Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism
Does the doctrine of third century bishop, doctor and martyr St Cyprian of Carthage provide grounds for rejecting papal primacy and the legitimacy of the Catholic Church? Orestes Brownson answers.
Editors’ Notes
This is the second part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”
The background of this engagement—including that of the author Wladimir Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy—can be found in the first part:
In this part, Brownson addresses Guettée’s surprising attempts to claim St Cyprian of Carthage as evidence for a patristic rejection of papal primacy.
In the face of those encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, we publish Brownson’s piece in good will, and in the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.
Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy’
Part II—St Cyprian is not a witness for schism
Orestes Brownson
Originally published as “Guetté’s Papacy Schismatic’1
From The Catholic World, 1867
Published in The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, Vol. VIII
Thorndike Nourse, Deroit, 1884. pp 483-91
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review
The claim that St Cyprian denied papal primacy
[T]he first father [Guettée] finds who, as he pretends, absolutely denies the primacy Catholics claim for Peter, and consequently for his successor, is St. Cyprian, who seems to us very positively to affirm it.
The author has a theory, which he pretends is supported by St. Cyprian, and which explains all the facts in the early ages which have been supposed by Roman theologians to be favorable to their doctrine of the papacy. He does not bring it out very clearly or systematically, and we can collect it only from scattered assertions.
He denies that Peter had any authority not shared equally by the other apostles; or that the bishop of Rome had or has by divine right any pre-eminence above any other bishop; or that the church of Rome has any authority not possessed equally by the other churches that had apostles for their founders. He concedes that Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome, but denies that St. Peter was ever its bishop or bishop of any other particular see.
How, then, explain the many passages of the fathers of the first three centuries, which undeniably assert Peter as “the prince of the apostles,” “the chief of the apostolic college,” the superiority and authority of “the see of Peter,” “the chair of Peter,” and recognize the jurisdiction actually exercised in all parts of the church by the bishop of Rome?
No man can read the early fathers, and deny that the church of Rome was regarded as the church that “presides,” as St. Ignatius calls it, as the root and matrix, as St. Cyprian says, of the church, as holding the pre-eminence over all other churches, with whose bishop it was necessary that all others should agree or be in communion.
The author does not deny it; but Peter meant “the faith of Peter,” “the chair of Peter meant the entire episcopate,” which was one and held by all the bishops in solido, and the pre-eminence ascribed to the church of Rome was in consequence of her exterior importance as the see of the capital of the empire. This is the author’s theory, and he pretends that he finds it in the Treatise on the Unity of the Church, by St. Cyprian.
Guettée’s claims about St Cyprian
“In fact,” he says, p. 79, “he (St. Cyprian) positively denies the primacy of St. Peter himself; he makes the apostle merely the type of unity which resided in the apostolic college as a whole, and by succession in the whole episcopal body, which he calls the See of Peter.”
“After mentioning the powers promised to St. Peter, St. Cyprian remarks that Jesus Christ promised them to him alone, though they were given to all.
“‘In order to show forth unity,’ he says, ‘the Lord has wished that unity might draw its origin from one only.’
“‘The other apostles certainly were just what Peter was, having the same honor and power as he.’
“‘All are shepherds, and the flock nourished by all the apostles together is one, in order that the church of Christ may appear in its unity.’”
The problems of this interpretation of St Cyprian
But to this explanation of St. Cyprian there is a slight objection; for we are not able to see from this how the unity of the apostolic college or of the church of Christ is shown forth, manifested, or made to appear, that is, rendered visible, which is the sense of St. Cyprian, or how it can be said to draw the origin of unity from one when it only draws its origin from many conjointly.
St. Cyprian says our Lord ut unitatem manifestaret, unam cathedram constituit, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit; that is, that our Lord established by his authority one chair, made the origin of unity begin from one, that the unity of the body might be manifested or shown forth. St. Cyprian evidently teaches that the unity of the church derives, as the author holds, from the unity of the episcopate, and the unity of the episcopate from the unity of the apostolic college; but that the unity of the apostolic college or apostolate may be manifested, and hence the unity of the church be shown forth, or rendered visible, our Lord made its origin begin from one, that is, Peter.
All the apostles, indeed, had what Peter had, that is, the apostolate, partook of the same gift, honor, and power; but the beginning proceeded from unity, and the primacy was given to Peter, that the church of Christ and the chair, the apostolate, by succession the episcopal body, if you will, may be shown to be one.
All are pastors, and the flock, which is fed by all the apostles in unanimity, is shown to be one, that the unity of the church of Christ may be demonstrated.
“Certainly, the other apostles were the same as Peter, endowed with an equal share of honour and authority, but the beginning proceeds from unity; and primacy is given to Peter so that the one Church of Christ and the one chair may be made manifest. All are pastors, and one flock is shown, nourished by the unanimous agreement of all the apostles, so that the Church of Christ may be revealed as one.”2
St Cyprian, the unity of the Church and Papal Primacy
St. Cyprian endeavors to show not simply that the church is one and the episcopate also one, but that our Lord has so arranged it that the unity of each may be made to appear and both be seen to be one.
The unity of the apostles, of the pastors, or of the church, regarded as a collective body, is invisible. How, then, if it does not arise from one, or if it has no visible centre and beginning in the visible order, is it to be made to appear?
St. Cyprian evidently holds that the unity of the apostolic body establishes the unity of the episcopal body, since he holds the bishops to be the successors of the apostles; and the unity of the episcopal body establishes the unity of the flock, which in union with the body each pastor feeds, and therefore the unity of the entire church of Christ.
But he just as evidently holds that the apostolic unity in order to exist must begin from a central point, or have its centre and source whence it proceeds, and radiates, so to speak, through the whole apostolic body, making of the apostolate not an aggregation, but a body really one, with its own central source of life and authority; an organic and not simply an organized body, for an organized body has no real unity.
Hence, he makes the unity start and radiate from one, as it must if unity at all. This one, this central point, he holds, is, by the ordination of the Lord, Peter. Of this there can be no doubt.
The institution of Our Lord, according to St Cyprian
As we understand St. Cyprian, whose treatise on the Unity of the Church is, perhaps, the profoundest and most philosophical ever written on that subject, the church is an organism with Jesus Christ himself for its invisible and ultimate centre and source of life.
But as the church is to deal with the world and operate in time and space, it must be visible as well as invisible. Then the invisible must be visibly expressed or represented. But this cannot be done unless there is a visible expression or representation in the exterior organic body of this interior and invisible centre and source of unity, life, and authority, which our Lord himself is. To establish this exterior or visible representation, our Lord institutes the apostolic college, and through that the episcopal body, through whom the whole flock becomes in union with their pastors, who are, in union with the apostles, one organic body; but only on condition of the unity of the apostolic college, which unity must start from one, from a visible centre and source of unity.
Hence, our Lord chose Peter as the central point of union for the apostolic college, and Peter’s chair, the cathedra una, as the visible centre of union for the episcopal body, and through them of the whole church, so that the whole church in the apostolate, in the episcopate, and in the flock, is shown to be one, represented with the unity and authority it has in Jesus Christ.
Orthodox replacement of united body with a collective
The trouble here with the author’s theory is, not that it makes Peter the sign and type of the unity or authority of the apostolic college, and the chair of Peter the type and figure, as he says, of the unity and authority of the episcopate, but that it does not do so; for it recognizes no visible apostolic or episcopal unity, since it recognizes no visible centre or source from which it originates; and hence neither the apostolate nor the episcopate, save as Jesus Christ, is a unity, but an aggregation, as we have said, a collection, or at least, a sort of round robin.
By denying the primacy or centre and beginning of unity to Peter and Peter’s chair individually, it denies what St. Cyprian maintains was instituted to manifest or show forth unity.
It denies both the manifestation of unity and external unity itself, both of which are strenuously insisted on by St. Cyprian, who, indeed, says expressly in his letter to St. Cornelius, the Roman pontiff, that “the Church of Rome,” that is, “the chair of Peter,” is the centre whence sacerdotal unity arose.
The author says that…
“St. Cyprian was right in calling the Church of Rome the chair of Peter, the principal church, whence sacerdotal unity emanated. But for all that, did he pretend that the bishop enjoyed authority by divine right? He believed it so little that, in his De Unitate Ecclesiæ, he understands by the chair of Peter the entire episcopate, regards St. Peter as the equal of the other apostles, denies his primacy, and makes him the simple type of the unity of the apostolic college.” (p. 67)
The Church of Rome…
“was the source of sacerdotal unity in this sense, that Peter was the sign and type of the unity of the apostolic college.”
St. Cyprian [Guettée says] makes St. Peter…
“merely the type of the unity that resided in the apostolic college as a whole, and, by succession, in the episcopal body, which he calls ‘the see of Peter.” (p. 79)
[Guettée says that…]
“The see of Peter, in St. Cyprian’s idea, is the authority of the apostolic body, and, by succession, of the episcopal body. All the bishops had the same honor and the same authority in all that relates to their order, as all the apostles had the same honor and authority as Peter.” (pp. 79, 80.)
Peter, then, is the sign and type of apostolic and episcopal unity, and “the chair of Peter,” or “the see of Peter,” is the sign and type of apostolic authority. But supposing this to be so, and Peter to have been in no respect distinguished from the other apostles, or to have held no peculiar position in the apostolic body, how came he to be regarded as the sign and type of apostolic unity, and his chair as the sign and type of apostolic authority?
There is a logic in language as well as in the human mind of which it is the expression, and there is a reason for every symbolical locution that gains currency. If the fathers and the church had not held Peter to be the prince of the apostles and his see the centre and source of apostolic authority, would they or could they have made his see or chair the symbol of apostolic authority, or Peter himself the symbol, “the sign and type,” of apostolic unity?
Why the see of Peter rather than that of Andrew, James, or John? or Peter rather than any other apostle? The fact, then, that St. Peter and his see or chair were taken as symbolic, the sign and type, the one of apostolic unity, and the other of apostolic authority, is a very conclusive proof that the primacy was given to him and his see by our Lord, and by succession to the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff, as the fathers of Florence define and Roman theologians hold.
Orthodox rethinking of papal primacy has the “undivided Church” engaging in a sham
Again, how could Peter be a sign and type of apostolic unity or his see the sign and type of apostolic authority, if he, Peter, had no relation, and his see none, to that authority not held equally by all the apostles and their sees? In the church of God there are and can be no shams, no make-believes, no false signs or types, no unrealities, no calling things which are not as if they were. Signs which signify nothing are not signs, and types which represent nothing are simply no types at all.
In the church of God there are and can be no shams, no make-believes, no false signs or types, no unrealities, no calling things which are not as if they were.
Signs which signify nothing are not signs, and types which represent nothing are simply no types at all.
The real apostolic unity and authority are internal, invisible in Jesus Christ himself, who, in the primary and absolute sense, as we have seen, is the rock on which the church is founded, the sole basis of its solidity and permanence, the sole ground of its existence and fountain of its life, unity, and authority.
Peter and Peter’s see, if the sign and type of this invisible unity, must represent it or show it forth in the visible order. But how can Peter represent that unity, unless he is in the visible order its real centre and source, in which it begins and from which it emanates? Or how can the see or chair of Peter be the sign and type of the invisible apostolic authority, unless it really be its source and centre in the visible order?
The external can represent the internal, the visible the invisible, only in so far as it copies or imitates it. In calling Peter the sign and type of apostolic unity, the author then concedes that Peter represents our Lord, and that he is, as the Council of Florence defines, “the true vicar of Christ;” and in making Peter’s see the sign and type of apostolic authority, he makes it the real centre in the visible order of that authority, and consequently concedes the very points which he rejects, and undertakes to prove from St. Cyprian are only the unfounded pretensions of the bishop of Rome.
Orthodox rejection of papal primacy not based on our actual claims
That the primacy here unwittingly conceded by the author is not that absolute and isolated sovereignty which the author accuses Catholic theologians of asserting for Peter and for the bishop of Rome as his successor, we readily admit, but we have already shown that such a sovereignty is not claimed.
The pope is not the sovereign, but the vicar or chief minister of the sovereign. He governs the church in apostolic unity, not as isolated from the episcopal body, but as its real head or supreme chief.
His authority is said to be loquens ex cathedra, speaking from the seat of apostolic and episcopal unity and authority. He is the chief or supreme pastor, not the only pastor, nor pastor at all regarded as separate from the church. He is the visible head of the church united by a living union with the body; for it is as necessary to the head to be in living union with the body, as it is to the body to be in living union with the head.
Neither can live and perform its functions without the other; but the directing, controlling, or governing power is in the head. St. Ambrose says, “Where Peter is, there is the church;” but he does not say Peter is the church, nor does the pope say, “L’Eglise, c’est moi,” I am the church.
Succeeding to Peter as chief of the apostolic college, he is the chief or head of the church. The author’s theory makes the church in the visible order as a whole, acephalous, headless, and therefore brainless.
The author’s theory makes the church in the visible order as a whole, acephalous, headless, and therefore brainless.
The author bases his assertion that St. Cyprian denies the primacy of Peter on the fact that he says, “All the other apostles had what he had, the same honor and the same power.” This is with Mr. Guettée a capital point. His doctrine, so far as doctrine he has, is that the church has no visible chief; that all the apostles had equal honor and authority; that all bishops as successors of the apostles are equal; that one bishop has by divine right no pre-eminence above another; and that, if one is more influential than another, he owes it to his personal character or to the external importance of his see. And this he contends is the doctrine of St. Cyprian.
The actual doctrine of St Cyprian
But, if he had understood St. Cyprian’s argument, he would have never done that great saint such flagrant injustice. St. Cyprian’s argument is, as is evident from the passage we have cited at length, that, although all the apostles received the same gift, the same honor, and the same power, yet, for the sake of manifesting unity, our Lord constituted one chair from which unity should begin, and gave the primacy to Peter, that the unity of the apostolic or episcopal body and of the whole church of Christ might be shown. The author himself contends that the apostolate, and by succession the episcopate, is one and indivisible, and held by the apostles or bishops in solido.
Then, if all the other apostles had the apostolate, they must have had precisely what Peter had, and if the other bishops have the episcopate at all, they must have precisely what the Roman pontiff has, yet without having another apostolate or another episcopate than that which they all equally receive and hold in its invisible unity, or any thing in addition thereto.
He may, nevertheless, be the head or chief of the episcopal body and the centre in which episcopal unity and authority in the visible order originate, and from which they radiate through the body, and from the bishops to their respective flocks, and bind them and the whole church together in one, which, as we understand it, is the precise doctrine of St. Cyprian, and certainly is the doctrine of the Roman and Catholic Church.
The author, even if a learned man, does not appear to be much of a philosopher or much of a theologian. There are depths in St. Cyprian’s philosophy and theology which he seems unable to sound, and heights which are certainly above his flight. He is, we should judge, utterly unaware of the real constitution of the church, the profound significance of the Gospel, the vast reach of the Christian system, its relation to the universal system of creation, or the reasons in the very nature of things there are for its existence, and for the existence and constitution of the church.
All the works of the Creator are strictly logical, and together form but one dialectic whole, are but the expression of one divine thought. Nothing can appear more petty or worthless than the author’s shallow cavils to a man who has a little real theological science.
Orthodox appeals to the re-baptism controversy and Conclusion
The author cites the controversy on the baptism of heretics, in proof that St. Cyprian denied the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, or his authority to govern as supreme pontiff the whole church, but unsuccessfully.
St. Cyprian found the custom established in Carthage, as it was also in certain churches in Asia, to rebaptize persons who had been baptized by heretics, and he insisted on observing the custom. He complained, therefore, of St. Stephen, the Roman pontiff, who wrote to him to conform to the ancient and general custom of the church.
Whether he conformed or not is uncertain, but there is no evidence that he denied the authority of the Roman pontiff, and he certainly did not break communion with him, though he may have regarded his exercise of his authority in that particular case as oppressive and tyrannical.
It would seem from the letter of St. Firmilianus to St. Cyprian, if genuine, of which there is some doubt, as there is of several letters ascribed to St. Cyprian, and from the address of St. Cyprian to the last council he held on the subject, which M. Guettée cites at some length, that the question was regarded as one of discipline, or as coming within the category of those matters on which diversity of usage in different churches and countries is allowable or can be tolerated, and on which uniformity has never been exacted.
He insisted not that all the world should conform to the custom he observed, but defended, as our bishops would to-day, what he believed to be the customary rights of his church or province. That he was wrong we know, for the universal church has sustained the Roman pontiff.
We do not think the author has been very happy in placing St. Cyprian on the stand against the primacy of the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff. The saint is a much better witness for us than for him.
We will continue with Brownson’s analysis of Guettée’s misuse of Tertullian and of history.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Further Reading
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches. By the Abbé Guettée, D.D.
Translated from the French, and prefaced by an original biographical notice of the author, with an Introduction by A. Cleveland Coxe, Bishop of Western New York. New York: 1867.
The original article is available in OCR form here.
Brownson’s original had the Latin:
Hoc erant utique et cæteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio præditi et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur; et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur. Et pastores sunt omnes, et grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur, ut ecclesia Christi, una monstretur.
Opp. Cypriani, Migne’s Edition, De Unitate Ecclesiæ, pp. 498-500. The words primatus Petro datur, are wanting in some manuscripts, and are rejected by Baluze and some others as an interpolation, and Archbishop Kenrick does not cite them in his Primacy, when they would have been much to his purpose. It is thought that they were originally a marginal note, and have crept into the text through some ignorant copyist; but it is just as easy to suppose that they were omitted from the text by some careless copyist, and placed in the margin by way of correction, and afterward restored to their proper place in the text. When several years ago we examined the question with what ability we possess, we came to the conclusion that they are genuine, or, at least, that there is no sufficient reason for regarding them as spurious. They express what is obviously the sense of St. Cyprian, and seem to us to be necessary to carry on and complete his argument. Nevertheless, we have made none of our reasoning against M. Guettée rest on their genuineness.