[The_Reader_David]

I'm afraid I disagree that Papal primacy is clear in the first version of St. Cyprian's writing, and with your assumption that he didn't write both. You are too quick to accept the Latin equation of St. Peter with the Pope of Rome. The first version is perfectly consistent with the Orthodox interpretation I enunciated earlier: Peter is the prototype of the Bishop, in whom (according to other writings of St. Cyprian and St. Ignatius of Antioch) the unity of the Church is expressed. One must be in communion with one's bishop to be in the Church.

Orthodox scholars generally view the later version as an attempt on St. Cyprian's part to make clear his original intent after early partisans of an inflated view of Roman primacy misused his earlier version.

Incidentally, OR< thanks for the assist in answering ac's question: the later version is St. Cyprian's correction against incipient papism I had been looking for to answer ac's question

[OLD REGGIE]

I'm afraid I disagree that Papal primacy is clear in the first version of St. Cyprian's writing, and with your assumption that he didn't write both.

I am not aware I made any assumption except that there were two different views depending on the source.

Perhaps you confused my cut and paste from a Catholic Apologetic source as my assumption.

"[There are two editions of what follows, the second of which tones down the first in view of Cyprian's argument with the papacy. Papal primacy is clear in the first edition written about 251 A.D., but merely implicit in the second effort written about 255 or 256 A.D.]"

My primary purpose for posting that particular quote was because I thought it a pretty weak argument by the Apologist.

I am not learned enough on the subject to take a strong position; however, based on reading a few articles by Catholic Apologists, I lean toward the position that Cyprian believed in the equality of all Apostles/Bishops. (The two links I posted give a fair picture of "both" arguments.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note to AC:

When you do research on any controversial Religious subject it is critical to use more than one source. I noted, using Google as a search tool, that the articles by Catholic Apologists were, by far, predominant. It was necessary for me to modify the search several times before I got beyond this "monopoly" of articles.
Reggie

[Pelayo]

Orthodox scholars generally view the later version as an attempt on St. Cyprian's part to make clear his original intent after early partisans of an inflated view of Roman primacy misused his earlier version.

I have a question. Do you believe the letter "De Unitate" St. Cyprian sent to Rome was a rewrite by the author or a Roman forgery? Also if Papal Primacy was clamed by the popes at the time, then on what authority did the anti-pope Novitian (who was contemporary with Cyprian) believe he could appoint new Bishops all over the Empire against the true pope St. Cornelius? Anti-pope or not, he clamed the authority of pope in a time you believe no such authority was clamed.