Friends, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage from A.D. 249-258, had much to say about the nature of the Church and her episcopate which is faithfully reflected in Anglican theology. There is no proof for the Roman Catholic episcopal model of servitude here, but one of ordered Christian liberty for each bishop. ~~~~~~~~~~~~Sentences of the Bishops (7th Council of Carthage, AD 256)~~~~~~~~~~~~ In LatinIn English Cyprian stands up and, as primate of the west African churches, gives a summary of the Council's solemn decision regarding the baptism of heretics, ending with this: ~~~~~~~~~~~~Letter 71 of Cyprian: to Stephen, bishop of Rome~~~~~~~~~~~~ After speaking on baptism of heretics, and certain moral issues, he says this: ~~~~~~~~~~~~Cyprian Epistle 26: To the Lapsed~~~~~~~~~~~~Cyprian describes the episcopate: ~~~~~~~~~~~~Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church, paragraphs 4-5~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cyprian sets forth the nature of the Christian Church: Here we can see the beauty of early Christian unity.
Unfortunately, a distressing occurrence of Medieval censorship creeps up in the above-quoted De unitate Ecclesiae. Sometime between A.D. 600-900, Benedictine monks wrote their own copies of the original text, inserting many phrases which Cyprian did not write. See Elucidations I and II here. Words in red are added to, or even replace the words of, Cyprian. Such is our sinful pride. Thankfully the infamous "Benedictine edition" is no longer trusted by Roman Catholic or Protestant historians, and of course the Eastern Orthodox never even heard of it.
The purpose is to show that the most prolific early Father had principles that conform exactly to Anglicanism. During the 7th Council of Carthage, Cyprian told his bishops that each has full authority over his own area, and liberty to represent it. There is not one supreme bishop of bishops, with a right to judge them all; each one is strong in Christ, and they are all united in voluntary communion. In Epistle 71, Cyprian says that each prelate has charge over his local churches with free will. This contradicts the claim that the Pope is patriarch or prelate over every bishop in Christendom. In Epistle 26, Cyprian tells us that the promise made by Christ to Peter was fulfilled in every bishop in the world. Each has equal power, liberty, and authority in Christ. Every major action of the Church comes from bishops in councils, not from an infallible head or small group of bishops at the top. In The Unity of the Church, Cyprian says that all bishops have equal power and authority with those descended from St. Peter. The foundation of the Church is our faith, and the leaders are the bishops in plural. Conciliar, proto-Anglican, and Scriptural: that was our good Cyprian.
Ahh perfect! That's clear now. It's really hard to believe in how many ways the Romanist Church had changed the Catholic patrimony of our Fathers. I would argue that we are more Catholic than the Roman Church.
Despite Orthodox and Roman Catholic claims of their unity being unbreakable, the unity of the early church was voluntary. Each bishop had to make the decision to be in a communion, and they were not vile for leaving X communion or Y communion: whether with Antioch, or Constantinople, or Rome. The glory of the individual bishop was the glory of the Church. We can learn from this, in that the Anglican situation with ACNA, TEC, and other churches now, is very much like the early Church. Even in disunity we preserve a certain respectful unity over the dignity of the episcopate! As the Papal system developed, we find manuscripts from Benedictine monasteries in the A.D. 7th-9th centuries that copy Cyprian down. The so-called Benedictine edition of his works is now recognised as having fake interpolations not by Cyprian. For example, in the Unity of the Church paragraph quoted above, here is the Benedictine edition, with red words not present in Cyprian: See Elucidations I and II here.
Interesting information there Do you know if bishops at this time were in charge of one congregation or had it developed so to have oversight over several?
I believe that the span of two hundred years (up to Cyprian's day) had seen the Church develop the "monarchical episcopate", with one bishop overseeing a large city or area with presbyters who helped him. I'll try to find some historical sources! It is a fascinating subject! Now stop being a Presbyterian and come on over!
In the 370s there was an horrible controversy over the legitimate bishop of Antioch. One Meletius and one Paulinus were at odds, contesting for the see. Meletius had been the bishop after the death of the previous, but Paulinus insisted he had been chosen. Letters came from "the West" (meaning Rome, since the Patriarch of the West, as per Nicaea I canon VI, was Rome) telling them to accept Paulinus. St. Basil of Caesarea and many others refused, saying Meletius was the true bishop. Here is letter 214, by Basil to a Count Terentius: No Roman Catholic bishop would dare to say that an order from the Pope to accept a bishop was based on "total ignorance". Basil was a Catholic, episcopal, liberty-loving adherent of the ancient Christian faith. Here is letter 239, by Basil to a fellow bishop called Eusebius, in Samosata, regarding a controversy in 376 over the installation of a cleric called Dorotheus: Basil would have known that the prelate of the West was Rome, which, as prelate, would have had jurisdiction over "Westerns" and their important ecclesiastical decisions. Basil says the Westerns are being arrogant in trying to influence yet another matter of a clergyman. He even says, here, that he should've liked to tell the Coryphaeus of the Westerns (the "leader of the choir"; i.e. Rome) that they're ignorant of the situation out East, and should stop being such busybodies. Basil clearly recognised a non-Roman episcopal liberty, with the many bishops of a given province united under their assigned prelate, not under the universal headship of one bishop (other than Christ).
I recommend reading this book by an Anglican theologian at the turn of the 20th century. http://archive.org/details/primitivesaintss00pull
The pages 49-95 fully explain how Saint Cyprian viewed the episcopacy and how he conflicted with the bishop of Rome.The whole book in general challenges the thesis of the pyramidal organization of the early Church defended by Roman theologians. I found this book on an Orthodox forum. I give you back what lawfully belongs to you.
Whilst I have no truck with the words of Cyprian here, I find it hard to credit the idea that his ideas are reflected in Anglican polity. Where are the Bishops who are all of one mind? Where in the church do we find obedience to bishops as doctrinal authorites? It seems clear to me from the treatise of Unity that it is not a programme for Bishops to do as they see fit, for they are restrained by the collegiality with the other bishops, with whom they are meant to share the same opinions in matters of the faith because it is universal truth: So I seriously doubt that Cyprian would've been much of a supporter of the Anglican genesis- schism for the sake of a divorce is hardly the model of episcopal unity, or the aftermath, this plethora of opinions with many Dioceses at the mercy of the wealthy churches who distrust their bishop. There is too much of an idea of a Bishop of holding merely an administrative and not a sacramental and teaching authority over the church in the Anglican church to be a reflective model of Cyprian's ideal. If we were following Cyprian's model, we would not have to contend with the puzzled questions of our Roman and Orthodox colleagues about exactly where authority lies in the Church. Indeed, in the maintaining of the unity of opinion, clearly Rome and the East do a far better job than we do. I would contend that ACNA and the TEC reflects Cyprian's ideal either- On the Unity is written against Novatian of course who was not a heretic but broke over a matter of Church Order, and what's more it's because he was more rigorous, more traditional than Cyprian, and forces Cyprian to write or again We should also remember that despite the equal authority of the Bishops, Peter is still given the keys first because he represents, as the single person, the unity of the Church. When we're out of communion with Rome, I think Cyprian challenges us quite severely, we hold much of the faith in common with the other churches, how can we say we are sincerely following Christ unless we are making active efforts to reconcile the differences? When you are out of touch with fellows Bishops and not united with them, how are you reflecting Cyprian or even the gospel? I think there are some here who have little interest in reconciling themselves with their brothers and sisters and would rather blast the horns and raise the banners hardly the spirit of being the humble servant of all, or the models of Cyprianic unity.
Patrick Sticks, perhaps Cyprianic unity is meant as an ideal for Anglicanism rather than as a present reality. Citing disunity with Rome against our Cyprianic values isn't very fair, since schism rests with all rash policies that cut off from the Church throughout the ages. Where in the Roman or Eastern churches do we find all bishops of one mind? The Non-Chalcedonians deny the 4th Council, and we do not. Vatican 1 contradicts Ephesus' directives about jurisdiction. What of that? Christianity has always had splits from day one. Must we paint Anglicanism as particularly unfaithful? The high-tide of Anglican unity (1560-1600? 1660-1740?) conformed to Cyprian's ideals. A few non-Jurors and Jacobites were around, but remember that St. Cyprian himself split with Bishop Stephen of Rome on the re-baptism of heretics. Unity of the bishops is not unity in theology, sadly. Nevertheless, let His will be be done. Thanks for your thoughts, Patrick. Praise the Lord.
Brother in Christ, may I make two points about this? 1. The 1533 separation was due to the efforts of HM Henry VIII to procure divorce, but when the Church of England was reunited to Rome all the "ecclesiastical sins" were forgiven. Rome did not treat the C. of E. as a "new" Church, but as a Church that had existed, committed sin by schism, and was reconciled in 1554 as the same local body of Christ. Whatever the vagaries of the 1533-1554 Anglican church, its anti-Papal stance ceased to exist on Mary's accession, and thus the "Divorce Church" ceased to exist. The Anglican Church as reconstituted in 1560 by HM Elizabeth I had nothing to do with divorce. 2. Anglican priests and bishops opposed divorce up through the 1930s, when Cosmo Lang demanded the Monarch to abdicate in the scandal of the latter's divorce. All this is unimportant to the question of our polity, so it's best to get the issue out of the way. Praise the Lord. God bless you.
In truth I had not thought of it like that, but I think we can agree that Henry's past did affect Elizabeth's present to some extent. Though I wonder what some here would make of the use of the word of Rome as having authority over the english church at this time to drive a wedge between Henry and Elizabeth! Yes, but the point is they no longer do (and I think Cosmo Lang was quite scandalous in what he did, but regardless...) and what I'm criticising is a tendency, inherent in most of us I think to assume an abstract, idealized 'Anglicanism' from its texts...but at some point we do have to come face to face with the reality. So just as Divorce has no biblical justifiction, so do many see Bishops merely as managers. And I mean, if as Christians we cannot face our Church as it really is, and try to move beyond our own self-constructed ideas and comforting illusions looking at the 'should be' rather than the 'is' are we not failing in our faith? Its a severe problem and I know that it's a pitfall I often fall into in trying to articulate a coherent faith position- too coherent and it probably is not dealing with the messiness and paradoxes of real life. But it is, certainly, a side issue.