Calling the Pope "Holy Father" and "Papal Infallability"

[fnr]

Actually, Irenaeus wrote strongly about the primacy of Rome (all must agree with Rome) in his work “Against Heresies” ~180 a.d. AND he names 12 bishops of Rome, successors to Peter down to his day. That’s important to note, because succession from Peter is important to Irenaeus point he’s making… Also, important here, Irenaeus was a disciple of Bp Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle. That’s how close Irenaeus is to that apostle. And because of knowing Polycap, and coming from the same city as Polycarp, Irenaeus also gives us this personal story about St John and what happened in the bath house at Ephesus episode…v 4

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-4

Given what we know about the papacy for 2000 years, Irenaeus isn’t breaking new ground here. He’s stating what is, and has already being taught

Again, I wasn’t saying that there is no written evidence of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, I said that there is minimal attestation. To me, I tend to apply the same historical-critical reading to the works of the earliest Church Fathers as I do to the Bible itself. In that regard, we can quibble on dates for when robust documentary evidence that of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome – which really blossom in the wake of the persecution of Christians under Decius around 250. The various schisms that took place around that time regarding the readmission of lapsed Christians into the Church caused major theological disputes between Rome and other episcopal seats, notably in North Africa (and actually the election of an anti-pope, Novatian). To me, this was the first practical test of primacy, which is why we see it in such greater force afterward.

To give you an example of how this “minimal attestation” plays out, look at the text of Irenaeus you cited. To whom does Irenaeus attribute the founding of Rome as the primary see of Christianity? Peter and Paul. While Irenaeus emphasizes apostolic succession as the key to a valid Christian church, he more emphasizes the city, with its tradition of two apostles, than the “seat of Peter.” This emphasis on the dual apostolic founding of the Roman church shows up in other 2nd and early 3rd century writings, such as Tertullian, as well as in the graffiti found in Roman Catacombs: “Paul and Peter, intercede for Victor” is found in the funerary area of St. Sebastian on the Appian way. To date that graffiti, note that Victor I was pope from 189-199.

It’s after the persecution by Decius in 250 that Matthew 16:16-18 gets cited with increasing frequency. Matthew 16 is referenced in some of the pre-250 writers, like Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, but not in a way that emphasizes the successor of Peter, but rather the unity and apostolicity of the church as a whole.

When I say that the primacy of the successor to Peter was not front and center among the earliest Christians, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t present. I would assert that the earliest church had less need to rely on written documentation of doctrines, because in the earliest times, the tradition of the apostles was handed on directly in a culture where literacy was probably no greater than 5%. Reliance on the praxis of the earliest Christians was easy, in the same intimate way that family traditions are handed on in the modern era. Writing became necessary as (1) the church became more populous, (2) Christians stretched farther into gentile territories, and (3) theology became more systematized

As I said in my previous comment, I think there are good historical grounds to conclude that Peter was predominant among the first followers of Jesus, including among “the Twelve.” However, infallibility is a development in ecclesiology akin to other developments in theology which we all now take for granted: the trinity, the divine and human natures of Jesus, and transubstantiation to name a few. It’s not that these developments in theology are simply human inventions – they’re entirely necessary to explain what we read in scripture and to codify the oral traditions of the apostolic age.

To give one non-ecclesiological example of how this works, the word we translate as “daily” in the “daily bread” of the our father is actually the Greek word epiousios, from “epi” (meaning “across” or “beyond”) and “ousia” (meaning “substance”). In other words, the Lord’s Prayer recited in Greek by the first Christians included a word that literally meant trans-substantial. As languages other than Greek became dominant (e.g., Latin), the words of daily practice of the first Christians needed to be translated and explained theologically. Nothing about that diminishes the historicity of our understanding of the Eucharist, but provides an example of why written theology was needed to preserve the teachings of the apostles, which were part of the organic practice of the first Christians.

 

[Markie_Boy]

I started this thread - and have learned much.

I need no further answers than have been shared, and I am now committed to finishing my RCIA and confirmation.

I thank everyone for all their efforts here.

With Love,

Marc

 

[crochet_lady]

Celtic Maiden

Spiritual growth – as you were referring to – comes through reading God’s Word / studying it / praying (talking to God) and fellow shipping with other believers. It’s a life-time journey.

 

[steve_b]

Again, I wasn’t saying that there is no written evidence of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, I said that there is minimal attestation. To me, I tend to apply the same historical-critical reading to the works of the earliest Church Fathers as I do to the Bible itself. In that regard, we can quibble on dates for when robust documentary evidence that of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome – which really blossom in the wake of the persecution of Christians under Decius around 250.

as with other beliefs, beliefs historically, get defended when challenged. Robust challenge requires robust defense…etc. I’m sensing, that there is a challenge that Irenaeus is addressing hence his robust defense of the Church of Rome and successors at the level of bishop from Peter.

For example, of what Irenaeus is facing and responding to.(Gnostics)

Bk 3 Chapter 2 vs 2-3
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.
f:

The various schisms that took place around that time regarding the readmission of lapsed Christians into the Church caused major theological disputes between Rome and other episcopal seats, notably in North Africa (and actually the election of an anti-pope, Novatian). To me, this was the first practical test of primacy, which is why we see it in such greater force afterward.

As for Cyprian getting wrapped around the axel with Pope Stephen over rebaptism of heretics, we know the Pope’s position prevailed.

 

[fnr]

as with other beliefs, beliefs historically, get defended when challenged. Robust challenge requires robust defense…etc. I’m sensing, that there is a challenge that Irenaeus is addressing hence his robust defense of the Church of Rome and successors at the level of bishop from Peter.

The word “trinity” was not used to describe God prior to Tertullian, but that doesn’t say that prior to that, Christians didn’t believe that God was trinitarian. It really came out strongly at the Council of Nicea, to fight against Arians.

Similarly, early on, “infallability” wasn’t used to describe the bishop of Rome. Peter was described as the leader of the apostles (in the Gospels, Book of Acts, Paul’s letters, in Holy Father writings, etc.). It could be that no such need occurred, because, as you pointed out, the earliest opponents weren’t the orthodox Christians, but were heretics. Debating heretics outside the Church left questions of governance within the Church unaddressed.

As for Cyprian getting wrapped around the axel with Pope Stephen over rebaptism of heretics, we know the Pope’s position prevailed.

That Cyprian did get so wrapped around the axle seems to underscore the point. While the Pope did prevail, it’s not clear that the whole Church expected that, and it was both a theological and political debate between Stephen and the bishops of North Africa.

While Stephen did claim authoritity, it seems that such authority was a new development. The North African bishops didn’t welcome Stephen’s authority over them. That seems an inevitable development as the Church faced its first large-scale theological dispute between episcopal seats.

Here’s what Cyprian said:
“Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error.”

Here’s what Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, argued with even more vigor:
“And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority.
…
But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles.”

Novatian, the anti-pope, died, but “Novatianists” continued their schism, and were described by Rome as heretical for their continued claim that the sin of the lapsed couldn’t be absolved by the Church. They kept on going, spreading rapidly, ordaining their own clergy, until at some point they died out… To me, they look a lot like the schismatics today – Sedevacantists, etc.

Back in the third Century, the lines of authority hadn’t been so clear prior to the persecution – and they didn’t need to be. The Church handled Marcion, gnostics, and other heretics, but when it came to internal schism, the need for central authority was made clear. Without it, the church wouldn’t be one, and without being one, wouldn’t be Biblical!

 

[steve_b]

Similarly, early on, “infallability” wasn’t used to describe the bishop of Rome. Peter was described as the leader of the apostles (in the Gospels, Book of Acts, Paul’s letters, in Holy Father writings, etc.). It could be that no such need occurred, because, as you pointed out, the earliest opponents weren’t the orthodox Christians, but were heretics. Debating heretics outside the Church left questions of governance within the Church unaddressed.

Just for clarification, one can’t be a heretic definitionally unless they are a baptised person. The only Church there is at the time is the Catholic Church. So Arius, Pelagius, Gnostics, Donatists etc etc were Catholics that went off the rails and became heretics.
f:

That Cyprian did get so wrapped around the axle seems to underscore the point. While the Pope did prevail, it’s not clear that the whole Church expected that, and it was both a theological and political debate between Stephen and the bishops of North Africa.

While Stephen did claim authoritity, it seems that such authority was a new development. The North African bishops didn’t welcome Stephen’s authority over them. That seems an inevitable development as the Church faced its first large-scale theological dispute between episcopal seats.

Here’s what Cyprian said:
“Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error.”

Cyprian also said

"to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access*."***Epistle 54 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm

Here’s something else to consider.

If Cyprian’s view prevailed, at one time every prelate was a heretic in the East. They were all Arians or Pelagians or Donatists etc. That would mean every bishop, priest, rank and file Catholic would have to be rebaptised. Who is going to do the honors since according to Cyprian a heretic can’t baptise and heresy was rampant. Therefore any orders performed by a heretical bishop is invalid. All sacraments are invalid if performed by a heretic.

See the problem for the East?
f:

Here’s what Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, argued with even more vigor:
“And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority.
…
But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles.”

And Firmilian would have run into the same problems Cyprian did with his view. BTW, St Basil who followed Firmilian, didn’t follow through with that practice newadvent.org/cathen/06080b.htm
f:

Novatian, the anti-pope, died, but “Novatianists” continued their schism, and were described by Rome as heretical for their continued claim that the sin of the lapsed couldn’t be absolved by the Church. They kept on going, spreading rapidly, ordaining their own clergy, until at some point they died out… To me, they look a lot like the schismatics today – Sedevacantists, etc.

Every heretic and heretical view, had their following.
f:

Back in the third Century, the lines of authority hadn’t been so clear prior to the persecution – and they didn’t need to be. The Church handled Marcion, gnostics, and other heretics, but when it came to internal schism, the need for central authority was made clear. Without it, the church wouldn’t be one, and without being one, wouldn’t be Biblical!

Ergo Jesus established the office of Peter. Arguments over authority wasn’t new. The apostles got in such an argument of whose greatest among THEM in the upper room. And we know who was the instigator of that argument. It was Satan sifting them And Jesus warned the apostles of what Satan was allowed to do. But the plan Jesus established is to pray especially for Peter so he can do what Jesus wants of him, i.e. strengthen and guide his brothers, ergo the Church, through Satan’s sifting… Luke 22:24-32 ] We have to believe His prayer is going to be effective.

 

[ericc]

I’m referring to Both his posts # 1 and 19.

And the concept that the Holy Roman Catholic church is infallible – cause Romans 3:23 states 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Do you believe that the warranty that Jesus gave to the Catholic Church is still valid and in effect?

Matthew 16:18-19 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

If it is still valid, how do mortal fallible men teach infallibly? I am not saying that mortal men do not sin, they do. It looks like you are extrapolating that sinners can not teach infallibly which incidentally is not biblical.

Obviously, the Holy Spirit ensures that appointed men teaches infallibly. Otherwise,the keys to binding and loosing could not have been given as it would create havoc in heaven if untruths can get into heaven.

If you don’t think the warranty that Jesus gave to the Catholic Church is still valid, then you must demonstrate why Jesus is not a liar.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum ergo
Referring to your comment about whether Paul knew ‘all Scripture’ when he wrote it? Well – that’s the beauty of being inspired of God to write something. He was following God’s directions – he didn’t Have to ‘understand’ the Purpose of what he was being told to write. He simply needed to be willing to write what he was Told to write. Paul Was chosen by God to write a Lot of what is referred to as doctrine – and to share about the missionary journeys that were made etc. So others could read what he was led to write and , thus, learn about what had already taken place. And Because he was inspired to write it – we also know it is totally accurate.
A beautiful example of being inspired to ‘write Scripture’ that he could not possibly have known about was Moses being inspired to write the first few chapters of Genesis. “In the beginning God created…” No people were there – Adam was created and then Eve. But No people were around to observe God creating the world. And That is how ‘future generations’ Can know exactly How this world came to be. And in chapter 2 vs 10 -14, God gave ‘us’ the names of the river that divided and became 4 river heads. So that ‘we’ could relate to the area of the world where the Garden of Eden was located. That is Was real.

As for the Catholic church giving the world the Bible – they were the Only ones given permission To print it. Excuse me? Where did you hear that? The Bible was not PRINTED until the 15th century. But there were many, many Bibles which were copied out (you can see many examples in museums still), for the 1000 years between the first canon of Scripture around AD 380 and the first printed Bible by Gutenberg in AD 1458. Which was printed from the VULGATE. Latin. Which in the time of St Jerome and the first canon was the ‘vulgar’ or ‘vernacular’ language of most. And in 1458 there were no organized Protestant groups. There were dissident Catholic Christians such as the Lollards who did not consider themselves to be protestant at all, or open heretics such as the Albigensians. Your organized Protestants did not start to come into being for another 70 plus YEARS after the first Bible. Others had to leave the country in order to get parts printed / distributed. Again I remind you that we are speaking of the Bible of which many thousands of copies were made (written) before the first printing press. And, yes, there were people here and there who Did follow the leading of the Holy Spirit To separate from the RCC Because they felt that the 'hierarchy had been leading the people Away from Scripture that they were finally Able to read for themselves. Of course there were also many millions who felt that the dissenters were leading Christians astray, and they read that very same Scripture for themselves and found the Catholic Church was right. So since the Holy Spirit doesn’t teach against Himself, how do you know He wasn’t part of the faithful Catholics (reading that Scripture for themselves) and trying to stop Protestants from going off the rail? God is the Sole Authority – Jesus Christ being the Son of God – Holy Spirit leading, guiding.

Yes, God is sole authority–and it was HIS authority that gave us One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church (the same ‘one church’ you profess in the Nicene Creed, remember when that creed was made), not 'a bunch of different competing churches which all claim to be Christian but no two of which profess exactly the same doctrine as truth

 

[fnr]

Cyprian also said

"to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access**."**Epistle 54 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm

Unfortunately, taking this out of context is problematic. Cyprian himself wrote this sentence to describe the unity of the church. The letter itself is based on fighting the election of an alternative bishop (Fortunatus) in his place by the ultra-purists who refused to allow the apostates back to the church ever… Cyprian himself would allow the lapsi back into the church on the point of death.

Apparently, his quoting the throne of Peter wasn’t enough for him to believe that Pope Stephen had authority over him. It could very well be that the “throne of Peter” refers to the Church at Rome, though not the pope. This agrees what what I’ve been saying. Ecclesiology about the pope’s authority wasn’t totally developed in the earliest church, largely because it didn’t need to be. Arguing with gnostics and others (described as heretics by Irenaeus in his book with the title “Against Heresies”), the whole church agreed. Arguing with another bishop didn’t take place until the middle of the third century. Shaking out the theology of the papacy and his relationships with other bishops took time.

Like I said previously, the word “trinity” wasn’t used until Tertullian. Yet that doesn’t mean that the earliest Christians didn’t have a belief in the trinity (see Matthew 28, for example). Similarly, the word “infallible” wasn’t used early on. All I’m saying is that we have to be cautious in describing Church history to avoid being anachronistic.

Here’s something else to consider.

If Cyprian’s view prevailed, at one time every prelate was a heretic in the East. They were all Arians or Pelagians or Donatists etc. That would mean every bishop, priest, rank and file Catholic would have to be rebaptised. Who is going to do the honors since according to Cyprian a heretic can’t baptise and heresy was rampant. Therefore any orders performed by a heretical bishop is invalid. All sacraments are invalid if performed by a heretic.

See the problem for the East?

I’m not saying that Pope Stephen wasn’t right in the theology of baptism. I’m simply arguing that at the time of the persecution, some bishops didn’t know that the pope was their leader. In the early church, bishops would call their own councils, independent of the pope. And while the church faced only external opponents, that was an arrangement that worked just fine.

 

[fnr]

We have an example prior to Decius of a disagreement that didn’t go far enough to need a new ecclesiology about papal authority. When St. Anicetus was pope, Eusebius writes that he was visited by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the ealiest Christian writers we have. Polycarp was a quartodecimanianist, who celebrated the crucifixion on the fourteenth day of Nisan, coinciding with the Passover, regardless of which day of the week it was. The Roman Church celebrated Easter on Sunday, and the crucifixion on Friday. According to Eusebius, citing a fragment of Irenaeus:
“*For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp not to observe it, inasmuch as he had always done so in company with John the disciple of our Lord and the other apostles with whom he had associated; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, for he said that he ought to keep the custom of those who were presbyters before him. And under these circumstances they communicated with each other, and in the church Anicetus yielded the celebration of the Eucharist to Polycarp, obviously out of respect, and they parted from each other in peace, for the peace of the whole church was kept both by those who observed and by those who did not”
Looking at this text, we can see that Anicetus was willing to disagree amicably with Polycarp. Anicetus was pope from around 155-166.

According to Eusebius, When Victor I became pope, he was totally not OK with this disagreement. He decided that the quartodecimanians were heretics, and decided excommunicate them. However, Eusebius tells us:*
"10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:
12. “For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.1708
13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.” *

Eusebius tells us that the bishops of Asia responded to these concerns by saying that they decided to change their celebration of Easter to the same day that Rome did. However, the bishops didn’t say that it was due to what Victor did, but due to what they had received from the apostles…
*1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus,and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:

1. “Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.”*
   As such, these bishops appear to have backed away from a toe-to-toe fight with Rome over a matter of faith and morals. This is just another example of how the ecclesiology about pope authority wasn’t made prior to Decius.*

 

[steve_b]

Unfortunately, taking this out of context is problematic. Cyprian himself wrote this sentence to describe the unity of the church. The letter itself is based on fighting the election of an alternative bishop (Fortunatus) in his place by the ultra-purists who refused to allow the apostates back to the church ever… Cyprian himself would allow the lapsi back into the church on the point of death.

• Why are they sailing to Rome in the first place? What is their reason? It’s already understood that if there are ecclesiastical disagreements they seek settlement with the pope
• What is it that Cyprian recognizes about Rome and the pope
• the pope of the Church of Rome is on the throne of Peter,
• the Church of Rome is the chief Church where priestly unity takes its source

f:

Apparently, his quoting the throne of Peter wasn’t enough for him to believe that Pope Stephen had authority over him.

He knew it until he and Stephen had a disagreement. Then Cyprian’s ego got the better of him. Stuff like that happens. Cyprian’s position on rebaptism was wrong. Stephen’s position was right. Had Cyprian’s position prevailed, the validity of sacraments then in the East would be in question. Because heresy in the East was so pervasive no one would be qualified to administer the sacraments particularly baptism
f:

It could very well be that the “throne of Peter” refers to the Church at Rome, though not the pope.

Incorrect. Nothing is done in the Church without the bishop. That’s why Cyprian doesn’t communicate with just a Church but the bishop of Rome.
f:

This agrees what what I’ve been saying. Ecclesiology about the pope’s authority wasn’t totally developed in the earliest church, largely because it didn’t need to be. Arguing with gnostics and others (described as heretics by Irenaeus in his book with the title “Against Heresies”), the whole church agreed. Arguing with another bishop didn’t take place until the middle of the third century. Shaking out the theology of the papacy and his relationships with other bishops took time.

Incorrect. Irenaeus mentions 12 bishops of Rome by name in succession from Peter down to his day that all must agree with.
Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-3
f:

I’m not saying that Pope Stephen wasn’t right in the theology of baptism. I’m simply arguing that at the time of the persecution, some bishops didn’t know that the pope was their leader. In the early church, bishops would call their own councils, independent of the pope. And while the church faced only external opponents, that was an arrangement that worked just fine.

Bishops can only speak for their own diocese. If 10 bishops get together they can only influence their own 10 diocese. That’s where the pope comes in. He isn’t constrained to his particular diocese.

It’s already understood that if anyone has trouble, they go see the pope. That’s why Cyprian is warning the pope in advance about who is coming to visit. They want validation.

 

[steve_b]

We have an example prior to Decius of a disagreement that didn’t go far enough to need a new ecclesiology about papal authority. When St. Anicetus was pope, Eusebius writes that he was visited by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the ealiest Christian writers we have. Polycarp was a quartodecimanianist, who celebrated the crucifixion on the fourteenth day of Nisan, coinciding with the Passover, regardless of which day of the week it was. The Roman Church celebrated Easter on Sunday, and the crucifixion on Friday. According to Eusebius, citing a fragment of Irenaeus:
“For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp not to observe it, inasmuch as he had always done so in company with John the disciple of our Lord and the other apostles with whom he had associated; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, for he said that he ought to keep the custom of those who were presbyters before him. And under these circumstances they communicated with each other, and in the church Anicetus yielded the celebration of the Eucharist to Polycarp, obviously out of respect, and they parted from each other in peace, for the peace of the whole church was kept both by those who observed and by those who did not”
Looking at this text, we can see that Anicetus was willing to disagree amicably with Polycarp. Anicetus was pope from around 155-166.

According to Eusebius, When Victor I became pope, he was totally not OK with this disagreement. He decided that the quartodecimanians were heretics, and decided excommunicate them. However, Eusebius tells us:
"10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:
12. “For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.1708
13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.”
Eusebius tells us that the bishops of Asia responded to these concerns by saying that they decided to change their celebration of Easter to the same day that Rome did. However, the bishops didn’t say that it was due to what Victor did, but due to what they had received from the apostles…

1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus,and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:
   [snip for space]
   As such, these bishops appear to have backed away from a toe-to-toe fight with Rome over a matter of faith and morals. This is just another example of how the ecclesiology about pope authority wasn’t made prior to Decius.

Irenaeus and Polycarp were both from Smyrna. Polycarp was ~ 40 years before Victor excommunicated the quartodecimans of his day.

*“Polycarp came to Rome e. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance. Nevertheless he was not debarred from communion with the Roman Church, and St. Irenaeus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessor. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the Churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the “Philosophumena” (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.”

Irenaeus didn’t deny the pope had the right to excommunicate the quartodecimans, just that he acted too quickly.

You might also know,
First Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381: “Canon VII. Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the number of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macerdocians, Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Appolinarians, we receive upon their giving a written renunciation of their errors and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Cathoilic and Apostolic Church of God.”*