Pope Victor

[Lorarose]

I have been informed that the whole church rose up against Pope Victor when he tried to claim his primacy, and that this proves the primacy is an incorrect doctrine.

How would you all respond?

 

[dumspirospero]

False and that is not correct.

“when Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East, many protested the threat but none questioned the Pope’s authority, and all finally yielded to it.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

Lorarose:

I have been informed that the whole church rose up against Pope Victor when he tried to claim his primacy, and that this proves the primacy is an incorrect doctrine.

How would you all respond?

 

[MariaG]

Which pope Victor?

 

[banjo]

Lorarose:

I have been informed that the whole church rose up against Pope Victor when he tried to claim his primacy, and that this proves the primacy is an incorrect doctrine.

How would you all respond?

“The fact that no bishop in the world - not a single one - disputed his authority as bishop of Rome to carry out such an excommunication is a powerful piece of evidence that the early Church recognized the unique authority of the bishop of Rome.” Pope Fiction Patrick Madrid p.120

 

[Lorarose]

Thank you…it is this example, and the situation with Pope Stephen that is being used against the doctrine of the primacy.
I’m finding though it doesn’t really matter to point out history…this person has caught onto a theme that the primacy was challenged - so that means it was an “invention.”

 

[joe370]

Thank you…it is this example, and the situation with Pope Stephen that is being used against the doctrine of the primacy.
I’m finding though it doesn’t really matter to point out history…this person has caught onto a theme that the primacy was challenged - so that means it was an “invention.”

Why would everyone eventually yield to the Pope’s authority if the papacy was merely an invention?

These 2 Ecumenical councils seem to lean toward Papal jurisdiction + Ecumenical Council, as opposed to pure Conciliarism:

451 AD - Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon:

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, 'We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops (eastern) - cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’”

431 - Ecumenical Council of Ephesus:

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.’”

 

[mardukm]

“The fact that no bishop in the world - not a single one - disputed his authority as bishop of Rome to carry out such an excommunication is a powerful piece of evidence that the early Church recognized the unique authority of the bishop of Rome.” Pope Fiction Patrick Madrid p.120

I disagree with Patrick Madrid. The Church certainly did challenge that the bishop of Rome could carry out SUCH an excommunication.

The issue is not whether the bishop of Rome could carry out excommunications per se, but rather whether his excommunications carry any weight if it contradicts the standards of Sacred Tradition. Pope St. Victor was certainly in contradiction to that standard when he attempted to excommunicate the Asian Churches because of disagreement on the date of Easter. Thus, many Churches protested against the action.

EVERY bishop, ESPECIALLY the Pope, is bound by the standard of Sacred Tradition. And NO bishop, ESPECIALLY the Pope, is above correction if he violates that standard.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SwissGuard25]

No I don’t think that’s what happened

Pope Saint Victor I was a great Pope. Pope Saint Victor I was Pope from 189 to 199 .

Pope Victor I was the first bishop of Rome born in the Roman Province of Africa: probably he was born in Leptis Magna . He was later canonized. His feast day is celebrated on July 28 as “St Victor I, Pope and Martyr”.

Before his elevation to the Roman episcopacy, a difference in dating the celebration of the Christian Passover/Easter between Rome and the bishops of Asia Minor had been tolerated by both the Roman and Eastern churches. The churches in Asia Minor celebrated it on the 14th of the Jewish month of Nisan, the day before Jewish Passover, regardless of what day of the week it fell on, as the Crucifixion had occurred on the Friday before Passover. The Latins called them Quartodecimans. Rome and the West celebrated Easter on the Sunday following the 14th of Nisan. Victor is remembered for the great concern he displayed for order in the church by severing ties with bishops such as Polycrates of Ephesus who opposed his views on Easter.

He also broke with Theodotus of Byzantium for his beliefs about Christ.
Until Victor’s time, Rome celebrated the Mass in Greek. Pope Victor changed the language to Latin, which was used in his native North Africa. According to Jerome, he was the first Christian author to write about theology in Latin. Latin masses, however, did not become universal until the latter half of the 4th century.

 

[joe370]

I disagree with Patrick Madrid. The Church certainly did challenge that the bishop of Rome could carry out SUCH an excommunication.

The issue is not whether the bishop of Rome could carry out excommunications per se, but rather whether his excommunications carry any weight if it contradicts the standards of Sacred Tradition. Pope St. Victor was certainly in contradiction to that standard when he attempted to excommunicate the Asian Churches because of disagreement on the date of Easter. Thus, many Churches protested against the action.

EVERY bishop, ESPECIALLY the Pope, is bound by the standard of Sacred Tradition. And NO bishop, ESPECIALLY the Pope, is above correction if he violates that standard.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hey Marduk, so you do not agree that even though some in the east had opposed certain papal rulings from time to time, they did not deny the authority behind those rulings, or that certain eastern bishops in the eastern part of the Roman Empire had requested assistance from the bishop of Rome to deal with heresies and settle theological disputes when they themselves could not resolve them?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I disagree with Patrick Madrid. The Church certainly did challenge that the bishop of Rome could carry out SUCH an excommunication.

Do you have a source for this? Or do we essentially agree, per below:

What I recall reading is from the account of Eusebius (Church History, 5.24.9-11)*9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

1. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
2. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:*I read that the same way Pat Madrid did. Irenaeus was trying to present the Pope with evidence that it was indeed an ancient tradition. In the following paragraphs 12-18, Eusebius quotes Irenaeus detailing his case of who followed the tradition, and how none of them were excommunicated. I don’t see him ever suggest the Pope had no “authority” to declare an excommunication. Rather, he wrote to the Pope as a peacemaker for the Pope to see the bigger picture and change his mind.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

Hey Marduk, so you do not agree that even though some in the east had opposed certain papal rulings from time to time, they did not deny the authority behind those rulings, or that certain eastern bishops in the eastern part of the Roman Empire had requested assistance from the bishop of Rome to deal with heresies and settle theological disputes when they themselves could not resolve them?

I am confused by your point because of the double negatives in your statement.

I agree that the bishop of Rome had the authority to excommunicate other bishops. I also affirm that the bishop of Rome has no authority to excommunicate on grounds that violate Sacred Tradition.

I agree that bishops from everywhere appealed to the bishop of Rome on doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MarcoPolo,

I think we essentially agree.

I do not challenge the bishop of Rome’s authority to excommunicate per se.

I challenge the bishop of Rome’s authority to excommunicate on his mere whim and fancy, in violation of the standards of Sacred Tradition.

Catholic Canon law reflects this principle - one of the Canons states that not even a motu proprio can violate the ecclesiastical rights of juridical persons (and, as you might know, a “juridical person” can be whole Churches).

Blessings,
Marduk

Do you have a source for this? Or do we essentially agree, per below:

What I recall reading is from the account of Eusebius (Church History, 5.24.9-11)*9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

1. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace*, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
2. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:I read that the same way Pat Madrid did. Irenaeus was trying to present the Pope with evidence that it was indeed an ancient tradition. In the following paragraphs 12-18, Eusebius quotes Irenaeus detailing his case of who followed the tradition, and how none of them were excommunicated. I don’t see him ever suggest the Pope had no “authority” to declare an excommunication. Rather, he wrote to the Pope as a peacemaker for the Pope to see the bigger picture and change his mind.

 

[joe370]

mardukm;8538096]Dear brother Joe,

I am confused by your point because of the double negatives in your statement.

Oop’s, my bad. I was kind of rushing. I was never a great English student. LOL…

I agree that the bishop of Rome had the authority to excommunicate other bishops. I also affirm that the bishop of Rome has no authority to excommunicate on grounds that violate Sacred Tradition.

I agree that bishops from everywhere appealed to the bishop of Rome on doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters.

Blessings,
Marduk

My bad again. Man, I should probably not rush my posts. LOL…

Blessings brother…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Dear brother MarcoPolo,

I think we essentially agree.

I do not challenge the bishop of Rome’s authority to excommunicate per se.

I challenge the bishop of Rome’s authority to excommunicate on his mere whim and fancy, in violation of the standards of Sacred Tradition.

Catholic Canon law reflects this principle - one of the Canons states that not even a motu proprio can violate the ecclesiastical rights of juridical persons (and, as you might know, a “juridical person” can be whole Churches).

Blessings,
Marduk

Do you know which canon off-hand?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MarcoPolo,

Do you know which canon off-hand?

I don’t have ANY of my book resources with me here in the Philippines. IIRC, it is under the canons on administration, 30-something.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

Dear brother MarcoPolo,

I don’t have ANY of my book resources with me here in the Philippines. IIRC, it is under the canons on administration, 30-something.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks. And congrats on joining the Catholic.com forums 1 day before me!

 

[mardukm]

Thanks. And congrats on joining the Catholic.com forums 1 day before me!

WOW! We’re practically TWINS!

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

WOW! We’re practically TWINS!

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

True!

So I’m guessing #38 is what you had in mind:*COMMON NORMS

Can. 35 A singular administrative act, whether it is a decree, a precept, or a rescript, can be issued by one who possesses executive power within the limits of that person’s competence, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 76, §1.

Can. 36 §1. An administrative act must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others, or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation.

§2. An administrative act must not be extended to other cases besides those expressed.

Can. 37 An administrative act which regards the external forum must be put in writing.

Furthermore, if it is given in commissariat form, the act of its execution must be put in writing.

**Can. 38 An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio, lacks effect insofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogating clause.
**
Can. 39 Conditions in an administrative act are considered added for validity only when they are expressed by the particles if (si), unless (nisi), or provided that (dummodo).

Can. 40 The executor of any administrative act invalidly carries out his or her function before receiving the relevant letter and verifying its authenticity and integrity, unless previous notice of the letter had been communicated to the executor by authority of the one who issued the act.*And so since excommunication is a pastoral (not a function of the Pope’s teaching office), you would say that canon 38 prevents a Pope from making an excommunication against someone who was conformed to prior custom with the exception of a “derogating clause”----what might that be?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Marco,

I’m pretty sure that Canon 39 specifies the matter. A “derogating clause” is an exception to the norm, and, as Canon 39 explains, this is introduced by specific identifiers.

For example, a motu proprio (i.e. a rescript from the bishop of Rome as head bishop of the Church), could say, “the supreme authority of the Church cannot depose a bishop UNLESS [nisi] the bishop has become a heretic.” “UNLESS the bishop has become a heretic” is the derogating clause to the norm that “the supreme authority of the Church cannot depose a bishop.” Another way to word the motu proprio could be "if [si] a bishop becomes a heretic, the supreme authority of the Church can depose him.

Another example is an ancient canon that states that if a particular, distinct grouping of Christians grows large enough, it can be separated into a distinct jurisdiction with its own bishop. The norm is that every grouping of Christians has a bishop. The derogating clause is implied in the words “distinct” and “grows large enough.”

Canon 40 is also another example of an established rule with a derogating clause.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

True!

So I’m guessing #38 is what you had in mind:*COMMON NORMS

Can. 35 A singular administrative act, whether it is a decree, a precept, or a rescript, can be issued by one who possesses executive power within the limits of that person’s competence, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 76, §1.

Can. 36 §1. An administrative act must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others, or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation.

§2. An administrative act must not be extended to other cases besides those expressed.

Can. 37 An administrative act which regards the external forum must be put in writing.

Furthermore, if it is given in commissariat form, the act of its execution must be put in writing.

**Can. 38 An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio, lacks effect insofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogating clause.

---

Can. 39 Conditions in an administrative act are considered added for validity only when they are expressed by the particles if (si), unless (nisi), or provided that (dummodo).

Can. 40 The executor of any administrative act invalidly carries out his or her function before receiving the relevant letter and verifying its authenticity and integrity, unless previous notice of the letter had been communicated to the executor by authority of the one who issued the act.

And so since excommunication is a pastoral (not a function of the Pope’s teaching office), you would say that canon 38 prevents a Pope from making an excommunication against someone who was conformed to prior custom with the exception of a “derogating clause”----what might that be?

 

[Ignatius]

I have been informed that the whole church rose up against Pope Victor when he tried to claim his primacy, and that this proves the primacy is an incorrect doctrine.

How would you all respond?

That is a baseless, false claim. I have seen no evidence whatsoever of it and no one making that claim has been able to produce any.