| << | Contents | >> |
Cyprian
The passage that follows seems to be a quotation from the common prayers then in use. Out of these “bidding prayers” grew the ancient litanies; the deacon dictating the suffrage, and the people responding with the petition, “Lord, have mercy upon them,” or the like.
By arranging the petitions thus,—
Pro lapsis oremus ut erigantur;
Pro stantibus ut non tententur, etc.,
we shall see how such prayers were formulated, and how the people, by responding Amen to each suffrage, gave their common supplications accordingly. These suffrages might be enlarged indefinitely, as divers subjects for prayer were presented; and so there was a mingling of what has been called “free prayer” with the liturgical system, without confusion or lack of harmony.
Thus Cyprian speaks of the Bishop of Rome, whose due ordination and rightful jurisdiction Novatian was impugning. The absurdity of calling this heretic Novatian an anti-pope involves a great confusion of ideas, however. For, as Cornelius was no more a pope than Cyprian (to both of whom the title was freely conceded in its primitive sense[3065], how can it be proper to give Novatian a name which implies a mediæval sense, and leads the student to infer that his claim was not merely to the See of Rome,[3066] but to a universal bishopric over all Christians? It is needless to say, that, had the churches so understood the case, the whole Christian world would have been convulsed by a matter which, in point of fact, was soon settled by Cyprian’s enforcement of the canons. See subsequent letters.
The similarity of the names of Novatus and Novatian, and their complicity in a common schism, led to great confusions among their contemporaries, which have not been wholly cleared even to this day. See Lardner’s elaborate argument against the latter name as a mere blunder. He calls Novatian also Novatus, and gives his forcible reasons.
Observe that “ordination” is the term here used for conferring the order of bishops on a presbyter. So always anciently, though now it is customary to speak only of the “consecration” of a bishop. This is the inferior term; for the bishop is supposed to be “consecrated” to his specialty or diocese, while he is raised by “ordination” to the order in which all bishops are equal. Mirabeau says, “Words are things.” I quote from a political source the following remarks of a shrewd observer of Mirabeau’s principle. Speaking of American phraseology in constitutional affairs, he says, “It is true that this is a mere matter of words or phrases, but words and phrases misused have a very potent influence for confusing the minds of men as to real things. In politics, as in theology, it is best to stick to the text, and to avoid supposedly equivalent phrases. Such phrases often contain within them the seeds of heresy and schism.” Now, it was the policy of the schoolmen to confuse terms, in order to break down the Cyprianic theory; and they denied that bishops were ordained to a “Holy Order.” Theirs was only a name of office; and their order was only an ecclesiastical order, as much so as “sacristans.”[3067] This to keep them from Cyprian’s claim of equality with the Bishop of Rome. But this was debatable school doctrine only, till the Council of Trent. Since that, it has been dogma in the Roman communion. Contrast, therefore, the Greek and (modern) Roman dogmas:—
1. Greek.[3068] “The three orders, by divine institution, are, (1) the episcopate, (2) the priesthood, (3) the diaconate.”
2. Roman.[3069] “According to the uniform tradition[3070] of the Catholic Church, the number of these orders is seven; and they are called (1) porter, (2) reader, (3) exorcist, (4) acolyte, (5) sub-deacon, (6) deacon, (7) priest.” The “bishop,” then, is only a priest, who acts as vicar for the one “Universal Bishop” at Rome. For the Greek theory, note Cyprian passim.
Observe the state of the case. “Lest perchance the number of bishops in Africa should seem unsatisfactory,” etc., he wrote to his colleague in Rome, who gathered a council also, “with very many bishops.” Imagine such language, and such action in any case, between the French metropolitan and the present Bishop of Rome! The contrast illustrates the absolute nonentity, in the Cyprianic age, of any conception of such relations as now exist between Rome and her vassal episcopate. “Prostrate at the feet of your Holiness,” etc.: the noblest bishops and the boldest at the Vatican Council thus signed their feeble and abject remonstrances. Among their names are Schwarzenberg, Furstenberg, and even Strossmayer.[3071]
Here is the principle expounded in the Treatise on Unity. He states it tersely as follows:—
“Episcopatus unus, episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus.”
And he then states in few words his theory of the “compact unity of the Catholic Church,” in which the existence of the “provinces” is recognised, and an “ecclesiastical structure;” but not a hint of what must have been laid down as the test and primal law of truth and unity, had any infallible supremacy been imagined to exist. In that case, no need of a treatise, no need of words: he would have said nothing of “co-bishops,” but simply of communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0001 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page