"Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and
archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and
bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them
otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth
him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although
the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the
care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is
over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power,
just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all
patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is
given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who
is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole
Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is
excommunicated by the Synod."
I know this was not in the original canons. But who knows when it was composed?
A couple of things, just from this, on dating:
1) Since Nicea made only 20 canons, we know this is a forgery.
2) It is in Arabic. Now, Arabic does not become a written literary language until after the rise of Islam and the establishment of the caliphate. Based on the evidence of Christian Arabic documents, the EARLIEST these canons can date is from the second half of the 8th cent., i.e. over 4 centuries AFTER Nicea, and at BEST, a contemporary of the Seventh Ecumenical council.
3) Yes, Constantinople being omitted in the other Arabic canon when it had already been established as the second See shows an axe to grind.
4) Since Ephesus had been destroyed by an earthquake, its harbor silted up, and sacked by the Arabs/Muslims by the 8th cent., the appeal to anachronism also speaks ill for it.
5) A inconvenient little fact forgotten by the ultramontanist is that whereas during the last centuries of the first milleninium New Rome had most of her patriarchate intact, Rome had lost most of her original patriarchate (and most of that to this day) to the Muslims. And Rome had issues all during the period enforcing its authority on the Mozarabic Church of Spain, and trying to suppress its native rites. So, we can't be sure that this forgery came from the East.
6) Hefele mentions a Maronite in connection with these canons. Despite the mythology othewise, the Maronites were not under Rome until the 12th century (we have eyewitness reports to that). I.e., not well until after the Orthodox had struggled against the ultramontanists for centuries. Btw, a Maronite source doesn't mean he didn't make use of a Western forgery: Spain and North Africa were in regular contact with the Arabs and others back East.