Canon 6 of the 318 holy fathers
16. The church of Rome has always had primacy. Egypt is therefore also to enjoy the right that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is the custom for the Roman bishop also. Likewise both the one appointed in Antioch, and in the other providences the churches of the larger cities, are to enjoy primacy. It is entirely clear that, if anyone were to be ordained bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this holy council has decreed that he ought not to be a bishop. But certainly, if the common consent of all is rightly approved and determined according to the ecclesiastical rule, and some two or three oppose it through their own contentiousness, that decision is to prevail which has the support of the priests who are greater in number. Since ancient custom and old tradition has held that deference is to be shown to the bishop of Aelia, that is, Jerusalem, he is consequently to enjoy this honour, saving, however, the proper dignity of the metropolitan. (85-86)
This is the western version of Canon 6 of Nicaea, which w translate from the Latin version. The authentic Greek version is given below (17); it differs in not asserting Roman primacy. This was actually crucial for the issue in debate at this session, which concerned not the relative standing of Rome and Constantinople but the jurisdiction of the latter in the east. (Ibid., 85 n. 36)
Canon 6 of the holy fathers
17. Let the ancient customs in Egypt prevail, namely that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, [38] since this is customary for the bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch also and in the other provinces let the privileges be preserved in the churches. It is clear that if anyone should become a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great council has decreed that he ought not to be a bishop. But if however the common vote of all, being reasonable and according to the ecclesiastical canon, is opposed by two or three through their own contentiousness, let the vote of the majority prevail. (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols. [trans. Richard Price and Michael Gaddis; Translated Texts for Historians 45; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005, 2007] 86)
The authentic text of the canon reads, ‘Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, namely that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over them all.’ The omission of Libya and Pentapolis echoes the same omission in the Roman version of the canon, and is perhaps to be attributed to copyists rather than to Aetius. (Ibid., 86 n. 38)
The Liber pontificalis recast Eusebius’s account in a way that reinforced the fundamental aspects of Peter’s role as Bishop of Rome. In every respect the author of the Liber pontificalis augmented his sources or offered a different perspective on the information they contained. The subsequent direct reference to Antioch and the allusion to Mark are perhaps also to be taken as an oblique reference to Alexandria. This might be taken, moreover, as a subtle enhancement of Rome’s relationship with that see and what Philippe Blaudeau has referred to as Rome’s ‘géo-ecclésiologie’. In this respect, with the implied superiority of Rome over Antioch and Alexandria, two of the principal patriarchal sees of late antiquity, it might also be read as echoing the sixth clause in the account of the Council of Nicaea, that Rufinus offered in his translation and extension of the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius. Rufinus notes Alexandria’s responsibility for Egypt and the Bishop of Rome’s charge of the suburbicarian churches of Italy. (Rosamond McKitterick, Rome and the Invention of the Papacy: The Liber Pontificalis [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020], 78)
