Did Pope St. Stephen of Rome Excommunicate St. Cyprian of Carthage?

(From a series of published lectures by the prominent Anglican theologian Fr. Frederick William Puller [+1938], who demonstrated in the first millennium, communion with Rome was not a sine qua non for membership in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church – a good reminder for those who wish to impose similar conditions for Orthodoxy through communion with Constantinople. Link to the complete work below. – Blog Admin.)

 

 

Some Roman Catholic writers have done their best to make out that Pope Stephen, in his dealings with S. Cyprian, never proceeded beyond threats of excommunication, and that no actual rupture took place. It is difficult to understand how such a view could ever have been seriously taken; but it is easy to see that Ultramontanes would naturally shrink from admitting that so illustrious a saint as Cyprian persisted in upholding the opinion concerning baptism which he had inherited from his predecessors, if the retaining of that opinion had resulted in his being separated from the communion of the Roman Church. If S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were really excommunicated, and if they nevertheless refused to alter either the teaching or the practice condemned by Rome, then it is clear that neither of these saints nor their colleagues in Africa and Asia Minor could have considered that communion with the pope was an essential matter. It would follow from this conclusion that their witness would have to be reckoned as adverse to the truth of the Ultramontane theory concerning the papacy. Having thus pointed out the importance of the question, I proceed to discuss it.

I have quoted in my second lecture the clear statements of S. Firmilian on the subject of the excommunication, but it will be worth while to repeat them in this place. Writing to S. Cyprian, after mentioning the fact that there had been in various matters a diversity of practice in the different provinces of the Church, he says, “And yet there has not been on that account at any time any departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. This, Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace with you [Cyprian], which his predecessors ever maintained with you in mutual affection and respect.” [1] And further on in the same letter S. Firmilian apostrophizes Stephen, and says, “How great a sin hast thou heaped up against thyself, when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks! For thou didst cut thyself off. Deceive not thyself. For he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all.” [2] Then he goes into particulars about the way in which Stephen had treated the bishops sent to Rome as envoys or legates by the synod of the North African Church; how Stephen “would not admit them even to the common intercourse of a conference,” and how “he commanded the whole brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house; so that not only peace and communion, but shelter and hospitality, were denied them on their arrival.” [3] Yet in the face of all this, Dr. Rivington says, “There is no evidence that S. Cyprian was ever under excommunication.” [4] It seems incredible that such a statement should be made. Evidence there clearly is, and more of the same kind might have been quoted. Later on Dr. Rivington reveals to us the theory by which he gets rid of the plain evidence of S. Firmilian. He says that, as the sentence, in which the statement concerning S. Cyprian’s excommunication occurs, “contains a most exaggerated account of the situation, we may feel ourselves at liberty to regard this statement also as exaggerated.” [5] Apparently Dr. Rivington bases his accusation of exaggeration on the words in S. Firmilian’s letter to S. Cyprian, in which the holy Bishop of Caesarea, rhetorically addressing Stephen, says, “While thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all.” Concerning this sentence Dr. Rivington says, “Firmilian’s assertion was, indeed, flagrantly false, for it is notorious that Stephen did not stand alone.” [6] Assuredly Dr. Rivington’s comment is a much more serious exaggeration than is the Saint’s very innocent remark. Obviously S. Firmilian writes with the assurance that his correspondent, S. Cyprian, who knew all the facts, would interpret his words in a reasonable way. By the words “omnes” and “omnibus” S. Firmilian does not mean all the churches of Christendom, but all those many flocks (tot greges), probably a majority of all the Catholic churches then in existence, [7] which had been excommunicated by Stephen. From all these flocks Stephen had cut himself off by an excommunication, which was apparently not the outcome of a synod, but his own personal act. We have no reason to suppose that any other bishops had approved his proceeding or had made themselves parties to it. We know that S. Denys of Alexandria, who agreed with him in regard to the main point in dispute, strongly disapproved of his harsh method of enforcing the view which they held in common. [8] But even if, for the sake of argument, it were conceded that the use of the words “omnes” and “solum” was a serious exaggeration, it would not follow that one could rightly treat as an exaggeration S. Firmilian’s repeated statement that a breach of communion really took place, corroborated as that statement is by the details given in regard to the treatment of the legates, details which Firmilian must have learnt from S. Cyprian, and still further corroborated, as we shall see in the sequel, by the words of S. Denys, and by the share which S. Cyprian must have had in the translation and publication of S. Firmilian’s letter. Anyhow, it is absurd to say that “there is no evidence that he [Stephen] ever proceeded to execute his threat.” I am aware that other Roman Catholic writers have taken the same line as Dr. Rivington. The fact is that they are driven into a corner, and that the simplest way of escape is to deny the truth of the evidence, however well attested it may be. But, in justice to our brethren of the Roman communion, it must not be supposed that their best writers follow such a hopeless course. Such a course would be impossible to a historian like Tillemont; but I prefer to quote an authority from the south side of the Alps. I know of no greater name among Ultramontane historians of the last century than that of Archbishop Mansi of Lucca, best known by his great edition of the Councils. [9] Mansi, in his animadversion on Natalis Alexander’s dissertation concerning the subject which we are discussing, says, “So openly does Firmilian write to S. Cyprian that Pope Stephen broke the peace, and that he accordingly deprived them of his communion, that it seems that it cannot be doubted that he went beyond threats and at length pronounced sentence of excommunication against them.” Mansi proceeds to quote S. Firmilian’s words, and to show that they are decisive in favour of his position. Then he adds, “But the answer of Natalis appears to be altogether futile. He says that Firmilian has described a mere threat of excommunication in the same terms as if it had really been fulminated, because he took up his pen when he was somewhat angry with Stephen. I say again that such an answer appears to me to be altogether futile, because it would necessarily follow that Firmilian had forgotten all the rules of Christian behaviour and of honesty, if, in order that he might excite odium against Stephen, he had lied in so serious a matter. [10] . . . And who, I ask, could conceive that, if Stephen had done no more than threaten, Firmilian would have compared him to the traitor Judas, and would have charged him with insolence, wickedness, and folly? Assuredly these are the words of one who is impatiently bearing a wound which he has received, and who is kindled with wrath against the man who has inflicted on him a deadly wound. . . . It is clear that Stephen broke the peace and refused communion, because he did not refrain from excommunicating Firmilian, Cyprian, and the others.” [11] Mansi goes on to quote the letter of S. Denys of Alexandria to Pope S. Xystus II., a fragment of which has been preserved by Eusebius. In that letter S. Denys, speaking of Stephen, says, “Indeed, he had previously (πρότερον) written concerning Helenus [of Tarsus] and concerning Firmilian, and concerning all [the bishops] of Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia, and of all the neighbouring nations, saying that he would not communicate with them either (ὡς οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις κοινωνήσων), for this same cause, namely, that they rebaptize heretics.” [12] S. Denys, in his letter, so far as it has been preserved to us, deals entirely with Stephen’s relations with the Eastern bishops, and says nothing of his relations with the Church of North Africa; [13] but Mansi points out that if the pope excommunicated the Easterns he must have excommunicated also the Africans, since the latter entirely agreed with the former in their teaching and practice. [14] Thus the witness of S. Denys corroborates the witness of S. Firmilian and of S. Cyprian. Here we have a threefold cord, which will not easily be broken by any amount of a priori Ultramontane reasoning.

When it is once admitted that three contemporary writers of such high character, and of such esteem in the Church, as the three saints mentioned above, agree in their witness that an excommunication was not merely threatened but also pronounced and promulgated, [15] and when it is also admitted that there is no shred of contemporary evidence on the other side, the discussion might fairly be brought to an end; but Natalis Alexander and others lay stress on the fact that S. Augustine, writing a century and a half later, seems to have thought that the estrangement between Rome and Carthage never amounted to a breach of communion. [16] It is true that Tillemont does not so understand S. Augustine. He thinks that S. Augustine admits that the pope withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian, but he supposes that S. Augustine holds that, as S. Cyprian did not retort on the pope by a counter-excommunication, but remained united to him by the bond of charity, the breach was not complete. [17] Out of respect for the great name of S. Augustine, I will consider whether his view of the matter can really avail to counterbalance the evidence of the three contemporary saints, whose witness has been discussed above; and for the sake of conciseness I will take no account of Tillemont’s explanation of S. Augustine’s meaning, and I will assume that the latter really supposed that Stephen never withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian and from the other African bishops.

On that view of the case, I have no hesitation in saying that S. Augustine’s representation of the matter cannot possibly avail to counterbalance the direct testimony of S. Firmilian and S. Cyprian, confirmed as it is by the corroborative evidence of S. Denys; for there is every reason to believe that S. Augustine had not got the full evidence before him. The contemporary evidence of the excommunication of S. Cyprian, which has come down to us, is primarily contained in S. Firmilian’s letter, which evidently re-echoed S. Cyprian’s own dispatches, and for the translation and publication of which S. Cyprian was responsible. But that letter was not in the collection of the Cyprianic correspondence on the subject of the rebaptizing of heretics, which was in the hands of S. Augustine. The collecting of S. Cyprian’s letters was a work of time. We now possess seven letters, either written by or to S. Cyprian on the question of rebaptism; but S. Augustine had only five of these in his collection. In his controversy with the Donatists he was obliged to go most minutely into the arguments about baptism contained in the Cyprianic documents. He discusses them clause by clause. [18] He actually takes the trouble to reply separately to each of the eighty-six speeches made by the eighty-five bishops who sat in the great Council of Carthage, [19] over which Cyprian presided, and which was the last of the Cyprianic councils on rebaptism. [20] So it comes to pass that we know exactly what documents S. Augustine possessed, and what were missing; and we find that he never refers either to the synodical letter [21] written to Stephen by S. Cyprian in the name of the second of the three councils on rebaptism, or to the letter [22] addressed to S. Cyprian by S. Firmilian. [23] S. Augustine was quite aware that documents existed bearing on the controversy about baptism in the time of S. Cyprian, which had not come into his hands. He says in one place, “Not all the things which were transacted among the bishops at that time were committed to memory and to writing, and not all the things which were so committed have come to my knowledge.” [24] It is clear from all this that the whole evidence, as we now possess it, was not before S. Augustine; and in point of fact the last of the Cyprianic documents of which he had knowledge was the summarized report of the proceedings at the final council on rebaptism. But that council preceded the excommunication; [25] and it is therefore no matter for wonder that S. Augustine was unaware of the fact that a complete rupture finally took place. To put the whole matter briefly. The principal evidence for the excommunication is to be found in S. Firmilian’s letter. That letter was not known to S. Augustine. It is perfectly clear from that letter that both S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were excommunicated. We thus know of their excommunication from themselves. It seems unreasonable to set aside the best possible contemporary evidence in deference to certain dicta of S. Augustine, who lived a century and a half later, and had never seen the document which constitutes the principal proof. It is plain that the objections raised by Natalis Alexander have no real solidity. I submit that the excommunication of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian and their colleagues by Pope Stephen must be accepted as historically true. [26]

 

NOTES (numbering combined)

1. Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas lxxv., § 6, Opp., ii. 813.

2. Ep. cit., § 24, p. 825.

3. Ibid., § 25, p. 826.

4. Authority, p. 103, 2nd ed.

5. Ibid., p. 105.                                      

6. Loc. cit.

7. See Additional Note 34, p. 460.

8. See p. 70, n. 5.

9. The Jesuit professor of theology in the university of Innsbruck, Father Hurter, in his useful Nomenclator Literarius (iii. 101), speaking of Mansi, says, “De illo jam agemus, qui totâ hâc epochâ omnium fuit celeberrimus deque Ecclesiâ atque re literariâ optime meritus.”

10. “In re tam gravi mentitus esset.”

11. Animadvers. in Dissert. xii. Art. i., ap. Natal. Alexandr. Hist. Eccl., ed. 1786, Bing. ad Rhenum, tom. vi. pp. 222, 223.

12. Euseb. H. E., vii. 5. I have appended the original Greek of S. Denys’ summary of the operative part of Stephen’s letter, the English translation of which is italicized in the text. Mansi rightly translates these words as follows: “quod neque cum illis communicare vellet;” and Baronius renders the passage in the same way. I mention this, because De Valois has seriously altered the sense by translating S. Denys’ words thus: “sese ab illorum communione discessurum.” There is a difference between announcing that in the future you will not communicate with certain people, and announcing that in the future you will separate from their communion. The first formula implies that separation has already been effected, or is being effected by the document in which the formula occurs. The second formula threatens a separation in the future. S. Denys represents Stephen as having effected the separation, and not as having merely threatened it. See Additional Note 35, p. 462.

13. See Additional Note 36, p. 462.

14. On this point Natalis Alexander would have agreed with Mansi. His words are express: “Una erat causa Firmiliani et Cypriani; . . . non est igitur verisimile quod Firmilianum communione privaverit Stephanus cum Orientalibus suis, et Cyprianum cum Africanis pace et communione frui permiserit” (Hist. Eccl., ed. 1786, tom. vi. p. 218).

15. The objection might be raised that, if Eusebius had supposed that Stephen had actually excommunicated the Easterns, he would have given an exact account of how the breach was healed. If Eusebius had lived some centuries later, when a papal excommunication was the direst thing that could happen to any Christian community, he would no doubt have done so; but Eusebius would not think of the matter quite in that light. In H. E., v. 24, he gives an account of the excommunication of the Asians by Pope Victor, and he describes S. Irenaeus’ mediation, as here he describes S. Denys’ peace-making efforts, but neither there does he make mention of the close of the dispute.

16. Cf. S. Aug., De Baptismo contra Donat., v. 25, Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 158, et De unic. Bapt. contra Petil., cap. xiv., Opp., ix. 538.

17. Tillemont, iv. 150, 151.

18. S. Aug., De Baptismo contra Donatistas, libb. ii., iii., iv., v.

19. S. Cyprian, as president, made two speeches, the first and the last.

20. Op. cit., libb. vi., vii.

21. S. Cypr. Ep. lxxii., Opp., ii. 775.

22. Ep. inter Cyprianicas lxxv., Opp., ii. 812.

23. S. Augustine’s words, in his refutation of the speech of Crescens of Cirta (De Bapt. contra Donat., vi. 15, Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 171), show clearly that S. Cyprian’s synodical letter to Stephen, which had been known to Crescens, was not known to him. Compare Mr. C. H. Turner’s Note appended to Dr. Sanday’s Essay on the Cheltenham List (Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 324, 325). In his third book against Cresconius (Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 435), S. Augustine implies that Cresconius had referred to “the letter of certain Orientals,” as witnessing to their approval of S. Cyprian’s doctrine about rebaptism. He quotes in the second chapter some words from Cresconius, which seem to me to imply that this letter was a synodical epistle expressing the formal assent of some Eastern synod to the conclusions of the third Carthaginian Council on rebaptism. I doubt if S. Augustine had seen the letter; and the fact that it was written, not by one man, but by several, seems to me to be a proof positive that it was not the letter of S. Firmilian, with which we are acquainted. Tillemont (iv. 158) gives further reasons for concluding that S. Augustine had never seen S. Firmilian’s letter to S. Cyprian.

24. De Bapt. contr. Donat., ii. 4, Opp., ix. 98.

25. Tillemont, iv. 155; and compare the Acta SS., tom. iv. Septembr., pp. 305, 306, where Father Suyskens, S.J., the author of the Bollandist Life of S. Cyprian, replies to Dom Maran’s arguments, and shows that the African legates, who were rejected by Stephen, were sent by the third council on rebaptism, and not by the second. Professor Jungmann (Dissertationes Selectae in Hist. Eccl., tom. i. p. 331) takes the same view as Suyskens; and Hefele, who in his first edition had followed Maran, changed his mind, and in his second edition supports the view which I have taken in the text (see Hefele, vol. v. p. 434, Eng. trans.). See also the Additional Note 37, p. 463.

26. See Additional Note 38, p. 463.

 

Source: The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, by F. W. Puller, SSJE (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1900), Appendix A (“The Excommunication of S. Cyprian”) to Lecture II, pp. 72-77.

Online: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007372419