It does give an explanation, but one which omits rather a lot of crucial context, and pretends that the C5th Church was a singular hierarchy under the bishop of Rome, and that other patriarchates did Rome’s bidding.
First, this was a period in which East and West were not on the best of terms: there had been
mutual excommunications in the 340s, the complicated issue of
the double archepiscopacy of Antioch (wherein Alexandria and Rome recognised Paulinus, while much of the East recognised Meletius, and so different parts of the patriarchate of Antioch were in communion with different parts of the rest of Christendom), the Council of Constantinople in 381 (over which Meletius presided and to which Rome was apparently not even invited), and the further East-West dispute over
Flavian of Antioch. All of this tangled web was only sorted out in 398, when Meletius died. The East acted not only without Rome’s consent or involvement, but directly against Rome.
That was also when John Chrysostom was made Patriarch of Constantinople, and it might be worth mentioning that it was
Constantinople, not Alexandria, which the Council in 381 had defined as the second highest in honour, because it was “the new Rome”, i.e. the new imperial capital (see also Chalcedon 451 for this Eastern, wholly non-Petrine view of Rome’s importance). Unfortunately, Chrysostom got on the wrong side of
Empress Eudoxia and Theophilus of Alexandria, and so was synodically deposed and then exiled (
twice). Councils ruled the East.
To help him, Innocent of Rome wrote to Constantinople,
appealing to the canons “which were defined at Nicæa, to which alone the Catholic Church is bound to pay obedience and recognition.” Innocent also
tried (pp.493-6), unsuccessfully, to convince Theophilus to convoke a new council to discuss the deposing of Chrysostom. Innocent then severed communion with Alexandria, leading to one of the canons of Carthage’s
11th synod, in 407, being that “Letters shall be addressed to Pope Innocent with regard to the division between the Roman and Alexandrian Churches (caused by the deposition of Chrysostom), that peace may be again restored.” Councils also worked as the primary organs of Church unity, because they brought bishops together.
Actually, Athanasius of Alexandria had set out the New Testament canon
in 367, and so Alexandria were
leading Rome, and their adherence to that list was to their greatest ever patriarch. Also, as mentioned above with respect to Theophilus, they did not always get on with Rome (see also when patriarch Dioscuros of Alexandria decided to “pronounce a sentence of
excommunication on Leo” some forty years later, and the thirty-five-year
Acacian Schism).
Well, sort of, in as much as Nicaea 787 was referring to Carthage 419, which contained the canon list from Carthage 397 (whereas
Trullo was referring to Carthage 257). However, it is not entirely reasonable to claim that the bishops at a council were actually consciously aware of each and every act of each and every previous council, especially by the C8th (cf. Zosimus of Rome confusing the acts of Sardica with the acts of Nicaea in 416).
As the blogger mentions, “the simple reality is that the modern Eastern Orthodox Church does not possess a formal, universally-approved Biblical canon”, because no General Council ever explicitly set one out.
What we see in all of this is the role which the councils play. As the authority in the West increasingly centres upon the bishop of Rome, councils become more and more local, and subject to Rome. In stark contrast, the East vests authority in the councils, for example allowing Constantinople 381 to alter the creed but exploding when Rome does likewise with the Filioque.
