Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[Randy_Carson]

1. What precisely do you think the keys were opening and shutting and for whom?

Let’s start by examining the conclusions of these scholars:

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

W.F. Albright

“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

William Barclay

We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by setting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom…

Oscar Cullman - Lutheran

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).

R.T. France

“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).

Gerhardt Meier

“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” (The End of the Historical Critical Method, 58-60).

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Just because Peter didnt NEED to use his authority to the extent of “supremacy” does NOT equate to its absence.

Actually, there’s a principle used in the forensics field.

It’s that the absence of an artifact is an artifact.

To discuss [need] is… well… needless… It is the same principle as: what if. I’d rather stay with the facts.

Peter happened to be a “faithfull and wise steward” who did not abuse his office.

And?

How does this do anything about absolute supreme immediate jurisdiction?

I love Peter, in fact Peter is probably my favorite apostle.

To excessively lord his possition over the council in Acts 15 would have been wrong and caused ill feelings among his brothers.

Excessively lord his position?, lol.

[If] Peter was in charge of the council, James would not have entered judgement. It would have been Peter. Peter as a faithful and wise servant, respected James position of leading the Council in His Bishopric Office: Jerusalem. Period.

What he did say, however, was that Jesus chose him to speak vicariously for Jesus. He distinguished his appointing among them all as being authoritative over them. This is in a way, alluding to a “certain kind of” supremacy. Its not that he himself is supreme, by his own virtues. No that would be a terrible mistake. Peter as a human man was in equal standing with all believing Christians.

Peter did not exercise supremacy on the Early Church. Not all Bishops were exclusively named by Peter, like Dictatus Papae expresses. Peter did not preside and lead the Council of Jerusalem.

You are, again, confusing Primacy with Supremacy.

Peter’s office contains supreme, with immediate and universal jurisdictional authority. The man sitting in this office posseses these charisms while he is in this office.

After ~1090. Not before. The burden of proof is on you. I have demonstrated when this was enacted by the Western Church (It clearly was done after the division with the East).

I look at things this way.

That’s your opinion. I respect it, but the facts do not support it.

I really dont think this is mental gymnastics, but my simple way of looking at a larger picture.

Again, your opinion.

I might even use this verse to show the point…

**Isaiah 45:9 **(RSVCE)

9 “Woe to him who strives with his Maker,
an earthen vessel with the potter![a]
Does the clay say to him who fashions it, ‘What are you making?’
or ‘Your work has no handles’?

The Church can be seen as the vessel, which in the early days did not have the same form as today, and maybe during certain times looked awkward. But do we say to the potter, “Why does your steward look like this?”

You might think it clever to use my forum handle to support your argumentation, but the fact of the matter is that you have presented nothing to support your opinion other than theories and presumptions and arguments from silence.

The difficulty you have is that I am a Catholic. I hold to the same authority you do, so you find yourself outside the normal rules of engagements of a Non-Catholic. You can’t appeal to authority, you can’t appeal to the Church. I respect the authority and hold to the same beliefs you do.

What you find yourself into is a historical argument. Not opinions.

As such, I rest my case.

 

[Randy_Carson]

[If] Peter was in charge of the council, James would not have entered judgement. It would have been Peter. Peter as a faithful and wise servant, respected James position of leading the Council in His Bishopric Office: Jerusalem. Period.

As such, I rest my case.

As I pointed out in my post which quoted Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer, Peter silenced what had been a contentious debate by rendering his verdict. Paul and Barnabas then provided examples of the fruit of Peter’s decision.

Finally, James, the leader of the local community whose members would have been in attendance in great numbers, silenced the “judaizers” within his own flock by confirming his agreement with Peter’s decision. In what may have been a face-saving gesture (he was the host of the council, after all), he seizes the initiative by proposing the drafting of a letter outlining the council’s outcome.

But this was administrivia; the heavy lifting had been done by Peter who humbly sat down to let others enjoy the limelight.

Yes, Peter had learned humility, but when he spoke, everyone listened.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ok, you are done then?

I’m barely done but you specifically indicated that your thread is about the King and Royal Steward. So I respectfully stopped adding links.

Yes, Peter had learned humility, but when he spoke, everyone listened.

I agree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m barely done but you specifically indicated that your thread is about the King and Royal Steward. So I respectfully stopped adding links.

Not to cut you off, but yeah…start another thread on this if you like. I’m trying to accomplish something else here.

Thanks.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not to cut you off, but yeah…start another thread on this if you like. I’m trying to accomplish something else here.

Thanks.

No problem. Michael can open a new thread if he’d like, or pm me. That way we don’t get in the way

 

[Kliska]

Thank you for your time answering questions, I’m lost on some of your answers, let me try to clarify.

I contend that Jesus intentionally invoked the passage from Isaiah 22 when he conveyed the keys of the kingdom to Peter in Matthew 16. In doing so, Jesus used language with meaning that would have been unmistakable to his Jewish audience.

So, is your answer that there are other keys in scripture, just not right here in Matthew 16? That the Matthew 16 keys were specifically David’s Steward’s keys, but keys elsewhere are not necessarily David’s Steward’s keys?

I contend that scripture records the following:

Luke 1:30-33
30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

So you contend He is currently sitting on David’s throne?

As long as we agree on what “open and shut” means, yes.

So it’s open and shut with David’s Steward’s keys over a long period of time, over and over? Which is kind of waiting on the other question; “What precisely do you think the keys were opening and shutting and for whom?” What do you in particular (not others) contend open and shut means, what were the keys opening and shutting, and for whom? An example would be good too; a time when David’s Steward opened something and closed something.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you for your time answering questions, I’m lost on some of your answers, let me try to clarify.

So, is your answer that there are other keys in scripture, just not right here in Matthew 16? That the Matthew 16 keys were specifically David’s Steward’s keys, but keys elsewhere are not necessarily David’s Steward’s keys?

So you contend He is currently sitting on David’s throne?

So it’s open and shut with David’s Steward’s keys over a long period of time, over and over? Which is kind of waiting on the other question; “What precisely do you think the keys were opening and shutting and for whom?” What do you in particular (not others) contend open and shut means, what were the keys opening and shutting, and for whom? An example would be good too; a time when David’s Steward opened something and closed something.

Not to speak for Randy , but:

When we read Isaiah 22, we see a prophetic designation of someone for a Kingdom. Further, this established King (Eliakim) will have the keys from the Royal lineage (David) and this King will also have the full authority to open and shut doors.

We see the same situation in 2 different passages of the NT.

In Luke 1, the Archangel Gabriel says to Mary: “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

The mention of the David and Jacob is to clearly indicate that the message is from “I am”, the Living God who chose Israel as His people.The throne of David and the house of Jacob are being given to Jesus.

After this is established, in Matthew 16 we see Jesus alluring to the keys mentioned in Isaiah 22 and the power the giving of the keys carry: “To bind and lose”.

Only the Royal King can pass on the keys. This authority is from God. Jesus being God the Son and the Word made Flesh has all authority to pass the keys.

This is given to Peter, who represents Eliakim from Isaiah 22.

Peter is not sitting on David’s throne but on Christ’s throne. Christ established a New Covenant. Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. On earth, He gave Peter the keys and the power to bind and lose.

 

[Church_Militant]

As the entire history of the House of David in the Old Testament (and Matthew 16 for that matter) shows, the granting of authority does not mean it will be properly understood or exercised. This is why the authority to bind and loose was later broadened to include all disciples in Matthew 18.

You’ll have to elaborate and make a better case for that both in scripture and documented practice of the early church because I have found it in neither place.

 

[Church_Militant]

The connections to the Old Testament make the passage very clear–just because people are given authority doesn’t mean they can necessarily be trusted to do the right thing.

Which I would say flies right in the face of the promise of Christ Himself that he would be with His church always and that The Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth.

Let’s consider another aspect of this in the context of scripture.

Look at 1st Corinthians 14:33, which says, " For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, "

Now, since ever single n-C community asserts that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in what they teach and preach, then (self evidently) why do they not all have the same doctrines and agree right down the line?

The lack of any such chief royal steward, which we know as apostolic succession, has to be the problem and its roots can be traced back to the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which, had the “reformers” heeded scripture to begin with, they likely would not have fallen into this 500 year old error and all its cascading effects to date.

So, then the real issue becomes, if God is not a God of confusion (disorder, etc) and we see from plain fruits & evidence that this is serious problem with n-C teachings, then what is the clear logical conclusion that one must reconsider?

 

[Church_Militant]

I already addressed the connection to Isaiah 22 in post #42. Peter is a proper “Eliakim”–for about two verses–but ends up being a “Shebnah” in the story. This repeats the literary pattern followed in regards to Peter in the Gospel according to Matthew; Peter starts off well, but ends poorly. Being called a Satan by Jesus is ending poorly. How would you interpret Jesus’ remarks if he called you a Satan?

This simply does not wash at all in the context of the Gospels because we see Our Risen Lord speaking to Peter and telling him."15] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16] A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17] He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
So then we see that your position is untenable in context of Our Lord’s own actions and words in His commission to Peter.

As to the question of succession that someone raised…you see that plainly evident in the election of Matthais in Acts 1: 15-26.

 

[Church_Militant]

But really, this thread is about the fact that a king, named Jesus, of the House of David appointed a royal steward by the name of Peter. :yup:

Exactly! And as we discuss it we see more and more just how important this really is.

 

[rcwitness]

No problem. Michael can open a new thread if he’d like, or pm me. That way we don’t get in the way

Hey Isaiah45_9

Maybe some day

I just spent a long time responding to several quotes of yours and lost my post! Very frustrating!:banghead:

But it was not to argue, but acknowledge that I respect your arguement. I realize most of my approach is my opinion and theology, though I certainly try to form these on facts and Church Teaching. As of now, I dont think you or the East Church is heretical (that would be wrong and contradict that very relative quote from Benedict XVI posted in this thread).

I do think that there is a sound middle ground without beliving Western Church of Rome Teachings were in error. I do not hold a “Peter Only” mindset, and you do not reject the office of Peter as being the “Steward of Jesus” in a singular office.

I dont want to distract this thread either.

Looking forward to your fellowship and posts, and maybe some PMing

 

[steido01]

Ok, I’ve finally caught up with the thread and here are my thoughts. Slightly disjointed.

No. Check the title of the thread. The reason I started this thread was to encourage Lutherans (who accept many Catholic doctrines) to consider the idea that Jesus really did intend to establish a universal shepherd over His entire flock.

I don’t know that these verses show Christ establishing a single universal shepherd. I see Christ establishing the office of public ministry in Peter, that much is obvious. Peter is clearly given the Power of the Keys. But that’s an office that I understand any faithful and ordained bishop to hold and exercise. Where is the clear command from Christ? Where is the example of early Church practice? Where is the support from the ECFs? I just don’t see the Scriptural or historical proof, Randy.

However, it seems to me that there are plenty of ECF’s both before and after Nicea who reference the supremacy of Peter and the Roman See.

Primacy, absolutely. I have yet to read an ECF who refers clearly to supremacy as it is thought of today. Yes, they will often refer to Rome’s authority in the context of correcting various heresies - but Rome only had that authority because it was doctrinally correct in those instances, not simply because it resided at 41°54’ North by 12°29’ East. And I’ve read yours and others’ attempts to impose modern Catholic understanding on the ECFs. But the truth is that they could never have known what the issue would be today. Your defense is anachronistic. It’s like modern historians saying Chamberlain was guilty of aiding the monster in Germany by practicing Appeasement. No one knew that Chamberlain’s policies would lead to WWII; no one knew what Hitler would become. Chamberlain no more endorsed Hitler’s future policies than we do (sorry to the thread for invoking Godwin’s Law). In short, I agree with Jon (no surprise there ); the Orthodox probably have the most consistent understanding of how a leader of the Church on earth was to function. And I think that’s entirely compatible with how the Reformers envisioned a reformed Church to be.

…local administration does not mean that there was not a supreme or chief steward of the household of God to whom all things would ultimately be referred when necessary.

You make the papacy seem as though it acts solely as a sort of ‘arbiter of last resort’ (not an unworkable solution, from the Lutheran perspective). But this is quite different from the tyrannical and meddling bishop history has shown us at times - a bishop who has claimed prime, universal, immediate jurisdiction at any time that he chooses over all bishops and even secular kings - and, most recently, to be made infallible simply by holding his office! Was the Church intended to have a centralized form of governance around one individual, or is it (and a paraphrase St. Ignatius here), ‘Wherever a bishop is, there Jesus Christ is; there also is the church catholic.’

I have never read the Book of Concord, so I have to pass over this in silence.

If you are directing your question to Lutherans, then it’s helpful we start from the same point. It would be worth your time to read the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. You’ll need to excuse some inflammatory language in order to extract the doctrinal points ). I’d also advise at least a skim over Augsburg, the *Confutation *and the Apology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So far, we have a few “I don’t believe it” kind of rebuttals, but no one has offered a serious refutation of this argument based on scripture, the ECF’s , etc.

I’ve searched the web and found nothing that denies that Peter was named the Royal Steward. To the contrary, numerous Protestants acknowledge his appointment because of the connection between Matthew 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:20-22.

Is there no serious disagreement?



If not, can it be said that Jesus specifically chose Peter as the first in a new line of stewards which extends to Pope Francis today?

Further, can it be said that just as the Royal Steward in the OT has universal jurisdiction and supremacy over any other stewards, so Peter and his successors have the same authority?

Finally, can it be said that this argument provides support for the Catholic view of the Bishop of Rome as the head of the visible, universal Christian Church on earth?

Absent any substantive dissent, I see no basis for anyone refusing formal communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

What verses do you have to support a conciliar model that we can compare with my verses that support the Royal Steward model?

Jesus didn’t say, “No one should want to be first.” Instead, He describe HOW anyone who wants that position should behave.

Mark 9:35
35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Again, Jesus did not say, “No one should want to be great or first”; instead, He taught us what true greatness and true primacy looks like:

Matthew 20:25-28
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Thus far, no one has offered a single substantive argument against my position that the perpetual office of Royal Steward was re-established by Jesus who conveyed the keys of that office to Peter.

Maybe no one can.

Hi Randy,
It seems you sort of brushed off the link. Be that as it may, none of this even implies universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, Randy. None of the posts of the Fathers implies supremacy. Remember, our disagreement is not with primacy.

You quoted Cullman, a significant ecumenist from the Lutheran tradition, who did not convert, even recognizing primacy:

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.”

Again, like Cullman, I recognize Peter’s primacy. I even recognize the primacy of his bishopric at Rome.
The Catholic Catechism says: “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” but nothing presented, not by scripture or Tradition, here on this thread provides evidence of that supremacy.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,
It seems you sort of brushed off the link.

Sorry…what link?

but nothing presented, not by scripture or Tradition, here on this thread provides evidence of that supremacy.

Jon, think about this for a minute…

When Joseph was made Steward in Egypt by Pharaoh, what did Pharaoh say with regard to Joseph’s authority?

Here are the Scripture Parallels: Joseph, Eliakim, and Peter

Joseph - Genesis 41:40-44

40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”

• Steward over Pharaoh’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robes with gold chain around neck as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout the land of Egypt
• No one lifts hand or foot without Joseph’s word

Eliakim - Isaiah 22:20-22

20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; **what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. **

• Steward over Hezekiah’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robe and sash with key on shoulder as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout Jerusalem and Judah
• No one opens or shuts without Eliakim

Peter - Matthew 16:18-20

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

• Steward over Jesus’ kingdom
• Second in command (cf. John 21:15-19 vicarious shepherd of the one flock)
• Given keys as symbol of authority
• Universal jurisdiction over all of Jesus’ kingdom
• Authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth

Can you envision anyone in all of Egypt hindering Joseph’s jurisdiction? Or that of Eliakim in Hezekiah’s kingdom? Pharaoh and Hezekiah were not Lords of the universe. How then, do you find support for limiting the authority of the steward of the greater King, Jesus?

Jon, if Peter binds something, who else can unbind it? If Peter loosens, who can bind it up again?

Peter’s binding and loosing are final; how is that not supremacy?

And if Peter’s decisions affect heaven and earth, where are his decisions not authoritative?

How is that not universal?

 

[Randy_Carson]

 

[rcwitness]

After looking into the curious case of Popes St Anicetus and St Victor’s efforts to establish one unified Tradition regarding the celebration of Pascoa (Easter ), I find a few things interesting.

1.) It was first attempted in good manner from Pope St Anicetus to pursuade Polycarp to observe his request of unifying the date of Pascha. His attempt was rejected yet, he still appears to of had authoratative administry of the Eucharist over other Bishops.

“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.”

2.) Both traditions of celebrating Pascha originated with the Apostles.

“Thus the churches in Asia appealed to the Apostle John in support of their practice, while Sozomen reports that the Roman custom (observed, Irenaeus says, since at least the time of Bishop Xystus of 115–25)[6] was believed to have been handed down by the Apostles Peter and Paul,[7] and Eusebius states that in Palestine and Egypt the Sunday observance was also believed to have originated with the Apostles.”

3.) Synods came together and agreed to the original effort of Pope St. Anicetus and under the new Pope St Victor, they wrote to the “whole” Church.

“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.”

4.) This authoratative letter was rejected by synods from the Asian provinces under the spokesmanship of Polycrates of Ephesus.

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.

Polycrates emphatically stated that he was following the tradition passed down to him:

“We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming … 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.”

5.) Again, the Pope is presured into extreme measures on account of insubordinate Bishops. They were underminding a higher rule while clinging to a lesser one. Still, we see there was an apparent respected Universal authority which St Victor was capable of inforcing, even though it was not obeyed.

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.

6.) The First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea finally resolved the issue. The date of the Lord’s Pascha would be celebrated on one day in the whole Church and would be the same desire as that of Popes Anicetus and Victor.

 

[rcwitness]

…continued…

So, we seem to have a situation of apostolic traditions which were in conflict with one another and a need to dissolve one and accept another.

Obviously, the authority of the pope was not obeyed, yet the authority was still recognized. It instead became a matter of which authority some of the Bishops considered greater. In the end, a Council was needed to pursuade what two popes were attempting to accomplish. The first pope, St Anicetus, was very diplomatic in his efforts. He was denied, yet was pursuaded to not overreact in denying the Eucharistic priveledges of the other churches, even though he apparently had the authority to do so.

Next was Pope St Victor, who realized the more defiant nature of the practice to observe one universal date to celebrate Pascha. He even relied on synods to support his efforts, and still was not respected in his attempts. He then resorts to extreme measures and issues an excommunication but reverses this after strong recommendations to allow the practice for the sake of peace and unity.

Eventually, the issue is taken up at a Council and the desires of the popes was finally resolved. The tradition of the Asian churches was dissolved and the Tradition of the See of Peter was established as the Higher Tradition (rule).