You misunderstood what was meant by rebaptism in this whole issue.
I am responding to your false claim that the majority of the Church did not practice rebaptism. Clearly it did, as outlined in the aforementioned 7th canon of the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Neither Stephen nor Cyprian were talking about Trinitarian heretics but Novatianist heretics. They were simply a schismatic group, but held to a more rigorist point of view. In terms of Trinitarian faith, they were completely orthodox.
Yes, I recognize that the controversy came to a head within the context of fighting Novatianism, but the rule regarding who to rebaptize and who not to rebaptize (again, with reference to the second ecumenical council) is much more broad than that, so...what's your point?
The church still maintains today that you have to rebaptise Trinitarian Heterics like Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons, but not most other Non Catholics.
Here you are referring to the decrees of your own particular church, I take it (since I guarantee you that the Orthodox Catholic Church rebaptizes more than just the two you've mentioned or their type, including those who you certainly would not recognize as "Trinitarian Heretics", like Roman Catholics). In that context, I find nothing objectionable here, beyond your routine confusion of your own church's particular practices with those of the Church as a whole. This is a real problem when it comes to discussing this issue with you, as you seem to not recognize relevant counterexamples to your sweeping and wrong assertions.
What the canons of the ecumenical councils and trullo show is that baptism is necessary for trinitarian heretics but for those who aren't of this category, there is no such need. This is why Cyprian was wrong and the canons prove this
Council of Trullo actually only decrees the re-baptizing of those who deny the Trinity. All other heretics merely are required to present a certificate and then receive the sacrament
I'm sorry, but I am confused: Did I bring up Trullo? Was Trullo discussed at some point in this thread? Forgive me; I have not read every post in the thread, but I don't understand what you're getting at by bringing this up. I didn't think the RCC recognized Trullo...has that changed recently?
And, by the way, just for your own edification, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), when writing against the Montanists (Haer. XLVIII. 1
), recognizes them as being essentially Orthodox with regard to their belief in the Holy Trinity, so there is reason to believe that the dichotomy you have set up in claiming that I am misunderstanding the issue does not actually hold with regard to the canon that you yourself just posted in support of your view.