Canon

XXVIII. (Greek xxxi.)

Presbyters, deacons, or clerics, who shall think good

to carry appeals in their causes across the water shall not at all be

admitted to communion.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 3/The Canons of Carthage/Canons/Canon XXVIII

also seemed good that

presbyters, deacons, and others of the inferior clergy in the causes

which they had, if they were dissatisfied with the judgments of their

bishops, let the neighbouring bishops with the consent of their own

bishop hear them, and let the bishops who have been called in judge

between them:  but if they think they have cause of appeal from

these, they shall not betake themselves to judgments from beyond seas, but to the primates of their own provinces, or else to an universal council, as has also been decreed concerning bishops. But whoso shall think good to carry an appeal across the water shall be received to communion by no one within the boundaries of Africa.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 3/The Canons of Carthage/Canons/Canon XXVIII

Notes.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 3/The Canons of Carthage/Canons/Canon XXVIII

Clerics who have been condemned, if they take exception

to the judgment, shall not appeal beyond seas, but to the neighbouring

bishops, and to their own; if they do otherwise let them be

excommunicated in Africa.

This canon is the same as Canon xvij. of the Synod of

Carthage of 418, but it has some words with regard to appeals which

that canon does not contain, viz.:  “Aut ad universale

conciliam, sicut et de episcopis sæpe constitutum

est.”  This clause, affirming that bishops have often

been forbidden to appeal across the water from the decisions of the

African bishops, has caused great perplexity as no such decrees are

extant.  The Ballerini, to avoid this difficulty, and possibly for

other reasons, suggest an entirely different meaning to the passage, and suppose that it means that “bishops have often been allowed to appeal to the Universal Council and now this privilege is extended to priests.” But this would seem to be a rather unnatural interpretation and Van Espen in his Commentary shews good reason for adopting the more evident view.

See Can. Afr., 19.

Clearly the See of Rome is here aimed at, as if Carthage

were the place designed by Providence to put a stop to the growth of

power in Christian Rome, as well as heathen.  It is strange, that

this canon should be received by the Church of Rome in former

ages.

Footnotes