Pope Victor I: A Consideration for Universal Jurisdiction

Defending the Papacy

Through out the history of the Catholic Church there have been numerous attacks against the Papacy. Non-Catholic literature is replete with a plethora of challenges which demand an informed and reasoned response. One category of criticism which is often employed consists of a reinterpretation of history in a manner which sheds the papacy in a negative light. Truthfully, most Catholics have never heard every single argument which is posed by our non-Catholic brethren against the papacy. However, even though there is an endless stream of historical events which can be revised to confront Catholicism, Catholics would benefit from occasionally reviewing these events to learn more about their own history. Often times when history is revised to challenge our faith in the papacy one only needs to turn the event into an argument for the papacy; taking the opportunity to better explain Catholic theology.

The Paschal Controversy

The event which we will examine in this article takes us back to the Paschal Controversy around A.D.190. The controversy centered upon the date on which Christians held the Easter celebration. Most of the Christian world celebrated the resurrection of Christ on a Sunday, the day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead, ending their fast at that time. However, the Christians of Asia minor celebrated a Christian Passover on the 14^th of Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar, ending their fast at the close of the day when they shared communion in commemoration of the last Passover meal of Christ. It was on this day that the Asiatic Christians would celebrate Easter. This was known as Quartadecimanism (Latin: quattuordecima, fourteen). (For Christianity the 14^th of Nisan was a very important date since it was the day that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered for the Jewish festival of Passover, foreshadowing the crucifixion of our Lord.) 

Since there was a difference between the Jewish and Roman calendars the 14^th of Nisan could fall on any day of the week, according to the Roman calendar, and therefore the fast of the Asiatic Christians could end before a Sunday. The main questions of the controversy were whether the Jewish Passover or Sunday should control the timing of Easter, and whether all Christians should celebrate Easter on the same day. The problem was clear: the entire Christian world held a fast which ended on the Lord’s Day except the parishes of Asia Minor. The problem caused by this discrepancy was that while most of the Christian world was still anticipating Easter it was very possible that the Asiatic churches were already celebrating the Resurrection!

A Call to Uniformity

The most authentic and reliable source that we have today which recounts this event is Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (Book 5 Chapters 23 and 24). In this work Eusebius recounts the fact that Victor I had expressed his desire for bishops around the world to hold synods and assemblies in order to address the observance of the Asiatic bishops. In the midst of this call to uniformity a conflict arose between Victor I, bishop of Rome, and Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. In an excerpt found in Eusebius, Polycrates states that his practice, along with the other Asiatic bishops, is based on a tradition from the Apostle John, the Apostle Philip, and Polycarp. Polycrates did not feel inclined to change his practice since he was following an apostolic tradition. Victor I, instead of discussing the matter with Polycrates, responded in a very harsh manner: “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” (Ecclesiastical History 5; 24:9).

Interestingly, Protestants appeal to the event as an example of a historical development towards Papal Supremacy, a failed attempt by the bishop of Rome in demanding universal jurisdiction which was not his prerogative. However, there is no evidence that the Asiatic bishops questioned the authority of the bishop of Rome. Polycrates’ letter to Victor I does not mention a denial of papal authority. The heart of this controversy was whether or not uniformity of practice should be imposed at this time when various traditions which had apostolic origin were previously allowed. Unfortunately, Victor I, a strong defender of the faith, was hasty in his response and not all of the bishops were pleased with the reaction.

An Appeal for Allowance

One of the bishops who disagreed with this course of action was St. Irenaeus of Lyon who “sharply rebuked” Victor I. According to Eusebius, Irenaeus “fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom…” (Ecclesiastical History 5; 24:11). Irenaeus requested that Victor I consider the peaceable approach of Anicetus, bishop of Rome, towards Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, in A.D. 154 or A.D. 155, when they chose not to allow disunity over the difference of dating Easter; though in this case it was Polycarp who came from the East in an attempt to convince Anicetus to accept the Eastern practice. Irenaeus appealed to Victor I to allow the practice and keep in communion with the Asiatic bishops, maintaining the peace. Victor I may have first threatened and then wrote letters of excommunication but the fact that the Asiatic churches remained in communion with Rome suggests that Victor I withdrew the excommunication according to the appeal made by Irenaeus, whom “became a peacemaker in this matter”.

Irenaeus’ response to Victor I seems to imply that he acknowledges the authority of the bishop of Rome to cut off whole churches of God but charges that he simply “should not” based on the past relations between Asia minor and Rome. Therefore, the real question is not whether Victor I was attempting to usurp universal jurisdiction but whether he should have exercised that authority in this particular situation. Unfortunately, Victor I was impetuous in his response when it may have been prudent to follow the example of his predecessors.