In the year 785, the Empress of Byzantium, Irene, wrote to Pope Hadrian I petitioning him to be present at an Ecumenical Council at which to defend the veneration of holy images. In return, the Pope wrote 2 letters, one to Irene and Constantine VI (her 9 year old son for whom she was vice regent), and another to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios. These documents defend the lawful veneration of holy images, but they also include some of the most glaring testimonies of the divine institution of the Papal office. However, many historians and theologians, even if recognizing the clear proof of some sort of Roman primacy, have been hesitant to admit that the full blown claims of Hadrian were acceptable to the Greeks at this time (8th century). Such hesitations are rooted in the manuscript transmission of the Acts of the Council.
Pope Hadrian sent 2 of his legates to represent the Apostolic See at the Council of Nicaea (787) along with 2 letters that were to be read aloud in Greek and Latin in the presence of all the Bishops. It has long been held that the text of Hadrian’s 1st letter was tampered with by the Greek bishops, under the direction of Patriarch Tarasios, and with the willing consent of the Papal legates, in order to avoid the Council from accepting certain intolerable claims. In particular, some have held that the 1st letter was drastically altered since the Latin text contained offensive and unacceptable Papal claims to supremacy and infallibility, but more specifically, this 1st letter includes the Pope’s harsh complaints against the abnormal ordination to the Patriarchate of Tarasios, who was rushed through holy orders from being a laymen.The Pope held that being raised from the lay state to Patriarch was uncanonical. Nevertheless, the Pope was going to dispense from canon law to recognize Tarasios as the lawful Patriarch on condition he accept the restoration of image veneration in Constantinople. In any case, the claim here is that the Greeks couldn’t tolerate hearing claims to Papal supremacy and complaints of uncanonical activity, and so Tarasios, with the agreement of everyone else at the Council (or just before the Council), changed the Pope’s words (!) in order to reflect an Eastern Orthodox conciliarism rather than a Roman supremacy, and to scratch off the Pope’s complaints about Tarasios.
The above has been a common interpretation. However, there has recently been top quality scholarship that has effectively overturned the credibility of it. Dr. Erich Lamberz, a world renowned scholar in text criticism, Greek codicology, and the Patristic Councils, and who is responsible for procuring the first critical edition of the text of of these Acts of the Council in the Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Series (ACO), has contributed irrefutable arguments that prove that both Hadrian’s letters were read in their full original Latin at the Council, and were only changed at a later date after the Council was completed.  In addition to him, the late Dr. Luitpold Wallach, a Professor in the Classics, has also contributed arguments which prove the same point, albeit with arguments that are less convincing . Nevertheless, the fact that the Latin letters of Hadrian were read in their original is sufficiently proven by the scholarship of both. Fr. Richard Price, the Patristics scholar who has translated the volumes provided by Lamberz of the 2nd Nicaean Council, has justly followed the conclusions of both Lamberz and Wallach. Other notable scholars have followed as well. Prestigous Byzantinists Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, in their magisterial Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era, c. 680-850, have likewise followed the same reasoning. Thomas F.X. Nobles, in his Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians (p. 73), also refers to the “learned” arguments of Wallach, and comments that it would be “odd that the conciliar records have the authenticating testimony of the papal legates after the Pope’s letters were read in 787 if those letters had been significantly altered.” Byzantine historian Warren Treadgold, in his The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (p. 400), has also positively referred to Wallach.
There are three basic arguments, among others given by Lamerbz/Wallach, that sufficeintly convince me that the idea of textual modification by the Greeks at the Council was simply impossible. They are as follows:
(1) The 2nd letter of Hadrian was also read at the 2nd session of the Council, and the Papal claims there, which cite the divine institution of the Roman supremacy from the Gospel according to St. Matthew 16:18-19 and speak of an exclusively unique Petrine succession for the Roman Pontiffs as heads of the universal Church, was not modified to reflect a weaker sense of Papal supremacy. Had the Greek bishops been careful to modify this in the 1st letter of Hadrian, they would have undoubtedly modified it in the 2nd letter (see Price, 148, fn. 27).
(2) When the Papal legates returned from Nicaea, Pope Hadrian had the Greek Acts translated into Latin, and this manuscript is known as the First Latin Nicaenum. This was the Latin version that sat together with the Greek version in the Roman archives, and we know that the Latin version reflects the longer and more “Papal” version of Hadrian’s 1st letter to the Emperors. That means the original Greek would have had this longer more “Papal” version, as well. We know this from letters that were written in the West which had cited from the First Latin Nicaenum and the text construction proves to be only match the Latin of the First Latin Nicaenum, and therefore the original Greek of the 787 Council. This is shown in the Latin of one of Pope Hadrian’s letters to “Charlemagne (epistola ad Carolum), the Frankish Libri Carolini, and the Acts of the Synod of Paris 825” .
(3) In 860, when Pope Nicholas complained in a letter to Emperor Michael III about the abrupt and unexplained deposition of the Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople and the abnormal (“uncanonical”) election of Photius, the Pope refers to Pope Hadrian’s 1st letter read aloud at the Council of Nicaea 787 who complained about the same issue with Patriarch Tarasios’s quick elevation from the lay state to the Patriarchate. However, that portion of Hadrian’s 1st letter is missing in the contemporary Greek version of it. This means that the Latin that was translated from Greek upon the return to the legates under Hadrian was the authentic original, and which had the longer version of Hadrian’s letter. That means that any modification or subtraction of that text took place after the Council had been completed. Moreover, in 862 Pope Nicholas wrote to Photius, who himself had appealed to Tarasios as a justification for a quick elevation to the Patriarchate, and thre the Pope again refers Photius to the Acts of Nicaea’s 2nd session for Hadrian’s letter where the latter complains about such an action as contrary to the canons. In his response letter, Photius did not object to such a reference to the Nicaean Acts, which shows that the longer (original) Latin, translated into Greek, was still there in Constantinople . These epistolary exchanges all took place well before 873, when Anastasius Bibliothecarius translated a fresh copy of the Acts of Nicaea 787 from the Greek as a dedicated work to Pope John VIII.
However, even if it is extremely unlikely, let us suppose that the Greeks at the Council did modify Hadrian’s 1st letter. Does it really change anything? Let us walk on the thin limb which concedes, for the sake of argument, that the letter was changed by the Greeks. On this limb, does it show that the Greeks were rejecting what appeaed to them to be intolerable Papal claims from the Latin version? I argue that there is not a world-of-difference, and the very same thing that would have been intolerable about the Latin version is still left in the Greek version, namely, Roman supremacy and infallibility.
If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors.
Latin text adds: “… venerated it as the head of all Churches.”
The Latin text speaks of the “judgment” of the Church of Peter, who is the single Chief of the Apostles, and that the bishop of this Church is the Vicar of Peter. The Greek text says the “tradition” of the Church which belongs to both Paul and Peter, and refers to these two together as the (plural) Chiefs of the Apostles, and that the bishop of Rome is the Vicar of both Apostles. Then the Greek text says that Peter and Paul were uniquely given the power of the keys by “God the Word himself” to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth, while the Latin says Peter alone uniquely received the keys.
The Latin text goes on to say the Roman See is the “highest See”.
The last part is really where we see a large difference between the Latin and Greek versions. The Latin text goes on to focus exclusively on Peter and the chiefship or primacy given to him by Christ and how this primacy gets passed onto his successors until the consummation or end of time. The Greek texts, in keeping with the pattern, adds Paul to the dynamic of Apostolic primacy, but adds something that the Latin text does not, namely, that the occupants of the “seats” (thrones) of Peter and Paul would, by a constitutional law, remain in the true faith until the consummation of all things.
If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.
Now, let’s begin taking the differences apart one by one:
(1) The first difference is that the Latin text says that the Roman Church is venerated as the “head of all the churches“. If the Greeks bishops at the Council of Nicaea 2 were so intent upon rejecting that the bishop of Rome was the Church’s universal head from the Acts , then they would have also been meticulous to remove the same claim from everywhere else in the Acts. However, there are significant areas in the Acts where Rome or Peter by himself is unashamedly left in writing as the “head of all the churches” or “head of all the apostles”. As already mentioned above, in the 2nd letter of Pope Hadrian, the Greek version still says that the Roman See, which is St. Peter’s see, is the “head of all the churches of God” (c.f. Price, 180), and says so twice within the distance of a couple sentences. Why didn’t the Greeks omit that if they were so careful to omit it from the 1st letter of Hadrian? Patriarch St. Tarasios himself, who was the Council’s president alongside the Papal legates, and who conducted the reading of the letters of Hadrian in Session 2 of the Council, refers to Pope Hadrian one “presiding lawfully and by God’s will over the holy hierarchs” (Price, 632), which means that the Pope presides over all Patriarchs, and therefore the whole government of the universal Church. In the 4th canon of the Council, the Apostle Peter is referred to as the “supreme head of the Apostles” (ἡ κερυφαία ἀκρότης), where κερυφαία means “summit spot” or “top place”, i.e. the supreme (Price takes the translation “supreme”, c.f. 613). One has to wonder just why it is that the omission of Rome as the “head of all the churches” from the Greek text could have been performed by the Greek bishops at the Council in order to suppress this claim when elsewhere in the same Council they were happy to leave it in.
(2) The second difference is that the Latin text states that the Roman Church is the Church of Peter, and the bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Peter, whereas the Greek version says that the Roman Church is the Church of the (plural) Chiefs of the Apostles, both Peter and Paul. But again, if the Greeks were so meticulous to remove the idea that Rome could be referred to as uniquely the Church of Peter, they would have also removed that claim elsewhere in the rest of the Acts. But they did not. Again, in the 2nd epistle of Hadrian, the following was said by the Pope and not affected by any textual emendation:
“May all the weeds be uprooted from the church, and may the word of our Lord Jesus Christ be fulfilled, that ‘the gates of hell will not prevail against it,’ and further, ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I shal build my church. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ His see shines forth as primatial throughout the world and is the head of all the churches of God. Therefore the same blessed Peter the Apostle, shepherding the church at the command of the Lord, has left nothing to neglect, but upholds, and has always upheld, her authority” (Price, 180).
Here, Pope Hadrian cites the same Matthean commission given to Peter by giving him the keys of the kingdom of heaven with which to bind and loose and makes it a direct connection between this commission of the keys with the primacy and headship of the Roman Church over the universal Church, and further says that the very same Peter to whom Christ gave this authority continues the shepherd the church by the divine command of Christ and has always upheld its authority. It is unmistakable that Hadrian is working here with the idea of a divinely instituted authority given to Peter and continually retained by the episcopal occupants of the Roman Church by way of succession. And so if it were true that the Greeks sought to scrape away any idea of a Petrine exclusivity from Hadrian’s 1st letter, why did they not scape the same from the 2nd letter by adding the Pauline element? In fact, that they left untouched such Petrine claims in Hadrian’s 2nd letter, means that they intend the same significance for Rome by Peter’s contribution when they described the Roman Church as both the Church of Peter and Paul. In other words, the Petrine element of the dual-apostolicity should be defined by what they elsewhere say of the Petrine contribution to Rome, and that is defined by what is said above.
Fr. Richard Price takes not that the “Greek text of this letter does not water down Hadrian’s claim to supreme authority as the successor of St. Peter in the way that the Greek version of the letter to the emperors does” (Price, 148), and then goes on to refer to the scholarship of Erich Lamberz who argued that the letter of Hadrian to the Emperors must have been changed in a context where such claims would be offensive, namely, sometime after the council, when “it was being used as a separate document” (Price, 148, fn. 27) since “if the change had been made in the first edition of the Acts it would surely have been made in both letters” right on the spot under the supervision of Patriarch Tarasios and the Papal legates. So, in sum, the 2nd letter of the Pope read aloud at the Council, and inserted into the official Greek Acts, still has a bold proclamation of an exclusive Petrine supremacy based on divine institution and perpetuated in Peter’s successor in the Roman bishopric. The added Pauline element in the Greek text of Hadrian’s 1st letter, therefore, could never have been interpolated to water down the exclusive Petrine supremacy of Rome at the sessions of the Council. If the Pauline and Petrine duality was interpolated at the Council, it must have been done for other reasons.
(3) The third difference is that the Latin text we have goes on to say that the authority given to Peter has passed down to his successors in the Roman bishopric, and that said authority over the universal church continues by divine institution forever. This note of divine perpetuity is the real clincher proving what contemporary Orthodox interpreters find intolerable. And so, some claim that the Greek version completely cleanses this idea from the Acts. However, is the Greek version much different? The Greek states:
“Αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἱ ἅγιοι καὶ κορυφαῖοι τῶν ἀποστόλων οἱ τὴν καθολικὴν καὶ ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν ἐναρξάμενοι ἐγγράφως ἐθεσμοθέτησαν τὴν αὐτῶν πίστιν κρατεῖν πάντας τοὺς μετ’ αὐτοὺς διαδόχους μέλλοντας γίνεσθαι τῶν θρόνων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ διαμένειν ἕως τῆς συντελείας”
The NPNF ed. by Schaff translates it as follows:
“For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.”
However, it could be translated better as follows :
“For the holy and chief Apostles themselves [Peter and Paul], who set up the Catholic and Orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their thrones [Roman Pontiffs] hold their Faith and remain in it until the culmination of all things.”
When it refers to the “κορυφαῖοι τῶν ἀποστόλων” (chief Apostles), it is a reference to none other than Peter and Paul. And so this is not a reference to the Apostles in general. Moreover, when it says “τῶν θρόνων αὐτῶν” (their thrones), this is not a reference to the general episcopate of any church, but specifically the position of the their Vicar, who is the Roman Bishop. Therefore, this text is referring to the Bishops of Rome. And lastly, there is no “should” in the Greek, as the NPNF states, and the context would suggest that what is meant is the Apostles Peter and Paul fixed it as a law in writing that their successors, i.e. the Vicars of Peter and Paul, i.e. the Roman bishops, will hold their faith all the way unto the consummation, or culmination, of all things. The word “συντελείας” carries more significance than simply “the end” (c.f. NPNF), and signifies the completion of history or this world’s consummation. Anytime the Scripture or the Fathers assert a state or condition which will remain “ἕως τῆς συντελείας”, they mean that it is a permanent reality. For example, when Christ told the Apostles “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (ἕως τῆς συντελείας”, the condition of his presence is meant to be understood as permanent. Likewise, the context of Hadrian’s letter, in the Greek, is that if the Empire of Rome follows the faith of Peter and Paul from the Apostolic See of Rome, the Empire is sure to prosper, and the rationale given is that the Church of Rome will uphold the Apostolic faith of Peter and Paul until the end of time. Therefore, the NPNF reading, which sounds like the Apostles gave a written command for their successors to keep the faith, something which they can fail at doing, is quite alien to the context, and the Greek text.
With these points adduced, let us read the Greek version of Hadrian’s 1st letter.
And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their thrones hold their Faith and remain in it until the very end of the world”
So here the Greek text of Hadrian is urging the Emperor to follow the tradition of the faith of the Roman Church, the Church of Peter and Paul, because if they “honour” this Church, they will be honouring the Church of Peter and Paul, and by doing that, both Peter and Paul will “extend their shield” over the Roman Empire and will make the Emperors “conquerors.” And then the text proceeds with “For the holy and chief apostles themselves”. So whatever the last line is about is the ground reason for the former. In sum, the fact that the Chief Apostles have rendered it a law that their successors, i.e. the Roman bishops, should certainly remain in their own faith until the end of time, it is certain that if the Roman Emperor honors the Church of Peter and Paul, that very faith will protect their empire.
One more point should be added. Some controversialists might point out that Pope Innocent X (1644-1655) issued a decree entitled “Error of the Dual Head of the Church” through the Holy Office wherein the conception of St. Peter and St. Paul being the heads of the Church was condemned. Thus, one might point out that the Greek version of Hadrian’s 1st letter is not acceptable to Catholic beliefs. However, that decree states the following:
“The most holy … has decreed and declared heretical this proposition so presented that it established an exact equality between St. Peter and St. Paul, without subordination and subjection of St. Paul to St. Peter in supreme power, and in the rule of the universal Church: ‘St. Peter and St. Paul are the two princes of the Church who form one head, or: there are two Catholic heads and supreme leaders of the Catholic Church, joined in highest unity between themselves’; or, ‘the head of the Catholic Church consists of two who are most divinely united into one’; or, ‘there are two supreme pastors and guardians of the Church, who form one head only.'”
The condemnation applies to the exact equality of St. Peter and St. Paul, or that both of them converge into one power, such that St. Peter alone is not sufficient to meet the requirement of a supreme head. This is not what is explicitly said in the Greek version of Hadrian’s letter. Moreover, the 2nd letter of Hadrian suffices to say that the Petrine element of the Roman primacy is alone sufficient to be the universal head. Pope St. Leo the Great is famous for the following about the unique election and dual apostolicity of St. Peter and St. Paul:
“for God’s Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election , alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God’s Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles’ merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Sermon 82)
And yet, no one disputes that if we are talking about the authoritative prerogative of primacy between St. Peter and St. Paul is not equal in the mind of St. Leo. He still understood every bishop of the world when he said “that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head” (Letter 10). Elsewhere: “But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles : and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery” and “Yet any one who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth.” (Letter 14). So the Petrine uniqueness isn’t destroyed even in the mind of someone who puts them on the same level when it comes to their being Apostles, their being martyrs, and their merits in the Christian mission. Pope of Rome have been appealing to the dual authority of Peter and Paul well past the 1st millennium up unto recent times, and yet no one would insist that Rome was thereby equating the two Apostles absolutely.
In conclusion, what we have here is a Greek text that says the Roman Church is the chief Church of the chief Apostles, Peter and Paul, and that their Vicars, the bishops of Rome, are constituted as permanently fixed in the Apostolic faith until the consummation of all things. It really doesn’t matter that the Greek text includs Paul, since many Popes of Rome who were adamant about the Petrine investiture (the Matthean, Lukan, and Johannine commissions of Peter) being the ground of Roman primacy also includedd Paul’s ministry in Rome as another adornment. Where Peter and Paul are together, you still have Peter. And especially since the Council elsewhere explicitly accepts the unique Petrine authority of Rome and its succession, as well as Rome as the universal head of all the churches, it just seems very unlikely that there was a concerted effort by Taraios and the Greeks to eradicate the Papacy from the text. If that was their effort, they considerably failed, and did a poor job. This is all the more reason to accept the scholarship of Fr. Richard Price, who takes from Erich Lamberz and Luitpold Wallach, and argue that the Latin text was originally read as it came from Hadrian, and it was read in both Latin and Greek as the original dictated, and changed were later made. However, in this case, it is uncertain how we came to have the shortened and changed Greek version. It does not reflect an anti-Papal motive, and so it remains a mystery.
 Through private correspondence with Byzantine historian John Haldon, he referred me to the many articles of Erich Lamberz. When I reached out to Lamberz himself, he referred to the english literature provided by Fr. Richard Price as summarizing his arguments and convictions. However, if the reader is fluent in German, here are the articles provided to me by Haldon:
E. Lamberz, ‘ “Falsata Graecorum more”? Die griechische Version der Briefe Papst Hadrians 1. in den Akten des VII. Ökumenischen Konzils’, in C. Sode and S. Takács, Novum Millenium. Studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck (Aldershot 2001): 213-229
See also his detailed analytical introduction to his edn of the Acts of 787 (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II, 3.1: Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum, Concilii actiones I-III, ed. E. Lamberz. Berlin 2008)
Additionally you may find the following informative:
E. Lamberz, ‘Studien zur Überlieferung der Akten des VII. Ökumenischen Konzils : Der Brief Hadrians I. an Konstantin VI. und Irene (JE 2448)’, Deutsches Archiv für die Erforschung des Mittelalters 53/1 (1997): 1-43
E. Lamberz, ‘Die Überlieferung und Rezeption des VII. Ökumenischen Konzils (787) in Rom und im lateinischen Westen’, in Roma fra Oriente e Occidente (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 49. Spoleto 2002): 1053-1099
E. Lamberz, Die Bischofslisten des VII. Ökumenischen Konzils (Nicaenum II), Abhandlungen d. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. (2004), Neue Folge, Heft 124
 Luitpold Wallach, “The Greek and Latin Versions of II Nicaea, 787, and the Synodica of Hadrian I (JE2448),” in Diplomatic Studies in Latin and Greek Documents from the Carolingian Age (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 2-26
 Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), trans. Richard Price (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2020), 18. Also c.f. page 147.
 Ibid., 147.
 Translation assistance and confirmation from those affluent in Greek.
 Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The Sources of Catholic Dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (p. 315). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.