Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope(2)

[Albion]

For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anicetus and Clement to Peter?"
Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69

I know from the last time this came around that you aren't aware that Ignatius' words here are a devastating refutation of Apostolic Succession (as it is usually presented), but they are. They do, however, accurately reflect where these church leaders came from and what they amounted to. The board of presbyters or elders led each congregation, and the bishop was just one of them who had been given a special assignment (which is why they retained, as explained by Ignatius, oversight over his performance).

Thanks.

 

[Standing Up]

Irenaeus' letter records that Polycarp and Anicetus took the Lord's Supper together. It didn't matter to them what season or day it was. Taking the Lord's Supper together symbolically showed their unity in Christ. After this, "they parted from each other in peace."

Anicetus conceded the Eucharist to Polycarp. Something unheard of since.

We can be certain that this happened because Irenaeus' letter, written only a few decades after the original event, called on another bishop of Rome to repent and follow the well-known example of his predecessor.

And this would impact the Papacy in what sense, that a Pope was asked to repent and change his decree and did?

Though the Nicene Council dealt primarily with the issue of the Word's eternal divinity, it also considered and rebuked the Quartodeciman position. Where once churches found unity despite their diversity, some types of diversity were now beginning to be seen as a threat to unity.
The passage of several hundred years since John's death saw the church combat many heresies. Not every diversity had proven healthy to the faith. As persecution became less of a problem, the church spent more time defining orthodoxy. The Nicene Council decreed that Christians should celebrate Jesus' resurrection on a Sunday.

They rebuked the Quartodeciman position. Do you understand that you agree that they rebuked the valid Apostolic line? They rebuked Peter, Paul, John, Phillip, and the other apostles!!! You're okay with this?

 

[Standing Up]

SUP: The Palestinian bishops were the first to understood the propriety of adopting the Roman custom and abandoning the apostolic way of celebrating the resurrection.
​

NewMan99: Nope. Both LITURGICAL customs were EQUALLY apostolic.

Do you understand what happened in history? If they were equally apostolic or simply liturgical customs, why would the Palestinians ADOPT the Roman custom? Why would they then later tell everyone they always followed the Roman custom and tell everyone they learned the Roman custom from the apostles?

The fact is they changed what they were doing.

"In the early days, all the Christians continued to make Easter their principal feast. They celebrated that feast on the same day as the Jews, the 14th Nisan, no matter on what day of the week that day fell."

But Rome changed things and probably began about the time of Pope Sixtus. Clement of Rome's letter laid the foundation (Aaron's rod bloomed, no one elses) for them.

Polycarp went to correct Anicetus, just like the other heresies. Polycarp said we follow the Apostles. Anicetus said we follow the bishops. They parted in peace, so it says, yet Anicetus conceded the Eucharist to Polycarp.

Some 40 years later Victor called a meeting. The Palestinians had already joined Rome within that time frame, sending letters saying we do it like Rome and always have because of Apostles. Fact is they ADOPTED the Roman way. At the beginning, ALL THE CHRISTIANS celebrated the 14th.

 

[NewMan99]

Anicetus conceded the Eucharist to Polycarp. Something unheard of since.

The Eucharist is partaken at every liturgy (i.e. "The Mass" as it is currently called in the West, and the "Divine Liturgy" as it is called in the East). All that is saying is that Polycarp and Anicetus worshiped together as a sign of unity. And Anicetus permitted Polycarp to say the words of consecration (usually the "host" does this - not the guest)...that's all it means. You are reading too much into it.

So what is unheard of since? Sorry but your comment makes zero sense to me. I don't even know what it means.

They rebuked the Quartodeciman position. Do you understand that you agree that they rebuked the valid Apostolic line? They rebuked Peter, Paul, John, Phillip, and the other apostles!!! You're okay with this?

Where are you getting this from?

They did NOT rebuke an Apostolic "line" - much less an actual Apostle. The Quartdecimans were excommunicated not because their tradition was considered invalid or unapostolic...but rather because they were being DISOBEDIENT and refusing to observe Easter in tandem with the rest of the Church (which was following another and equally valid apostolic tradition).

 

[NewMan99]

Do you understand what happened in history?

Yes I do. Do you?

If they were equally apostolic or simply liturgical customs, why would the Palestinians ADOPT the Roman custom?

You tell me.

Why would they then later tell everyone they always followed the Roman custom and tell everyone they learned the Roman custom from the apostles?

Maybe they are big fat liars - OR - maybe they were telling the truth when they said they learned the Roman custom from the Apostles? ...I'll pick the latter - the former doesn't sound very likely.

The fact is they changed what they were doing.

"In the early days, all the Christians continued to make Easter their principal feast. They celebrated that feast on the same day as the Jews, the 14th Nisan, no matter on what day of the week that day fell."

In the interest of clarity, let's note that the above quotation from you does not come from an ancient source, but rather comes from the words of a modern era French historian. So you are citing HIS impressions (some of which were quite good IF you care to read EVERYTHING he wrote on the matter). In this case, it is true that ALL the Christians continued to make Easter their principal feast. I have said that from the beginning.

And, as I also pointed out earlier...the initial Church was primarily Judaic in its liturgy due to the fact that some years passed before Gentiles entered the Church. Things like PASSOVER would have meant a great deal to the very first Christians - they were Jewish and had celebrated Passover their entire lives. So it was only natural that the Jewish calendar was initially followed. But as time went by, and the Apostles left Palestine and spread out to other parts of the world, and Gentiles entered the Church, different liturgical traditions developed (and all this while the Apostles were still alive). And as more time went by, and the Apostles and the rest of the Church began to reflect on different aspects of the Gospel messsage, it became less dependent on the Jewish calendar, and was more open to feasts that celebrated Christianity. Thus, Easter became less about Jesus and the Passover meal...it became less about tying Jesus to the Passover...and became instead more about Jesus and the Resurrection (which happened on a Sunday). And THIS liturgical development happened while the Apostles were still alive, even though at first the Church observed Easter as per the Johnine tradition.

So it is entirely reasonable to note that various city-churches (like the Palestinians) eventually changed from one Apostolic tradition (from John) to another equally valid Apostolic tradition (as per the Roman tradition given by Peter and Paul). By the time Peter and Paul were in Rome a considerable number of Gentile believers were in the Church, and the Church had already begun to pull away from its Jewish roots - including the Jewish calendar and Jewish feasts. By then the Church had already begun (in some parts of the world) to observe Easter on a Sunday - to reflect on the meaning of the Resurrection.

But Rome changed things and probably began about the time of Pope Sixtus.

Well - that is what the modern French historian said...but I doubt he is right about that. There was nothing in Ireneaus' letter to suggest such a thing.

Clement of Rome's letter laid the foundation (Aaron's rod bloomed, no one elses) for them.

No. Clement had nothing to say about Easter. And his comment about Aaron's rod had NOTHING to do with Rome. It had everything to do with urging the Corinthian troublemakers to greater fidelity and obedience to the episcopy.

Polycarp went to correct Anicetus, just like the other heresies.

To "correct"??? Where does any ancient source say this? None do. Polycarp went to Rome to settle a few issues (one of which was the question about Easter). But Polycarp did not presume to "correct" the Bishop of Rome.

Also...what exactly what do you mean by "just like the other heresies"? What heresies? I have asked you several times to tell me EXACTLY what doctrinal issue was at stake. There WASN'T any. It was a liturgical dispute - that is what the ancient sources say - and - that is ALSO what this French historian says too:

These ardent men were full of too passionate a sentiment to rest the unity of souls upon the uniformity of rites and exterior observances. Later, Rome will display the greatest pertinacity to make her rites prevail To speak the truth, the point at issue, in this matter of Easter, was not merely a simple difference of calendar. The Roman rite, in choosing for its base the grand Christian festival the anniversaries of the death and the resurrection of Jesus, created the holy week—that is to say, a whole cycle of consecrated days, to the mysterious commemorations during which fasting was continued. In the Asiatic rite, on the contrary, the fast terminated on the evening of the 14th Nisan: Good Friday was no longer a day of sadness. If that usage had prevailed, the scheme of the Christian festivals would have been arrested in its development.

The orthodox bishops had still too many common enemies for them to pay attention to pitiful liturgic rivalries.

So the debate was ENTIRELY liturgical in nature - it was a question as to WHICH Christian Truth should be the focus for its principle feast. There were no heresies being promoted in either tradition. And whatever excommunications happened later were NOT doctrinal in nature, but rather were with regard to obedience and unity (or lack thereof).

Polycarp said we follow the Apostles. Anicetus said we follow the bishops.

No. Polycarp said he followed the rule of John and the other Apostles he lived with. Translation: John and a few other Apostles, such as Phillip. Polycarp did not claim that his tradition was the ONLY tradition followed by all the Apostles. You are reading that into the ancient text. And Anicetus did not say "we follow the Bishops" (as CONTRASTED by "the Apostles" - that is your take, isn't it?)...what he said was that he would not renounce the practice followed by the Bishops of Rome before him. And exactly who were the previous Bishops of Rome? Well...how about both Peter and Paul? They were previous Bishops.

So this contrast you are trying to show between "the Apostles" versus "the Bishops" is merely you grasping at straws of your own imagination. There was no pitting of one against the other. The only "rivalry" was between two different equally valid equally Apostolic liturgical traditions.

They parted in peace, so it says, yet Anicetus conceded the Eucharist to Polycarp.

That means nothing. All it means is Anicetus gave Polycarp a special honor.

Some 40 years later Victor called a meeting. The Palestinians had already joined Rome within that time frame, sending letters saying we do it like Rome and always have because of Apostles. Fact is they ADOPTED the Roman way. At the beginning, ALL THE CHRISTIANS celebrated the 14th.

See my comments above.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

Leave it to NewMan to bring a knife to a gun-fight.

I misplaced my WMDs. Next time I'll be better prepared.

Pass the ketchup...

I prefer Hunt's over Heinz.

We are talking about Apostolic Tradition regarding the practice of the faith.

Define your terms, Rick. Is a liturgical rite or a feast day the same thing as a doctrinal matter?

It is a matter of Apostolic Tradition regarding the practice of the faith as recieved. Pope Anicetus didn't care for it. He rejected it. Polycarp allowed it. Maybe Polycarp should've insisted he repent.

No - both were LITURGICAL traditions - and both were Apostolic. Each tradition had a different focus. Both were equally valid.

It changes the truth of Apostolic Tradition into a discardable option.

And EXACTLY what "truth" was being discarded? What doctrines were being rejected? What heresies were being promoted?

That would sound plausible if bishop Victor of Rome hadn't attempted to declare the Nisan 14 practice heretical and excommunicate all who followed it. Your claim that 'it's only about Liturgy so it's no big deal' falls flat in Victor's hands.

Victor did not declare the Nisan 14 practice heretical. His excommunication (which he was persuaded to lift) was because Victor thought that the Asians were being disobedient. He commented that their practice was "heterodox" (which is not the same thing as heretical)...it was "heterodox" because it was not in accord with the practice of the rest of the Church.

Sorry, no. The liturgical traditions of the faith were either apostolic or not. Polycarp's was apostolic. Anicetus' was not.

The historical record says otherwise.

That isn't what we're told, We have no evidence of that. Only an assumption that put's Apostolic tradition at odds between John & Peter.

As I have tried to explain numerous times in this thread - the two traditions were not "at odds". That is to say, the traditions themselves were not contradictory. Rather, each of them emphasized different aspects of the Christian faith. So the question for the Church became which of the two expressions was more fitting for the whole Church to observe. It doesn't make one of them less truthful or less valid.

What we know about Anicetus is that he chose to follow the traditions of his elders, neither Peter nor Paul is named by Anicetus, whereas John IS NAMED by Polycarp. It didn't become a controversy by being unimportant.

And yet other sources say that the Roman practice is apostolic. And it was an important controversy in that it almost led to schism and it did affect the development of the Church's liturgical calendar.

...in this manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Saviour."

No apostle being named is very suspicious at least, and at most, it is contradictory to the apostolic tradition of John.

Your suspicions are unfounded, imo, but go ahead and suspect anyway...

And...the two traditions were NOT "contradictory" - they merely focused on different aspects of our Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

So now according to Eusebius, you have two apostolic traditions that are not in agreement.

Eusebius did not claim the traditions did not "agree". They merely focus on different aspects. They are both valid and both true. What falsehood is told in either of them?

This guy was full of himself. Get a clue.

Astonishing. Just astonishing. Ignatius, a disciple of John, a disciple of Peter...a martyr for the faith...who DIED horribly in the arena rather than deny one iota of the faith given to him...well...I am speechless. On what basis do you disparage such a holy man? My guess is that since you don't like what he had to say, it is easier to dismiss him and heap calumnies on him.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Anglian]

NewMan's post is an important contribution to this discussion. One of the things it shows is something attested to by other sources, namely that there were a variety of traditions in the early Church; this is just what we would expect from its demography and geography. Wanting modern systems of communication, often having to keep itself secret, the early Church developed local custom and practice. Those from the Johannine community, who seem to have kept their connection with the Synagogue for longer than Churches elsewhere, naturally observed the Jewish dates.

Naturally, St. Polycarp quotes his sources for his own local custom and practice, but Pope Victor quotes the custom and practice of other Churches. Yes, oddly enough (and it is quite unknown here, of course) the person who felt he had the better of the argument tried to go a little far, but he was persuaded to back down. So we see that what is in dispute here is not doctrine/heresy. but ecclesiastical discipline. That Anicestus and St. Polycarp should have celebrated the eucharist together was a sign of their reconciliation. The early Church, like the Orthodox Church to this day, sees the shared Eucharist as a signal of unity: the recent reconciliation between the Russian Orthododox Church and ROCOR was marked by a similar ceremony.

So what do we see here? The Orthodox, who do not accept the Papal claims in their modern form, nonetheless have no trouble accepting that the early Church acknowledged a primacy of honour to the Bishop of Rome; this is what we see here. But that authority was consensusal, and that too we see here, where Rome backs away from excommunication. All of this is well in line with the practice of the Holy Apostles themselves at the council of Jerusalem.

What a very great shame their successors have not been as successful in maintaining a consensus. We, however, might wish to refrain from trying to import later divisions to better times. Anicetus, St. Victor and St. Polycarp sorted their problems out; we should try to learn from them rather than attributing our own stiff-neckedness to them

peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

So what do we see here? The Orthodox, who do not accept the Papal claims in their modern form, nonetheless have no trouble accepting that the early Church acknowledged a primacy of honour to the Bishop of Rome

If only we all could be content to stop there with that simple but accurate statement. No embellishment, no pretence at some authority that never was, no reworking of history to make honor mean rule (which it doesn't), etc. Just this. The facts.

The great majority of Christians of all communions would be on the same page with what really happened in the Apostolic Church.

 

[Anglian]

If only we all could be content to stop there with that simple but accurate statement. No embellishment, no pretence at some authority that never was, no reworking of history to make honor mean rule (which it doesn't), etc. Just this. The facts.

The great majority of Christians of all communions would be on the same page with what really happened in the Apostolic Church.

peace,
Anglian

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



To NewMan99,

this is not a Catholic apologetic

Glad to hear it, although it seems to me it is, by far, the most popular one used by Catholics - so odd it's not regarded as a valid one. I agree, it's entirely meaningless and a waste of time. A couple of just recent quotes, just from this thread:

Does the Body of Christ contradict itself?

How man Gods are there? So how many different theologies will the church have?

Friend, brother, we all know that The Catholic Church agrees with only itself. The Catholic Church has a unity of ONE and only ONE: exclusively. And that ONE is itself. Alone. Solely. Exclusively. This point keeps being raised by Catholics (daily) here at CF as if it's suppose to mean something: glad to know it isn't. And in your view, doesn't. Kind of makes one wonder why, then, is it perhaps the single most common "defense" used?

As you know, the WORSE that can be said of any of the other 34,999 __________________ is that they are exactly like the RCC in that each of them (exactly like the CC) ONLY agrees with self. How is that such a compelling apologetic for the CC? This one has stumped me since I was 11 years old....


And let's apply it to the DOGMA here - significant because it is the foundational, keystone dogma of the RCC and perhaps the most singular divisive issue among us: accepted by only one of the 35,000 ______________, itself. Let's go with this very, very popular Catholic apologetic: "The DOGMA of The Catholic Papacy is an objective dogmatic fact because there's ONE that affirms it to be true: the only ONE that teaches it, ergo, it's dogmatic fact." Now, use that same apologetic for the LSD claim that Joseph Smith finding those plates and being the Apostle through whom Jesus founded His Church. Get my point? I'm sure you do.

On this dogma, we have 2 theologies within the Body of Christ: One _________________ is on one side, the other 34,999 disagree. The Body of Christ, in fact, does "contradict" itself on this: one _________________ insists it's true (the same one for which this view is very self-serving) and all others disagree. That's the reality. Now, I disagree that that, per se, means it's right or wrong, but it's just find it, well odd, that Catholic would constantly (constantly) use this apologetic to somehow argue that totally unique Catholic dogmas are true and confirmed.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If only we all could be content to stop there with that simple but accurate statement. No embellishment, no pretence at some authority that never was, no reworking of history to make honor mean rule (which it doesn't), etc. Just this. The facts.

The great majority of Christians of all communions would be on the same page with what really happened in the Apostolic Church.

Excellent point....




.

 

[Standing Up]

SUP: The fact is they changed what they were doing.

"In the early days, all the Christians continued to make Easter their principal feast. They celebrated that feast on the same day as the Jews, the 14th Nisan, no matter on what day of the week that day fell."
​

NewMan99: -snip-

So it is entirely reasonable to note that various city-churches (like the Palestinians) eventually changed from one Apostolic tradition (from John) to another equally valid Apostolic tradition (as per the Roman tradition given by Peter and Paul). By the time Peter and Paul were in Rome a considerable number of Gentile believers were in the Church, and the Church had already begun to pull away from its Jewish roots - including the Jewish calendar and Jewish feasts. By then the Church had already begun (in some parts of the world) to observe Easter on a Sunday - to reflect on the meaning of the Resurrection.

SUP: But Rome changed things and probably began about the time of Pope Sixtus.
​

NM99: Well - that is what the modern French historian said...but I doubt he is right about that. There was nothing in Ireneaus' letter to suggest such a thing.


So, it is reasonable to assume that Synods changed the way they did things, but you doubt it. No problem. Here's Schaff saying the same thing and citing the source of their authority and giving us the reason why:

[a.d. 180.] When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.37843784 See (Polycrates) p. 773, supra, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp. 222–226. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history.

The point is that Christ died on the 14th, per the Quartodecimans. All the Churches at first acknowledged this.

 

[Standing Up]

SUP: They rebuked the Quartodeciman position. Do you understand that you agree that they rebuked the valid Apostolic line? They rebuked Peter, Paul, John, Phillip, and the other apostles!!! You're okay with this?
​

NM99: Where are you getting this from?

NM99: They did NOT rebuke an Apostolic "line" - much less an actual Apostle. The Quartdecimans were excommunicated not because their tradition was considered invalid or unapostolic...but rather because they were being DISOBEDIENT and refusing to observe Easter in tandem with the rest of the Church (which was following another and equally valid apostolic tradition).

We've agreed that Polycarp and others learned it from the Apostles. Here's Nicea setting up the contrast between the "holy and great Synod" and the Apostolic Tradition. You tell me, did they not?

Canon 1

Whosoever shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great Synod which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they shall obstinately persist in opposing what was [then] rightly ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church; this is said concerning the laity. But if any one of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private judgment to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the churches, by observing Easter [at the same time] with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees that he shall thenceforth be an alien from the Church, as one who not only heaps sins upon himself, but who is also the cause of destruction and subversion to many; and it deposes not only such persons themselves from their ministry, but those also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with them. And the deposed shall be deprived even of that external honour, of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood partake.

 

[Albion]

SUP: The fact is they changed what they were doing.

"In the early days, all the Christians continued to make Easter their principal feast. They celebrated that feast on the same day as the Jews, the 14th Nisan, no matter on what day of the week that day fell."
​

NewMan99: -snip-

So it is entirely reasonable to note that various city-churches (like the Palestinians) eventually changed from one Apostolic tradition (from John) to another equally valid Apostolic tradition (as per the Roman tradition given by Peter and Paul). By the time Peter and Paul were in Rome a considerable number of Gentile believers were in the Church, and the Church had already begun to pull away from its Jewish roots - including the Jewish calendar and Jewish feasts. By then the Church had already begun (in some parts of the world) to observe Easter on a Sunday - to reflect on the meaning of the Resurrection.

SUP: But Rome changed things and probably began about the time of Pope Sixtus.
​

NM99: Well - that is what the modern French historian said...but I doubt he is right about that. There was nothing in Ireneaus' letter to suggest such a thing.


So, it is reasonable to assume that Synods changed the way they did things, but you doubt it. No problem. Here's Schaff saying the same thing and citing the source of their authority and giving us the reason why:

[a.d. 180.] When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.37843784 See (Polycrates) p. 773, supra, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp. 222–226. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history.

The point is that Christ died on the 14th, per the Quartodecimans. All the Churches at first acknowledged this.

Yes, well, I think we understood the point the first three or so times this post was served up to us. The bigger point is that it doesn't matter in the least on which day Christ died or that Christians chose Sunday as the principle day of worship.

 

[Standing Up]

NewMan's post is an important contribution to this discussion. One of the things it shows is something attested to by other sources, namely that there were a variety of traditions in the early Church; this is just what we would expect from its demography and geography. Wanting modern systems of communication, often having to keep itself secret, the early Church developed local custom and practice. Those from the Johannine community, who seem to have kept their connection with the Synagogue for longer than Churches elsewhere, naturally observed the Jewish dates.

Naturally, St. Polycarp quotes his sources for his own local custom and practice, but Pope Victor quotes the custom and practice of other Churches.

Polycarp and Anicetus.

Polycrates and Victor. I'll show you what Polycrates had to say about it.

Yes, oddly enough (and it is quite unknown here, of course) the person who felt he had the better of the argument tried to go a little far, but he was persuaded to back down. So we see that what is in dispute here is not doctrine/heresy. but ecclesiastical discipline. That Anicestus and St. Polycarp should have celebrated the eucharist together was a sign of their reconciliation. The early Church, like the Orthodox Church to this day, sees the shared Eucharist as a signal of unity: the recent reconciliation between the Russian Orthododox Church and ROCOR was marked by a similar ceremony.

So what do we see here? The Orthodox, who do not accept the Papal claims in their modern form, nonetheless have no trouble accepting that the early Church acknowledged a primacy of honour to the Bishop of Rome; this is what we see here. But that authority was consensusal, and that too we see here, where Rome backs away from excommunication. All of this is well in line with the practice of the Holy Apostles themselves at the council of Jerusalem.

What a very great shame their successors have not been as successful in maintaining a consensus. We, however, might wish to refrain from trying to import later divisions to better times. Anicetus, St. Victor and St. Polycarp sorted their problems out; we should try to learn from them rather than attributing our own stiff-neckedness to them

peace,

Anglian

Victor backed down circa 190, but 325ad no one backed down. See my post quoting Nicea canon 1.

Here's Polycrates' take on the controversy:

But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:
2. We observe the exact/genuine day; neither adding, nor taking away.
...
6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.
7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man.'


Please note, however much concensus was wanted, Polycrates searched Scripture and Tradition. He acquiesed not.

 

[NewMan99]

The point is that Christ died on the 14th, per the Quartodecimans. All the Churches at first acknowledged this.

Of course. But so what? The dispute was not with regard to which specific date in history Jesus died and rose. The dispute was over WHICH date the Church should OBSERVE it on the liturgical calendar.

We see a similar situation with Christmas in that the Church is NOT saying that Jesus was ACTUALLY born on December 25th. What His actual birthdate happened to be is not important - it is only incidental. But what IS important is to remember that God the Son became Incarnate, entered into time and WAS born and lived among us, to Redeem us through His Atonement on earth. That is the whole point of the Christmas observance. When the Church decides to celebrate this Feast Day is beside the point and somewhat incidental.

And the same thing with regard to Easter. The point of the Easter OBSERVANCE was not to remember what date on the calendar any given event happened in history, but rather to recall certain theological Truths (as taught to us via the Apostolic Depostion of Faith) with regard to His Passion and His Resurrection. Its point is to recall what the historical events MEANT in a deeper context.


God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Rick Otto]

but rather because they were being DISOBEDIENT

So it was an exercise of authority for authoritie's sake that for some reason, wasn't an issue for Anicetus toward Polycarp, Anicetus even conceding the respect of allowing Polycarp the consecrating of that day's Eucharist.

So obedience became the litmus test - the pass/fail threshold to be found on Easter day. Interesting... one can only wonder at the look on the faces of two Quartodecimans who competed for perfection in obedience only to find out they both weren't even members of Christ's Body any longer.
And pity the new converts, especialy the ones who'd just heard or read:
Col2:6: As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9: For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
10: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13: And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15: And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Apostolic Traditions are only the traditions of men unless they are "rooted and built up in Him, and stablished in the faith, which is doctrinal, not ritual. The rituals are only "shadows" - figures of the spiritual reality. To make observance a matter of obedience is a tradition of men, not faith in Christ.

 

[WarriorAngel]

CJ - I still attest that the Church doesn't have a variety of theologies.
WHICH vastly differs from traditions on the liturgy.

Just as we all can see 4 Gospels, seeing 4 different viewpoints - all pointing to one life of Christ.
DO they really contradict the other?
NO.

Having a variety of doctrines is not even the same as a variety of means to worship in the Liturgy - Mass.

Theolgy is concrete - discipline and venues for worship are not.

As I have tried to explain numerous times in this thread - the two traditions were not "at odds". That is to say, the traditions themselves were not contradictory. Rather, each of them emphasized different aspects of the Christian faith. So the question for the Church became which of the two expressions was more fitting for the whole Church to observe. It doesn't make one of them less truthful or less valid.

I would give the analogy that if we cannot celebrate traditions in ways of the Mass/Liturgy as different in personality as every Apostle is - then we cannot attain all the Gospels are equally valid and filled with truth - since they each put in their own point of view.

This has nothing to do with doctrines....

Thanks NewMan.

 

[NewMan99]

We've agreed that Polycarp and others learned it from the Apostles.

We have agreed that the Johnine tradition is of Apostolic origin. We have not agreed about the Roman tradition and if that, too, can be traced back to the Apostles - EVEN though there are ANCIENT sources much closer to the events that clearly say the Roman tradition is Apostolic too. Once again, Standing Up, there were ALL KINDS of diverse liturigical practices throughout the Apostolic-era Churches. This is just one of several. While all the Churches shared in the same Truths of the Gospel message (so the Churches were "of one mind" as per the commands of Scripture) they did not share the exact same outward EXPRESSIONS of that one faith. They just didn't and this is easily illustrated. So if DIFFERENT expressions of the faith were spread throughout the Christian city-churches while the Apostles still lived, then on what basis do we claim that an equally valid and equally apostolic liturgical tradition with regard to Easter could not have arisen in the Roman Church once Peter and Paul arrived there? I can say with the utmost of certainty that how Easter was observed was not the only different expression of the faith when comparing liturgical traditions. The Apostles themselves did not force each city-church to abide by the same set of prayers, the same devotions, the same Feast Days, the same Divine Liturgy, and so on...so why should we expect that only one way of observing Easter could possibly be apostolic - ESPECIALLY when we have ancient sources that state otherwise?

Here's Nicea setting up the contrast between the "holy and great Synod" and the Apostolic Tradition. You tell me, did they not?

And yet NO ancient source, including this one, claims that the Johnine tradition was the ONLY apostolic Easter tradition, nor do the ancient sources claim that the Roman tradition is not apostolic. You are reading that into the texts.

Canon 1

Whosoever shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great Synod which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they shall obstinately persist in opposing what was [then] rightly ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church; this is said concerning the laity.

Right - the LAITY - who OBSTINATELY persist in DISOBEYING the authority of the Bishops of the universal Church are GUILTY not of HERESY, but rather are guilty of disobedience. Doesn't the Bible command us to obey our elders and the prelates of the Church? THIS is why certain people found themselves in hot water. The Council was NOT claiming that the Johnine tradition was not valid or not apostolic. What it was saying is that the Church desired to observe the same date as an outward expression of unity AND also to commemorate the Lord's Resurrection. The Bishops, in exercising their right to "bind and loosen" matters pertaining to Church DISCIPLINE (not doctrine), had the authority to do this. The laity does not have the right to disobey and still remain in good standing within the Body.

But if any one of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private judgment to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the churches, by observing Easter [at the same time] with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees that he shall thenceforth be an alien from the Church, as one who not only heaps sins upon himself, but who is also the cause of destruction and subversion to many; and it deposes not only such persons themselves from their ministry, but those also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with them. And the deposed shall be deprived even of that external honour, of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood partake.

Right. Those among the clergy who lead others into disobedience are in an even worse state. Shepherds should not encourage the sheep to disregard what the Church has dictated for the entire flock.

So in all of this, the Council was not "rebuking" the Johnine tradition itself...nor was it rebuking any of the Apostles, nor was it rebuking any Apostolic line...rather it was rebuking those laity and clergy in THAT era and at THAT point in time who put an OUTWARD expression of the faith over and above the commands of the rightful Bishops of the Church. When believers (whether they be laity or clergy) become "lone rangers" and disregard Church authority, they are guilty of the sin of DIVISION and disobedience.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Anglian]

Dear Standing Up,

So we can see that Anicestus and Polycarp were able to come to a consensus. We can also see that, like many since. Polycrates preferred to assert his own views and the tradition he had received.

That those who do not receive the authority of Rome should decide that Plycrates was correct is as unsurprising as that those who do recognised the authority of Victor.

The question of where authority lies is at the heart of this thread. We can all agree with Rick that all authority is rooted in Christ; but on this issue that is no help, since our forefathers stood in line with two ways of doing thigs received from antiquity. Neither is this surprising - there was a diversity of practice in the early Church, and if we seek to establish there was only one way of doing things, we shall have to cherry pick the Scriptures and the Fathers.

peace,

Anglians