The Papacy

Sixth Council of the Council of Nicaea: A Response to “The Papacy Uncovered” and Its Unsubstantiated Interpretation of the Sixth Canon of Nicaea.

One of the greatest tragedies of modern Catholic / Fundamentalist Protestant dialogue are the seemingly innumerable Protestant sensationalists who know just enough history to give their co-religious the impression that the Catholic Church is trying to deceive them, yet apparently not enough history to see or admit that they themselves are the ones distorting historical facts. A classic case of this sort of thing is an article, presumably by J. Michael Gainor, against the correct, Traditional interpretation of the Sixth Canon of Nicaea, which can be found on a site ‘dramatically’ entitled "The Papacy Uncovered" – a literal breeding ground of historical distortions and (at best) half-truths, with the obvious intention of discrediting the Roman Papacy and reinforcing Fundamentalist Protestant prejudices against it. Very sad.

In this response, Mark Bonocore will addresses Mr. Gainor’s article on the Sixth Canon of Nicaea alone in order to illustrate how such Fundamentalist voices sure seem to ‘talk a good game'; yet simply fail to present the full truth or accurate historical evidence.

Mr. Gainor's comments are in blue. Mark's responses are in black.

For starters, Mr. Gainor writes ….

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.

So far, so good. All this is perfectly accurate. However, Mr. Gainor might have mentioned that those legates consisted of the two Roman priests, Vito and Vincentius, whose names appear first in the subscriptions of bishops in the editions of the Acts of Nicaea (even the Greek Orthodox ones), where they (mere priests) are placed before the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, the two primates in the East. 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. Why so, if there was nothing to Roman primacy? But, I digress. Mr. Gainor goes on …

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.

Complete balderdash. Not only did Rome never “corrupt” or “misrepresent” the canon (as the contextual evidence will soon show), it also never attempted, at any time, to achieve “dominion” over Christ’s Church. Rather, ecclesial primacy (not “dominion”) was given to the Papacy by Christ Himself and thereafter entrusted to the Romans by Peter. Yet, Mr. Gainor goes on…

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.”

Mr. Gainor’s English translation of the canon above presents the classic modernist / Protestant distortion of both the original Greek and the original Latin. For, as Mr. Gainor well knows (since he cites his article below) historian James Loughlin (in his “The Sixth Nicene Council and the Papacy”) addresses this particular English translation’s distortion in great detail. Mr. Loughlin writes …

“The kernel of the difficulty is the demonstrative [Greek word] touto, ‘this.’ ‘This' is the custom of the Roman Bishop. What does 'this' refer to? ‘Let the Bishop of Alexandria retain his ancient sway over these three provinces, for this is also the Roman Bishop's custom.’ According to Bellarmine and others, touto refers to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and is to be expounded thus:

‘Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff's custom; that is, because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop's authority over this tract of country.’

This exposition is unpalatable to the adversaries of Roman supremacy; hence they offer us a different interpretation. They make touto refer to patriarchates in general and expound the sentence as follows:

‘Let Alexandria have jurisdiction over these provinces, because the Roman Bishop has also a Patriarchate. It illustrates the sort of power by referring to a similar power exercised by the Roman prelate in his province.’

Although this second exposition might strike the reader at first sight as being possibly correct, yet I trust I shall be able to prove that it is inadmissible; and that Bellarmine's is the only unexceptionable interpretation. Let me, at the risk of being tedious, state, first of all, my understanding of the passage. The supremacy of the Bishop of Alexandria had been contested by the Meletian bishops. They had asked him, if not in words at least in facts, upon what warrant he based his claim to rule over and depose his fellow-bishops. If he had a title let him produce it. Now the Alexandrian prelate had no written document of any kind to produce. The Council of Nicæa, therefore, came to his assistance, by decreeing that the Patriarch's authority must be respected, and that for two reasons: 1st, because it was [archaia], immemorial, aboriginal; and 2d, because it was sanctioned by constant recognition on the part of the Roman Pontiff. Two very good reasons. …The first argument in favor of this interpretation is drawn from the grammatical structure of the text.

(a) Take the pronoun touto and see what it obviously refers to. Surely to this subject in hand, to wit, the ancient privileges and boundaries of the Alexandrian Patriarchate. It seems impossible, without quibbling, to refer the touto to anything else. The only objection which can be urged against this is the kai, also. What is the use of the kai in this interpretation? This objection is readily answered. The kai introduces a new and stronger reason why the Patriarch's authority should be respected. ‘Let the custom prevail, not only because it is ancient, but especially because it has Roman usage in its favor’; or, ‘Since even the Roman Bishop constantly recognizes it.’

(b) The word sunethes, customary, is intelligible in our interpretation, but in the alternative it becomes absurd. ‘It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to recognize the Bishop of Alexandria as Patriarch’ is clear and sensible; but, ‘It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch’ is devoid of sense.

…

A second argument in support of our interpretation is elicited by considering the logical sequence of the passage. ‘This is the Roman Bishop's custom’ is the Council's reason for supporting the Alexandrian claims. If it is a reason, we must reverentially presume that it is a valid one. The ancient fabric of the Patriarchate (of Alexandria) was tottering; the Nicene Fathers prop it up with this clause, which, therefore, contains a reason strong enough to sustain a Patriarchate. Now imagine the dissenter Meletius demanding wherefore Lycopolis should be subject to Alexandria? If the Council be made to answer: ‘Because [the Roman suburb of] Tusculum is subject to Rome’ would it not appear a ‘lame and impotent conclusion’? ‘Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis must obey the Bishop of Alexandria; because this (not Egypt, etc., but Campania and the islands off Italy) is the Roman Pontiff's custom! Besides, granting that Rome's possessing a Patriarchate were a valid reason why Alexandria also should have one, would it be a sufficient reason why the Alexandrian Patriarchate should extend just so far and no further?”

Yet, Mr. Gainor goes on ….

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.

Okay. ? Time for a reality check. For, in his statement above, Mr. Gainor makes several glaring historical errors and/or oversights. First of all, the Council of Sardica was held in A.D. 342-43, not A.D. 347. Mr. Gainor needs to check his dates. Secondly, Mr. Gainor would do well to present a full English translation of the Sardican canon in question. He evidently preserves the Latin to order to “soften” the clear Papal statement of the Council. For, what the Council actually said was:

"If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew ...let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province."

Notice how the Bishop of Rome’s authority to do this is based on honoring “the memory of the Apostle Peter” –that is, on Apostolic Tradition stemming from St. Peter: the pre-Constantinian status quo.

Mr. Gainor also makes the claim that Sardica was not an ecumenical council because “the East was not represented.” ? Well, once again, I would strongly suggest that Mr. Gainor look up the history and see why the East was not represented. For, at the beginning of the Council, the Eastern bishops were there. Indeed, Sardica was intended to be an Ecumenical Council --called by both Roman Emperors: Eastern and Western, which is why it was held in Sardica (modern Sofia, Bulgaria), just outside of Constantinople. However, soon after its commencement, the Eastern bishops all walked out! …choosing to hold their own, rival council in nearby Philippopolis. And do you know why? It was because ALL of these Eastern bishops were Arian or semi-Arian heretics who had RENOUNCED the Council of Nicaea!?

Why does Mr. Gainor fail to mention this fact? For what had happened (if one knows the authentic history) is that, after the death of Constantine the Great, his son Constantius II had become sole ruler of the Empire and had condemned Nicaea and decreed that Arianism was now to be the official creed of the Empire! The Eastern bishops all went along with this, with the sole exception of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to the West to seek the protection of the Bishop of Rome ---the same Roman Bishop (Pope St. Julius) who Sardica refers to above. What’s more, this same Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was one of the presidents at the Council of Sardica ---the other being Hosius (Osius) of Corduba who, as was mentioned above, served as the president of the Council of Nicaea. Indeed, the Council of Sardica, while it is not traditionally counted as an Ecumenical Council, represents the witness of all the bishops who were faithful to Nicaea, and is so accepted as “Nicene.” And it is not merely the Roman West that sees it this way. For, the Greek East (including the modern Eastern Orthodox Church) sees Sardica as part of the Nicene tradition too. For example, above Mr. Gainor himself makes mention of the fact that the Latin canons differ in their numbering from the Greek ones. Well, why would there be Greek canons unless the Greek East eventually subscribed to Sardica too??? …Which of course it did --that is, the Nicene communion in the East, centered around St. Athanasius (once he was restored to his Alexandrian see) considered itself bound by the “Nicene” decrees of Sardica, as do many of the Eastern Orthodox Churches today.

Furthermore, by admitting that Sardica --held within the same generation as Nicaea and consisting of representatives from the entire Western Church ---is unquestionably “Papist” in nature, Mr. Gainor is thereby admitting that at least the West (as well as St. Athanasius and his fellow Nicene Easterners, e.g. Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas, etc., who also attended and signed onto Sardica) were all avowed “Papists” too! And since the rest of the East was Arian at the time (meaning that it denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ), Mr. Gainor must therefore admit that all valid and orthodox Christians at the time were also “Papists.” Indeed, one wonders how Mr. Gainor accounts for the fact that the same person who presided over Nicaea also presided over Sardica. I refer to the Spaniard Hosius (Osius) of Corduba. For, what Mr. Gainor obviously (yet unreasonably) wishes us to believe is that Hosius (Osius) and Athanasius believed one thing at Nicaea but then held to something totally different at Sardica in regard to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Yet, both the Sardican canon and Canon 6 of Nicaea refer to honoring the ‘ancient customs’ (‘memorials’) of the Church. Ergo, one cannot say that Rome (given its Petrine status) merely possessed ‘limited regional authority’ (via Mr. Gainor’s untenable interpretation of Nicaea, Canon 6) but then (based on this same Petrine heritage) Rome was able to serve as the final judge and arbiter of bishops in a universal context (via the clear meaning of the Sardican canon). Mr. Gainor needs to address and account for this clear contradiction if he expects us to take his criticism seriously.

Indeed, Mr. Gainor also needs to explain why Papal Rome (in the person of Pope Julius) was able to wield the authority granted to it canonically by Sardica two years before the Council of Sardica was held! For, A.D. 340-41, when Athanasius was deposed for a second time from his Alexandrian see by the Arians, this same Pope Julius, with as yet no canonical authority to back him up, writes to the Arian imperial court at Constantinople and complains …

“It behoved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were bishops, and the churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (Rome) not written to concerning the Church, especially Alexandria? Or are they (the Arians) ignorant that this has been the custom first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefiting to write to this church (Rome).” (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)

This quote from Pope Julius (pre-dating Sardica) says it all. It illustrates quite clearly that Sardica was merely legally canonizing the pre-existing organic Tradition of the Church (viz. the Bishop of Rome’s universal authority in regard to bishops), as well as placing the Canon 6 of Nicaea into its proper context. For, as historian James Loughlin maintains in the quote above, it is quite clear that the authority of Alexandria was based upon Rome’s recognition of its authority. And this is precisely what Pope Julius is referring to in his tirade against the Arian heretics who have deposed Athanasius. Mr. Gainor simply cannot ignore this fact.

Lastly, Mr. Gainor is apparently ignorant of the fact that an Ecumenical Council is not, and never was, defined by the scope or number of bishops attending it. For example, Constantinople I (in A.D. 381), which is numbered by both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as the 2nd Ecumenical Council, had no representatives from the West at all, but was ratified by Rome after the fact. For, it was always Rome’s ratification that made an Ecumenical Council “ecumenical.” As Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the two great medieval ‘Apostles to the Slavs’ and champions of the Byzantine Church (revered by both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics) state for the record:

"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existant, for it is he who presides over the Council." (Sts. Cyril & Methodius, c. 865 A.D. in N. Brian-Chaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

Likewise, the great Byzantine St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) says …

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles." (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

And we can multiply examples of this sort of thing going all the way back to the time of Nicaea.

So, the mere fact that the Eastern bishops were not present in great numbers at Sardica is beside the point, since Roman authority was always considered to be greater than an Ecumenical Council.

However, still addressing the issue of Sardica, Mr. Gainor continues and says …

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]

To put an end to opposition, Zozimus had the impudence to assert that the canons of the council of Nicea 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 Nicea, 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]

Okay. ? Time for another reality check. First of all, if Mr. Gainor wishes to use the case of Pope Zosimus’ conflict with the Africans to deny the authority of Sardica, he has created three big problems for himself. Firstly, in his statements above, Mr. Gainor admits that Sardica represented the Western Church. Well, need I point out that the Roman province of Africa (modern-day Tunsia, Algeria, and part of Morocco) was PART of the Western Church?! ? Indeed, African bishops were well represented at Sardica, and therefore subscribed to its “Papist” assertions. So, is Mr. Gainor saying that the Africans contradicted their own Western heritage???

Secondly, Mr. Gainor seems to be ignorant of the fact that Pope Zosimus himself was not a Westerner, but a Greek from Mesuras in Achaia! Yet, I thought the Greek East had nothing to do with Sardica??? Clearly, Mr. Gainor cannot have it both ways.

And, thirdly, in his zeal to discredit Papal authority, Mr. Gainor obviously fails to appreciate and properly apply the historical situation being described by Philip Schaff above. Indeed, Dr. Schaff is not fan of the Papacy himself, and so is famous for putting his own “spin” on things; and so we can’t fix the blame too firmly on Mr. Gainor. However, the historical reality of what is being described was as follows:

The Africans were upset at Pope Zosimus because they had, under Zosimus’ predecessor Pope Innocent (a Latin), succeeded in condemning the Pelagian heresy. Zosimus, however, was, as I said, a Greek, and so approached the mystery of Original Sin from the Greek theological perspective ---a perspective which is different, but equally valid, to the Latin approach. And, from the Greek point of view, it was not readily apparent that Pelagianism was an error. So, even though Innocent had condemned all followers of the Pelagian sect, Zosimus re-opened their case; and the Africans hit the roof. …that is, until he too eventually concluded that Pelagianism was a heresy. Yet, this is the historical background of everything being described above.

So, with the background established, we may address what the Africans are really complaining about. For they are not, as Mr. Gainor would like us to believe, disputing the Sixth Canon of Nicaea’s reference to Alexandria holding primacy in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis (Gaza strip) BECAUSE Rome recognized Alexandria’s authority in these places. Rather, what the Africans were citing was THE REST of Canon 6 of Nicaea in order to defend their regional integrity as bishops. For, as Mr. Gainor himself presents Canon 6 in his translation of it (emphasis mine):

“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.”

What the Africans were trying to say was that their “majority” (at the regional Council of Carthage which condemned the African Pelagians) held valid authority in Africa itself and should not be overturned by Roman interference in the person of Pope Zosimus. Zosimus of course responded by citing the “Nicene” canon of Sardica, which gave him the right and duty to order cases involving episcopal sees to be re-judged. So, the only counter-move left to the Africans was to “play semantics” (the Africans were renowned Roman lawyers) and to accuse Zosimus of misquoting Nicaea (which, technically, he was), when they most certainly knew that Sardica was part of the generally-accepted Nicene tradition; and that the canon of Sardica giving the Pope the legal right to re-judge episcopal cases was already a consistent and universal norm. Indeed, what they were really doing was delaying until Zosimus himself accepted their view and agreed that Pelagianism was not merely a matter of Greek vs. Latin theological perspective, but an objective heresy; and even after Zosimus came around, the controversy spilled over into the reign of Pope Celestine. But, what may not be disputed (something Mr. Gainor fails to perceive) is that the Africans were not disputing universal Papal authority when it comes to matters involving the universal Church. Rather, as I said (and as Schaff rightly points out, was a problem in Africa since the days of Cyprian), the Africans merely sought to stop Rome from “micro-managing” the African church ---that is, interfering with their own local integrity as bishops. Clearly, this is not what the Sardican canon intended to promote. And so, a “balance” had to be established between what Sardica met to prevent (i.e., bishops being unjustly deposed from their sees) and what the Africans were concerned about (i.e., their superior knowledge of what was going on in their own African church). It was only in the latter sense that Africa prohibited appeals to Rome. It never prohibited appeals to Rome in regard to universal matters …as even Augustine’s later writings against the Donatists reveal.

Mr. Gainor goes on ….

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.

Granted. It was not part of the Greek original. All of us agree on that. However, the truth is that we do not know how the Latin originally read (Nicaea was conducted in both Greek and Latin). As any student of patristic documents knows, it is not uncommon for glosses (either positive or negate –either adding or subtracting certain lines) to cause documents to differ between the Greek and the Latin versions. If the line in question was not part of the original Canon, then it was added as an honest attempt to make its meaning clear in the Latin. In calling it a “corruption,” Mr. Gainor is simply advertising his anti-Roman bigotry.

And he goes on …

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 ]

Okay. So what? ? Again, we are talking about glosses between the Greek and Latin versions. This does not prove that the Greek version was correct. It merely proves that they were different. What’s more, this SAME Council of Chalcedon fully recognized the Petrine authority of Rome, saying things like …

"For if 'where two or three are gathered together in His name' He has said that 'there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451.

...and …

"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98

…and …

"You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the church of Constantinople." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

…and …

"Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

These are bishops (and Eastern ones at that) speaking to the Bishop of Rome.

Indeed, if one knows the history, they also know that the very calling of the Council of Chalcedon came about in response to a whole slew of appeals by Eastern bishops who were deposed from their sees at the so-called “Robber Council of Ephesus” (A.D. 449) by Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, a Monophysite heretic. Chief among these was Bishop St. Flavian of Constantinople, who writes to Pope Leo and says ….

"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference ...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ...Further to issue an authoritative instruction ...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. (Bishop Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449).

Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus, who was also deposed by the “Robber Council,” appeals to the Pope …

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

..and …

"Hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many priviledges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles." (Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep. 113).

Likewise, St. Eusebius of Doryleum appeals to the Pope …

"The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion." (Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo)

And, funny enough, just prior to the “Robber Council,” the heretic Eutyches (the instigator of the Monophysite heresy) also appeals to Rome …

"I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. ...I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith." (Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep. 21. )

And so, Mr. Gainor seriously wishes to assert that the fathers at Chalcedon did not recognize Roman primacy??? Amazing! ?

And, indeed, he goes on …

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]

Well, …. Where to begin? ? First of all, no one familiar with the history of Chalcedon is going to award the attending Papal legates (Pope Leo’s representatives) with any “gold stars” for courage or bravado. Indeed, they made several spineless and imprudent concessions that they should not have, which Pope Leo later had to correct in his personal ratification of the Council (more on that below). The event described above was merely a victory of protocol on the part of the heretic Dioscorus of Alexandria in front of the Byzantine court –a court which had sided with him at the Robber Council of Ephesus, and which was still unsure whether he should be condemned as a heretic or not. Thus, he was (at first) permitted to retain his place of dignity as primate at the Council, since Alexandria held primacy in the East.

Yet, as the Council proceeded and it became clear that Dioscorus was indeed a heretic, he was ordered deposed and stripped of his dignity by the Council through the authority of Pope Leo. For example, referring to Dioscorus, the Council fathers write to Leo …

"Besides all this, he (Dioscorus of Alexandria) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the Vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

Also, in Session 3 of the Acts of Chalcedon (the document quoted by Mr. Gainor) above, the council fathers declare:

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness" --Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3.

So, while the assembly may have permitted Dioscorus, out of respect for his office, to sit in the place of primacy at the start of the Council, he was, by no means, granted that honor by the end of it. Rather, by Pope Leo’s own authority (that is, the authority of Peter), Dioscorus was deposed; and Mr. Gainor would have seen that if he had continued to read the Acts of Chalcedon. Indeed, I prefer to assume that Mr. Gainor is merely ignorant of the full story. Otherwise, I would be forced to conclude that he intentionally and deceptively chose to withhold these facts from his readers.

Ah! But, Mr. Gainor goes on …

Also from this Council of Chalcedon is proof that the privileges 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 privileges 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]

Okay. ? Well, here, it seems that both Mr. Gainor and Dr. Schaff need a history lesson. (Schaff, as he typically does, has the events right, but his interpretation of them is severely lacking …being the anti-Papal zealot that he is). So, here goes:

For starters, Canon 28 of Chalcedon, quoted above, which declared that Rome possessed the primacy by virtue of it being the old capital of the Empire (as opposed to its succession from Peter) was, first of all, in no sense a rejection of Rome’s Petrine authority (for goodness sake, the entire Council is full of references to Rome’s succession from Peter and its Petrine authority!) and, secondly, it was merely a canonical attempt (on the part of Constantinople) to unseat Alexandria as primate in the East now that its bishop had been condemned as a heretic and the appropriateness of Alexandria’s primacy was called into question. The Byzantines had tried this before at the Council of Constantinople I in 381, and Pope Damasus had condemned it, defending Alexandria’s Apostolic right to be the primate in the East. What’s more (Schaff does not properly address this), Canon 28 of Chalcedon was not only feebly protested against by the Roman legates at Chalcedon, it was also formally condemned by Pope Leo the Great –so much so that Rome’s ratification of Chalcedon itself was called into question! In order to correct this false impression, Eastern Emperor Marcian asked Pope Leo to issue a letter saying that he indeed ratified Chalcedon; but, in doing so, Leo mentions that he did not recognize canon 28. He writes …

“I have willingly complied, therefore, with what the most clement emperor thought necessary by sending a letter (Ep. 114) to all brothers who were present at the Council of Chalcedon to show thereby that the decisions taken by our holy brothers concerning the tenets of the Faith were pleasing to me. My doing so was naturally on account of those who want the decisions of the Council to appear weak and dubious, as an occasion for cloaking their own perfidy, on the grounds that decisions were not ratified by assenting opinion of mine (canon 28), whereas I did dispatch a letter.” --Pope Leo, Ep. 117.

Yet, when it came to Canon 28 of Chalcedon, Leo refused to ratify it, and so condemned it. For example, as Schaff mentions (irresponsibly) in passing, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople was forced to send a letter to Pope Leo apologizing for the canon and submitting to the Pope’s ultimate ruling on the matter. Anatolius writes …

“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.” ---Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

So, Leo “vetoed” it, and the matter was settled. And while it is true that, in Constantinople itself, certain parties “dusted off” Canon 28 from time to time and tried to use it when it suited them, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches do not acknowledge the canon as part of Chalcedon --the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's condemnation. This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 A.D.), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 A.D.), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 A.D.); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500). One wonders why Schaff fails to mention these??

Also, even though Byzantines like Justinian did, as I said, “dust off” Chalcedon to use as a political bargaining chip, this SAME Emperor Justinian also writes to the Pope, saying …

"Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy churches." (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

And, even after Justinian, we see that faithful and devout Byzantines simply did not take Canon 28 of Chalcedon seriously. For example, St. Maximos the Confessor (c. 650 A.D.) writes of the Apostolic See of Rome:

"How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

Remember, this is a Byzantine speaking; and he applies the authority of Rome to Matt 16:18-19, not to its being the original capital of the Empire.

Similarly, the Byzantine St. Methodius (brother of St. Cyril and one of the so-called ‘Apostles to the Slavs’) directly says ….

"It is not true, as this canon (Canon 28 of Chalcedon) states, that the holy fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from Divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself: 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (--Methodius ---N. Brian-Chaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

What more needs to be said??? ? Clearly, no devout Byzantine considered Canon 28 of Chalcedon to be of any authority until Photius used it against Rome in the 9th Century. It is from him that the modern Eastern Orthodox hold their claim to it. The Byzantines (that is, the non-politcal and truly religious ones) did not ascribe any validity to it before Photius. Indeed, history itself clearly shows that Rome held primacy in the days of Cyprian and long before ---that is, when the Church was still an illegal, underground society persecuted by the imperial Roman government. So, to say it acquired primacy in or after the days of Constantine is just foolishness. Indeed, Rome was not even the Western capital when Constantine came to the throne! Rather, Constantine’s Western capital was first Trier (in modern Germany) and then Milan (in northern Italy). So, if Rome held primacy because of its association with the Emperor, then the primacy should have been held by one of those sees. …Which, of course, it never was.

Furthermore, in trying to site Canon 28 of Chalcedon against Rome, Mr. Gainor (for those who have been reading him carefully) clearly contradicts himself! ? For, what Canon 28 directly states is ….

“For the fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.”

Great. But, what “fathers” are they referring to??? Clearly, they are referring to the fathers of the Council of Nicaea! …That is, Canon 6 of Nicaea: the very canon that Mr. Gainor says simply refers to Rome’s local authority. Indeed, if Mr. Gainor wishes to say that Canon 28 of Chalcedon is historically valid, he is not only SCREAMING the fact that Catholics read Canon 6 of Nicaea correctly (i.e., that it’s an implicit reference to Rome’s ultimate authority), but he also must admit that the Byzantines at Chalcedon accepted the validity of the Latin version of Canon 6 of Nicaea –the version that refers to Rome holding the primacy. However, Mr. Gainer of course seeks to dispute that above. But, as I keep saying, Mr. Gainor simply cannot have it both ways. So, which is it to be, Mr. Gainor? Either Nicaea refers to Rome’s primacy or Rome was never granted primacy by a Council and so Canon 28 is wrong. Your choice. But, you can only choose one.

What’s more, Mr. Gainor quotes Schaff saying that Rome eventually recognized Canon 28 of Chalcedon during the Middle Ages (c. 1215) after the Latin Crusaders captured Constantinople and established a Latin patriarch there. ? So, let me get this straight … Is Schaff suggesting that Pope Innocent III, who reigned in 1215 and who was one of the most authoritarian Popes the Church has ever seen, conceded that the Patriarch of Constantinople was his equal??? Come on! ? Clearly, Dr. Schaff is overreaching himself a “just wee bit.” The truth, of course, is that, by 1215 (actually, by the 700’s), Rome came to recognize Constantinople as a full patriarchate, as opposed to merely a metropolitanate. And the reason that it did this had absolutely nothing to do with Canon 28 of Chalcedon (Rome still rejects that canon to this day). Rather, it was because the great patriarchal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem had ceased to exist as Christian cities (having fallen into Muslim hands); and so Constantinople was recognized as the Eastern primate by default. The reality is as simple as that.

Yet, Mr. Gainor continues ….

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.

I see. So, when Mr. Gainor disagrees with a Catholic’s interpretation of history, the Catholic is automatically ‘dishonest.’ How “charitable” and “Christian” of Mr. Gainor. How amazingly “perceptive” of him to be able to see into a man’s soul and automatically determine what that person’s motives are. I would suggest that Mr. Gainor is either immature and rash, or a very bigoted person.

But, he goes on …

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.

I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Gainor (or any of his readers) be as critical with their own (quite unsubstantiated) anti-Papal views as they are with the assertions of the Catholic Church. If Mr. Gainor practiced such prudent consideration of objective and comprehensive historical evidence, perhaps he would not make such consistent and irresponsible mistakes, such as those which I have been addressing above, and which, indeed, abound throughout his anti-Catholic website.

And he goes on …

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.

Uh, …. Mr. Gainor. I suggest that you go back and read Mr. Loughlin’s article again. For, Loughlin never translates the Latin as “The Bishop of Rome has ever been head of the Church.” Rather, for the purposes of making his point, Loughlin paraphrases the line. Indeed, the passage you are referring to reads:

“True, it may be objected that the Emperors' argument is based not upon the original text, but on the old Latin version, which contained the famous additamentum. "Quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum." (The Bishop of Rome has always been head of the Church.) It seems quite probable that such was the case, for the edict emanated immediately from the Western Emperor, and at the suggestion of St. Leo.”

Do you see any quotes around Loughlin’s English rendering of the line??? You do not because it’s not a translation, but a paraphrase. Loughlin is making a point …a point that you obviously missed in your zeal to find something you could criticize. Bad form.

But, Gainor goes on …

I only briefly read through Loughlin's treatise.

Pity. Maybe you would have learned something if you read it more carefully.

There very well may be other similar errors, which I have neither the time nor the desire to search out.

If that’s how irresponsible you are in terms of “spotting errors,” it speaks volumes about the quality of your anti-Catholic website. Lord preserve us from such bad scholarship! But, he goes on, now placing myself in the same company as Mr. Loughlin (Gee, thanks for the compliment, Mr. Gainor) ….

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: “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). 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.

Is it indeed a “ploy,” Mr. Gainor? ? Well, I hate to break it to you, but, as any student of late Roman history can tell you, when Emperors issued edicts they always did it jointly. This was, at the very least, a political nicety, as well as being a staple of imperial Roman law. Indeed, Mr. Gainor, if you had bothered to read Mr. Loughlin’s article a little more closely (rather than actually publish a critique of an article that you never bothered to read in full …a very irresponsible and childish thing to do), you would have seen that he admits that the edict came principally from Emperor Valentinian in the West. Loughlin writes:

“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. The civil power, they argue, must recognize the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church, 1st, because he is the successor of St. Peter, the Chief of Bishops; 2d, because of the dignity of his city; and 3d, because his supremacy has been confirmed by the sacred council. Now the ‘sacred council,’ so far as we know, had no other occasion of introducing the subject of Roman supremacy than this Alexandrian question, and to this sixth canon, therefore, as all admit, the Emperors were alluding. True, it may be objected that the Emperors' argument is based not upon the original text, but on the old Latin version, which contained the famous additamentum. "Quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum." (The Bishop of Rome has always been head of the Church.) It seems quite probable that such was the case, for the edict emanated immediately from the Western Emperor, and at the suggestion of St. Leo. But we cannot suppose, for a moment, that it was the Pope, or any of his clergy, who drew up the document, because the Roman Church would have vehemently denied that any synod did or could confirm its primacy.”

So, how can it be a “ploy” on the part of Mr. Loughlin when he admits that the edict originated with the Western Emperor, Mr. Gainor??

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. 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.

What’s more, would you please care to explain to me how a Bishop of Rome (no matter how supposedly ambitious) could persuade his Emperor (for the Pope was the civil subject of the Western Emperor at the time) to issue an edict to the East if the East would be opposed to it ---that is, if it were something novel and incompatible with the universal Apostolic Faith?

Lastly, in regard to the signature of both Emperors on the edict … Above I pointed out how Valentinian could not have issued the edict without the participation of Theodosius –how to do so would imply Western Emperor Valentinian’s supremacy over Eastern Emperor Theodosius Well, that would not only be a problem from a political point of view, it would also have been impossible. Why? Because, as anyone familiar with late Roman history knows, Valentinian III held his position as Western Roman Emperor because he was the ward and junior colleague of Eastern Emperor Theodosius, who placed him on the Western throne! ? In other words, Valentinian III did not even possess the authority to issue an edict (universal or otherwise) in his own name and apart from the senior authority of Theodosius II. And if you don’t believe me, please go look up the history for yourself. Valentian III (along with his mother Galla Placidia) had to flee to Constantinople and seek protection from Emperor Theodosius when Western Emperor Honorius (their uncle) died and the West was held by a handful of usurpers. It was Theodosius’ Eastern army that secured Valentinian III’s position as Honorius’ successor in the West. So, Valentinian was simply in no position to dictate to anyone in Theodosius’ domain. Rather, it was exactly the opposite.

But, ignoring all this, Mr. Gainor goes on …

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.

Well, you apparently know all about that …and most intimately, Mr. Gainor.

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.

Sigh! ? Again, please allow me to educate you, Mr. Gainor. The title of the document merely refers to the Emperor in office (in the West) at the time. It does not exclude Eastern Emperor Theodosius’ full participation. You will find the name of Theodosius (at least until 450 …when Theodosius died) alongside that of Valentinian on any and all of the Western Emperor’s decrees. And this is the case with all the joint emperors. It was customary, and it was imperial law.

Yet, Mr. Gainor continues …

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 (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia, Valentinian

What does this have to do with the joint edict of Theodosius and Valentinian, Mr. Gainor? Once again, and as Mr. Loughlin admits above, no one is disputing the fact that Valentinian was the prime mover behind the edict, since Pope Leo was the Western Emperor’s subject and had appealed to him to defend his (the Pope’s) Traditional rights. Yet, this in no way suggests that Valentinian acted without the full approval and participation of his senior colleague Theodosius when the Eastern Empire was concerned. Gaul, of course, was part of the Western Empire, and the Western Church. Now, above, you admitted that the Western bishops at Sardica all promoted Roman primacy in the judging of episcopal sees; and there were, of course, Gaulish bishops (e.g. the bishops of Arles and Lyon) at the Council of Sardica. So, once again, you contradict yourself. Either Rome held primacy in the West before the time of Leo or it did not. Which is it?

Mr. Gainor also presents …

“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 (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope St. Leo I (the Great)

Again, this only refers to events in Gaul. What about the East and Theodosius? Where’s your evidence that Theodosius had nothing to do with an edict issued throughout his Eastern domains?

Mr. Gainor further presents ….

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

Ha! ? You continue to prove my point, Mr. Gainor. Valentinian was Theodosius’ junior colleague and ward. In addition, Gibbon’s assertion that the East and West became legislatively independent during their reigns (which has subsequently been disproved by the way ?) would only argue for the fact that an edict by Valentinian issued to the East MUST have included the endorsement of Theodosius (i.e., “…the validity of all future laws was limited to the dominions of their peculiar author; unless he should think proper to communicate them …for approbation of his independent colleague.”).

Seriously, now … On one hand, you seek to present us with a Pope Leo the Great who is trying to impose his “dominion,” not only over the West, but over the ENTIRE Church. But, then you suggest that Leo’s ambition was limited only to the person and the Western domain of Valentinian??? Which is it? ? For, if you want to say that Leo (and the Papacy in general) was trying to “get its clutches” on absolutely every member of the universal Church, then you must therefore concede the fact that Theodosius participated in the edict and that Valentinian petitioned Theodosius to participate in the edict. Otherwise, you’re just chasing shadows. I venture to assume you do that a lot. …Most likely without even realizing it.

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.

Once again, Mr. Gainor, you have failed to establish that the Latin version is “corrupted,” as opposed to merely a parallel Latin rendering or a well-intentioned gloss designed to make the authentic meaning of Canon 6 of Nicaea more clear. For example, do you likewise call Matthew 1:23 (“…the virgin shall be with Child…”) a “corruption,” given that the original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 says, not “virgin,” but “…the maiden shall be with Child.” Or do you not grant that both Matt 1:23 and its Greek Septuagint source are intentionally and validly preserving the proscriptive sense of what Isaiah 7:14 really means by “the maiden” being with Child ---that is, a “maiden” (a young, unmarried woman) should be a “virgin,” and so Isaiah 7:14 intends to depict a miraculous paradox and not an illegitimate pregnancy. Well, if you grant that Scripture itself can alter text in order to preserve proscriptive and intended meaning (meaning which otherwise might be vague), why do you deny this privilege to Canon 6 of Nicaea?

And Mr. Gainor ends by saying ….

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.

Well, if that’s the case, Mr. Gainor, then you are both blind, deaf, and lacking all other senses. For, as I’ve shown to the point of nausea above, your grasp of authentic history is most pathetic and simply not worthy of anyone devoted to Christian truth. I have no doubt that the rest of your website is full of such obvious distortions and holes in the comprehensive historical record; and I strongly urge you in the Name of Jesus Christ, Who IS the Truth, to go back and look at your body of work with a critical eye. It is one thing to have authentic disagreement with the Papacy; it is quite another to “smear” the ministry of Peter because of an anti-Catholic bias based on half-truths and pedestrian “scholarship.” It is even a greater scandal to lead the historically ignorant astray by giving them the impression that you know what you’re talking about, when you most certainly do not. I pray that your commitment to Christ is deep enough for you to admit when you are wrong.

Pax et bonum,

Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
September 27, 2005