Sententiam nostram non nouam promimus: and the Episcopal Synod of 255*

GEOFFREY D. DUNN / BRISBANE

Synodal consultation with other North African bishops was the key element in Cyprian's exercise of his pastoral ministry as bishop of Car• thage in the . At least once each year bishops gathered from throughout Africa Proconsularis, and sometimes from the other North African provinces, in the second-largest city in the western Mediterra• nean to discuss shared problems and to arrive at the united opinion of the college of bishops! in responding to those problems2• This opinion would then become counsel which Cyprian would urge repeatedly through unceasing letter writing be implemented by his fellow bishops as not only the best way to tackle the issues at hand, but as the way of maintaining and displaying the unity and catholicity of the Church3 •

• I am grateful to the Australian Research Council, which funded this research, and to Australian Catholic University, which assisted in my attendance at this symposium. 1 CYPRIAN, Ep. 55.1.1 (CCL 3B.256): concordiam collegii sacerdotalis. 2 On Cyprian's earlier synods see J. A. FISCHER, Die Konzilien zu Karthago und Rom im Jahr 251 in: AHC 11 (1979) 263-286; IDEM, Das Konzil zu Karthago im Mai 252, in: AHC 13 (1981) 1-11; IDEM, Das Konzil zu Karthago im Friihjahr 253, in: AHC 13 (1981) 12-26; IDEM, Das Konzil zu Karthago im Herbst 254, in: ZKG 93 (1982) 223- 239. On these synods in the context of Cyprian's pastoral ministry see G. D. DUNN, The Carthaginian Synod of 251: Cyprian's Model of Pastoral Ministry, in: I concili della cristianita occidentale secoli III-V (xxx incontro di studiosi dell'antichita cristiana, Roma 3-5 maggio 2001), Rome 2002 (= SEAug 78), 235-257; IDEM, Cyprian and his collegae: Patronage and the episcopal synod of 252, in: JRH 27 (2003) 1-13; IDEM, Censuimus: Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of 253, in: Latomus (forthcoming); IDEM, Cyprian of Carthage and the Episcopal Synod of Late 254, in: REAug 48 (2002) 229-247. 3 E.g., CYPRIAN, Ep. 48.4.2 (CCL 3B.230); 55.1.1 (CCL 3B.256); 55.7.3 (CCL 3B.263-264). Statements from Cyprian that each bishop could make his own decision, as we find in 55.21.2 (CCL 3B.280) and 57.5.2 (CCL 3B.309), are an indication that synodal decisions were not binding, yet Cyprian's tone made it clear that they had enormous

jAHC 35 (2003~ 212 Geoffrey D. Dunn

The persecution instigated by the emperor at the end of 249\ through the requirement that everyone offer sacrifice, had not only re• sulted in many Christians lapsing from their faith by offering the sacri• fice or fraudulently obtaining the certificate attesting that they had, but also resulted in a variety of responses from their fellow Christians about how to respond to their actions5• Among those responses was the rigor• ist one supported most notably by the Roman presbyter and would-be bishop, , which denied any possibility of the lapsed being reconciled back into the life of the ecclesial community6. Novatian established a rival church in Rome with himself as bishop and soon after appointed the Roman presbyter Maximus as bishop to head a rigorist church in Carthage in opposition to Cyprian. Novatian was declared a heretic and schismatic7• The other principal response was of those who wished for the immediate and easy reconciliation of those who had lapsed. More rival ecclesial communities were created, this time by the laxists, throughout the African provinces; the one in Carthage estab• lished by the deposed bishop Privatus of Lambaesis was headed by an-

moral authority, through the weight of numbers and Cyprian's own prestige, since any bishop who did not follow them was on his own. It is this somewhat negative sense (and it is only 'somewhat' given that Cyprian passed no negative comment on the earlier bishops who had a different practice with regard to readmitting adulterers to com• munion), that a bishop ought to think carefully before striking out on a course different from that of his fellow bishops, that I would add to the list in M. BEVENOT, A Bishop is Responsible to God Alone (St. Cyprian), in: RevSR 39/40 (1951-1952) 397-415, 414, of the ways of interpreting Cyprian's statement. 4 On this persecution see J. P. KNIPFING, The Libelli of the Decian Persecution, in: HThR 16 (1923) 345-390. A. ALFOLDI, Zu den Christenvedolgungen in der Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts, in: Klio 13 (1938) 323-348. Ch. SAUMAGNE, la persecution de Dece en Afrique d'apres la correspondance de S. Cyprien, in: Byz. 32 (1962) 1-29. G. W. CLARKE, Some Observations on the Persecution of Decius, in: Antichthon 3 (1969) 63- 76. P. KERESZTES, The Decian libelli and Contemporary Literature, in: Latomus 34 (1975) 761-781. Y. DUVAL, La debut de la persecution de Dece a Rome (Cyprien, Ep. 37), in: REAug 46 (2000) 157-172. 5 See P. GRATTAROLA, Ii problema dei Lapsi fra Roma e Cartagine, in: RSCI 38 (1984) 1-26. 6 See IDEM, Gli scismi di Felicissimo e di Novaziano, in: RSCI 38 (1984) 367-390. S. CAVALLOTTO, Ii magistero episcopale di Cipriano di Cartagine. Aspetti metodologici, in: DT(P) 91 (1989) 388-391. 7 CYPRIAN, Ep. 44.1.1 (CCL 3B.211); 45.1.2 (CCL 3B.216); 46.1.2 (CCL 3B.224- 225); 55.24.2 (CCL 3B.285-286); 55.25.1-55.27.1 (CCl 3B.287-289); 59.9.2 (CCl 3C.351); 69.1.1 (CCl3C.469-470).