Background: Two bishops in Spain were deposed, named Basilides and Martian. Two bishops were put in their place, Sabinus and Felix. Basilides (as well as Martian) made an appeal to Rome. They asked Pope Stephen to restore them to their sees. Stephen (out of being deceived by the two deposed bishops) complied with their appeals. Later, several churches brought this matter to Cyprian. He held a synod in the year 254 AD. There, Cyprian (contrary to the judgment of Pope Stephen) reaffirmed the excommunication of Basilides and Martian, and gave an excuse for Stephen on account of him being deceived out of ignorance by Basilides.
This event is usually regarded as an instance in church history wherein the bishop of Rome's alleged authority is not recognized. In fact, it is contradicted. The problems this creates for Roman Catholic apologists are obvious and huge.
The basic fact that RC has to deal with is this: Cyprian and others explicitly deny the validity of Pope Stephen's decision in this situation to restore Basilides and Martian to their sees. The usual way that Roman Catholic apologists try to escape this is by appealing to Basilides deceiving Stephen. While it is certainly true that Basilides did indeed deceive Stephen, thus leading him to affirm his appeal, this does not remove all of the difficulty. Cyprian plainly affirmed the excommunication of the Spanish bishops, despite Stephen's decree that they be restored to their respective sees.
Another problem is this: why didn't Felix and Sabinus (the new bishops in Spain put in the place of Basilides and Martian) simply contact Pope Stephen and rebuke him for his negligence? Why did they go to Carthage? Roman Catholic scholar Luke Rivington, in his book The Primitive Church and the See of Peter(a book written in defense of the papacy) sees this problem. However, hear his rather amusing response:
"And why did Felix and Sabinus go to Carthage instead of to Rome. where they might have disabused the Pope of his prejudice, if such it was, against their case? St. Stephen's character was, according to St. Vincent of Lerins, that of a 'holy and prudent man'. According to Dionysius, he assisted all parts of Arabia and Syria by his letters. We have a right therefore to suspend our judgment as to his negligence. on the principle of 'audi alteram partem'.....But in point of fact our materials are insufficient for understanding the matter fully." (Luke Rivington, The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, pg. 75)
Notice how Rivington acknowledges the problem, but never gives an reasonable answer! He simply appeals to the "character" of Stephen, as if that somehow helps his case! This is very shallow argumentation.
Here are some quotes from other historians and scholars on this issue:
"To Stephen himself the Council submits no representation of its opinion . They make not the most distant allusion to any inherent prerogative of his office as Bishop of Rome ' . There is no request that he would reconsider his judgment , or recognise theirs . They simply reverse his verdict and regard their reversal as final . Their long epistle , estimating the many points at issue , treats the decision of the Bishop of Rome as simply and gravely mistaken , and therefore to be set aside . There are then no less than four accounts upon which this Synodical Epistle of A.D. 254 on the affair of Basilides and Martial is important as a witness to the relations subsisting within the congregations and between the congregations of the Church . It creates none . And it does not imply, but distinctly states these relations ." (Edward White Benson, Cyprian: His Life, His Times, His Work, pg. 313)
"he [Cyprian] most clearly and unhesitatingly declares, that the favourable judgment of Rome in such a case was nothing worth : that Basilides had added to the catalogue of his offences, already sufficiently numerous, by venturing to appeal to Rome : that they who retained his communion on the ground of a favourable judgment from Rome were mistaken in their principle, and wrong in their conduct : and that those who neglected in this case the decree of Pope Stephen, and maintained the Catholic discipline of the Church, were worthy of all praise. And now this Epistle of Cyprian is a standing record of Catholic principles, in direct opposition to more than one branch of the usurped authority of the Bishop of Rome" (George Ayliffe Poole, The Life and Times of Saint Cyprian, pg. 315)
