Council of Chalcedon

===The status of Constantinople===
In a canon of disputed validity,<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.aoiusa.org/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/ |title= Canon xxviii & eastern papalism: cause or effect? | publisher = AOI USA |access-date= 2013-02-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130110112941/http://www.aoiusa.org/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/ |archive-date= 2013-01-10}}</ref> the Council of Chalcedon also elevated the See of Constantinople to a position "second in eminence and power to the [[diocese of Rome|Bishop of Rome]]".<ref name="Bokenkotter84"/><ref name="Noble214"/>

The Council of Nicaea in 325 had noted that the Sees of the [[Patriarch of Rome|Rome]], [[Patriarch of Alexandria|Alexandria]] and the [[Patriarch of Antioch|Antioch]], should have primacy over other, lesser dioceses. At the time, the See of Constantinople was not yet of ecclesiastical prominence, but its proximity to the Imperial court gave rise to its importance. The Council of Constantinople in 381 modified the situation somewhat by placing Constantinople second in honor, above Alexandria and Antioch, stating in Canon III, that "the bishop of Constantinople… shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome". In the early 5th century, this status was challenged by the bishops of Alexandria, but the Council of Chalcedon confirmed in Canon XXVIII:
{{blockquote|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 (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) 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.<ref name=  SevenCouncils />}}

In making their case, the council fathers argued that tradition had accorded "honor" to the see of older Rome because it was the first imperial city. Accordingly, "moved by the same purposes" the fathers "apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome" because "the city which is honored by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her".<ref>''Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils'', ed. Norman P. Tanner, SJ, 99–100.</ref> The framework for allocating ecclesiastical authority advocated by the council fathers mirrored the allocation of imperial authority in the later period of the [[Roman Empire]]. The Eastern position could be characterized as being political in nature, as opposed to a doctrinal view. In practice, all Christians East and West addressed the papacy as the See of Peter and Paul or the Apostolic See rather than the See of the Imperial Capital. Rome understands this to indicate that its precedence has always come from its direct lineage from the apostles Peter and Paul rather than its association with Imperial authority.{{clarify|reason=The debate was not over Roman primacy, or the grounds for it, for over primacy in the East: Constantinople was now given primacy over Alexandria and Antioch, and this could only be done on the basis of its status as the imperial capital. Rome objected because it saw the demotion of Alexandria and Antioch as uncanonical|date=January 2012}}

After the passage of the Canon 28, Rome filed a protest against the reduction of honor given to Antioch and Alexandria. However, fearing that withholding Rome's approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 the pope confirmed the council's canons while declaring the 28th null and void. This position would change and later be accepted in 1215 at the [[Fourth Council of the Lateran]].