I’m not saying that Pope Victor had no right to excommunicate the Quartodecimians. Churches during the first millennium practically excommunicated each other left and right. It wasn’t some terrible “I’m going to cut you off from everyone else” thing. Rather, it was a way of saying, “Yo, I really disagree with what you’ve been doing/teaching lately, so I don’t want to be in communion with you right now.”
Plus, just because Rome excommunicated someone doesn’t mean that they were out of communion with EVERYBODY else. That’s wrong. For example, when Rome was out of communion with St. Meletius, Constantinople was still in communion with St. Meletius. St. John Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome most if not all of his life until he was enthroned as Archbishop of Constantinople, as he was previously under St. Meletius.
So no, nobody argued against his ability to excommunicate people. His ability to excommunicate wasn’t the issue, it was his very act to try and cut off everyone who held to the Quartodecimian way of calculating Pascha. Many people thought it was unjust and that the Pope should not do it, and they made him back down and lift the excommunication.
What I’m getting at is this: Pope excommunicates some group for whatever reason. Various people stand up and tell him that what he did is wrong and that he should lift the excommunication. Pope lifts the excommunication under pressure. Since the Pope yielded to the demands of others, his authority can be challenged. If his authority can be challenged, then Vatican 1 is wrong for saying that a ruling of the Pope cannot be challenged.
Tell me, if Pope Francis were to excommunicate, say, Latin America from the rest of the Catholic Church, would the rest of the bishops and Patriarchs around the world stand up, oppose him, rebuke him and make him reverse the excommunication?
Even still, we didn’t have one unified way of calculating the day of Pascha until I Nicaea, more than a hundred years after Pope Victor tried to pull his move.
I think it’s more that Victor didn’t have the authority to change the traditions of entire churches. Maybe he can do that in his own Roman church, but he can by no means tell Constantinople or Alexandria how to celebrate their Liturgy or which Saints to commemorate or what feast days to observe on which days. Even today, Rome can’t change the practices of the Eastern Catholics. He can call for things and encourage things, but on his own power, he can’t touch the liturgical traditions of the Eastern Churches.
Pope Victor didn’t have the authority to change the practices of the Asian Churches, but the Council of Nicaea, made up of all the bishops from all around the world, did have that authority.
Well, I do have a different observation of the texts. And its certainly not a mere, “Yo, I really disagree with what you’ve been doing/teaching lately, so I don’t want to be in communion with you right now.”
"Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church."
Here we see the Pope allowing Eucharist administration in the Church of Polycarp, out of respect.
“Synods and conferences of bishops were convened, and without a dissenting voice, drew up a decree of the Church,
in the form of letters addressed to Christians everywhere, that never on any day other than the Lord’s Day should the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead be celebrated, and on that day alone we should observe the end of the Paschal fast.”
“These synods were held in Palestine, Pontus and Osrhoene in the east, and in Rome and Gaul in the west.[4] The council in Rome, presided over by its bishop Victor, took place in 193 and sent a letter about the matter to Polycrates of Ephesus and the churches of the Roman province of Asia.[8] Within the same year, Polycrates presided over a council at Ephesus attended by several bishops throughout that province, which rejected Victor’s authority and kept the province’s paschal tradition.”
Here we see synods under the Bishop of Rome sending their decision to “Christians everywhere”. And Bishops rejecting Victor’s authority in favor of a lesser authority, namely the Tradition of St John the Evangelist.
On receiving the negative response of Polycrates, Victor attempted to cut off Polycrates and the others who took this stance
from the common unity, **but reversed his decision **after bishops that included Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, interceded,
recommending that Victor follow the more peaceful attitude of his predecessors.
Here we see the attempt of Pope Victor to cut off
"from the common unity" those who were rejecting his authority. It was never rejected that he was unable to do this, but that it was strongly recommended that he did not resort to such extremes over the issue. And he
reversed his decision.
You are basically saying, “You cant make me do that, so your authority is invalid.”
Authority must be submitted to in order to be beneficial. Just because it is rejected does not mean that it doesn’t have power behind it. The Churches of Asia should have listened to God’s authority hundreds of years before the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. But nevertheless they finally were brought into a unity.
Why did St Victor even think he was able to excommunicate any bishop from the “common unity” and from Eucharistic ministry!?! No one said he didnt have the authority to do that. No one just ignored his excommunication. Rather they pleaded for him to reverse. Yet, they would have been better to just accept the peacefull request of two popes to unify the celebration of Pascha into one date.
