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.

In the East, of course, the rule came into force. It was believed that the pope had previously recognized the elevation of the bishops of Constantinople. 1) If the Council of 381 in Rome was not recognized as ecumenical, then why was it kept silent for 70 years? Later, after all, all the popes recognized him. 2) Why in 449 did the legates of the pope at the Council of Ephesus demand from Dioscorus the second place for Constantinople and were offended by the fifth place, to which Flavian was placed by Dioscorus? 3) Why did Anatolius of Constantinople sit in second place in Chalcedon in 451? Consequently, this right of honor was recognized by the legates.

In the subsequent history of the Western Church, not only tacitly, in fact (which, in fact, is sufficient for church reception), but also formally, conciliarly, the force of the 28th Chalcedonian Canon was recognized by Rome. If we do not mention the 36th canon of the Council of Trullo (only temporarily and with hesitation recognized by the ancient popes), then under Pope Nicholas I (the case of Photius and Ignatius) in 869, at the Council of Constantinople (for Rome it is the "VIII Ecumenical Council"), the 21st canon recognized the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople after the Roman one. When, under Pope Innocent III, the Latins took Constantinople (1204) and placed their Latin patriarch on the cathedra there, the Lateran Council (the "Twelfth Ecumenical") decreed: "Renewing the old privileges of the patriarchal sees, by the consent of the holy universal council, we determine that after the Roman Church there should be the first place of Constantinople, the second of Alexandria, the third of Antioch, and the fourth of Jerusalem, with the preservation of each of them its dignity." Finally, the Council of Florence of 1438 decreed in a decree on the union: "The Patriarch of Constantinople will be second after the Most Holy Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of Alexandria the third, then the fourth of Antioch, and the fifth of Jerusalem, with the preservation of all their privileges and rights." And, finally, in the Roman Corpus juris canonici, the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon is printed in its place.

The conclusion is clear, the Roman Church approved this rule. And it could not be otherwise. By rejecting this fact (and not fiction), the Roman Church would have undermined the fact of its primacy. The attempt of Pope Leo, prompted by his legate Bishop Lucentius, to turn the wheel of history to the 6th canon of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (when the See of Constantinople did not yet exist and when the first place after Rome was given to Alexandria) was unnatural and anti-canonical madness. The canons were built on facts and customs. In this way the entire administrative system of the Church is built: all the metropolises, dioceses, patriarchates, applied to the political and living centers of life, and not to the sedes apostolicae. For in Phrygia, and in Pamphylia, and in Philippi, and in Corinth, and in Crete, there were dozens of episcopal sees founded by the apostles, and they were ruled by the bishops of the capitals, dioceses, and metropolises. The glory of the "Apostolic See" was only an additional to the actual power, an increase in authority and an adornment.

* * *

Let us return, however, to the summit point of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, to its Christological oros. What is its living, undying and ever-growing significance for the modern Christian religious consciousness, mainly Eastern Orthodox, and, perhaps, especially for the Russian Orthodox?

This is a grateful topic for entire systems of Christian philosophy, mysticism, ethics, asceticism. It is our duty here to make only the most general indications, or rather, only hints at how, in what refractions, we are now experiencing Christological dogma, the salvific directive which the oros of the Fourth Council has given us.