Editing Council of Chalcedon (section)

===Results===
The Council of Chalcedon issued the [[Chalcedonian Definition]], which repudiated the notion of a single nature in Christ, and declared that he has two natures in one person and [[hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|hypostasis]]. It also insisted on the completeness of his two natures: [[Godhead in Christianity|Godhead]] and manhood.{{sfn|Meyendorff|1989|pp=167–178}} The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In a further decree, later known as canon 28, the bishops declared that the [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|See of Constantinople]] (New Rome) had the patriarchal status with "equal privileges" ({{lang|grc|τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν}} in Greek, {{lang|la|aequalibus privilegiis}} in Latin) to the [[Holy See|See of Rome]].<ref name=":1">The canon in the original language can be seen here: https://earlychurchtexts.com/main/chalcedon/canons_of_chalcedon_03.shtml. English translation available here: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/chalcedon_canons.htm</ref><ref>Schwerin, Philip, [http://essays.wls.wels.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/3512/SchwerinBishop.pdf How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of "Vicar of Christ"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170805133528/http://essays.wls.wels.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/3512/SchwerinBishop.pdf |date=2017-08-05 }}, p. 3, "Leo believed that in him was the voice of Peter. The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 declared that Constantinople had the same patriarchal status as Rome (28th canon), a statement with which Leo never agreed, and which he even tried to declare invalid. When Leo tried to reinstate a defrocked French bishop, St. Hilary who presided over the Gallican Church as Supreme Pontiff, told Leo to keep his Roman nose out of French affairs. Leo's aspirations were strongly opposed, especially by the patriarch of Constantinople. Yet through him the papacy still gained some ground."</ref><ref name="Bokenkotter84">{{cite book |title=A Concise History of the Catholic Church |last=Bokenkotter |first=Thomas |year=2004 |page=[https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof00boke/page/84 84] |publisher=Doubleday |isbn=0-385-50584-1 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof00boke/page/84 }}</ref><ref name="Noble214">{{cite book | last1 = Noble| first1 = Thomas|last2=Strauss |first2= Barry |title=Western Civilization | year=2005|page=214| publisher = Houghton Mifflin Company|isbn=0-618-43277-9}}</ref> No reference was made in Canon 28 to the bishops of Rome or Constantinople having their authority from being successors to Peter or Andrew respectively. Instead, the stated reasons in the actual text of the Canon that the episcopacy of these cities had been granted their status was the importance of these cities as major cities of the empire of the time.<ref name=":1" />{{Efn|Canon 28: "[...] 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."}}