Myterdom of Peter

[Eden]

Here is a summary from ewtn.com:

Thirteen or fourteen years after his mission to Rome, Irenaeus attempted mediation between another Pope and a body of Christians in Asia Minor called the Quartodecimans,[3] who refused to fix the day of Easter by the method commonly used by Christians. Pope Victor had excommunicated them, and Irenaeus pleaded with him in a beautiful letter to raise the ban, pointing out that these Asiatics were only following their Apostolic tradition, and that the difference of opinion on this minor point had not preveneted St. Polycarp and many others from staying in communion. At the end of the fourth century Jerome wrote that many Eastern bishops still adhered to the ancient Jewish calendar.

Pope Victor raised the ban.

I see:

1. the preeminent authority of the bishop of Rome Pope Victor
2. a bishop, St. Irenaeus writing to him with concern about the pope’s decision and persuading the pope to remove the excommunications in the Asia
3. Pope Victor having the authority and being recognized as the authority to do the above

Where is the Protestant argument against the papacy here again?

 

[BrianH]

I see:

1. the preeminent authority of the bishop of Rome Pope Victor
2. a bishop, St. Irenaeus writing to him with concern about the pope’s decision and persuading the pope to remove the excommunications in the Asia
3. Pope Victor having the authority and being recognized as the authority to do the above

Where is the Protestant argument against the papacy here again

Fascinating, lets take a look at what Irenaeus said:

“Among these too were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church of which you are now the leader,”

presbyter? Interesting but we will not get too hung up on that.

“* I mean Anicetus and Pius and Telesphorus and Xystus. They did not themselves observe it,[3] nor did they enjoin it on those who followed them”*

They did not let the people who followed them do it? These are the Popes? They only had control over this group of people. Who is that? Rome, plain and simple.

“4] And no one was ever rejected for this reason, but the presbyters before you who did not observe it sent the Eucharist from other dioceses who did;”

Ok other dioceses did this, lets move on

and when the blessed Polycarp was staying in Rome in the time of Anicetus, though they disagreed a little about some other things as well, they immediately made peace, having no wish for strife between them on this matter. For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp not to observe it,

The Pope could not PERSUADE Polycarp? Preeminent authority??? No. No way

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

He ought to keep the custom of others before him…specifically John and other Apostles. Who are doing something different than the Roman church. They are doing something different because that is what the APOSTLES DID. Is this the authority you were referring to?

 

[Eden]

You are missing the central feature: Polycarp wrote a letter to Pope Victor asking him to raise the ban (excommunication) on the Asiatic churches. If Pope Victor did not have authority why did Polycarp bother?

 

[Eden]

The Easter Controversy

The first was mainly concerned with the lawfulness of celebrating Easter on a weekday. We read in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiii): “A question of no small importance arose at that time *. The dioceses of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch epi tes tou soteriou Pascha heortes], contending that the fast ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but the Sunday and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only.” These words of the Father of Church History, followed by some extracts which he makes from the controversial letters of the time, tell us almost all that we know concerning the paschal controversy in its first stage. A letter of St. Irenaeus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus (c. 120). Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 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 predecessors. 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.

newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

Where is Pope Victor ever not in charge of the final outcome as to whether or not the Asiatic churches were to be excommunicated or not? *

 

[Montie_Claunch]

BrianH:

Fascinating, lets take a look at what Irenaeus said:

“Among these too were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church of which you are now the leader,”

presbyter? Interesting but we will not get too hung up on that.

Yes. No need to get hung up on who was a preist in Rome.

“* I mean Anicetus and Pius and Telesphorus and Xystus. They did not themselves observe it,[3] nor did they enjoin it on those who followed them”*

They did not let the people who followed them do it? These are the Popes? They only had control over this group of people. Who is that? Rome, plain and simple.

How do you get that these four people were pope?

“4] And no one was ever rejected for this reason, but the presbyters before you who did not observe it sent the Eucharist from other dioceses who did;”

Ok other dioceses did this, lets move on

No, it sounds like, if he is talking to Victor, that preist in Rome were sending Eucharist to other dioceses. But, I don’t see how that has any bearing on the Papacy.

and when the blessed Polycarp was staying in Rome in the time of Anicetus, though they disagreed a little about some other things as well, they immediately made peace, having no wish for strife between them on this matter. For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp not to observe it,

The Pope could not PERSUADE Polycarp? Preeminent authority??? No. No way

So. Bush hasn’t convinced a lot of people here in the U.S. about the war but, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have power. He is still President and still does have Preeminent authority. I don’t see why it wouldn’t also aply to him. And notice they “Disagreed a little”. No You and your papacy is a fraud.

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

He ought to keep the custom of others before him…specifically John and other Apostles. Who are doing something different than the Roman church. They are doing something different because that is what the APOSTLES DID. Is this the authority you were referring to?

And where did the “presbyters before him” get it if not from the apostle Peter or possible Paul.

And did not Ireneous also say, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
And “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Acknowledgeing that Peter built and handed over his office in Rome, The popes office, Which Jesus said, would have the keys to heaven and would not be over taken by Hell.

 

[Eden]

More:

newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm

Internal dissensions during this era affected the Church at Rome. The dispute over the celebration of Easter (see EASTER CONTROVERSY) grew more acute. The Christians at Rome, who had come from the province of Asia, were accustomed to observe Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, whatever day of the week that date might happen to fall on, just as they had done at home. This difference inevitably led to trouble when it appeared in the Christian community of Rome.** Pope Victor decided, therefore, to bring about unity in the observance of the Easter festival and to persuade the Quartodecimans to join in the general practice of the Church. He wrote, therefore, to Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus and induced the latter to call together the bishops of the province of Asia in order to discuss the matter with them.** This was done; but in the letter sent by Polycrates to Pope Victor he declared that he firmly held to the Quartoceciman custom observed by so many celebrated and holy bishops of that region. Victor called a meeting of Italian bishops at Rome, which is the earliest Roman synod known. He also wrote to the leading bishops of the various districts, urging them to call together the bishops of their sections of the country and to take counsel with them on the question of the Easter festival. Letters came from all sides: from the synod in Palestine, at which Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided; from the synod of Pontus over which Palmas as the oldest presided; from the communities in Gaul whose bishop of Irenaeus of Lyons; from the bishops of the Kingdom of Osrhoene; also from individual bishops, as Bakchylus of Corinth. These letters all unanimously reported that Easter was observed on Sunday… **Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church. **This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom (Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.”, V, xxiii-xxv.) We have no information concerning the further course of the matter under Victor I so far as it regards the bishops of Asia. All that is known is that in the course of the third century the Roman practice in the observance of Easter became gradually universal. In Rome itself, where Pope Victor naturally enforced the observance of Easter on Sunday by all Christians in the capital, an Oriental named Blastus, with a few followers, opposed the pope and brought about a schism, which, however, did not grow in importance (Eusebius, loc. cit., B, xx).

In this article too, where was Pope Victor ever NOT in charge?

 

[BrianH]

Eden:

You are missing the central feature: Polycarp wrote a letter to Pope Victor asking him to raise the ban (excommunication) on the Asiatic churches. If Pope Victor did not have authority why did Polycarp bother?

Because Eden, that is what Bishops do…to protect the unity of the church.
BH

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

Because Eden, that is what Bishops do…to protect the unity of the church.
BH

I don’t disagree that bishops have a role in maintaining unity within the Church but you did not answer my question:

In the articles above, where was Pope Victor ever NOT in charge?

 

[BrianH]

How do you get that these four people were pope?

Well, any history book. Are you saying these men were not bishops in Rome???

So. Bush hasn’t convinced a lot of people here in the U.S. about the war but, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have power. He is still President and still does have Preeminent authority.

bad analogy. Is this is the Papacy, he does not have to convince.
Bush does not have to convince his cabinet, does he?

I don’t see why it wouldn’t also aply to him. And notice they “Disagreed a little”. No You and your papacy is a fraud.

He would not have said his papacy was a fraud BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE ONE. That whole concept is much later developing, although I Victor is one of the first to try to claim it.

And where did the “presbyters before him” get it if not from the apostle Peter or possible Paul.

Well if they got it from Peter, it sure did not stick in Rome BECAUSE THATS NOT WHAT ROME DID. All I know for sure based upon the context is John.

And did not Ireneous also say, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
And “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Acknowledgeing that Peter built and handed over his office in Rome, The popes office, Which Jesus said, would have the keys to heaven and would not be over taken by Hell.

Yes he sure did. Notice the lack of Peterine supremacy though in this though. This is probably another thread, lets stick to this topic.
BH

 

[BrianH]

Eden:

I don’t disagree that bishops have a role in maintaining unity within the Church but you did not answer my question:

In the articles above, where was Pope Victor ever NOT in charge?

Eden, the articles are Catholic spin about what happened from their perspective. Lets stick to the primary sources, not their spin on it.
Back to the source please.
BH

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

Eden, the articles are Catholic spin about what happened from their perspective. Lets stick to the primary sources, not their spin on it.
Back to the source please.
BH

You are putting your ntrmin.org and various Protestants spin on what was clearly an excommunication put in place by the pope, no other bishop had the authority to issue one.

You used a Greek Orthodox source as well. Are you stating that their website is free from spin, that every source is accurate except those that are Catholic?

And how is “The Overseas Ministries Study Center” and their site “The Dictionary of African Biography” now *the *authority on the Catholic Church?

 

[BrianH]

Eden:

You are putting your ntrmin.org and various Protestants spin on what was clearly an excommunication put in place by the pope, no other bishop had the authority to issue one.

yeah I spun too, sometimes that works
Anyway, No one is arguing that Victor did not think he had the right. He did think that. Actually other bishops excommunicated as well, not Bishops of Rome. So that someone excommunicated someone is in and of itself, not proof. One crucial thing is that, he excommunicated…and nothing happened. The tradition, from the apostles, which differed from the Roman one, kinda hard to explain that one I have noticed.
Anyway, what part of this letter do you think proves your point?
Thanks
BH
hey i gotta go to bed too, I have a job, five kids, and my wife already yelled at me for reading the board when i was supposed to be acting interested in her new Rent DVD.

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

yeah I spun too, sometimes that works

I did not accept that the Catholic source was spin.

Anyway, No one is arguing that Victor did not think he had the right. He did think that. Actually other bishops excommunicated as well, not Bishops of Rome. So that someone excommunicated someone is in and of itself, not proof. One crucial thing is that, he excommunicated…and nothing happened.

Pope Victor put the excommunication on the Asiatic churches, no one else, it was Pope Victor.

The tradition, from the apostles, which differed from the Roman one, kinda hard to explain that one I have noticed.

You read the article incorrectly. The tradition of the Apostles was to celebrate Easter on Sunday. Here’s the quote again:

The dioceses of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch epi tes tou soteriou Pascha heortes], contending that the fast ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, **as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour. **

(This means all BUT the Asiatic churches followed the tradition of the Apostles and celebrated Easter on SUNDAY including Rome. The Asiatic celebration of Easter was based on an older JEWISH custom not from the Apostles.)

Anyway, what part of this letter do you think proves your point?
Thanks

The fact that Pope Victor could issue an excommunication on Asiatic churches way far, far away from Rome and that a bishop from Gaul wrote a letter to persuade him to reconsider. It is clear who was in charge of ALL the churches scattered throughout the Christian world.

BH
hey i gotta go to bed too, I have a job, five kids, and my wife already yelled at me for reading the board when i was supposed to be acting interested in her new Rent DVD.

Good luck.

 

[BrianH]

Eden
This is precisely the problem with reading the spin. No one argues that John did not support the Nisan 14 date, at least until this thread…read the letter and I will post more. Read the letter:

*Ecclesiastical History, V. XXIV, 11-18. (pp. 509-513)਀㰀倀㸀 Among them too Irenaeus, writing in the name of the Christians whose leader he was in Gaul, though he recommends that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection be observed only on the Lord’s day, yet nevertheless exhorts Victor suitably and at length not to excommunicate whole churches of God for following a tradition of ancient custom, and continues as follows: "For the controversy is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast; for some who think that they ought to fast one day, others two, others even more, some count their day as forty hours, day and night.[1] And such variation of observance did not begin in our own time,[2] but much earlier, in the days of our predecessors who, it would appear, disregarding strictness maintained a practice which is simple and yet allows for personal preference, establishing it for the future, and none the less all these lived in peace, and we also live in peace with one another and the disagreement in the fast confirms our agreement in the faith."਀㰀倀㸀 He adds to this a narrative which I may suitably quote, running as follows: "Among these too were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church of which you are now the leader, I mean Anicetus and Pius and Telesphorus and Xystus. They did not themselves observe it,[3] nor did they enjoin it on those who followed them, and though they did not keep it they were none the less at peace with those from the dioceses in which it was observed when they came to them, although to observe it was more objectionable to those who did not do so.[4] And no one was ever rejected for this reason, but the presbyters before you who did not observe it sent the Eucharist from other dioceses who did; and when the blessed Polycarp was staying in Rome in the time of Anicetus, though they disagreed a little about some other things as well, they immediately made peace, having no wish for strife between them on this matter. 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."਀㰀倀㸀 And Irenaeus, who deserved his name, making an eirenicon [peace offering - PK] in this way, gave exhortation of this kind for the peace of the church and served as its ambassador, for in letters he discussed the various views on the issue which had been raised, not only with Victor but also with many other rulers of churches.*਀㰀倀㸀

“Polycarp, a disciple of John, likewise adhered to a Nisan 14 observance. Irenaeus, who observed the “first Sunday” rule notes of Polycarp (one of the Bishops of Asia Minor), “For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the observance [of his Nisan 14 practice] inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of the Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant.” (c. 180 A.D.; 1.569 “Ante-Nicene Church Fathers”). Irenaeus notes that this was not only Polycarp’s practice, but that this was the practice of John the disple and the other apostles that Polycarp knew.”

 

[BrianH]

"The first was mainly concerned with the lawfulness of celebrating Easter on a weekday. We read in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiii): "A question of no small importance arose at that time . The dioceses of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch [epi tes tou soteriou Pascha heortes], contending that the fast ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but the Sunday and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only." These words of the Father of Church History, followed by some extracts which he makes from the controversial letters of the time, tell us almost all that we know concerning the paschal controversy in its first stage. A letter of St. Irenaeus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus (c. 120). Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle,*** came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance."

That was from New Advent

Make no mistake about it, the church of Rome is going against the teachings of the Apostles, specifically John is named. New Advent does a little spin here. They say that the differing view comes from John, they cannot deny it. THAT IS DOCUMENTED HISTORY. They even say it is “older tradition”.

However, they do claim their view comes from “apostolic tradition”. Well, where is their support for this claim? Look around the article some more, they can only claim their tradition goes back to Sixtus, roughly 120 CE New Advent admits.
Spin. Pure and simple. They have nada to back up their claim. History shows that the church of Rome was going against the teachings of the Apostle John and his other apostles.
BH*

 

[JimG]

I’m not a historian so I’ll leave that discussion to others. But I will just note that John the Apostle was not Pope. That would seem to be why Clement of Rome sent his epistles to instruct and correct the Corinthians rather than John.

Also, establishing the date of Easter seems to be a disciplinary, not a doctrinal matter.

Finally, I would note that many popes throughout history, including some of the most recent, have often relied on the power of persuasion rather than simply issuing edicts. That is often the best way to prevent schism.

 

[Ignatius]

BrianH:

Ignatius:

Jesus.

NO.
You know what I am talking about.

YES!!!

You know what I am talking about.

 

[Eden]

You really have no case here in stating that Rome was not following the traditions of the Apostles. The Catholic Church has maintained a pure “deposit of faith” with the protection of the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years. Although I see that deception is a tactic frequently used by Protestant apologists, there is no need for the Church to deceive. It is Truth.

If you do not accept my articles from New Advent, then here is more from another site. Since we have moved from the topic of the explicit authority of Pope Victor to excommunicate the Asiatic churches to a new topic, that of the tradition of the Apostles and the celebration of Easter, you will find that the east claimed John and the west claimed tradition of Peter and Paul in this matter:

holytrinitymission.org/books/english/liturgical_practice_thomas_carroll.htm

The day and date aspect of the Paschal controversy concerned the Paschal Sunday and not this Quartodeciman Pasch, since it arose from efforts to incorporate a lunar feast into a solar calendar. In fact, by the end of the third century all the Churches had in principle adopted the Sunday following the fourteenth day Nisan, which is the full moon in the first Jewish month after the spring equinox. But Jewish calendars, based on the lunar year, and consequently eleven days short, sometimes place Passover before the equinox, whenever the additional intercalary month had not been inserted to make good the deficiency. The Syrians at Antioch followed this Jewish calendar, whereas the other Churches reckoned the Sunday after the full moon and spring equinox by their own scientific computation. Thus, in perfectly good faith, the Churches were at variance for reasons of computation: at Rome, for example, the equinox had been fixed on March 25 since the time of Caesar, whereas Alexandria from astronomical considerations had settled on March 21. The Council of Nicaea (325) urged the celebration of Easter everywhere on the same day and date, and accordingly, adopted the Alexandrian reckoning and fixed the equinox on March 21, which in the fourth century was also its true date in the Julian calendar. Thus, at Nicaea the Paschal controversy concerned uniformity of worship in theory, but astronomical computation in practice:

Having examined carefully the question whether it was necessary for the universal Church to celebrate the Pasch on the same day, it was discovered that three quarters of the world were in accord with the practice of Rome and Alexandria, and that the only part out of line was the East. It was decided that all discord and disagreement should be set aside, and that the brethren in the East should follow the practice of Rome and Alexandria and elsewhere, so that each and all on the same day and with one voice should send up their prayers on the one holy day of the Pasch. All the Orientals, who had been in disagreement with the others, accepted and ratified this decision (Council of Nicaea; Cf. J. B. Pitra, Spilegium Solesmense).

The historian, Socrates, writing after 439, and quoting Constantine’s letter desiring uniformity of practice throughout the world, passes very sober comment on the controversy at Nicaea:

It appears to me that neither the ancients nor the moderns had much rational foundation for their debate … for with Christianity the obligation to observe the Mosaic Law and its ceremonial types ceased… Neither Christ nor His apostles enjoined this feast on us by any law … but the feast of Easter came to be observed in each place according to the customs of that place … the Quartodecimans affirm that the observance of the fourteenth day was delivered to them by the apostle John while the Romans and those in the Western parts assure us their usage originated with the apostles Peter and Paul: but neither of these parties can produce any written testimony in confirmation of their claims. I am therefore of opinion that they who agree in faith differ according to custom and usage. (Text: PG. 67.625=LNPF 2,2.130).

 

[Eden]

BH, you have used Eric Svendsen as a source for the Easter controversy. I do not accept his interpretation of Christianity because he has been academically discredited. Firstly, he is not a “Doctor”:

catholic-legate.com/articles/heos-drsham.html

Heos Who?

catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/marysaints/svendheos1.htm

Eric’s Top Ten Errors:

catholic-legate.com/articles/heoserrors.html

 

[BrianH]

I’m not a historian so I’ll leave that discussion to others. But I will just note that John the Apostle was not Pope. That would seem to be why Clement of Rome sent his epistles to instruct and correct the Corinthians rather than John

Ok. So only a Pope sends letters?!?!

Why did Paul send letters then? He was not a Pope.
Why did Polycarp send letters? He was not a Pope.
Why did Cyprian send letters? He was not a Pope.
John DID send letters, not to the Romans though. He was not a Pope.

One other huge problem with what you just said as well.
There is not a firm date for when Clement was written.
There is not a firm date when John died.

BH