Cyprian vs Stephen: Baptism of Heretics, and the papacy

[JohnJones]

In the time of Cyprian and Stephen there was a controversy over repentant heretics. The repentant heretics wanted to join the Catholic Church. The bishops of North Africa met in council and decided that the baptism received outside the church was invalid and these repentant hertics must be baptized by the church (unless they were heretics that were baptized in the church and then left). Stephen, bishop of Rome, denounced the council and commanded the bishops to obey him personally and allow ALL of the heretics to join the church without being baptized by the church because in his personal opinion and on the basis of "local tradition" the baptism of heretics was considered valid. Cyprian and the bishops of North Africa held yet another council, the 7th Council of Carthage, in which they unanimously declared again that those heretics who had recieved baptism in the church then left would not be rebaptized but such as recieved baptism outside the church had received an invalid baptism and must be baptized. They also condemned the actions of Stephen, bishop of Rome, in the following words:

"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."

Essentially, by the above words, they declare that Stephen, bishop of Rome, is not a valid bishop, for were he a valid bishop he would not attempt to force other bishops to render personal obedience to him. But the Catholic apologists say that the papal office has always been as it is now! Oh, they say "If the bishop of Rome did not start with such-and-such authority but grabbed it up over time, praytell why there are no recorded protests among the church fathers?" Ah, but there are recorded protests among the "church fathers"--here's one right here. An entire council condemned the actions and doctrine of the bishop of Rome who tried to grab up more power than he was allowed.

 

[Philip]

Essentially, by the above words, they declare that Stephen, bishop of Rome, is not a valid bishop, for were he a valid bishop he would not attempt to force other bishops to render personal obedience to him.

I don't think they ever stated that Stephen was not the legitimate Bishop of Rome. They dispute his authority of them.

 

[JohnJones]

Some quotes from Cyprian and contemporaries concerning Stephen, bishop of Rome. (To read more about this controversy goto www.ccel.org and go to the section on "church fathers" and go to Ante-Nicean Fathers Volume 5, where you can read through the epistles listed under Cyprian (some of which are from Cyprian and some of which are to Cyprian) in which this controversy is discussed and in the appendix can read the procedings of the 7th Council of Carthage.)

Cyprain speaking of Stephen, bishop of Rome, (epistle LXXIII) "He forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he judged the baptism of 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."

Cyprian speaking of Stephen, bishop of Rome, (epistle LXXIII) "Does he give glory to God, who communicates with the baptism of Marcion? Does he give glory to God, who judges that remission of sins is granted among those who blaspheme against God? Does he give glory to God, who affirms that sons are born to God without, of an adulterer and a harlot? Does he give glory to God, who does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church? Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated? If glory is thus given to God, if the fear and the discipline of God is thus preserved by His worshippers and His priests, let us cast away our arms; let us give ourselves up to captivity; let us deliver to the devil the ordination of the Gospel, the appointment of Christ, the majesty of God; let the sacraments of the divine warfare be loosed; let the standards of the heavenly camp be betrayed; and let the Church succumb and yield to heretics, light to darkness, faith to perfidy, hope to despair, reason to error, immortality to death, love to hatred, truth to falsehood, Christ to Antichrist!"

Cyprian basically says (without actually saying it) that since heretics are antichrists, and Stephen accepts their baptism as valid, Stephen too is an antichrist.

Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, writing to Cyprian concerning Stephen, bishop of Rome, (epistle LXXIV) "Except that we may in this matter give thanks to Stephen, that it has now happened through his unkindness that we receive the proof of your faith and wisdom. But although we have received the favour of this benefit on account of Stephen, certainly Stephen has not done anything deserving of kindness and thanks. For neither can Judas be thought worthy by his perfidy and treachery wherewith he wickedly dealt concerning the Saviour, as though he had been the cause of such great advantages, that through him the world and the people of the Gentiles were delivered by the Lord's passion."

He all but calls Stephen, bishop of Rome, Judas Iscariot!

Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, writing to Cyprian concerning Stephen, bishop of Rome, (epistle LXXIV) "But let these things which were done by Stephen be passed by for the present, lest, while we remember his audacity and pride, we bring a more lasting sadness on ourselves from the things that he has wickedly done."

Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, writing to Cyprian concerning Stephen, bishop of Rome, (epistle LXXIV) "But, moreover, you have well answered that part where Stephen said in his letter that heretics themselves also are of one mind in respect of baptism; and that they do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only communicate with them; as if we also ought to do this. In which place, although you have already proved that it is sufficiently ridiculous for any one to follow those that are in error, yet we add this moreover, over and above, that it is not wonderful for heretics to act thus, who, although in some lesser matters they differ, yet in that which is greatest they hold one and the same agreement to blaspheme the Creator, figuring for themselves certain dreams and phantasms of an unknown God. Assuredly it is but natural that these should agree in having a baptism which is unreal, in the same way as they agree in repudiating the truth of the divinity."

Firmilian nearly calls Stephen, bishop of Rome, an heretic who believes in a baptism which is "unreal" and has made a pact with all other heretics to "blaspheme the Creator."

Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, writing to Cyprian concerning Stephen, bishop of Rome, (epistle LXXIV) "And as Stephen and those who agree with him contend that putting away of sins and second birth may result from the baptism of heretics, among whom they themselves confess that the Holy Spirit is not; let them consider and understand that spiritual birth cannot be without the Spirit; in conformity with which also the blessed Apostle Paul baptized anew with a spiritual baptism those who had already been baptized by John before the Holy Spirit had been sent by the Lord, and so laid hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. But what kind of a thing is it, that when we see that Paul, after John's baptism, baptized his disciples again, we are hesitating to baptize those who come to the Church from heresy after their unhallowed and profane dipping. Unless, perchance, Paul was inferior to the bishops of these times, so that these indeed can by imposition of hands alone give the Holy Spirit to those heretics who come (to the Church), while Paul was not fitted to give the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands to those who had been baptized by John, unless he had first baptized them also with the baptism of the Church."

Hmmmm.......who can argue with that????

This is a very interesting subject. It is a treasure-trove of evidence against the papacy. even when the bishops are not speaking of the wickidness and pride of Stephen in grasping for authority over them which he does not derive from the apostles and for validating heretical baptism, there are great things, such as the fact that the Roman See writes to Cyprian calling Cyprian "Papa" (i.e. Pope) showing it was a title held by all bishops at this time. Epistle II, From the Roman Clergy to the Carthaginian Clergy, About the Retirement of the Blessed Cyprian, "We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed Papa Cyprian..." and in other of these epistles as well. You could spend a lifetime researching and writing on this heretical baptism controversy and its impact on the latter Catholic Church, as well as the fact that it invalidates papal claims.

circa 225 AD