Sixth Nicene Canon

Sixth Nicene Canon

The first ecumenical council was the Council of Nicæa (325). It was summoned by the emperor Constantine, who presided over the first session, to address the matter of the Arian heresy. It was held in the ancient city of Nicæa, in modern Turkey, and was attended by 318 bishops from both the East and the West. Sylvester I, bishop of Rome, did not attend, but was represented by legates. The matter under discussion here is the corruption and misrepresentation, by papal Rome, of the sixth canon of this council, for the purpose of advancing its influence and stature, in its pursuit of dominion over Christ's Church. The canon in its true form reads like this:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

There are at least two corruptions of this canon which have been used by papal Rome to advance its influence and stature. The first corruption is the attaching of the fifth (seventh in the Latin version) Sardican canon to this sixth Nicene canon. The fifth Sardican canon reads:

When a bishop thinks he has been unjustly deposed by his colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop shall have the business decided by judices in partibus.

By attaching this Sardican canon to the Nicene Canons it was given an authority which it did not otherwise have. The Nicene Council (325) was an ecumenical council attended by 318 bishops from the entire Church, and its canons were received everywhere as authoritative. The Sardican Council (347) was not ecumenical, but was attended only by Western bishops, and the East was not represented. Therefore it is not surprising that it would set forth a canon promoting papal influence. Its canons were not received universally, as were the Nicene canons.

Zozimus, bishop of Rome, attempted to use this interpolated form of the sixth Nicene canon to exercise authority over the African churches in 418:

The North African bishops and councils in the beginning of the fifth century, with all traditional reverence for the apostolic see, repeatedly protested, in the spirit of Cyprian, against encroachments of Rome, and even prohibited all appeal in church controversies from their own to a transmarine or foreign tribunal, upon pain of excommunication.⁵³⁶ The occasion of this was an appeal to Rome by the presbyter Apiarius, who had been deposed for sundry offences by Bishop Urbanus, of Sicca, a disciple and friend of Augustine, and whose restoration was twice attempted, by Pope Zosimus in 418, and by Pope Coelestine in 424. From this we see that the popes gladly undertook to interfere for a palpably unworthy priest, and thus sacrificed the interests of local discipline, only to make their own superior authority felt. The Africans referred to the genuine Nicene canon (for which Zosimus had substituted the Sardican appendix respecting the appellate jurisdiction of Rome, of which the Nicene council knew nothing), and reminded the pope, that the gift of the Holy Ghost, needful for passing a just judgment, was not lacking to any province, and that he could as well inspire a whole province as a single bishop. The last document in the case of this appeal of Apiarius is a letter of the (twentieth) council of Carthage, in 424, to Pope Coelestine I., to the following purport:⁵³⁷ "Apiarius asked a new trial, and gross misdeeds of his were thereby brought to light. The papal legate, Faustinus, has, in the face of this, in a very harsh manner demanded the reception of this man into the fellowship of the Africans, because he has appealed to the pope and been received into fellowship by him. But this very thing ought not to have been done. At last has Apiarius himself acknowledged all his crimes. The pope may hereafter no longer so readily give audience to those who come from Africa to Rome, like Apiarius, nor receive the excommunicated into church communion, be they bishops or priests, as the council of Nice (can. 5) has ordained, in whose direction bishops are included. The assumption of appeal to Rome is a trespass on the rights of the African church, and what has been [by Zosimus and his legates] brought forward as a Nicene ordinance for it, is not Nicene, and is not to be found in the genuine copies of the Nicene Acts, which have been received from Constantinople and Alexandria. Let the pope, therefore, in future send no more judges to Africa, and since Apiarius has now been excluded for his offences, the pope will surely not expect the African church to submit longer to the annoyances of the legate Faustinus. May God the Lord long preserve the pope, and may the pope pray for the Africans."
History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Vol 3, Chap 5, § 59

Notes:

(536) Comp. the relevant Acts of councils in Gieseler, i. 2, p. 221 sqq., and an extended description of this case of appeal in Greenwood, Cath. Petri, i. p. 299-310, and in Hefele, Concilien-Gesch. ii. 107 sqq., 120, 123 sq.

(537) Mansi, iii. 839 sq.

To put an end to opposition, Zozimus had the impudence to assert that the canons of the council of Nice declared that all Christian kingdoms were, in the last resort, under the jurisdiction of the tribunal of Rome. The Africans, surprised at hearing canons quoted of which they had no knowledge, ordered researches to be made into the copies of the decrees of the council of Nice, which were in the archives of the church at Carthage; and having discovered that Zozimus relied upon decisions which were not in existence they declared, in full synod, that the pontiff was an infamous usurper.
History of the Popes of Rome, by Louis Marie De Cormenin, Vol. 1, p. 76

A second corruption of this canon is the prefixing of the phrase "Quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum" ("the Roman church has ever had the primacy") to the canon, which was not part of the original.

At the Council of Chalcedon (451) the papal legate Paschasinus read this corrupted Latin copy of the canon, which was immediately refuted by the secretary Constantine, who responded by reading the canon in its true form. Here are some excerpts from the Acts of the Council:

Aetius, the archdeacon of the most holy Church of Constantinople, said: If on this subject they had received any commands, let them be brought forward.
¶ Bonifacius, a presbyter and vicar of the Apostolic See, said: The most blessed and Apostolic Pope, among other things, gave us this commandment. And he read from the chart, "The rulings of the holy fathers shall with no rashness be violated or diminished. Let the dignity of our person in all ways be guarded by you. And if any, influenced by the power of his own city, should undertake to make usurpations, withstand this with suitable firmness."
¶ The most glorious judges said: Let each party quote the canons.
¶ Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and representative, read: Canon Six of the 318 holy fathers, "The Roman Church hath always had the primacy. Let Egypt therefore so hold itself that the bishop of Alexandria have the authority over all, for this is also the custom as regards the bishop of Rome...."
¶ Constantine, the secretary, read from a, book handed him by Aetius, the archdeacon; Canon Six of the 318 holy Fathers. "Let the ancient customs prevail, those of Egypt…"
Extracts from the Acts Session XVI

Parenthetically, this Council of Chalcedon offers other evidence that the bishop of Rome was not esteemed as having authority over councils or other churches. The evidence is found in the first session of the Council, when the papal legates attempted to compel the council to exclude Dioscorus from a seat in the council, on the direct orders of the Roman bishop. In the end, on the decision of the council, Dioscorus maintained his seat, and the papal legates kept silence.

Paschasinus ... legate of the Apostolic See ... said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.
¶ The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?
¶ Paschasinus ... holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the ... bishop ["Pope" for "bishop" in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
¶ And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly ... had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylaeum, stepping into the midst, said:
Extracts from the Acts. Session I

Also from this Council of Chalcedon is proof that the priveleges accorded to the "throne" of old Rome were not by virtue of succession from Peter, but were because Rome was the imperial city, or the seat of the Emperor. This council granted equal priveleges to Constantinople, because it was equally an imperial city, and was esteemed the new Rome:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her…
The XXX Canons of the Holy and Fourth Synods, of Chalcedon, Canon XXVIII

The Roman legates protested this canon. But it was nonetheless entered into the acts of the Council, along with their protest:

But this protest could not change the decree of the council nor the position of the Greek church in the matter, although, under the influence of the emperor, Anatolius wrote an humble letter to Leo. The bishops of Constantinople asserted their rank, and were sustained by the Byzantine emperors. The twenty-eighth canon of the Chalcedonian council was expressly confirmed by Justinian I., in the 131st Novelle (c. 1), and solemnly renewed by the Trullan council (can. 36), but was omitted in the Latin collections of canons by Prisca, Dionysius, Exiguus, and Isidore. The loud contradiction of Rome gradually died away; yet she has never formally acknowledged this canon, except during the Latin empire and the Latin patriarchate at Constantinople, when the fourth Lateran council, under Innocent III., in 1215, conceded that the patriarch of Constantinople should hold the next rank after the patriarch of Rome, before those of Alexandria and Antioch.
History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, Chapter 5, § 56, By Philip Schaff

Perhaps it should not be considered surprising that papal apologists of a more recent time yet continue to use less-than-honest means to maintain and promote pretentious papal claims on the basis of the sixth Nicene canon. Following are a couple of examples happened upon while doing research for this page:

James F. Loughlin, in his treatise "The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy", published in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.5, 1880, pp. 220-239, Electronic version Copyright © 1997, Classica Media, Inc., makes statements such as these:

Protestant writers, when they undertake to combat the Papacy, are struggling "with the sun in their eyes." Their position is obviously disadvantageous and paradoxical, and it is not to be marvelled at if they should grow desperate. But a Catholic writer, who is full certain that Truth and Catholicism are synonyms, ought to make every endeavor to find out the truth, and when he has found it to present it to his readers unvarnished; for every victory gained by our adversaries over the indolent stragglers from our ranks is accounted as a triumph over our sacred cause. p. 224

and,

The Bishops of Rome have ever been distinguished for scrupulous attention to the genuineness of their documents. From the earliest ages, the fact of a text proceeding ex scriniis Ecclesiæ Romanæ, was the best witness to its accuracy. p. 235

This website, especially the section on papal forgeries, provides plentiful evidence that papal Rome is anything but synonymous with truth, and its bishops and their proponents have ever been guilty of using fraudulent documents to advance their cause.

From the same treatise just mentioned, Mr. Loughlin writes:

Now if we sincerely desire to know what the Council really said, we must first of all discard translations and comments, and allow the canon to speak for itself.… Indeed, one of the main objects of this paper is to convince theological students, by an apt illustration, how necessary it is to study ecclesiastical documents in their authentic source and original dress of language.… Now a translation is necessarily a poor substitute for the original … . whoever quotes from a translation quotes at second-hand, for a translation is nothing but the translator's expressed opinion of the sense of his text … . An error, be it ever so common, is an error still; and an erroneous translation is all the more dangerous for having obtained universal currency, because one is the less inclined to suspect it. pp. 222-223

He then follows with a real translation gem of his own. On page 234, Mr. Loughlin offers us his creative translation of the interpolated Latin prefix to the canon. The Latin reads Quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum, which can only be translated the Roman church ever (or always) had the primacy. But Mr. Loughlin translates it The Bishop of Rome has ever been head of the Church, which does not even resemble the Latin, for the Latin for bishop and head are nowhere to be found in the phrase, which doesn't belong to the canon to begin with.

I only briefly read through Loughlin's treatise. There very well may be other similar errors, which I have neither the time nor the desire to search out. However, one other item in his treatise which I found to be of interest, upon further investigation, also is clearly deceptive. On page 233, Loughlin has this to say:

Another powerful argument in support of our interpretation of this sixth Nicene canon, is that the ancients saw in it a plain and formal acknowledgment by the Fathers of Nicaea of the primacy of the Apostolic See.… The Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian also give expression to this widespread sentiment in their celebrated edict on the subject of the primacy of the Apostolic See.…

This same error regarding this edict is here stated by another papal apologist, Mark Bonocore:

(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).

Note: Bonocore evidently found his error pointed out here, and posted a 'critique' of this page on his website, to which I posted this reply.

However, the truth is that Theodosius had nothing to do with the edict. Theodosius II was the emperor of the East at Constantinople in 445 when his cousin Valentinian III, emperor of the West at Rome, issued the edict. The attempt to attach Theodosius to the edict is but another ploy to falsify history and create the appearance that the Eastern Churches were subject to the Roman bishop. These popish eisegetes begin with the errant conclusion that "the Roman bishop has always been the head of the Church", and then scour history for anything which they can twist and shape into a premise to support it—and fraud and deceit are an entirely acceptable means toward that end. The reference by Mark Bonocore above is to the eleventh letter of Leo (the Great), which is listed under the title An Ordinance of Valentinianus III. Further evidence showing that it was only an edict of Valentinian, and not connected with Theodosius, follows here:

Valentinian…. When appealed to by Leo I in the dispute with St. Hilary of Poitiers concerning the latter's metropolitan rights, he addressed a constitution to Ætius, Governor of Gaul, strongly supporting Leo. In it he emphasized the papal supremacy, founded on the position of St. Peter as head of the episcopacy, and pointed out the necessity of one supreme head for the spiritual kingdom, and ordered the civil authorities to bring to Rome any bishop who refused to come there when called by the pope.
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Valentinian

Like his mother, Valentinian was devoted to religion. He contributed to churches of St. Laurence in both Rome and Ravenna. He also oversaw the accumulation of ecclesiastical authority in the hands of the bishop of Rome as he granted ever greater authority and prestige to pope Leo the Great (440-461) in particular.
De Imperatoribus Romanis, Valentinian III

These decisions were disclosed by Leo in a letter to the bishops of the Province of Vienne (ep. x). At the same time he sent them an edict of Valentinian III of 8 July, 445, in which the pope's measures in regard to St. Hilary were supported, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church solemnly recognized "Epist. Leonis," ed. Ballerini, I, 642).
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope St. Leo I (the Great)

Theodosius resolved to imitate the moderation of his grandfather, and to seat his cousin Valentinian on the throne of the West. The royal infant was distinguished at Constantinople by the title of Nobilissimus: he was promoted, before his departure from Thessalonica, to the rank and dignity of Caesar; and after the conquest of Italy, the patrician Helion, by the authority of Theodosius, and in the presence of the senate, saluted Valentinian the Third by the name of Augustus, and solemnly invested him with the diadem and the Imperial purple.… At the same time, as a compensation, perhaps, for the expenses of the war, the Western Illyricum was detached from the Italian dominions, and yielded to the throne of Constantinople.… Theodosius and Valentinian continued to respect the obligations of their public and domestic alliance; but the unity of the Roman government was finally dissolved. By a positive declaration, the validity of all future laws was limited to the dominions of their peculiar author; unless he should think proper to communicate them, subscribed with his own hand, for the approbation of his independent colleague.
The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol III, Ch 33, Part I

One more example: Luke Rivington, in The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, Chapter XXVI, in writing of the quote, by the papal legates, of the corrupted Latin version of the sixth Nicene canon at the Council of Chalcedon (mentioned above), echos the ultramontane Ballerini when he says that the true and corrupted versions of the canon are only "slightly different"—thus portraying the bold usurpation as if it were an insignificant trifle:

In consequence of this mention of the canons, the commissioners requested that each side should read the canons on which they relied. The legates accordingly read the sixth canon of Nicæa, in which Alexandria and Antioch, and not Constantinople, come after Rome. Aetius is then supposed to have read first a slightly different version of the same canon….

The truth is that the versions are enormously different, in that the corrupted version begins by asserting a primacy of the Roman church, of which the genuine copy makes no mention. To begin to point out other partial truths and misleading statements in Rivington's work would be a digression from the topic of the sixth Nicene canon, and so I will forbear and close the topic here.

These examples then are but some of the evidence of how papal proponents have, almost from the time that this canon was first promulgated at Nicæa in the fourth century, and through today, ever and always sought to falsify this canon—as they do the rest of history—in the pursuit of papal dominion. They are, to use the words of the Lord, but blind leaders of the blind—such as take their followers, along with themselves, into the ditch.

Search Papacy Uncovered