Pope Victor

[joe370]

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?

I would say:

If you can accurately verify that claim to be true then believe it. From what I have read that is merely disinformation.

 

[Trebor135]

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.

To boil this down, you seem to be saying:

The pope can correct other bishops or parts of the church–except when he’s wrong, i.e., go against Sacred Tradition.

Other bishops or parts of the church can correct the pope–except when they’re wrong, i.e., go against Sacred Tradition.

Isn’t this kind of circular? I mean, where is the objective observer who will determine what doctrine or discipline lines up with Sacred Tradition and therefore who’s wrong?

 

[joe370]

mardukm

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.

But it is true that the bishop of Rome, when speaking ex cathedra, were/are protected by God from speaking erroneously?

 

[mardukm]

Dear 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?

There is a difference between opposing the primacy, and opposing a wrong action by the primatial bishop.

It cannot be the case that that many opposed the primacy per se, because it was by virtue of that same primacy that all the Churches held local Synods to discuss the question of the Easter date in the first place. It was Pope St. Victor who instructed all the Churches to hold local Synods on the matter.

But the primacy is not absolute, and no one but Absolutist Petrine advocates pretends that it is. The primatial bishop is bound by Sacred Tradition to the same extent as any other bishop (even greater, if one thinks of the greater responsibility that head bishops possess).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

To boil this down, you seem to be saying:

The pope can correct other bishops or parts of the church–except when he’s wrong, i.e., go against Sacred Tradition.

Other bishops or parts of the church can correct the pope–except when they’re wrong, i.e., go against Sacred Tradition.

Isn’t this kind of circular? I mean, where is the objective observer who will determine what doctrine or discipline lines up with Sacred Tradition and therefore who’s wrong?

Your syllogism depends on separating the head from the body, and vice versa. You are making the head oppose the body, and vice versa. With that paradigm, it becomes circular.

But when one understands that (1) the last say is Sacred Tradition, and (2) the whole body must work together, it is not circular. The Pope and the bishops form ONE body, and ALL must adhere to Sacred Tradition.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

Your syllogism depends on separating the head from the body, and vice versa. You are making the head oppose the body, and vice versa. With that paradigm, it becomes circular.

But when one understands that (1) the last say is Sacred Tradition, and (2) the whole body must work together, it is not circular. The Pope and the bishops form ONE body, and ALL must adhere to Sacred Tradition.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hey Marduk, also, Christians, both east and west (at least until the 11th century schism) - addressed the papacy alone as the See of Peter, but never, as far as I can tell, was the Pope referred to as first among equals, prior to the 11th century schism. Correct me if I am wrong? What he was referred to as, by many eastern church fathers and the synodal letters of Chalcedon, Constantinople III and Nicaea II - was “vicar of Christ” and “head of the Church,” and I do not believe that any other bishop of was addressed as such.

 

[Trebor135]

Your syllogism depends on separating the head from the body, and vice versa. You are making the head oppose the body, and vice versa. With that paradigm, it becomes circular.

But when one understands that (1) the last say is Sacred Tradition, and (2) the whole body must work together, it is not circular. The Pope and the bishops form ONE body, and ALL must adhere to Sacred Tradition.

I hope that helps.

It does. I see now that, my whole life, I’ve been looking at the papacy through the eyes of a Petrine absolutist without realizing it. Except for your posts here and in other threads, I would most probably have gone to the grave labouring under that misconception.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

It does. I see now that, my whole life, I’ve been looking at the papacy through the eyes of a Petrine absolutist without realizing it. Except for your posts here and in other threads, I would most probably have gone to the grave labouring under that misconception.

I am humbled by your understanding.

Just to further elaborate:
Whether it is the Pope who corrects some (or many) of his brother bishops, or whether the Pope is corrected by his brother bishops, High Petrine advocates look at either situation as an action of THE BODY AS A WHOLE. It is the RESULTING COLLEGIAL DECISION that matters, after all.

An eventual decision of an Ecumenical Council is the decision of the WHOLE Council (it matters not HOW the decision came about - i.e., whether the head corrected the other members, or the other members corrected the head).

Even a papal ex cathedra decree is not considered by the Catholic Church as a merely personal decision of the Pope, but rather, a decision of the ENTIRE MAGISTERIUM UNITED. Just a heads up - not many know this, but the original title of the Vatican Decree on “papal infallibility” was “the Infallibility of the Pope.” The Fathers of V1 explicitly changed the title of the Decree to “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope,” precisely to avoid the misconception that an exercise of papal infallibility is a merely personal prerogative of the Pope (as the Magisterium is never exercised by the Pope alone).

Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates do not understand this, and always seek to present the matter as the head opposing the other members of the body, or other members of the body opposing the head.

I hope this extra elaboration helps you understand the true ecclesiology of the Catholic Church with regards to the papacy, not the misrepresentations imposed on it by Absolutist Petrine exaggerators or Low Petrine detractors.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

Dear brother Trebor,

I am humbled by your understanding.

Just to further elaborate:
Whether it is the Pope who corrects some (or many) of his brother bishops, or whether the Pope is corrected by his brother bishops, High Petrine advocates look at either situation as an action of THE BODY AS A WHOLE. It is the RESULTING COLLEGIAL DECISION that matters, after all.

An eventual decision of an Ecumenical Council is the decision of the WHOLE Council (it matters not HOW the decision came about - i.e., whether the head corrected the other members, or the other members corrected the head).

Even a papal ex cathedra decree is not considered by the Catholic Church as a merely personal decision of the Pope, but rather, a decision of the ENTIRE MAGISTERIUM UNITED. Just a heads up - not many know this, but the original title of the Vatican Decree on “papal infallibility” was “the Infallibility of the Pope.” The Fathers of V1 explicitly changed the title of the Decree to “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope,” precisely to avoid the misconception that an exercise of papal infallibility is a merely personal prerogative of the Pope (as the Magisterium is never exercised by the Pope alone).

Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates do not understand this, and always seek to present the matter as the head opposing the other members of the body, or other members of the body opposing the head.

I hope this extra elaboration helps you understand the true ecclesiology of the Catholic Church with regards to the papacy, not the misrepresentations imposed on it by Absolutist Petrine exaggerators or Low Petrine detractors.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Any local church, if they feel that another local church has made serious enough errors, can break communion with that other church. This can happen and it has happened many times in Church history. But breaking communion is not exactly the same thing as excommunicating. Spiritually they may be the same, but the first implies no jurisdictional authority while the latter implies jurisdictional authority. I’m going to see if I can educate myself a bit on Pope Victor and see if he really did try to exercise jurisdictional authority or if he was simply breaking communion. This was at a fairly early date and I don’t think Rome’s powers were fully developed at that point (of course I could be wrong), but I would bet that this really wasn’t anything more that one local church breaking communion with another. If my bet is right, it still would be a more influential action than most other local churches, but if Rome was the only local church that broke communion and all others remained in communion, in due time it would be seen that perhaps the authority of Rome does have limits.

This very thing did happen once in the case of Meletian, bishop of Antioch who presided over the 2nd Ecumenical Counsel, but was NOT in communion with Rome! Rome was at that time in communion with Paulinus which was in schism from Meletian. In time the Paulinus line died out and not until then did the Pope confirm the 2nd Ecumenical. Consider what this means in terms of the limited authority of Rome. Rome eventually confirmed a council that was headed by a bishop that was not in communion with Rome even until his death! If you look at it as the East does it wasn’t a big deal, it was just one local church (Rome) braking communion with another (Antioch) - no biggie! But if you which to get universal authority of Rome out of this, not an easy thing to do. It also speaks against infallibility too. I do not know, but I bet that this was what Pope Victor did, or almost did. Even if it was more that just one local church that the Pope considered braking communion with it would not prove anything about universal authority since the head of any other local church could do the same thing.

 

[Trebor135]

Dear brother Trebor,

I am humbled by your understanding.

Just to further elaborate:
Whether it is the Pope who corrects some (or many) of his brother bishops, or whether the Pope is corrected by his brother bishops, High Petrine advocates look at either situation as an action of THE BODY AS A WHOLE. It is the RESULTING COLLEGIAL DECISION that matters, after all.

An eventual decision of an Ecumenical Council is the decision of the WHOLE Council (it matters not HOW the decision came about - i.e., whether the head corrected the other members, or the other members corrected the head).

Even a papal ex cathedra decree is not considered by the Catholic Church as a merely personal decision of the Pope, but rather, a decision of the ENTIRE MAGISTERIUM UNITED. Just a heads up - not many know this, but the original title of the Vatican Decree on “papal infallibility” was “the Infallibility of the Pope.” The Fathers of V1 explicitly changed the title of the Decree to “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope,” precisely to avoid the misconception that an exercise of papal infallibility is a merely personal prerogative of the Pope (as the Magisterium is never exercised by the Pope alone).

Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates do not understand this, and always seek to present the matter as the head opposing the other members of the body, or other members of the body opposing the head.

I hope this extra elaboration helps you understand the true ecclesiology of the Catholic Church with regards to the papacy, not the misrepresentations imposed on it by Absolutist Petrine exaggerators or Low Petrine detractors.

Blessings,
Marduk

Excellent. Thanks for your post. For new members/lurkers, could you explain again, or just link to posts where you cover, how the High Petrine view and Eastern Orthodox conciliarism precisely differ?–They seem pretty similar, if not identical.

Lastly, I’d like to hear your response to John VIII’s post #29 just prior to this one. The Meletian schism sounds like a very strong argument in favour of eucharistic and against universal ecclesiology.

Shukran, ya akhi kariim.*

*To puzzled readers: Arabic for “thank you, my dear brother.”–Marduk is of Egyptian extraction.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

I have little time, and was planning to respond to brother Adrian’s post this weekend. For now, I will respond to this portion, and elaborate more, if necessary, this coming weekend.

Excellent. Thanks for your post. For new members/lurkers, could you explain again, or just link to posts where you cover, how the High Petrine view and Eastern Orthodox conciliarism precisely differ?–They seem pretty similar, if not identical.

I don’t believe it is fair to generally brand Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology as “conciliarism.” There are Low and High Petrine advocates within Eastern Orthodoxy. The Low Petrine promoters might be “conciliarists,” but not the High Petrine camp.

There are several differences between the High Petrine view and conciliarism, but I will discuss only the most salient feature. Conciliarism is basically a paradigm that accords authority to the majority view. It does not recognize that the head bishop has a singular and unique authority among his brother bishops. In conciliarism, this unique authority of the head bishop is denied (as ALL bishops are equal), and can be disregarded according to the will of the majority of bishops.

In distinction, the High Petrine view recognizes that a head bishop has a unique and singular authority that other bishops do not posssess. In accord with the ancient Apostolic Canon 34, other bishops cannot act on a plenary matter without the consent of the head bishop (in conciliarism, only the majority will is of importance, whether or not the head bishop consents).

I believe the High Petrine principle was powerfully exemplified by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, wherein the Church understood the necessity of the bishop of Rome’s (as head bishop) confirmation of the Council to such an extent that they imprisoned him for many months UNTIL he gave his necessary consent to the acts of the Council. If the early Church lived by Low Petrine principles, the bishop of Rome would either have been let go (as his consent was not really necessary), or he would have been deposed and replaced (as happened with Patriarchs Dioscorus of Alexandria during the Fourth Ecum, and Patriarch Nestorius during the Third Ecum).

Just think — If the early Church lived by the majority principle of the Low Petrine view (conciliarism), we would now all be Arians (who, in the fourth century, were in the majority). That we are not Arians today demonstrates that the will of God for the government of the Church is otherwise.

That’s just the short of it, as I have little time. If you have further questions on the difference between the High Petrine view and conciliarism, ask away, and I will respond to the best of my ability this coming weekend.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

I have found a little bit of time, so I will give a cursory response to your points that are (as usual) worthy of consideration.

Any local church, if they feel that another local church has made serious enough errors, can break communion with that other church. This can happen and it has happened many times in Church history. But breaking communion is not exactly the same thing as excommunicating. Spiritually they may be the same, but the first implies no jurisdictional authority while the latter implies jurisdictional authority. I’m going to see if I can educate myself a bit on Pope Victor and see if he really did try to exercise jurisdictional authority or if he was simply breaking communion. This was at a fairly early date and I don’t think Rome’s powers were fully developed at that point (of course I could be wrong), but I would bet that this really wasn’t anything more that one local church breaking communion with another.

Eusebius records it as an excommunication:
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,

If my bet is right, it still would be a more influential action than most other local churches, but if Rome was the only local church that broke communion and all others remained in communion, in due time it would be seen that perhaps the authority of Rome does have limits.

Not “perhaps.” The authority of the bishop of Rome is certainly more influential, but it is not absolute, and does have limits. No one pretends otherwise except Absolutist Petrine advocates, whose views do not represent the true teaching of the Catholic Church.

This very thing did happen once in the case of Meletian, bishop of Antioch who presided over the 2nd Ecumenical Counsel, but was NOT in communion with Rome! Rome was at that time in communion with Paulinus which was in schism from Meletian.

It is not true that St. Meletius was out of communion with Rome during the Council of Constantinople (which at that time did not yet obtain Ecumenical status). The Meletian party had, on the advice of St. Basil, appealed to Rome before the Council of Constantinople on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. If they were not in communion with Rome, why would they do this? In fact, the response of Pope St. Damasus (known as the Tome of Damasus) formed part of the basis of the Council of Constantinople’s Decrees on the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

In time the Paulinus line died out and not until then did the Pope confirm the 2nd Ecumenical.

Again, not exactly true. First of all, we do not know the precise reason why there is no explicit approval of the Council of Constantinople from Pope Damasus, but most scholars agree that the silence had nothing to do with the Meletian schism, but rather with that Council’s attempt to usurp the place of Alexandria in the order of Sees. Neither did the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus recognize the Council of Constantinople to be Ecumenical, as a matter of fact.

Secondly, it is a fact that in 382, a year after the Council of Constantinople, Rome tried to broker peace between the Paulinist and Meletian parties, with the condition that both parties agree that the Church in Antioch should be headed by whoever outlived the other. It is a fact that the Meletian party agreed to these terms. It is a fact that the Paulinist party did not agree. So if Rome had a beef with anyone, it would be with the Paulinist party.

Thirdly, it is a fact that the Council Fathers submitted the Acts of the then-local Council of Constantinople to Pope St. Damasus for confirmation in 382. If the Meletian party was not in communion with Rome at this time (as the Paulinist line was still existing), why would they bother to do this?

If you look at it as the East does it wasn’t a big deal, it was just one local church (Rome) braking communion with another (Antioch) - no biggie!

Rome did not break communion with anyone during the Meletian schism. The only ones who actively broke communion with each other were the Paulinist and Meletian parties within Antioch. All other parties were merely “guilty by association.”

It also speaks against infallibility too.

Not at all, especially since the Meletian party appealed to Pope St. Damasus on the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Let’s discuss further, if necessary.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

Even a papal ex cathedra decree is not considered by the Catholic Church as a merely personal decision of the Pope, but rather, a decision of the ENTIRE MAGISTERIUM UNITED. Just a heads up - not many know this, but the original title of the Vatican Decree on “papal infallibility” was “the Infallibility of the Pope.” The Fathers of V1 explicitly changed the title of the Decree to “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope,” precisely to avoid the misconception that an exercise of papal infallibility is a merely personal prerogative of the Pope (as the Magisterium is never exercised by the Pope alone).

Do you know where I can read about this language change?

 

[JohnVIII]

For new members/lurkers, could you [Brother Marduk] explain again, or just link to posts where you cover, how the High Petrine view and Eastern Orthodox conciliarism precisely differ?–They seem pretty similar, if not identical.

Lastly, I’d like to hear your response to John VIII’s post #29 just prior to this one. The Meletian schism sounds like a very strong argument in favour of eucharistic and against universal ecclesiology.

The Eastern Orthodox (at least the Russian Orthodox) do have something like a suppressed High Petrine view. I often come accrossed as a 100% conciliatorist because that is how I believed for a long time. But I know that, at least in the Russian Church, the one who is the chief hierarch holds greater authority than the synod. But this authority, most of the time, is not exercised. All the day to day business of the Church is decided by the vote of the bishops of the synod; although it is interesting to not that the chief hierarch gets two votes and all other bishops get one vote. But if something were to come up in counsel that the chief hierarch believes very strongly about he can put his foot down! Metropolitan Vitaly (the chief hierarch of ROCOR years ago) once did this but he said he wished that he didn’t have to because he didn’t like to “act like a Pope”!

The real issue is whether or not this pattern should exist on a universal level. And I think I can safely say that the Eastern Orthodox today do not believe that it should. But it is also true that the Eastern Churches clearly did believe in this on a universal level at the time of the 4th Ecumenical. I personally don’t like this fact, but I accept it as true. That is, it is true that the High Petrine view has been the pattern of Church leadership at all levels of the Church throw most of Her history. I say most, because I remain unconvinced that it was the pattern in every respect from the very beginning. I also do not believe that the “Keys of the Kingdom” given to St Peter have anything to do with this matter.

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear Brother Marduk,

You have been most kind in helping me understand many important matters. Thank you!

I have some disagreements with you and I have some retractions.

Eusebius records it as an excommunication:
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,

– See my next following post –

Not “perhaps.” The authority of the bishop of Rome is certainly more influential, but it is not absolute, and does have limits. No one pretends otherwise except Absolutist Petrine advocates, whose views do not represent the true teaching of the Catholic Church.

It is not true that St. Meletius was out of communion with Rome during the Council of Constantinople…

You may be right, but if so then Rome was in communion with BOTH schism’s, Meletius and Paulinus. I said that Rome was not in communion with Meletius on the assumption that Rome would not be in communion with BOTH schism’s, but I think that this was just my only Cyprianic mindset talking to me again.

I do think that this issue had at least some bearing in the delay in comferming the 2nd Ecumenical. The Pope did favor Paulinus over Meletius. Consider this little snippet from the Catholic Encyclopedia from here:

“…the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East…”

So Paulinus was the Pope’s papal legate, the personal representative of the Pope. Perhaps had Paulinus attended the 2nd Ecumenical it could have been said that the Pope had a representative there.

Again, not exactly true. First of all, we do not know the precise reason why there is no explicit approval of the Council of Constantinople from Pope Damasus, but most scholars agree that the silence had nothing to do with the Meletian schism, but rather with that Council’s attempt to usurp the place of Alexandria in the order of Sees. Neither did the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus recognize the Council of Constantinople to be Ecumenical, as a matter of fact.

No we don’t know the precise reason. I’m sure Constantinople’s usurp of Alexandria had alot to do with it (which Rome eventually acknowledged too). But I think there were a number of factors involved including the schism in Antioch. It all was very complicated, maybe the Pope just wanted to let the dust settle down first.

Secondly, it is a fact that in 382, a year after the Council of Constantinople, Rome tried to broker peace between the Paulinist and Meletian parties, with the condition that both parties agree that the Church in Antioch should be headed by whoever outlived the other. It is a fact that the Meletian party agreed to these terms. It is a fact that the Paulinist party did not agree. So if Rome had a beef with anyone, it would be with the Paulinist party.

You mean Rome should have had a beef with Paulinus. Even a more important reason why the Pope should have had a beef with Paulinus is the same reason most of the East did, namely that Lucifer (“hell” of a name for a bishop, huh!) of Cagliari uncanonically consecrated Paulinus as successor of Euststhius, having no commission or jurisdiction in Syria. Nevertheless, the Pope still favored Paulinus.

Thirdly, it is a fact that the Council Fathers submitted the Acts of the then-local Council of Constantinople to Pope St. Damasus for confirmation in 382. If the Meletian party was not in communion with Rome at this time (as the Paulinist line was still existing), why would they bother to do this?

Both Meletian & Paulinus desired communion with Rome, but Rome favored Paulinus.

Rome did not break communion with anyone during the Meletian schism. The only ones who actively broke communion with each other were the Paulinist and Meletian parties within Antioch. All other parties were merely “guilty by association.”

And if you are right that Rome was in communion with both parties, they were “guilty by association” as well. The only thing I’m sure of is that Rome was in communion with Paulinus.

Also you were right about the Paulius line continuing after the Pope’s confirmation of the 2nd Ecumenical. I was wrong. I looked up the dates and the Paulius line died out in 466 A.D. and the Pope confirmed the 2nd by virture of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. So the Paulius line lasted 15 years after the confirmation of the 2nd. - For what it is worth.

Peace!

 

[JohnVIII]

I find it interesting that the controversies over the date of Easter were finally resolved at the 1st Ecumenical Council, but Rome, ever since the Gregorian calendar reform, has abandoned the rule for the date of Easter set down by the 1st Ecumenical Council!

About Pope Victor “excommunicated” churches that didn’t observe Easter as he believed they should. He did this on the authority that this made those churches “heretics”! Of the same mind as this are today Greek “Old-Calendarist” churches that are not in communion with any church that does not follow the rules for the dating of Easter or makes use of the new Gregorian calendar and does indeed call those who do so “heretics”!

I was once associated with one of these Greek Old-Calendarist churches, but I never did completely buy into the idea that use of some unapproved calendar could constitute a “heresy”! Such a thing does not alter how you believe about God or Christ. So I believe that both Pope Victor and the Greek Old-Calendarist were and are wrong.

I know that the focus of this thread has to do with the authority of the Pope. That is, did Pope Victor hold the authority to excommunicate entire churches? I’ve been trying to read up on it some and I still don’t think that is what he did. Pope Victor broke communion with Quartodecimanism churches on the grounds that this made them heretics.

Here is a quote from a German-American theologian Philip Schaff (I know, he’s got a bias, don’t we all!):

(From: here, note #1706)

" There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to do so. Socrates (H. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommunicated them, but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it. For my part, I cannot understand that Eusebius’ words mean anything else than that he did actually cut off communion with them. The Greek reads ἀκοινωνήτους π€ντας ἄρδην τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. This seems to me decisive. "

I don’t know Greek, but here mechanical internet translation from this:

“ἀκοινωνήτους π€ντας ἄρδην τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς”
“unsociablity dramatically the thitherwards preaching brothers”

“Dramatic unsociability” = disfellowship or the like, rather than excommunication. Hence, we are talking about one local church braking communion with another, rather than actual excommunication via episcopal authority.

Eusebius said: “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. 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”.

The words used there are “unity” and “cut off”. As St. Irenaeus said, “It was a sad thing for the glorious See of Ephesus to be cut off from Catholic unity.”

So let’s give just due to Rome’s place in the Church, but not to excess. The authority of Rome lays in it’s primary role in Catholic unity. Communion with Rome is key to Catholic unity. So it is no small matter to be “cut off” from communion with Rome, but that is not the same thing as becoming no longer a part of the Church (which is one possible meaning to the term “excommunicate”). I think Pope Victor did want to consider them no longer a part of the Church, but only because he was saying that they were heretics. But in any case I don’t yet see that there is evidence that Pope Victor actually used episcopal authority over other churches.

 

[JohnVIII]

I neglected to give a link to reference my quote of Philip Schaff. Here it is, see sidenote #1706.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Thank you for your pov. FYI, please consider the following,

I find it interesting that the controversies over the date of Easter were finally resolved at the 1st Ecumenical Council, but Rome, ever since the Gregorian calendar reform, has abandoned the rule for the date of Easter set down by the 1st Ecumenical Council!

Actually, Rome has not abandoned it. In fact, Rome has been consistently closer to the original dating of Easter according to Nicea than any other Church. To make a long story short, there was a certain calendar used during the time of Nicea. All Churches followed this calendar. But Rome noticed that the calendar slowly but surely over the centuries deviated from the original date determined by Nicea. So Rome adjusted its calendar system to account for this slow deviation from the original date. But many Churches simply stuck to the original calendar used at Nicea, without considering the slow and perpetual deviation from the original date established by Nicea. Other Churches eventually (some just in the past century) also adjusted their calendars (e.g., the Revised Julian) to follow ROME’s lead of trying to recover the ORIGINAL date established by Nicea.

About Pope Victor “excommunicated” churches that didn’t observe Easter as he believed they should. He did this on the authority that this made those churches “heretics”! Of the same mind as this are today Greek “Old-Calendarist” churches that are not in communion with any church that does not follow the rules for the dating of Easter or makes use of the new Gregorian calendar and does indeed call those who do so “heretics”!

I am not aware of any extant text that assumes that Pope St. Victor excommunicated the Churches in Asia because he assumed they were heretics. No one admonished Pope St. Victor for calling them heretics, but merely for excommunicating them. The argument from the Fathers was that the issue was in fact simply not sufficient reason to excommunicate the Eastern Churches, as the Fathers before them lived in peace even while celebrating Easter on different dates.

I was once associated with one of these Greek Old-Calendarist churches, but I never did completely buy into the idea that use of some unapproved calendar could constitute a “heresy”! Such a thing does not alter how you believe about God or Christ. So I believe that both Pope Victor and the Greek Old-Calendarist were and are wrong.

Whatever the Old Calendarists believe (and I am aware that they actually do consider the difference in Calendars as a heresy), I don’t think we can automatically assume a like motive from Pope St. Victor, in the absence of solid proof. Would you agree?

I know that the focus of this thread has to do with the authority of the Pope. That is, did Pope Victor hold the authority to excommunicate entire churches?

Here is a quote from a German-American theologian Philip Schaff (I know, he’s got a bias, don’t we all!):

"There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to do so. Socrates (H. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommunicated them, but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it. For my part, I cannot understand that Eusebius’ words mean anything else than that he did actually cut off communion with them. The Greek reads ἀκοινωνήτους π€ντας ἄρδην τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. This seems to me decisive. "

Schaff is stating that Pope St. Victor actually did excommunicate them.

I don’t know Greek, but here mechanical internet translation from this:

“ἀκοινωνήτους π€ντας ἄρδην τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς”
“unsociablity dramatically the thitherwards preaching brothers”

ἀκοινωνήτους is the antonym of κοινωνήτους which means, concisely, “to have intimate sharing with.” It is not about being merely social, but about having a deep bond of communion.

Eusebius said: “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. 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”.

The words used there are “unity” and “cut off”. As St. Irenaeus said, “It was a sad thing for the glorious See of Ephesus to be cut off from Catholic unity.”

To not be in communion with Rome is to be cut off from Catholic unity. I don’t understand “to be cut off from Catholic unity” to be anything other than to be cut off from the Catholic Church herself - i.e., excommunicated. I do see the action of Pope St. Victor as a juridical exercise of authority, though unlike Absolutist Petrine advocates, I do see even the Pope’s juridical authority to be bounded and correctable by Sacred Tradition.

But I think we are both settled with our pov’s. I am interested in seeing how our searching brother Trebor understands the situation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

In response to your points, permit me to provide some historic facts for your consideration:

You may be right, but if so then Rome was in communion with BOTH schism’s, Meletius and Paulinus. I said that Rome was not in communion with Meletius on the assumption that Rome would not be in communion with BOTH schism’s, but I think that this was just my only Cyprianic mindset talking to me again.

I do think that this issue had at least some bearing in the delay in comferming the 2nd Ecumenical. The Pope did favor Paulinus over Meletius. Consider this little snippet from the Catholic Encyclopedia from here:

“…the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East…”

Fact (1) The “Meletian Schism” between the Paulinists and Meletians started about 361 A.D.

Fact (2) Rome did not grant explicit approval of Paulinus until 374 A.D.

Fact (3) The only bishop present in Antioch claiming to be head bishop during this time was Paulinus, as St. Meletius was in exile.

Fact (4) Pope St. Damasus letter of approval to Paulinus does not mention in the least that he rejected St. Meletius.
QUESTION: Was Pope Damasus’ letter of approval of Paulinus a sign of rejecting the Meletian party, or was the Pope simply concerned about the Church in Antioch having a head bishop (since St. Meletius was in exile)?

Fact (5) St. Basil did not accept Pope St. Damasus letter to Paulinus as a sign that the Pope was rejecting communion with the Meletian party, but continued in his efforts to win Rome’s explicit approval for the Meletian party.

Fact (6) The dispute between the Meletian and Paulinist parties (and their respective supporters) was couched in polemics about the doctrinal heterodoxy of the other party (i.e., it was not a merely ecclesiastical dispute).

Fact (7) The Meletian party appealed to Rome on the question of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in 376 A.D.
QUESTION: If the Meletian party regarded the Paulinists to be heterodox, and Rome was supposedly in communion with the Paulinists, why would they appeal to Rome on a matter of doctrine?

Fact (8) Everyone, particularly St. Basil (as reflected in his letters), regarded Rome’s positive response to the Meletian delegation (in spring, 377 A.D.) as a sign of communion with the Meletian party.

Fact (9) St. Meletius returned from exile in 378 A.D.

Fact (10) The Council of Constantinople under the influence of the Meletians submitted their Acts to Pope St. Damasus for confirmation in 382 A.D.

CONCLUSION: The Meletians and Paulinists accused each other of heterodoxy. Everyone wanted to be in communion with Rome. The Paulinists claimed that the explicity approval of Paulinus by Pope Damasus was a sign that Rome rejected the Meletians. But the Meletians obviously did not accept this, since they appealed to Rome on a matter of doctrine. The Meletians in turn used the positive doctrinal response of Rome to their delegation as a sign that Rome was in communion with them.

Brother Adrian, from the facts and questions given above, at what point would you say that Rome was out of communion with St. Meletius and/or the Meletians?

So Paulinus was the Pope’s papal legate, the personal representative of the Pope. Perhaps had Paulinus attended the 2nd Ecumenical it could have been said that the Pope had a representative there.

A representative from the Pope was not necessary because:
(1) The Council already had the approval of Rome on the doctrinal questions at issue in the form of the Tome of Damasus.
(2) The Council was originally intended to be a local Council of the East to begin with, so no representative from the West was necessary (the doctrinal approbation of the Pope via the Tome of Damasus was sufficient).

CONTINUED