The Councils of Nicea & Chalcedon & Bishop of Rome Gregory 1st reject any 1 Bishop calling themselves the Supreme Bishop over all the others!

Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Comments:
This is an important canon!!!
To say the least.
This says that the bishop of Alexandria has far more authority than a Metropolitan (mentioned in canon 4). He has authority over all of Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. Then it says that the bishop of Rome has a similar jurisdiction.
It doesn't express the extent of that jurisdiction, but it seems certain that the pope's claim to be the leader of the Church in the whole world is contradicted by canon 6 of Nicea.
This canon is considered to have created the first official "patriarchs." To this day the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome—the ones mentioned in this canon—are the heads of the various Orthodox churches. Others, like the bishop of Jerusalem and Moscow have been added in the centuries since.

@@@@

The Council of Chalcedon Canon 28.

In the year 451 an Ecumenical Council was called in that city called the Council of Chalcedon. Over 600 Bishops attended. The main topic of discussion was the dual nature of Christ. Canon 28 of that Council gave equal status to Old Rome and New Rome or Constantinople. Here is the text of Canon 28:

"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 (isa presbeia) 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."

 

"For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city."

There you have it: Rome was recognized because it was the Imperial City....Noting about St. Peter being there....Nothing about Apostolic Succession....Nothing about the Keys etc., etc. Rome's supremacy was purely political and that Canon proves it!!

Leo I (440 - 461) was Pope at that time. He was a man of towering ambition and pride. He was not going to share his city with an upstart like Constantinople. Equality was the last thing that he cared about.

Old Rome was in a very precarious position. Barbarians from the North were at the gates outside . . . greed and corruption were everywhere within. Leo needed a competitive edge if Old Rome was to survive. 

It was then that he hit upon the idea of St. Peter and the Keys. If he could convince the world that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, that he was Head of the Church, and that he (Leo) was his successor then he had a powerful weapon to use against his rivals.

It would require many centuries and massive forgeries before this idea became accepted dogma in the Roman church. Until the Norman Conquest in 1172, it was never accepted by the Hibernian Christians, and the Churches of the East have never accepted it to this day.

@@@@

Also Gregory the first, the Bishop of Rome (not a Pope) this is what he thought about people who would claim for themselves POPE-dom!

I say confidently, therefore, that whosoever calls himself universal bishop, or even desires in his pride to be called such, is the forerunner of Antichrist. 

(Samuel Cassels, Christ and Antichrist, Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, 1846, p. 12)