקוני סופרים [tiqqune sopherim] of Zechariah 2:12

 


In the history of the Hebrew Bible, there has been a scribal practice known as tiqqune sopherim, which refers to scribal corrections or emendations. The general lists give 18 instances in the OT where such corrections can be found. One such place is in Zechariah 2:12 (it is verse 8 in many modern English Bibles). Here is a translation:

"For this is what the LORD Almighty says: “After the Glorious One has sent me against the nations that have plundered you—for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye [עֵינֽוֹ]" (NIV)


כִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָמַר֮ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ אַחַ֣ר כָּב֔וֹד שְׁלָחַ֕נִי אֶל־הַגּוֹיִ֖ם הַשֹּׁלְלִ֣ים אֶתְכֶ֑ם כִּ֚י הַנֹּגֵ֣עַ בָּכֶ֔ם נֹגֵ֖עַ בְּבָבַ֥ת עֵינֽוֹ (MT - Leningrad Codex)


However, other sources say it should be read as "my eye" [עני]. In particular, here is what one Jewish text has said:


"Similarly it is written: For he who toucheth thee toucheth the apple of his eye (Zech 2:12). 'My eye' should be written here, for it refers, as it were, to the Heavenly One. However, the text was modified by the scribes of the Great Synagogue" (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 16:2)


Another source at least seems to attest to "his eye":

"Similarly, (Zechariah 2:12) "for whoever touches you touches the pupil of His eye." R. Yehudah says: It is not written "the pupil of the eye, but "the pupil of His eye" — the "eye" of the Holy One, as it were." (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 15:7:1)


So which reading is correct?


First of all, I have noticed in some discussions of this verse, that the DSS are not brought in at all into the argument, which I have found surprising. The MT reading ("his eye") is supported by 4Q80 Minor Prophets e. I was able to get a preview of the transcription of this scroll from Logos Bible Software. The real images of this scroll can be found here


Here is what 4Q80 Minor Prophets e says:


https://www.logos.com/product/27971/4q80-minor-prophets-e


It might be a bit blurry, but nonetheless you can see quite clearly that this scroll has the reading of "his eye" [עֵינֽוֹ]. This is a supporting witness to the reading of the Masoretic text. 

Furthermore, the Septuagint also has the reading τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ αὐτοῦ, meaning "his eye". 


Carmel McCarthy, in his book The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (1981) argues that "my eye" is the better reading. However, he nonetheless admits the following:

"it is evident that the MT reading, "his eye", is attested by the greater number cf MSS for each cf the textual traditions cf the Versions as well as the Hebrew text, in such a way that if it be an "emendation", it was a very thoroughly and successfully imposed one." (pg. 67)






Jul 15, 2021

Do the Canons of Sardica Prove the Papacy?

 


-This council was held probably in the year 343 to settle some of the matters in the Arian crisis. It was convened at the request of Pope Julius. It was attended by Hosius of Cordova. It dealt with the case of the deposed Athanasius and the doctrinal issues surrounding the Council of Nicea. 


Here are the three canons from Sardica which are commonly cited by Roman apologists as evidence for the papacy:


"Hosius the Bishop said: ‘This also must necessarily be added, that Bishops do not cross from their own province into another province in which they are not Bishops, unless, perchance, they have been invited by their brethren, lest we seem to shut the door of charity. That if in any province any Bishop have a cause against his brother and fellow–bishop, neither shall call in Bishops from another province as arbiters. That if any of the Bishops has been condemned in any cause, and considers that he has not a weak but a sound cause that a judgment may be had anew on it, if it please your Piety, let us honour the memory of the Apostle Peter, that it should be written by those who have tried the cause to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, a fresh court may be opened by Bishops bordering on the province, and he may appoint judges. But if it cannot be proved that his cause is such as to require re–hearing, the first decision is not to be questioned, but what has been done is to stand good.’ " (Canon 3)


"Bishop Gaudentius said: ‘If pleasing to you, it shall be added to this judgment which you, Hosius, have brought forward, which is full of pure love, that if a Bishop has been deposed by the sentence of those Bishops who were in the neighbourhood, and he desires again to defend himself, no other shall be appointed to his See until the Bishop of Rome has judged and decided thereupon.’" (Canon 4)


"Hosius the Bishop said: ‘Does it please also that if a Bishop has been accused and the Bishops of that region have judged him, and deposed him, and since his deposition he has appealed and had recourse to the Bishop of the Roman Church, and is willing that he should hear him; if he should consider it just that the examination of the matter should be renewed, let him deign to write to his fellow–bishops who are nearest the province, that they may carefully and with diligence investigate all things and give a just sentence in accordance with the truth in the matter. But if any one who asks that his cause should be heard again should move with his petition the Bishop of the Romans that he should send Presbyters de latere suo, that it should be in the power of that Bishop as he considers and determines to be right to send those who, with the Bishops, should judge, having the authority of him by whom they were sent. But if he should consider the Bishops sufficient for the termination of the matter, he shall do as seems fit to his most wise counsel. " (Canon 5)


These three canons are in a sense "bound up" together and closely related to one another. 


The things given to the bishop of Rome (concerning an appellate jurisdiction) are limited. 


First, the whole situation here is concerning a bishop who has been deposed, not just any case whatsoever. It is in this specific situation where the Sardican canons assert rights to the Roman bishop. This is admitted by the Roman Catholic church historian Charles Hefele:


"The canons of Sardica only speak of an appeal in one case, namely, when a bishop was deposed by his comprovincials; other cases are not mentioned at all, and, as a glance at the text of the canons unquestionably shows, in all other cases the appeal is neither affirmed nor denied." (Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol II, pg. 125)


Furthermore, the thing granted to the bishop of Rome is not to simply say "yes" or "no" on behalf of himself only, and then the case is closed. Rather the Roman bishop is given the power to appoint a new court consisting (at least) of the bishops from the province in question. Hefele also admits this:


"The Ballerini and Palma further maintain that these canons also ascribe to the Pope the right of transferring the whole process, with its investigation, upon such an appeal being made, to Rome, and of himself deciding, therefore, without the presence of the neighbouring bishops. The canons nowhere say this ; what they expressly insist upon is, that to the Pope belongs the appointment of a second court, for which he is to designate bishops from the neighbouring province, but may also appoint legates of his own. Even when in those three canons a decision of Rome is spoken of in general terms only, as for instance at the end of the fourth, this cannot be understood in a sense favourable to Palma and the Ballerini ; for the true meaning is, that the Pope alone, and in his own person, decides whether the appeal shall be allowed, and a second judgment ordered or not. In this last case he confirms the sentence of the first court ; in the other, he orders the second investigation ; but that he himself, instead of the court appointed by him, should conduct the investigation of the second court, is nowhere said. Further on, indeed, at the end of the fifth canon, these words occur "The Pope shall do what seems to him good" but neither by this are we to understand that the Pope should himself conduct the second investigation, but that he should decide whether or not to send his own legates to the court of appeal." (Hefele, History, II:125)


Plus, canon 9 of Chalcedon appears to give a similar privilege (though not in the exact same situation) to Constantinople.


Another reason why these canons do not prove the papacy is that they are giving the Roman bishop rights out of honor, not out of seeing some sort of inherent authority in Rome. It is seen as something "new". Here is why:

In canon 3 (Latin version), Hosius asks "is this the pleasure of all?", to which the synod replies in the affirmative. If it is true that the Sardican fathers viewed the papacy as being of Divine institution from the Lord Jesus Christ, then asking "is this the pleasure of all?" seems to be a rather arrogant thing to do/say. A similar thing is said in canon 4 where bishop Gaudentius begins the decree by saying "if it seems good to you." Such a language seems to be arrogant on the part of the Sardican fathers if they thought of the bishop of Rome has having the rights inherent in his authority by Divine institution. It makes more sense that the rights they giving the Roman bishop were something new.


"But in the first place this authority is not here acknowledged as a right already existing in practice. It is conferred as a new power, and that merely as an honorary right, and as pertaining only to the bishop Julius in person." Otherwise, either this bishop would not be expressly named, or his successors would be named with him. Furthermore, the canons limit the appeal to the case of a bishop deposed by his comprovincials, and say nothing of other cases." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume III, pg. 311)


"Strictly speaking, Rome is not yet established as a genuine court of appeal because it is not the Roman bishop himself who makes a new decision in the case. Rome is only a reviewing authority to see to it that the appeal (to a different synod) is carried out." (Klaus Schatz, Papal Primary: From its Origins to the Present [The Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN 1996], pg. 25)


"...the council of Sardica...sanctioned appeals to the Roman see, not indeed as appertaining to it by divine right, but from mere "respect to the memory of the apostle Peter." (Edmund Salusbury Ffoulkes, A Manual of Ecclesiastical History, from the First to the Twelfth Century Inclusive, pg. 122, source)


"Equally fundamental, however, is the fact that there is no previous or contemporary evidence that such extraordinary authority as complete jurisdiction over all cases of deposition was anywhere at that time conceded to the Roman bishop. Even the prerogative claimed by Julius himself, quoted by Caspar in connection with canon IIIc, is not this extensive. Certainly the African rejection of Roman jurisdiction in the early fifth century regarding the case of Apiarius of Sicca shows that the acceptance of the then explicit claims of jurisdiction by Rome was slow in coming. Caspar's contention that canons IV and V are a recognition of Julius' right to act as sole judge is not only lacking in historical evidence, but is in fact vitiated by the phrase called upon to support it. Rather than acclaiming the ‘just judgement’ of Julius, the Serdican bishops write: ‘it became evident that the decision of our brother and fellow bishop Julius [concerning communion with Athanasius] was a just one.’  Nothing is here implied about either the ability or the right of Julius to judge in any capacity other than that of their fellow bishop." (Hamilton Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica [Oxford University Press 2002], pg. 198)


Decades ago, there were some people who questioned the genuiness of the Sardican canons altogether. C.H. Turner, in particular, responded to many of the arguments that were put forward. I would probably say that the canons are genuine. I have not done incredibly intense study on that particular issue, however. I am open to either side. Obviously, if the Sardican canons are not genuine, then the entire Roman argument is destroyed. However, this article has shown on the assumption that the canons are genuine, that they still do not prove the papacy.




The Synod's Letter to Pope Julius


Charles Hefele gives a footnote where he discusses this passage and some opinions of scholars concerning it:


"...Blondell held this passage - Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si ad caput, i.e. ad Petri Apostoli sedem de singulis quibusque provindis domini referant sacerdotes - to be an interpolation, on account of its barbarous Latin, i.e. valde congruentissimum (Blondell, De Primatu Ecclesice, p. 106). Kemi Ceillier (Histoire Generate, etc., t. iv. p. 696), on the other hand, remarked that the barbarous Latin might be explained by the supposition that the letter had been first written in Greek, and that we have only a translation. But Remi Ceillier could not deny that this sentence interrupted the train of thought of the letter, and looked like something inserted in parenthesis. Bower (History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 192) and Fuchs (Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. vol. ii. p. 128) have urged this still more strongly ; the latter especially has confidently urged the conjecture that this sentence was originally a gloss added ad marginem by a reader of the letter, and taken into the text by a later copyist. But Remi Ceillier, in order to save the sentence, says that the Synod had only intended by these words to point en passant to its decision with regard to the appeal to Rome. " (Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol II, pgs. 163-64 n. 7)

(Hefele gives comments on the passage at page 96)


I do not know what Hefele's personal opinion on the authenticity of this passage in the letter to Julius from Sardica is. However, he doesn't seem to dispute the opinions of the scholars who doubt its authenticity in the footnote quoted above. If you pay attention to his tone and language that he uses, it seems to lean more "in favor" of the scholars who doubt the passage's authenticity. But then again, it is quite possible that Hefele did indeed view it as authentic. Nonetheless, I think the fact that the passage is completely out of context with the flow of thought in the letter does seem to argue against its authenticity. Here is the letter in its context:


"That which has been our constant belief hitherto, remains our present conviction; experience serves to prove and confirm, what each of us has only heard with our ears. For those words are true, which the most blessed apostle Paul, teacher of the Gentiles, spake concerning himself : "Ye seek a proof of him, that speaketh in me, even Christ", though in fact, since the Lord Christ dwelt in him, there can be no doubt that the Spirit spoke through his mind and used his body as a means of utterance. So, well-beloved brother, though parted from us in the body, You were present with us in a harmony of thought and will; the explanation of your absence was both reasonable and expected, otherwise you might have been attacked by schismatic wolves, with treacherous wiles, or yelped at by heretical curs raving with madness, or insulted by the devil's poisonous blasphemies, a serpent in very deed. For it will seem best and highly appropriate, if the Lord's bishops, each from his own province, report to the head, that is to the see of Peter the Apostle'" (found in Trevor Jalland, The Church and the Papacy, pgs. 221-22)


Notice that the passage is not very much in line with the flow of thought of the letter. It simply appears there suddenly and unexpectedly, thus arguing against its authenticity. 


Here is further a quote from Archibald Bower's book History of the Popes (volume 1):


Bower, History of  the Popes, volume I, pg. 121



                                 


Jul 8, 2021

Cyprian, Firmilian, and Pope Stephen: An Argument Against the Papacy

 

One of the most interesting events in church history is the controversy which took place over heretical baptism (and the validity or lack thereof). I am not an expert on all of the aspects and points in this controversy, but nonetheless I decided to do a bit of research on the subject of Cyprian's conflict with Pope Stephen over this issue, and also why it seems to argue against the Vatican I conception of the papacy. 


For a very brief background to this controversy: There was a dispute in the church over whether or not those who had been baptized in heretical circles needed to be rebaptized if they decided to join the Church. Cyprian (and other Eastern bishops) answered this question in the affirmative, while Pope Stephen said that heretical baptism was valid due to its being done in the name of the Trinity. At one point in this dispute, it is said that Pope Stephen referred to Cyprian as a "false prophet and deceitful work" (Epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian). Pope Stephen ended up citing Matthew 16 at one point to prove his papal authority, pressing the Eastern bishops to submit to his views. However, Cyprian and the North African church pushed back against Pope Stephen's claims to authority. 

Pope Stephen I


There was a council held at Carthage in the year 256 AD which was attended by 86 Eastern bishops. They agreed with Cyprian's view on heretical baptism. But they also denounced Pope Stephen's attempt to force Cyprian and the bishops to submit to him:


"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops [Footnote: Of course this implies a rebuke to the assumption of Stephen, ("their brother," and forcibly contrasts the spirit of Cyprian with that of his intolerant compeer).], 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.But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." (The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian, found in Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:565)


Notice the footnote in ANF which says that the statement of the council concerning "setting himself up as a bishop of bishops" is directed towards Pope Stephen. This sort of language completely conflicts with what Roman Catholicism today teaches concerning the bishop of Rome possessing universal authority over all Christians. The fact that there was such strong opposition against Pope Stephen in this controversy (even to the point of summoning a synod at Carthage in 256 AD) shows that they did not have the modern Vatican I view of the Bishop of Rome's authority whatsoever.


Things begin to get even more interesting when we look at Firmilian's letter to Cyprian, and his attitude towards to behavior of Pope Stephen. Pay careful attention to the language which is used by Firmilian towards Pope Stephen:


"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. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine layer. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church , what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice." (Epistle 74 to Cyprian)


Notice that Firmilian mentions Stephen's appeal to his succession from Peter. If Firmilian believed in the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, here would have been the opportunity to possible concede that the Pope, by virtue of his apostolic authority, is right after all. And yet he does the exact opposite. He uses harsher language than Cyprian even!


I have been searching the internet a little bit to see if there might some material from a Roman Catholic apologist which perhaps might deal with this issue. So far, I haven't found anything super extensive. Yet, I did come across something interesting while reading Charles Hefele's material on this conflict between Cyprian and Pope Stephen:


"...This letter of Firmilian forms No. 75  of the collection of the letters of S. Cyprian; its contents are only, in general, an echo of what S. Cyprian had set forth in defense of his own opinion, and in opposition to Stephen; only in Firmilian is seen a much greater violence and passion against Stephen, - so much so, that Molkenbuhr [Roman Catholic] Professor at Paderborn, has thought that a letter so disrespectful towards the pope could not be genuine." (Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 1, pg. 103)


Notice that this Roman Catholic professor Hefele mentions tried to dismiss Firmilian's letter as not even being authentic. This is an implicit admission deep down that what Firmilian says concerning the bishop of Rome here is completely incompatible with what Roman Catholicism teaches today. If he had some sort of solution to this, there would have been no need to dismiss the letter as not being genuine. 


Here are some other quotes from scholars and church historians concerning this issue with Cyprian and Pope Stephen:


"Cyprian is convinced that the bishop answers to God alone. ‘So long as the bond of friendship is maintained and the sacred unity of the Catholic Church is preserved, each bishop is master of his own conduct, conscious that he must one day render an account of himself to the Lord’ (Epist. 55.21). In his controversy with Pope Stephen on the rebaptism of heretics he voices as the president of the African synod of September 256 his opinion as follows: “No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein’ (CSEL 3, 1, 436). From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles because he states: hoc erant et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis (De unit. 4). No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).”On the other hand, it is the same Cyprian who gives the highest praise to the church of Rome on account of its importance for ecclesiastical unity and faith, when he complains of heretics ‘who dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatic and blasphemous persons to the see of Peter and the leading church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise, not realizing that the Romans, whose faith was proclaimed and praised by the apostle, are men into whose company no perversion of faith can enter’ (Epist. 59, 14). Thus the cathedra Petri is to him the ecclesia principalis and the point of origin of the unitas sacerdotalis. However, even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59, 14)." (Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 2, pgs. 375-76)


"Stephen had condemned Cyprian as ‘false Christ, false apostle, and practicer of deceit,’ because he advocated re–baptism; and the Bishop of Carthage reciprocated in kind. Since the headship which Stephen claimed was unwarranted, by the example of St. Peter, he could not force his brethren to accept his views. Even worse, his judgment opposed the authentic tradition of the Church. The bishop of Rome, wrote Cyprian, had confounded human tradition and divine precepts; he insisted on a practice which was mere custom, and ‘custom without truth is the antiquity of error.’ Whence came the ‘tradition’ on which Stephen insisted? Cyprian answered that it came from human presumption. Subverting the Church from within, Stephen wished the Church to follow the practices of heretics by accepting their baptisms, and to hold that those who were not born in the Church could be sons of God. And finally, Cyprian urged that bishops (Stephen was meant) lay aside the love of presumption and obstinacy which had led them to prefer custom to tradition and, abandoning their evil and false arguments, return to the divine precepts, to evangelical and apostolic tradition, whence arose their order and their very origin.In a letter to Cyprian, Firmilian endorsed everything the bishop of Carthage had said and added a few strokes of his own…Recalling the earlier dispute about the date of Easter, he upheld the practice of Asia Minor by commenting that, in the celebration of Easter and in many other matters, the Romans did not observe the practices established in the age of the Apostles, though they vainly claimed apostolic authority for their aberrant forms. The decree of Stephen was the most recent instance of such audacity, an instance so grave that Firmilian ranked Stephen among heretics and blasphemers and compared his doctrines and discipline with the perfidy of Judas. The Apostles did not command as Stephen commanded, Firmilian wrote, nor did Christ establish the primacy which he claimed…To the Roman custom, Firmilian, like Cyprian, opposed the custom of truth, ‘holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the Apostles.’ And, Firmilian argued, by his violence and obstinacy, Stephen had apostacized from the communion of ecclesiastical unity; far from cutting heretics off from his communion, he had cut himself off from the orthodox and made himself ‘a stranger in all respects from his brethren, rebelling against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord. With such a man can there be one Spirit and one Body, in whom perhaps there is not even one mind, slippery, shifting, and uncertain as it is?" (Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, pgs. 31-32)











Eutyches and the Double Consubstantiality of Christ

  During the Home Synod of Constantinople, Eutyches was summoned multiple times to appear before the assembly of bishops. On one such instan...