St. Cyprian Silences Rome

Cyprian of Carthage is sometimes considered a controversial figure in realms of the online-Christian-debate-sphere, however examining his works his statements are quite clear. Propped up as papal evidence by many, the irony is lost that he was in staunch opposition to Rome during the 200’s in which he lived. From forgeries, to outright ignorance, I seek to explore the Roman Catholic claims of St. Cyprian in depth alongside his testimony that the practices of the first millennium church are Orthodox and not Roman Catholic. May God bless and illumine these words in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

To begin, St. Cyprian of Carthage did hold Rome in high regard in the sense of the usual argument between Orthodox & Catholics, as a first among equals of primacy; not as a supremacy of first with no equals. Its historical pedigree did not give way to justifying a universal governance as Roman Catholics conflate today.

“There is no doubt that "Cyprian held the church of Rome in high regard. It was the source of ecclesial unity because of its unique distinction of having been the church in which Peter ministered and died, but this did not mean that it ruled over other churches, certainly not those outside its prouincia." There was a "preeminence" based on this historical connection to Peter, "however [this] did not give Rome jurisdiction or authority over other churches, only an enhanced prestige and influence." (1).

Johannes Quastan, a respected Roman Catholic scholar, openly admits this as well regarding St. Cyprian. “However, even in this letter 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' (Ep. 59, 14)... If he refuses to the bishop of Rome any higher power to maintain by legislation the solidary of which he is the centre, it must be because he regards the primacy as one of honor and the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares.” (2).

Despite some Roman Catholic scholars admitting St. Cyprian held to the Orthodox position, such as Michael Winter, Robert Eno, Johannes Quastan, and William Jurgens; they still attempt to depict him as believing in papal prerogatives by using two main quotes as evidence.

Roman Catholic Forgery of St. Cyprian

Despite the evidence to the contrary, Roman Catholics (see Cameron Riecker’s thread on X) will still cite this first quote by St. Cyprian saying he undoubtedly believed in papal supremacy. “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Epistle 59:14).”

The problems are firstly it’s a forgery, a fake quote, you cannot find this in Epistle 59 of St. Cyprian, nor in Epistle 55 which it is sometimes attributed to. It is believed Karl Keating in 1988 began circulation of this fake quote. The actual reading of the section is, “to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” (3).

Notice the actual quote says “the Romans” as in the Roman Christians as a whole plural, cannot succumb to faithlessness, not that a pope singular could never be faithless. The Roman Christian’s do not accept heretics among them, as of that time Rome was Orthodox and the Church was unified. It does not say that Rome could never teach error as the forgery wants to enforce. Pop Catholic apologists will jump on the words “chief church” saying “see! Rome first, that means above.” completely ignoring the entire issue of primacy against supremacy. These arguments will be ignored for being fruitless and out of touch.

Secondly, even pretending it’s a real quote for argument sake, St. Cyprian had no qualms about potentially breaking communion with Rome over interference in his jurisdiction as I’ll show here shortly in this article, if he truly believed Rome could not err and communion with the See was essential he would not have been willing to  break communion with the Pope. It proposes a contradiction for the Roman Catholic Church they cannot reconcile.

Thirdly, the forgery states “whither” meaning TO where, not FROM where. “To where no errors can come” means something much different than “from where no errors can come.” Many times Roman Catholics on X will just spam church father quotes assuming they have the right interpretation the same way Protestants do with Holy Scripture.

Seasoned Roman Catholics, no longer cite that quote but now cite this second one in attempt to position St. Cyprian as believing in the papal claims, “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

The source of this quote is from ‘On the Unity of the Church,’ which elsewhere in this very same work St. Cyprian says the following that Roman Catholics avoid citing, “Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor 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…” (4) and again, “On one man he builds his Church and although he assigns to all the apostles after the resurrection equal power... nevertheless in order that he might reveal their unity, he ordained by his own authority that the source of that same unity should begin from the one who began the series.” (5).

Citing one portion out of context without the rest of the work does not accurately summarize St. Cyprian’s position. Clearly he believes there is equal honor and power of all the apostles, not just St. Peter. So what is the unity of Peter in the original quote? It is the episcopate, the office of the bishop of whom St. Peter’s faith is the prototype. The unity “begins from” St. Peter, which is primacy. There is no contention here. However interjecting authority over other bishops contradicts St. Cyprian’s statements to justify innovation of Catholic teachings on the role of the Papacy.

Repeatedly, the quote again presupposes the Roman Catholic understanding is true regarding it. “If he should desert the chair of Peter,” again contextually every bishop is a successor of St. Peter of which St. Cyprian himself considered himself a successor of. Contrary to the Roman claims, St. Cyprian considers all bishops to have equal power including himself with equal power as the bishop of Carthage against the bishop of Rome.

Robert Eno, another Roman Catholic historian, gives the same explanation regarding St. Cyprian. “Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root.’ Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root.” (6).

St. Cyprian Silences Rome

St. Cyprian applies the Petrine type to himself as the Orthodox Faith has always upheld, every bishop is the successor of Peter, not just one. In that sense, the Orthodox can conversely say that Rome only has one actual active bishop in their ecclesiology, the Pope. St. Cyprian says, “so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.” (7).

St. Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage who was on equal ground of authority with the bishop of Rome, as history can easily demonstrate as he advocated against Pope Stephen I. This dynamic between the bishops will show the first millennium Church did not hold the Papacy as universal nor supreme therefore invalidating the present Roman Catholic Church’s claims of being said Church of the first millennium.

In 251AD, the See of Rome struggled over control, both Novatian and Cornelius laid claim to being the bishop of Rome. Pope Cornelius won out, while Novatian remained prominent enough to cause problems with the supporters he had. Novatian believed those Christians who renounced their faith in the face of persecutions should not be allowed to be re-admitted back to the Orthodox Faith; even if they repented.

St. Cornelius died just 2 years later in 253AD. Eventually, Pope Stephen I (also a saint) would take the throne following the short reign of Lucius. Meanwhile, Novatian continued drawing support and baptizing people proclaiming himself the rightful bishop of Rome. This lead to the discussions of if these baptisms performed by Novatian were valid or not. St. Cyprian supported St. Cornelius and St. Stephen against Novatian. However, St. Cyprian and St. Stephen disagreed on whether Novatianist baptisms were considered legitimate. St. Cyprian saying no, St. Stephen saying yes.

I must briefly pause, as Roman Catholics will claim this proves Rome is right because St. Stephen would be remembered as correct on this topic, and St. Cyprian would not. However, St. Stephen is remembered as wrong and St. Cyprian as right on the question of the equal power of the bishop of Rome with other bishops. Both are still saints, both are wrong in different cases. Lest this turn into an even longer article including baptism controversy it will be focused on where St. Cyprian was right. It is also noteworthy to point out that St. Cyprian, St. Stephen and Novatian would all be killed at the hands of Emperor Valerian just a few years later.

Pope Stephen would attempt to enforce this belief to which St. Cyprian objected to Rome having authority in Carthage. St. Stephen is quoted as then calling St. Cyprian “a false Christ, and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.” (8). He then threatened to excommunicate St. Cyprian. A treatise and a council was held in Carthage in 256AD to respond to Pope St. Stephen. The words at this council which St. Cyprian presided over silence the Roman claims of universal jurisdiction, authority, and supremacy.

Carthage 256AD states, “It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of his right of communion, if he differ from us. For no one setteth himself up as a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terror forceth his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying; inasmuch as every Bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein.” (9).

Immediately you notice two things, no one can set themselves up as bishop of bishops as Rome to this day still attempts. And secondly, St. Cyprian and the North African bishops are not advocating for a break in communion. Their intent is to avoid schism, to avoid separating while Pope Stephen I wields division and threatens excommunication despite being self-proclaimed as the source of unity.

It was not only the North African bishops together at the Council of Carthage (256) that repudiated Pope Stephen’s attempt to use authority in another jurisdiction, St. Firmillian, another saint and bishop of Cappadocia did as well. “And herein I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen, that he who boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildethanew many Churches, in that by his authority he maintains baptism among them.” (10).

Rome’s claim to authority once again falls flat studying the first millennium church, as I’ve previously notated even in multiple Ecumenical Councils the other Sees and bishops outright ignore Rome’s decisions or even condemn Popes as heretics such as Honorius. Once again, even before any Ecumenical Councils are held, the other bishops and jurisdictions refuse this universal power of which Rome proclaims itself to wield. The case of St. Cyprian is proof of this, who silences Rome when it tries to usurp itself in Carthage.

Eventually in the 4th and 5th centuries following the Ecumenical Councils, the North African bishops would change their view regarding reception of converts, however their views did not change regarding opposition to any kind of universal jurisdiction or supremacy of Rome. They consistently dismissed Rome’s proposed authority as having no power outside their own jurisdiction. (11).

The successor of Pope St. Stephen, Pope St. Sixtus II, took a more conciliatory and less confrontational approach to the bishops of North Africa which had just sided against Pope Stephen I. He agreed to tolerate the co-existence of the practices to reconvene at a later time when tensions had subsided. Pope St. Sixtus II and St. Cyprian both valued maintaining unity in the face of their disagreements and amidst the widespread persecution happening around them. This reconvention would never come as both St. Sixtus II, and St. Cyprian would be martyred the same year 258AD under Emperor Valerian. Subsequent Ecumenical Councils would later address some of these issues.

St. Cyprian held firm in his territory as bishop of Carthage, despite the hostility of Pope Stephen I, and to which the ensuing Pope would show no opposition to Carthage denying the universal jurisdiction and supremacy of Rome. If this was such a key, essential doctrine of the first millennium church why would Popes relinquish this? And why would they adhere to decisions made by the East all throughout the first millennium if “Rome speaks, the case is closed?” These are obviously rhetorical questions illustrating the point. St. Cyprian of Carthage silenced the papal claims, as did all of the North African bishops of the 200’s, and as does the Holy Orthodox Church still does to this day.

Pray to God for us, holy St. Cyprian!

Sources:

1. Siecienski, Edward. (2017). The Papacy and the Orthodox - Sources & History of a Debate. Oxford University Press.

2. Cleenewerk, Laurent. (2007). His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Independent Publishing.

3. Schaff, Philip. (1885). The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. NOTE: any Catholics thinking I am selectively cherry picking a translation of the quote that I prefer (as they deflect away from the fact that it’s a forgery) can compare Schaff’s citation with ACW or CUA’s translations. Catholic University of America Press.

4. St. Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Church. Chapter 3, p. 133. Christian Literature Publishing Company. Edited by Kevin Knight, New Advent.

5. St. Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Church. Chapters 4-5. Christian Literature Publishing Company. Edited by Kevin Knight, New Advent.

6. Eno, Robert (1990). The Rise of the Papacy. Wilmington: Michael Glazier.

7. St. Cyprian of Carthage. Epistle 26:1. Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. New Advent.

8. Firmillian, Bishop of Caesarea. Epistle 74. Against the Letter of Stephen. 256AD. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. New Advent.

9. Oxford: Parker. (1844). The Epistles of St. Cyprian. The Judgments of Eighty-Seven Bishops in the Council of Carthage on the Question of Baptizing Heretics, p. 286-287.

10. Oxford: Parker. (1844). The Epistles of St. Cyprian, Epistle 74-75.

11. Farley, Fr. Lawrence. (2023). The Papal Claims. OrthoChristian.