The First Council of Nicaea
Canon VI
The ancient customary jurisdictions of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch are to prevail, and a bishop made without the metropolitan's consent is no bishop.
Read aloud. Your browser speaks the page using the voices installed on this device. Nothing is uploaded — the text never leaves your computer. Voice quality varies by browser and device.
Canon VI — conciliar 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. 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.
Henry R. Percival (ed.), The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900). Public domain.
Ancient Epitome, as printed in the same edition
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.
A Byzantine-era summary carried in the canonical collections. It is a witness to how the canon was read, not the canon itself.
Plain-language summary — this project's words, not the canon's
The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis are to continue, so that the bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction over them, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome. Antioch and the other provinces are to keep their privileges likewise.
The canon adds a general rule: anyone made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan is not a bishop. And where two or three bishops object out of contrariness, the majority prevails.
The fourth-century problem
The Melitian schism in Egypt had produced rival ordinations, and the council needed to state who had authority where. The canon is doing that, by appeal to what was already customary rather than by creating a new structure.
This is the most argued-over canon of the twenty, and Percival says as much: he notes that a whole library has been written on it, much of it asserting or denying papal claims.
Canonical principle
Authority in the Church follows established custom under conciliar confirmation, not innovation. The council is ratifying arrangements that already existed.
Note what the canon does not say. It does not derive Alexandria's jurisdiction from Rome, and it does not describe Rome's authority as universal. It cites Roman custom as a parallel to explain Alexandrian custom.
What kind of canon this is
- administrative
- structural
Percival's edition groups the Nicene canons without formal classification. The kinds named above are this project's analysis, offered so that a reader can see which parts of a canon are principle and which are the arrangement of a particular century.
Later interpretation and reception
The canon has been read very differently in East and West for a long time, and this site does not adjudicate between them. What can be said neutrally is that the canon speaks of customary regional jurisdiction, that it treats the three sees in parallel, and that later councils — Constantinople in 381 and Chalcedon in 451 — altered the order of precedence in ways Rome did not accept.
Percival prints an excursus on the extent of the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over the suburbican churches, which is itself a nineteenth-century Anglican contribution to a long controversy and is labelled as such here.
Unresolved questions
- What exactly the phrase about Roman custom was understood to cover in 325 is genuinely disputed, and the dispute is old.
- How this canon relates to canon III of Constantinople and canon XXVIII of Chalcedon is a question this project has not yet given a dedicated page.
Related canons
- Canon VII, on the honour of the see of Ælia.
- Canon III of Constantinople I.
- Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon.
Related in this archive
-
The First Council of Nicaea
The council that confessed the Son to be of one substance with the Father, addressed the date of Pascha, and issued twenty disciplinary canons. It did not decide which books belong to the Bible.
-
The Council of Chalcedon
The council that confessed Christ in two natures, unconfused and undivided, in one person. Its definition is the classic Christological statement of the Church, and its reception divided the Church permanently.
-
The First Council of Constantinople
The council that confessed the divinity of the Holy Spirit and gave the Church the Creed it recites today. It was not ecumenical when it met; the Church made it so by receiving it.
-
The Church, bishops and councils
Apostolic succession, the conciliar habit, and why reception is what makes a council ecumenical.
Your notes
Sources for this page
- Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Canon VI of Nicaea annotated edition of conciliar texts The conciliar text as archived here. Source record (opens in a new tab)
- Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Ancient Epitome of Canon VI, with Percival's notes annotated edition of conciliar texts Nineteenth-century editorial apparatus and Byzantine canonists. Source record (opens in a new tab)
Tiers are explained in the methodology. No page on this site has been reviewed or approved by any bishop, priest, synod or seminary.