St Cyprian wrote, "Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her" (Cant. 9:6). (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

To really delve into St Cyprian and His view of the Church and Peter check out the following, here the 7th Council of Carthage is discussed:
http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/...terComplete.doc

St Cyprian at the local Carthage Council (not an ecumenical Council), “You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently determined, that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the Church. Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, 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.”

You have to interpret what he is saying with the other quotes he has made. For example, read how St. Augustine interpreted what St. Cyprian had said.

First, notice he translates St Cyprian's words verbatim, “For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:426) but does not make an effort to discount St Cyprian. Stephen Ray notes,"In fact, earlier in the same book, St. Augustine sets the stage to show how Peter and Cyprian both worked to preserve the unity, while the Donatists brought about schism." St. Augustine writes of Peter and Cyprian, “The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus? ‘For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come’. [The statement of Cyprian does not deny a primacy; rather, it affirms the primacy. It shows the great humility of Peter in that even though he had the great primacy, he was still humble when shown when and how he was wrong in his practice. Cyprian’s challenge was for Pope Stephen to have the same humility in his primacy that Peter had shown in his primacy.] I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship [in his see, as stated in the next sentence] is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom” (NPNF first series, 4:425, 426).

Perhaps Stephen Ray can explain further. He asks, “Notice the little preposition “us”. Who does the “us” refer to? The African bishops! Cyprian does not say “no one is Bishop of Bishops” but “none of us African bishops claim to be a bishop of bishops”. This is quite a different thing from the slanted implications drawn by Protestants using a translation that suits his purpose. This statement of Cyprian does imply a rebuke indirectly directed at Pope Stephen, but it is certainly not the outright denial of authoritative office that some imply…Finally, just in the form of intelligent speculation, is it not possible that by saying, “no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops,” Cyprian’s back-handed reference to Stephen may be directed toward Cyprian’s own, metropolitan authority, as opposed to that of the Pope. Basically, Pope Stephen had pronounced sentence on heretical Baptism, not only for his own see, but (as metropolitan of Italy) for all the other sees around him, as well as those of the entire Catholic Church. Yet, what Cyprian can be saying is that “no one among us here in Africa does this. Rather, we let our individual bishops decide on their own. We don’t force them. And, here am I, as the metropolitan of all African and Numidia, with power and authority over all the African sees, saying this. So, if I do not force the bishops under me to do things within their sees, why should anyone force us to do things from Rome?”

Now in light of what Eusebius, St Optatus and St Augustine all said...this to me makes the most sense. I do not think St Cyprian would have desired to appear so hypocritical and contradictory. His opposition to a discipline of the Church was one thing- and certainly understood since he guarding such things as the Sacrament of Baptism- but his discounting a Papacy that he so often praised is quiet another. That is why I simply can not believe he did. Agree?

The Anglican historian Edward Giles comments: "Cyprian is clearer than Origen about the meaning of our Lord's words to Peter (Matt 16:18). To him the rock is Peter, and our Lord built his Church on Peter. He says this so often that no one doubts that it is his view. Cyprian also claims that this text gives the bishops their authority, for the Church is settled upon them....Disputes on this version [of De Unitate 4] have therefore turned on the question whether in Cyprian's view the primacy of Peter was a permanent factor in the Church or not. On the one hand it is suggested that 'Peter is not the real ground, not the cause nor the centre, but only the starting point in time, and the means of recognition of Church unity' [quoting Hugo Koch]....Against this view Dom Chapman stresses the words 'Upon one he builds the Church.' That one is Peter; Peter is the rock, and the idea of a temporary rock is absurd. There is no mention of priority in time in Epistles 33 and 43, and from these letters it seems clear to Chapman that Cyprian means Peter, like the bishop to be 'a permanent not a transient guarantee of the unity of the edifice which rises upon a single rock.''" (Giles, page 49, 52)

Ken, good discussion questions! I know this will be moved to another forum and hope we can continue the dialogue. It's important, this is the cruical doctrinal issue seperating East and West.

"On the Unity of the Church" Jurgens point as well as other patristic scholars (at least the ones I've read) do not interpret the first version of Cyprian's letter as an endorsement of papal primacy. At best due to the second longer version being written it shows Cyprians reluctance to give jurisdiction to Rome. Your use of the first version and the absence of the term "primacy" in the second version gives and incomplete understanding. Remember papal primacy is a developed doctrine. We do not see a modern concept of the papcy here.

Ok, Ken I'm not certain how this is even the issue. It was the doctrinal setting for the synods. Of course Stephen won the arguement. Why did he win is the issue? It was not because he was the bishop of Rome and Cyprian were under his authority. Papal authority did not exist then as we understand it today. Stephen won because he appealed to Tradition, and he was right. I quote:
"He [Stephen] forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is judged the baptism fo all heretics to be just and lawful, and although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he were an innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church one baptism; and not manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts the lies and the contagion of a profane immersion. Let nothing be innovated, says he, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition?" (Cyprian, Epist. 74, 2 ANF).
The answer here is evident. Stephen is not giving is own opinion, but citing an tradition of the Roman chruch as desisive of the issue. He warns Cyprian against making changes to the tradition.
Eusebius understood the letter the same way: I quote Eusebius. "Cyprian, pastor of the commuinity of Carthage, was the first of those of his day to consider that they [the heretics] ought not to be admitted othewise than by having been first cleansed from their error. by baptism. But Stephen, thinking that they ought not to make any innovation contrary to the tradition tha had prevailed from the beginning, was full of indignation thereat (Hist. eccl. 7,3,I LCL).
This is an important distiction made. Stephens' authority was in his appeal to the "tradition," not personal authority.

Stephen "agreed with Cyprian?" On what?

Yes, I have addressed this above. Stephen appealed to Roman tradition and was correct. In Carthage (possibly all of northern Africa) there was an opposing tradition, see Tertullian's De baptismo. This African view was sanctioned by a great council of African and Numidian bishops called by Agrippinus about 220AD. this is what was being reaffimed with Cyprian as president by THREE synods of Carthage in A.D. 255 and 256. Stephen was bishop of Rome (254-256) he died for the faith. The three synods were not ecumnical councils. Only the emporer could convey such councils and that some years after this. Last, a bit of trivia. The title "pope" does not appear till the fourth century intially it was used for a number of individual bishops including the bishop of Alexandria. It was not until the fifth century that it was used exclusively for the bishop of Rome.

I belive I have answered this. The historical context shows the synods convened were in oppositon to the Roman Church. This was a battle between two conflicting church traditions. What is signiifcant was the tradition of the Roman Church stood as the tradition that the African churchs accepted. Not because of Stephens authority alone. This is an important distinction, but becuase Rome was the burial place of Peter and Paul and the depository (for the West) of apostolic teaching. This is what gave "authority" to Stephen. Remeber the doctrine of papal primacy is a 'developed doctrine." The East says a "created doctrine." This was seen as a step toward the primacy of the Roman church which is necassary for the developement of the primacy of the Roman bishop.
Blessings

St. Pope Stephen was acting in the Magisterium, not personal opinion. Too often we have pitted St Augustine, St Stephen and St Cyprian against each other by interjecting our 21st century into the 2nd century. The Magisterium has been in place since the beginning. They are all arguing for it from different locales. Here is the definition of Magisterium:

1. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith -- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals ...
2. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s sucessor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith. This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. (CCC 891)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Do you disagree?

They agreed on the following:

CHURCH UNITY
About the time of the opening of the council of Carthage (251), two letters arrived from Rome. One of these, announcing the election of a pope, St. Cornelius, was read by Cyprian to the assembly; the other contained such violent and improbable accusations against the new pope that he thought it better to pass it over. But two bishops, Caldonius and Fortunatus, were dispatched to Rome for further information, and the whole council was to await their return-such was the importance of a papal election. Meantime another message arrived with the news that Novatian, the most eminent among the Roman clergy, had been made pope. Happily two African prelates, Pompeius and Stephanus, who had been present at the election of Cornelius, arrived also, and were able to testify that he had been validly set "in the place of Peter", when as yet there was no other claimant. It was thus possible to reply to the recrimination of Novatian's envoys, and a short letter was sent to Rome, explaining the discussion which had taken place in the council. Soon afterwards came the report of Caldonius and Fortunatus together with a letter from Cornelius, in which the latter complained somewhat of the delay in recognizing him. Cyprian wrote to Cornelius explaining his prudent conduct. He added a letter to the confessors who were the main support of the antipope, leaving it to Cornelius whether it should be delivered or no. He sent also copies of his two treatises, "De Unitate" and "De Lapsis" (this had been composed by him immediately after the other), and he wishes the confessors to read these in order that they may understand what a fearful thing is schism. It is in this copy of the "De Unitate" that Cyprian appears most probably to have added in the margin an alternative version of the fourth chapter. The original passage, as found in most manuscripts and as printed in Hartel's edition, runs thus:
If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?
The substituted passage is as follows:
. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?
These alternative versions are given one after the other in the chief family of manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one which has been printed in many editions, and has played a large part in controversy with Protestants. It is of course spurious in this conflated form, but the alternative form given above is not only found in eighth- and ninth-century manuscripts, but it is quoted by Venerable Bede, by Gregory the Great (in a letter written for his predecessor Pelagius II), and by St. Gelasius; indeed, it was almost certainly known to St. Jerome and St. Optatus in the fourth century. The evidence of the manuscripts would indicate an equally early date. Every expression and thought in the passage can be paralleled from St. Cyprian's habitual language, and it seems to be now generally admitted that this alternative passage is an alteration made by the author himself when forwarding his work to the Roman confessors. The "one chair" is always in Cyprian the episcopal chair, and Cyprian has been careful to emphasize this point, and to add a reference to the other great Petrine text, the Charge in John, xxi. The assertion of the equality of the Apostles as Apostles remains, and the omissions are only for the sake of brevity. The old contention that it is a Roman forgery is at all events quite out of the question. Another passage is also altered in all the same manuscripts which contain the "interpolation"; it is a paragraph in which the humble and pious conduct of the lapsed "on this hand (hic) is contrasted in a long succession of parallels with the pride and wickedness of the schismatics "on that hand" (illic), but in the delicate manner of the treatise the latter are only referred to in a general way. In the "interpolated" manuscripts we find that the lapsed, whose caused had now been settled by the council, are "on that hand" (illic), whereas the reference to the schismatics -- meaning the Roman confessors who were supporting Novatian, and to whom the book was being sent -- are made as pointed as possible, being brought into the foreground by the repeated hic, "on this hand".

As a member of the CEC and loosely affiliated with an Anglican society called Society of the Good Shepherd, I had attributed- along with the Bishops of the CEC-to St. Cyprian the argument that what Christ said to Peter was really meant for all, in order to give a type or picture of unity. There is an element of truth here but the greater truth is that Christ chose one to be the first bishop and to have the final say, as long as it lined up with Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils. There is no denying this is what St Cyprian believed and practiced. But he believed the Ecumenical Councils had the same infallible authority as the Pope as long as both were aligned with Tradition. It is not either/ or but it is both/ and. You can not have a dogma via an Ecumenical Council without a Pope but you can have dogma via a Pope speaking ex cathedra. However in this example with Cyprian, the issue was one of discipline not dogma.

Finally, I read all his quotes and those of Eusebius, St Stephen, St Firmilian, St Optatus and St Augustine and finally concluded I was arguing apples versus oranges. There was no argument from Cyprian in 251 and Cyprian in 255. There was no argument among the Fathers over the Chair of Cephas. In fact, they all were talking collectively about the Magisterium.

"They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering." (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm

This is exactly what the CEC has done...scattered rather than converged.

Thanks for the trivia. Did it have anything to do with the use of Latin over Greek?

Perhaps not Pope but Tertullian called him Supreme Pontiff in the year 220.

When Tertullian became a Montanist, he quit believing in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the primacy of Peter's See and lashed out at the successor of Peter, St Callistus, because he was forgiving adulterers and fornicators (Thank God!), "In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The 'Pontifex Maximus,' that is the 'bishop of bishops,' issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' (On Modesty 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers IV:74)

The understanding of the Papacy is certainly a development but I am not sure it can be defined as doctrine? Where is it a developed doctrine? Please illustrate, I sincerely mean that as a question?

You said, "This is an important distinction, but because Rome was the burial place of Peter and Paul and the depository (for the West) of apostolic teaching." But there is no such distinction and it is not really even so today. There are Catholics- be it East or West, North or South. The Chair of Peter was the depository for all.

Earlier I stated...

You assented to it with the following quote...

Perhaps we agree?

Agreed!

St. Pope Stephen was acting in the Magisterium, not personal opinion. Too often we have pitted St Augustine, St Stephen and St Cyprian against each other by interjecting our 21st century into the 2nd century. The Magisterium has been in place since the beginning. They are all arguing for it from different locales.

Ken: Maybe there is a misunderstanding? Where did I say Stephen was citing a "personal opinion." The quote below states, "Stephen is not giving is own opinion, but citing an tradition of the Roman church.

"The answer here is evident. Stephen is not giving is own opinion, but citing an tradition of the Roman chruch as desisive of the issue. He warns Cyprian against making changes to the tradition."

As regards the Magisterium and your definition you write:
1. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith -- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals ...
2. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s sucessor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith. This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. (CCC 891)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Do you disagree? If you mean that before the time of Cyprian a "magisterium" was in existence as this defintion describes, I disagree. However, if you mean the term "magisterium" was used by the time of Cyprian, I agree. If you mean that Jesus gave a "mandate for his apostles to teach and bishops are the benefactors of that mandate, I agree.

The word "magisterium in classical Latin meant the role and authority of one who was a "master" of any number of skills, (ie. such as "master" of a ship). Up to the Middle Ages it was used of various excercises of authority in the church. Thomas Aquinas is witness to a distinction in the words usage. The traditional symbol of teaching authority was the chair. Aqunias would speak of two kinds of "magisterium." The "magisterium cathedrae pastoralis" (the pastoral chair of the bishop) and "magisterium cathedrae magistralis" (the professional chair of the university theologian). In the time of Cyprian the word "magisterium was used for "what was taught. It was only in the 1820's among German canonists, the the word "magisterium took on its contemporary meaning, namely, of the heirarchical body which has the authority to teach. Beginning in 1835 the word first entered papal documents with that meaning. In the time of Stephen and Cyrprian the authority which led to a teaching being accepted as came from in two ways 1. the truth of the statement 2. and this is most important, its objective conformity with the apostolic faith which was (paradosis, that which I recieved, I hand on). By the time of Leo the Great it was not what wsa handed on that was important, but the one who said it , "Rome has spoken."
In Vat. I word conveys a sense of office and the activity of teaching. Also a distinction is made between soemn judgement, and the ordinary and universal magisterium. Piu XII and later Paul VI use the word to signify a hierarchical activity of teaching and the group of pastors who are responsible for the teaching. As you can see there is a definite development of usage from the time of Cyprian and Stephen to modern usage.
Blessings, Ken. I've enjoyed our discusssion. I'll be gone for awhile. I'll try to answer your other questions when I get available again. I've read some of your others questions, there good!

You didn't. I was just saying it for clarification.

Likewise. Godspeed on your journey. If you are in San Antonio please call. I look forward to your return. Oremus!

Interesting. Could you not agree that it existed without being called such? Example, the Trinity certainly existed before it was called such. Earlier you mentioned the Magisterium is developing, would it be fair to discount it just because it hadn't been developed in the first century as clearly as it is in the 21st century?

When I read the following as a Protestant minister- a soon to be CEC priest- can you imagine it not affecting my ministry? As I read St Cyprian in 1999, I clearly saw the Supreme Pontiff that Tertullian assailed the Pope as being in 220. Cyprian sounds like he was talking to the leaders of the Convergence Movement, and the CEC specifically:

"They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering." (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)

The CEC is promising peace when they do not have it. Offering swimming lessons when they themselves are drowning. Based on what they had told me, I was preaching that God wants to unite the Church- be it Evangelical, Pentecostal and Catholic but I ended up splitting my non-denominational church to become a "communion" church. We were gathering outside the Chair of Peter, setting up a new altar and priesthood, promising a union of denominations only to be SCATTERING. St Cyprian must have been a prophet.

There is no denying this is what St Cyprian believed and practiced. But he believed the Ecumenical Councils had the same infallible authority as the Pope as long as both were aligned with Tradition.

Hello Ken, good research, however there is so much here that needs to be addressed I'm not sure where to begin. So please forgive me if I come at this in pieces.

If I may let me pick up on Cyprian's letter where you ended. I will start with the Song of Songs part.

"My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreober the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and stes for the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, on hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"
And this unity we ought firmly to hold and asset, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, tha we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church is also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light . . . .Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated." (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, 422-423).

Since this particualr forum (I believe is on East -West relations) let me give you the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Cyprian in this passage cited above.

"For Cyprian of Carthage, each bishop in his church and all the bishops together, in "solidum," sit on the Chair of Peter (Cathedra Petri). In a celebrated passage from his treatise, The Unity of the Catholic Church (and here it does not matter that of the two version of this text one mentions the primacy of Rome) Cyprian affirms that the words of Jesus in Matthew 16 instituted the entire episcopacy. Through Peter, who speaks in the name of all the disciples, Jesus confers on all the "cathedra," the episcopal minsitry. "He gives to all the apostles an equal power." Roman primacy, mentioned in one of the two versions, fids its place in the context of this episcopal collegiality; by not means does it place the bishop of Rome outside the common episcopacy, which cyprian understand as a whole, and of which each bishop hold a portion. If, therefore, in each apostle there is Peter, each bishop, by virtue of his apostolic mission, is a successor of Peter." ( You Are Peter, by Olivier Clement, 26-27). You are probablyfamiliar with this book. Clement is an Orthodox theologian wo teaches at St. Sergius in Paris.
What is probably not widely known is the reason for writing the book the above citation is taken from. In the encyclical "Ut unum sint," JPII called for common reflection on the fucntion of papal primacy in the post-Vatican II era. Clement is responding to JPII's request in this book. Avery Cardinal Dulles has praised this book for its "cordial and open mentality."
I drew on Clement's book in order to allow you to see that Rome acknowledges (I didn't say accepted) an interpretation of Cyprian that understands "primacy" in a different way.
Unlike apologetics, in which a person always takes the extreme defensive postion and responds in an aggressive manner to protect the faith; ecumenical dialgoue is done by theologians not apologists. One has to acknowledge, when the scholarship warrants, the validity of the others viewpoint. This is what makes ecumenical dialogue so hard. Whose interpretation not only of scripture, patristics, and history itself is absolutely correct (I am speaking now of the historic churchs only). I personally agree with the Orthodox patristic scholarship on Cyprian.

Ken:
I hope I have answered this point. If not let me know. I'm getting to be an old man, not ancient but old, so forgive me my lapses.
There is no dispute between us on the "primacy" of Peter. Its over what the term of "primacy" meant in Scripture and the Fathers. That is the issue.
Blessings

But he believed the Ecumenical Councils had the same infallible authority as the Pope as long as both were aligned with Tradition.

Ken I believe you mean "synod" (Gk. synodos= assembly). It is a synonym for council. However, it is an assembly of the bishops of a regional churches who exercise their ministry of goverenance collegially. The authority of a synod is limited to the region the bishops represent. Until the ecumenical council ( a council convened not by any bishop, including the bishop of Rome who did not have the authority to call an ecuemenical council) was convenened by the emporer.
The western synods did send a record of there meetings to the bishop of Rome has a sign of honor, and respect for the church of Rome. At this time in the history of the church their was not universal infallible authority, which is why an later an ecumenical council had to be convened to deal with the Arian heresy. Everything up to that time was dealt with by synods at the regional level. This is why there where areas of the church where one bishop was teaching heresy and in another the bishop was orthodox. Thus, the beginning of lits circulated amongst the orthodox bishops to ensure they could send there people to an catholic/ orthodox church. Those lists were the beginning of "episcopal lineage" that is so important today.
Blessings

Ken: Please forgive me! I have responded to some of your earlier posts seeing this post I now see that some of what I wrote was unnecassary. Sorry.




Perhaps not Pope but Tertullian called him Supreme Pontiff in the year 220.

When Tertullian became a Montanist, he quit believing in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the primacy of Peter's See and lashed out at the successor of Peter, St Callistus, because he was forgiving adulterers and fornicators (Thank God!), AMEN TO THAT!




The understanding of the Papacy is certainly a development but I am not sure it can be defined as doctrine? Where is it a developed doctrine? Please illustrate, I sincerely mean that as a question?

My response: Thank you, a great question! I'll try to give you the best solid Roman Catholic answer I can, here goes.
In Roman Catholic theology a "doctrine" is a non-infallible teaching, it has not been taught definitively. If it is a "definitive" or "infallible teaching" then it is called "dogma. Every "dogma" is a doctrine not every doctirne is a dogma. A very good example of this is "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" by John Henry Cardinal Newman. Also "History and Dogma" by Maurice Blondle.
Development is clearly instanced in the area of Christology, the whole area of sacramental theology, the Marian dogma's, and our topic the papacy. Now to the heart of your question.
Vatican I made a "dogmatic (definitely taught doctrine) about papal infallablitiy. The document on the papcy was entitled "Pastor aeternus." I will hightlight the text, chp. 1 and canons asserted that a true and proper jusristiction was conferred on peter. Chp 2 taught under anathem that Peter was by divine institution (iure divino) to have perpetual succesors in the primacy' the pope is the successor of Peter in that primacy. Chp.3 Very leagal language. It evokes the Council of Florence which had reached a temporary agreement on the primacy with the East, full power over the universal church (of course this was never "recieved" (reception again) by the Eastern church). The "episcopal" power of the pope is carefully outlined. The notion of the pope's"epicopal power" outlined here taken with the "ordinary and immediate power" attributed to Leo and was common in the 12th century on clearly exclude the pope ever being considered the first among equals. The fourth chp. deals with infallablity of the pope. ALL this language is "doctrinal."
It is this "doctrinal development" that hampers ecumenical dialogue. Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote and article several years ago called, "Paths to Doctrinal Agreement: Ten Thesis. It suggests that unity need not necessarily wait on agreement on all points of doctirne. Roman Catholic theologians are testing the "doctrine of papal primacy" to see what elements may be seen as a permanent gift to the church and which might be seen as "time-conditioned." So-far no resolution has been found.


You said, "This is an important distinction, but because Rome was the burial place of Peter and Paul and the depository (for the West) of apostolic teaching." But there is no such distinction and it is not really even so today. There are Catholics- be it East or West, North or South. The Chair of Peter was the depository for all.

Historically in the ancient church there was such distinctions. May I suggest a solid Catholic book for your study. It is "Papal Primacy, From its Origins to the Present" by Klaus Schatz S.J. He recieved is doctorate from Rome's gregorian University. He teaches at St. Georgen Scholl of Philosphy and Theolgy in Frankfurt. Many of you questions will be answered by a good historical review of the development of the papcy. The "chair of Peter" was not present in the early church as you understand it. The primacy of the papcy was a historical development. Roman Catholics understand this as a "divine development" others do not, ie. the East.



Earlier I stated...

You assented to it with the following quote...

Perhaps we agree?

Please read what I wrote on the Magisterium in one of your other posts. If magisterium is understood as the "that which the apostles taugth and handed on" (which in the early church carried the greatest authority, yes, I agree.

Agreed!

Thanks for the trivia. Did it have anything to do with the use of Latin over Greek?

Good observation! But acutally in the first three centuries, even in Rome, we know from archeology that the liturgy was in Greek(the language of commerce in the empire) after the third century Latin became the dominant language. By the time of Augustine Greek was losing ground. Augustine couldn't read Greek! In fact if you read the letters of Jerome, he "jumped on his case" for not learning Greek. This accounts for certain "doctrinal differences" in Augustine and the East. Eventually, by the time of Charlamange most scholars of the West could not read Greek and most scholars of theEast could not read Latin. A serious reason for the breakdown between the two, they had a difficult time communicating with each other. The seventh council is a good example of this.

Well Ken, as I said earlier I'll be gone awhile. I'll look in when I can. If you will allow me, please take your gift for study, zeal and love for the chuch and if possible attend a good Catholic graduate school. The people of God are hungry and need to be fed. The church needs men who will study then freely give to the sheep with love. Your desire is evident, Blessings.

Dear Guest,
Advice taken, "Thank you!" I must endure one more semester with ORU and then I am headed to the University of Incarnate Word for my graduate degree, God willing. I do want to stay local. I may be disappointed by a lack of fervor but we must light a candle rather than curse the darkness. As I told a friend today, "I didn't come into the Catholic Church because they excited me. I entered because of obedience and for my family's sake. Happiness is the reward of the Second Advent, my blessed hope."

Enjoying the journey as well as the destination,
Ken Follis

There is just one pestering question about all this. Since the Chair of Peter is not viewed by Catholics exactly the same by the Orthodox and Protestants, is the distinction by the latter really a big enough reason to discount that the Holy Spirit really did intend for this development and the Catholics are right? Is the distinction enough to justify 22,000 denominations or even just a few say, the CEEC, ICCEC, ICAN or EO?

I am just not convinced that the distinction is enough to discount the Catholic Church. I think of the tapestry of Catholic Church. I think of one edifice. I think of one Body with many members. The Satanic- swayed world is looking at the visible Church and wondering why should I join such a divided group. The corner bar displays more unity than most churches. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know you are My disciples, by your love for one another." Isn't love the perfect bond of unity? When will the Protestants ever forgive the Catholic Church? Protestants keep looking for a reason to not submit.

Any Catholics care to comment as well?

Guest,
Please clarify where you are talking and where you are quoting Ken. It is confusing. Please?

I think you should know:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/NewQ_Anew.html

http://examiningtheiccec.blogspot.com/

There is an unofficial "to-the"topic" ICCEC forum http://thejourney.invisionzone.com/

All are welcome to post.

Thank you for the post Mr. CEC Forum. We welcome a CEC led forum discussing the issues. As you know we stumbled upon the whole CEC topic by accident really. While we welcome our CEC brothers and sisters here (and open our forums to discussing the CEC), we also welcome a CEC led forum. God bless you in your endeavors.