I recently had the opportunity to talk with a Protestant (Baptist) friend who told me that Saint Cyprian, among other Fathers, held “Protestant” positions. He alleged that in his writings he gave authority to all bishops equally and there was no evidence that he granted the bishop of Rome authority superior to that of the rest of the bishops.

Who was Saint Cyprian?

Our saint was an important African theologian born around the year 200 AD. Elected bishop of Carthage in 248, martyred in 258. A great variety of writings are preserved from him (a dozen booklets and 81 letters). About his life is preserved Life Cypriani, (a set of manuscripts attributed to his deacon Pontius) and about his martyrdom the Minutes are preserved proconsularia Cypriani, based on official documents. In Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages he was one of the most popular authors and his writings are preserved in a large number of manuscripts.

During his life he faced two major conflicts. One, about the attitude to be taken with those who in times of persecution had agreed to offer sacrifices to idols and requested from the confessors (those who remained firm at the cost of torture and torment) certificates that declared that they made them participate in their merits. He firmly maintained that such a serious sin required a proportionate penance and that these certificates could not confer automatic absolution, but rather the absolution that the Church had to grant them through its ministers after repentance guaranteed by adequate satisfaction.

The second problem the saint faced was regarding the baptism of heretics. He did not recognize the baptism of heretics as valid while the Pope did. The controversy worsened and Saint Cypriandid not want to give in (here the Protestants allege that if they recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome they would have given in immediately). The persecution of Valerian then began, resulting in the martyrdom of both. In the end the Pope’s position prevailed.

What importance do Saint Cyprian’s writings have?

The Writings of Saint Cyprian(as well as those of the rest of the fathers of the Church) are very important, not only for students of patristics and patrology, but for any Christian, since they allow us to gain a thorough understanding of the thinking of the early Church and its way of interpreting the Scriptures.

Despite this, since the rejection of the Sacred Tradition by the Protestants in times of the reform, they are grouped mainly into two large groups. Some who recognize that patristic writings are recommended for Christians not as a source of dogmatic doctrine, but for edification and general culture, and others (fundamentalist extremists), who, taking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to its maximum expression, simply dismiss them as writings of “men” with little or no value, showing in most cases, ignorance of the life and history of the Church in its first centuries.

However, something that both groups share in common is that they never, or almost never, quote parents, except when they think that what they say may bring “water to their own mill.” I wanted to take the opportunity to study the saint’s writings, not only in terms of the points in which Protestants usually quote him, but in their entirety, in order to make a fair and not decontextualized comparison of his thought.

Saint Cyprian and the primacy of Peter

The saint addresses this topic in the treatise De Ecclesiae unite (La unidad de la Iglesia), which directed the Roman confessors when they opposed together with Novacianoagainst Pope Cornelio.

Saint Cyprian. From la Unidad de la Iglesia. 4.5

“The Lord speaks to Saint Peter and says to him: “I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”  And although he confers equal power on all the apostles after his resurrection and tells them: “Just as the Father sent me, I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they will be forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they will be retained.”“However, to manifest unity he established a chair, and with his authority he ordered that the origin of this unity begin with one. It is true that the other Apostles were the same as Peter, adorned with the same share of honor and power, but the principle springs from unity. Peter is given primacy, so that the Church of Christ may be manifested as one.…Does he who does not have this unity of the Church believe he has faith? Does he who opposes and resists the Church have the confidence to find himself within the Church?…The episcopate is only one, the part of which is owned by each one in solidum. The Church is also one, which spreads with its prodigious fruitfulness in the multitude, in the same way that there are many rays of the sun, and one sun, and many the branches of a tree, but one trunk founded on a firm root, and when several streams come from the same spring, although their number has increased with the abundance of water, the unity of its origin is preserved. Separate a ray from the body of the sun: the unit does not admit the division of light, cut a branch from the tree: this branch will not be able to vegetate, it shortcuts the communication of the stream with the spring and it will dry up. Likewise the Church, illuminated with the light of the Lord, extends its rays throughout the world; but there is only one light that spreads everywhere, without separating the unity of the body; With its fecundity and lushness it extends its branches throughout the earth, it expands its abundant currents for a long time, but one is the head, one is the origin and one is the mother, abundant in the results of fertility. From her birth we are born, with her milk we are nourished and with her spirit we are animated (trans. Caminero 4,404-5). (1)

The text in question is very revealing, it begins by quoting Matthew 16:18 and although it states that it confers equal power on all the apostles, it then adds with an “showever” that to maintain unity the Lord established with his authority a chair in Peter to whom the primacy is given.

Now, it is difficult to see where part of the text can coincide with even any of the Protestant doctrines that differ from Catholic doctrine. First of all, the saint recognizes that the Church is governed by bishops, one of whom has the primacy, which implies an explicit recognition of the doctrine of apostolic succession that they reject. He then condemns those who leave la unidad de la IglesiaCatholic to found their own denominations, but isn’t that precisely what Protestants have been doing since Luther?. It clearly establishes that outside the Church there is no salvation and that “No puede tener a Dios por Padre el que no tiene a la Iglesia por MadreFor Saint Cyprian, he who departs from la unidad de la Iglesiacannot be a martyr because blood cannot erase the stain of heresy and schism.

Additional evidence of the authority of the bishop of Rome over the Church can be found in the writings of Saint Cyprian. We have the first when the persecution of Decius (250). Saint Cypriangoes into hiding but sends a cartato the Church of Rome explaining the reasons that motivated him to flee: “I have thought it necessary to write to you this cartato give you an account of my conduct, my compliance with discipline and my zeal…”But although absent in body, I have been present in spirit…” (Epist. 20). It is evident that at that time he recognized in the Church of Rome an authority to whom he could give an account, as he himself affirms, otherwise a cartato Rome justifying his behavior would have been unnecessary.

We find other evidence in his Epistle 59. It shows how some heretics in conflict with Saint Cyprianappeal to the Church of Rome through letters so that the Pope would act in their favor. Although Saint Cypriandoes not view this attitude favorably because according to his criteria they must defend their position before their own bishop, this shows that even on the part of the schismatics there was knowledge that the authority of the Church of Rome was superior to that of the rest, and hence their appeal to it. It is also notable how in the epistle Saint Cyprianhe refers to the Church of Rome as the “seat of Peter” and the main Church from which the unity of the priesthood sprang: “ad ecclesiam principalem unde unite sacerdotalis exorta est”.

Saint CyprianEpist59, 14. On the legitimacy of the appeal to Rome

“It was not enough for them to depart from the Gospel, to wrest from heretics the hope of forgiveness and penitence, to separate from all feelings and fruit of penitence those involved in theft, or stained with adultery, or contaminated with the fatal contagion of sacrifices, so that they no longer pray to God or confess their sins in the Church; they were not content with establishing outside the Church and against the Church a conventicle of corrupt faction, to which they could welcome the crowd of those who have a bad conscience and do not want to pray to God or do penance. After all this, still, having given themselves a false bishop, the creation of heretics, They have had the audacity to set sail and to bring letters from the schismatics and profanes to the chair of Peter, to the main Church from which the unity of the priesthood arose.; and they did not even think that those are the same Romans whose faith the Apostle praised when he preached to them, to whom perfidy should not have access. Why did they go there to announce that a pseudo-bishop had been created against the bishops? Because, either they feel satisfied with what they did and therefore persevere in their crime, or they repent and recant and they already know where they have to return. Because it was established by all of us that it is both reasonable and just that each one’s case be dealt with where the crime was committed and that each of the pastors has assigned a portion of the crime. flock, that each one must govern and govern, giving an account of their actions to the Lord. Therefore, those who are our subjects must not wander here and there, nor must they lacerate the coherent concord of the bishops with their cunning and deceitful audacity, but they must defend their cause wherever there may be accusers and witnesses of their crime. Unless it is believed that the authority of the bishops established in Africa is too small for those desperate and perverted few.”

Something similar happens in epistle 67, Cypriandenounces that Basilides, after having confessed to being guilty, he went to distant Rome to appeal to the authority of Esteban(Bishop of Rome) and trick him into restoring him to the bishopric. Again, if all bishops had the same authority, this type of appeal to the bishop of Rome would not make sense, nor would it be possible for him to restore any bishop to his ministry. However, this is nothing new, since the 1st century there is early evidence of how the bishop of Rome disciplined and handed down sentences in communities in conflict (as in the case of the dissent in Corinth that was submitted to the authority of Saint Clement Romanus).

Saint Cyprian, Epist. 67, 5

Divine tradition and apostolic practices must be kept with all diligence, and we must stick to what is done among us, which is what is done in almost all the provinces of the world, namely, that to carry out a well-done ordination, the closest bishops of the same province meet with the people at the head of which the bishop is to be ordaining, and he is elected in the presence of the people, since the latter knows the life of each one very well and has been able to observe the conduct of their actions through coexistence. This is how we see that it was also done among you in the ordination of our colleague Sabino: the episcopacy was conferred on him and hands were laid on him to replace Basilides by the vote of the entire community of brothers and that of the bishops who were present and those who sent you their vote for carta. This legally well-made order cannot be invalidated by anyone who Basilides, after his crimes became evident and he himself confessed his guilt, he went to Rome and deceived our colleague Esteban- ​​who resides far away and had no knowledge of the facts or the truth -, in order to obtain that he be unjustly reinstated in the episcopate of which he had justly been deprived. This only means that the crimes of Basilides Not only have they not been erased, but they have increased, since the crime of deceit and imposture has been added to their previous offenses. We should not blame the one who carelessly allowed himself to be surprised as much as we should anathematize the one who surprised him with his frauds. But if Basilides could surprise men, it cannot surprise God, since it is written that “no one mocks God” (Gal 6, 7)

Saint Cyprian, salvation, faith and works

Not by chance could a Protestant be seen quoting Saint Cyprianin this regard, and even the least objective of them would have to recognize that the same Luther would have suffered a myocardial infarction, before recognizing what Saint Cyprianteaches in Of opera et eleemosynis (Good works and alms).  It teaches that just as they have been redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ, and furthermore, divine mercy provides them with a means of securing salvation a second time, should human weakness and frailty have dragged them into sin after baptism (You will not see Saint Cyprianteaching the Protestant cry “Once saved always saved”). The saint states that “As in the lavacro of the water salvific The fire of hell is extinguished, so the flame is also subdued by alms and good works. Because in baptism remission of sins is granted once and for all, the constant and incessant exercise of good works, like baptism, grants again the mercy of God…; Those who have gone astray after the grace of baptism can be cleansed again.”

Saint Cyprian, the Eucharist and penance

Saint Cyprian’s position regarding the Eucharist is another point where Protestants mention  not even by mistake. It happens that the Eucharistic texts of Saint Cyprianabound in concrete indications, rich in meaning and doctrine, and are opposite to the absolutely majority tendency among Protestants regarding this point. For them the Eucharist has no character sacrificial, and the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of the Lord but are simple symbols. For Saint Cyprian(as well as for the Catholic Church) its character sacrificial It is indisputable, in the Eucharist (which the Saint also calls “the bread of life” and “body of the Lord”) the perfect sacrifice (Malaquías1,11)  of his Son is presented to the Father. It also witnesses the daily celebration of it.

The saint’s texts are also a valuable source of information regarding the penitential discipline of the Church, it is necessary for him that sinners confess their sins in the Church and be absolved through the laying on of hands of the bishop and the clergy. It is essential that they do this before receiving the Eucharist, otherwise they would desecrate the body of the Lord. (Confirming what I already knew from other patristic writings such as The Didaché, and by Origen.

For the saint, the Eucharist is celebrated on the altar (curiously, Protestants also reject this) and heretics cannot consecrate it.

Revealing is attested by Saint Cyprian the common custom of making prayers and offering the Eucharist for the eternal rest of the deceased, it would seem that we are not reading writings of early Christian literature but a Catholic catechism today.

Carta 1 n.2 (HARTEL: CSELv.3 p.2 pg.463s, L. BAYARD, Saint Cyprien. Correspondance (Paris 1945), ML4,399 A – B: epist. 66).

“…And that is why Victor, since contrary to the form recently prescribed in the council by the priests, he has dared to constitute the presbyter as guardian Gemini Faustino, there is no reason to do it between you the oblation for his death or pray some prayer for him in the Church, so that we may observe the decree of the priests prepared religiously and out of necessity, and at the same time it may be an example to the other brothers, so that no one calls for worldly nuisances to the priests and ministers of God dedicated to his altar and to his Church.”

Note that here Saint Cyprianleaves implicit the custom of offering the Eucharist for the deceased. He denies it in the particular case by virtue of the violation of the conciliar decisions that he attributes to Víctor when ordering Gemini Faustino priest.

Carta 12 n.2 (HARTEL, 503s, BAYARD, ML4,328 b – 329 a: EPIST. 37)

“Finally, also write down the days on which they die, so that we can celebrate their commemorations among the memories of the martyrs.”: even though Tertuliano, our most faithful and devoted brother, with his concern and care, which he distributes to the brothers without haggling over his activity, and who is not even hesitant in caring for the corpses there, has written and will write and let me know, among other things, the days in which our blessed brothers depart in prison for immortality. with the end of a glorious death, and let us here celebrate oblations and sacrifices in commemoration of them., which things we will soon celebrate with you, with the protection of God.”

Carta15 n.1 (HARTEL, 513s; BAYARD; ML4,254 A – B, epist. 10).

…These, without taking into account either the fear of God or the honor of the bishop, since you had sent me letters in which you asked that your wishes be examined and that peace be given to some of the fallen, when the persecution is over, let us begin to meet and gather with the clergy; against the law of the Gospel and also against your honorable request, before having done penance, before making the confession of such a serious and extreme crime, before the hand was imposed as a sign of penitence by the bishop and the clergy, they dare there to offer for them and [give them] the Eucharist, that is, to profane the holy body of the Lord, It being written: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

Carta 16. n.2ff (HARTEL, 518ff; Bayard; ML4,251 A – 253 B epist. 9)

2″..For if, when it comes to minor sins, sinners do penance for the due time, and in accordance with what is ordered in the disciplinary provision, they come to confession and receive the right to communion by the laying on of the hands of the bishop and the clergy., now in raw times, when the persecution still lasts, and the peace of the Church itself has not yet been restored, they are received into communion, offered in their name., and without having yet done penance, nor having made confession nor having yet had the hand imposed on them by the bishop and the clergy, the Eucharist is given to them, since it is written: He who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

3…before the fear of persecution has been extinguished, before our return, almost before the very transit of the martyrs, they have communion with the fallen, offer and deliver the Eucharist…

4…let these know that, if they continue in the same thing any longer, I will use the admonition that the Lord commands me to use, so that in the meantime they will be prohibited from offering [the Eucharistic sacrifice].

Carta39 n.3 (HARTEL, 583, BAYARD, ML4,323 A: epist. 34)

“…We offer sacrifices for them, as you remember, always that in the annual commemoration we celebrate the days of the passion of the martyrs.”

Carta 57 n.4 (HARTEL, 651ff, BAYARD, ML3,856 TO – 858 A: epist synod. conc. Carthage).

“…First of all, someone who the Church does not arm for the fight, and gives up the spirit, cannot be fit for martyrdom.”  to him who does not raise and inflame the Eucharist received”

Carta 58 n.1 (HARTEL, 656s, BAYARD, ML4,350 A: epist 56).

“…A harder and fiercer fight now threatens, for which the soldiers of Christ must prepare themselves with an incorrupt faith and a robust virtue, considering that this is why they drink the chalice of the blood of Christ every day in order to be able to shed the blood themselves for Christ.”

Carta58 n.9 (HARTEL, 665, BAYARD, ML4,357 A).

“…Let us also arm the right hand with the spiritual sword, so that it may reject with strength the fatal sacrifices, so that remembering the Eucharist, the [right hand] that receives the body of the Lord embrace him himself, she who will shortly receive from the Lord the prize of heavenly crowns

Carta70 n.2 (HARTEL768, BAYARD, ML3.1040 A – 1041 A: epist. Synod. conc. Carthage).

“—for it is the Eucharist from which the baptized are anointed, the oil sanctified on the altar, But the creature of the oil could not be sanctified by those who neither had an altar nor a Church. From which spiritual anointing cannot be found among the heretics, since among them it is absolutely impossible to consecrate the oil and make the Eucharist.”

Here I summarize the position of Saint Cyprianregarding the Eucharist, this is a very small sample, you can consult the rest of his letters, as well as “The Lord’s Prayer” (From Dominican pray), where he affirms that the daily bread is Christ in the Eucharist, “Because Christ is the bread of those of us who touch his body. We ask, therefore, that it be given to us daily, so that those of us who live in Christ and receive his Eucharist daily for food of health, may not be separated from his body for some serious crime that prohibits us from the heavenly Bread and separates us from the body of Christ.”

Saint Cyprian and Baptism

For the saint, the conception of baptism is also very different from that of most Protestants. For the Protestants of Anabaptist tendency who are the majority (Baptists, pentecostals, etc.) baptism is simply a symbol of faith, it is not necessary for salvation and no regeneration is wrought in the person by it.  (It must be clarified that for the Lutherans The position differs from the rest of Protestantism, and they have even condemned the position of the rest of the Protestants in this sense, the confession of Augsburgo). For Catholics, however, baptism is a sacrament, through baptism one enters the Church and is born again. The thought of Saint Cyprian is totally consonant with the thought of the Holy Church today and that of the rest of the early Church. In his treatise a Donatohe refers to baptism as the “sacrament of regeneration“and how through him he passed from the corruption, violence and brutality of the pagan world to the peace and happiness of the Christian life. He has a firm conviction that in baptism all the sins of the past life are forgiven (These Protestant groups with an Anabaptist tendency also deny that in baptism there is remission of sins)

Saint Cyprian, To Donatus (Ad Donatum) (cf. 4: BAC 241, 109)

“As I found myself trapped and entangled among so many errors of my previous life, from which I did not believe I could get rid, I myself condescended to my inveterate vices and, desperate to amend myself, I encouraged my evils as facts and nature in me. But after the stains of the past life were erased with the water of regeneration and light was infused into my transformed and purified spirit, after I was changed into a new man by a second birth by the infusion of the heavenly Spirit, instantly the doubts were clarified in a wonderful way…”

Conclusion

Was Saint CyprianProtestant? Just answer these questions:

1) Do Protestants believe in apostolic succession and that Peter was given primacy by instituting a chair by virtue of unity?

2) Do Protestants believe that the Eucharist has character, is the perfect sacrifice of Christ that is presented to the Father on the altar, fulfilling what was prophesied by the Lord in Malaquías1,11 and that the consecrated bread and wine are really (and not symbols) the Body and Blood of Christ?

3) Do Protestants celebrate the Eucharist for the eternal rest of the dead?

4) Do Protestants confess their sins before the clergy and do the penance imposed by them?

5) Do you believe that baptism is a necessary sacrament for salvation and that it is where one is born again? Do they refer to baptism as the bathing of water by the word?

If you can answer yes to all of those answers, then Cyprian was a Protestant.

Notes:

(1) Explain Quasten that a double version is preserved of this fourth chapter, one of them with emphasis on the primacy of Peter, and that regarding this there was a controversy as a result of some denunciations of Hartel (the editor of Cyprianworks in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna 1866ff.). Sun Chapman proved that these variations are not due to a corruption of the text but to a revision made by Cyprianhimself. In revising the original, I would have introduced the additions. This has been confirmed by research by D. vanden Eynden, EITHER. Perler and M. Bévenot, but the latter invert the order of the two versions, considering the oldest one to be the one that emphasizes the primacy of Peter (A Questen This last opinion seems to him the most probable). S. Ludwig However, it presents the primate’s text as the only authentic one and the other as an edition that is due to the hand of some supporter of Cyprianin the course of his baptismal controversy. G.Le Moine does not agree.

Author: José Miguel Arraiz

Bibliography

BAC206. Patrology I, Johannes Quasten

BAC88. Texts Eucharistic primitives I, Jesus Solano

Catholic Website Mercaba.org, http://www.mercaba.org/TESORO/cartel-patres.htm

Catholic Website of the Magisterium of the Church http://ar.geocities.com/magisterio_iglesia/contenido.html