Commenting on Cyprian of Carthage’s Epistle 67:
Cyprian accepted that Stephen’s opinion
was to be sought, respected, and heeded, except when he was wrong. While any
bishop could look to any other bishop for support, it would appear that the
opinions of some bishops carried more weight than that of others. The bishop in
the largest city in the Mediterranean world, which was also the imperial
capital and the church which Peter himself had led, did have greater prestige
than every other bishop. It was the conclusion of the African bishops, that, in
this instance, because he had been given only one side of the story, Stephen’s
opinion was ill-considered and deviated from God’s will found in Scripture
(expounded in 67.1-2-67.4.4.).
We may consider the following statement
from Zimire: “Mais ce rôle de l’évêque de Rome restait toujours symbolique. Ni le pape personnellement ni le corps
épiscopal ayant le pape à sa tête n’ont jamais été conçus par lui comme une
authorité possédant une juridiction sur les évêques pris individuellement” [RB:
“But the role of the Bishop of Rome remained largely symbolic. Neither
the Pope personally nor the episcopal body headed by the Pope was ever
conceived by him as an authority possessing jurisdiction over individual
bishops”]) I would not agree with him that the bishop of Rome’s role was
purely symbolic, even though I would agree with him that Stephen possessed no universal
jurisdiction. Demoustier, more accurately I think, recognizes “une importance
particuliè à Rome” [RB: “a particular importance to Rome”] in Cyprian
but does not see him accepting a Roman universal primacy in jurisdiction.
Why did Cyprian accept other
bishops doing things of which he did not approve but did not display the same
tolerance to Stephen’s decision? In the other instances, such as his reaction
to news from bishop Fidus that bishop Therapius had granted reconciliation to
the lapsus presbyter Victor (a sacrifactus), contrary to the
decision of the Synod of 251, Cyprian accepted what a bishop did within his own
diocese. Stephen’s decision did not respect the Spanish churches’ position.
What Cyprian was doing was recognising a priority in the local decision of the
Spanish churches over the opinion or decision of a non-local bishop (Stephen).
Cyprian made it clear that the power to appoint bishops rested with local
churches, not with Rome or Carthage (unless, of course, it was the appointment
of bishops in those areas) and other churches could recognise or not recognise
that election (depending on whether correct procedures were followed) but could
not interfere in it. (Geoffrey D. Dunn, “Cyprian
of Carthage and the Episcopal Synod of Late 254,” Revue des Études
Augustiniennes 48 [2002]: 240, comments in square brackets added for clarification)
CYRPIAN
AND PAPAL PRIMACY
This letter shows Cyprian to
be no supporter of papal primacy, at least not in the sense that the word is
often understood today. Even though bishops had a catholic responsibility
that did not mean that, in the ordinary course of events, they could usurp the
rights of local churches, particularly if they did not both belong to the same prouincia.
The oneness of the Church did not demand a single leadership, but rather a
united leadership. As Robert Evans argues, bishops, unlike provincial governors,
did not have a higher human authority parallel with the emperor. I see no
difference between what we find in this letter and the position Cyprian had put
forward in both versions of the chapter 4 of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate.
I accept the interpretation of Maurice Bévenot who stated, when Cyprian himself
wrote the Textus Receptus to replace the ‘Primacy Text’ during the
rebaptism controversy, that “ . . . this will have been not because he
had changed his mind about the Papacy, but because Rome was reading more into
it than he had intended. . . . He did not, then, repudiate what he had formerly
held. He had never held that the Pope possessed universal jurisdiction.” In addition
to that, there is nothing in Epistula 67 to suggest that Stephen himself
considered that he possessed a universal jurisdiction either. Perhaps the fact
that we hear no more about the matter could mean that Stephen simply accepted
that his opinion had not been adopted by the Spanish bishops. (Geoffrey D.
Dunn, “Cyprian
of Carthage and the Episcopal Synod of Late 254,” Revue des Études
Augustiniennes 48 [2002]: 241-43, emphasis in bold added)
