Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Fathers of the Third Century
>
Cyprian "On Church Unity": Why Cyprian in Novatian out? Q #3 [undefined and inactive]
date
newest »
newest »
An initial statement of the question was by Nemo:"Why does Cyprian think he is in the Church and Novatian is not?"
Before we invest time in a discussion, let's make sure the question is what people want to discuss. I'm going to be detailed in this in order that people have something fairly precise to react to -- to ratify or to dissent from. The previous discussions on these topics have attempted to address a wide range of questions using a wide variety of sources. I'm trying to define the discussion so we can discuss productively.
First, I propose to include Felicissimus in the question.
I take the question quite literally: "Why does Cyprian think he is in the Church and Novatian and Felicissimus are not?" asks Cyprian's reasons for thinking he is in the Church and Novatian is not. As the question is stated, as I read it, the discussion would not include evaluating the factual validity of Cyprian's thinking.
Let's go a little further. The immediate answer to that question might be trivial: Cyprian judges that he and Cornelius are in the all-Mediterranean network of mutually validating bishops and Novatian and Felicissimus are not. We would hunt up in his letters and treatises the rules and factual judgments by which he convinces himself that Novatian and Felicissimus are not in the network.
If what we want to discuss is why Cyprian deems that test sufficient to determine whether someone is in the Church or not, it seems to me we need a somewhat different question to guide the discussion.
Perhaps ... "Why does Cyprian think that a bishop's being or not being in the all-Mediterranean network of mutually validating bishops is sufficient all by itself (without reference to the bishop's doctrinal stances) to determine whether a bishop (and priests and parishioners under that bishop) is in the Church or outside the Church?" The purpose of this question is to explore his underlying thinking about the Church.
The relevant sources for both questions seem to me to be 1) Cyprian's writings, and 2) general historical background.
"General historical background" would be such things as travel speeds, the dates of major events (such as the persecution), which bishops in general in the 3rd century were deemed to make up that network, and so on. Historical works on the details and claims involved in these particular disputes would not be relevant sources.
If the term "all-Mediterranean network of mutually validating bishops" is problematic, let's work on it. I tried to describe it in message 45 in the Q #2 discussion.
If it would help first to understand what Cyprian says are the effects of being "outside the Church" we could work on that.
My goal is to frame a question and specify relevant sources so that the discussion does what people here want it to do. Please do comment, and please propose entirely new candidate questions from scratch if the ones above don't do the job.
I will be online much more often than I was for the Q #2 discussion. I failed to do the minimal duties of a discussion leader or facilitator, and I apologize to all.
We could actually do both questions. The one about Cyprian's case against Novatian will be easier than the other one if (as I picture it) it would mainly be collecting from Cyprian's letters the chain of events as he claimed it was.
It seems to me that opening another question right now is beyond the scarce resources of the group, which is already pursuing other discussions and is preparing to begin reading a new work (or rereading an old one). So as facilitator and participant I'm marking it undefined and inactive.
I think we've flogged the horse to death in the "Who is *in* the Church? Q#2" thread. Might as well move on.
Status as of 2017-10-27
Question is undefined and inactive.