Reply to Bonocore

Reply to Mark Bonocore

Some months ago, I received an email containing a document which I was told was written by Mark Bonocore as a critique of my page on the 6th Nicene Canon, and which document he was planning to upload to the "Catholic Legate" website. On that 6th Canon page I make reference to an error posited by Bonocore in which he claims that Theodosius II speaks of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome)", along with Valentinian III, in an edict in 450. The fact of the matter is that the edict was issued in 445 solely by Valentinian III, who was the emperor in the West. Theodosius II, the emperor in the East, had nothing to do with the edict, and probably never saw it. Bonocore, along with a few other papists, attempts to impute responsibility for the edict to Theodosius II—assumedly for the purpose of creating the appearance that the Eastern half of the empire was subject to the bishop of Rome in ecclesiastical matters: an historical falsehood.

I read through the 'critique', didn't find anything in it convincing or compelling (nothing that refuted anything I had said concerning papal Rome's mishandling of the 6th Nicene Canon), and I filed the document away, along with a few thoughts in a wordpad document (in case he ever did upload it, that I might cobble together an appropriate response), and a link to the "Catholic Legate" website. Every couple of weeks thereafter I opened the link to the CL website to see if he had in fact uploaded his 'critique'. Finally, one day I found it.

Before I address his 'critique', perhaps I ought to give him credit for the fact that at least he didn't have a 'for sale' sign next to it, unlike... well, there's no need to go there—for it's plainly evident, to those with eyes to see, from looking at his website, what his aims and intentions are.

I won't dignify his response with a lengthy point-by-point counter-response, for a couple of reasons. 1.) It is neither necessary nor worth the time it would involve; for the truth abides sure and unchanged for those who care enough to seek it out. 2.) It is sufficient to show the character of his 'critique' by addressing a few sample portions of it.

Bonocore sets the tone at the beginning of his critique. He avers that Hosius, bishop of Corduba (in Spain) presided over the Council of Nicæa "in the name of the Bishop of Rome"—and he relies on Gelasius of Cyzicus as the source of this bit of information.

Bonocore writes:

Pope Sylvester was also represented by Hosius (Osius), Bishop of Corduba (in Spain), who, according to the Byzantine Gelasius of Cyzicus, presided over the council in the name of the Bishop of Rome.

Now, in writing this, Bonocore shows that he has neither intention nor desire to seek out and find and set forth the truth. All he sees in this tidbit of popery is that Gelasius was a Byzantine, and that he was somewhat ancient (he doesn't make mention that Gelasius wrote in the late 5th century), and that Gelasius stated that "Hosius ... presided over the council in the name of the bishop of Rome" at Nicæa. For Bonocore, that is all that matters, and it is enough. It doesn't matter to him whether Gelasius is a credible source, or whether what Gelasius wrote was true. Bonocore only assumes that his readers (or many of them) will be impressed that the Byzantine Gelasius stated that the bishop of Rome was presiding over the Council of Nicea through his representative Hosius. And if Bonocore can get that message through—true or false matters not—he has accomplished his mission. For, for the papal apologist, the highest truth is the lie that the bishop of Rome is the visible head of Christ's Church. And any falsehood that appears to support that lie is thereby transformed into divine truth. And this is the nature Mark Bonocore demonstrates in his 'critique'.

That Gelasius' statement is utterly false—or, at a minimum, not credible—is easily shown. It is common knowledge that Gelasius wrote in the late 5th century—approximately 150 years after the Council of Nicæa. Every credible historian acknowledges that Gelasius merely compiled his history from the earlier works of others (e.g., Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret), to which he added liberally material that is either very doubtful or manifestly false—and where his narrative is not directly supported by the earlier sources upon which he relied, it is not to be deemed credible.

Philip Shcaff writes regarding Gelasius:

Thus ended the council of Nicaea. It is the first and most venerable of the ecumenical synods, and next to the apostolic council at Jerusalem the most important and the most illustrious of all the councils of Christendom. Athanasius calls it "a true monument and token of victory against every heresy;" Leo the Great, like Constantine, attributes its decrees to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and ascribes even to its canons perpetual validity; the Greek church annually observes (on the Sunday before Pentecost) a special feast in memory of it. There afterwards arose a multitude of apocryphal orations and legends in glorification of it, of which Gelasius of Cyzicus in the fifth century collected a whole volume.
History of the Christian Church, Chapter IX, § 120. The Council of Nicaea

Footnote 1 to Photius' listing of Gelasius' Proceedings of the Synod of Nicaea in Bibliotheca says:

By Gelasius of Cyzicus, who probably flourished in the second half of the fifth century. The work, which is still extant, is considered valueless as an historical authority.

And Wace writes in his Dictionary of Christian Biography of Gelasius' History:

From the work itself we learn that it was composed in Bithynia. As an historical authority it is almost worthless. Its prolix disputations and lengthy orations are, as Cave has justly remarked, evidently the writer's own composition. Dupin's verdict is still more severe. "There is neither order in his narrative, nor exactness in his observations, nor elegance in his language, nor judgment in his selection of facts, nor good sense in his judgments." Instances of his untrustworthiness are seen in his statements that the council was summoned by pope Sylvester, and that Hosius of Cordova presided as his delegate; and he devotes many chapters (ii. rr-24) to disputations on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which had not then come into controversy at all.

Abbé Guettée, in chapter 4 of his work The Papacy, writes of Gelasius' claim regarding Hosius:

Thus much is certain, that the envoys of the Roman Bishop did not preside. This is a fact admitted by all historians worthy of credence. We must come down to Gelasius of Cyzicus to learn that the Bishop of Rome presided at the Council of Nicea in the person of Hosius of Cordova, his deputy. In the first place, Hosius was not the delegate of the Bishop of Rome; he takes this title neither in the Acts of the Council nor elsewhere. The Bishop of Rome was only represented by the priests Vitus and Vincent, and not by Hosius.

and,

Gelasius of Cyzicus, author of a romance founded upon the Council of Nicea, who lived in the fifth century, is the first, as we have said, to make mention of the Bishop of Rome in the convocation and presidency of the Council of Nicea. His mistake was propagated in the East, and the sixth general council in the seventh century did not protest against it when uttered in its presence. But it will be admitted that the erroneous assertion of a writer who entirely contradicts history and the clearest traditions, cannot be received as truth because a council held at a much later period did not protest against it, when, even had it been competent, it was not called to pronounce upon that question. It is not possible, then, honestly to oppose such proofs to the multiplied evidences of contemporaneous writers, and to that of the Council itself, which, in its letters, never speaks of the intervention of the Bishop of Rome.

It is certain that Constantine did not claim any ecclesiastical rights for himself; that he only presided at the Council in order to assure liberty of discussion, and that he left the decisions to episcopal judgment. But it is nevertheless true that he convoked the Council, that he presided, that he confirmed its decrees; that under him there were several bishops presidents; that the delegates of the Bishop of Rome did not preside; that Hosius, who the first signed the acts of the Council, was not the delegate of the Bishop of Rome, whatever Gelasius of Cyzicus may say, whose testimony is worth nothing, even by the avowal of the most learned of the Roman theologians.
[footnote: See the judgement given by the Jesuit Feller upon this historian: "A Greek author of the fifth century, who wrote the History of the Nicene Council, held in 325. This history is only a novel in the opinion of the best critics—at least, in many respects, he is at variance with the documents and relations most worthy of belief." Like a good Ultramontane, Feller affirms that Gelasius had excellent motives, and it is this which has made him embellish his history a little. Thus, according to Feller, Gelasius has lied, but his falsehoods are excusable because of his intentions, and because his motives were good. Feller was faithful to the spirit of his Company.]

If one clicks on the above link, Abbé Guettée goes into great detail about who presided over the Council, relying on the account of Eusebius, who attended.

Schaff writes of the presidency of Constantine at the Council:

To this presidency of the emperor or of his commissioners the acts of the councils and the Greek historians often refer. Even Pope Stephen V. (a.d. 817) writes, that Constantine the Great presided in the council of Nice.
History of the Christian Church, Chapter V, § 65. The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils.

Even papists acknowledge the unreliability of Gelasius of Cyzicus. On the Marian Communications website, we find Gelasius's work called "fiction" and "imaginary".

From conjectures we may turn to fiction. In the "History of the Council of Nicæa" attributed to Gelasius of Cyzicus there are a number of imaginary disputations between Fathers of the Council and philosophers in the pay of Arius.

And Bardenhewer, the great Roman Catholic authority on the writings of the Fathers, says (Patrology, Eng. tr. T. J: Shahan (Herder, 1908,) p. 534:

"His [Gelasius'] work is a mere compilation from such earlier Christian historiographers as Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Where his narrative is not sustained by these older writers it is of doubtful value, and at times positively erroneous."
Quoted in Rome and the Early Church, by Clement F. Rogers, chapter III

And, in the Prolegomena of Eusebius' works on Constantine, we find this written of Gelasius of Cyzicus:

Gelasius of Cyzicus (ab. 450– ). History of the Council of Nicæa. In Labbe, Concilia, 2 (1671), 103–286. There is also an abstract in Photius, Bibl. Cod. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 103 (1860), 293–296. Venables is probably just when he says: “His work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue.”

Thus, when Mark Bonocore relies upon Gelasius, he of necessity must come under scrutiny. The possibilities are:

1.) He is aware of the unreliable character of Gelasius' history, but can support Gelasius' claim regarding Hosius with an earlier, more credible, source (but I didn't see him make reference to any). E.g. Eusebius attended the council. Perhaps Bonocore can support Gelasius' claim re Hosius from Eusebius. I haven't seen it in Eusebius; but perhaps Bonocore knows where it is, and merely forgot to reference it.
2.) He is not aware that Gelasius is an unreliable source—for which he has no excuse, being the astute historian he professes to be.
3.) He is aware that Gelasius is not a credible source; but he doesn't care, because he is not interested in the actual truth, but only wishes to mislead as many readers as he can—and isn't concerned with the rest, who are anchored in the Truth and beyond his reach.

So, Mark Bonocore, which of the above possibilities is really you? Lovers of truth would like to know.

Thus Bonocore's claim regarding Hosius presiding over the Council of Nicæa "in the name of the bishop of Rome" on the basis of Gelasius of Cyzicus is demonstrably rooted in ignorance and/or deceit and is not motivated by the Spirit of Truth. But such is the essence of popery.

I will demonstrate one more example of the sort of substandard 'scholarship' and of the falsification of history of which Mark Bonocore shows himself to be the perpetrator.

Like Gelasius of Cyzicus, on whom he relies, Bonocore chooses to fill in the gaps—between what history actually tells us, and what Bonocore wishes it would tell us—with his own inventions, which are manifestly false. In my page on Rome's falsification of the 6th Nicene canon, I had pointed out the error in Bonocore's claim wherein he inferred that Theodosius II was involved in the promulgation of the decree of Valentinian III in 445 (Bonocore erroneously places it in 450) on the primacy of the Roman bishop.

He states here:

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).

The fact is that the edict was entirely the work of Valentinian; Theodosius had nothing to do with it. The distinction is important because if Theodosius issued the edict it would imply that the churches of the Eastern empire were subject to the Roman bishop—which they were not (excepting a few provinces, which were within the patriarchate of Rome). Rather than further his research and understanding, and correct his error, Bonocore chooses rather to heap more falsehood upon his original error in an attempt to make it appear true. He seems to be lacking the simple common sense to understand that if you publish something that can be read by others, you need to make sure it's right; because if it's not, you surely will be found out.

In his 'critique', Bonocore makes the claim—which is contrary to every credible historian—that Theodosius II both affixed his signature to this edict of Valentinian, and issued it to the Eastern half of the empire. Bonocore writes:

Furthermore, what cannot be disputed is that this edict (signed by both Emperors) was distributed in the East! Now, Mr. Gainor, would you please care to explain to me how a Western imperial edict could be distributed in the Eastern Roman Empire without the permission and/or participation of the Eastern Emperor? If such a thing were done --that is, if Western Emperor Valentinian were to directly dictate to the subjects of his Eastern colleague Theodosius without Theodosius’ full approval (or at least that of the Eastern imperial bureaucracy), it would have been a serious insult to the Eastern Emperor’s authority and tantamount to a decree of war -the implication being that Valentinian was sole emperor of both East and West. However, this of course never happened. And it never happened because both Emperor’s affixed their signatures to the edict.

Bonocore makes no reference to any historian for his claim; he simply states it as though the mere fact of his saying it somehow makes it true. And as his reasoning for his duncical assertion, he says:

We know this, not only because of the current events, but also because of how the Roman Papacy was treated by subsequent emperors following in the tradition of this imperial edict. See again my quote from Emperor Justinian above.

So, has history now become some sort of a game wherein we can create facts based solely upon our imaginary interpretations of what we think may have, could have, we wish would have been the actual events?

Then, as though not yet content with the insult he renders history, he continues with another paragraph of similar tripe, beginning:

Lastly, in regard to the signature of both Emperors on the edict...

The truth is that the edict was issued by Valentinian III to the churches of Gaul, and that it was by extension binding on the Western half of the empire (over which Valentinian ruled); and that Theodosius, emperor in the East, not only did not affix his signature to it, but he probably never even saw it. The edict was binding on the Western half of the empire, over which Valentinian ruled, and not on the East.

The fact that Theodosius' name is found along with Valentinian's at the head of the edict is due to the fact that, in theory, the empire was yet unified, and Theodosius' name was included as a matter of protocol. But, in reality, the empire was divided—and had been since the death of Theodosius I—with Valentinian now ruling over the West, and Theodosius II ruling as the greater emperor in the East.

Britannica says:

After the death of Theodosius [note: Theodosius I, 'The Great'] the Western empire was governed by young Honorius. Stilicho, an experienced statesman and general, was charged with assisting him and maintaining unity with the East, which had been entrusted to Arcadius. The Eastern leaders soon rejected Stilicho's tutelage. An antibarbarian reaction had developed in Constantinople, which impeded the objectives of the half-Vandal Stilicho. He wanted to intervene on several occasions in the internal affairs at Constantinople but was prevented from doing so by a threat from the Visigoth chieftain Alaric, whom he checked at Pollentia in 402, then by the Ostrogoth Radagaisus' raid in 406, and finally by the great invasion of the Gauls in 407. The following year he hoped to restore unity by installing a new emperor in Constantinople, Theodosius II, the son of Arcadius, who had died prematurely; but he succumbed to a political and military plot in August 408. The division of the two partes imperii was now a permanent one.
The Later Roman Empire > The eclipse of the Roman Empire in the West (c. 395–500) and the German migrations > Invasions in the early 5th century

Schaff writes:

With the death of Theodosius the empire again fell into two parts, which were never afterward reunited. The weak sons and successors of this prince, Arcadius in the east (395–408) and Honorius in the west (395–423), and likewise Theodosius II., or the younger (son of Arcadius, 408–450), and Valentinian III. (423–455), repeated and in some cases added to the laws of the previous reign against the heathen.
History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. Philip Schaff

Isaac Newton, in his Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733), writes regarding the edict:

The same Pope Leo...took occasion from thence to procure the following Edict from the Western Emperor Valentinian III. for the more absolute establishing the authority of his See over all the Churches of the Western Empire.

[...]

By this Edict the Emperor Valentinian enjoined an absolute obedience to the will of the Bishop of Rome thro’out all the Churches of his Empire; ... this new Edict was enough to settle it beyond all question thro’out the Western Empire.

Sheldon, in his History of the Christian Church, writes regarding the decree of Valentinian III:

Valentinian III., during the quarrel between Leo the Great and Hilary of Gaul, issued the following decree: [he gives the text of the decree] But it is to be observed that the young Valentinian was under the influence of Leo, and that an utterance of imperial favoritism is an entirely different thing from a deliberate verdict of the universal Church. Moreover, Valentinian was emperor only of the West; and his decree, of course, was understood to apply only within territory under his rule. For all that it says, the East might be as independent of Rome and of the West generally, in respect of ecclesiastical control, as it was assumed to be by the Emperor Constantius a century earlier. ["Non enim de orlentalibus episcopis in concilio vestro patitur ratio aliquid definire. . . Si aliquid volueritis contra eosdem prædictis absentibus definire, id quod fuerit usurpatum irrito evanescet effectu." (Epist ad Synodum Ariminensem, Mansi, iii. 297.)]

In The Life and Writings of Theodoretus, §IV, we find this written of Valentinian's edict:

... Valentinian had issued an edict confirming Leo's claims and making the authority of the Bishop of Rome supreme in the West. It would be useful to maintainers of the Roman supremacy if they could adduce instances of any assertion or acceptance of similar authority in the East.

Thus, if Bonocore is right, then these historians are wrong. But we will see that, if Bonocore is right, then everyone else is wrong, because all historians are united in disagreement with him. The edict Certum est, July 8, 445, of the Western emperor Valentinian III, asserting the primacy of the bishop of Rome, was applicable to the West only, and not to the East, regardless of what Bonocore or any other falsifier of history attempts to claim.

Milman writes of the edict:

But a sentence, in those days more awful than that of the Bishop of Rome, was pronounced against Hilarius. At the avowed instance of Leo, Valentinian promulgated an Imperial Edict, denounced the contumacy of Hilarius against the primacy of the Apostolic throne, confirmed alike by the merits of St. Peter, the chief of the episcopal order, by the majesty of the Roman city, and by the decree of a holy Council.
Vol 1, Book 2, Chap 4, pp. 249 - 250

Wace writes of the edict:

He [Leo] had little to complain of in the submissiveness of the Western emperor in his relations with himself. Nothing can exceed the ecclesiastical authority which is recognized as belonging to the pope in the constitution of Valentinian, which accompanied Leo's letter into Gaul in 448 when Leo was in conflict with Hilary of Arles (Leo Mag. Ep. xi.). This constitution, which has the names of both emperors, Eastern and Western, at its head, speaks of the "merits" of St. Peter, the dignity of Rome and the authority of a council as conspiring to confirm the primacy of the Roman bishops. ... the document, however, must be considered entirely Western, the result of pressure put by Leo on the feeble mind of Valentinian. (See Tillem. xv. 441, who calls it "une loy . . . trop favorable à la puissance du siége [de S. Léon] mais peu honorable à sa piété.")
A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. by Wace, Henry (1836-1924)

Schaff writes of the edict:

Not satisfied with this, he [Leo] applied to the secular arm for help, and procured from the weak Western emperor, Valentinian III., an edict to Aetius, the magister militum of Gaul, in which it is asserted, almost in the words of Leo, that the whole world (universitas; in Greek, οἰκουμένη) acknowledges the Roman see as director and governor; that neither Hilary nor any bishop might oppose its commands; that neither Gallican nor other bishops should, contrary to the ancient custom, do anything without the authority of the venerable pope of the eternal city; and that all decrees of the pope have the force of law.

The letter of Leo to the Gallican churches, and the edict of the emperor, give us the first example of a defensive and offensive alliance of the central spiritual and temporal powers in the pursuit of an unlimited sovereignty. The edict, however, could of course have power, at most, only in the West, to which the authority of Valentinian was limited.
History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. §59

Tony Honoré tells us:

From 445 to the end of Theodosius' reign there are fifteen surviving laws.... Two laws of 446 and 447 are constitutionally important. The second sends copies of eastern general laws enacted between 438 and 447 to Valentinian III, so that they can come into force in the west as provided in the Code and the eastern law of 15 February 438. They are to apply, however, only to pending and future litigation in which there has at the date of promulgation been no final judgment. Though not all these laws were suited to western conditions, they were brought into force by Valentinian on 3 June 448. Valentinian did not take advantage of the invitation to remit his own post-Code laws to the east. Indeed the last western law to have effect in the east was enacted by him in March 432 and took effect in the east by virtue of its inclusion in the Code. (emphasis added, footnotes ommited for brevity)
Law in the Crisis of Empire, 379-455 Ad: The Theodosian Dynasty and Its Quaestors with a Palingenesia of Laws of the Dynasty. Tony Honoré; Oxford University, Oxford. 1998. pp. 173-174.

Jill Harries tells us:

Theodosius then turned to the future. [note: context is 438 A.D., following promulgation of the Theodosian Code] Knowing that confusion (19) could arise when laws were issued in one part of the Empire, unknown to the other, Theodosius ruled that in future no laws issued in the West could be cited as valid, unless the Eastern court was informed, and the same was to apply in reverse. Exceptions were made, however, for military regulations and public accounts. While the aim was clearly to avoid the confusions that could arise when contradictory laws ostensibly from the same imperial college were cited, the effect was also further to assert central control of the law-making procedure. However, this took for granted that the Empire would continue to function as a unity and that the impetus for law reform would not end with the promulgation of the Theodosian Code. As neither condition was fulfilled, it was inevitable that the attempt to standardise new law across the Empire was not to work in practice. Over nine years passed before Theodosius attempted to revive the regulation by despatching a package of his own Novellae to Valentinian III, requesting that he publish Theodosius’ laws and transmit to Constantinople all general constitutions issued by him in the interval. Although Valentinian complied with the first part of the request, (20) there were to be no further attempts to standardise the laws. Two years later, Theodosius was dead;
footnote 20: NTh. 1.2 (1 Oct. 447) and NVal. 26.1 (3 June 448). He may not have sent his own laws to the East: the Codex Justinianus contains no western law later than 432.
Law & Empire in Late Antiquity, by Harries, Jill; Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1999. p 61. Copyright © 1999. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.

Clearly stated by Honoré and implied by Harries is the fact that Valentinain never despatched his own post-Theodosian-Code laws (novellae) to the East. Thus, not only did Theodosius have nothing to do with the writing of the edict Certum est, he also never affixed his signature to it, and he likely never even saw it—and it was not binding in the East—regardless of what Mark Bonocore imagines.

Honoré further opines re Valentinian:

Valentinian had no firm grasp of the demands of justice, in particular of his duty to hear the other side. He tended to believe what a petitioner or complainant told him without further inquiry. He accepts without investigation Auxiliaris' complaint that Apollodorus has seized his property in his absence. The law passed as a result had later to be in large part repealed, the emperor explaining that when he passed it he was 'moved by our innate hatred of recourse to force'. Even if true, this discloses shallow judgment. In much the same way Valentinian accepts without question pope Leo's account of the misdeeds of Hilary bishop of Arles. (footnotes omitted for brevity)
ibid., p. 263

And we find it stated in Church and State through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries:

The Edict Certum est puts the whole force of Roman Public Law behind the Papal position of primacy over the Western Church.
Church and State through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. Sidney Z. Ehler - transltr/editor, John B. Morrall - transltr/editor. Publisher: Biblo and Tannen, New York, 1967; p. 7.

Bury opines regarding Valentinian's edict:

It is the political bearing of this law that interests us here. When many of the western provinces had wholly or partly passed out of the Emperor's control, it was a matter of importance to strive to keep alive the idea of the Empire and the old attachment to Rome in the minds of the provincials who were now subject to German masters. The day might come when it would be possible to recover some of these lost lands, which the Imperial government never acknowledged to be really lost, and in the meantime a close ecclesiastical unity presented itself as a powerful means for preserving the bonds of sentiment, which would then prove an indispensable help. To accustom the churches in Gaul and Britain, Spain and Africa to look up to Rome and refer their disputes and difficulties to the Roman bishop was a wise policy from the secular point of view, and it was doubtless principally by urging considerations of this nature that Leo was able to induce the government to establish the supremacy of his see.
History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I. to the Death of Justinian. Volume I; by J. B. Bury; Publisher: Dover; New York. 1958. p. 365

Jalland, in chapter 7 of The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great gives a detailed account of the events leading up to Valentinian's edict. And in speaking of the edict itself, he says:

We may now pass on to consider the immediate sequel of Leo's drastic action. It is possible that further letters passed from Rome to Gaul on the subject of the limits of metropolitical jurisdiction, but if this was so, excepting one of dubious authenticity, none of them has survived. For the attitude of the Gallic episcopate we are largely dependent on conjecture. Yet the arrival of an imperial rescript with reference to the whole matter unavoidably suggests that the reception given to the papal decisions in Gaul was not entirely unanimous, and that some support from the secular power was necessary for their enforcement.

The rescript just mentioned, which was issued in the joint names of the Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III, was addressed to Aetius as Magister wriusque militiae, having his sphere of authority in Gaul. It opens with a clear and emphatic assertion of the primacy of the Roman see in the following terms:

[...]

... The author of the rescript displays such a detailed knowledge of Hilary's misdemeanours that it has been suggested that it was drawn up at the instigation of Leo himself. It is no less remarkable that he lays such repeated emphasis on the prerogatives of the Roman see. As for its immediate effect, the absence of any effective imperial control over the greater part of Gaul at this time must have rendered it to a great extent a dead letter, and the same might be said of its influence elsewhere, especially in the East. (48) On the other hand it went much further than any other document previously issued by the imperial chancery in the direction of giving explicit sanction to the claims of the Roman see, and accorded to the Roman bishops for the first time a spiritual status analogous to that of the Sovereign himself in secular matters. (emphasis added, footnotes omitted for brevity)
(footnote 48 here says: Nevertheless being an official document issued in the names of the two sovereigns it was included in the Novellae appended to the Codex Theodosianus, ed. P. Meyer, Vol. II, pp. 101f.)
The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great, by Trevor Jalland; Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; London, 1941; pp. 124-127

So, in Meyer's edition of the Codex Theodosianus, the edict was included among the appended Novellae, but among the Valentinian Novellae. And we know that these were never published in the East.

Thus, the testimony of historians is unanimous against Mark Bonocore.

Mark Bonocore, you have well stated at the top of your 'critique' of my page on the 6th Nicene Canon, "Just sounding like a historian is not enough". If in nothing else, in that sentence I will agree with you; for in that sentence you have spoken the truth—and condemned yourself. For you are no historian, but a falsifier of history. The same can be said of your claim to be an apostle when you beg for donations for your 'apostolate'. The only type of apostle you are is the sort spoken of in Revelation 2.2 "... and thou hast tried them who say they are apostles, and are not; and hast found them liars;" and in II Corinthians 11.13 "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ."

For you, Mark Bonocore, are a liar and a deceitful worker, and a false apostle. Yet, you probably count it an honor to lie in defense of the papacy, which office is itself an ongoing lie. Perhaps, in addition to pimping yourself and your 'apologetics' on your website, you ought to don placards, and parade on the streets. On the front, you could broadcast "Liar for Hire!", and on the back "Popery Peddler!"

If you have anything of a conscience you need to let it convict you, and you need to repent before the God of Heaven, and beg Him to cleanse you of your lying spirit that has been instilled into you by popery—the big lie! And you need to beg Him that the blood of Christ might cleanse you of your sin, and that He would chastise you, and teach you the way of truth.

Search Papacy Uncovered