Nicaea I Canon VI and the Papacy

[garysibio]

CANON VI.

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.

faculty.cua.edu/pennington/canon%20law/nicea/CanonsCouncilNiceae.htm#CANON VI.

I’m confused by this. Taken at face value this canon grants an authority to the Bishop of Alexandria an authority over the churches of northern Africa identical to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What’s going on here?

 

[DavidFilmer]

CANON VI.

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.

faculty.cua.edu/pennington/canon%20law/nicea/CanonsCouncilNiceae.htm#CANON VI.

I’m confused by this. Taken at face value this canon grants an authority to the Bishop of Alexandria an authority over the churches of northern Africa identical to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What’s going on here?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Nicea was a busy Council - there was a lot of “business” to take care of.

One order of business was recognizing the status of various Metropolitan Bishops and establishing a hierarchy of leadership (which had already been in place, but not formally recognized). Nicea recognized the five Sees of antiquity (ecclesiae dictae majores): Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.

The situation is no different today - we still have Metropolitan Bishops (but a lot more of them) - these Archbishops provide leadership to Suffragan Bishops serving within their Archdiocese, and they are the immediate ecclesiastical superior for these Bishops.

But then, as now, the authority of the See of Peter is the highest in the land.

 

[garysibio]

Nicea was a busy Council - there was a lot of “business” to take care of.

One order of business was recognizing the status of various Metropolitan Bishops and establishing a hierarchy of leadership (which had already been in place, but not formally recognized). Nicea recognized the five Sees of antiquity (ecclesiae dictae majores): Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.

The situation is no different today - we still have Metropolitan Bishops (but a lot more of them) - these Archbishops provide leadership to Suffragan Bishops serving within their Archdiocese.

But then, as now, the authority of the See of Peter is the highest in the land.

Your last sentence seems to contradict the plain sense of the text.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Your last sentence seems to contradict the plain sense of the text.

In what way? The Archidocese of Rome encompassed a number of Dioceses. Likewise, the Archdiocese of Alexandria (and others) were to encompass a number of Dioceses - such a leadership structure had already been in place (thus, the mention of “ancient customs” and “retain their privileges” - the Council did not want to meddle in the leadership structure that had already been in place). The Council did not intend that each Bishop’s immediate superior be the Pope, which would dismantle the hierarchical structure of Metropolitan and Suffragans (the distinction would cease to exist). The Council merely made official what was already in place (and which is still in place today).

Just because one Bishop has jurisdiction over another Bishop does not mean he has the equivalent jurisdiction of the Pope. That’s a non sequitur.

 

[garysibio]

In what way? The Archidocese of Rome encompassed a number of Dioceses. Likewise, the Archdiocese of Alexandria (and others) were to encompass a number of Dioceses - such a leadership structure had already been in place (thus, the mention of “retain their privileges” - the Council did not want to meddle in the leadership structure that had already been in place). The Council did not intend that each Bishop’s immediate superior be the Pope, which would dismantle the hierarchical structure of Metropolitan and Suffragans (the distinction would cease to exist). The Council merely made official what was already in place.

Just because one Bishop has jurisdiction over another Bishop does not mean he has the equivalent jurisdiction of the Pope. That’s a non sequitur.

My point is that there is nothing in this text that implies that the Bishop of Rome has any more authority that the Bishops of Alexandria or Antioch. These bishops have the exact same authority over the churches in their geographical area that the Bishop of Rome has over the churches near Rome. It seems to me that there would have been some mention about Rome’s superiority over the others if that was their belief.

 

[DavidFilmer]

My point is that there is nothing in this text that implies that the Bishop of Rome has any more authority that the Bishops of Alexandria or Antioch.

That’s true. And there’s nothing that implies he doesn’t.

This is a very brief Canon to describe a rather complex hierarchy - it mentions only three specific Suffragan Dioceses (perhaps the Bishops of those particular Dioceses were trying to gain greater autonomy). It does not delve into which Metropolitans have jurisdiction over which specific Suffragans - the leadership structure was sufficiently defined and understood that no such elaboration was considered necessary. So the Canon skips quite a lot that was already well established. The authority of the See of Rome was also well established - apparently the Council did not feel the need to specifically include that either.

 

[garysibio]

That’s true. And there’s nothing that implies he doesn’t.

This is a very brief Canon to describe a rather complex hierarchy - it mentions only three specific Suffragan Dioceses (perhaps the Bishops of those particular Dioceses were trying to gain greater autonomy). It does not delve into which Metropolitans have jurisdiction over which specific Suffragans - the leadership structure was sufficiently defined and understood that no such elaboration was considered necessary. So the Canon skips quite a lot that was already well established. The authority of the See of Rome was also well established - apparently the Council did not feel the need to specifically include that either.

Yes, it is a small canon but it still describes equality between the Bishop of Rome and the bishops of some other churches. They can’t be equal in authority and one have more authority simultaneously so, in effect, it is saying that the Bishop of Rome does not have any special authority.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Yes, it is a small canon but it still describes equality between the Bishop of Rome and the bishops of some other churches.

They are “equal” only in the sense that they both exercise jurisdiction over other Bishops - that’s ALL that the plain text of the Canon says. The Canon does not say or imply that the four other Metropolitan Bishops are not under the ultimate jurisdiction of the See of Rome (the Canon simply says nothing about it one way or another).

 

[garysibio]

They are “equal” only in the sense that they both exercise jurisdiction over other Bishops - that’s ALL that the plain text of the Canon says. The Canon does not say or imply that the four other Metropolitan Bishops are not under the ultimate jurisdiction of the See of Rome (the Canon simply says nothing about it one way or another).

So what you are saying is that they’re all equal but some are more equal than others.

They are either equal or they are not. The text of canon VI says they are equal.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The text of canon VI says they are equal.

No, it does not. Let’s review the text:

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.

The first part establishes (ONLY) that Alexandria is a Metropolitan See which encompasses (at least) three other Dioceses. The SAME THING (“the like”) also happens in Rome (and is to continue in other Metropolitan Sees). Rome is being used as an EXAMPLE of a Metropolitan See.

The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria (and Antioch, etc) are all Metropolitan Bishops - they are alike in this regard. But NOTHING in this Canon says ANYTHING about the relative position of Rome - one way or another.

You are focusing on what the Canon DOES NOT say, and claiming that is significant. I’m saying it is irrelevant - we can only go by what the Canon DOES say - regardless of what we might EXPECT it to say.

What the Canon DOES say is that Rome and Alexandria (etc) are Metropolitan Sees (as they always were, and still are). Show me where the Canon says “All Metropolitan Bishops are (or not) equal in authority.” Show me where the Canon says ANYTHING related to this. That’s the part you’re missing.

 

[garysibio]

No, it does not. Let’s review the text:

The first part establishes (ONLY) that Alexandria is a Metropolitan See which encompasses (at least) three other Dioceses. The SAME THING (“the like”) also happens in Rome (and is to continue in other Metropolitan Sees). Rome is being used as an EXAMPLE of a Metropolitan See.

The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria (and Antioch, etc) are all Metropolitan Bishops - they are alike in this regard. But NOTHING in this Canon says ANYTHING about the relative position of Rome - one way or another.

You are focusing on what the Canon DOES NOT say, and claiming that is significant. I’m saying it is irrelevant - we can only go by what the Canon DOES say - regardless of what we might EXPECT it to say.

What the Canon DOES say is that Rome and Alexandria (etc) are Metropolitan Sees (as they always were, and still are). Show me where the Canon says “All Metropolitan Bishops are (or not) equal in authority.” Show me where the Canon says ANYTHING related to this. That’s the part you’re missing.

Again, the bishops are either equal or they are not. This canon says these bishops are equal. Therefore one cannot have more authority than the others. That’s simple logic. You want to have your cake and eat it too. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Again, the bishops are either equal or they are not. This canon says these bishops are equal. Therefore one cannot have more authority than the others. That’s simple logic. You want to have your cake and eat it too. It doesn’t work that way.

OK, walk me through how you interpret the text - citing the exact phrases and the meaning you ascribe to them.

Then tell me why it is inherently illogical that one Metropolitan Bishop have authority over another Metropolitan Bishop. After all, the very concept of Metropolitans establishes a hierarchy of leadership. It seems quite illogical (and completely arbitrary) that the hierarchy should inherently stop at the Metropolitan level - it seems much more logical and consistent that the Metropolitans are also part of a hierarchy.

Because - remember, you are using the term “illogical” to describe the exact structure of the Church today. The Bishops of Rome, Antioch, Chicago, and Denver are all Metropolitan Bishops - and the Bishop of Rome is the ultimate authority. By your reasoning, the Archbishop of Portland (my Metropolitan Bishop) has the same authority as the Pope. But this is obviously not what the Church teaches (and my Bishop would be appalled at the suggestion).

The hierarchy we have now is the same as in Nicea (just larger in scope as the Church has grown geographically).

Note that I am not making any appeal to Papal infallibility or such - someone could completely reject the idea of infallibility but still be perfectly OK with the idea that the Bishop of Rome is the ultimate boss of the Church on earth.

At Nicea, the Church is obviously endorsing a hierarchy of leadership - there can be no disagreement on that point. Since the Council does not say either way, the more logical and consistent interpretation is that organizational and hierarchical leadership includes the Metropolitians as well - just as it always did, and just as it still does.

But the Council does not actually say one way or another, so the ONLY thing that we can know from the plain text of this Canon ALONE (without bringing in our own logic or opinion) is that these five Sees are all Metropolitan in nature.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

CANON VI.

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.

faculty.cua.edu/pennington/canon%20law/nicea/CanonsCouncilNiceae.htm#CANON VI.

I’m confused by this. Taken at face value this canon grants an authority to the Bishop of Alexandria an authority over the churches of northern Africa identical to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What’s going on here?

There is no absolute decree giving Rome Total and Absolute control over ALL the Churches in the 1st 4 councils.

There is however an understanding of Primacy and/or 1st seat of Honor. The Papacy is something developed over the years. In fact, some of the other Sees referred to their Bishops as Popes as well, but never under the same principle used by Rome.

Regardless, it is something that the Church has implemented as authoritative and we are bound by it. Like it or not.

I used to have a list of links regarding this subject but I can’t find the thumbdrive I put it on…

Anyways, there is some good readings in here:

www.rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html