How would you, as an Anglican, respond to the following evidence which suggests that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of authority at least as early as the 2nd century AD? Following some synods which were held (at some point between 189-199 AD) to determine the correct date of Easter, all concurred with Rome except the Churches in Asia Minor. The Asian bishops were excommunicated by the much younger Pope Victor I. The Asian bishops sent numerous communications to the Pope requesting the Pope to rescind the excommunication. Interestingly, in none of the communications did the Asian bishops question Victor's authority to cut off the Asian Churches from the common unity, and not one voice challenged his authority to do so. The above paragraph is a paraphrasing of an argument which can be found in 'Upon This Rock', by Stephen K. Ray. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on how somebody might 'disprove' this as evidence to suggest the Bishop of Rome held a primacy of authority from a very early age. Thanks for reading.
Two things. First of all, we as Anglicans could fully support primacy of the see of Rome, as well as that of the other four ancient Apostolic Sees. Did you know that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch were also called “Pope”? In fact our Archbishop of Canterbury is functioning in that role, and until very recently was very much first among equals and indeed much more than that. So the mechanism is exactly the same and we support primacy. What we don’t support is supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the See of Rome, which was a novel liberal heresy that emerged during the 8th century AD and for many centuries thereafter disfigured the Western Church. And that’s the second thing. You’re quoting from Roman apologetics, which are known historically to have been completely dishonest. Roman popes were not beneath fabricating documents which gave them extra power (Donation of Constantine), editing the Bible and the Church Fathers to avoid anti-Roman conclusions (Sixtino-Clementine Vulgate). Even their whole moral theology revolved around the concept of probabilism, ie. that it may be moral for you to do something which is immoral. They sainted the biggest theologian of that movement, and now call him “Saint” Louis de Montfort. This is how the Jesuits were able to get away with lies and deception as they attempted to infiltrate non-Roman territories. It’s really no different from the Islamic concept of jiziya, which teaches that it is 100% moral to lie in the cause of Mohammedanism. So I would NOT ever quote any of the popular Roman apologetic works. Try third party academic studies, if nothing else.
I would nod my head and say great we all accept the primacy of the see of Rome but not Papal Infability nor its universal jurisdiction. The Patriarch of Alexandria is still called Pope by the OO.
Anglican Divines of the 16th and 17th centuries recognised the primacy of St Peter and styled him like the early Father's as "the first, chief or Prince of the Apostles." In terms of the Papacy, they were prepared to afford the Bishop of Rome "a primacy of order." They couldn't however accept supremacy of power and did question the precise nature of primacy. In more recent years this has been echoed by the Anglican contingent within ARCIC and can be found in statements concerning authority within the Church. The date of Easter was an issue that was still being debated in Britain during the 7th century notably at the Synod of Whitby where the Roman custom won through . Its adoption however varied from place to place in the Celtic or insular areas of Britain, Cornwall being the last area to adopt the new method.
Indeed, only RC sources maintain that the bishop of Rome was called a Pope during the first centuries of the Christian Era. Or that the bishop of Rome was deferred to as supreme leader of all the churches during that time. The O.P. might wish to read what Hippolytus of Rome wrote concerning the man Callistus whom the RCC claims as its Pope in the early 3rd Century: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus9.html Callistus was not even a Trinitarian. He spread a feel-good message of adultery and fornication, encouraged defrocked priests to join with him and allowed them to remain or become married (some of them were on their third wives), and embezzled money.
It is also interesting to note that Irenaeus and others rebuked Victor and others, In seventh century England the matter on which Victor took his stand was a major bone of contention between the Celtic Church and the Augustinian Mission. It possibly one more example of failing to bear with one another in love, preferring to try and lord it over the other. Basically I regard it as cherry picking history to support a contention, rather than examining history to understand the principles.