Myterdom of Peter

[Eden]

Pope. That is your term I use out of respect to you guys. We know Victor was bishop of Rome.

The word pope is an affectionate term. The pope has always been the Bishop of Rome. Pope Benedict XIV is the Bishop of Rome. So, why are we getting stuck on semantics? Let’s just get to the answer, Victor.

Anicetus was a bishop of Rome as well. He could not convince Polycarp to abandon the teachings of the Apostle John. Unlike Victor, he did not overassert his authority.

Anicetus was a successor of Peter and so was Victor later. Anicetus did not find the issue to be of such importance that he needed to excommunicate the Asiatic churches. You see Polycarp appealing to Victor, with the understanding of his authority, by asking him to follow the example of his predecessors.

I am not sure of the question. Only Victor overstepped his boundaries if that is what you mean.

Where in the document does it state that Pope Victor overstepped his boundaries and that he did not have the authority to excommunicate the Asiatic churches? It doesn’t. It just says appeals were made for him to lift it.

We do not know if they were representatives. Asia ignored him. I am sure they knew that the model of the early church did not have bishops excommunicating each other.

Gee. I wonder why the model of the early church allowed for Pope Victor to excommunicate but not the other bishops in agreement with him or against him? You are leaving out the crucial fact that St. Polycarp took the excommunication seriously, in other words that it had authority behind it.

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

So they did not understand authority in their own church(which is what is about) but they did from Rome?

Fascinating hypothesis.
BH

What is fascinating about the fact that the Corinthians would have known that Pope Clement had a higher authority in the Church than the Bishop of Corinth?

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

Irenaues is my source.
Some guy from 400 something is ours. I am sticking to the primary sources Eden

An edited St. Irenaeus is your source, filtered through was it Jason Engwer and an African Biography website? Did you notice Irenaeus is a saint in the Church?

What you said:

The Asiatic celebration of Easter was based on an older JEWISH custom not from the Apostles.

John is an apostle. How can you say, “not from the apostles”.

It came from an earlier Jewish custom and did not originate, i.e. was not a tradition created by the apostles. St. John continued the tradition but it was not “from the apostles”. That is to say it is not as though all twelve created a consistent Easter tradition in the Christian era that was preserved in St. John’s teachings and had been abandoned by Rome and Alexandria. You specifically stated that Rome’s tradition was NOT apostolic, as though you believed all twelve were consistent on this and Rome was in error.

 

[BrianH]

"An edited St. Irenaeus is your source, filtered through was it Jason Engwer and an African Biography website? Did you notice Irenaeus is a saint in the Church? "

Eden
Post number 54.
BH

 

[Eden]

What is the web address of the cut and paste? I assume St. Irenaeus did not create his own website.

 

[NotWorthy]

Okay guys, I’m lost, here. I’d like to get back to the original point made when the thread the “Myterdom of Peter” was hi-jacked!

The Synods to decide the date of the celebration of Easter were called by one man - Pope Victor. How could one man make all these synods occur if he didn’t have any authority?

All synods, but one, decided to celebrate it on Sunday. Most of those synods declared that it had been their practice to celebrate Easter according to Roman Custom. Hmmmmmmm…

And from Eusebius, The History of the Church, 23-25, “The bishops (from Asia Minor) felt free to challenge and even rebuke Victor, though in a very respectful manner. The amazing fact is that Victor assumed the authority to cut the Asian Churches off from the common unity, and* not one voice challenged his authority to do so*. Irenaeus… assumes the Pope can exercise this authority but urges him not to do so for the cause of peace. He challenged Victor’s decision but not his rightful authority to make it.”

Notworthy

 

[BrianH]

earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

 

[Eden]

earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

The website is as Protestant as New Advent is Catholic. Did you see the top where “Apochrypha” is a subject? Either way, the quotes from the manuscript that you provided do not contradict what I have said about Pope Victory’s authority. I’ve already answered the sections that you put in bold.

So, I’m just going to summarize what I and others have already said by using this quote from a Catholic Answers article I just found:

In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice,** for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues.** They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is "the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source."

Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.

(The article itself continues with quotes but the summary is useful enough.)

 

[Eden]

I forgot to ask, BH, when do* you* celebrate Easter?

 

[BrianH]

Eden:

The website is as Protestant as New Advent is Catholic. Did you see the top where “Apochrypha” is a subject?

Yes, of course I do. What could you possibly object to?
The Early Christian Writings list of Apocrypha

"Apocrypha: The Gospel of Thomas
Apocrypha: Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
Apocrypha: The Egerton Gospel
Apocrypha: The Gospel of Peter
Apocrypha: Secret Mark
Apocrypha: The Gospel of the Egyptians
Apocrypha: The Gospel of the Hebrews
Apocrypha: The Apocalypse of Peter
Apocrypha: The Secret Book of James
Apocrypha: The Preaching of Peter
Apocrypha: The Gospel of the Ebionites
Apocrypha: The Gospel of the Nazoreans
Apocrypha: The Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
Apocrypha: The Traditions of Matthias
Apocrypha: The Gospel of Mary
Apocrypha: The Dialogue of the Savior
Apocrypha: The Gospel of the Savior
Apocrypha: The Epistula Apostolorum
Apocrypha: The Infancy Gospel of James
Apocrypha: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Apocrypha: The Acts of Peter
Apocrypha: The Acts of John
Apocrypha: The Acts of Paul
Apocrypha: The Acts of Andrew
Apocrypha: The Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Apocrypha: The Book of Thomas the Contender
Apocrypha: The Acts of Thomas "

It is the same as the Catholic Encyclopedia list!!!
newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

What do you mean subject? ** It is a “subject” in the Catholic Encyclopedia as well?**

Also, the Early Church website links to the Catholic Encyclopedia almost every entry!

But the main point would remain that the Early Church website and New advent are using the same translation of Eusebius!?!

 

[Eden]

In the article you provided from New Advent, the term “Apocrypha” is being defined for Catholics who want to research the word as it is improperly used by Protestants to mean the “deuterocanonicals” Here is a quote from the article in New Advent:

Thus it has the connotation “uncanonical” with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome’s catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures – one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church – applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ “deuterocanonical” to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the “Apocrypha”.

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

Eden:

But the main point would remain that the Early Church website and New advent are using the same translation of Eusebius!?!

Good to see that you now recognize New Advent as a legitimate source to research early Christian history. Also, good to see you acknowledge that New Advent did not “spin” the ancient writings.

Specifically regarding the quotes from Eusebius, they do not contradict the the truth that papal authority existed in the time of Pope Victor.

"Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication."

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

Yes, of course I do. What could you possibly object to?
The Early Christian Writings list of Apocrypha

You are right on this one. I should have actually clicked on the link before dismissing it as Protestant error. I assumed it was referring to the deuterocanonicals. Protestant usage of the term “Apocrypha” is incorrect, but it appears that the website you have used is using it accurately. New Advent:

Thus it has the connotation “uncanonical” with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome’s catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures – one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church – applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ “deuterocanonical” to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the “Apocrypha”.

What do you mean subject? It is a “subject” in the Catholic Encyclopedia as well?

Also, the Early Church website links to the Catholic Encyclopedia almost every entry!

In a previous post, you dismissed a New Advent article illustrating that Pope Victor was the authority in the Easter Controversy as having “spin”. Since you now see that the entries use accurate transcriptions of ancient documents, are you willing to reconsider my post #46?

Just wanted to add that I already answered the Eusebius piece several times. Summary: “Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication”.

 

[Eden]

Earlier you stated that the Asiatic churches were following the older Jewish tradition of St. John and that their tradition was apostolic. Not considering that other apostles may have taught other traditions, you told me that the Sunday celebration of Easter by Rome was “NOT apostolic”. I then stated that the tradition of Rome came from the apostles Peter and Paul. Do you have an historical record which shows that all of the apostles were united in their tradition of Easter celebration? If not, you are not able to support your claim that the tradition of Rome was “NOT apostolic”.

So, imaging for the moment that Sunday celebration of Easter in the model of Rome and Pope Victor *is *“NOT apostolic”, which model of Easter celebration does your church follow? Rome or the Asiatic churches?

 

[BrianH]

You better believe they challenged it. Forget the websites and their spin, I will type it out by hand. This is from the book itself.
I assume you have a copy so we can go off of that as well:

Eusebius

History of the Church

"The Asian bishops who insisted that they must observe the custom transmitted to them long ago were headed by Polycrates, who in the letter which he wrote to Victor and the Roman church sets out in the following terms the tradition that he had received;
We for our part keep the day scrupulously, without addition or subtraction. For in Asia great luminaries sleep who shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s advent, when He is coming with glory from heaven and shall search out all His saints-such as Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis with two of his daughters, who remained unmarried to the end of their days, while his other daughter lived in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus. Again there is John, who leant bakc on the Lord’s breast, and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr, and a teacher…

okay let me skip ahead…so you get my point…
remember this is Eusebius quoting Polycates, the Bishop of Ephesus…

 So, I, my friends, after spending sixty five years in the Lord's service and conversing with Christians from all parts of the the world, and going carefully through all Holy Scripture

Hold the farm on that one…going through the scriptures

am not scared of threats. Better people than I have said: 'We must obey God rather than men.

There she is. Right there. We must obey God rather then men.
It could not be clearer. We obey God Mr. Bishop of Rome, not you.

(Eusebius again)
Referring to the bishops who were with him when he wrote, and shared his opinion, he adds:

(Polycrates again) I could have mentioned the bishops who are with me and whom I summoned in response to your request. If I write their names, the list will be very long. But though they know what an issignificant person I am, they approve my letter, knowing that I have not frittered away my long life but have spent it in the service of Christ Jesus.

(Eusebius again)
Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church,

You do see that Eusebius never claims Victor has the right do this

attempted at one stroke to cut of from the common unity

didnt I just post that very same thought awhile back

all the Asian dioceses, together witht he neighbouring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Christians there. But this was not the taste of all the bishopsthey replied with requst that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men,** who very sternly rebuked Victor**

the Iraneus part is next, we can discuss this first

 

[JezCat]

Brian H.

Hold the farm on that one…going through the scriptures

Why is it always assumed that Catholics are opposed to studying the scriptures? That’s how I defend the Catholic position.

There she is. Right there. We must obey God rather then men.
It could not be clearer. We obey God Mr. Bishop of Rome, not you.

This is what we call reading into the text what isn’t there. According to this view the Israelites should have ignored Moses and all the prophets, which they did many times anyways, but I digress. You are erroneously suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive, that we cannot obey God by following the direction of a man. Why do we then follow pastors and preachers instead of obeying God?

My response to this thinking is to point out that Catholics obey God by following the leadership of the Church, led by men, but “guided into all truth” by the Holy Spirit. The only thing that is made clear is your blind opposition to the Catholic Church.

The pope is not some autocratic dictator who rules the Church with an iron fist while laughing at the pleas from the cardinals and bishops. There is a reason why every pope, even the bad ones, has stayed in step with Church doctrine throughout history.

 

[Eden]

I’m going to respond to the individual statements you made following this post, but I noticed you avoided answering a very easy question - and twice at that!

When, BH, do you celebrate Easter?

Is your Church’s liturgical calendar based on the model found in Rome or the model found in the Asiatic churches at the time of the Easter Controversy?

This is not a difficult question to answer.

 

[Eden]

I have one thing to say regarding your interpretation of Eusebius:

Eusebius

A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia . . . held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from Apostolic Tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Savior [Sunday]. (Church History 5:23)

 

[BrianH]

Thanks please do respond when you can.

I did not answer the question because I consider it distracting to what we are discussing and a personal question…of sorts . We are discussing history, not Brian’s church. I do not see what the two have in common except as a distraction. BUT since you asked

I go to a house church Eden. Most of who consider any celebration of Easter pagan in nature and avoided.

I will drive one hour south of us to be with my wife’s family and attend the Presbyterian church like I do every year. Then I will hide eggs, eat chocolate, and think of something similiar like what I did last year…where I brought some of my friends at the house church little stuffed bunnies to tick them off…we are light like that…at least I am.

Your second serious question is a legitimate but another one quite different from whether Victor had authority.
Eusebius **does ** claim apostolic tradition for Easter on Sunday. I know that. BUT in the very same letter we have proof through Polycarp and Polycrates that at least Phillip and John did otherwise…their celebration is tied to the Jewish holy days… Eusebius does not name a source, he does not say Peter and Paul taught us to celebrate Easter on Sunday. It is a statement that has no names attached to it like the competing traditions from Phillip and John.
If we wish, we could look at when the West started celebrating the resurrection on a Sunday different from the East. I have read quite a bit about it because of the circles I run in. I am not sure if you want to.
Remember what I said:

"*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*."

Once again Eusebius and New Advent claim a tradition with no name attached to it and when we look at other sources, I think you will find it started around 110-120 CE.

Regardless, it is not a huge deal for me. I do not think I can prove Paul and Peter were not in favor of it. I know FOR sure it can not be proved they did support it. We can prove what John and Phillip did, but not Peter and Paul.
Whew…
I am trying to explain myself more to avoid confusion.
I am not sure we do not actually agree on this.
BH

 

[Eden]

So, just to summarize, you haven’t shown that papal authority did not exist in the 2nd century Church and you have not shown that the date of the feast of Easter in Rome/Alexandria did not come from Paul and Peter. Surely, if it had not, St. Irenaeus would have pointed that out in his defense of the Asiatic churches. So, we have gone through all of these posts and your attempts to show the teachings of the Church as non-Apostolic have failed.

Using the atheist position that all of Christianity is based on pagan beliefs, like the festival of Estre is an odd angle for a Christian to take. By the way, you realize that it was date for the feast or “celebration” of the Resurrection of Christ that was in question in the Easter controversy, not the date in which either church was hiding eggs and exchanging little stuffed bunnies. Is this what you believed happened at Easter Mass and if not, why mention eggs and chocolates?

“House churches” - very interesting. Is a house church apostolic? I wonder what the basis for your apostolic authority might be. I’m going to start a thread on that to discuss it with others. If you’d like to participate, please do.