Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Fathers of the Third Century
>
Cyprian "On Church Unity": Who is *in* the Church? Q #2 [An answer proposed]
And a personal note: see paragraph 2 in the letter to the people:they have now turned their attention with their envenomed deceitfulness to the ruin of the lapsed, to turn away from the healing of their wound the sick and the wounded, and those who, by the misfortune of their fall, are less fit and less sturdy to take stronger counsel; and invite them, by the falsehood of a fallacious peace, to a fatal rashness, leaving off prayers and supplications, whereby, with long and continual satisfaction, the Lord is to be appeased.
I can imagine that some people think that the measures that were taken as penitence for the lapsed are really harsh. Certainly in modern ears this sounds incredibly strict, three years without communion seems incredible to us.
I am not saying I would like to go back to that, but personally I really do believe that it can be quite helpful to have a longer period of repentance, because it seems to me that you can really have deep wounds in your soul that will only heal over a long time. I think it is a recognition that we are humans, not robots, and we cannot be instantly 'fixed', but need time to grow.
I am actually really impressed with the wisdom that shines through these pastoral letters.
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, "Cyprian's acknowledges in section 5 that Novatian's own writing which was circulated "throughout the whole world" shows mercy not inhumanness, towards the lapsed.'"The quotation says ..."
Are you saying the policy quoted in section 5 was inhuman, or it was not Novatian's writing, or Cyprian didn't acknowledge its humanness?
Ruth wrote: "...So: who is *in* the church? Answer: those who hold the conclusions of the general assembly ..."Yes, I agree that is what Cyprian really means. IOW, those who abide by the consensus of the bishops are in the Church.
But, the problem is there was no consensus of the bishops. Otherwise there wouldn't be a schism.
Cyprian accused the opposing parties of obtaining the bishopric through bribery without any supporting documents or other sources. It seems to me that he refuses to acknowledge the possibility that those who oppose his side have a legitimate place and voice in the Church.
Clark wrote: "...Cyprian explicitly says there was no general practice regarding the treatment of the lapsed, and it is this fact that means that Felicissimus is out of bounds by declaring and implementing a policy ..."People cannot be "out of bounds" when bounds don't exist.
When there was no general policy, the policy implemented locally served a practical purpose, especially in times of crisis.
Nemo wrote: "Ruth wrote: "...So: who is *in* the church? Answer: those who hold the conclusions of the general assembly ..."Yes, I agree that is what Cyprian really means. IOW, those who abide by the consensu..."
Okay, there was no consensus, good point.
But there is more, I think:
There is one other sentence that is interesting, in paragraph 21: And, indeed, among our predecessors, some of the bishops here in our province thought that peace was not to be granted to adulterers, and wholly closed the gate of repentance against adultery. Still they did not withdraw from the assembly of their co-bishops, nor break the unity of the Catholic Church by the persistency of their severity or censure; so that, because by some peace was granted to adulterers, he who did not grant it should be separated from the Church. While the bond of concord remains, and the undivided sacrament of the Catholic Church endures, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord
So: apparently, he seems to be saying that it is actually possible for a bishop to do what he thinks best in his own district, and still do different than the general assembly.
And from that paragraph 24 I get the impression that Novatian goes a lot further than just doing what he thinks best: he is actively sending out apostles to create new bishops in a place where there already is a bishop.
Ruth wrote: "...I am not saying I would like to go back to that, but personally I really do believe that it can be quite helpful to have a longer period of repentance..."I understand what you mean, but I tend to think our whole life is a life of repentance and healing, all having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Ruth wrote: "... he seems to be saying that it is actually possible for a bishop to do what he thinks best in his own district, and still do different than the general assembly....."I also find that paragraph interesting. A federation of bishops, in a sense.
As for Novatian's action, I wonder whether it is the office of the Bishop of Rome to appoint regional bishops, or whether they are elected locally. It seems to me that Cyprian's main objection is that those bishops are excellent and shouldn't be replaced, not that the office of bishop of Rome doesn't have authority to replace them.
Nemo wrote: "As for Novatian's action, I wonder whether it is the office of the Bishop of Rome to appoint regional bishops, or whether they are elected locally. It seems to me that Cyprian's main objection is that those bishops are excellent and shouldn't be replaced, not that the office of bishop of Rome doesn't have authority to replace them."Aha, this is very clarifying. I am afraid I had completely missed the point that Novatian was actually bishop of Rome according to some. I have now read that link that you provided https://earlychurch.org.uk/novatian.php
And this certainly sheds some interesting light on the case.
So although I agree with Cyprian in theory, it may have been the case that he himself didn't act according to his own words.
Ruth wrote: "Nemo wrote: "As for Novatian's action, I wonder whether it is the office of the Bishop of Rome to appoint regional bishops, or whether they are elected locally. It seems to me that Cyprian's main o..."Doesn't Nemo's post say that Cornelius was elected, by a majority, seemingly in accord with "all the rules" - which one, shows that there were "rules" with which one did this sort of thing and two, that minority who just didn't like that outcome took it upon themselves to just "not in accord with the rules", put up Novatian?
Ruth wrote: "...I have now read that link that you provided https://earlychurch.org.uk/novatian.phpAnd this certainly sheds some interesting light on the case...."
I have to admit I didn't read the whole article on Novatian by Adolf Harnack, a prominent Protestant historian, but one point stood out to me: Novatian's vision of the Church differs from that of Cyprian.
The question of *who* is in the Church is inseparable from the question *what* is the Church. I think the division between Cyprian and Novatian anticipates, for lack of a better word, the modern division among Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants concerning the nature and structure of the Church.
Nemo wrote: "Ruth wrote: "...I have now read that link that you provided https://earlychurch.org.uk/novatian.phpAnd this certainly sheds some interesting light on the case...."
I have to admit I didn't read t..."
Are you able to articulate how you see Novatian's vision of the Church differing from Cyprian's?
Do you think the modern division is really any different than back then? Are we all of a working thought process at least that there is a genuine true Church in fidelity to Jesus as He founded it, and anything 'other' than that, is not 'in' the Church?
Clark wrote: "MY PURPOSE IN WRITING THIS IS TO REDUCE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE CANON LAW AND THE WAY CHURCH DECIDED THINGS DURING THESE YEARS."If you want to emphasize a point, please use bold font instead of uppercase letters, because the latter is harder to read. I don't see any of us as combative here, though it might seem that way to some people sometimes. :)
The key word is collegialtiy -- decisions are to be made by bishops arguing with each other."
Cyprian's vision of the council is a means to reach consensus and cooperation, not a venue for argumentation, I think. For one thing, he refuses to consider the arguments of his opponents.
As you said in another thread, "The sufficiency of discursive reason by itself to discover authoritative truth seems to me to be a much more Protestant idea". I appreciate that your purpose is to be informative, and I've enjoyed learning the Eastern Orthodox perspective from you, but I don't see the Eastern Orthodox Church as closer to early Church in that regard. :)
Have you ever been in the situation that one friend was telling you about what another friend did, and you totally agree that the other friend now really did something horrible. But then later, you speak with the other friend and it turns out that he is very much hurt too, and it's all very understandable why he did what he did.
All this doesn't help one bit in reconciliation, but I have learned that things are generally much more complex than when you hear only one side of the story.
And this is precisely what we have now. Cyprian has a really good story, but we don't really know the other side.
What struck me in the historical background was this:
After the death of Fabian, in the beginning of the Decian persecution, no new bishop was elected in Rome. As he could probably not be elected without his name being given to the police, he would be sure to be immediately put to death; and thus it happened that the see remained vacant for fifteen months. During the interval, the congregation was represented and governed by the college of presbyters and deacons, which, when complete, consisted of fifty-three persons Among those members of the college who are known to us, Novatian stands in the first rank; while the name of the later bishop, the presbyter Cornelius, is never heard of.
Is it a reasonable statement to say that Cyprian's primary, core beef with Felicissimus and Novatian was not about their specific teachings but about their actions of anti-unity?If so, does this fact help explain why Nemo cannot discover a significant doctrinal case by Cyprian against those two?
Clark wrote: "Is it a reasonable statement to say that Cyprian's primary, core beef with Felicissimus and Novatian was not about their specific teachings but about their actions of anti-unity?If so, does this ..."
Meaning they had every right to hash these things out among the 'college' when they convened, but they kinda circumvented all that by just elevating themselves and pronouncing themselves so correct that people should now follow them instead of the others?
What if I were to say that for Cyprian there was a profound doctrinal matter here and he fought tooth and nail about it, and the doctrinal matter was not the foreground topics (how to handle the lapsed) but rather the underlying, fundamental topic of the absolute need to maintain the unity of the church, the reality of the Church as the body of Christ?I am thinking out loud here, trying to get inside Cyprian's head, not trying to make a definitive case for anything.
"maintain the unity of the church" = Do not break the collegiality and interconnectedness and interdependence of the bishops. What matters is the network of relationships. Do not break Communion. Do not tear the fabric that is the Church. Do not tear apart Christ's body, the Church.
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?20 But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Co 12:12–21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
That is not a proof text. It is a passage that I was reminded of when I wrote the words above. Does Cyprian see the actions of Felicissimus and Novatian as the eye saying to the hand I have no need of you?
Nemo said,"Are you saying the policy quoted in section 5 was inhuman, or it was not Novatian's writing, or Cyprian didn't acknowledge its humanness?"I'm saying the extremely precise thing that I said. Cyprian mentioned that Novatian had said that. Cyprian quite literally did not state anything at all about its humaneness or lack thereof. It is not our privilege to fill in Cyprian's silence.
Clark wrote: "What if I were to say that for Cyprian there was a profound doctrinal matter here and he fought tooth and nail about it, and the doctrinal matter was not the foreground topics (how to handle the la..."Hmmm....but he mentions Jew/Greek, slaves/free....is this quote pertaining more to the 'universality' of the Faith, meaning no one is excluded, world-wide 'members', all are called....but is that different than the universality of 'ideas' - some not in fidelity to the Faith....not all 'members' in that scenario would be 'one' body, would it? Is there a distinction there? What exactly is meant by 'many members'?
Nemo said, "People cannot be "out of bounds" when bounds don't exist."There were clear bounds, but not in any mechanical or juridical sense.
The bishops in the region had consulted each other and decided not to implement any policy regarding the lapsed until later when they could look at it in peace in detail. Felicissimus directly defied that regional consensual decision. Thereby he directly violated the governing principles of collegiality and unity. Out of bounds.
Susan wrote: "Doesn't Nemo's post say that Cornelius was elected, by a majority, seemingly in accord with "all the rules" - which one, shows that there were "rules" with which one did this sort of thing and two, that minority who just didn't like that outcome took it upon themselves to just "not in accord with the rules", put up Novatian?"That's exactly what happened. Novatian didn't like the outcome of the election he felt entitled to. After Fabian was martyred there was an interregnum of the presbyters. This happened fairly often during that time. Then Cornelius was elected despite the support Novatian thought he had. Eusebius writes:
"[Novatian] chose two accessories who had renounced their own salvation and sent them to a small and very obscure corner of Italy to entice by some trick three uneducated and simple-minded bishops of the region to come from there to Rome, insisting emphatically that they were needed as they could act as mediators... By the end of the afternoon they were drunk and sick with the aftereffects; he forcibly compelled them to make him bishop by a false and invalid laying on of hands, an office he assumed cunning by treachery as it was not his by right. One of the bishops, not long afterwards, returned to the church, bewailing and admitting his fault, and we had communion with him as a layman, since the lay people with him pleaded for him. As for the other two, we appointed successors and sent them to their places." (HE 6.43.8-10)In other words, Novatian's ordination to bishop was invalid. Subsequently Cornelius "assembled sixty bishops and an even larger number of presbyters and deacons in Rome. They endorsed the excommunication of Novatian, cutting him off from any episcopal support in Italy." (Bernard Green)
Nemo's link doesn't mention Novatian's excommunication, unless I missed it.
Susan said, "What exactly is meant by 'many members'?"I don't think the details matter here. Did the early church teach that the Church is Christ's body? Is it likely that Cyprian's picture of the Church as Christ's body was similar to the one in Paul's passage?
"Members" in modern American parlance refers to indistinguishable similar components, like "Democratic party members." But the original meaning is more like organs -- unique, differentiated components that together form a complex whole but which individually cannot be independent.
Clark wrote: "... Cyprian mentioned that Novatian had said that. Cyprian quite literally did not state anything at all about its humaneness or lack thereof. It is not our privilege to fill in Cyprian's silence..."Cyprian mentioned in section 5 that Novatian wrote on behalf of the church in Rome. He agreed with the policy written. I think it is reasonable to conclude that he acknowledges the humanness of the policy.
Clark wrote: "..The bishops in the region had consulted each other and decided not to implement any policy regarding the lapsed..."Where does the text say that?
Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "Doesn't Nemo's post say that Cornelius was elected, by a majority, seemingly in accord with "all the rules" - which one, shows that there were "rules" with which one did this sort of ..."wow...I didn't see this post until right now.
Kerstin wrote: "....sent them to a small and very obscure corner of Italy to entice by some trick three uneducated and simple-minded bishops.."I think the lowliness of the bishops doesn't invalid their ordination. Not to mention that It is very unchristian to demean a brother like that.
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "....sent them to a small and very obscure corner of Italy to entice by some trick three uneducated and simple-minded bishops.."I think the lowliness of the bishops doesn't invalid..."
That may be, I can't change what Eusebius wrote. But, the implication is that these bishops were tricked while being sloppy drunk. That's what makes it invalid. The subsequent synod of bishops agreed and dealt with it.
The way I look at it, Novatian was a little too eager for high office, and paid the price for it. Perhaps if he had been a bit more patient and waited his turn he may have had a chance after all.
Clark wrote: "What if I were to say that for Cyprian there was a profound doctrinal matter here and he fought tooth and nail about it, and the doctrinal matter was not the foreground topics (how to handle the la..."Yes, that is what I was saying in message 57. But then Nemo pointed out that perhaps Novatian was actually doing what was his task according to the current policy. For, if he was the 'real' bishop of Rome, than it might have been his task to define the policy in that region, and then Cyprian was interfering.
Now this is a debated issue. From Eusebius we get the description of how invalid the procedure was for Novatian, but then, history always gets written by the winner, and I am personally not convinced. It could just as well be that someone was bribed to tell that story about bribes.
I do not have any clues for this in the text, my doubts are just based on other similar events.
But.. it is a long time ago, and I don't think we have the means to pursue that matter further.
The theory of what Cyprian wanted to say seems clear enough to me: regardless of what issue is at hand, unity means that: each bishop can do in his own district what he wants, it is preferable to keep to the conclusions of the general assembly, and one is not to interfere in other districts.
Nemo wrote: "Clark wrote: "..The bishops in the region had consulted each other and decided not to implement any policy regarding the lapsed..."Where does the text say that?"
I think that is from paragraph 4:
But I put off deciding what was to be arranged about the case of the lapsed, so that when quiet and tranquillity should be granted, and the divine indulgence should allow the bishops to assemble into one place, then the advice gathered from the comparison of all opinions being communicated and weighed, we might determine what was necessary to be done. But if any one, before our council, and before the opinion decided upon by the advice of all, should rashly wish to communicate with the lapsed, he himself should be withheld from communion
And in paragraph 5 he says that he wrote that to Rome and received an acknowledging reply from Novatian.
(Note, I find those words about Novatian there a little bit difficult to understand, but the above is what seems to make most sense to me)
Ruth wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Clark wrote: "..The bishops in the region had consulted each other and decided not to implement any policy regarding the lapsed..."Where does the text say that?"
I think that is from paragraph 4.."
In that paragraph, Cyprian wrote "I put off deciding", not that the bishops in the region agreed to put off the decision.
Yes, I noticed that too (when I started the copy-paste :-) ) But still, in paragraph 5 he states that the people in Rome had agreed with this. Or doesn't he?
Kerstin wrote: "...bishops were tricked while being sloppy drunk. That's what makes it invalid..."Cyprian said nothing about drunkenness of the bishops in his letter. If that had been a known fact in his time, surely he would have mentioned it. Accusing the other side of drunkennes is a common ad hominem tactic, as is judging a person by the place of his origin. These factors, along with the lack of supporting documents from independent sources, incline me to distrust and disagree with the opinion expressed.
Cyprian argued against appointing or electing a new bishop while there is an incumbent bishop. In Eusebius' writing, that's what the party who opposed Novatian did, i.e., appointing bishops to replace those who supported him.
Ruth wrote: "Yes, I noticed that too (when I started the copy-paste :-) ) But still, in paragraph 5 he states that the people in Rome had agreed with this. Or doesn't he?"
Novatian, writing on behalf of the clergy in Rome, agreed with Cyprian.
(My personal take: Paragraph 5 was purposely vague because Cyprian didn't want to acknowledge Novatian's eminence in the church of Rome, where Cornelius was relatively unknown. It doesn't help his case. Nevertheless he must state the fact of the letter written by Novatian, so he manages to attach Cornelius' name to the letter by inserting it before Novatian in the same paragraph.)
Nemo wrote: "Ruth wrote: "Yes, I noticed that too (when I started the copy-paste :-) ) But still, in paragraph 5 he states that the people in Rome had agreed with this. Or doesn't he?"
Novatian, writing on be..."
I'm sort of confused. If I try to look into Novatian just online, there seems to be consensus that he was in the wrong. Are you saying Nemo that you are unsure that he was wrong and that you feel we may be reading this wrong and actually Novatian was in the right and I guess, Cornelius and the many others were wrong? I guess I am not sure what you are saying.
Nemo wrote: "Cyprian said nothing about drunkenness of the bishops in his letter. If that had been a known fact in his time, surely he would have mentioned it. Accusing the other side of drunkennes is a common ad hominem tactic, as is judging a person by the place of his origin. These factors, along with the lack of supporting documents from independent sources, incline me to distrust and disagree with the opinion expressed."I cited the Eusebius part, and of the Bernard Green multiple times in this discussion precisely because you are so picky. My intent was to clarify the situation regarding Novatian and whether his status as bishop. Eusebius wrote about it. Now regardless of how he presented it, we know there must have been a scandal of Novatian not being properly ordained as bishop, Cornelius dealing with the problem convening a synod, and that the synod excommunicated him.
Nemo, we are just regular folk here, not scholars with seventeen PhDs behind our name.
I propose the following answer to the question that is governing this discussion topic.According to Cyprian, who is *in* the church and who is not?
According to Cyprian if you are worshiping in a church that that is under a bishop who is in the mutually recognizing network of bishops, you're in. Otherwise, you are out.
"Under" means either the bishop himself is the priest in that church or the church's priest was ordained by that bishop.
BTW, the question as stated is not whether the rule is one we would agree with or whether Cyprian in a particular case got the right result by applying his rule for who is in and who is not. The question is what his rule was.
Do I need to supply references or explanation? If people want references, etc., I will be including some info from some Cyprian letters other than the two we have officially read.
Nemo wrote: "Clark wrote: "... Cyprian mentioned that Novatian had said that. Cyprian quite literally did not state anything at all about its humaneness or lack thereof. It is not our privilege to fill in Cypri..."If you were a journalist you might recognize that these two statements are quite different:
Your statement: "Cyprian's acknowledges in section 5 that Novatian's own writing which was circulated "throughout the whole world" shows mercy not inhumanness, towards the lapsed."
Precise statement: "Cyprian mentioned without comment that at one point Novatian had promulgated a policy allowing lapsed to be received into the church if they were near death." Or "Cyprian mentioned without comment that at one point Novatian had promulgated a policy that we might reasonably deem humane and merciful."
Your statement does not merely infer a conclusion but puts words into Cyprian's mouth.
Your inference is a reasonable one, but it must be framed as an inference, not portrayed as something that Cyprian said. We have to be very careful and precise when dealing with texts.
I ask people's help to connect the following assertions to the discussion above, which I admit I've lost track of.Cyprian mentions that at one point Novatian sent a letter from Rome promulgating a policy.
It does not seem to me useful to do a bunch of "what if" stuff here. We have to work from what we know.
The mere sending of a letter promulgating a policy tells us only that the sender was part of the group of people who could send letters communicating policies, nothing more. People who want to assert that sending the letter implies or entails some defined status of the sender have to establish that from texts.
Clark wrote: ""Under" means either the bishop himself is the priest in that church or the church's priest was ordained by that bishop."That's exactly right. Our priest recently made a comment to the effect as well. To be "in" the Church means under bishop, priest, deacon.
Nemo said, "(My personal take: Paragraph 5 was purposely vague because Cyprian didn't want to acknowledge Novatian's eminence in the church of Rome, where Cornelius was relatively unknown. It doesn't help his case. Nevertheless he must state the fact of the letter written by Novatian, so he manages to attach Cornelius' name to the letter by inserting it before Novatian in the same paragraph."This is not close reading of the text. This is personal speculation, reading the person's position into the text.
It is correctly labeled as a "personal take." People are of course welcome to share their speculations and personal takes.
Clark wrote: " ...Your statement does not merely infer a conclusion but puts words into Cyprian's mouth"To put words into someone's mouth means to "say that someone means one thing when the person really meant something else".
When you say I put words into Cyprian's mouth, you are presuming that you know what he really means. But I made a inference about his meaning, which you agree is reasonable. So I'm not putting words into Cyprian's mouth.
Clark wrote: "...According to Cyprian if you are worshiping in a church that that is under a bishop who is in the mutually recognizing network of bishops, you're in. Otherwise, you are out..."Yes, I think that is his position. However, it alone doesn't help his case, because those who are on Novatian's side also have a network of mutually recognizing bishops.
Nemo wrote: "Clark wrote: "...According to Cyprian if you are worshiping in a church that that is under a bishop who is in the mutually recognizing network of bishops, you're in. Otherwise, you are out..."Yes..."
Where do you see the validation (in other letters/historical papers?) of Novatian's contingency, because again, from these and other online sources, it seems like most agree he was the one out of bounds as we termed it....
Kerstin wrote: "...I cited the Eusebius part, and of the Bernard Green multiple times in this discussion precisely because you are so picky..."Thank you for indulging me. :) I'm "picky" partly because I was brought up this way. It had nothing to do with religion. I've been taught since childhood not to rely on authority, but always check an opinion or theory against the facts. Please don't take it personally.
People are free to draw their own conclusions from the arguments, facts and hearsays presented to them. As I said elsewhere, I like to know what people believe and why, Christians in particular. In this case, I like to know what Cyprian believe about the Church and why. I doubt I'll find the answer to my question, at least not in these letters.
Nemo said, "To put words into someone's mouth means to "say that someone means one thing when the person really meant something else". When you say I put words into Cyprian's mouth, you are presuming that you know what he really means. But I made a inference about his meaning, which you agree is reasonable. So I'm not putting words into Cyprian's mouth. "
To put words into someone's mouth is to say that they said something they didn't say.
So you did put words into Cyprian's mouth.
Nemo said, " those who are on Novatian's side also have a network of mutually recognizing bishops."I am answering the question that was posed to govern this discussion.
BTW, the question as stated is not whether the rule is one we would agree with or whether Cyprian in a particular case got the right result by applying his rule for who is in and who is not. The question is what his rule was.
Would anyone like to pose a new question for a new discussion topic?
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, "To put words into someone's mouth means to "say that someone means one thing when the person really meant something else". When you say I put words into Cyprian's mouth, you are presu..."
I've quoted the definition of that phrase from the dictionary. Where is your dictionary definition?
Nemo said, " I like to know what Cyprian believe about the Church and why. I doubt I'll find the answer to my question, at least not in these letters."Cyprian in these letters and the treatises has said what he believes about the Church and why. I simply and honestly don't understand why what he says is invisible to you, but evidently it is.
If you wish, please feel free to frame a question we can discuss.
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, " I like to know what Cyprian believe about the Church and why. I doubt I'll find the answer to my question, at least not in these letters."Cyprian in these letters and the treatises h..."
Tell me then, why does Cyprian think he is in the Church and Novatian is not?
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
On the Apostolic Tradition (other topics)Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries (other topics)
(note: it wasn't Susan, but me, Ruth, who wrote that)
Are you saying that it would..."
hahahaha. I was going to say, I don't remember saying that, but you know me and my memory! :)