Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) reads as follows (emphasis added):
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.
Commenting on the problematic nature of this canon to papal claims, two Traditonalist Catholics priests wrote:
Canon Twenty-Eight
One area of contention in the East that would eventually lead to the Greek Schism was the status of the bishop (patriarch) of Constantinople. Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople was excommunicated by Pope St. Felix III in 484 AD and the East remained in schism for 35 years. The final break between East and West occurred nearly 500 years later in 1054. In order to grasp the causes of contention between East and West, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the hierarchical structure of the Church.
The First Council of Nicea (325 AD) gave the following order of precedence: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The First Council of Constantinople (381 AD) attempted to give preeminence to the see of Constantinople since it was deemed the “New Rome.” On October 31, 451 AD the 15th session of the Council of Chalcedon was held even though the papal legates were absent. Several Eastern bishops tried “an end around” and skilfully composed the controversial 28th canon that attempted to give the see of Constantinople precedence over more ancient sees.
Even though the papal legates opposed Canon 28, the council nevertheless approved it. Pope Leo refused to accept this canon and responded with a series of letters attempting to persuade the patriarch of Constantinople not to meddle with the established order of ecclesiastical precedence. He explained how Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch (all ancient cities existing before Constantinople itself) were considered apostolic sees and as such, preceded Constantinople in rank. Constantinople held primacy in the civil realm as the imperial city but did not hold primacy according to ecclesiastical rank. This issue was addressed many centuries later during the Fourth Lateran Council and this order of precedence was altered. (Francisco Radecki and Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times: The Twenty General Councils of the Catholic Church and Vatican II and its Aftermath [Wayne, Mich.: St. Joseph’s Media, 2004], 45)
On p 46, under the heading of “Papal Primacy,” the authors caution that:
One must realize that the preeminence of the Sea of Rome was not as clearly delineated at that time as it is today. Pope St. Leo the Great emphasized Papal Primacy as no previous pope had done.
Even as late as the Council of Constance (1414-1418) we see this:
Although considered a legitimate council, not all 45 sessions of the Council of Constance were approved. Some of the propositions of the council, especially those dealing mainly with Papal Primacy and their relationship between popes and General Councils of the Church, were openly heretical and were condemned by subsequent pontiffs. (Ibid., 160)
It is necessary to note that the authors' tipping their hat at some form of development hypothesis, á la John Cardinal Henry Newman et al., goes against dogmatic theology concerning the papacy. For fuller discussions, see:
