Quite a joke, really. I should have known, when I saw the sections about Christology and Alexandria, that it the whole article was going to be pretty bad.
(Well, okay, it does have a good point here and there.)
I looked at that time line and could write a whole book showing the outright inaccuracies as well as the obvious anti-Eastern Orthodox and pro-Papal bias. For example the time line states “The East begins to view the Roman Emperor as the supreme Church authority;” Never at any time did the Eastern Orthodox accept the authority of the Emperor to determine doctrine or govern the Church. He was expected to enforce the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, but there was a line that he or she could not cross that forbade them from interfering in the spiritual affairs of the Church. The idea is called symphony which is based on the words of Christ “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21. There were times when the Emperors crossed the line and tried to interfere in the spiritual affairs of the Byzantine Church, such as the iconoclastic crisis, but the Church stood up to the Emperors and eventually forced them to back down and accept the right of the Church to determine its own doctrine without imperial interference. This is but one of many mistakes in this time line.
I was waiting for someone to mention the Council of Sardicia in 343. This was only a local Council that gave limited authority to make appeals to Rome to help resolve matters of dispute between bishops. However, if one reads the actual canon III it only gives the Pope the authority to appoint Bishops “of the neighboring provinces” to arbitrate the matter. It does not give the Pope the authority to make the decision Himself.
The Canons of the Council of Sardica.
The holy synod assembled in Sardica from various provinces decreed as follows.
(Found in Greek in John of Constantinople’s collection of the sixth century and several other mss. Found also in the works of the Greek scholiasts.Found in Latin in the Prisca, in Dionysius Exiguus, and in Isidore, genuine and false.)
Canon III.
(Greek.)
Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add,-that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.
And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.
But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before. (Latin.)
Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add,-that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity.
But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another province.
But if judgment, have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.
Historical commentators mention that this was a temporary measure to resolve the problems between St. Athanasius and the Arians because the name of the Bishop of Rome, Julius, was given. Had it been intended to be a permanent arrangement the name of the Pope at the time would not have been mentioned in the canon.
One commentator wrote, "It is said that these Sardican decisions were simply provisional and intended for the present necessity; because Athanasius, so hardly pressed by the Arians, could only be rescued by authorizing an appel to the Bishop of Rome for final judgment.
Archpriest John W. Morris
)
One that says everybody can be out of step except Rome? 
If the miaphysites (following Cyrillian Christology) can be condemned as monophysites, then Rome’s unwavering insistence on diaphysitism can equally be condemned as Nestorian. Both charges, of course, are untrue, but using a “time line” with principles as badly flawed (flawed? 
No, I don’t think so … it seems to me that it’s more purposeful lies than anything else, but I digress) leaves it all open. 
