One of the illustrations of this thousand-year-old mutual misunderstanding can be found in the last act, which came out of the depths of the council and can be morally qualified as an act of the entire council. This is a solemn letter from the entire plenum of the Eastern episcopate to Pope Leo with a petition to confirm the 28th canon protested by his legates. The letter is ultra-diplomatic, complimentary, designed to at least soften the irreconcilable position of the legates. The protest of the legates, of course, turned into a firm protest of Pope Leo himself. In no way wishing to enter into a clash with the pope, the emperor was in no hurry to confirm all the acts of the council, for only after church confirmation did he approve the council as an imperial law. Anatoly had to send the lowest petition for approval. It is an example of epistolary flattery, and, moreover, of the recognition of the special prerogatives of the bishop of Rome in the Church, which served both as a support for the papal pretensions and as a proof to Rome afterwards that the Greeks themselves had betrayed their ancient belief in the primacy of the popes.

The members of the Council wrote to the Pope: "You have come to us as an interpreter of the voice of Blessed Theft. Peter, and extended the blessing of his faith to everyone. We could proclaim the truth to the children of the Church in the communion of one spirit and one joy, participating, as at a royal feast, in the spiritual pleasures that Christ has prepared for us through your letters. We were there, about 520 bishops, that you led as the head leads the members."

After such a solemn and flattering preface, there is a request for the 28th canon:

"We have brought to your attention that we have decreed certain other measures in the interests of peace and order in church affairs and for the strengthening of the statutes of the church, knowing that Your Holiness will confirm and approve them. In particular, we have confirmed the ancient custom by virtue of which the bishop of Constantinople ordained metropolitans in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, and this mainly not for the sake of the privileges of the see of Constantinople, but in order to ensure tranquility in the metropolitan cities... We have confirmed the canon of the Council of 150 Fathers, which guarantees the See of Constantinople second place after your holy and apostolic See... We were of the opinion that it was fitting for the Ecumenical Council to confirm to the imperial city, in accordance with the desire of the emperor, these privileges, convinced that, having learned this, you would consider them as your own (own) business, for all the good that sons do is an honor to the fathers. Wherefore we beseech thee to honour our decrees with thy approbation. And as we have joined your decree (on faith), so may Your Majesty do what is fitting to your sons."

Of course, Rome remained deaf to this alien logic. Both sides, the Latin and the Greek, are guilty of different (but without realizing this difference) approach to the question of the meaning of the primacy of the Apostle Peter among the apostles and the meaning of the primacy of the Roman see.

The Apostle Peter did not put on any vestments of future popes either for himself or for his heirs. He honored Antioch before Rome with his primacy. But he left with ease, without sowing in the hearts of his Antiochian heirs not an atom of papist pretensions. But Rome is a different matter. Rome has long been the true capital of world culture. The Prince of the Apostles, having laid his martyr's head in this cup of imperial greatness, overflowed it to the brim. He made it not only "in the flesh," but also "in spirit," the sacred capital of all Christianity, the new and last world religion. This is an irreversible and extremely weighty fact. The historical—and within the limits of history, providential—primacy of Rome is indisputable. But also providential is the exhaustion of Rome and its "rejuvenation" through the doubling of Rome II on the Bosphorus. Constantine did not create it without the will of God. Shortsighted was the reaction of Alexandria, its attempt to strangle and seize Constantinople in order not to give it second place. Throughout the East, the recognition of the hierarch of the new capital as their leader and their head was irresistible. The Church, not sinfully and criminally, but with inspiration and conviction, incarnated herself with the state, with the empire, in the name of the subjugation of all earthly history to Christ, without fear of its material shell. Dogmatically correct, anti-Monophysite inspiration.

Constantinople, or Tsaregrad, was instinctively submitted to the cathedra to the east of it, which had not been vividly aware of it and had not kept its apostolic banner. In the vast diocese of Pontus, for example, stretching from the Bosphorus to the Euphrates, there was not a single universally recognized administrative center. Some gravitated towards Caesarea in Cappadocia, others towards Ancyra. Still others resolutely subordinated themselves to Constantinople. In the same Asia Minor, regions and cities appeared that found it convenient and profitable for themselves to gravitate towards the capital. Such are Bithynia, as part of the Pontic diocese, and the city of Chalcedon, which was part of Bithynia, which turned out to be a suburb of Constantinople. Nicaea and Nicomedia, located on the shores of the Sea of Marmara, also considered themselves in the circle of metropolitan interests. And in general, the bishops of all Asia Minor constantly appeared in the capital, conferred with the archbishops of the capital, surrounded their cathedra, conciliating with them on current affairs. They also brought their disputes here and involved the capital's archbishops in their local affairs. Thus, a whole patriarchal region grew up around the archbishop of the capital.

On the basis of this actual practice, the 9th and 17th canons of this Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, without any protests from the legates of Rome, formulated and approved the rules that for all those dissatisfied with the court of their regional (diocese) councils, a supreme appellate instance was established in the East in the form of the "throne of the reigning city." It did not occur to anyone to point to the Roman authority as the supreme. For the West, yes, for the East, there is no need. Obviously, because the kingdom that protects the church and gives outward binding force to its laws and courts is reserved for the whole empire (and for the West) here in the East.

But, of course, in legitimizing the powers of Constantinople in the sense of the highest appellate instance for these Eastern dioceses, the Council did not even think of extending such a right of the appellate court of the capital to other patriarchates: neither to Egypt, nor to Syria, nor to Illyricum in Europe. The latest interpretations of the Greeks in the sense of expanding the supreme powers of Constantinople (by analogy with the universal Roman ones) cannot refer to the letter of these canons, but must be motivated in a different way, namely, by the universal tasks of the Church, by inevitable analogy with the Roman papacy. The papacy has long understood and formally comprehended this essential task of the Church. Diminished by Turkish enslavement, the Greeks lost for a time the consciousness of their (as a catholic church) inalienable missionary, apostolic, universal rights and tasks on the scale of the entire globe. It is absurd to think of any geographical monopoly between the Roman and Greek churches. The old Greco-Roman "icumena" died. The world legitimately, if you will, canonically belongs to all missionary Christians. And this should be welcomed with joy, for Christianity is also globally opposed by the mission of the Antichrist.

But... Let us return to our historical narrative. The Pope decided not to answer all the sophisms of Anatolia's letter to him. Then the emperor forced Anatolius to write again and again in the same vein, that "the honor of the See of Constantinople should be regarded as a light borrowed from the Roman See," etc. Both Marcian and Pulcheria wrote to Leo. Leo wrote with detailed reasons about the impossibility for him of such recognition, because: a) the motive for the elevation of Constantinople is secular, and not ecclesiastical (You never know where the capitals are? For example, the court is now in Ravenna, it is impossible to elevate Ravenna above Rome), b) this would violate the canonical rights of Antioch and Alexandria as apostolic sees, c) it would violate the rights of honor of the metropolises, contrary to the 6th canon of the Council of Nicaea, d) the reference to the 3rd canon of the Council of Constantinople in 381 has no force, since this council is not recognized in the West along with the Council of Ephesus in 449, e) this new canon would be the result of immoderate ambition, a bad example for all kinds of claims, and would lead to anarchy in the Church.

So the Pope did not approve this canon. And to this day it is blamed on the Greeks by the Latins, as a usurpation of ecclesiastical authority.

The question of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon remains alive and burning to this day even within the Eastern Church itself. In our country, the national separatism of the churches prevails unhindered, and even on occasion a direct struggle against the spirit and letter of the 28th canon. A sharp example of the struggle against it is the polemics on the pages of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The victory of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon in history.

Not receiving papal approval, the emperor Marcian was forced to retreat and on February 7, 452, finally confirm all the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. After this, the pope also confirmed them, keeping silent about the 28th canon, as if it did not exist.