What council's canon said Christ was born on a Lord's Day?

[NaphtaliPress]

Some of the father's said Christ was born on a Friday but others, and a sixth synod of somewhere specifically, declared it was a Lord's Day? Voetius calls it the Sixth of Constantinople but the source he likely draws from does not say that but merely the sixth synod? Any ideas. I've scoured the sixth of Constantinople (third general) but can't find it.
Voetius:

Voetius's souce:

 

[Phil D.]

That's another doozie... Like you said it's hard even to know if Voetius' interpretation of his source's ridiculously vague reference is correct (who is that, btw?). The 5th and 6th ecumenical councils, both in Constantinople, didn't produce any canons, and the others didn't address that topic. There was another council in Constantinople sometimes denominated "6th" held in 869, but there is nothing in those canons that matches. There have been jillions of synods and councils, with many locations holding six or more, so trying to just pick out the proper search parameters without a date seems virtually impossible. Topical searches are coming up blank...

 

[NaphtaliPress]

That's another doozie... Like you said it's hard even to know if Voetius' interpretation of his source's ridiculously vague reference is correct (who is that, btw?). The 5th and 6th ecumenical councils, both in Constantinople, didn't produce any canons, and the others didn't address that topic. There was another council in Constantinople sometimes denominated "6th" held in 869, but there is nothing in those canons that matches. There have been jillions of synods and councils, with many locations holding six or more, so trying to just pick out the proper search parameters without a date seems virtually impossible. Topical searches are coming up blank...

Someone I'd never run across before: Jerome of Guadalupe on Luke.

 

[Phil D.]

So, actually now I found it... I was not previously aware of the canons apparently attributed to the 6th Ecumenical Council (3rd Constantinople). They sure don't seem to be commonly talked about at all.

Canon VIII

Diei vero dominici (quia in eo Deus lucem condidit, in eo manna, in eremo pluit, in eo nasci dignatus est, in eo stella magis refulsit, in eo de quinque panibus & duobus piscibus quinque millia hominum pavilt, in eo baptismum a Joanne in Jordane suscepit, in eo ipse pius redemptor humani generis sponte pro salute nostra a mortus resurrexit, in eo Spiritum sanctum super discipulos infudit) tanta debet esse observantia, ut praeter orationes & missarum solennia, & e aquae ad vescendum pertinent, nihil aliud fiat.

Concerning the Lord's Day (because in it God created light, in it manna was rained down in the desert, in it He was pleased to be born and His natal star shone most brightly, in it five thousand people were fed on five loaves and two fishes, in it He undertook baptism by John in the Jordan, in it the blessed Redeemer of the human race sovereignly rose from the dead for our salvation, in it the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples), there must be such regard that except for preaching, appointed masses, and that which pertains to food and water, nothing else is to be done. [...or something like that...]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

So, actually now I found it... I was not previously aware of the canons apparently attributed to the 6th Ecumenical Council (3rd Constantinople). They sure don't seem to be commonly talked about at all.

Canon VIII

Diei vero dominici (quia in eo Deus lucem condidit, in eo manna, in eremo pluit, in eo nasci dignatus est, in eo stella magis refulsit, in eo de quinque panibus & duobus piscibus quinque millia hominum pavilt, in eo baptismum a Joanne in Jordane suscepit, in eo ipse pius redemptor humani generis sponte pro salute nostra a mortus resurrexit, in eo Spiritum sanctum super discipulos infudit) tanta debet esse observantia, ut praeter orationes & missarum solennia, & e aquae ad vescendum pertinent, nihil aliud fiat.

Concerning the Lord's Day (because in it God created light, in it manna was rained down in the desert, in it He was pleased to be born as the natal star shone most brightly, in it five thousand people were fed on five loaves and two fishes, in it He took up baptism by John in the Jordan, in it the blessed Redeemer of the human race sovereignly rose from the dead for our salvation, in it the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples), there must be such regard that except for prayers, preaching, solemn masses, and that which pertains to food and water, nothing else is to be done. [...or something like that...]

Thanks so much Phil; I was pouring through the extremely poor copies of Mansi via links compiled at Thoughts of Francis Turretin but simply was not finding it. I'm surprised you hit upon so good a copy of vol. 11 at Google.

 

[Phil D.]

This webpage has links to generally good GB copies (by far my preferred online reading format). But there are several editions of Labbe-Mansi-Cossart, and I don't have a good grasp on on all the particulars. I just sometimes find that when I look for something that I know was "there" it's not. There also seems to be some question as to the provenance of these 9 canons, hence their somewhat out-of-place location in Labbe-Mansi. I also noticed that unlike other documents from the 6/3 council there is only a Latin translation, not what would have been the original Greek. I suppose it might merit some further investigation. Reminds me of the so-called 20 Acts of the Nicene Council. They were widely cited in medieval times, then deemed by most to be spurious, but now some respectable scholars are suggesting they may be genuine after all...

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This webpage has links to generally good GB copies (by far my preferred online reading format). But there are several editions of Labbe-Mansi-Cossart, and I don't have a good grasp on on all the particulars. I just sometimes find that when I look for something that I know was "there" it's not. There also seems to be some question as to the provenance of these 9 canons, hence their somewhat out-of-place location in Labbe-Mansi. I also noticed that unlike other documents from the 6/3 council there is only a Latin translation, not what would have been the original Greek. I suppose it might merit some further investigation. Reminds me of the so-called 20 Acts of the Nicene Council. They were widely cited in medieval times, then deemed by most to be spurious, but now some respectable scholars are suggesting they may be genuine after all...

While I'm sure there's more to it; I've got too many mysteries in this one piece to solve to go further. Mansi prefaces the canons (col. 1005) by saying they are falsely ascribed, so by then (mid 18th century?) the canons were deemed spurious.