[If you haven’t already, we recommend reading the previous essay in this series. The Introduction contains a table of contents.]
Six posts in, we are still addressing Whelton’s first chapter (“Saint Peter & The Papacy”). The sheer number of his assertions and arguments about historical matters justify the space devoted to refuting them. We press on, dealing now with his treatment of Saints Cyprian and Augustine.
Distortions
Intentional or not, Whelton twists several passages to support his claims. He enlists the following “quotes” from Cyprian:
To all the Apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says, ‘As the Father sent Me so I send you.’1
For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose... when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held a primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.
The main problem with the first is that Whelton left out the indefinite article—an equal power, namely, the power to remit sins. Leaving out the indefinite article makes it seem like Cyprian is saying the apostles had equal power, not simply in some respects, but in every respect. But, of course, that’s not what it says.2
In the second, the reader may wonder what Whelton has left out with the ellipses. Here’s the full quotation:
For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.3 [emphasis mine]
Cyprian means precisely the opposite of what Whelton takes him to mean. He asserts that even Peter, on whom our Lord built the Church, did not invoke his primacy to resist Paul’s correction.
Whelton doesn’t stop there. He says that according to Augustine,
appealing a judgment from Rome to a universal council of the Church was perfectly legitimate, as he admits in his Epistle 43: “Supposing those bishops who judged at Rome were not good judges, there remained still a plenary Council of the universal Church where the cause could be sifted with the judges themselves, so that if they were convicted of having judged wrongly their sentence could be annulled.”
Unfortunately for Whelton, Augustine in that passage is not speaking himself but rather putting words into the mouths of heretics.
In a single paragraph, Whelton puts forth several sweeping assertions:
St. Augustine had ample opportunity… to express his belief in the supreme jurisdiction of Rome… Of the necessity of communion with Rome, or Rome as a centre of unity, or Rome’s supreme authority, there is not one single word. It should be mentioned that when St. Augustine refers to Rome as the “Apostolic See,” he is not conferring any special power or authority in the title, for “The Christian Society is diffused by the propagation all over the world by the Apostolic Sees and the succession of bishops in them.”4
Whelton's reference for the quote is inaccurate. Furthermore, he is mistaken in asserting that Augustine remained silent on the authority, jurisdiction, and center of unity of the Pope. Here are some examples to the contrary:
In Epistle 43, he refers to the Roman Church, descended from Peter through his successors, “in which the Princedom of the Apostolic Chair has always been in force."5
He attributes a higher authority to the Apostolic See than to other episcopates:
I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship (apostolatus principatum) is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom.6 [emphasis mine]
He writes to Bishop St. Optatus that he had to urgently depart, on an order from Pope Zosimus, to a foreign district to deal with a problem.7
Significantly, Augustine is perhaps clearest in his correspondence with Rome during the Pelagian crisis. He and several African bishops, after already condemning Pelagian teachings in their own synod, sought the condemnation of Pelagius from the highest authority, namely, Pope Innocent I. Specifically, they say:
[Pelagius’s teachings] ought to be anathematized by the authority of the Apostolic See.8 [emphasis mine]
we think that those who hold these distorted and dangerous views will readily submit to the authority of your Holiness, which is derived from the authority of the holy Scriptures.9 [emphasis mine]
We wish to be reassured by you that this trickle of ours [i.e., our defense against Pelagian teachings], however scant, flows from the same fountainhead as your abundant stream, and we desire the consolation of your writings, drawn from our common share of the one grace.10
Confirming the decisions of the African councils that had condemned the teachings of Pelagius, Pope Innocent I responded with authority to Augustine and his fellow bishops:
you have kept the precedents of ancient tradition, being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline… when you voted to submit the matter to our judgment, knowing well what is owing to the Apostolic See… [It] has been decreed by a divine, not a human, authority that whenever action is taken in any of the provinces, however distant or remote, it should not be brought to a conclusion before it comes to the knowledge of this See, so that every just decision may be affirmed by our complete authority.11 [emphasis mine]
while administering the Churches of which you have care, you have an interest in the welfare of all, and on behalf of the Churches of the whole world, in union with all, you ask a decree [of the Bishop of Rome] that may be for the good of all.12
Having sought the judgment of Rome, what did Augustine say about these strong responses from the Pope? If Whelton was right, surely Augustine would have been alarmed at the claims to authority. Instead, he says this:
Therefore, reports of this controversy [over Pelagius] were sent to the Apostolic See from the two Councils of Carthage and Milevis… He [Pope Innocent I] answered all these communications in a manner which was right and fitting for the pontiff of the Apostolic See.13 [emphasis mine]
Whelton on Augustine and the case of Pope Zosimus
Whelton cites the case of Pope Zosimus as an example of the Pope being subject to councils. To see why this is a poor objection, let’s consider the background.14
Already condemned by an African synod in 411, which Pope Innocent I confirmed, Pelagius and his disciple Celestius sought an appeal to the Pope in Rome. By the time they appeared, Innocent I had died, and they came before his successor, Pope Zosimus, in 417.
The Roman clergy confronted Celestius with the same propositions that led to his condemnation in 411. Celestius declined to condemn the propositions, but he verbally assented to the doctrines given in the letters of Innocent I and provided an approved confession of faith. Swayed by Celestius's crafty conduct, Zosimus was doubtful whether Celestius had advocated the errors rejected by Innocent I. For that reason, he deemed the condemnation of the African bishops too hasty, and wrote to them, urging those with accusations against Celestius to appear in Rome.
Subsequently, Pelagius gave Zosimus an artfully expressed confession of faith. At another synod in Rome, the assembly read his confession and new writings, and his deceptive expressions led them to consider his statements orthodox. Zosimus, again, wrote to the African bishops defending Pelagius and reproving his accusers. In response, bishop Aurelius of Carthage convened a synod, which sent a letter to Zosimus demonstrating that the heretics had deceived him. Zosimus, in reply, asserted that he had not definitively settled anything and had no intention of doing so without consulting the African bishops.
Following a synodal letter from the African council in 418, and several actions taken by Emperor Honorius against the Pelagians, Zosimus condemned Pelagianism and its authors.
After the condemnation, in a letter to the Council of Carthage, we find these startling claims from Zosimus himself:
the tradition of the Fathers has assigned such great authority to the apostolic see that no one would dare to dispute its judgments… His [i.e., Peter’s] place we rule, and we inherit the power of his name; you know this, dearest brothers, and as priests you ought to know it. Such then being our authority, that no one can revise our sentence.15 [emphasis mine]
Augustine never contested these robust claims made by the Pope. On the contrary, he consistently defended Pope Zosimus against charges similar to those presented by Whelton.16
Given the facts of the case of Pope Zosimus, it is odd (to say the least) for Whelton to casually use it as an objection.
Cyprian and Pope Stephen
Whelton cites the infamous clash between Cyprian and Pope Stephen—both venerated as saints in the Greek East and Latin West—on re-baptizing heretics. He asserts:
As with the Fathers of the early Church, St. Augustine recognized the general councils as the supreme authority of the Church.
[In his] dispute with the Donatists about rebaptism, he does not condemn Cyprian for refusing to submit to the Bishop of Rome, for he writes that a general council has not issued a judgment on the subject and that St. Cyprian would “undoubtedly have yielded if at any time the truth of the question had been placed beyond all dispute by the investigation and decree of a general council.”17
Whelton suggests that Augustine viewed the Pope's authority as somehow inferior to that of general councils. This is another instance of inferring a conclusion that doesn't follow from the reasons he presents. There is an alleged fact and two assumptions in what he says; the former is true, and the latter two are false.
The fact is this: Augustine held that if Nicea had occurred before Cyprian’s death, Cyprian would have submitted to its judgments. Here is the full quotation:
Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind [regarding rebaptizing heretics], were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council.18
From those remarks, it does not follow that therefore Augustine meant that general councils have supreme authority over Popes in the church.
Since nothing follows, Whelton must read assumptions into the text.
Assumption 1
Whelton assumes that by “unanimous authority of the whole Church” Augustine means something over and above the authority of the Bishop of Rome. He fails to provide any evidence to support that assumption, and as demonstrated in the preceding sections, we have established its inaccuracy.
On the Catholic view, the unanimous authority of the Church is expressed through the Pope himself, or general councils when united with and approved by the Pope:
General councils represent the Church; the pope therefore stands to them in the same relation as he stands to the Church. But that relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion: the pope is neither above nor below the Church, but in it as the centre is in the circle, as intellect and will are in the soul. By taking our stand on the Scriptural doctrine that the Church is the mystical body of Christ of which the pope is the visible head, we see at once that a council apart from the pope is but a lifeless trunk, a "rump parliament", no matter how well attended it be.19 [emphasis mine]
Thus, only with the Pope can a council put matters beyond dispute, which is precisely what the Council of Nicea, the first of its kind, achieved when it repeated the judgment of Pope Stephen against Cyprian. Whelton undoubtedly rejects the Catholic view, but that is beside the point. The point is that he is reading his rejection (as an assumption) into the words of Augustine.20
As it turns out, the reason Augustine refers to the Nicene Council has nothing to do with Peter or Papal authority. This is clear to anyone who has read book 2 from De Baptismo. In that text, Augustine responds to the Dotatisists who cite Cyprian as an authority for their heretical view of re-baptism. They specifically appeal to Cyprian’s authority and the authority of the African councils he led.
Augustine responds to both. They appeal to Cyprian in vain, he says, since an even greater authority, namely Peter the Apostle, was also corrected by St. Paul in the New Testament. If Peter could be mistaken, why not Cyprian?
the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel… why might not Cyprian, in opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held, compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh?21 [emphasis mine]
Moreover, according to Augustine, the Donatists appealed to the African councils in vain, since the general council of the universal Church, held at Nicea, had decided the matter against Cyprian. Whatever authority the African synods possess, they have nothing against a general council:
Councils… which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world… even [with] the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed.22 [emphasis mine]
Augustine concludes by noting that Cyprian himself, a lover of unity above all, would have submitted to the judgment of the Universal Council:
For if he [Cyprian] quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself quietly and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have yielded to the authority of the whole world [i.e., of the universal Council]?23
Hence, Augustine concludes that the reliance on Cyprian's authority and the authority of African councils is unfounded. He is not attempting to establish the superiority of either the Pope's authority or that of the Council.
Regarding Cyprian himself, he never contested Pope Stephen's authority in the matter at hand; he simply and erroneously believed the Pope was mistaken in his actions. Moreover, even if he had contested the authority, it still would not settle whether he was right to do so. In other matters, Cyprian himself appealed to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome—for example, appealing to Pope Stephen himself to depose Marcianus, Bishop of Arles.
Assumption 2
Whelton fallaciously argues from silence. He assumes that, since Augustine did not explicitly condemn Cyprian for his disagreement with Pope Stephen, Augustine must not have condemned him at all, and therefore must have believed that the Pope had no higher jurisdiction than other bishops.24
However, there is no warrant for expecting Augustine to condemn Cyprian. Augustine wrote decades after the death of both saints and knew that Cyprian's error had been addressed, and Pope Stephen's stance reaffirmed, at Nicea. In De Baptismo, Augustine is not primarily concerned with revisiting the historical dispute. Its relevance arises mainly due to the Donatists' misappropriation of Cyprian's letters to bolster their position.25
Moreover, although he indicated that Cyprian was irritated and overly excited, he did not believe it led to any schism between Stephen and Cyprian. Augustine deeply respected Cyprian because of his martyrdom and believed it availed him of any wrongdoing. There was no reason to condemn:
Therefore, although [Cyprian] was not without excitement, though of a truly brotherly kind, in his indignation, yet the peace of Christ prevailed in their hearts, that in such a dispute no evil of schism should arise between them. But it was not found that "hence grew more abundant heresies and schisms," because what is of Christ in them is approved, and what is of themselves is condemned.26
But as [Cyprian], with imperfect insight into the mystery [i.e., of baptism], was careful to preserve charity with all courage and humility and faith, he deserved to come to the crown of martyrdom; so that, if any cloud had crept over the clearness of his intellect from his infirmity as man, it might be dispelled by the glorious brightness of his blood.
Whilst then, that holy man entertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining in catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it [i.e., Cyprian’s error] was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.27 [emphasis mine]
Conclusion
We have come to the end of our assessment of Whelton’s initial chapter on St. Peter and the Papacy, in which we have addressed as many arguments and assertions as possible. We move on next to his assessment of general councils.
De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, sec. 4 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm). Whelton incorrectly references Epistle 70.
“And again to the same [i.e., to Peter] He says, after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained’… yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one [i.e., from Peter].”
This is from Epistle 70 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm).
He references Retractationes 1:21.
Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas, Liber II, sec. I, par. 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14082.htm2).
“Epistle 190”, Fathers of the Church Patristic Series, Vol. 30: St. Augustine Letters, Vol. IV (165-203), translated by Sister Wilfred Parsons, S.N.D. (The Catholic University of America Press: 1955), p. 271.
Ibid., Ep. 175, p. 88.
Ibid., Ep. 176, p. 94.
Ibid., Ep. 177, p. 108.
Ibid., Ep. 181, p. 121.
Ibid., Ep. 181, p. 122. Pope Innocent I replies in equally strong terms in Ep. 182.
Ibid., Ep. 186, p. 193.
Kirsch, Johann Peter. "Pope St. Zosimus." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912). <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15764c.htm>.
Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: AD 96-454, edited and introduced by Edward Giles, (London: S.P.C.K., 1952), pp. 212-13.
E.g., Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum (Lib. II, sec. 5), De Peccato Originali (Lib. II), and Contra Julianum Pelagianum (Lib. I, III, VI).
De Baptismo contra Donatistas, Lib. II, sec. IV (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14082.htm).
De Baptismo, lib. II, ch. 6, sec. 8.
Wilhelm, Joseph. "General Councils." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908). <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm>.
We will evaluate Whelton’s view of councils in future posts.
De Baptismo, lib. II, ch. 1, sec. 2.
Ibid., ch. 3, sec. 4.
Ibid., ch. 4, sec. 5.
For problems with inferring from the silence of authors of antiquity, see Timothy McGrew’s “The Argument from Silence”, Acta Analytica volume 29, pp. 215-228 (2014).
“I am unwilling to go on to handle again what Cyprian poured forth with signs of irritation against Stephen, as it is, moreover, quite unnecessary.” De Baptismo, lib. V, ch. 25, sec. 36. Moreover, Augustine dares to hope that Cyprian corrected his error. He even floats the possibility that heretics suppressed Cyprian’s change of mind or even forged the negative letters. We see this clearly in his “Epistle 93”, ch. 10, sec. 38.
De Baptismo, lib. V, ch. 25, sec. 36.
Ibid. lib. I, ch. 18, sec. 28.