Although, as Hefele well says, “It is evident that the Council has not in view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, but simply his power as a patriarch,” yet it may not be unimportant to consider what his patriarchal limits may have been.

(Hefele, Hist. Councils, Vol. I., p. 397.)

The translation of this [VI.] canon by Rufinus has been especially an apple of discord.  Et ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Egypti vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat.  In the seventeenth century this sentence of Rufinus gave rise to a very lively discussion between the celebrated jurist, Jacob Gothfried (Gothofredus), and his friend, Salmasius, on one side, and the Jesuit, Sirmond, on the other.  The great prefecture of Italy, which contained about a third of the whole Roman Empire, was divided into four vicariates, among which the vicariate of Rome was the first.  At its head were two officers, the prœfectus urbi and the vicarius urbis.  The prœfectus urbi exercised authority over the city of Rome, and further in a suburban circle as far as the hundredth milestone.  The boundary of the vicarius urbis comprised ten provinces—Campania, Tuscia with Ombria, Picenum, Valeria, Samnium, Apulia with Calabria, Lucania and that of the Brutii, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica.  Gothfried and Salmasius maintained, that by the regiones suburbicariæ the little territory of the prœfectus urbi must be understood; while, according to Sirmond, these words designate the whole territory of the vicarius urbis.  In our time Dr. Maasen has proved in his book,⁶³

63 Friedrich Maasen:  Der Primat des Bischofs von Rom. und die alten Patriarchalkirchen.  Bonn, 1853.  § 100–110.  Maasen goes on to express the opinion that the patriarchal power of Rome was much larger.

Hefele thinks that Phillips “has proved” that the Bishop of Rome had patriarchal rights over places outside the limits of the ten provinces of the vicarius urbis; but does not agree with Phillips in thinking Rufinus in error.  As a matter of fact the point is a difficult one, and has little to do with the gist of the meaning of the canon.  One thing is certain:  the early Latin version of the canons, called the Prisca, was not satisfied with the Greek wording and made the Canon read thus:  “It is of ancient custom that the bishop of the city of Rome should have a primacy (principatum), so that he should govern with care the suburban places, and all his own province.”⁶⁴

64 Vide Labbe’s Observation.  Tom. II., col. 47.

Hefele further on says, “The Greek commentators Zonaras and Balsamon (of the twelfth century) say very explicitly, in their explanation of the Canons of Nice, that this sixth canon confirms the rights of the Bishop of Rome as patriarch over the whole West,” and refers to Beveridge’s Synodicon, Tom. I., pp. 66 and 67.  After diligent search I can find nothing to warrant the great amplitude of this statement.  Balsamon’s interpretation is very vague, being simply that the Bishop of Rome is over the Western Eparchies (τῶν ἑσπερίων ἐπάρχιων) and Zonaras still more vaguely says that τῶν ἑσπερίων ἄρχειν ἔθος ἐκράτησε.  That the whole West was in a general way understood to be in the Roman Patriarchate I have no doubt, that the Greek scholiasts just quoted deemed it to be so I think most probably the case, but it does not seem to me that they have said so in the particular place cited.  It seems to me that all they meant to say was that the custom observed at Alexandria and Antioch was no purely Eastern and local thing, for a similar state of affairs was found in the West.

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH