Prior to beginning, a few words should be said about this great saint and pope of the Orthodox Church. The following is summarized largely from the article on him in the Catholic Encyclopedia found here.

St. Boniface (Pope from 418 to 422) was known for his generosity to the poor, humility, and high education and for this reason, he was elected pope. His election was contested as a rival pope, Eulalius the Archdeacon, was elected. The situation became violent and a council of Italian bishops met and could not find a suitable solution but planned a larger council of Italian, French, and North African bishops that they believed would solve the issue. The first council did, though, command both popes to depart from Rome until the winner was declared and it was Eulalius entering the city prior to a decision being made that caused the emperor to cancel the soon to be second council and rule immediately in favor of St. Boniface, who was installed shortly thereafter as pope. He was involved in settling several disputes in areas as disparate as North Africa, Gaul, and the Balkans. It is his involvement in the dispute in the Balkans revolving around the election of Perigenes as bishop of Corinth that this article will largely center on as Mr. Ybarra attempts to “prove” Vatican I by St. Boniface’s words regarding the dispute. Mr. Ybarra’s article on it can be found here. He also touches on the topic here quoting, completely out of context, from a letter to the bishops of Thessaly. As usual, Mr. Ybarra’s words are italicized and in blue.

---

According to Catholic Apologist Erick Ybarra, Pope St. Boniface I (Pope from 418-422) stated the Church of Rome “holds jurisdiction over the universal communion of churches.”

Pope St. Boniface had often stated in his letters that the Roman Church holds jurisdiction over the universal communion of churches. He had no doubts about it. However, these statements were in no sense new, since they were just echos of his predecessors going back to Pope Siricius (A.D. 384), Pope St. Damasus (A.D. 366-384), Pope Liberius (A.D. 352-366), and even Pope St. Julius (A.D. 337-352), and even further back. A very famous letter wherein St. Boniface reveals his understanding of the relationship between the Eastern churches and the Roman See is quite astonishing out of all of them, however.

But what type of jurisdiction? As Orthodox Christians, we do not deny the Pope’s appellate jurisdiction over the entire Christian world illustrated in various canons, most especially canons 3, 4, 5, and 9 of Sardica. In fact, we welcome it and pray for the day the Pope will renounce his heresies and resume the role he held in the first millennium as an archbishop of the world who heard and organized appeals. But appellate jurisdiction is not the direct jurisdiction of Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus, in fact, Pastor Aeternus condemns the view that the pope’s jurisdiction is simply appellate. So Mr. Ybarra, in writing this article, is proposing the view the pope is acting with the type of immediate, also known as “direct” jurisdiction that allows the pope to individually and unilaterally override any bishops in any see for any reason. It is the same type of jurisdiction Pope St. Gregory the Great decried because it de-thrones the bishops and turns the holder of such power into the only real bishop, all others simply taking the role of auxiliaries at best.

Here below, we get the Roman gloss on the extent of jurisdiction which was understood to have been at play in the 4th century beginning with St. Athanasius and on through to the beginning of the 5th century under the Pontificate of Pope St. Innocent I (A.D. 401-417). It is rather odd that St. John Chrysostom’s story is not mentioned since Innocent definitely played a fundamental role in getting his holy name back into the sacred ditpcyha of the Eastern divine services.

But all of these examples are demonstrations of universal appellate jurisdiction. In the case of St. Athanasius, it was the Arian bishops themselves who appealed to Pope St. Julius to ratify their deposition of St. Athanasius – as the pope is the head of the universal synod, under regular circumstances, his consent is needed for something as major as deposing the patriarch of Alexandria, which is why ecumenical councils were typically called for such major causes. In the case of St. Innocent I, he was appealed to by St. John Chrysostom but St. John also appealed to bishops Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia with identical letters save for the address. How St. John’s name was re-entered into the diptychs of the east varied by area. At least in the case of St. Cyril of Alexandria, it was due entirely to the urging of St. Isidore of Pelusium.

Before we get into the actual letter, it is best to understand what St. Boniface was writing about. Geoffrey Dunn summarizes the issue:

“The controversy was in two parts. The first concerned Perigenes himself. A native of Corinth, he had been elected as bishop of Patras (ancient Patrae), although he had never taken up the appointment due to local opposition and had returned to Corinth. The problem with his eventual election as bishop of Corinth was that it could contravene canon 15 of the 325 Council of Nicaea, which prohibited the translation of a bishop from one church to another. The second problem concerned who had the authority to resolve this controversy. Since the bishops and people of the civil diocese were divided in their opinions, an appeal to a higher level of episcopal authority was needed. While some bishops turned to their colleague in Rome, others turned eventually to Atticus, bishop of Constantinople from 406 to 425, for a resolution. In five surviving letters, Boniface addressed the issue not only of the legitimacy of Perigenes’ election but the challenge to his own authority as the point of appeal.”[1]

In fact, Geoffrey D. Dunn, who teaches at the University of Pretoria and is an Elected Fellow of the Australian Humanities Academy (Nov 2019) has, in addition to translating and writing books on Tertullian and papal primacy in late antiquity, written several excellent articles on the topic of Pope Boniface I and the ordeal in Illyricum. They can be found here, here, and here.

I think, however, most of all, what is here being stated is over 5 centuries before the Greeks began to suspect the West for a Papalist heresy.

[Quoting Pope Boniface I] “The care of the universal Church, laid upon him, attends to the blessed Apostle Peter, by the Lord’s decree; which indeed, by the witness of the gospel, he knows to be founded on himself; nor can his honor ever be free from anxieties, since it is certain that the supreme authority (summam rerum) depends on his deliberation. Which things carry my mind even to the regions of the East, which by the force of our solicitude we in a manner behold. As the occasion needs it, we must prove by instances that the greatest Eastern churches, in important matters, which required greater discussion, have always consulted the Roman see, and, as often as need arose, asked its help.”

The quotation, which Mr. Ybarra does not cite, is plagiarized from Thoma Allies’ “The See of St. Peter: The Rock of the Church, The Source of Jurisdiction, & the Centre of Unity” p. 122. Of course, Mr. Ybarra views the letter through the lens of “Peter syndrome” in which vague and undefined terms like “care” (here, “sollicitudo”) suddenly mean or infer “infallibility” or “absolute control.” Further, “summam rerum” simply means “the highest/most important of things” (“rerum” is the genitive plural of “res” meaning “thing”). There is nothing in there about “authority” in the way Mr. Ybarra imagines it: as Vatican I. What is here is conciliarity akin to what is explained in Apostolic Canon 34: that everything be done with general consent and as head of the universal synod, the bishop of Rome, as all the patriarchs, would need to be part of any decision that would affect the Church universal.

But the point Geoffrey Dunn brings up is that despite initially speaking about the “universal Church,” when Boniface then goes on to say “regions of the East”, he is not talking about the actual East but about the eastern part of his own Roman patriarchate: the Balkans. This is obvious when we understand the Roman Empire was divided into four prefectures: Italy, Gaul, Illyricum, and the Oriens. Each of these were further divided into dioceses and each diocese further subdivided into provinces. The Prefectures of Italy, Gaul, and Illyricum made up the west of the Empire while the Prefecture of the Oriens, was Thrace and everything East. Due to the fact the ecclesiastical boundaries had tended to mirror the civil boundaries, Illyricum, early on, was part of Rome’s patriarchate and Rome therefore exercised patriarchal jurisdiction over it.

But under Emperor St. Theodosius (ruled 379-395), Illyricum [shown on the map above] was split into two sections: Illyricum Occidentale (“Western Illyricum” consisting of Pannonia, Noricum, Valeria Ripensis, Dalmatia, and Savia) and Illyricum Orientale (“Eastern Illyricum” consisting of Hellas, Epirus, New Epirus, Praevalitana, Thessaly, and Macedonia). Illyricum Orientale was then joined civilly to the Eastern Empire while Illyricum Occidentale was left remaining with the Western Empire. Based on the tendency for civil boundaries to dictate ecclesiastical ones, the bishops in Eastern Illyricum should have then fallen under the care of the Church of Constantinople and explains why, during the controversy, the bishops who did not want Perigenes as bishop of Corinth appealed to Constantinople after the pro-Perigenes party had appealed to Rome and received an answer in the affirmative. What gained the ire of Boniface was that Illyricum Orientale thought it appropriate to look to Patriarch Atticus of Constantinople despite the fact their own patriarch, Pope Boniface, had already lead a synod to settle the issue, and the bishops had taken it upon themselves to attempt to break their ties with Rome in favour of those with Constantinople. This was due no doubt in large part to linguistic and cultural ties to the Greek world. Dunn makes this abundantly clear:

“Even though the opening sentence of the letter had talked about Peter’s role within the universal church, reference to the East here is actually to a region where Rome’s claims would have been seen, at least at a time prior to this, as being no different from what was claimed over churches in Italy (and Illyricum Occidentale and, to some extent, Africa), or what the bishop of Alexandria would have claimed over Egypt and the bishop of Antioch over Syria. Even though it is true that in the opening sentences of the letter Boniface had mentioned both Peter’s care of the universal church and the East, a more careful reading of the letter sees that, in this instance at least, he was interested only in Illyricum Orientale not the entire East. Given that the old argument that Illyricum Orientale was part of Rome’s patriarchate…” [2]

Dunn continues, but in more detail:

“Boniface was not referring to all of the East, but only to the churches of Illyricum Orientale. They had long been part of Rome’s ecclesiastical responsibility because they had been within the prefecture of Italy, over which the Roman bishop exercised unfettered responsibility for confirming episcopal elections and hearing judicial appeals. Only in living memory had the two civil dioceses that now constituted the prefecture of Illyricum Orientale been transferred from the western to the eastern empire to become their own prefecture. They should have been assigned to the bishop of Thessaloniki as the leading bishop within the prefecture, to exercise those responsibilities, if the church was to follow the provincial model strictly, given that the ecclesiastical hierarchy of supervision was patterned upon the civil hierarchy of provinces, dioceses, and prefectures. Failing that, they should have been assigned to the bishop of Constantinople to exercise that prerogative, as he did no doubt over the civil diocese of Thraciae and probably over Asia and Pontica as well, since he was the closest leading bishop to the area Orientale was a region that traditionally had lain within the bishop of Rome’s responsibilities for supervision, but the reality had changed. Probably due to the fact that no-one knew that this transfer was going to endure (since the region of the Balkans had oscillated politically between East and West) and due to a sense of not wanting to give up power, the Roman bishops had not surrendered their claims over the churches of Illyricum Orientale.” [3]

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia echoes this understanding when it states:

“When Constantine the Great in A.D. 324 divided the entire Roman Empire into four prefectures, Illyricum, as one prefecture, was assigned to Western Rome, the residence of the praetorian prefect being Sirmium. On the accession of Theodosius I (379), the prefecture was divided into Eastern and Western Illyricum, the former embracing the two civil dioceses of Macedonia, including Epirus, Thessaly, and Greece, and Dacia, under the jurisdiction of a praetorian prefect residing at Thessalonica (Saloniki). Western Illyricum vas placed as a civil diocese under the authority of a vicar of the prefect of Italy residing at Sirmium. In 379, or more probably, not until 395, Eastern Illyricum became a part of the Eastern Empire

[…]

“Ecclesiastically, the whole of Illyricum, which had first received Christianity from St. Paul the Apostle, and Titus, his disciple, was from the first under the Bishop of Rome, as the Patriarch of the West, and, after the division of the empire, formed the eastern part of the territory subject to the pope, as Patriarch of Rome, although politically a part of Byzantium. As the patriarchs of Constantinople endeavoured to extend their patriarchal authority over Eastern Illyricum, the popes sought to preserve intact their jurisdiction over the eastern part of Illyria by appointing the bishops of Thessalonica papal vicars for Illyricum. The first of these vicars is said to have been Bishop Acholius or Ascholius, (d. 383 or 384), the friend of St. Basil. His successor, Anysius, was confirmed by Pope Damasus and his successor, Pope Siricius, as representative of the Roman See. In like manner, the succeeding popes, Anastasius I and Innocent I, extended the powers of the bishops of Thessalonica over Illyria. The authority vested in the bishops of Thessalonica over the metropolitans and other prelates of Illyria was substantially that usually enjoyed by a patriarch, except that patriarchal power is ordinary and attached to a definite see, while the jurisdiction of the vicars of Thessalonica was delegated; they exercised the patriarchal authority belonging to the pope, as his special commissary.” [4]

Illyricum was actually within the patriarchate of Rome until Emperor Leo III (ruled 717-741) removed it from Rome and placed it under Constantinople (and this remained a sticking point even being brought up by Pope Nicholas during the Photian Schism). This would have been obvious to Mr. Ybarra had he not simply pulled the quotation from a quote mine and reposted it uncritically. Had he done some basic research about it, it would have been clear the context of said letter is  that Boniface was writing concerning the translation of a bishop in the extreme east of his own patriarchal jurisdiction in Illyricum.

Athanasius and Peter, of holy memory, Bishops of the Church of Alexandria, asked the help of this see. When the Church of Antioch had been in trouble a long time, so that there was continual passing to and fro for this, first under Meletios, afterwards under Flavian, it is notorious that the Apostolic See was consulted. By whose authority, after many things done by our Church, every one knows that Flavian received the grace of communion, which he would have gone without if it were not because of letters from here acknowledging it. The Emperor Theodosius, of merciful memory, considering the ordination of Nectarius and its ratification, because it was not according to our rule [since he was a laymen], send an embassy of councilors and bishops, and solicited a letter of communion to be regularly dispatched to him from the Roman see, to confirm his episcopate [Nectarius’s]. A short time since, that is, under my predecessor Innocent, of blessed memory, the pontiffs of the Eastern churches, grieving at their severance from the communion of blessed Peter, asked by their legates for reconciliation, as your charity remains”(Coustant 1039)

The cases of Sts. Athanasius and Peter were appeals along the lines of the Sardican canons so they do not support the idea Mr. Ybarra thinks they do. In regards to St. Meletius of Antioch, Rome was not even in communion with him and actually backed his rival, Paulinus, considering St. Meletius an episcopal intruder. However, Rome did an about face and soon ignored Paulinus while acknowledging the line through St. Meletius as the correct lineages for the bishops of Antioch when it accepted Flavian into communion. Concerning the ordination of Nectarius, Boniface does not seem to understand the history and is contradicted by both the synod that consecrated him and the two main historians of the time. Dunn points out:

“Evidence in Socrates and Sozomen suggests a very different interpretation in that Nectarius was chosen at the council at the emperor’s directive and ordained by the 150 bishops in Constantinople. The letter from the bishops who met at another synod in Constantinople in 382, directed to the synod that met in Rome the same year, simply informed Rome that Nectarius had been ordained; it asked no approval or confirmation.” [5]

But would not asking consultation of Rome be an example of Rome’s universal and immediate jurisdiction as Vatican I proposes? Dunn states otherwise and explains why:

“…consultation did not mean that those churches recognised Rome’s universal concern as unique or amounting to superior authority. It suited Rome’s sense of importance to begin to assert that all consultation was such a recognition of superiority.” [6]

Mr. Ybarra then resumes stating:

What Boniface here states with regard to the Roman see was not privately held by the Pope himself, but also the same view was held by a Greek historian/Lawyer in Constantinople name Salminius Hermias Sozomenus (A.D. 400-450), or commonly Sozomen for short (Σωζομενός), who recounts the history of St. Athanasius [as well as other Nicaean bishops who were deposed] and his deposition by the Eastern synods, and the subsequent Roman exoneration : “…the Bishop of Rome, having investigated into the accusations of each [Athanasius, Paul of Cple, Marcecllus of Ancyra, & Asclepas of Gaza), found them all agreeing with the Nicene synod, admitted them to communion, as agreeing with him. And insofar as the care of the universal church belonged to Pope Julius on account of the rank of his see, he restored each to his respective Church” (Ecclesiastical History – Book III, Ch. VIII)

The eastern bishops had appealed to the Roman Synod to arbitrate between themselves and St. Athanasius, and Athanasius agrees to it. In fact, we have it directly from St. Athanasius himself as he actually relates the events in chapter two of his Apology Against the Arians. He states:

“Eusebius [an Arian bishop] and his fellows wrote also to [Pope] Julius, and thinking to frighten me, requested him to call a council, and to be himself the judge, if he so pleased. When therefore I went up to Rome, Julius wrote to Eusebius and his fellows as was suitable, and sent moreover two of his own Presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus. But they, when they heard of me, were thrown into confusion, as not expecting my going up there; and they declined the proposed Council, alleging unsatisfactory reasons for so doing, but in truth they were afraid lest the things should be proved against them which Valens and Ursacius afterwards confessed. However, more than fifty Bishops assembled, in the place where the Presbyter Vito held his congregation; and they acknowledged my defense, and gave me the confirmation both of their communion and their love.” (Apology Against the Arians Ch. 2)

Now it is true that Athanasius and Julius elsewhere state the Pope “summoned” the Arians, but here, the great saint gives the fuller narrative and shows there was actually no summons in the sense we think of it. Instead, the Arians had appealed to him for arbitration and then lost the arbitration when they refused to attend the council they requested. Second, it was not the pope on his own as Mr. Ybarra attempts infer but the Roman synod headed by the Pope that reviewed the case and restored those bishops. This is further backed up by the letter of Pope St. Julius, which St. Athanasius presents after the above introduction. In that letter, found here St. Julius describes himself as “inviting” the Arians to a council and speaks of it as “a proposal.” Even the term in that letter oft translated as “summon” also means “invite” so the point is moot.

In his video cited above, Mr. Ybarra quotes this letter:

“The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.” Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).

First, we see Pope St. Boniface uses similar logic to other patristic writers in identifying all bishops as Peter. He cannot afford to go all the way with it as he is currently in a fight where it is his only leverage: 

“His position that all churches, even the major churches of Alexandria and Antioch (and even Constantinople itself), looked to Rome, because as the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome was the world’s top-ranked bishop, was something of an admission that the church of Rome could not claim authority over the churches of Illyricum Orientale by means of the arguments they had used previously.” [7]

Second, head is an undefined term Mr. Ybarra semi-regularly believes to mean “infallible autocrat,” but we see this term applied onto other figures such as St. Basil using it in his LXVI letter to refer to Antioch when writing to St. Athanasius and for St. Athanasius himself in epistle LXIX[8].

Third, the “all has been assigned to it” is referring to the sixth and seventh canons of Nicaea, which is fairly innocuous because Rome is used simply as a model for the patriarchal jurisdictions of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Fourth, the entirety of the letter (letter 14, found in PL 20, 777) pertains to the subject of why the synod that was held to reconsider the case of Perigenes would be invalid – because it was acting without the consent of its patriarch, who, in this case, was the pope.

Further, it was moving dangerously close to schism because it was seeking to unilaterally end ties with its mother church and place itself under Constantinople not for the sake of orthodox doctrine, but for a non-essential disagreement and therefore initiating a schism. We do have an obligation to be in communion with all those who share apostolic succession and right belief and the bishops planning on meeting in council were disregarding that fact. This is why for numerous saints, specifically St. Cyprian, schism is worse than heresy because it is a rupture within the Church for selfish reasons not involving purity of doctrine and communion. In this sense, removing oneself from communion with Boniface would be exiting the Faith. To understand it any other way is to claim that one must be in communion with a heretic, which would be a violation of the purpose of communion and the canons.

There are two additional quotations from Pope St. Boniface I supposedly in support of Vatican I and though they are not quoted by Mr. Ybarra in his article or in any of his views, they are worth dissecting as they float around the internet.

“For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see.” Pope Boniface, to Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420).

“None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgment of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn.” Pope Boniface to Rufus and bishops of Macedonia (c. A.D. 420).

Again, this is in regard to the retrial of Perigenes, which was canonically dubious due to the bishops denying the role of their patriarchal primate who, in this case, was Pope Boniface as it was a territory in the patriarchate of Rome. Dunn notes:

“Finally, we have Boniface’s clear sense that he was the final avenue of appeal against the decisions taken in Illyricum Orientale. Since he had ruled already on the legality of Perigenes’ election to Corinth, a synod that was going to meet to reconsider Boniface’s ruling was an illegal gathering.” [9]

It should be noted that in the case of Anthony in North Africa, the assembled bishops – among them St. Augustine of Hippo – refused to re-enter Anthony into communion after he had been deposed in North Africa, fled to Rome where the Pope accepted him back into communion, and then sent him back to Africa with letters of communion. This took place over the papacies of St. Boniface I and St. Celestine I so St. Boniface stating that no one can revise the decisions of Rome is more St. Boniface bluffing than an actual representation of reality – saints can also bluff.

In closing, it would appear the following two quotations by Dunn succinctly capture the paradigm through which these events transpired:

“The point to be made is that this conflict was not about whether or not Rome had universal primacy, but which had the right to hear judicial appeals in the specific region of Illyricum Orientale. In other words, Boniface was not arguing for papal primacy but for what we may term, from a modern perspective, patriarchal primacy.”  [10]

“At this point Boniface was not wanting to make a claim to universal primacy of authority but to the continuation of authority over a region that traditionally had belonged to his church. With the political changes to the place of Illyricum Orientale with the political arrangements and, by extension, for ecclesiastical arrangements as well, the figure of Peter provided Boniface with a new ground for ascerting his authority over this particular region.” [11]

Far from being the believer in Vatican I’s universal, immediate, and ordinary papal jurisdiction Mr. Ybarra attempts to paint St. Boniface as, St. Boniface was arguing for the hegemony of Rome over its own suffregans. Had Mr. Ybarra reviewed the literature as well as bothered to read the background story before writing his article, he would have been made aware of this.

---

[1] Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Boniface I and Roman Ecclesiastical Supervision of the Churches of Illyricum Orientale: the Evidence of Retro Maioribus to Rufus of Thessaloniki.

[2] Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Boniface I’s Theology of Papal Authority and a Proposed Illyrian Synod in 422” p. 262

[3] Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Boniface I’s Theology of Papal Authority and a Proposed Illyrian Synod in 422” p. 260-262

[4] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

[5] Dunn, Geoffrey D “Boniface I’s Theology of Papal Authority and a Proposed Illyrian Synod in 422” p. 267

[6] Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Boniface I’s Theology of Papal Authority and a Proposed Illyrian Synod in 422” p. 259

[7] Boniface I’s Theology of Papal Authority and a Proposed Illyrian Synod in 422 p. 269

[8] Writing to St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Basil writes: “…But your anxiety for all the Churches is no less than that which you feel for the Church that has been entrusted to you by our common Lord…With the object of offering some contribution to the action which is being taken in this matter, I have thought that I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all, and treating you alike as advisor and commander in the enterprise.” (Ep. LXIX)

“What, throughout all the West is more honored than your venerable grey hairs? […] Dispatch from the holy Church placed under your care men of ability in sound doctrine to the bishops in the West. […] But plainly the discipline of the Church of Antioch depends upon your reverence’s being able to control some, to reduce others to silence, and to restore strength to the Church by concord. No one knows better than you do, that, like all good physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what is more vital to the Churches than Antioch? Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head soundness to all of the body […] Once again, in this case too, we trust that the ministry of matters so important may beseem your excellency, with the result that you will lay the tempest of the people, do away with the party superior it’s, and subject all to one another in love, and give back to the Church her ancient strength.” (Ep. LXVI)

[9] Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Boniface I’s Theology of Papal Authority and a Proposed Illyrian Synod in 422” p. 270

[10] Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Boniface I and Roman Ecclesiastical Supervision of the Churches of Illyricum Orientale: The Evidence of Retro Maioribus to Rufus of Thessaloniki” p. 127

[11] Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Boniface I’s Theology of Papal Authority and a Proposed Illyrian Synod in 422” p. 270