No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Montalban]

As to relations between Alexandria and Antioch, there were many periods out of Communion, look at the list of Saints in one church considered heretics in the other. Also between Antioch and Armenia. Look at the divisions between TurAbdin, Damascus, Antioch, and Mardin - each had it’s own patriarch elected at one point. The same issues in the Assyrian Church, including fighting over hereditary succession and switching allegiances. One group even joined the Russians in more recent history.

It’s interesting that the Catholic church ‘in the interests of unity’ recognise three different bishops as bishop of Antioch

 

[twf]

Montalban:
You’ve alluded several times in this thread that it is contrary to the Catholic position that a papal ruling would later have to be reiterated by an ecumenical council…that somehow for Catholics, the pope’s ruling, independent of ecumenical councils, was always the be all and end all. It is true that Catholics believe that the Pope can make irreformable rulings independent of ecumenical councils, but this is not the norm - it is more of a safeguard than anything - and has only been exercised a handful of times in history. I find that non-Catholics rarely appreciate the nuance of Catholic positions - so often it is not either/or. Protestants insist on faith alone - Catholics respond “faith AND works”. The Orthodox insist on the college of bishops alone - Catholics respond “the college AND its head”. The pope does not rule the Church in a vacuum by unilateral decree - the head cannot be separated from the college of bishops and vice versa. Catholic magisterial documents are clear that the supreme authority of the Church is the Pope AND bishops in union with him. Let me ask you this: as Vatican I, a century earlier, had already defined as dogma papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, why did Popes John XXIII and Paul VI convene the Second Vatican Council? Why didn’t they simply make unilateral rulings? Perhaps the Catholic position isn’t as black and white as you think. Prior to Niceae did the Pope condemn the Arian heresy? Sure. Were many of the issues addressed by the Second Vatican Council previously addressed by popes? Sure. In both cases, the ecumenical council was still necessary as popes, as I said, rarely exercise their “emergency powers” (for lack of a better phrase) in defining dogma independent of their brother bishops.

 

[Montalban]

Many examples of people ignoring the pope - but surely papal supremacy still existed; even though these examples aren’t evidence of papal supremacy.

One person went so far as to call this disobedience ‘sinning’.

I evidenced that it was more than just ‘disobedience’.

This has been ignored.

The pope ruled Arius a heretic.

A general council is still called for.

I cited the Life of Constantine to show that the council met to make a FINAL decision on the matter; that is, the did not count the papal decision as being binding on them.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:
You’ve alluded several times in this thread that it is contrary to the Catholic position that a papal ruling would later have to be reiterated by an ecumenical council…that somehow for Catholics, the pope’s ruling, independent of ecumenical councils, was always the be all and end all. It is true that Catholics believe that the Pope can make irreformable rulings independent of ecumenical councils, but this is not the norm - it is more of a safeguard than anything - and has only been exercised a handful of times in history. I find that non-Catholics rarely appreciate the nuance of Catholic positions - so often it is not either/or. Protestants insist on faith alone - Catholics respond “faith AND works”. The Orthodox insist on the college of bishops alone - Catholics respond “the college AND its head”. The pope does not rule the Church in a vacuum by unilateral decree - the head cannot be separated from the college of bishops and vice versa. Catholic magisterial documents are clear that the supreme authority of the Church is the Pope AND bishops in union with him. Let me ask you this: as Vatican I, a century earlier, had already defined as dogma papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, why did Popes John XXIII and Paul VI convene the Second Vatican Council? Why didn’t they simply make unilateral rulings? Perhaps the Catholic position isn’t as black and white as you think. Prior to Niceae did the Pope condemn the Arian heresy? Sure. Were many of the issues addressed by the Second Vatican Council previously addressed by popes? Sure. In both cases, the ecumenical council was still necessary as popes, as I said, rarely exercise their “emergency powers” (for lack of a better phrase) in defining dogma independent of their brother bishops.

I just dealt with this argument from silence; that when you have no evidence of them following the pope then you just assume that papal supremacy still existed

It is enough for me to show that the ‘mind of the church’ as understood by the rest of Christendom was that a papal judgment in a matter was not enough for them to simply obey. They had to judge matters for themselves.

As to Vatican II – you’d be on your way to making a point if you can show that the Pope decreed on a matter before this general council and then called the general council!

I don’t deny that the pope can work through others. This I agree would in no way undermine his authority. But that’s not the case here. Imagine if Obama was president back then. He made an executive decision – as leader – and instead of it being acted upon his cabinet said “Let us judge these matters for ourselves” and then travel from far and wide at great risk to themselves (travel in the ancient world was gruelling). They then all judge and say “It is OUR judgment that this is the case…”

That would not suggest that Obama was supreme in AUTHORITY, but the cabinet was.

Further complicating the matter are examples I’ve given – such as Meletius – who was not in communion with Rome, yet chairing a council. Not only did the council convene to judge for themselves they took a person not in communion with Rome. When he died he was replaced by someone not seen by Rome as validly ordained.

What you and others are doing is ignoring all these examples based on the axiom of papal supremacy. Starting with this axiom you have to ignore these examples because they don’t fit your idea of supremacy.

 

[Montalban]

Starting with the idea of papal supremacy will give anyone an unassailable view of history.

Any act of disobedience of the pope is viewed as ‘sin’. Where the pope is ignored, then surely he must have the power, because he just must have - even if these examples aren’t evidence for it.

One of the more telling things to me, however is faking evidence. If the RCC’s position truly were unassailable it wouldn’t need to rely on fake evidence and, dishonesty.

And it has done so – most famously the Donation of Constantine.

But more recently are Catholic apologists giving the ‘quotes from the Church Fathers’, which are exceptionally dishonest.

This means using quotes so selectively as to be misleading.

When Peter is praised – quote it. When someone is equally praised – ignore it.

I cited much earlier on one such example; where the Apostle John is called a holder of the keys by John Chrysostom. This is not used in Catholic quote mine sites.

These quote mine sites are what actually drove me away from Catholicism.

I dealt with a number of these on Wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#Orthodox_rebuttal_of_Catholic_arguments

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Are you assuming because he’s [Hosius] from ‘Spain’ he’s western, therefore under the pope?

No, I’m saying he’s under the pope based on the witness of Greek historian Gelasius that Hosius 'held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius."[Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 85:1229]. Granted, Gelasius wrote his history 150 years after the council. But he claimed to have the official Acts of the Council, which have subsequently been almost completely lost.

Is there any written documentation of the period to support that suggests that Hosius presided on behalf of the Emperor, or is the recent scholarly conjecture based solely on their prior relationship?

That’s the problem. You’re saying it’s his right alone, but often ignored

I’m saying it’s logically the role of the pope to convene a council, because it’s a call to the church to solemnly use the power of the keys to bind and loose in an ecclesial way. It is precisely the function of the successor of Peter to do this. It should have nothing to do with emperors.

The vagaries of history are otherwise, and emperors have obviously been involved.

it’s you using an argument from silence – without recognising it as such. It’s making a claim to the pope having power, but showing where that was ignored; thus I would question you assumption he had that power.

As we don’t have most of the acts of the council, I’m afraid we both in large measure have to be content with silence insofar as 4th century sources go. But in the 5th century we have Gelasius’ witness re: Pope Sylvester’s presidency in the person of Hosius. We have the seventh century Constantinople III assuring us that the Pope did indeed (with Constantine) summon I Nicea.

We have the Byzantine liturgy I cited above about Pope Sylvester’s victory at Nicea. And, to add to that, from the Byzantine office of St. Sylvester a phrase that implies the pope’s presidency: ‘Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples.’ (Luke Rivington, The Primitive Church and the See of Peter). The phrase ‘supreme one of the Sacred Council’ is striking.

This is all, admittedly, from a later tradition. But given the absence of contemporary witness to Nicea, what reason is there to doubt these later traditions?

Are you now saying that the signature of the legates means that the pope doesn’t have to then confirm it?

I’m not. I’m suggesting that, though the bishop of Rome’s essential role was always recognized, that its constituent parts still handn’t been fully spelled out. So it seems possible that the signature of the legates (and, I believe, the president) at the top of the list, with ‘in the name of the Church of Rome’ after the names of Vicentius and Vitus, might have led some to believe that Sylvester had fully adopted the council.

To conclude, I think there’s ample evidence, even in the first two councils, that the Petrine function is essential to an ecumenical council, which is a convocation of the successor of Peter with the successors of the apostles to solemnly loose and bind the Church.

It’s fine, praiseworthy even, to inspect the minutia of various councils to examine precisely the pope’s role in each, whether he convened it, whether he presided over it. But although these functions are proper to the pope, they do absolutely nothing to affect the validity of a council, given the pope’s confirmation.

 

[Montalban]

No, I’m saying he’s under the pope based on the witness of Greek historian Gelasius that Hosius 'held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius."[Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 85:1229]. Granted, Gelasius wrote his history 150 years after the council. But he claimed to have the official Acts of the Council, which have subsequently been almost completely lost.

I am aware of that source. The Catholic Encyclopaedia doesn’t claim that

Is there any written documentation of the period to support that suggests that Hosius presided on behalf of the Emperor, or is the recent scholarly conjecture based solely on their prior relationship?

That’s a bait-switch. I don’t claim he represented the Emperor - who was there in person

Regarding Hosius as a papal legate - I already cited the Catholic encyclopaedia to that fact I said regarding Hosius. They deal with the matter quite fairly, citing some historians who believe as you, some who don’t.

As I noted last time I cited it… It also makes no sense for the pope to send legates to a council that already has a ‘legate’ there as Hosius – as I believe Hosius was already there in the capital advising the emperor.

I’m saying it’s logically the role of the pope to convene a council,

And he didn’t convene the 1st Ecumenical council, and according to one of your colleagues here he didn’t for the 2nd

because it’s a call to the church to solemnly use the power of the keys to bind and loose in an ecclesial way. It is precisely the function of the successor of Peter to do this. It should have nothing to do with emperors.

All were called for by emperors. They even did so against papal wishes

The vagaries of history are otherwise, and emperors have obviously been involved.

What a tremendous understatement! It does no justice to your posts

As we don’t have most of the acts of the council, I’m afraid we both in large measure have to be content with silence insofar as 4th century sources go. But in the 5th century we have Gelasius’ witness re: Pope Sylvester’s presidency in the person of Hosius. We have the seventh century Constantinople III assuring us that the Pope did indeed (with Constantine) summon I Nicea.

No we don’t. As far as I understand it only suggests that they spoke to each other.

Then history steps in; the Councils we can be assured of were all called for by the emperor. One against papal wishes.

We have the Byzantine liturgy I cited above about Pope Sylvester’s victory at Nicea.

I addressed that

And, to add to that, from the Byzantine office of St. Sylvester a phrase that implies the pope’s presidency: ‘Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples.’ (Luke Rivington, The Primitive Church and the See of Peter). The phrase ‘supreme one of the Sacred Council’ is striking.

That assumes only one can be ‘supreme’ I already cited one pope saying three Sees were Sees of Peter

I’m not. I’m suggesting that, though the bishop of Rome’s essential role was always recognized,

Which is both an understament again, and another appeal to silence.

that its constituent parts still hadn’t been fully spelled out. So it seems possible that the signature of the legates (and, I believe, the president) at the top of the list, with ‘in the name of the Church of Rome’ after the names of Vicentius and Vitus, might have led some to believe that Sylvester had fully adopted the council.

I already addressed this too.

To conclude, I think there’s ample evidence, even in the first two councils, that the Petrine function is essential to an ecumenical council, which is a convocation of the successor of Peter with the successors of the apostles to solemnly loose and bind the Church.

Except you have no proof that either were called for by the pope.

It’s fine, praiseworthy even, to inspect the minutia of various councils to examine precisely the pope’s role in each, whether he convened it, whether he presided over it. But although these functions are proper to the pope, they do absolutely nothing to affect the validity of a council, given the pope’s confirmation.

Ha! Another bait switch. I don’t argue that the place of the pope affects the validity of an ecumenical council!

 

[Vico]

Yes, I did. Surprisingly you’ll find several posts responding to your novel interpretation of ‘presiding’.

You’ve still not answered my question - which papal legates chaired 1st Ecumenical

You keep answering a different question.

If I had asked “Who chaired 1st Ecumenical?” your answer would match UNLESS you think

Hosius was a papal legate!

See posts 239, 240, 241:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10806139&postcount=239
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10806303&postcount=240
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10806303&postcount=241

As you can read in the Catholic Encylopedia quoted that is not necesary to have the Pope or any legates present, in fact the council may be ratified sometime in the future. Note particularly the second and fifth ecumenical councils in that respect.

 

[Montalban]

See posts 239, 240, 241:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10806139&postcount=239
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10806303&postcount=240
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10806303&postcount=241

As you can read in the Catholic Encylopedia quoted that is not necesary to have the Pope or any legates present, in fact the council may be ratified sometime in the future. Note particularly the second and fifth ecumenical councils in that respect.

This is a new one - as I understood the article it said that a Pope OR legate had to be present! It talks about ruling THROUGH his legates
You cited this
Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

You cited this also…
"Councils over which the pope presides through his legates "
Councils over which the pope presides through his legates

You cited this!

I also noted the argument from silence “but it is not essential that each and all of these factors should always be present in full perfection.” (from the same quote)

That is, even when they have NO evidence of this happening they just believe in supremacy

Your post also ignores the fact that the east assumed a council to be ecumenical regardless of the Pope
First Council of Constantinople
The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council

newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

 

[Vico]

This is a new one - as I understood the article it said that a Pope OR legate had to be present! It talks about ruling THROUGH his legates
You cited this
Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

You cited this also…
"Councils over which the pope presides through his legates "
Councils over which the pope presides through his legates

You cited this!

I also noted the argument from silence “but it is not essential that each and all of these factors should always be present in full perfection.” (from the same quote)

That is, even when they have NO evidence of this happening they just believe in supremacy

Your post also ignores the fact that the east assumed a council to be ecumenical regardless of the Pope
First Council of Constantinople
The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council

newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

I guess you did not see or agree with my post to schismhater giving the definitions:

Presidency definition (Collins): the office, function, or term of office of a president.
Legate definition (Collins): an ecclesiastic delegated by the pope as his representative.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10801979&postcount=187

Yes, the Pope can preside through a legate who is there personally as a representative.
pre·side definition (Collins):

1. to occupy the place of authority or control, as in an assembly or meeting; act as president or chairperson.
2. to exercise management or control (usually followed by over): The lawyer presided over the estate.
   When the entire article is read, it can be understood that as a minimum the Pope ratifies the matters of faith and morals discussed at the synods. There may or may not be legates present, and the Popes were not at any of those early councils, but arrangements were made with Rome during the presidency of those Popes that sent legates.

 

[tdgesq]

Your post also ignores the fact that the east assumed a council to be ecumenical regardless of the Pope
First Council of Constantinople
The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council

newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

Your argument proves too much, even from an Orthodox perspective. Rome wasn’t in schism during the first seven ecumenical councils. To say that Rome’s approval really wasn’t necessary for a council to be ecumenical is like saying Constantinople’s wasn’t necessary, or that Antioch’s wasn’t necessary. Lol.

As for the Catholic Encyclopedia, attempting to interpret it according to your understanding of the ancient historical record is obviously not going to convince anybody. I think it’s pretty clear from the little history we have that the East believed that Constantinople I was ecumenical, but not in spite of Rome accepting it! They believed that Rome would/had accepted it. Obviously not the case with respect to canon 3. Have you really studied this? Fail with respect to your interpretation of this article.

 

[Montalban]

In summary; the Catholic position is that the pope ruled (de jure) supreme over the whole church.

To demonstrate this they have to show him in power over the authority of Church Councils.

Rules are applied:

Rule 1: These councils are called by the Pope - false: All called for by emperors. One (at Chalcedon) called for against the wishes of the pope

Rule 2: These councils are presided over by the Pope (including through his legates – false:

1st: scarce evidence to show that Hosius was the papal legate.
2nd: Vico’s already established this as a ‘local council’ therefore unlikely that a papal legate presided.
It was in fact presided over by Meletius of Antioch – who was not in communion with Rome
3rd: presided over by Cyril of Alexandria – again, like the first there were already papal legates sent
4th: “The Alexandrine patriarch presided; he ignored the papal delegates, would not permit the letters of Pope Leo, including the “Epistola Dogmatica”, to be read in the assembly.”
newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm
5th: The president was Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Rule 3: that the pope must approve of it as ecumenical – false: Already shown that the second council was considered ecumenical by the rest of the church despite the pope not acknowledging it as such at that time.

“**Get out clause” **then the Catholic position is that even if none of these apply, the pope still was supreme, because he was! Thus even if all these exceptions are shown the Catholic position falls back onto an argument from silence.

 

[Montalban]

Your argument proves too much, even from an Orthodox perspective.

If you say so!

Rome wasn’t in schism during the first seven ecumenical councils.

It was sometimes in schism with particular churches!

Meletius of Antioch, when he chaired the 2nd Ecumenical Council was not in communion with Rome or, Alexandria

To say that Rome’s approval really wasn’t necessary for a council to be ecumenical is like saying Constantinople’s wasn’t necessary, or that Antioch’s wasn’t necessary. Lol.

That’s true.

As for the Catholic Encyclopedia, attempting to interpret it according to your understanding of the ancient historical record is obviously not going to convince anybody.

Apart from appeals to incredulity, did you have a point?

Certainly in the interests of Christian unity churches wished loving communion with other churches.

 

[Montalban]

I guess you did not see or agree with my post to schismhater giving the definitions:

I already addressed this: You simply choose to address MY post by simply repeating your assertion!

Perhaps if you repeat it two more times it becomes true?

 

[tdgesq]

It was sometimes in schism with particular churches!

And so were the other Eastern Churches. We all understand what happened with Alexandria at Chalcedon. Do you believe this makes you look intelligent? <answer: it doesn’t.>

Meletius of Antioch, when he chaired the 2nd Ecumenical Council was not in communion with Rome or, Alexandria

Well then, that proves that . . . . . . um . . . . . well . . . ., you will have to tell us.

That’s true.

Yes, it sure is true, but just for the crowd let’s show what you just admitted is true, which also shows how intellectually dishonest you are being:

Originally Posted by tdgesq
To say that Rome’s approval really wasn’t necessary for a council to be ecumenical is like saying Constantinople’s wasn’t necessary, or that Antioch’s wasn’t necessary. Lol.

I left the “lol” in because it is pretty funny. I mean, it really is.

Apart from appeals to incredulity, did you have a point?

I didn’t make an appeal to incredulity. I’ve heard these same arguments from disaffected Orthodox just like you repeatedly. How could I possibly be incredulous of your argument? The fact remains that when you attempt to take a Roman Catholic resource and try to make it appear that it supports an EO proposition, it just makes you look ridiculous. Mission accomplished Montalban.

 

[Vico]

In summary; the Catholic position is that the pope ruled (de jure) supreme over the whole church.

To demonstrate this they have to show him in power over the authority of Church Councils.

Rules are applied:

Rule 1: These councils are called by the Pope - false: All called for by emperors. One (at Chalcedon) called for against the wishes of the pope

Rule 2: These councils are presided over by the Pope (including through his legates – false:

1st: scarce evidence to show that Hosius was the papal legate.
2nd: Vico’s already established this as a ‘local council’ therefore unlikely that a papal legate presided.
It was in fact presided over by Meletius of Antioch – who was not in communion with Rome
3rd: presided over by Cyril of Alexandria – again, like the first there were already papal legates sent
4th: “The Alexandrine patriarch presided; he ignored the papal delegates, would not permit the letters of Pope Leo, including the “Epistola Dogmatica”, to be read in the assembly.”
newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm
5th: The president was Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Rule 3: that the pope must approve of it as ecumenical – false: Already shown that the second council was considered ecumenical by the rest of the church despite the pope not acknowledging it as such at that time.

“**Get out clause” **then the Catholic position is that even if none of these apply, the pope still was supreme, because he was! Thus even if all these exceptions are shown the Catholic position falls back onto an argument from silence.

What you show as rules 1 and 2 are not rules as demonstrated by the Catholic Encylopedia, discussing the elements of Convocation, Direction, and Confirmation. As to rule 3, the second council was never intended to be ecumenical and as such it had no representation from the west. It was not considered ecumenical by the eastern Church.1. It was not intended to be an Ecumenical Synod at all. 2. It was a local gathering of only one hundred and fifty bishops. 3. It was not summoned by the Pope, nor was he invited to it. 4. No diocese of the West was present either by representation or in the person of its bishop; neither the see of Rome, nor any other see.Henry R. Percival, ed., The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Vol XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, snd series, edd. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988)
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt

As shown before, the second ecumenical local council was a local eastern council, only eastern bishops were attending. It was accepted as Orthodox by Pope Vigilius in about 553. That acceptance is an example of ex cathedra papal authority. Also the fifth had western bishops but neither legates nor the Pope. It was also accepted by Pope Vigilius after it concluded.

 

[Aramis]

St. John Chrysostom taught otherwise.

St John was many things, but a well informed historian wasn’t one of them.

As a historical truth, Peter turned over all but Rome to others, and left. He installed their bishops as bishops and then, after seeing them begin a local church, left. He was martyred in Rome while serving as Rome’s bishop.

 

[Montalban]

And so were the other Eastern Churches.

Then you don’t have a point

We all understand what happened with Alexandria at Chalcedon. Do you believe this makes you look intelligent? <answer: it doesn’t.>

Thanks for the ad hom,. Bye!

 

[Montalban]

St John was many things, but a well informed historian wasn’t one of them.

As a historical truth, Peter turned over all but Rome to others, and left. He installed their bishops as bishops and then, after seeing them begin a local church, left. He was martyred in Rome while serving as Rome’s bishop.

I’ve already evidenced three Sees as being “Sees of Peter” - Pope Gregory the Great acknowledges this

Do you agree?

 

[Montalban]

What you show as rules 1 and 2 are not rules as demonstrated by the Catholic Encylopedia, discussing the elements of Convocation, Direction, and Confirmation. As to rule 3, the second council was never intended to be ecumenical and as such it had no representation from the west. It was not considered ecumenical by the eastern Church.1. It was not intended to be an Ecumenical Synod at all. 2. It was a local gathering of only one hundred and fifty bishops. 3. It was not summoned by the Pope, nor was he invited to it. 4. No diocese of the West was present either by representation or in the person of its bishop; neither the see of Rome, nor any other see.Henry R. Percival, ed., The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Vol XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, snd series, edd. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988)
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt

As shown before, the second ecumenical local council was a local eastern council, only eastern bishops were attending. It was accepted as Orthodox by Pope Vigilius in about 553. That acceptance is an example of ex cathedra papal authority. Also the fifth had western bishops but neither legates nor the Pope. It was also accepted by Pope Vigilius after it concluded.

Repeating your assertions again and again does not demonstrate their veracity