Atila Sinke Guimarãess, in his tract, Resistance - Historical Precedents wrote:  

St. Polycarp resisted Pope St. Anicetus

In the second century, the rites of the Church still were not fixed. There was a natural tendency to maintain the Judaic rites. The Roman Empire, dominant in almost the whole known world, exercised a strong influence. There was also the Greek influence present principally in Egypt and Syria. With this, a question understandably presented itself to the Church. Which of these influences should the liturgical rite follow?

Pope St. Anicetus (155-168) wanted to regularize the rites of the Church, initiating what would come to be the Roman Rite. St. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, wanted to keep the same rites that he had learned from St. John and that had been followed by the other Apostles.

St. Polycarp traveled from the East to Rome and spoke firmly to St. Anicetus, opposing that planned uniformization. St. Polycarp was intransigent. St. Anicetus could not manage to persuade him of his reform. The two rites were maintained, because of the resistance of the great Bishop of Smyrna.

St. Polycarp, along with St. Clement of Rome, the Pope and St. Ignatius of Antioch are each honored with the singular title of Apostolic Father, that is, among the great apologists of the Church these great Saints were instructed by one or another of the Apostles.

SOURCE

The preceding tract contain errors of fact and a faulty conclusion.  

1.  Mr. Guimarãess asserts that the point of controversy between St. Polycarp and Pope St. Anicetus was based on the standardization of the Roman Rite.  

2.  This was not the issue.  The issue was that St. Polycarp held the view great Easter must be dated on the 14th day of the month of Nisan.  According to this position, Easter could fall on any day of the week, and would not be restricted to Sunday.

3.  Pope St. Anicetus was universalizing the day of Easter as the Sunday following the 14th Day of Nisan.  St. Polycarp met with St. Anicetus to discuss the matter.  Both strongly held to their position, and the Pope allowed St. Polycarp to maintain his position. Both remained in peace and communion with each other.  Pope St. Anicetus took a moderate approach with St. Polycarp.

4.  Several years later, after both St. Anicetus and St. Polycarp had passed away, Pope St. Victor took a much stronger position against those who were then known as the Quartodecimans, by threatening them with excommunication.

5.  The idea eventually died out, and Easter was universally recognized as the Sunday following the 14th day of a Nisan.

6.  At no point did St. Polycarp resist Pope Anicetus.  As a good Catholic bishop he brought the matter to the Pope. Both held strongly to their positions during their meeting, and in the end the Pope allowed St. Polycarp to maintain his date of Easter, and the two remained in peace and communion with each other.

7.  We can never know what may have happened if St Anicetus did not allow St. Polycarp to remain in peace and maintain the Easter date based on the 14th day of Nisan.  What we do know is that both saints met, and the matter was resolved peacefully, and St. Polycarp did not resist St. Anicetus, as a moderate policy was followed by the Pope which tolerated the practice of the Quartodecimans.

So what are you trying to say, that it's never permitted to resist a pope?  Despite the fact that St. Paul tells us that he "resisted [St. Peter] to his face"?  Despite the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine et al. teach otherwise?

Ambrose is a sedevacantist, but he's also given to papalatry, asserting that every utterance from the mouth of any pope is tantamout to a divine oracle from the Holy Spirit.

Fascinating topic. I was familiar with the Easter dating controversy but only that which occurred at the time of St. Bede the Venerable.

It seems to me that the issue has been approached with the intention of making history serve one's own purpose in that tract. Maybe the author is not a historian and has no training in Historiography or the importance of docuмentation. I was really sorry to see such poor scholarship and it makes me question other articles on the same site.

I've also noticed that many modern heretics and cults seem to base their false religions around the dating of Easter. To me, that is another proof as to why the office of the papacy is such a critical antidote to heresy. I'd rather be on the side of Peter than on my own.

It also goes to show that it is dangerous to publish tracts and books on such matters, and in such a poorly docuмented manner, as one is responsible for the damage they may do to souls. How many people are led to hold errors regarding the papacy and the conduct of the saints?

Some of you wouldn't know a distinction, much less a proper distinction, if it hit you in the face.

So what are you trying to say, that it's never permitted to resist a pope?  Despite the fact that St. Paul tells us that he "resisted [St. Peter] to his face"?  Despite the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine et al. teach otherwise?

Did you read it?  It was very clear, was it not?  I was examining the claims of Atila Sinke Guimarãess in regard to St. Polycarp resisting St. Pope Anicetus.  

I fact checked his assertions, and the results are in my opening post.  

Ambrose,

I appreciate your response and I am looking forward further research on the other resistance examples cited by Mr. Atila Sinke Guimarãess. The bottom line is that you consider these historical antecedents to be biased and false, because according to you no pope has ever taught error, since this is an impossibility. You conclude therefore, that since 1958 (?), the Seat of Peter must be vacant.

Cantarella,

The reason that I am responding to this, and replying to these "historical examples," is because when I read them, I see right through this historical tabloid junk.  These tracts should be condemned by Catholics and when we once again have a Pope, I have no doubt that they will be condemned and Catholics forbidden to read them.  

These tracts are eerily similar to those used by the enemies of the Church, Protestants and Old Catholics who have an agenda in trying to undermine the Papacy.  It is shocking and scandalous that some Catholics, also with an agenda, have chosen to intellectually ally themselves with Protestants in demonstrating supposed weakness to the Papacy.

I now believe the time has come to shed light on these claims, so that the truth will be known.  I am doing this as an aside from any proofs that the Conciliar claimants are antipopes.